<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Obama says tar-sands oil has ‘big carbon footprint,’ but doesn’t rule out its use]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Russ http://www.grist.org/article/A-tar-nished-image/ Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:47:12 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/A-tar-nished-image/1 "ccs"

The one place where there are promising signs that the "Obama signal" theory has some validity is in his stance vis coal plants so far, where his administration does show signs of being fundamentally hostile toward new plant construction. The manner of speaking, "we only want new plants with CCS", seems to be code for no new plants at all, since CCS is clearly a pipe dream.

(Of course, the economic situation is helping to slay the coal ogre. Who knows what the new admin would be saying if coal still looked "cheap"?)

So when he says, "tar sands can be a part of this if we deploy ccs", I'm hopeful that this too is political cover-seeking code for, "no tar sands".

The law is already clear that the federal government cannot legally buy tar sands syncrude. I think the same is true of California state emissions policy, and probably other states too.

I don't know how fungible oil is in these pipeline systems, or how traceable its derivatives are once they leave the refinery, but if in the end you can't tell where something came from, that in itself should legally forestall tar sands syncrude importation.

So both legally and politically it's clear - if Obama doesn't want to further empower tar sands corporatism, and if he's serious about carbon emissions, his way is clear to cut off these imports.  

 

]]> "ccs"

The one place where there are promising signs that the "Obama signal" theory has some validity is in his stance vis coal plants so far, where his administration does show signs of being fundamentally hostile toward new plant construction. The manner of speaking, "we only want new plants with CCS", seems to be code for no new plants at all, since CCS is clearly a pipe dream.

(Of course, the economic situation is helping to slay the coal ogre. Who knows what the new admin would be saying if coal still looked "cheap"?)

So when he says, "tar sands can be a part of this if we deploy ccs", I'm hopeful that this too is political cover-seeking code for, "no tar sands".

The law is already clear that the federal government cannot legally buy tar sands syncrude. I think the same is true of California state emissions policy, and probably other states too.

I don't know how fungible oil is in these pipeline systems, or how traceable its derivatives are once they leave the refinery, but if in the end you can't tell where something came from, that in itself should legally forestall tar sands syncrude importation.

So both legally and politically it's clear - if Obama doesn't want to further empower tar sands corporatism, and if he's serious about carbon emissions, his way is clear to cut off these imports.  

 

]]> Comment #2 by CNDLaura http://www.grist.org/article/A-tar-nished-image/ Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:45:09 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/A-tar-nished-image/2 Our Tar Sands

Good Morning,
First, I'd like to point out that Obama is coming to Ottawa on Thursday, Feb 19, not Wednesday (Feb 18).  

I am from Edmonton, Alberta, and while our economy depends on the tar sands heavily, and we are wealthier for it, I think we should be treated the same as everyone else in terms of carbon footprint.  I have to admit I am slightly conflicted on this issue.  The wealth our oil has provided has protected us from a lot of the economic downturn issues that afflict other parts of our country, and the US.  A co-worker recently returned from a vacation in Florida and said there was a huge lineup around the block for a $10/hr job at a bookstore.  We were totally shocked - but it makes me realize what the oil sands do provide us with.  

On the other hand, we have a son on the way, and I don't want him to inherit our problems; our destroyed environment, all because of greed. While I am scared to go against the oil sands, I do think they need to be scaled back, and our provincial and federal governments need to heavily invest in green energy.  For a politician here to go against oil and for green energy is political suicide - and that goes double for Alberta provincial politics.

To go against the tar sands here is swimming against the tide, and it's exhausting - but worth it.  I care what kind of world I leave for my son.

Laura


]]> Our Tar Sands

Good Morning,
First, I'd like to point out that Obama is coming to Ottawa on Thursday, Feb 19, not Wednesday (Feb 18).  

I am from Edmonton, Alberta, and while our economy depends on the tar sands heavily, and we are wealthier for it, I think we should be treated the same as everyone else in terms of carbon footprint.  I have to admit I am slightly conflicted on this issue.  The wealth our oil has provided has protected us from a lot of the economic downturn issues that afflict other parts of our country, and the US.  A co-worker recently returned from a vacation in Florida and said there was a huge lineup around the block for a $10/hr job at a bookstore.  We were totally shocked - but it makes me realize what the oil sands do provide us with.  

On the other hand, we have a son on the way, and I don't want him to inherit our problems; our destroyed environment, all because of greed. While I am scared to go against the oil sands, I do think they need to be scaled back, and our provincial and federal governments need to heavily invest in green energy.  For a politician here to go against oil and for green energy is political suicide - and that goes double for Alberta provincial politics.

To go against the tar sands here is swimming against the tide, and it's exhausting - but worth it.  I care what kind of world I leave for my son.

Laura


]]> Comment #3 by lizbb http://www.grist.org/article/A-tar-nished-image/ Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:55:49 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/A-tar-nished-image/3 Tar sands don't fit

One great thing about the CBC interview above is that the "dirty oil" question was at the top of the list - even before Afganistan. A year ago, this would not have been the case so the critique of the high carbon and massively destructive Canadian tar sands -that it doesn't fit in a clean energy economy - is finally out there to be debated at the highest levels. Note the framing the President did in the interview - his first line was "What we know is that oilsands creates a big carbon footprint" and then pointed to  solutions in his stimulus package on clean energy development - which by the way were $77 billion for renewables and efficiency and $3 B for CCS (for full disclosure, I work on this issue for NRDC and you can see my blogs on the trip at http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lizbb/)

Liz Barratt-Brown

]]> Tar sands don't fit

One great thing about the CBC interview above is that the "dirty oil" question was at the top of the list - even before Afganistan. A year ago, this would not have been the case so the critique of the high carbon and massively destructive Canadian tar sands -that it doesn't fit in a clean energy economy - is finally out there to be debated at the highest levels. Note the framing the President did in the interview - his first line was "What we know is that oilsands creates a big carbon footprint" and then pointed to  solutions in his stimulus package on clean energy development - which by the way were $77 billion for renewables and efficiency and $3 B for CCS (for full disclosure, I work on this issue for NRDC and you can see my blogs on the trip at http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lizbb/)

Liz Barratt-Brown

]]>