05.14.08
Tarsands lobby
Embassy, May 14th, 2008
NEWS STORY
Washington Tarsand Ad Campaigns Throw Mud
While the Alberta government is preparing to launch a $25-million
advertising campaign, environmental groups have already sprung into
action.
By Jeff Davis
http://embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2008/may/14/tarsand_ad/
Though America’s addiction to oil remains as unflinching as ever, the
government of Alberta is having to play some defence to ensure their
oil keeps flowing south of the border.
With American lawmakers mulling over how to apply a law that could see
fuel derived from oilsands banned from purchase by U.S. government
agencies, the Alberta government is lobbying hard to convince decision
makers the oilsands are a green and reliable way to quench America’s
thirst for black gold.
Environmentalists, however, have launched a counter-attack of their
own. A group of NGOs are combing the halls of Congress and running
attack ads in publications like Roll Call, arguing the oilsands are an
environmental disaster, not an energy heaven send.
Last year, President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, a sweeping piece of legislation
aimed at reducing America’s dependence on oil.
Section 526 of the act says that government agencies can only purchase
fuel that is at least as green as conventional oil.
“No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for procurement of an
alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from non-
conventional petroleum sources…unless the contract specifies that
the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions…be less than or equal to such
emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from
conventional petroleum sources,” the section reads.
In a letter to Congress, the author of the section, Democratic
California Congressman Henry Waxman, fingered Alberta’s oilsands as
just the kind of fuel he wants to ban.
“Section 526 applies to fuels derived from unconventional petroleum
sources such as tarsands,” he wrote. “The development and expanded use
of these fuels could significantly exacerbate global warming, with
highly dangerous effects.”
American lawmakers have not yet decided how exactly section 526 will
be applied, and both the Alberta government and environmental NGOs are
lobbying hard to ensure it goes their respective ways.
Seeing the writing on the wall, the Alberta government is doing its
utmost to ensure fuel from the province’s oilsands aren’t slapped with
a scarlet letter.
Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach visited Washington, D.C., in January to
lobby key decision makers for an oilsands exemption to section 526.
Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall made a similar trip in March, talking
energy security with Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner, who
sits on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global
Warming.
In late April, Alberta Deputy Premier Ron Stevens became the latest to
make the pilgrimage. Mr. Stevens underlined that Alberta is a reliable
supplier with improving environmental standards.
“My goal is to make it clear that partnering with Alberta to develop
the oilsands in an environmentally sustainable manner is far better,
both in terms of energy security and environmental protection, than
penalizing oil sands products and increasing imports from unstable and
at times environmentally irresponsible overseas sources of crude,”
said Mr. Stevens said in a press release.
Alberta’s envoy in Washington, Gary Mar, told Embassy that lobbying
efforts will continue, as the possible impacts of section 526 are
still up in the air.
“There have been a number of interpretations for what [section 526]
will or will not mean for the oilsands,” he said on Monday. “Its
remains open for interpretation as to whether or not section 526 will
impair oilsands trade.”
Alberta’s lobbying efforts will be bolstered, Mr. Mar said, by a new
$25-million branding campaign the government of Alberta will use to
promote itself at home and abroad over the next three years.
David Sands, a spokesman for Premier Stelmach, said: “It’s safe to say
a fair amount” of Alberta’s advertising brand campaign resources will
be focused on Washington and throughout the U.S.
Energy issues will certainly be a part of the campaign, he said,
because “oilsands are a large part of Alberta’s story.”
Environmentalists Push Back
At the same time Mr. Stevens was in Washington, a number of
environmental groups joined forces, pooling their money for a full-
page anti-oilsands ad in the April 29 edition of Roll Call,
Washington’s equivalent of The Hill Times.
The ad was backed by the NGOs Environmental Defence, Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC), Rainforest Action Network, Oilchange
International, Earthworks and ForestEthics.
“Canada’s governments are allowing the Boreal Forest to be dug up to
bring America the world’s dirtiest oil,” said the ad in the widely-
read newspaper. “Producing tar sands oil releases three times the
global warming pollution of conventional oil and creates giant toxic
lakes you can see from space.
“And that’s not all,” the ad continued, referencing the coming Alberta
public relations blitz. “Coming soon is a multimillion-dollar public
relations campaign to tell you everything’s fine.”
Liz Barrett-Brown, a senior attorney with NRDC, said that with growing
concern in the United States about the environmental impacts of the
oilsands, Canadian officials are on the defensive.
Ms. Barrett-Brown said Albertan officials are making frequent trips to
Washington because they understand more and more Americans are waking
up to the environmental drawbacks of oilsands development.
“I think the reason they’re coming with such frequency is that there
is increasing concerns with tarsands operations and what impact that’s
having both on the boreal forests in Canada and on the global warming
goals of both Canada and the U.S.,” she said.
Among environmentalists’ major beefs with oilsands development, Ms.
Barrett-Brown said, are the huge amount of fresh water used in the
refining process, the large amounts of carbon emitted throughout the
lifecycle of oilsands fuel, the high sulphur content of oilsands
fuels, and the huge toxic lakes known as tailing ponds that collect
processing by-products.
The tailing ponds attracted attention during Mr. Stevens’ visit, when
some 500 ducks died after getting stuck in the tar-like goop.
Washington-based NRDC, Ms. Barrett-Brown said, has a savvy and sizable
lobbying arm, which worked in advance of Mr. Stevens visit to pre-
emptively counter his pro-oilsands arguments.
She said her staff went around to the offices of members of the House
Natural Resources Committee and other people Mr. Stevens was meeting
with to drop off a letter entitled “Don’t buy it; tar sands oil is
still dirty.”
Also, just last week, a group of 25 environmental NGOs co-signed a
letter, circulated to all congresspeople and senators, urging that the
sale of oilsands fuels be controlled under section 526. Among the
signatories were Canadian groups like the Sierra Club of Canada, the
Council of Canadians, Greenpeace Canada and Environmental Defence
Canada.
And environmentalist efforts to curb the sale of oilsands oil don’t
stop at Congress. Groups have been taking their anti-oilsands schtick
directly to oil-guzzling companies.
Ms. Barrett-Brown says that through its “Cool Fuels” initiative, the
NRDC is in talks with major airlines, trying to convince them to
voluntarily move away from high-carbon fuels like oilsands. Companies
that have large ground fleets like FedEx and the UPS have also been
approached, she added.
jdavis@embassymag.ca