A side event at the UNFCCC COP20 climate negotiations in Lima, Peru was disrupted Monday when climate activists and individuals representing communities on the frontlines of energy development flooded the presentation hall and staged a ‘walk out’ on fossil fuels.

The event was hosted by the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) and the Global CCS Institute and featured Lord Nicholas Stern and David Hone, Shell’s chief climate advisor, as speakers.

The talk, originally entitled “Why Divest from Fossil Fuels When a Future with Low Emission Fossil Fuel Energy Use is Already a Reality?,” was inexplicably renamed “How Can we Reconcile Climate Targets with Energy Demand Growth” and focused on the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a technological solution to carbon emissions that cause global warming.

A citizen group formed outside the venue holding a banner that read “get fossil fuels out of COP” and used the acronym CCS to spell out “Corporate Capture ≠ Solution.”

Civil society groups gather outside a fossil fuel sponsored event discussing carbon capture and storage. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

The protest was designed to “defend our rights from these companies and corporations that are attacking our people,” Ana Maytik Avirama, from the Corporate Europe Observatory Foundation, told a crowd gathered outside the presentation pavilion.

“We need to keep the fossil fuel lobby out of these negotiations, out of our governments and out of the decisions that are trying to protect our livelihoods and our lives,” she said.

Godwin Uyi Ojo, executive director of environmental rights action in Nigeria attended the action to protest Shell’s presence at the climate negotiations.

“Enough is enough,” he said.

Godwin Uyi Ojo speaks to a crowd gathered outside the IETA event. "Leave the oil in the soil, the coal in the hole, the tar sands in the sand," he said. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

“Shell is in that conference promoting dirty energy. They say dirty energy has a place in the future…what you see there is greenwashing. That’s why people are so angry at Shell. We are tired of these antics.”

Bronwen Tucker, a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation said the event, which was sponsored by Shell and Chevron, was designed to discredit grassroots fossil fuel divestment campaigns and tout CCS as a climate solution.

“CCS has been labeled the unicorn of the climate change world because instead of taking emissions out of the atmosphere it would just store them, but it’s an unproven technology that’s prohibitively expensive, much more expensive than renewable energy and other solutions that have been put forward,” she said, adding the event is emblematic of a long-term problem at COP of fossil fuel industry influence in the climate decision-making process.

Bronwen Tucker from the Canadian Youth Delegation told DeSmog CCS is an "unproven technology" that directs investment funds away from renewable energy. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

Lord Nicholas Stern, Chair of the Grantham Research Institute of Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, told DeSmog CCS has the potential to play a huge role in climate action.

“We have to take 50 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent now, globally, down to about zero by the end of this century.”

“We’ve not got many options. And in my view energy efficiency can do the half of it, and the more it does, the better,” Stern said, adding renewables will play a major role as well as some nuclear.

Lord Nicholas Stern discusses CCS with DeSmog Canada. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

“The rest will have to be CCS. That’s all we’ve got. The problem is so big and so important that we’ve got to do all we can.”

He added that CCS removes particulates in dirty emissions coming from sources of energy like oil and, especially, coal.

“The climate emissions we produce now kill people down the track,” Stern said. “Particulates…are killing people now on a major scale. We’ve got to deal with both of them and CCS does both of them.”

According to a report recently put out by the New Carbon Economy, particulate matter from the burning of fossil fuels contributes to both lung and heart disease. According to the World Health Organization particulate pollution plays a substantial role in nearly 4 million premature deaths each year that are attributed to outdoor pollution.

Stern acknowledged there is some uncertainty associated with the technology but he added “you’ve got to pursue all the options because some are going to do better than others and you can’t tell for sure what those are going to be. From the point of view of managing risk, it makes sense to go after more than one [solution].”

Mike Monea, president of the carbon capture and storage initiatives for SaskPower, Saskatchewan’s main power provider, also attended the event to talk about CCS viability in the wake of Boundary Dam, the world’s first coal plant retrofitted with carbon sequestration technology. The project went live in October 2014.

Carbon capture and storage infographic from SaskPower.

Monea argued CCS technology is no longer in question and should play a critical role in the new climate era. And although Monea highlighted the positive climate effects of CCS usage, the position of SaskPower is that CCS “is making a viable technical, environmental and economic case for the continued use of coal.”

Saskatchewan local, Megan Van Buskirk, a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation said the $1.35 billion Boundary Dam project won’t do much at all to address climate change.

“There are lots of issues involved with that project in terms of its reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, for example, SaskPower which is a monopoly in Saskatchewan – which owns that power plant – their emissions are 15 million tonnes per year and that storage facility is only reducing their emissions by 1 million tonnes.”

