IEA economist says oilsands are not a major source of CO2

[SebC]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...&click=dlvr.it

As the United Nations climate summit continues in Warsaw this week, the IEA chief economist Fatih Birol played down the oil sands’ contribution to global warming, and said the long-term challenge is to access the energy-hungry markets of Asia while slowing the growth in emissions.

[...]

“The oil sands definitely makes a contribution to the increase in CO2 emissions,” he said. “But the difference in getting oil from oil sands when compared to conventional oil, it is such a small contribution that it will be definitely wrong to highlight this as a major source of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.”

Huzzah!

[Daradon]

Ohhh, an ECONOMIST from the International Energy Agency says so. Then it must be true!

(though I think that's where you were going with that)

[northcrunk]

With the off-gas processing happening in the oil sands the amount of CO2 coming from oil sands upgraders will be greatly reduced in 5 years.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Basically, the CO2 from Alberta's coal fired power plants is about equivalent to the Oilsands...oilsands production DOES produce too much pollution...but attracts way to much attention

[ranchlandsselling]

Interesting timing given the main article on the front page of Bloomberg (apologies for the crappy screen shot)

[ken0042]

Has anybody ever done a direct comparison of the total CO2 emmissions of the Oil Sands vs. oil from the Middle East? When I say total- I am also include the emmisions from the shipping methods used. What I am wondering is- does the extra CO2 created by Oil Sands oil offsets what it would cost to get Middle East oil to refineries in Western Canada?

[Coach]

Shouldn't the "long term challenge" be to have a viable renewable energy source?

Solar, geothermal, nuclear. All they need is proper resources. Stop working on increasingly difficult to find oil and look to something different.

[HOWITZER]

Can't really buy the articles I've read on this so far because it's an economist saying it. Let me talk to a few of the thousands of scientists in Canada that have been muzzled by the provincial/federal government before I make an informed opinion on this.

On a high level analysis, I guess it should be noted that just because it does not produce A LOT of CO2, does not mean it doesn't contribute a sizeable portion of emissions. I think the take away if this is indeed the case is that reducing CO2 emissions by targeting one polluter does not solve the problem, and only serves to cause damage to people in that one area. Reducing CO2 will be accomplished by collectively reducing CO2 across all sectors. Unless all of a sudden politicians pull a John Howard (Australian PM who went against party base to curb gun violence), I don't see that happening in the near future.

When it comes to the tar sands, my bigger beef is the damage done to the boreal forest. Though there are reclamation projects in place, I don't see how you can possibly re-plant a forest to it's original condition.

I'm not trying to spur a "use it or lose it" debate, but I'd be much more interested in hearing the environmental impact of razing a forest and all the energy intensive processes necessary to produce one litre of oil sand crude vs. conventional crude.

[stampsx2]

China and the US produce 41% of the worlds co2 emissions while canada produces under 2% total. If we're focusing on reducing co2 emissions we should focus on where the problem really lies.

A quarter of the worlds co2 can be reduced by finding an alternate way to power and heat the worlds homes Deforestation and agriculture account for another 19% of the worlds co2. So start there.

Raising gas prices by a lot may reduce transportation emissions as people are more likely to catch the bus or train to work reducing the amount of cars sitting in traffic.

If co2 reduction really is the issue then focus on the real problem.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

China and the US produce 41% of the worlds co2 emissions while canada produces under 2% total. If we're focusing on reducing co2 emissions we should focus on where the problem really lies.

A quarter of the worlds co2 can be reduced by finding an alternate way to power and heat the worlds homes Deforestation and agriculture account for another 19% of the worlds co2. So start there.

Raising gas prices by a lot may reduce transportation emissions as people are more likely to catch the bus or train to work reducing the amount of cars sitting in traffic.

If co2 reduction really is the issue then focus on the real problem.

To easy to point the finger some where or at someone else. Although we should also all be compared on a co2 production per capita basis.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

To easy to point the finger some where or at someone else. Although we should also all be compared on a co2 production per capita basis.

We could also compare it country size - land area.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

We could also compare it country size - land area.

Yeah, but then we're unfairly subsidized with useless northern land that's uninhabited but lessens our responsibility. Ditto for Russia, USA and China. We could go ahead and be 10x worse polluters than the USA on a per capita basis but shrug it off because we're equal per land mass.

[jammies]

I keep reading the thread title as "IKEA Economists", which brings us to a well-known proverb: Never trust the Swedes.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Has anybody ever done a direct comparison of the total CO2 emmissions of the Oil Sands vs. oil from the Middle East? When I say total- I am also include the emmisions from the shipping methods used. What I am wondering is- does the extra CO2 created by Oil Sands oil offsets what it would cost to get Middle East oil to refineries in Western Canada?

I did an in depth industry analysis on the upstream industry this year. There is an excellent graphic that depicts the relative emissions of green house gases in N.A. that CAPP provides. I took a quick look for it, but could not locate it tonight; I will take another look tomorrow and see if I can find it.

Long story short, the amount of emissions from the oilsands pales in comparison to the emissions from the U.S. eastern seaboard (primarily coal electricity generation I believe).

