Tar Sands Need to be Checked.

A new report showed that the Tar sands haven't really been checked on what it is doing. The Tar sands in Alberta has been seen the most dirties oil in the world. This is true! The oil sands aren't being monitored, and they should be. We can't just give oil companies a free licence to do whatever they want like Stephen Harper does. I am not saying that the tar sands should be destroyed. Absolutely not, but I say that if we use the this resource we should put to good use. First mandatory monitoring on the Oil sands, and enforce changes on the oil sands that must be complied with. Next insure that any new development in the oil sands have to be done clean and environmentally friendly, but of course the oil sands will never be truly green. That doesn't mean we should destroy the whole industry. What we need to do is that considering many countries need and run on our oil, so we tell countries who want our great oil resource that they need to ensure us that they will have some sort of plan to reduce there oil demand. Considering our oil has so  much influence let's use it for a force of good to make everyone else reduce there oil consumption. Last enforce a carbon tax to reduce our oil consumption.

Prentice the Good Guy?

According to wikileaked documents, former Environment Minister Jim Prentice thought that Harper's response to criticism of the tar sands was too slow. He was ready to to step in, and start real regulation of the tar sands, not the voluntary measures Canada has now. It has been shown time and time again that corporations do not adopt non-mandatory monitoring as they would have to pay more money for it and lose a portion of profits. Apparently, there will be improvements to a flawed monitoring system for the water pollution of the tar sands. The next step would be to install more and better greenhouse gas monitoring and finally, a carbon tax that would penalize those who pollute and reduce everyone's income tax.

Former environment minister Jim Prentice privately told U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson more than a year ago that he was prepared to impose new regulations on the oil sands if the industry and province did not improve their environmental performance, newly released Wikileaks documents reveal.

Read more at the Globe and Mail.

Related articles

• WikiLeaks: Canada 'too slow' to deal with oilsands backlash (thestar.com)
• Prentice was ready to curb oilsands: WikiLeaks (cbc.ca)
• Canada censured over oil sands (bbc.co.uk)

The Tar Sands: a Waste of Water

I've talked a lot about the enormous GHG emissions of the tar sands. However, the tar sands are also depleting our clean freshwater. The great majority of the tar sand sare located in the Athabasca region. It just so happens that the Athabasca watershed is situated in the same place. Naturally, bitumen, which IS the tar sands, needs to be refined, with a heavy use of water. It takes four barrels of water to produce every barrel of oil from the tar sands. This water is drawn from Canadian rivers.After the transformation of bitumen into oil, the water, along with many other "leftovers" of the process is dumped into tailing ponds that look something like this:

These tailing ponds are often quite close to the freshwater supply. Chemicals could easily leak into the drinking water of communities further downstream. Yet nothing is done about the waste and pollution of water that the tar sands cause. What we need is environmental taxes, to make sure that the polluters don't get away with wasting and leeching chemicals into our drinking water. Wasting and polluting water should not be tolerated, especially when the world will need more as we move into the future. Water should be used in a smart way, and not polluted. The tar sands are a prime example of those who waste water and it doesn't look pretty either.

Related articles

• Science & the Public: Tar sands 'fingerprint' seen in rivers and snow (sciencenews.org)
• River metals linked to tar sand extraction (nature.com)
• Tar Sands Projects Responsible for Water Pollution in Alberta's Rivers - Despite Industry Claims to Contrary (treehugger.com)

Assess the Tar Sands

Alastair Sweeny, author of Black Bonanza says that we should assess the Athabasca watershed to see if there is pollution in the river, where is it from, and if it's a risk to us. The problem is that this should have been done a long time ago. The oil producers claim that the tar sands pose no health risk to Canadians. What does Mr. Sweeny have to say on this issue? "We don't know." For years, the tar sands have been harvested. Why we do not officially know whether the tar sands contribute to pollution in the Athabasca river remains a mystery to me.

A U.S. senator has called it "Canada's national treasure." It's been demonized by environmentalists as the "worst project in the world." Maude Barlow likens it to Mordor in Lord of the Rings -- a place where nature goes to die.

It's the Athabasca Sands, the largest single deposit of oil on the planet, and all you have to do it dig it up, wash off the oil, or extract it using underground steam, and then clean up when you leave.

