Coal, not oilsands, the real threat to climate, study finds

[Azure]

One of the world’s top climate scientists has calculated that emissions from Alberta’s oilsands are unlikely to make a big difference to global warming and that the real threat to the planet comes from burning coal.

“I was surprised by the results of our analysis,” said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate modeller, who has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “I thought (the threat of oilsands emissions) was larger than it was.”

In a commentary published Sunday in the prestigious journal Nature, Weaver and colleague Neil Stewart analyze how burning all global stocks of coal, oil and natural gas would affect temperatures. Their analysis breaks out unconventional gas, such as undersea methane hydrates and shale gas produced by fracking, as well as unconventional oil sources including the oilsands.

They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about 0.36C. That’s about half the total amount of warming over the last century.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/p...udy-finds?bn=1

Don't tell anyone though.

[Azure]

Another interesting point.

Burning all the oil in the world would raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes.

[burn_this_city]

Emissions from coal power generation are what those protestors in Washington last year should have been getting arrested for. The Oilsands is a drop in the bucket compared to the US coal.

[rubecube]

However, he didn't say that this gave the oilsands carte blanche to operate like crazy. There are still valid concerns regarding the impact to the surrounding ecosystems.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

However, he didn't say that this gave the oilsands carte blanche to operate like crazy. There are still valid concerns regarding the impact to the surrounding ecosystems.

He also said that we should find ways to wean ourselves off of the fossil fuels, including oil, natural gas and coal.

But we know that won't happen overnight, so developing the oilsands is important in the long-term.

It is interesting that he is pretty harsh in regards to using natural gas. Isn't it proven that if we replaced all the coal burning plants with natural gas plants emissions would drop?

[Knut]

More information the better for Canada's PR fight against Europe on the Oilsands.

It sounds like Canada may be going to the WTO over Europe labelling the Alberta Oilsands as "dirty"

[kirant]

One concern is that this article doesn't deal with energy demands, but energy reserves. We've known for a while that the reserves of coal in existance are way more plentiful and probably could be used for creating more usable energy than all our known and viable oilsand supplies (not giving a free pass to the coal producers...just that it seems like an odd measuring stick to use).

They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about 0.36C. That’s about half the total amount of warming over the last century.

When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only 0.03C.

In contrast, the paper concludes that burning all the globe’s vast coal deposits would create a 15C-degree increase in temperature. Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by more than three degrees.

What I think would be an interesting thought would be to compare how much temperature change would occur if X GJ of energy was harvested from the average economically viable coal, natural gas, and oilsand resources.

[Tinordi]

Simple analysis.

First they're comparing reserves not resources. That wont change much but if you developed the entire oil sands resource you're in trouble climatologically.

But yes, sure, compare the known coal reserves of the whole world to the oil reserves in one country.

What Weaver is saying is that coal is a much bigger problem for the climate than oil. He isn't saying that oil is fine though. Burning oil is still a huge problem.

The other thing he doesn't look at are the upstream emissions from the oil sands extraction which typically are one quarter of the combustion emissions. So for ever 4 molecules of emissions that come from burning oil sands, one emission is released from extracting it. That paper made no mention of that.

As an aside, if we continued the current rate of the development for the oil sands and if we also thought that constraining our emissions to achieve only 2 degrees of warming was a good idea, then by 2050 we would use up over 80% of our per capita emissions quota on oil sands extraction alone. That means for the rest of the economy, we would have only 20% of emissions remaining which is not possible to meet.

So to summarize, oil sands are still a problem, it's just how you relate it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its simple that the nouveau celebritires and environmental groups hooked up on the tar sands because it sounds so menacing and evil. combine that with the fact that its more Canadian and Canadians will probably take action of some kind on it and you have a protest movement thats focused on perceived results rather then actual results.

It would be easy and better to go after coal fired generation, except that it would cut the throats of American and Chinese generation, and neither country is going to give a good god d#mned about the protest movements.

Its also easier for these protestors to make a buck by protesting Tar sands rather then coal.

While I agree that the Oil Sands has work to be done environmentally, at least it sounds like strides are being made to make it less impactfull on the environment, the real focus still has to be on the major majority polluters in America and China, but they're going to put their energy needs over the environment for the next few generations.

Plus if the environmental groups actually showed up in China and started protesting in the same way that they are doing here there would be full jails.

Its interesting to note that the Canadian government has put Europe on notice that they're risking a trade war over their desire to label Oil Sands extracted fossil fuels.

[SebC]

Oilsands is sometimes comparable to conventional oil. The reason for this is that while oil sands burns gas as part of the recovery process, conventional sometimes flares gas rather than recovering it.

[Tiger]

A lot of the money behind the protests of the oil sands and a lot of the miss information in areas in the united states regarding Fracturing has actually come from the coal company lobby groups, which is interesting.

[afc wimbledon]

I always feel a little guilty when I throw a lump of coal on my mums fire back in the old country, makes a lovely fire though, I would have a coal fire here in a heart beat if you could get coal!

