Guest Entry: Assessing the Environmental Impacts of the Tar Sands

By: Trevor Shah

Please note that I will not focus on the economic benefits of the Tar Sands as these are already widely known. Rather, I focus on the detrimental environmental impacts as these far outweigh the short-term economic benefits.

Land Use
In March 2008, Syncrude Canada became the first oil company to receive a reclamation certificate from the Alberta government for restoring 104 hectares of land. Syncrude claims to have restored 22 percent of their disturbed land to date; however the Alberta government has not given Syncrude a reclamation certificate for this restored land (apart from the 104 hectares).

The Alberta government has been criticized by the Alberta Auditor General for its poor record in tracking land reclamation of Tar Sands operators. According to the Government of Alberta, only 0.16 percent of the total land disturbed by Tar Sands extraction has been reclaimed. This 0.16 percent represents the 104 hectares of land that was reclaimed by Syncrude in March 2008.
The 11 companies operating in the oil sands claim to have collectively restored 11 percent of total disturbed land; however, there is no government certification to support this claim.

This is highlighted very clearly in Figure 2 (of my report) which shows the gap between the disturbance of land and its reclamation rates. Further, it is important to note that the blue line represents the land that has been reclaimed by industry, not the land that has been certified by the government.

Water
Tar Sands mining operators have been licensed to extract 359 million cubic meters of water from the Athabasca River. This is double the amount of water consumed by the City of Calgary annually. What’s more, 92 percent of this water ends up in contaminated tailing ponds and the Government of Alberta does not have any reclamation standards for the 840 million cubic metres of tailing lakes. Few technologies exist to remediate tailing lakes and those that do exist, are extremely costly: it is estimated that the cost of remediating one tonne of tailings is between $13.09 and $16.40.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Alberta Tar Sands are the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Furthermore, Tar Sands companies do not have to pay to neutralize their carbon emissions. By 2015, Fort McMurray will emit more greenhouse gas emissions than all of Denmark, a country with 5.5 million citizens. Further, it is estimated that Tar Sands oil produces at least three times more emissions per barrel than conventional crude oil.

Sand Waste
By 2010, the Tar Sands industry will have generated eight billion tonnes of sand waste which contains naphthenic acid and paraffin: chemicals which can have adverse health effects on mammals leading to liver problems and brain haemorrhaging.

Earth and Soil Waste
According to the Government of Alberta (2007), open pit mining entails “clearing trees and brush from a site and removing the overburden - the topsoil, muskeg, sand, clay and gravel - that sits atop the Tar Sands deposit”. This overburden is often 75 metres deep and is taken offsite by large trucks. In the end, it is estimated that four tonnes of earth must be removed for every barrel of oil produced.

The Government of Alberta must set stricter environmental legislation that will ensure the price of oil is reflective of the aforementioned negative externalities it produces. Further, the Alberta government must impose deadlines for land and tailing ponds to be reclaimed by, and eliminate all government subsidies to Tar Sands companies. These strategies will increase the price of Tar Sands oil causing companies to invest in more efficient technologies, or leave the market due to reduced profitability.

To read the full report, see here [scribd].

Trevor Shah is a third-year commerce student at Queen’s University. He wrote a comprehensive report on the environmental impacts of the Tar Sands for his Sustainable Strategies Class.

Guest Entry: Greater Utility for Green vehicles must go beyond Green marketing

By: Caitlin Yan

Green marketing and green products - once just buzzwords in the corporate world are now, finally realizing exponential growth in the consumer marketplace. There exists, however, a lag in the adoption rates for some of these green products. Is the marketing all wrong? Are the creative agencies missing their mark? Not necessarily. While most Canadians support environmental sustainability in theory, the kind of behavioural change that some green products call for is often more than consumers are ready to accept.

One of the most obvious obstacles to incorporating green products into your daily routine is the higher price tag. Furthermore, the goods and actions that have the greatest positive impact on the health of the environment often require the consumer to make changes to habitual routines, patterned schedules and all in all, buy more complementary “stuff”. A good example is the array of green vehicles making their way into your neighbourhood dealerships.

At this point, we’ve heard our fair share of how these vehicles can significantly lessen our reliance on oil and in turn, reduce the amount of harmful pollutants released into the air. So why then, has the demand for these vehicles been disappointing? There are a few factors that have to be considered before this question can be answered.