Read more at the Ottawa Citizen.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Oil sands polluting river with heavy metals, say researchers (businessgreen.com)
• Kumi Naidoo: Tar Sands: is this the real Canada? (huffingtonpost.com)

Tar Sands Cartoon

I found yesterday's cartoon in the Star to be amusing but yet, so true. Harper is not only proud of the tar sands, but he presents them to be environmentally friendly. This is a lie. He also claims to have an "action plan" on the environment. This a half-truth: his plan is to say he is going to make small reductions in GHG emissions, and then, not to act on these promises. Canada has become ridiculed because of our obstruction at climate talks. This is not showing good leadership.

Quebec: Natural Gas Giant?

Quebec could allow for the opening of many shale gas wells. This would need to be harvested not unlike the Alberta tar sands. Good. Let the companies collect the gas. However, they should pay for the damages against the environment. This means not just a carbon tax, but many other taxes depending on the damages to the surrounding environment. This would encourage the oil and gas companies to either invest in R&D or not mine for gas at all. The government makes a profit. In any case, the environment wins.

In most places west of Manitoba, the arrival of yet another oil or gas drilling rig is cause for little notice or concern. In Quebec, a half dozen gas wells and the potential of hundreds more may be about to set off a new kind of identity crisis.

Quebec has long nurtured an image as a green-energy titan, relying on hydro and sneering at those other energy producers in the West, with their smelly, polluting oil and gas.

Read more at the Globe and Mail.

They continue to do it wrong.

The "Rethink Alberta" campaign made by environmentalists in California is telling people to avoid going to Alberta because of the tar sands. Now, they are putting ads in the U.K. I think they are doing it wrong. By boycotting the province you are going to punish innocent businesses that have nothing to do with the tar sands. I say you can hate the government or oil companies to death, but don't punish the citizens of Alberta of different political stripes. Just because people live in the province that has the tar sands does not mean that support the tar sands. So I would rather environmentalist groups campaign directly against the tar sands, or against the use of oil made from the tar sands. I think that this is a way better idea than punishing the people of Alberta.

The group that created the controversial "Rethink Alberta" tourism boycott campaign in the United States is taking its anti-oilsands message to England.

 "The level of awareness about the tar sands is still well below the radar screen of most Americans," he said.

Eleven large digital billboards with graphic images of the environmental costs of the industry are scheduled to go up in London over the next couple days. As well, ads will run on some of the country's most popular websites.

Read more at CBC.

Lady Gaga knows how to protest.

Lady Gaga was in Arizona some days ago , and told her crowed of fans at her concert , and said that many people asked her to boycott Arizona because of the immigration bill. Now I am not much of a supporter of the immigration bill with the parts that force only immigrants to have to carry papers saying that they are legal. that part of the law was put away, but I congratulate Lady Gaga on her stance not to punish the people of the state, because of a law some people of Arizona might not agree with. This comes back to environmental groups wanting to ban the travel of Alberta, because of the oil sands. I think Lady Gaga has the right way to protest by telling her fans that the only way to get rid of it is to protest the law peacefully. I think first going to Arizona instead boycotting and saying what she said against the law gave more attention to her cause. I think the environmental groups should take a page in Lady Gaga's book and see that if you get the people to protest the law/oil sands inside the province/state it will work better than to punish the people who might not agree with the law/oil sands. I want to clear I only support the part of the bill that allows police to be able to check the legal status of someone only if there is a legitimate reason (not Racial profiling)

watch her speech here

(Go to 1:42 to see the party where she starts talking about the law)

Hate the oil sands not the People.

As many people start to attack the province of Alberta because the oil sands , and telling them now to avoid the province all together. I think that is a bit to far. They should avoid using oil from the oil sands, but they shouldn't avoid the province itself. I say they should criticize the government for doing this, but to punish the local economy that needs tourist the people who have nothing to do with the oil sands shouldn't get punished. I think avoiding the province would hurt the people who might actualy not like the oil sands. I think these environmental groups should encourage there city or there state to do what some has already have to just avoid the oil from the oil sands. This would effect more on punishing the oil sands then the people of Alberta. This would be a better initiative on the environment .

Read more here

Oil sands are not clean!