Van Buskirk adds that SaskPower already has a plan to sell much of that captured carbon to Cenovus Energy for enhanced oil and gas recovery.

“So we see that issue there where we’re touting this as a solution to climate change but really we’re using it to extract more oil and gas which will ultimately mean more greenhouse gas emissions,” she said.

“We really believe this is a false solution to climate change.”

Brad Page, the CEO of the Global CCS Institute, said he feels CCS is a necessity if we’re going to meet global climate targets. He points to the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges CCS will play a role in preventing carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere. 

He added negative public perception is due to a lack of understanding – something industry needs to remedy.

“At a very simple level, CCS puts carbon dioxide back underground where it came from. Many of the people I talk to think CCS is putting carbon into big caverns or something. It’s in fact back into the porous spaces in rocks that the oil and gas originally came from. So it’s actually not a threat.”

Page did not speak to concerns that failed CCS projects could re-release carbon back into the atmosphere.

He added, “I think that environmental groups are really from their heart concerned about continuing the use of fossil fuels and I think many of them want to actually see CCS take off and prove that it can actually be one of those viable technologies.”

Page pointed to Boundary Dam as an example of viable CCS and said there are about four more projects underway in their early construction stages.

“By 2050 though, with the sort of climate targets we’ve got we can’t achieve those emission outcomes without all the technology. Renewables are really important in this, as it energy efficiency. Nuclear is a fairly unloved duckling as well, but it’s going to be needed. And so is CCS.”

“I don’t see that there’s another option here.”

Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy and chief scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said we’ve “dallied so long on moving toward aggressive emissions reductions that we really need to explore every possible opportunity to constrain emissions below 2 degrees C.”

Frumhoff added efficiency and renewables may not be enough in themselves to limit warming to that 2 degree level.

“Therefore we need to consider other technologies including some that some of us might not love and that may themselves pose some risks. But we’re simply not at a point where we can ignore the much greater climate risks of going above 2 degrees C.”

But for Tucker, the conversation about CCS at the ongoing UNFCCC climate talks should not be dominated by industry.

“It would be the same as having tobacco companies at a conference on lung cancer. There’s a clear conflict. They already have so much sway outside of discussions like this. There’s no room for companies to be holding official UN events."

Jamie Henn from the climate advocacy group 350.org described CCS as a "smokescreen."

"The fossil fuel industry can run from divestment, but they can't hide from the reality that 80 per cent of their reserves need to stay underground. Here in Lima, world leaders are finally talking about targets that are in the realm of what's needed, namely going to zero carbon by 2050. If we're going to meet that goal, we need to start now. If Big Oil wants to research CCS, fine, but that shouldn't distract us from the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels and towards 100 per cent renewable energy." 

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.

Last week the Alberta government responded to the U.S. State Department's final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) on the Keystone XL project by emphasizing the province's responsibility, transparency, and confidence that the pipeline is in the "national interest" of both Canada and the U.S.

In a statement, Alberta Premier Alison Redford appealed to the relationship between the U.S. and Canada. Premier Redford pointed out that the FSEIS had "recognized the work we're doing to protect the environment," saying that "the approval of Keystone XL will build upon the deep relationship between our countries and enable further progress toward a stronger, cleaner and more stable North American economy."

Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Minister Robin Campbell also issued a statement, mentioning Alberta's "strong regulatory system" and "stringent environmental monitoring, regulation and protection legislation."

Campbell's reminder that the natural resource sector "provides jobs and opportunities for families and communities across the country" was similar to Premier Redford's assurance that "our government is investing in families and communities," with no mention made of corporate interests.

In order to provide a more specific and sciene-based response to the FSEIS report on Keystone XL, Pembina Institute policy analyst Andrew Read provided counterpoints to several of its central claims.

1. Oilsands Emissions

The U.S. State Department's report claims that "Alberta's oil sands account for about 5 per cent of Canada's overall GHG emissions and Canada is responsible for about 2 per cent of global emissions."

Read says that "oilsands are the fastest growing source of emissions in Canada," and industry and government have been unable to curtail rising emissions in contrast to other industrial sectors. Emissions in 2011 from mining and oil and gas extraction were up 450 per cent from 1990 levels, 200 per cent from 2000 levels and 93 per cent from 2005 levels. These rising numbers are "primarily attributable to oilsands expansion and transportaion emissions" according to federal reports, says Read.

The FSEIS mentions the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, passed in 2003, as establishing mandatory annual GHG intensity reduction targets for large industrial GHG emitters. But these targets have only been around since 2007 with the passing of Specified Gas Emitters Regulation.

