A letter submitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the State Department gives new weight to concerns the proposed $8 billion Keystone XL pipeline, destined to carry crude from the Alberta oilsands to export facilities along the Gulf of Mexico, will have significant climate impacts.

The EPA letter suggests existing analyses – which downplay the importance of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project – are out of date and require revision in light of low global oil prices.

Due to the plummeting of oil prices and related market changes “it is important to revisit [the] conclusions” of previous reports, EPA told the State Department.

“Given recent large declines in oil prices and the uncertainty of oil price projections, the additional low prices scenario in the (State report) should be given additional weight during decision making, due to the potential implications of lower oil prices on project impacts, especially greenhouse gas emissions.”

The State Department is due to release a revised analysis of the Keystone XL project and is currently gathering comments from the EPA and other agencies.

A recent report in the journal Nature singled out the oilsands as one of the world’s carbon deposits that must remain in the ground if global temperatures are to remain within the 2 degrees Celsius warming limit recommended by policy makers and scientists.  

Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline is dependent on a steady flow of oil from the estimated 160 billion barrels in the oilsands. Yet the drop in prices has recently led to abandoned projects and major cuts to the workforce. Suncor, the oilsands’ largest operator, recently announced it will eliminate 1,000 jobs, Shell Canada will cuts its workforce by 10 per cent and Cenovus Energy confirmed its investment in the area will drop by 25 per cent.

A Republican-led Congress is attempting to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline with new legislation, although President Barack Obama has been clear about his plan to veto any bills that would allow construction to begin.

In 2013, Obama indicated his final decision on the pipeline will come down to the project’s climate impact, saying “our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”

In its letter to the State Department this week, the EPA said carbon emissions from the pipeline — which has the capacity to carry 830,000 barrels of oil per day — would add up to the equivalent of 5.7 million new passenger vehicles on the road.

“Over the 50-year lifetime of the pipeline, this could translate into releasing as much as 1.37 billion more tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,” the letter states.

Alberta premier Jim Prentice travelled to Washington, D.C. this week to lobby Congress and the Obama administration to approve the pipeline.

Prentice recently told NPR that Alberta “has the most exacting standards around in terms of carbon emissions, the regulatory framework that surrounds industrial emissions.”

When it comes to the venting and flaring of gasses with high warming potentials like methane, Prentice said, “in all these areas, I think we’re world class.”

Yet the EPA seems to have come to its own conclusion regarding Alberta’s greenhouse gas regulations, stating, “until ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of oil sands are more successful and widespread…development of oil sands crude represents a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions.”

Canada currently has no regulation to limit emissions from the oil and gas industry, and recently Prime Minister Stephen Harper said it would be “crazy” to introduce such rules.

The EPA letter notes “oil sands crude has significantly higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than other crudes” and that the use of oilsands crude creates emissions 17 per cent greater than the use of crude refined in the U.S. on a well-to-wheels basis.

Premier Prentice argued Canada will continue to move crude to the U.S. with or without the Keystone XL pipeline, suggesting rail will pick up the slack. In its letter the EPA appears to agree with this point, suggesting oilsands producers would likely stomach the high cost of rail transport.

But the letter goes on to point to the additional risks associated with transporting large quantities of bitumen, which “can have different impacts than spills of conventional oil.” A recent government-commissioned study in Canada acknowledges there are large gaps in existing knowledge when it comes to the effects of bitumen spills.

Concerns over the pipeline route, especially in Nebraska, requires greater spill preparedness and a clear commitment from TransCanada that the company will assume responsibility for any spills and remediation should a release occur. Spills remain “a concern for citizens and businesses relying on groundwater resources crossed by the route,” the EPA letter notes.

Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, called the letter a “damning report” and said with it, “the president’s got every nail he needs to finally close the coffin on this boondoggle.”

Image Credit: Kris Krug

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by sustainable energy economist, Mark Jaccard. It was originally published on his blog, Sustainability Suspicions.

On May 7th 2013, I was among twelve Canadian climate scientists and energy experts who sent a letter addressed to Natural Resources Minister the Hon. Joe Oliver.