Jean Charest a supporter of reducing edmissions has said he would be fine with future development in the oil sands. He said he was misqouted in Copenhagon when he said he was against future development. Priemeir Jean Charest who has attaked the Conservative Goverment on it's lack of enviromental actions. I think that the oil sands are a not clean source of oil. I say that if we can't use diffrent places for oil then there should be first enviromental protection imputed on all extraction sites. This means in any place in the oil sands they will have strict enviromental laws , and rules. More importantly there will be a Carbon Tax on the oil site. These taxes should go to reducing income tax, but also new money should go to renewable resources, so that the minumum comes out of the oil sands. I think we can't see the oil sands never being used, becuse of the mass need, but we should look at other cleaner not so polluting oil to be used, and use diffrent sources of energy the most we can to preserve oil. I would like to state I don't support the oil sands. The oil comapnies that exploit the oil should pay for the best secure enviromental protection, and all enviromental cost.

Ignorant Ignatieff

Once again, Ignatieff shows ignorance on the tar sands. He continues to say that the polluting source for oil can be sustainable and can reduce its emissions. The tar sands will never be able to become sustainable. It just takes so much force to harvest the oil. If we are not going to shut down the tar sands, then we should at least benefit from their existence. That's what a carbon tax does. We use the money gained to lower income tax. That would make sure that the polluters pay and Canadians gain. The bitumen sands are not a clean source of oil nor will they ever be. While it might be possible for the tar sands to reduce their carbon footprint, it will still be enormous. The only thing we can do is make sure we get rich of this oil instead of the companies getting rich.

Ignatieff said the oilsands provide a great benefit for the entire country and will continue to do so in the future.

"We're going to be in a hydrocarbon future for a long time," said Ignatieff.

"The key thing is to make it sustainable -- to create an industry that has great working conditions for the people in it, that drives down excessive use of water and that gets CO2 under control."

Read more at the Calgary Herald.

Boycotting the Tar Sands

A small town from Washington state has decided to stop using the Canadian tar sands for their transportation needs. Good for them. They have stood up for the environment and their future. Even though this action won't make a big difference alone, this can go to show that there are people who won't tolerate the enormous destruction of the environment that the tar sands promote. The tar sands will never be green and it's a waste of money to invest in Carbon Capture and Storage: it doesn't work. What we need is a carbon tax on polluters. The money gained can then be used to reduce taxes. It makes polluters pay so that Canadians win.

A small, environmentally conscious town in upstate Washington has moved one step closer in its bid to stop using fossil fuels derived from the Alberta oilsands for its transportation needs.

City councillors in Bellingham, Wash., on Tuesday voted unanimously in favour of a motion calling on the city "to identify ways to shift operations and consumption away from fossil fuelled transportation and specifically high-carbon based Canadian tarsands."

 Read more at CBC.

Ignatieff supports Tar Sands

Michael Ignatieff has once again said he supported the Alberta tar sands as long as they become cleaner towards the environment. The tar sands will never be clean. So far, there has been no innovations designed to reduce the environmental footprint of the tar sands besides Carbon Capture and Storage. Except that it doesn't work. The only solution to the problem of the tar sands is to let the companies exploit the resource. If they choose to use the tar sands, they will be taxed. There should be a carbon tax and multiple other taxes on those businesses instead of tax cuts like Harper's been giving them. Therefore, they will have an incentive to clean up, they will be able to continue exploiting the resource, while making all of us richer.

On the oilsands, Ignatieff said the resource and entire energy sector is a matter of national unity because it creates jobs and wealth across the country. However, there's growing environmental concerns in the oilsands -- including rising greenhouse gas emissions as well as the ecological footprint on air, water and land -- that can't be ignored, he said.

Read more at the Calgary Herald.

No Oil Spills in Canada

according to Harper, thanks to Canada's strict offshore drilling rules. Harper also says that British Petroleum won't be able to drill in Canada's offshore oil deposits unless they meet all the requirements form the National Energy Board. But, can we really trust him when hardly any Alberta tar sands projects have been denied. Even when studies into the project have proved that they are bad for the environment did they get approved. And Harper says that we can trust him on this issue. I don't think so. We can't let oil companies destroy more of our environment than they have already done. It must end now.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says a "horrific" oil spill similar to the one in the Gulf of Mexico couldn't happen in Canadian waters because of the federal government's strong offshore drilling rules.

