15 Responses for "Michael Byers: The Tar Sands"

1. Chris September 25th, 2008 at 7:12 pm 1

   I agree with Byers on this one. Shut down the tar sands.

2. Don Scott, Victoria BC, Canada September 25th, 2008 at 8:15 pm 2

   Earlier this week, Swedish scientists Orjan Gustafsson who has been monitoring methane gas releases in the Russian side of the Arctic Coastline for a decade, reported to colleagues that methane levels in the now summer ice free Siberian coastline are up to 100 times higher than previous recordings. Methane, while shorter lived in the atmosphere (20 years vs. 70 or more for CO2) is also some 20 times more powerful a GHG than CO2. This finding gives legs to the theory of reinforcing which implies that Global Warming (GW) inital warming of the Arctic will thaw permafrost in the Arctic which will release massive amounts of methane thus creating a create a feedback loop that accelerates GW. Given that most of the CO2 emissions that have initiated GW have been put there by us over the past 70 years, we simply can not afford to keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Canada’s biggest single producer of CO2 is the tar sands, so if we are to significantly reduce CO2, it makes sense to start with the tar sands.
   Climatologist and shared Nobel Prize winner Dr. Andrew Weaver has calculated the absolute amount of CO2 mankind can add to the atmosphere before we cook the plant. I think his estimate would have us, at current rates of emissions, completely eliminating GHG emissions in less than 50 years – not long considering half of Canada’s population is not much under 50 today. We can’t wait that long and the GHG reduction plans proposed by all parties in completely inadequate to the task. The Tories are still in denial that GW needs to be addressed (they purposely confuse general pollution with GHG emissions to confuse an ignorant, self absorbed population), the Liberal plan will have little effect because most of the Carbon tax is tossed back to voters as tax cuts which in most instances will not be used to reduce GHG but probably increase them by continuing to subsidize our consumption patterns, same with the Greens and the NDP think the market is only route to GHG reductions – an odd position for the NDP as it is shared by Harper’s Tories. I wonder if it is the same market fairy god mother who is saving Wall Street today?
   Is our democracy mature enough to really address Global Warming? Are you?

3. Bob September 25th, 2008 at 11:33 pm 3

   Byers statement is akin to another “nuclear bomb” going off within the BC federal NDP. Completely idiotic.

   He’s just handed the riding to Hedy Fry.

4. H. Moreton September 26th, 2008 at 9:59 pm 4

   Louise’s notion of eliminating oil because humans lived for millennia before without oil is akin to returning to the caves. Isn’t there a more measured solution where government could provide the framework for weaning ourselves off oil to a more electricity-based energy grid with streetcars, subways and trolley buses for city mass transit, electric trains for land travel and electric cars (we already have a couple of electric car manufacturers in Canada)? Québec City already has an electric bus fleet on a trial basis called Ecolobus (Italian design). Of course this would mean building more electric generating capacity based on wind, solar, hydro, nuclear (Canada has its own AECL technology) and perhaps some clean coal (using CO2 sequestration or calcium carbonate production). We could then export most of our oil production (while meeting environmental standards for its production) to help our trade balance.

5. Louise Tremblay Matchett (NDP) September 26th, 2008 at 11:07 pm 5

   I wrote this post hoping to raise this incredibly important issue about energy in this forum in this upcoming election.

   I brought up the past because I think it is only when all Canadians can think about the whole picture, looking back at the past and thinking creatively about the future, that there may be some hope about how political initiatives can help fuel a future that will be sustainable for the planet as as whole.

   All of the comments here, tell me that there are some people here in Canada who agree. It is comforting to know this ….

6. J-M September 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm 6

   Shutting down the Tar Sands is akin to pulling out of Afghanistan. Although I would idealistically prefer both to happen swiftly. SEVERE repercussions would follow on the ground in both scenarios. This outlines the political and economic naivity of the NDP and it scares me to think that they could possibly form the Official Opposition. That being said, the Liberals and Hedy Fry (who did not know when to pull out of the Leadership race and has owned this seat since 1993) do not deserve this riding and Meyencourt is a conservative latke to the core (despite being a ex-BCLiberal). I’d like to see a woman candidate with principles win here and there is only one left — Adrian Carr, Deputy Leader of the GPC.

7. King of Kensington September 28th, 2008 at 12:06 pm 7

   Why did Byers “just hand the riding to Hedy Fry”? I would imagine such a stance would be very popular in downtown Vancouver.