As professionals who have devoted our careers to understanding the climate and energy systems, we are concerned that the Minister’s advocacy in support of new pipelines and expanded fossil fuel production is inconsistent with the imperative of addressing the climate change threat. We are going to have to wean ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels. Thus our choices about fossil fuel infrastructure carry significant consequences for today’s and future generations.

Readings of atmospheric CO2 are approaching a new milestone of 400 ppm — a reminder of the rapidly shrinking amount of “space” remaining before we risk committing ourselves to increasingly unmanageable and costly levels of climatic change.

Here is the text of the letter:

The Honourable Joe Oliver, P.C., M.P.

Minister of Natural Resources

Parliament Hill

Sir William Logan Building, 21st Floor

580 Booth Street

Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4

May 7, 2013

Dear Minister Oliver,

As climate scientists, economists and policy experts who have devoted our careers to understanding the climate and energy systems, we share your view that “climate change is a very serious issue.”

But some of your recent comments give us significant cause for concern. In short, we are not convinced that your advocacy in support of new pipelines and expanded fossil fuel production takes climate change into account in a meaningful way.

Avoiding dangerous climate change will require significantly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and making a transition to cleaner energy.

The infrastructure we build today will shape future choices about energy. If we invest in expanding fossil fuel production, we risk locking ourselves in to a high carbon pathway that increases greenhouse gas emissions for years and decades to come.

The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) “450 scenario” looks at the implications of policy choices designed to give the world a fair chance of avoiding 2˚C of global warming. In that scenario, world oil demand is projected to peak this decade and fall to 10 per cent below current levels over the coming decades. The IEA concludes that, absent significant deployment of carbon capture and storage, over two-thirds of the world’s current fossil fuel reserves cannot be commercialized. Other experts have reached similar conclusions.

We are at a critical moment. In the words of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, “each additional ton of greenhouse gases emitted commits us to further change and greater risks.” The longer we delay the transition to low-carbon economy, the more drastic, disruptive and costly that transition will be. The implication is clear: the responsibility for preventing dangerous climate change rests with today's policymakers.

The IEA also warns of the consequences of our current path. If governments do little to address emissions, energy demand will continue to grow rapidly and will continue to be met mostly with fossil fuels — a scenario that the Agency estimates could likely lead to 3.6˚C of global warming.

Yet it is this very dangerous pathway  — not the “450 scenario” linked to avoiding 2˚C of global warming — that you seem to be advocating when promoting Canadian fossil fuel development at home and abroad.

If we truly wish to have a “serious debate” about climate change and energy in this country, as you have rightly called for, we must start by acknowledging that our choices about fossil fuel infrastructure carry significant consequences for today’s and future generations.

We urge you to make the greenhouse gas impacts of new fossil fuel infrastructure a central consideration in your government’s decision-making and advocacy activities concerning Canada’s natural resources.

We would be very happy to provide you with a full briefing on recent scientific findings on climate change and energy development.

Thank you for your consideration of these important matters.

Sincerely,

J.P. Bruce, OC, FRSC

James Byrne

Professor, Geography

University of Lethbridge

Simon Donner

Assistant Professor, Geography

University of British Columbia

J.R. Drummond, FRSC

Professor, Physics and Atmospheric Science

Dalhousie University

Mark Jaccard, FRSC

Professor, Resource and Environmental Management

Simon Fraser University

David Keith

Professor, Applied Physics, Public Policy

Harvard University

Damon Matthews

Associate Professor, Geography, Planning and Environment

Concordia University

Gordon McBean, CM, FRSC

Professor, Centre for Environment and Sustainability

Western University

David Sauchyn

Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative

University of Regina

John Smol, FRSC

Professor, Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change

Queen’s University

John M.R. Stone

Adjunct Research Professor, Geography and Environment

Carleton University

Kirsten Zickfeld

Assistant Professor, Geography

Simon Fraser University

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The following is an email we sent to Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver:

Dear Minister Oliver:

Thanks for taking the time to read this email. We know you are very busy, flying back and forth to the United States and now Europe, making the case for Alberta’s oil sands to its many skeptics, while at the same time arguing with those “radical” environmental groups opposed to the Northern Gateway project at home in Canada. Now it seems Al Gore has also got you fired up over comments published over the weekend that your government’s oil sands strategy “hurts Canada.”

