Last week the US state department approved an oil pipeline which will carry tar sands oil from Alberta across Canada down to Wisconsin. The move follows long term plans between the US and Canada over energy deals, with tar sands already a key part of the US’s current oil provider. For environmentalists the move is a major setback, with tar sands, considered the dirtiest of all oils permanently and visibility crossing the boundary of the two countries.

Environmentalists both sides of the border and around the world can only greet this with disappointment. It had been thought during the Obama campaign that his rhetoric of “dirty oil” would restrict the development of tar sands to its most likely consumer, the US. However, what now appears likely is that the US has given tacit International approval to the oil sands by creating a permanent pipeline.

Continue reading…

Last week, Ontario announced new plans to offer rebates on the purchase of electric cars purchased after July 1^st 2010. The long term aim of the Ontario government is to have 1 in 20 cars by 2020 electric, as part of a move to encourage greener transport policies. The law would allow rebates of “$4,000 and $10,00” for hybrid and plug in electric cars – making the vehicle prices closer to normal car prices of around $30,000.

The move is the latest by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who continues to lead his state on a remarkable path towards a more sustainable state, making Ontario a leader among states and provinces in North America. The move fits into a broader pattern of environmental legislation with an economic underpinning. One of Ontario’s most far-reaching laws included the “right to connect”, legislation that means any renewable energy supplier has to be hooked up to the main grid, in a push to encourage decentralised renewable energy growth in the state. Ontario does not see this simply as an environmental objective, with state legislators, aiming to push their province to the forefront of renewable technology in research and supply as the world slowly turns towards low carbon future. The latest push is not without some direct self-interest, as Ontario owns 3.9% of General motors, with it’s Chevy Volt due to come onto the market in 2010.

In keeping with their broader attempt to create a more holistic sustainable approach, the law also allows for electric cars to use High occupancy vehicle lanes even if only one person is driving in them. The report behind the new law also suggested an expansion of electric car provisions across the state. How effective the scheme will be naturally depends on Canada’s wider economic fortunes; nevertheless its the cumulative impact of Onatario’s legislation that makes the province a leader in environmental legislation.

Regardless of how quick the uptake is, the move is hardly without a rational basis, with Toyota set to prepare for mass production of the Prius in 2012, Honda and Nissan also in production of the electric car, it may not be unreasonable to suggest a tipping point in the electric car market. If the opportunity of a new market was not enough perhaps the more sinister implications of oil-shocks, may motivate those buying at the pump to save money by investing in ever more fuel-efficient vehicles. In either case, Ontario’s early provisions of plug-in stations will once again have put its citizens in a strong position to capitalise on changing markets through incremental legislation towards a sustainable state.

A field of sunflowers in front of the Areva Tricastin nuclear plant in in Bollene, in the south of France. Photograph: Fred Dufour/AFP/Getty images. Source: Guardian.co.uk

The past week saw reports of at least four of the country’s leading green activists accepting that nuclear power may have a significant role to play if we are to avoid runaway climate change. Concerns over safety issues, build-up of radioactive wastes and the proliferation of nuclear weapons were realistically balanced against the environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.

Stephen Tindale, a former director of Greenpace; Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year; and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate, are now all lobbying in favour of nuclear options to support a renewable strategy to decarbonise the electricity system.

Nuclear power currently accounts for about a fifth of the UK’s electricity, compared with the 35% from coal and 35% from gas. It is being argued that more nuclear capacity will need to be added to replace the existing capacity, which is likely to be obsolete in around 15 years. But nuclear is not the only dwindling supply. Around 8 gigawatts – equivalent to about 6 power stations – of coal-fired generating capacity will be out of action by 2015 as Europe’s Clean Air Directive comes into force and older facilities prove uneconomic to upgrade. Taken together, the UK needs to replace a third of its electricity generating capacity in the next 15 years. Even plans for 7 gigawatts of new gas-fired capacity, expected by 2015, and another 5 gigawatts recently given the go-ahead by the Government, will not be enough as estimates put energy demand ballooning by anything up to 20% in the coming decade.

Nuclear power fits neatly with the Government energy policy goals, providing a carbon emission free source of secure energy supply – particularly important in light of recent geo-polictical tensions between Russia and Ukraine last month.

Investments are being planned by EDF (owner of British Energy), E.on and RWE Power, which are expected to create in excess of 15,000 jobs – welcomed with open arms in the current economic climate; but any planned build will only become operational by the mid 2020s at the earliest now.

