Alberta tar sands contribute to about five per cent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions (Credit: Pete Williamson via Flickr).
Ripping a page — or the cover — from fellow Conservative and former tobacco industry lobbyist Ezra Levant's book, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his new environment minister, Peter Kent, have taken to referring to the product of the Alberta tar sands as ethical oil.
The Prime Minister and Mr. Levant go back a long way. It was Mr. Levant who reluctantly stepped aside as the Alliance candidate in Calgary Southwest so that Mr. Harper could run in a by-election there in 2002. But the "ethical oil" argument they promote has holes as big as the ones in the ground around Fort McMurray.
To start, the logic is faulty. Just because a country or society is considered "ethical" does not mean everything it produces or exports is ethical. If we are going to delve into the ethics of the issue, we must look at the ethics of energy overall. That means considering the impacts of various energy systems on people and the environment.
Here, the science is troubling. It shows that the Alberta tar sands contribute to about five per cent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and are the country's fastest growing source of emissions. To date, they have disturbed 600 square kilometres of boreal forest with little or no chance of true reclamation, use enormous amounts of water, and pollute the surrounding air and water.
This past summer, an independent, peer-reviewed scientific study showed that toxic byproducts from the tar sands extraction industry are poisoning the Athabasca River, putting downstream First Nations communities and the fish they eat at risk. Health studies show these First Nations communities already have elevated rare cancers associated with exposure to such toxins.
If this is the most "ethical" source of oil we can find, we need to ask other questions about the moral purity of our intensively processed bitumen. For example, if we sell the oil to countries with poor human-rights records, like China, does that affect the product's "ethical" nature? And how "ethical" are the companies operating in the tar sands; for example, Exxon Mobil, well-known sponsor of climate-change disinformation campaigns; BP, responsible for last year's massive oily disaster in the Gulf of Mexico; or PetroChina? There's also the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on our children and grandchildren, which to me is an intergenerational crime.
In this light, wouldn't energy from technologies or sources that limit the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change and that have a minimal environmental and health impacts be far more ethical than fossil fuels? And, from an economic perspective, wouldn't these more ethical technologies or fuel sources be doubly attractive to foreign buyers if they came from an "ethical" country like Canada?
As award-winning Alberta author Andrew Nikiforuk has argued, with proper development, the tar sands could help provide Canada with the oil and money we need to shift to a low-carbon economy. But major changes are needed. Environmental regulation and monitoring must be strengthened. Pollution and related health problems must be addressed. More of the revenue must go to Canadians rather than fossil fuel companies. And a national carbon tax would help us move from oil to less-polluting energy sources.
The problem is, no matter what Ezra Levant and his friends in government say, oil has never been about "ethics". It has always been about money. Those who argue the case for "ethical oil" should work to ensure that our energy needs are met in a truly ethical way, now and into the future. In the end, the only truly ethical solution is to phase out oil. The black eye that tar sands oil is sporting can't be remedied with meaningless phrases such as "ethical oil".
To be seen as truly ethical when it comes to energy policy, Canada must slow down tar sands development, clean up the environmental problems, implement a national carbon tax, improve the regulatory and monitoring regime, and make sure that Canadians are reaping their fair share of the revenues. We must also start taking clean energy seriously. Rather than subsidizing the tar sands and all the fossil fuel industry through massive tax breaks, we should be investing in energy technologies that will benefit our health, economy, and climate.
It might also help if Canada's environment minister spent more time protecting the environment rather than appeasing the oil industry and its apologists.
Post a comment
13 Comments
9:32 AM
I appreciate this balanced view about energy sources and their effects, may they be economic, social, cultural, or developmental. I also appreciate the fact that the “ethics” argument is taken further to a place where it struggles to sustain itself. I’m worried this message is not heard enough, especially at this time when a federal election has been confirmed. As an academic in the health sciences, I’m also confronted with this reality on a regular basis where scientific research, intellect, common sense and ethics are ignored, ridiculed or perverted. Science is not perfect, but it helps a lot.
Suzuki is very diplomatic considering the misinformation circulated around and the damage caused by some of these companies. He doesn’t say we need to scratch oil completely within the year. He says we need to plan and implement a move towards other kinds of energies and revenue from oil could help us achieve that. A similar message is repeated across scientific circles and around the world. If there is, say, an 80% consensus, they might be on to something. Given Suzuki’s expertise, why wouldn’t you expect him to have a cause and defend it? What’s the point of developing expertise if you don’t do anything with it?
At this point in time, given the wealth of knowledge about this issue, it seems that those who are still dubious don’t base their position on fact and reasoning. Rather, they appear to resist the idea of change, they might be worried about the impact of these changes on their quality of life, or their taxes, or perhaps their lifestyle/standard of living, or they don’t really want to know or think about politics at the end of a tiresome workday.
4:49 PM
So, as a consumer of oil products, located in British Columbia, what is the most ethically responsible choice for buying gasoline? Is there a retailer that sources oil products that is the least harmful of choices? I would hate to switch from an oil sands based company only to learn that my money would instead support some dictator’s death squads in Nigeria or Libya? Please email me directly if you can.