It’s a tough job being the Natural Resources Minister these days, between the growing opposition to proposed pipeline projects you’re pushing for, plus taking all of those orders from Stephen Harper as he plots the next cabinet shuffle. All of that pressure must explain why you and your ministry appear to have lost focus lately. How else to account for the confusing statements you’ve been making about climate change, which bare little resemblance to the concerns Canadians have about the impact of global warming on our planet?

Truth be told, you’re kind of embarrassing us Canadians, especially in front of our friends south of the border. It happened again recently when you were in Chicago heavily promoting the oil sands as the “greener alternative.” Then, last month, you claimed former NASA scientist James Hansen was “crying wolf” with his “exaggerated” comments about the environmental threats of oil sands development. That had us burying our heads behind our Tim Hortons cups back at home. We’re bracing for what you might tell the Europeans this week.

Unfortunately, you’re making some equally baffling comments in Canada, too. Remember last month, when you told reporters in Montreal that society isn’t as concerned about climate change? You cited information from “scientists” who you claim argue that climate change fears are “exaggerated.” [We noticed you really like that word – exaggerated.]  Unfortunately, when asked to identify those scientists, you couldn’t name one. Your staff was quick to follow up with media, but that response was disappointing. It turns out one of your key information sources is controversial author Lawrence Solomon, a climate-change denier who, by the way, isn’t a scientist.

At DeSmog Canada, we’re convinced you’re getting bad advice. We’re concerned about the quality of the ministers briefing file you’ve been given. In fact, that’s the real reason we’re writing. We think it’s time to return that well-thumbed copy of Solomon’s 2008 book, The Deniers, to the Ottawa Public Library (those late charges must really be adding up!) and expand your reading list.

In fact, we want to help get you better educated about the climate change debate. There’s a ton of research out there, from actual scientists, which shows climate change is in fact a real threat. We know you have a lot of meetings to attend and speeches to give and that you can’t read everything (and your staff isn’t that helpful in this area), so we’re recommending a few sources to round out your knowledge.

Since the economy is something you talk about a lot, we recommend you start by reading the latest carbon stocks/assets evaluation report from Carbon Tracker and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. These are some smart people that know a thing or two about economics and the environment.

The report calls on regulators, governments and investors to rethink energy business models against carbon budgets to prevent what they call a “$6 trillion carbon bubble.” The report raises serious questions about how the financial system’s ability to act on the long-term risk of climate change impacts. “Smart investors can see that investing in companies that rely solely or heavily on constantly replenishing reserves of fossil fuels is becoming a very risky decision,” said Lord Stern, Chair of the Institute.

What’s more, HSBC oil and gas analyst Paul Spedding told The Guardian recently that the carbon tracker report “makes it clear that 'business as usual' is not a viable option for the fossil fuel industry in the long term.” Even rating agencies such as Moody’s, and Standard and Poor's, are talking about the downgrading of the credit ratings of oil companies within a few years as a result of this carbon bubble risk, according to The Guardian article. For a bit more information, check out this map that shows which global stock exchanges are most exposed.

Unfortunately, this is the just the tip of the melting iceberg. There’s so much more research about climate change that we think you should get your hands on. At DeSmog Canada, we’re here to help.

We’re convinced that if you review those polling results on your desk a little more closely, you’ll see that Canadians care deeply about the environment. They also want to see that their government does too. Rather than deny climate change is a problem, while demonizing environmentalists and stopping scientists from speaking out, wouldn’t it be better for both the environment and the economy if you listened to what the experts and concerned citizens have to say?

We’re confident that, as the next federal election draws near, you and your government will start to expand your circle of influence beyond oil sands lobbyists. To help make this transition easier, we’ll keep sending you some reading material to help with your education on climate change and the long-term economic impacts of ignoring this global crisis. We think you’ll see, as most Canadians do, that climate change is very real.

Regards,

Jim Hoggan

DeSmog Canada

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.