Harper's defence of Canada's drilling protocols came after NDP Leader Jack Layton called on him to convene an emergency meeting of G8 environment ministers to put the Gulf spill on the agenda for this summer's G8 summit in Muskoka, Ont.

Read more at CBC.

Tar Sands

Andrew Nikiforuk explains how the tar sands will affect us all. The US now imports the majority of its oil from Canada. What I find wasteful about the tar sands energy project is that in some locations, natural gas is used to harvest the bituminous sands deep underground. So, we're burning natural gas to get oil. What a waste!

Bitumen Bird Death

On April 28, 2008, more than 1 600 birds died after landing into one of those tar sands waste ponds which look like this:

I doubt even humans could survive that. An expert has testified that this Syncrude pond is smack in the middle of the breeding area of the waterfowl. In fact, it's the second most important area for the waterfowl in North America. This is the kind of ecological meltdown the tar sands can create. Proponents of the tar sands continue to deny its effects. Not one tar sands project has ever been denied. Continuation like this will lead to more disasters.

Read about it at the Vancouver Sun.

Environment News

Good news and bad news from the government on the environment. First of all, there will be new regulations on emissions of vehicles. This is rare for the Conservatives. They are doing something helpful for the environment. Transportation uses a lot of oil and creates a lot of pollution in Canada. Not only do these rules help stop climate change, they curb smog in urban areas.


Fun fact: Jim Prentice criticized Quebec on the emissions standards. Look what he is doing now.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice, who is scheduled to make an announcement on the updated proposal at an Ottawa car dealership, stirred up controversy a few weeks later when he blasted the Quebec government for introducing its own tailpipe regulations to match California standards.

Read about it at the Vancouver Sun.


Now for the bad news. The Tories have sneaked into the budget a new rule which would allow the environment minister to decide which aspects of a project.That means that Jim Prentice can decide to only study the not-so-bad aspects of a new tar sand project. Projects funded by the economic stimulus would be exempt from being studied at all. It was horrible enough before this new rule. There probably wasn't one project that was rejected before this rule. Now, the projects will probably be praised for their "excellence." This is a measure meant to fool Canadians and it won't work. We're intelligent, Harper. People are saying that this was a complete political move as it is in the budget and the Liberals can't vote against it. Therefore, it will be passed.

OTTAWA—Environmental groups and opposition politicians say the federal Conservatives are trying to gut environmental assessment laws by sneaking in new rules in budget legislation.

“This is a big step backward about 20 years,” John Bennett of the Sierra Club said Wednesday.

Read about it at the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.

Save the trees! Save the animals!

A new project called the Enbridge project would make a pipeline to transport oil from Edmonton to the north west of BC. This idea has been attacked by first nation groups saying it will damage the wild life and the people living their. I think knowing that there is a major protected area in kitimat their should not be a continuing of this project. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says there are about 70 oil spills per day. these are very small oil spills but this can of course wreck the housing prices of all the people living their and also this shows the people of Kitimat that oil is worth more than there protected areas

Coastal First Nations executive director Art Sterritt says after five years of scientific research and community consultations, the groups have found "no good" can come from the project.

The Enbridge pipeline would stretch more than 1,000-kilometres from the tar sands near Edmonton to the northwestern B.C. coastal town of Kitimat, before crude would be loaded onto tankers for export across the ocean.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/100323/n032365A.html


http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/visitors/regional-attractions/marine-parks-protected-areas.html

Why do we need oil?

Quebec is trying to get a okay from the federal government to be able to explore for oil and natural gas. I do not think we should take this oil, because do we really need it. I think that we get enough energy from hydro electricity. I believe that we should show as a example that this oil is not touched and yet we can still use other sources of energy that are renewable.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/100320/n032023A.html

Petro Province?

According to Questerre Energy Corp., an underground lake of natural gas is buried near the St. Lawrence river. Also, another company wants to drill a well on an oil field on the border between Newfoundland and Quebec. This means that we are facing the possibility of becoming a province that contributes to equalization, not receives. We also have to consider the environmental impact of the drillings. Exploitations do pollute the air and water. I say let the companies do it. But there are going to be Taxes with a capital t.

1. Taxes on destroying the fauna
2. Taxes on emitting pollution into the air
3. Royalty payments
4. All of the other taxes that apply to businesses

So, if the companies want to exploit the resources by destroying the environment, let them. But everything they do has consequences. Taxes is one of them.