8. Steve September 28th, 2008 at 4:38 pm 8

   Shut down the tar sands? There are about 200,000 people working there. The NDP is on the wrong side of history with their opposition to carbon taxes.

   Byers made front-page news with his ridiculous rant, and then tried to backpedal in the newspaper.

9. Louise Tremblay Matchett (NDP) September 28th, 2008 at 8:43 pm 9

   Sorry, but the candidate only withdrew his remarks about the tar sands being “shut down”. He did not withdraw the fact that the NDP has called for a moratorium on future development because it is doing damage to the environment in a huge way.

   You can call what Byers said a ridiculous rant if you want, but no matter how many people who are employed in the dirty oil project, there will become more and more voices against the project.

   I do not care about some short term gain for oil and gas giants who do not give a shit about the environment. Many, many Canadians do not want these profit giants to kill off everything we hold sacred, the World no less….

   Canada has plenty of room to deal with 200,000 workers who do not absolutely have to work in the tar sand projects. There are other ways for our citizens to earn livings besides being employed in getting out “the dirtiest oil on the planet”.

10. Ainsley Rodgers September 28th, 2008 at 9:33 pm 10

    Louise, your perspective is incredibly naive. Yes the oil sands are a very serious issue, but serious issues and serious problems require serious thought and serious discussion. They don’t need poorly vetted candidates spouting their mouths off for cheap political points.

    With the economic problems occurring throughout the world are you really comfortable with handing 200,000 people a pink slip? Get real!

11. Paul B September 29th, 2008 at 8:51 pm 11

    I think Byers should shut his mouth and be a little more realistic. The NDP b*tch incessantly about the price of gas but one of their candidates advocates a policy that would drive the price of gas thru the roof. Idiot!

12. Laura Thomson September 29th, 2008 at 10:14 pm 12

    This whole line of responses illustrates the huge fallacy that the oil and gas industry is perpetuating at all costs: that we have to choose between the economy and the environment.

    This argument about the tar sands exactly proves my point. Here we are clinging to an old, outdated, polluting technology, claiming that the jobs it creates are too important to the economy to lose.

    An investment in electric cars would eliminate the need for the tar sands, release the country from its dependence on oil and gas, and quite possibly be a huge step towards having us be energy-independent as a country. Thousands of jobs could be created in research & development of electric and solar powered technology and manufacturing.

    Check out the economic growth of Sweden for example. Or Iceland. Both countries have serious commitments to become fossil fuel free, and each has experienced huge growth in their economies. Iceland is now 100% energy independent.

    So. Which party will step up to the plate and put serious effort into ridding us of this horrific dependence on gas? Who will invest in the technology of the future?

13. Laura Thomson September 29th, 2008 at 10:15 pm 13

    http://www.VoteElectric.ca

    take a look and see how your party is doing with regard to getting this technology happening.

    Make your voice heard- we want this technology available for everyone!

14. Paul B September 30th, 2008 at 3:56 pm 14

    Laura its pretty simple really, the new technology is not sufficiently developed to produce it cost effectively. So what you and your looney lefties are basically saying is none of us should be allowed to own a car until electric cars are available? If you want a country like that please move to Cuba.

    On the point of Sweden yes it is true they grow rapeseed to make biofuels but to the detriment of food crops and forests. Cars powered by biofuels do not reduce the amount of CO2 emmisions – they are carbon neutral in that the CO2 “sucked up” by the rapeseed plant is supposedly the same as the CO2 emitted by the car powered by biofuel but here is the crux of the biofuel argument. Biofuel powered cars use 30pc MORE fuel than a car fed a diet of gasoline so biofuels are actually causing more CO2 emissions per litre of fuel than my gas powered car.

    Iceland 100pc energy independent? What is that supposed to mean?!

    Your argument us lame and Canadians will never accept your point of view if it is going to cost them more money.
    Who cares about the enviroment if you have to go back to the Stone Age to help save it?

15. Robert V October 4th, 2008 at 8:08 pm 15

    It’s not tarsands, its oilsands.

    A moratorium could have an impact on energy prices, driving up costs to low-income Canadians. It could also impact unemployment. The NDP may have to choose between conflicting priorities of a clean environment and helping the less advantaged.

    Perhaps a compromise. What’s wrong with the SAGD extraction techniques? They have a much smaller environmental impact.