The media likes to sensationalize the oil sands as being a huge source of CO2 pollution, but the fact is that there has been, and there currently is, much larger sources of CO2 in N.A.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Yeah, but then we're unfairly subsidized with useless northern land that's uninhabited but lessens our responsibility. Ditto for Russia, USA and China. We could go ahead and be 10x worse polluters than the USA on a per capita basis but shrug it off because we're equal per land mass.

Of course, if we're going to look at things on a per capita basis then the north becomes a burden - particularly fly-in, fly-out communities that run off generators and not efficient, modern power plants.

Really, Canada should be expected to have higher per-capita emissions than an average country of similar GDP, because of lower population density (more fuel transporting things and people) and cold climate (we require energy to heat our homes).

Furthermore, if we look at Alberta's carbon emissions on a population basis, we would appear to be gluttonous, wasteful pigs. But if we were to attribute the carbon emissions from the oil sands to the end users, it would paint a very different picture, and one that is arguably far more fair.

The point is that while emissions per capita is a much better metric than emissions per country, it's still a flawed way of looking at things.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

China and the US produce 41% of the worlds co2 emissions while canada produces under 2% total. If we're focusing on reducing co2 emissions we should focus on where the problem really lies.

A quarter of the worlds co2 can be reduced by finding an alternate way to power and heat the worlds homes Deforestation and agriculture account for another 19% of the worlds co2. So start there.

Raising gas prices by a lot may reduce transportation emissions as people are more likely to catch the bus or train to work reducing the amount of cars sitting in traffic.

If co2 reduction really is the issue then focus on the real problem.

It would also massively increase the price of consumer goods, food, infrastructure construction and everything else that requires transport or heavy machinery. So your grocery bill and all of your other bills would increase massively

Its not such a simple solution. And what about the people that require their cars to make a living and you jack up their gas prices to an unaffordable level.

I am the further thing from doing nothing, but the solution isn't simple.

On top of that this is a global problem where the biggest emitters are hyper industrialized countries like the States and Indias and China's of the world who have little interest in making any kind of constructive change if it effects their economy.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Shouldn't the "long term challenge" be to have a viable renewable energy source?

Solar, geothermal, nuclear. All they need is proper resources. Stop working on increasingly difficult to find oil and look to something different.

A form of energy that is much cleaner and produces less CO2 than oil is already widely available for about 1/4 of the price of oil.

The increase in demand for that form of energy is not exactly moving quickly.

Even when the market suggests there should be a big shift, the existing infrastructure and equipment in the world makes these changes very slow.

It's not some oil lobby preventing anyone from using cleaner energy sources.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by SebC

Of course, if we're going to look at things on a per capita basis then the north becomes a burden - particularly fly-in, fly-out communities that run off generators and not efficient, modern power plants.

Really, Canada should be expected to have higher per-capita emissions than an average country of similar GDP, because of lower population density (more fuel transporting things and people) and cold climate (we require energy to heat our homes).

Furthermore, if we look at Alberta's carbon emissions on a population basis, we would appear to be gluttonous, wasteful pigs. But if we were to attribute the carbon emissions from the oil sands to the end users, it would paint a very different picture, and one that is arguably far more fair.

The point is that while emissions per capita is a much better metric than emissions per country, it's still a flawed way of looking at things.

Agreed, which is what I was saying. The north is skewed in the same way that the southern states would be skewed with running air conditioners all summer. Longer commute times in cities like LA, NY, Chicago, etc. Traffic there is way worse than anything we experience. Other than Toronto and Vancouver our populations likely spend way less time in a car then the 10x bigger population to the south.

And there's less than 0.3% of our population up north. Hardly going to skew the numbers substantially to give us anything to argue that our emissions per capita should get a reprieve from anyone else's. That said, why are you debating this? Shouldn't you be telling the eskimos they should be building multifamily igloos, sharing the same fishing holes, and having sustainable communities that don't need commuter planes vs. excusing them for needing diesel generation?

Yeah China and the USA might use the oil that we supply, but in turn we buy the crap they make with it. If you want to get into that debate you're going to have to show co2 emissions based on a net import/export basis and make it a fair comparison.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

And there's less than 0.3% of our population up north. Hardly going to skew the numbers substantially to give us anything to argue that our emissions per capita should get a reprieve from anyone else's. That said, why are you debating this? Shouldn't you be telling the eskimos they should be building multifamily igloos, sharing the same fishing holes, and having sustainable communities that don't need commuter planes vs. excusing them for needing diesel generation?

Oh it's terribly inefficient to provide for people up there instead of just telling them to move into a city, but given that the international community has decided we can't do that, then in my opinion, responsibility falls on the international community to deal with the carbon ramifications.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

A form of energy that is much cleaner and produces less CO2 than oil is already widely available for about 1/4 of the price of oil.

The increase in demand for that form of energy is not exactly moving quickly.

Even when the market suggests there should be a big shift, the existing infrastructure and equipment in the world makes these changes very slow.

It's not some oil lobby preventing anyone from using cleaner energy sources.

You're talking natural gas?

If you think demand growth has been slow for natural gas then I would suggest you review the data. Natural gas demand growth has been in the order of 20% per annum in China over the past ten years.

And yes natural gas trades for about 1/10th the cost per GJ as diesel right now. That WILL move to equillibrium over the next ten years especially in heavy duty freight.