James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist and communications consultant based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
Every now and then a commenter at this or any number of other climate-oriented blogs spews out the phrase "the height of arrogance" and uses it in a way that defies logic. For example, one "Bruce" recently wrote
"It is the height of arrgoance [sic] to suggest a trace gas like CO2 has anything to do with the climate cycles."
No, Bruce, it's not arrogant to accurately portray the chemistry and thermodynamics of climatology. This morning, however, I did find a case to which the phrase might be applied with some degree of accuracy:
Alberta's oil sands producers should be allowed to significantly increase their greenhouse gas emissions, even if that means forcing other sectors to take on additional expensive obligations to meet Canada's climate change targets, an industry executive says.
That's from the Globe and Mail. If you're still capable in sustained breathing after reading that, here's some excerpts from an editorial board interview with Marcel Coutu, CEO of Canadian Oil Sands Trust, which owes a significant portion of the northern Alberta tar sands extraction project.
"That's the math and there is no escape from that," he said. "What we have to do is prioritize what is most important to the economy and our quality of life. At the end of the day I don't think there is a single element of our economy that is more important than energy."The math is clearly daunting.
Driven by its need to keep the oil industry growing, Alberta has set regulations that will see emissions continue to grow between 2006 and 2020, even as Ottawa attempts to cut levels by 20 per cent over that period. With Alberta representing more than a third of Canadian emissions in 2006, the failure by that province to cut back will require the rest of the provinces to reduce their emissions by more than 35 per cent from 2006 levels over the next 10 years.
...
Mr. Coutu said it's necessary to look at those figures from a global perspective, because additional Canadian petroleum production from the oil sands would be replacing production - and emissions - from elsewhere in the world.
The fact that Canada is a net exporter of energy must also be taken into account, Mr. Coutu said, because Canada could end up taking the environmental responsibility for a product that is eventually purchased by a foreign user.
While it is up to the government to make the call on carbon policy, the oil sands industry needs to "emphasize the importance of energy [and] the importance of crude oil in the mix," he said.
I was going to write something pithy at this point, but can't think of anything. Suggestions?
Environment
Technology
Comments
James:
No, nothing pithy to be said, unfortunately. As someone who made the opposite journey as you, North Carolina to BC, I am, pretty despondent about the whole thing. Nothing short of a punitive US carbon tariff, or a collapse in oil prices from a drastic shift to an electric transportation economy will kill off the tar sands, and its army of outrageous climate deniers, harebrained planners and general evil doers!
Keep up the good fight, your blog covers Canada pretty well, which is a rarity. We have managed to sneak by unnoticed for a while now by being "nice", but I think the world is finally starting to notice.
Posted by: The Olive Ridley Crawl | October 16, 2009 11:02 AM
Another Yankee who knows more about Canada and Alberta than most of the residents. As a Calgarian and Albertan for over 40 years I am touched.Sadly your thinking is being used by California to try and buy our oil at below world prices, as a penalty for polluting. How great! First we get the brunt of the initial pollution, and we get less profit in the end. This point is just a reminder FYI. Keep up the work.
Posted by: Leo Freund | October 16, 2009 4:04 PM
Actually, Leo, I am a Canadian. I just live in the U.S.
Posted by: James Hrynyshyn | October 17, 2009 9:27 AM
I can think of a good use for nuclear power....
Posted by: paulm | October 17, 2009 11:00 PM
Ah, the famous Monckton defense!
It ish the height of arrgoance [hic] to shuggest a trace molek... mocule.. thing like alcohol could ever poshibly have any effect on my shtinking THINKING. Occifer.
Posted by: pough | October 19, 2009 1:05 PM
I got an idea. Lets organize 200 countries to get together and agree to stop burning coal and oil and lets have 7 billion people become as harmless as butterflies and lets live happily ever after because it's going to be that easy.
no - that would never work. The nifty science of CO2 reduction is going to be overtaken by harsh reality of people burning stuff and more than ever before.
Posted by: Rick | October 24, 2009 9:44 PM