|
Oil sands gets government cleanup order Minister not prepared to see Canada’s reputation sullied; says government willing, empowered to protect ‘clean energy’ standing Gary Park For Petroleum News
If not exactly the shot heard around the world, it certainly whistled across the bow of Canada’s oil sands sector as federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice admonished the industry to clean up its act.
Reportedly unhappy that oil sands proponents failed to make their case at the Copenhagen climate-change summit in December and unhappier still that he was the recipient of Fossil of the Day awards at the conference, Prentice flatly told energy companies and the Alberta government to clean up their act.
Speaking to a business audience in Calgary Feb. 1, Prentice said his government is determined to “ensure” the oil sands are developed in an environmentally responsible manner before they give Canada an international black eye.
“It is no secret and should be no surprise that the general perception of the oil sands is profoundly negative,” he said. “What is at issue on the international stage is our reputation as a country.”
Prentice said the environmental footprint created by the extraction of bitumen in northern Alberta has become a global issue that “transcends the interests of any single corporation. We have a lot of work to do.”
He said that means continuing investments in environmental technologies that will show the world how environmental responsibility and excellence can be taken to new levels.
Failure to show that kind of leadership means Canada will be “cast as a global poster child for environmentally unsound resource development. Canadians expect and deserve more than that.”
“For those who doubt the government of Canada lacks either the willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ‘clean energy superpower,’ think again,” he said.
“We do and we will. And in our efforts we will expect and we will secure the cooperation of those private interests which are developing the oil sands.
“Consider it a responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian resources.”
Without responding directly to the lecture, Rick George, chief executive officer of Suncor Energy, told a conference call Feb. 2 his company has and will continue to “demonstrate a continuous record of environmental performance.”
That has seen Suncor in the forefront of companies developing ways to reduce their consumption of natural gas and water, reduce their per-barrel greenhouse gas emissions and now shrinking their needs for toxic waste tailings ponds at oil sands plants.
Canada to follow US Prentice’s speech came two days after his announcement that the Canadian government has dumped its three-year-old climate-change policy to follow the United States’ lead in lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
He told a low-key news conference in Calgary Jan. 30 that Canada has now set a goal of lowering GHGs by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, copying the Waxman-Markey bill now before the U.S. Senate.
The old target was a 20 percent reduction from 2006 levels by 2020.
As Prime Minister Stephen Harper has insisted all along, Prentice made clear: Canada and the U.S. have “set the same level of ambition and we will move forward in concert with an identical base year and an identical target.”
Throughout the Copenhagen negotiations in December, Canada “maintained that our clear policy was to support the outcome of Copenhagen and also to align our clean-energy and climate-change policies with those of the Obama administration,” Prentice said.
He said Canada will not introduce legislation until the U.S. decides whether it will adopt a cap-and-trade system or a regulatory approach.
“We have indicated a willingness to proceed with a North American cap-and-trade system. We have also indicated a willingness to proceed by way of a harmonized regulatory system,” said Prentice, noting that the two approaches are “quite different ... and it’s impossible to harmonize on a continental basis if one half of the continent, namely the United States, hasn’t yet made that choice.”
US needs to make choice But, before Canada proceeds with legislation, “the United States government is going to have to make a choice,” he said.
Prentice would not say what course Canada will take if the Waxman-Markey bill is abandoned, as many observers expect it will, given the priority in Washington to focus more intensely on the economy and jobs.
The Harper government has linked itself to the U.S. over the past year on climate change, unwilling to take an independent route that could endanger its major trading relationship, or put at risk the 60 percent of its oil and natural gas production that is shipped to the U.S.
The new target was filed with the United Nations, one day ahead of the Jan. 31 deadline established in the Copenhagen Accord, as proof that Canada is committed to the accord, Prentice said.
“It is a framework that applies to everyone who emits carbon and is therefore an approach that has the prospect of success,” he said.
The United Nations filing said Canada’s goal will be “aligned with the final economy-wide emission target in the United States in enacted legislation.”
Canada’s new goal would lower GHGs to 606.7 million metric tons in 2020 from 731 million metric tons in 2005.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said the new target is “very ambitious” and puts pressure on lawmakers to “arrive at the appropriate and achievable balance between environmental and economic performance and continued supply and stable and secure energy.”
Although Prentice did not provide any details about what actions the government would take, he promised there would be specific measures related to the oil sands — pinpointed as the largest single source of GHG increases in Canada — as there would for all sources of GHGs.
Government lambasted The Harper government was lambasted for its policy direction.
Dale Marshall, a policy analyst for the David Suzuki Foundation, said Ottawa’s delays in introducing legislation have allowed the Alberta oil sands sector to rebound from a year-long hiatus, reviving or launching new projects.
“Probably a significant part of the reason that we haven’t seen anything (on the regulatory front) is that we know the oil sands will be a major political obstacle, but also a major challenge in terms of growth of emissions over the next decade,” he said.
Graham Saul, of the Climate Action Network of Canada, said Canada’s decision to wait for U.S. action is an “incredible abdication of responsibility, not to mention sovereignty.”
David Martin, a climate and energy coordinator with Greenpeace, estimated the government’s previous energy targets would have reduced GHGs by 3 percent, while the latest target will increase emissions by 2.5 percent.
“Not only has (the government) reneged on the target it adopted (in 2007), it has failed to put in place the regulations it promised last year,” he said.
“I think (the government) is really beholden to the oil and gas industry in Alberta and doesn’t want to address how to make serious reductions to protect the planet and the environment.”
David McGuinty, environment spokesman for the federal Liberal party, said that if the Waxman-Markey bill does not get passed by the U.S. Senate, Canada will be left with no real targets.
The risk Canada is taking is waiting to see if a policy designed in the U.S. “is for our benefit. The chances are, I can guarantee you, is that it won’t,” he said.
| 