Four major oil
companies demand a global carbon tax because it would force power generation
plants to switch from coal to natural gas, which emits only half the amount of CO2.
Cathay Pacific, the world’s third largest airline, demands the tax
because it would bring in a lot of extra cash until other airlines are as fuel
efficient as they are. These are examples how a universal carbon tax will
reduce the world’s greenhouse gas emissions without having to resort to
subsidies and complicated duty arrangements.
A global carbon tax would make green energy cheaper than that from
fossil fuel. That price differential would force Alberta’s oil companies to go green with the large
amount of energy required to extract the oil. That would enable Canada to meet
its Copenhagen commitment. At present many countries believe we will not be
able to meet that commitment. Until a global agreement has been reached, demand
for oil will keep rising, no matter who supplies it. If Canada would renege on
its export commitments that oil would soon be replaced by Venezuela or Saudi
Arabia oil and there will be no difference in the world’s GHG emissions. This fact is overlooked by more than a few
environmentalists and politicians. In http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/vancouver-s-green-brand-be-blackened-oil-pipelines-says-mayor#comment-260670 you can see that Vancouver’s mayor Robertson and councilor Reimer both make
statements suggesting that the amount of oil we ship has an impact on the
world’s greenhouse gas emission. Mayor Robertson rejects the Kinder Morgan and
Enbridge pipelines partly on that basis. Carbon tax, which is the most powerful
greening tool we have, is not even mentioned . He talks about creating more green jobs and rising energy prices do that.
Objection to pipelines based on fear of spills is a valid
one. The technical and regulatory details of oil transport are not discussed in the main media and as a result
many people believe that the new pipelines will be just as bad as the old ones
and that nothing has changed since Exxon Valdez. The Vancouver Observer invites
reader’s comments. I left one under the heading “Oil spills”. Those familiar
with this blog will not find anything new but for those who only see this post,
please look at the previous one as well. It gives a summary of each post.
The”Oil spills” comment has been shown for two days and
so far 13 people agreed while only 2 disagreed. That is encouraging. Here is
the comment:
Oil spills
One of the
problems with oil pipelines is that until recently their leak detection systems
could not detect spills smaller than 1 ½ % of the flow. Even for larger flows
signals are sometimes misinterpreted because there are many false alarms. That
happened in the Kalamazoo spill where operators thought the alarm was caused by
a bubble in the line or a blockage and shut-off was delayed by 17 hours. In the
US only 5% of the spills between 2002 and 2012 were detected by instruments.
The investigation of the Kalamazoo disaster also revealed that there is
virtually no oversight nor strict regulations how to deal with cracks in pipelines.
Enbridge used inadequate crack detection equipment, knew for 5 years that there
were 15000 cracks in the line and only repaired them by trying to prioritize
them. Nobody ordered a shutdown and some of those cracks grew in size and
linked together to cause the rupture.
On September 1 st
2013 I sent Enbridge an email which contains my observations with the following note: “Having seen
how much opposition there is based on past problems I have included at the end
of my article a number of questions which may change opponents minds if you can once in a while point out
how things have improved on specific points”. While Enbridge thanked me for my
support, few of those important matters are discussed in the media. They also
include questions about the marine transport. A lot has changed since Exxon
Valdez and it is important to know what the real concerns are. Hardly anybody
has the time to read the Termpol report but people want to know where the safe
hiding places are awaiting storms, who gives approval to proceed when bad
weather is forecasted or whales have been spotted, how have the concerns raised
at the enquiry been resolved, how do the additional navigation aids work, are
ships traced constantly from shore to avoid a Queen of the North disaster, how
do modern tankers differ from first generation double hull tankers. Please
write to the government, Enbridge and Kinder Morgan to obtain answers about
their instrumentation, maintenance procedures and regulations to be followed.
When enough people do that we may get a more open discussion about these
matters and press for guarantees before
it is too late
Since the existing pipelines are full, Alberta’s landlocked oil has to
be sold at bargain prices, costing the Alberta economy $20-$30 billion per
year. Obviously this causes Ottawa to lose billions of dollars in tax revenue
which could be used to help the provinces with infrastructure, services for
remote communities, healthcare and education. The push for new pipelines is
therefore understandable but it has to be done the right way. For those who are
concerned about the global greenhouse gas emission, please campaign for a
global carbon tax because that is the only way to reduce the oil flow. Until
that has been achieved demand for oil keeps rising and it makes little
difference who supplies it. Sure extraction from the oil sands uses a lot of
energy but so do some of the newer techniques elsewhere. That is why green energy
has to become more competitive by taxing all fossil fuels. 4 Major oil
companies and one major airline demand a global carbon tax. They are well ahead
of politicians who still believe that carbon tax hurts the economy while most
studies show the opposite.