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Simple analysis.

First they're comparing reserves not resources. That wont change much but if you developed the entire oil sands resource you're in trouble climatologically.

But yes, sure, compare the known coal reserves of the whole world to the oil reserves in one country.

What Weaver is saying is that coal is a much bigger problem for the climate than oil. He isn't saying that oil is fine though. Burning oil is still a huge problem.

The other thing he doesn't look at are the upstream emissions from the oil sands extraction which typically are one quarter of the combustion emissions. So for ever 4 molecules of emissions that come from burning oil sands, one emission is released from extracting it. That paper made no mention of that.

As an aside, if we continued the current rate of the development for the oil sands and if we also thought that constraining our emissions to achieve only 2 degrees of warming was a good idea, then by 2050 we would use up over 80% of our per capita emissions quota on oil sands extraction alone. That means for the rest of the economy, we would have only 20% of emissions remaining which is not possible to meet.

So to summarize, oil sands are still a problem, it's just how you relate it.

So you read the paper, Tinordi?

[Tinordi]

Yes I have and here's the last paragraph of the paper:

If North American and international policymakers wish to limit global warming
to less than 2#°C they will clearly need to put in place measures that ensure a rapid
transition of global energy systems to non-greenhouse-gas-emitting sources, while
avoiding commitments to new infrastructure supporting dependence on fossil fuels.

This means that no extension of additional fossil fuel development should be built irregardless of the global warming potential. This means development of oil sands and pipelines to deliver them. The paper basically rings the alarm that while attention is on the oil sands, the fuel source with the most potential is coal. In the Canadian landscape for climate change policy, the issue is much different.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Yes I have and here's the last paragraph of the paper:



This means that no extension of additional fossil fuel development should be built irregardless of the global warming potential. This means development of oil sands and pipelines to deliver them. The paper basically rings the alarm that while attention is on the oil sands, the fuel source with the most potential is coal. In the Canadian landscape for climate change policy, the issue is much different.

Whew! And here I thought Weaver was getting soft.

[mikey_the_redneck]

"Sun, not carbon dioxide, the real threat to climate, study finds"

"They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about 0.36C."

Haha, I'd like to see how they came to that conclusion.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Simple analysis.

First they're comparing reserves not resources. That wont change much but if you developed the entire oil sands resource you're in trouble climatologically.

But yes, sure, compare the known coal reserves of the whole world to the oil reserves in one country.

What Weaver is saying is that coal is a much bigger problem for the climate than oil. He isn't saying that oil is fine though. Burning oil is still a huge problem.

The other thing he doesn't look at are the upstream emissions from the oil sands extraction which typically are one quarter of the combustion emissions. So for ever 4 molecules of emissions that come from burning oil sands, one emission is released from extracting it. That paper made no mention of that.

As an aside, if we continued the current rate of the development for the oil sands and if we also thought that constraining our emissions to achieve only 2 degrees of warming was a good idea, then by 2050 we would use up over 80% of our per capita emissions quota on oil sands extraction alone. That means for the rest of the economy, we would have only 20% of emissions remaining which is not possible to meet.

So to summarize, oil sands are still a problem, it's just how you relate it.

Could you clarify a couple points? The article states that burning all the oil in the oil sands would lead to a 0.36C change (assuming the AGW theory). I'm also assuming that the calculation is for having all the CO2 in the atmosphere at once rather than elapsed time with other climatological processes in play. Why do you extrapolate that to: "if you developed the entire oil sands resource you're in trouble climatologically"? Are you inferring that there is far more oil sands resources in Canada than there are identified reserves?

The comparison between coal and oil sands is quite irrelevant. If you take the coal comparison out of the picture, you're still looking at a 0.36C change. If reserves ~ resources, 0.36 is the max temp increase regardless of coal reserves. Decisions can be made on this assumption regardless of coal.

I'm assuming if he didn't use upstream emissions for the oil sands, he also didn't use them for any other energy fuel. A study done a couple years ago pegged emissions for unconventional oil sands at 6% more than conventional. I can't see that as a major tipping point (regardless of the EU bureaucrats.)

I would also suggest that the oil sands is in major development mode right now with significantly more opportunity to innovate on emissions-control technology in comparison to any other fossil fuel industry. I don't imagine that the upstream emissions can be pegged at x+6% for the lifespan of the oil sands.

In summary, the oil sands may still have problems regarding pollution (in general, least of which is CO2 outside AGW circles), but is not nearly the problem environmentalists make it out to be.

Having not read the paper (or with any intent to shell out the $18 for it), I'm relying on my own assumptions and extrapolations.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Are you inferring that there is far more oil sands resources in Canada than there are identified reserves?

Two very different things/definitions.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Haha, I'd like to see how they came to that conclusion.

That's the funny thing with science, is you have to show your work. Read it and you'll find out.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Two very different things/definitions.

That's my point.