David Suzuki: It will take more than rebranding to make tar sands oil “ethical”

Ripping a page—or the cover— from fellow Conservative and former tobacco industry lobbyist Ezra Levant’s book, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his new environment minister, Peter Kent, have taken to referring to the product of the Alberta tar sands as “ethical oil”.

The Prime Minister and Mr. Levant go back a long way. It was Mr. Levant who reluctantly stepped aside as the Alliance candidate in Calgary Southwest so that Mr. Harper could run in a by-election there in 2002. But the “ethical oil” argument they promote has holes as big as the ones in the ground around Fort McMurray.

To start, the logic is faulty. Just because a country or society is considered “ethical” does not mean everything it produces or exports is ethical. If we are going to delve into the ethics of the issue, we must look at the ethics of energy overall. That means considering the impacts of various energy systems on people and the environment.

Here, the science is troubling. It shows that the Alberta tar sands contribute to about five per cent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions and are the country’s fastest growing source of emissions. To date, they have disturbed 600 square kilometres of boreal forest with little or no chance of true reclamation, use enormous amounts of water, and pollute the surrounding air and water.

This past summer, an independent, peer-reviewed scientific study showed that toxic byproducts from the tar sands extraction industry are poisoning the Athabasca River, putting downstream First Nations communities and the fish they eat at risk. Health studies show these First Nations communities already have elevated rare cancers associated with exposure to such toxins.

If this is the most “ethical” source of oil we can find, we need to ask other questions about the moral purity of our intensively processed bitumen. For example, if we sell the oil to countries with poor human-rights records, like China, does that affect the product’s “ethical” nature? And how “ethical” are the companies operating in the tar sands; for example, Exxon Mobil, well-known sponsor of climate-change disinformation campaigns; BP, responsible for last year’s massive oily disaster in the Gulf of Mexico; or PetroChina? There’s also the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on our children and grandchildren, which to me is an intergenerational crime.

In this light, wouldn’t energy from technologies or sources that limit the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change and that have a minimal environmental and health impacts be far more ethical than fossil fuels? And, from an economic perspective, wouldn’t these more ethical technologies or fuel sources be doubly attractive to foreign buyers if they came from an “ethical” country like Canada?

As award-winning Alberta author Andrew Nikiforuk has argued, with proper development, the tar sands could help provide Canada with the oil and money we need to shift to a low-carbon economy. But major changes are needed. Environmental regulation and monitoring must be strengthened. Pollution and related health problems must be addressed. More of the revenue must go to Canadians rather than fossil fuel companies. And a national carbon tax would help us move from oil to less-polluting energy sources.

The problem is, no matter what Ezra Levant and his friends in government say, oil has never been about “ethics”. It has always been about money. Those who argue the case for “ethical oil” should work to ensure that our energy needs are met in a truly ethical way, now and into the future. In the end, the only truly ethical solution is to phase out oil. The black eye that tar sands oil is sporting can’t be remedied with meaningless phrases such as “ethical oil”.

To be seen as truly ethical when it comes to energy policy, Canada must slow down tar sands development, clean up the environmental problems, implement a national carbon tax, improve the regulatory and monitoring regime, and make sure that Canadians are reaping their fair share of the revenues. We must also start taking clean energy seriously. Rather than subsidizing the tar sands and all the fossil fuel industry through massive tax breaks, we should be investing in energy technologies that will benefit our health, economy, and climate.

It might also help if Canada’s environment minister spent more time protecting the environment rather than appeasing the oil industry and its apologists.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Comments

12 Comments

mitchel44

Feb 1, 2011 at 6:55pm

ba ha ha ha ha

keep spinning Mr 10th level maggot himself

how about you do as you say, and ease your carbon footprint down to average size

once you reach that level, then open your mouth

Gerry Hiles

Feb 1, 2011 at 6:58pm

What's missing here is that - so I've read - it takes the natural gas equivalent of 4 barrels of oil (energy) to produce 1 barrel of oil ... so there is no economic sense to it, in addition to the above arguments.

Bruce Martindale

Feb 2, 2011 at 8:50am

Last Night, in Terrace, I heard an Enbridge official talk about having to ship oil to China through Northern BC and our Western Coastal waters, because the Tars Sands needs new markets to expand and diversify. At one time he invoked the "Ethical Oil" idea, and talked about how China would just get its oil from a less ethical vendor if we do not deliver. He also said, perhaps more ominously, that without the pipeline the Chinese market will be met, perhaps by rail through Prince Rupert, a much more dangerous prospect than a pipeline . Why are they so concerned about what oil China is using? Why are we expanding the unregulated Tar Sands before we clean up the first 10 years of no regulations? What about the unethical oil that eastern Canada is importing from OPEC countries and dictator run economies?, Why are we not looking at replacing imports first through a Canada owned pipeline going west to east before we sell our children's future to Asia? Why is our government letting the national energy policies of the US and China dicate our citizens needs? The answers point to international ownership (not just corporate, but actually other nation states) of a our national resource, and political and corporate collusion that verges on the criminal, and will probably be judged that way by history.

Second Nation

Feb 2, 2011 at 10:29am

Today I am wearing an "ethical business suit"; it was made in Canada.

I can not be certain however that my shoes, socks, tie or underwear are ethical. Boy I sure hope so. I'd hate to think that my purchase of socks was contributing to global terrorism.

Steve Y

Feb 2, 2011 at 4:40pm

Gerry, if that were true, the oilsands wouldn't exist.

David is right, the oilsands need to be developed, but we need to tax it, regulate it and make sure the jobs provided go to unemployed CANADIANS. I don't want to hear anything from a fictional "labour shortage" again. How's that labour shortage working out for you unemployed Canadians? How's that labour shortage working out for you DTES?

James Moyce

Feb 2, 2011 at 7:55pm

Steve Y, the comments here are much more liberally scrutinized than on larger media platforms. While you're grinning about your little jab at foreign workers made it through - please take the time to understand how our needlessly opulent Western lifestyles contribute to the great global imbalance that exists (that creates the environments where these workers flee to Canada from).

Gerry, you're right. Those figures will fluctuate, based on how much industry money goes into the re-branding of the upcoming Mackenzie Pipeline, which should be getting a lot more attention that it's been getting. This pipeline's purpose is to bring natural gas from Northern onshore projects, 1,196km through the sensitive ecosystems of the NWT, to "North American markets" - one of the biggest consumers will be Fort McMurray. Basically, we'll be shipping, as we already do, one of the cleanest burning fuels on earth, to heat water, to produce one of the dirtiest.

As for ethics - Ezra Levant, the heart of the "ethical oil" campaign, used to be a tobacco lobbyist -- plus: he's been at odds with the Human Rights Commission for quite some time. Harper and Kent...pathetic! They might as well just let Ezra do the talking, or the oil and gas executives themselves, or the numerous Edmonton and Calgary-based industry-funded front organizations that advocate development in Alberta. This is all playing out predictably, like a poorly directed soap opera.

money changes everything

Feb 2, 2011 at 10:42pm

"with proper development, the tar sands could help provide Canada with the oil and money we need to shift to a low-carbon economy"

money changes everything

Feb 3, 2011 at 5:45pm

Including rational thought.

@Steve Y

Feb 5, 2011 at 1:03pm

Actually it is true. It is only through massive subsidization (your tax dollars) that allow the tar sands to be profitable.... I truly never believed I would see the day Suzuki endorsed the tar sands.

Snoppy

Feb 5, 2011 at 6:09pm

"I truly never believed I would see the day Suzuki endorsed the tar sands."

Someone needs to take some remedial reading comprehension classes, it seems.