The prestigious scientific journal Nature is urging scientists to speak out against the environmental impacts of Alberta’s oil sands.
“It would be unrealistic to expect that we could harvest fossil fuels or minerals without an effect on the environment,” reads an editorial in this week’s issue. “But the fast development of the tar sands, combined with weak regulation and a lack of effective watchdogs, have made them an environmentalist’s nightmare.”
Since the 1990s, greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands extraction have declined 30 percent per barrel, the journal notes. And ongoing University of Alberta research to reduce water impacts is a positive step, it reads.
On the surface, Nature’s editorial argues, Alberta government regulations appear to be tough on industry. Large companies have to pay $15 per tonne on each tonne of carbon they emit over a certain limit and mined lands and tailings ponds must legally be reclaimed.
“But many of these rules are weaker than they seem,” the editorial argues.
Overall emissions, it points out, are set to "go through the roof.” And only one six-hundredth of all mined land has been officially reclaimed, it reads.
“Canada’s tar sands, like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, are a warning sign of things to come. Future sources of fossil fuels will only get dirtier and riskier,” reads the Nature editorial.
It concludes: “Scientists can make a difference, not, as some critics allege, by playing politics, but by applying their expertise as concerned citizens.”
University of Alberta water expert David Schindler also authors a story in this week’s Nature. His report on oil sands water pollution, coupled with images of deformed fish, helped convince Alberta and federal governments to appoint scientific review panels last month.
Geoff Dembicki reports for the Tyee.
7
Login or register to post comments
jacksonupnorth
1 year ago
We need EVERYBODY to speak out
The population in northern communities is very low. Many people in these communities work in the industry and cannot speak out or they will be fired. It does not mean that they approve of what is being done in all cases. Government is not helping and in most cases is actually selling out the environment. We need more voices to speak up about what is happening.
shepsil
1 year ago
The vast needs of the Tar Sands
Lets not forget the relatively new "fracking" process going on in BC's north to extract natural gaz for use in the Tar Sands. In North America as a whole, some have credited "fracking" with reinvigorating the natural gaz market and driving the price down. While at the same time destroying ground water supplies.
But the Tar Sands are probably still the biggest user of natural gaz, used to heat up the tar, facilitating extraction of this nasty fossil fuel.
One of the big unknowns is what the real costs of this massive energy play are? There is some evidence that this natural gaz could be more economically used by directly generating electricity, but I digress, because we are already massively destroying water supplies in both BC's gas rich north and Alberta's Tar rich north.
Complete madness!
jacksonupnorth
1 year ago
You forgot Site C
You may not realize that there is a big push on by the BC Liberal government and BC Hydro to dam the Peace River. It will not be built in a rock canyon like the Bennett dam in Hudson's Hope is. It will destroy thousands upon thousands of the best farmland in the Peace River area as well as destroying the habitat for many wild animals. Most of the energy it produces is destined for the Horn River Basin near Ft. Nelson as well as the Tar Sands.
G West
1 year ago
Geoff
The link to the nature editorial doesn't seem to work - I end up in a Google Docs back alley.
Can you check it out.
Sask Resident
1 year ago
No Longer Prestigious
Nature is no longer thought of by many scientists as a prestigious scientific journal, mainly because they cut off dissenting opinions on many scientific issues. Also, editorial opinion rarely is based on extensive research.
Canada's biggest source of carbon emissions remains to be southern Ontario since they burn the oil extracted from Alberta and Sask. Plus a satellite photo of the Labrador trough shows as much mining activity as the Alberta oil sands but I guess that iron ore mining is benign to the environment.
geoffdembicki
1 year ago
Try the link now
I just fixed it. Thanks for the heads-up, G West.
G West
1 year ago
Merci beaucoup
Much appreciated Geoff.
@Sask Resident...
Canada's biggest source of CO2 (per capita) is Saskatchewan - closely followed by Alberta.
Tons of C02 per capita
Alberta 70
British Columbia 14
Manitoba 18
New Brunswick 24
Newfoundland & Labrador 18
Nova Scotia 21
Ontario 15
P.E.I. 15
Quebec 11
Saskatchewan 73
Yukon, Nunavut & N.W.T. 16
As for your other contention, that is also incorrect.
Alberta passed Ontario as the largest TOTAL emitter of GHG sometime between 1990 and 2006.
http://theenergycollective.com/simondonner/30493/canadian-emissions-story