The existing price differential between traditional gasoline-powered vehicles and alternative energy vehicles (such as hybrids and electric powered vehicles) is a major roadblock for many consumers. Also, the fuel economy offered by some green vehicles is less than stellar which only appeals to a small segment of consumers more concerned with making a social statement than saving some coin. On top of that, the year-end blowout sales apply almost exclusively to traditional fuel vehicles thereby widening the gap between the costs of the two types of vehicles.

The slow sales can be attributed to hesitation on the supplier side as well. It’s not only the consumers who are reluctant to adopt this technology. It should come as no surprise that electric vehicles are more expensive to manufacture than traditional vehicles, but did you know that car makers actually lose money on each unit they sell because of the current retail price? Electric vehicles currently account for less than 2% of all vehicles sales and there are few signs indicating an increase in consumer demand. It looks like both manufacturer and consumer are waiting for the other to make the first move.

Finally, another indication of the current stalemate is the lack of electric car chargers and charging stations on the market. An electric car is by no means a stand-alone purchase as it requires the aforementioned accessory components to function properly. Battery charger suppliers appear to be waiting for car manufacturers to introduce more electric vehicles and car manufacturers are holding off until consumers show a greater interest in these non-traditional vehicles. The fact remains that there are not enough charging stations and chargers to reduce “range anxiety” – the fear of being stuck on the road without any power. Unfortunately, the solution is not as trivial as simply making more of the vehicles or the chargers.

Hopefully after taking a look at some of the contributing factors, the true nature of the situation is a bit clearer. The slow adoption of green vehicles is not only a marketing problem. Sure, the marketing departments of Nissan and Ford should be ramping up their efforts to better address their consumers’ perceptions of green vehicles. The economics and social views of green vehicles have shifted away from where they started when the talk of green vehicles first began. The progress made in regards to the complementary technology and systems for green vehicles needs an in-depth, critical evaluation (calling all R&D professionals).

There are many consumers who want to do their part for the environment by owning a greener vehicle but won’t do so until there is greater utility and when the infrastructure is a reality. Even with the tricks and illusions (critics words, not mine) available to marketers today, you would be hard pressed to find someone to successfully market a product or service that doesn’t exist.

Caitlin Yan is a recent graduate of the Business Administration program at Wilfrid Laurier University. She has a specialization in Brand Communication and Management. Caitlin has a keen interest in products and behaviours that are less harmful to the health of humans and the environment.

What you should know about wise water use in Canada

I am currently doing some research on water policy in the City of Vancouver. We've been learning about sampling strategy and survey design in my statistics class. I am going to design a survey that gets at questions around the conservation, protection and value of water resources in Vancouver. The questions will largely be focused on residents and their attitudes and perceptions of water resources. My research question and design will be more sophisticated, don't worry. If you're interested in reading my research proposal and survey design, email me in December.

Anyway, I came across a highly useful and informative link provided by Environment Canada. It is an overview of water supply, infrastructure, conservation, water metering, technology and more. It's great!

Check it out here.

Is telecommuting on the rise?

Ever heard of telecommuting? It's just a fancy way of describing how people perform their office tasks and duties at home instead of commuting to work. With the rise of information technology and communications technology, more and more employees (in the United States) are doing jobs that used to require being in the office from their own homes. For those living in the suburbs, telecommuting is great because it saves them their 1-2 hour commute to work everyday.

The New Geography blog provides an overview of telecommuting in the US along with data comparing telecommuting rates to transit commuters over the past nine years. Specifically, the article provides data to show increases in telecommuting and transit in American cities from 2000 to 2009. It's a really informative article but I wonder if the analysis controls for unemployment over time. Unemployment in the US has increased in the past three years which can directly affect the number of trips a person makes to work. Anyway, that's just a methodological side note.

From the article:

"In 2009, 1.7 million more employees worked at home than in 2000. This represents a 31% increase in market share, from 3.3 percent to 4.3 percent of all employment. Transit also rose, from 4.6% to 5.0%, an increase of 9%".

"In five metropolitan areas, the increase was between 70% and 80% (Richmond, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Raleigh, Jacksonville and Orlando). Only five metropolitan areas experienced market share increases less than 20% (New Orleans, Salt Lake City, Rochester, Buffalo and Oklahoma City). Nonetheless, the rate of increase in the work at home market share exceeded that of transit in 49 of the 52 major metropolitan areas. Transit's increase was greater only in Washington, Seattle and Nashville".