10:09 AM
I just finished reading Ethical Oil and am horrified by Mr. Levant’s position and his reasoning. I have no idea why he decided to build his case for the oil sands on ethics… unless those against it have framed it that way. Seems like a stupid framework. I read someone remarking, it’s like asking if cats are ethical. Or hotdogs. It is what it is… and we should be asking if it is sustainable, or polluting… anything other than this ridiculous premise that they are ethical.
I can’t believe some of his arguments. Like the dead ducks on the tailing pond. He says that many ducks get eaten in any large city’s Chinatown for dim sum over a 12 month period. Excuse me? Is he seriously comparing the death of wildlife to food production??? And then he actually comments that Syncrude was fined, but companies like KFC, which kill birds daily, are not. What the hell kind of reasoning is this?
This guy is unbelievably cynical. Although he doesn’t come right out and say it, he doesn’t believe that climate change is being caused by human activity… and there is the basis for the crap in this book. And it doesn’t help that he relies on articles from the National Post for his references (where he chooses to use them)!
I can’t believe that not ONCE was conservation mentioned. It seems according to Mr. Levant that as humans we have a right to as much oil as we can possibly consume. Yuck yuck yuck. This book is as toxic as the oil sands themselves.
10:11 PM
and what about the export of asbestos to third world nation ethics??
7:17 AM
Problem is that you aren’t addressing the argument, no one is contesting the oil being dirty, they’re contesting the human rights of the countries that are producing it.
When it comes to carbon credits or a carbon tax. I think its proponents need to accept that the electorate will never voluntarily vote for a tax increase. What is needed is to charge the oil companies the true cost of producing their product. That means not allowing them to simply have those tailing lakes sit or the cost of contaminating and using clean water.
1:04 PM
I’m listening to David Suzuki’s current Special Series on CBC Radio on the oil sands. David Suzuki is a valuable Canadian asset and an important international environmental expert. Unfortunately, his journalism skills are opportunistic and biased. David included a segment on sagd oil sands extraction processes. Sagd is a process of extracting bitumen without surface mining. Steam is injected into an oil reservoir, the bitumen is loosened and withdrawn. On the downside, the process uses significant natural gas and water. The upside is an absence of tailings ponds. The point David missed is many sagd companies are not using surface water, he gave the impression they were. Many sagd companies are using water from aquifers. This is a critical point and one that David conveniently omits. I would be interested to listen to his points on water from aquifers. His approach is somewhat Fox News-like. He has such a heavy bias to his causes and his anti-business stance. It’s a shame his knowledge and expertise cannot be showcased in a more objective and balanced way. And it’s a shame he’s so combative. His knowledge is vast and rich, if he applied a little more diplomacy he could literally move mountains. Unfortunately, he just wants a fight and an opportunity to make business leaders look bad.
3:38 PM
Since IRANIUM, the movie, your arguments against the oil sands are null and void. The choice is to either allow society to function with oil sands or send piles of money to Iran to use to KILL US!!! Please address this issue soon! -Ron Richardson
3:08 PM
One point that has been left out of the discussion here is that the book also recognizes that the oil produced from Alberta’s sands is not perfect. I certainly think that needs to be captured here.
On another note, I am glad you touched on the point “Rebranding”. How many times has the activist movement rebranded the name for “oil sands”… most recently used is “Tar sands”… or is it “Cancer sands”?… or perhaps “Blood oil”? Although I could name a few more, let me stick with “Tar sands”. “Tar” is a manmade product, while bitumen found in the “tar sands” occurs naturally. It is anything but “tar”. Let us stop misleading people with soundbites in an attempt to score semantic points.
Those who argue that the oil is indeed “Tar/Blood/Cancer” oil should perhaps place more effort into walking inside the tent, sit down and have a beer while discussing real solutions to the issues rationally rather than running up and throwing bricks at it.
8:11 AM
I’d like to see studies, mainly in the form of risk assessments and monitoring programs, done on a number of concerns. The effects of contaminant mixtures, the uptake of PAHs by plant and animal life downstream/wind of this sands, sediment toxicity, and a massive ambient air monitoring program. What’s downwind in the long range..? The prairies, where we grow food for the country and export. Then tell me they are ethical. They are not going anywhere, so why not hold until a better technology is available if we are so additcted to the oil.
10:32 AM
I don’t see anything “ethical” about tar sands oil. Aside from its obvious environmental impacts, there’s a tragic health crisis happening in the First Nations community that must be swiftly resolved. I find it appalling that our Minister of Environment is backing the tar sands when he ought to be pushing for stronger regulation and inspection, and most of all, clean alternatives.
8:38 PM
Who does one vote for in an up coming election? The liberals share the same attitude about the tar sands and oil use.
7:08 AM
The fact that the word “ethical” is used as an adjective makes me question their motives.
6:30 AM
Speaking of “rebranding”, David, couldn’t you come up with a new name for “carbon tax”?
I’m convinced that it’s the name that taxpayers can’t swallow, and it’s just the kind of thing that the Harper gang like to scare the population with.
David, I know you can do it!
Gina
The David Suzuki Foundation does not necessarily endorse the comments or views posted within this forum. All contributors acknowledge DSF's right to refuse publication of comments deemed to be offensive or that contravene our operating principles as a charitable organization. Please note that all comments are pre-moderated. Privacy Policy »