Lougheed's Warning: Tarsands and the environment


Tonington
#1
Clash over oil sands inevitable: Lougheed


KIRK MAKIN
Globe and Mail Update
August 14, 2007 at 2:48 PM EDT

Calgary — A war is looming between Alberta and the federal government over pollution caused by oil sands development that will far surpass any previous federal-provincial battle in its political and economic stakes, former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed predicted Tuesday.
Mr. Lougheed told a Canadian Bar Association convention that a ferocious constitutional clash is all but inevitable, pitting the federal right to protect the environment against the provincial right to develop natural resources.
Mr. Lougheed – who was at the epicentre of similar, historic conflicts in the 1980s involving the National Energy Plan and the repatriation of the Canada Constitution – said that the clash will be “10 times greater” than federal-provincial conflicts of the past.
“The issue is there front and centre, and coming to a head,” he said. “I think the issues we saw before – and I was involved in many of them – were important. I don't minimize them. But they aren't even close to the issue I have just described.”
He said that Alberta's desire to bypass toughened federal environmental laws will cause considerable dispute within the province itself, and will “cause significant stress to Canadian unity.
“The government of Alberta, with its acceleration of oil sands operations, will in my judgment be seen as the major villain in all of this in the eyes of the public across Canada,” he said.
A major source of greenhouse gas and water pollution, the tar sands project is expected to double in size within the next few years.
Mr. Lougheed predicted that the dispute will very likely go before the Supreme Court as a constitutional reference, forcing the Court to decide whether the British North America Act gives the province the right to develop its energy resources as it sees fits.
“My surmise is that we're into this constitutional legal conflict soon,” he said. “And my surmise is that – and this is strong stuff – national unity will be threatened if the court upholds federal environmental legislation and it causes major damage to the Alberta oil sands and our economy.”
Mr. Lougheed said he is convinced that public concern for the environmental is no passing fad and will only increase pressure future minority governments in Ottawa to apply strict pollution guidelines.
Ontario may face a less extreme version of the oil sands constitutional battle, since it will be under great pressure from the federal environmental laws with regard to its auto industry, he added.
Mr. Lougheed told reporters after his speech that it is far from sure which side of the conflict will win at the Supreme Court, particularly considering the Court's penchant for interfering in questions of government policy.
However, he said that, in his opinion, the BNA Act clearly guarantees provinces the “exclusive” right to decide how to develop, conserve and manage natural resources.
In his speech, Mr. Lougheed also:
- Criticized successive Alberta governments for allowing the province's Heritage Savings Stress Fund to “wither,” instead of steadily injecting more money into it. He said the fund should not contain more than $50-billion, not the $12-$13-billion it currently holds.
- Expressed his amazement that there have not been regular first ministers conference held, led by the federal government, to thrash out important political issues.
“I think there should be … an obligation on whoever the prime minister is to have a full-scale, televised first minister's conference each year. I think it is an embarrassment that that has been allowed to lapse.”
- Repeated a concern he first expressed last fall that tar sands development is proceeding in a haphazard way which threatens the environment. “But there is so much momentum there that it isn't going to be easy to slow the process,” he noted.
 
Mr. Richards
#2
Tarsands;

1:Leading cause of GHG emmissions in Canada
2: Insanely energy intensive. While conventional oil uses one barrel of oil in the process of extraction 100 barrels of oil, the tarsands use one barrel of oil to extract 2 barrels of crude
3: Use 1000 cubic feet of natural gas per barrel of SCO
4. Up to 4.5 barrels of fresh water per barrel of SCO
5. Cause loss of habitat resulting in depletion of migratory birds and caribou
6. Destroy huge quantities of forest and marsh/peat
7. Drain water tables for up to 100 KM around a pit.
8. Ponds of toxic waste that can be seen by the naked eye from the space shuttle

I think before any further development occurs, we need to address these minor issues
 
Toro
#3
Yeah, its called "independence."
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Richards View Post

Tarsands;

1:Leading cause of GHG emmissions in Canada
2: Insanely energy intensive. While conventional oil uses one barrel of oil in the process of extraction 100 barrels of oil, the tarsands use one barrel of oil to extract 2 barrels of crude
3: Use 1000 cubic feet of natural gas per barrel of SCO
4. Up to 4.5 barrels of fresh water per barrel of SCO
5. Cause loss of habitat resulting in depletion of migratory birds and caribou
6. Destroy huge quantities of forest and marsh/peat
7. Drain water tables for up to 100 KM around a pit.
8. Ponds of toxic waste that can be seen by the naked eye from the space shuttle

I think before any further development occurs, we need to address these minor issues

Alberta seems bound and determined to get all the oil out of the ground and sold as soon as possible no matter what the environmental cost. I've been to the oil sands around Ft. McMurray and they are a mess. If the oil sands developement had been anywhere near Edmonton or Calgary, they would have been shut down long ago.. Successive Alberta governments, starting with Ralph Kline have completely sold out to the oil companies and northern Alberta will pay dearly unless the feds can find a way to solve this.
 
YoungJoonKim
#5
Well, its people seem to be so HAPPY with their economic conditions, although its only TEMPORARY.
 
Tonington
#6
I met many Albertans this summer who don't like the damage being done up north, Albertans love their wilderness. They also love their prosperity and don't want to see it whittled away. Who would?
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

I met many Albertans this summer who don't like the damage being done up north, Albertans love their wilderness. They also love their prosperity and don't want to see it whittled away. Who would?

Yeah but.......at who's cost. Alberta's pollution is more than the rest of Canada together.
 
Tonington
#8
That is the issue isn't it?
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

That is the issue isn't it?

That and the fact that Aberta could have a very confortable income from their oil for fifty or sixty years. That government want to get it all sold in twenty. Anybody checked the "Alberta Heritage Fund" lately? Wonder where the money went?
 
Tonington
#10
Well, when they put $1.7 Billion in then turn around and take $1 Billion out for funding...

Look at what Norway's fund is at these days for a comparison. Alberta hasn't had any cohesive strategy for finance ministers. Their basically living off the interest it generates. Still, better than any other province.
 

Similar Threads

10
WARNING! WARNING! McCain alert!
by Stretch | Sep 5th, 2008
16
Bell Canada >> WARNING WARNING WARNING
by exbellcustomer | Jul 3rd, 2008
4
Our Lives and Our Environment
by CamTheCat | Nov 2nd, 2005