Why are more people telecommuting these days? One major reason is the rise in oil prices. Commuting for 2 hours everyday is not only expensive in terms of fuel consumption, but can be exhausting to an already stressed and over-worked employee. While there are drawbacks of telecommuting (working at home means decreased face-to-face interaction among employees, isolation of employee from workplace can lead to negative or unproductive activities, distractions etc) it is becoming a more interesting and researched topic in the transportation and planning areas. Traffic congestion in many North American cities is egregious; this has only exacerbated commuting times and air pollution -telecommuting is seen as a partial solution to this.

Telecommuting has even more potential to grow in North American cities. I am not too sure how common it is in Vancouver or Toronto, but I think it will become more popular as industries recognize the energy use reductions and cost-effectiveness of this phenomenon. Telecommuting might serve as interim process of adapting to climate change and the rising costs of oil. Indeed, it may justify the expansion of the commercial, financial and information technology sectors to open offices in the suburbs to provide jobs closer to where people are living. But, increasingly, more and more people are moving out of the suburbs back to the inner cities (I don't have data to support this particular claim, but the data is out there). If telecommuting does not bring about more industries in the suburbs, it can still result in reductions of hundreds of thousands of carbon dioxide emissions due to the number of cars taken of the road. This can alleviate harmful pollutants and improve the quality of our air.

Key Message: Telecommuting is on the rise in the U.S. (and potentially in Canada too). It can reduce the number of cars on our highways and thereby reduce per capita energy consumption and traffic congestion -both of which are sustainable. However, it can also lead to decreased social capital (if you think about it) as we advance into a more cyberspace world communicating via blackberries and computers instead of face-to-face.

Zetland's keynote address...

in Washington DC at a conference called "Bridging Knowledge Gaps in Water Management" at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. David Zetland wrote a guest post for us back in June about the importance of good local water management. He continues this discussion --building on points in his new book "The End of Abundance" -- and what policymakers need to pay attention to. Water is not priced correctly in the U.S. Zetland says, and information on water is lacking. Zetland's keynote starts at the 10 minute mark in the clip below.



People don't always know the cost of tap water in their household. Sure, if you are paying based on how much you consume (volumetric pricing) than you probably have an idea. But flat rates (all you can eat) don't tell the person the information they should know about how much their water costs per unit of consumption. Zetland thinks the U.S. Federal government should take action in assembling this information to make water management and water pricing more transparent.

People in the U.S. are attuned to markets and not community. Australia and Singapore have brought about stringent measures on water conservation. Yes, they don't have a lot of water, but residents of these countries have collectively decided to change their lifestyles based on water limits. They have adapted. In the U.S., price is what changes peoples' behaviour says Zetland. If water was priced based on scarcity, then prices would soar especially in places like Nevada, California and Arizona for example. The fact that the U.S. population is hovering around 308 million people, and in a time when water scarcity is becoming more rampant, the need for good water management, education and information is more critical than ever.

His bottom line is that we need to first understand our water systems, seek information about it, understand its fragility and start to price our water equitably and effectively. This also means that if farmers (or the agricultural sector) are allotted more water than residents living in cities and if they don't use up their allotted amount, then a market should be created for the farmers to sell that excess water at a price that reflects its value to other water users.

When I leave graduate school, my ideal first job would be to work as a water educator/planner disseminating information about water systems and water management and engaging citizens in this salient topic. Ultimately, the more information we produce on this matter, the more we can pressure our policymakers to get it right. Canada, like the U.S., has a long way to go in terms of water education and pricing of water.

A dialogue on the importance of water resources...

For those water enthusiasts out there, take a couple of minutes to read an article titled "who owns water? Experts debate pricing, infrastructure investment". I don't see this article as a debate per se, but as a dialogue where ideas and knowledge are exchanged and discussion emerges on how to move forward. Anyone looking for a general overview of the water situation in the U.S. (water pricing, climate change, groundwater, technology, policy) should read this article.

The discussion is between Sheila Olmstead (an economist), an engineer named Peter Gleick, former Arizona Governor and WWF trustee, Bruce Babbitt and Gretchen McClain, senior vice president of an engineering company called ITT. Very different perspectives are shared.

Also, check out these links on recent news pertaining to water:

The United Nations’ recent declaration of a binding human right to water and sanitation (Peter Gleick's blog)

America's water infrastructure challenges (The Infrastructurist)