George Monbiot, who has also changed his position on the nuclear argument, argues that if we want to decarbonise the UK’s energy system quicker and more cheaply, nuclear power must play a significant complementary role, alongside increased renewable energy generation, demand reduction, CHP and energy efficiency. Mark Lynas adds that nuclear power could provide a realistic solution to combating climate change and providing energy security, and as polls suggest that the public are opposing the nuclear option less and less, he calls for the Green movement to reconsider their 30 year dogma on energy generation from nuclear power.

Whilst plans for new reactors are still expected to raise face opposition, the Green movement’s acknowledgement of nuclear as the lesser of two evils will take away some of the sting. Ironically, it is the environmental agenda that made the economics of commercial nuclear expansion work. Regardless of moral reservations, the cost of nuclear power stations compared with their gas and coal-fired alternatives has always been a major factor; but the introduction of an emissions trading mechanism has forced fossil fuel plants to pay for their environmental impact, and the predictable income for nuclear plants provides much-needed clarity for private sector investors.

Whilst the safety and waste worries still remain, the arguments for and against nuclear power seemed to have changed to serve urgent targets.

Nuclear power…

*In an increasingly power-hungry world, the generation capacity of nuclear is potentially enormous

*Nuclear reactors are the best way to produce lots of electricity, reliably, with no carbon emissions

*Except for the purchase of uranium, nuclear power stations offer absolute security of supply 

However:

*Safety records may be far better than they were in the early days, but accidents can always happen

*Despite technical advances, digging a hole is still the only way to get rid of spent fuel rods

*More countries, buying more uranium, means more mining and more chance of nuclear proliferation

Crude oil production from the tar sands of Canada’s Alberta province are estimated to cause three times the amount of emissions than conventional oil production and was recently described as ‘Canada’s dirty secret’ by environmental activists at the United Nations climate change meeting in Poznan, Poland.

Alberta’s Premier, Ed Stelmach has faced a barrage of criticism over his province’s environmental record.  Managing the public image of Alberta’s oil industry has become a full-time job for Stelmach who has had to deal with mounting public pressure calling for reductions in the pace of development of Alberta’s oil resources.  Emissions from Alberta represent about a third Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions (despite having only 12% of its population).  Adding to the public relations challenge for Alberta’s oil patch, a private lawsuit, supported by the Sierra Club of Canada and Forest Ethics, has recently been launched against the Syncrude oil company who’s open air toxic tailing ponds in Northern Alberta resulted in the deaths of 500 birds in the spring of 2008.

With President-elect Obama promising aggressive actions during his administration to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions, the question being raised north of the border in Canada is: how will Alberta’s tar sands industry be affected?

Obama has indicated that he wants to move America away from ‘dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive’ oil, a  move that could possibly influence US investment in Alberta’s oil industry. US mayors have signed a statement questioning the carbon footprint of the tar sands oil production which is expected to expand from 1.3 million barrels a day to 3.5 million over the next decade.  Canada is the largest supplier of oil and gas to the United States.  Fearing a withdrawal of US investment Alberta’s Premier has been making numerous trips to the United States touting Alberta’s “affordable energy” during this period of economic downturn.  In order to protect the industry, Premier Stelmach has asked fellow Conservative, Prime Minister Steven Harper for a seat at any future North American climate change negotiations. 

Meanwhile, the Province of Alberta has set greenhouse gas emissions targets based on intensity of production which will allow overall emissions to continue to rise until 2020.  These targets have drawn harsh criticism from environmental groups for not being in line with climate science which suggests that stronger, absolute emissions reductions are required globally over that time period in order to avoid dangerous climate change impacts.  Alberta’s long term targets for greenhouse gases are 14% reductions from 2005 levels by 2050.  Companies can avoid the intensity-targets by buying credits from other firms or paying $15/tonne into a technology fund, presumably to be used towards investments in the research and development of carbon capture and storage technologies.

Federal politicians in Canada also appear to be in no hurry to dramatically slow down the pace of development in Alberta’s tar sands – a pace of development so rapid that it calls into question Canada’s ability to reach the proposed emissions targets of Prime Minister Steven Harper’s government (20% cuts by 2020, based on 2006 emissions) which also include intensity-based targets for the oil industry.  The new Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice has made it clear that the government will not harm the weakening Canadian economy in order to pursue environmental progress.  The government believes that the environment and economy are polar opposites (not surprising as Mr. Prentice was formerly the minister for industry).

So for the time being it’s business as usual in Canada – but with a minority government that barely survived the fall session of parliament, a new leader of the opposition, and a confidence vote on the budget later in January, political forces are at play which will shape Canada’s climate change and energy policy in 2009.

To see a slide show of Alberta’s oil sands published by the Washington Post in June 2005 click here.