2. Carbon Capture and Storage

The report mentions that the Alberta government has devoted $2 billion to fund "four large-scale CCS [Carbon Capture and Storage] projects," with two involving oilsands producers. The Alberta government has actually committed to spending around $1.4 billion to support the two CCS projects involving oilsands upgrading. The projects are only expected to reduce 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 annually, not 15.2 million tonnes, as claimed by the U.S. State Department.

For more on Alberta's failed CCS plans, read DeSmog Canada's two-part series.

3. In Situ Recovery of Bitumen

The FSEIS claims that 80 per cent of oilsands bitumen is recovered through in situ techniques using SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage), which is "less disturbing to the land surface than surface mining and does not require tailings ponds."

While 80 per cent of bitumen is too deep to mine, only 50 per cent is currently produced in situ. Furthermore, the FSEIS ignores the downsides of in situ exploration and development, which disrupts ecosystems by creating "fragmentation of habitats" and "pathways for increased predation," and is also land intensive. In situ extraction techniques are also more greenhouse gas intensive than mining techniques, and increased production from those sources will ultimately lead to an increase in GHG emissions.

4. Water Withdrawals

The FSEIS reports that all approved oilsands projects can "withdraw no more than 3 per cent of the average annual flow of the Athabasca River," with 2008 withdrawals coming to 0.8 per cent of the long-term average annual flow.

Read emphasizes that these numbers are misleading because water withdrawals "are not halted when river flows reach extremely low levels that can result in damage to the Athabasca." For example, in winter periods when river flows are much lower withdrawals have been seen to reach 15 per cent of river flow. Read says that "comparing withdrawals to average flows masks the seasonal variability that is observed on the river."

The FSEIS also claims water use by oilsands operations has continued to decrease despite increased production, with many in situ operations recycling up to 90 per cent of water used. But this decrease is only on a "water use per barrel basis," with total water usage increasing due to expanded production. Furthermore, even water recycled during oilsands operations is permanently removed from the ecosystem, along with the 10 per cent additional water required.

5. Air Quality Monitoring

The FSEIS claims that long-term air quality monitoring "since 1995 shows improved or no change in CO, ozone, fine particulate matter, and SO2, and an increasing trend in NO2."

Read notes that over that 10-year period, there has been a lot of fluctuation in the ambient air concentration of these pollutants. Particularly, NO2 and SO2 have been seen to spike during certain periods. However, particulate matter "has been increasing at certain monitoring sites in the oilsands region." The Canadian government is also showing elevated levels of fine particulate matter above their own 2015 target in the "prairies and northern Ontario" region which contain the oilsands developments.

6. Tailings

The FSEIS observes that "processing 1 tonne (1.1 tons) of oilsand produces about 94 liters (25 gallons) of Tailings," to which Read responds that 1.5 barrels of tailings are produced for every barrel of bitumen mined from the oilsands.

The volume of tailings will continue to grow "more than 40 per cent from 830 million cubic metres to more than 1.2 billion cubic metres in 2030," and will continue to grow until stabilizing at 1.3 billion cubic metres around 2060, says Read.

A recent Environment Canada study found toxic chemicals from tailings ponds are leaching into groundwater and the Athabasca River.

7. Land Reclamation

The FSEIS reports that "602 km2 (232 mi2) have been disturbed by oilsands mining activity of which 67 km2 (26 mi2) has been or is in the process of reclamation."

The actual area of land disturbed by oilsands development is 715 square kilometres (71,500 hectares). Out of that, "only 1.04 square kilometres (104 hectares) is certified by the government as reclaimed." The FSEIS's figure is closer to the amount of land unofficially reclaimed (65 square kilometres), but this self-reported claim remains unverified due to "a lack of regulated standards and requirements to reclaim land as further land is disturbed," says Read.

Read puts the estimated cost of reclaiming the disturbed land, based on available government and industry data, at $10-$15 billion, or approximately $220,000 to $320,000 per hectare.

8. Potential Impacts and Environmental Monitoring

The FSEIS states that "Alberta has committed to a cumulative effects approach that looks at potential impacts of all projects within a region," and requires oilsands operations to have plans to "minimize their effects on wildlife and biodiversity." The report also mentions that the Alberta government "monitors and verifies" that these plans are undertaken.

Alberta and Canada have continued to approve projects that have been shown to have "significant and irreversible" adverse environmental effects through the environmental review process. There are also concerns about the enforcement of these rules. Read points to a 2013 report that surveyed 9,000 reported incidents in the oilsands, and found that "less than one percent of likely environmental infractions drew any enforcement."

Images: Kris Krug via flickr

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.