Getting it wrong on oil and human rights

There is plenty of misleading information on tar-sands.

Mark Milke’s opinion piece on Canada’s tar sands last week is littered with misleading information (“Does the EU value emissions over human rights?”, 17-23 November”). 

Error I: Tar sands are not that carbon-intensive.

In defending this point, proponents often refer to a much-criticised study by IHS-Cambridge Energy Research, which found that crude oil from tar sands produces 5%-15% more greenhouse-gas emissions than the average crude oil consumed in the US. A recent assessment of 13 scientific studies found that fuel from tar sands produces 18%-49% more greenhouse gases than the oil conventionally consumed in the EU; an independent, peer-reviewed study by a Stanford University professor financed by the European Commission put the difference at 23%.

Error II: Producers are reducing the carbon footprint of crude oil from tar sands.

The greenhouse gas-intensity of crude oil from tar sands fell between 1990 and 2008. The reduction has, however, levelled off in recent years. Looking ahead, it may be more than a decade before new emissions-reducing technologies are viable. Moreover, tar sands are already Canada’s fastest-growing source of greenhouse-gas emissions and, with plans to expand tar sands significantly, emissions are predicted to triple by 2020.

Error III: Canada’s oil is ethical oil.

This mantra has become one of the main arguments put forward by the Canadian government. In short, Canadian oil is better because Canada’s human-rights record is better than that of, say, Saudi Arabia and Iran. It should be noted, though, that there are serious allegations that the rights of indigenous Canadians – including the internationally recognised right to free, prior, informed consent – have been violated by producers of tar-sands oil. But there is a broader point: the ongoing reliance on fossil fuels is unethical because of their effect on the climate.

Error IV: Companies producing oil from tar sands are stringently regulated.

This was not an argument made by Milke, but it is commonly put forward by others. Canada’s federal environmental commissioner recently stated that “decisions about oil sands projects have been based on incomplete, poor or non-existent environmental information that has, in turn, led to poorly informed decisions”. He said this in reference to inadequate monitoring of air-borne toxic substances produced in tar-sands operations and of downstream effects.

The EU should continue to set an example for countries like ours that are failing to take the steps needed to reduce emissions. Adopting the European Commission’s recommendations for the fuel-quality directive is the responsible choice.

Andrea Harden-Donahue

Energy and climate campaigner

Ottawa 

Maude Barlow

National chairperson, Council of Canadians

Ottawa