Peter Adamski wrote in to the Edmonton Journal in reply to my op-ed piece this morning, and I thought I would post a quick reply here. Of course, by posting here, I get the advantage of having no word limit, so should Mr Adamski read this, I would welcome a longer post of his critiques.
Andrew
Reflections of an oil sands visionary
Last night, I was given a wonderful opportunity by some of our students to present my views on the oil sands in front of an interested and engaged audience here at the University of Alberta as part of the Oil Sands Visionaries speaker series. Given the flack I have taken from some of my colleagues for being labeled as such, I best stop using the title after this post.
Globally credible GHG policy would help, not hurt, the oilsands
While there are many environmental concerns with the oil sands, the issue of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) has the most potential to prevent Albertans from realizing the true value of the resource. The term dirty oil has clearly resonated with environmental groups both in the US and in Europe and will continue to be used by those who seek to limit our access to important markets. Our governments, both federal and provincial, seem to think that we face a dichotomy – either we can have an oil sands industry or we can have a globally credible GHG policy. Industry, with a few notable exceptions, has done little to alter this perception. I disagree entirely. I believe that a globally credible GHG policy is the only way to ensure the continued success of the oil sands industry, but I believe that we must build the policy on our own terms, not using reference points which were chosen for the benefit of other regions. An Albertan or Canadian policy, based on 5 modifications of the current Alberta GHG regulations, would send a signal to the rest of the world that Alberta and Canada are prepared to be part of a global effort but that we are not prepared to be taken for a ride.
What can green energy advocates learn from the oilsands?
I think that if you asked most oilsands opponents to categorize their objections to the industry, their responses could be classified under one of three headings. First, they might cite the lack of appropriate planning, monitoring, and mitigation of local environmental impacts (see the RSC report executive summary here). Second, they might cite a failure to consider global implications of oil sands extraction, specifically as they relate to climate change. Third, there would likely be many who would cite the fact that Albertans are simply not getting their fair share of the benefits from the expansion of activity in Northern Alberta despite owning the resource. In general, I think most opponents would agree (and please correct me if I am wrong) that most of these problems boil down to a government policy that focused on ramping production up as quickly as possible, and where the primary measures of success were investment dollars coming into the province and barrels per day of production. The government was unwilling to “touch the brake” on the industry that its own policies had created. I think that the Government of Alberta is now learning some hard lessons and finding that their approach to oilsands development has significantly eroded the social license of the industry both at home and abroad. To their credit the Government has shown signs of turning the tide on this. I believe the government could and should go further, but at least we no longer have our Premier talking about the myth of environmental damage from the oilsands. In the meantime, I believe there is a lot that advocates who would grant a free pass to poorly designed green energy policy can lean from the errors of the past in Alberta.
The strange relationship between environmentalists and the oil price
Environmentalists have a very strange relationship with the price of oil. I asked around among friends, students, and online acquaintances and every one replied without question that high oil prices were a good thing if you care about the environment. Why? Well, high prices discourage consumption they said. Not only that, high prices enable alternative energy sources. Of course, both of these statements are correct, but if you look deeper into the economics of oil and gas, it is not so easy to say that you should pray for high oil prices if you care about the environment.
Something remarkable happened this week…but you probably missed it
Peter Kent has already done something as Environment Minister that few others who have held the same position over the last 10 years have had the courage to do. He stood up, in front of a group of business leaders no less, and stated that Canada’s current greenhouse gas emissions policies would not be sufficient to meet our targets, and that we needed much broader regulation. He went on to say that, “Climate change is one of the most serious environmental issues facing the world today,” and that, “Canada… is determined to do our part for the planet.” In fact, while President Obama did not say “climate change” once while delivering the State of the Union, Minister Kent uttered the phrase at least 9 times in a luncheon address. Minister Kent then committed to a, “systematic approach of regulating GHG emissions sector by sector,” to meet the goal of 17% below 2005 emissions by 2020. It’s no wonder Peter Kent and his advisers were miffed at the ENGO responses which centered on the fact that today’s policies aren’t enough to meet our goals. In his shoes, I would have been hard-pressed not to scream too.
When it comes to carbon pricing, you have to take the good with the oil sands.
Carbon pricing is hard, and not just because you need to know a lot of terminology or because it’s a political minefield. Supporting carbon pricing means that you hand control of who wins, who loses, and where emissions come from in the economy to the market. True carbon pricing also likely means, sin of sins, that environmentalists might have to give the oil sands a pass.
The Tories bring their free market approach to climate policy
Canada’s Environment Minister Peter Kent announced today that the Federal Government will continue to pursue a sector-by-sector, regulatory approach to meeting it’s climate change goals. This is baffling. I thought that conservatives (and even Conservatives) were supposed to believe in smaller government and the power of the market to drive innovation. If the Liberals were proposing such an approach, the Conservative economic brain-trust would be screaming that there was no need for the government to be getting involved in decisions about which type of insulation should be installed in a new gas processing facility in Peace River.
The Liberals’ Cap(at what?)-and-(allocate to whom? and)-trade program
This week, lost in the media circus caused by the resignation of Premier Stelmach and Finance Minister Morton, the announcement of the Alberta Government’s Oilsands Panel and the David Suzuki CBC documentary on the oilsands was a very important announcement in advance of the next Federal Election. The Liberal Party of Canada committed themselves to a cap-and-trade regime, but they kept many of the key details of this system under wraps.
Why Rescuing the Frog?
Hello all,
First off, thank you for reading. I know there are many climate/energy/economy blogs out there so I am happy you have taken the time to visit mine. With this first post, let me tell you why I chose the title and what I hope this blog accomplishes.