Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Alternative fuels 'risk disaster'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 29 July 2008
A DRIVE to get oil from unconventional fossil fuel sources in the face of soaring prices could have catastrophic effects on the Earth's climate, a report warned yesterday.
With oil prices hitting record highs, the extraction of fuels from tar sands and oil shale is an increasingly attractive option.

But according to a study by WWF and Co-operative Financial Services, the fuels are massively energy intensive – creat
ing as much as eight times as many carbon emissions in their production as conventional oil.

If all the estimated 1,115 billion barrels of the recoverable fuels found in Canada and the United States were to be extracted, the report estimates it would release 980 billion tonnes of .

According to the study, the emissions could push atmospheric levels of well past the point at which it is estimated global temperatures would rise more than 2C, risking mass extinction of species.

The researchers said oil giants including Shell and BP were planning to invest 125 billion Canadian dollars (£62 billion) in the fuels by 2015 and intending to produce hundreds of thousands of barrels a day by 2020.

WWF and the Co-operative are calling for a global halt to the licensing of the production of the fuels, laws to prevent them being sold in the UK and more investment in renewable energy generation.

Tar or oil sands are made up of oil trapped in a mixture of water, sand and clay. Oil shale is sedimentary rock which produces petroleum-like liquids when heated.

Refining these fuels uses much energy and water, requiring use of fuels such as gas to make the petrol and creating toxic lakes, the report said.

WWF also warns that mining of the tar sands in Canada will damage huge areas of forest, which act as carbon sinks.

Production also damages unique wetlands and puts local indigenous people at risk, the environmental charity said.

The report's author, James Leaton, said: "Unconventional fuel sources may seem attractive in the short term, but ultimately the environmental and economic costs are unthinkable."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 July 2008 9:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

29/07/2008 00:40:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

2dogs in D.C.,

29/07/2008 08:57:24
Invest in the future-buy a horse.
3

Neil,

Glasgow 29/07/2008 12:16:49
We see 2 Luddite catastrophe stories going head to head here. Either we are all going to die because of global warming caused by burning oil etc or we are doomed because we are going to run out of oil. Both sides implicitly acknowledge they are talking rubbish. They acknowledge that there is, in fact, no shortage of oil because there are these reserves & are demanding that we do not use the reserves to fulfil their catastrophe promises.

In fact coal is a greater resource & produces more CO2 & nuclear is an unlimited resource & does not produce CO2. If the eco-fascists actually believed a word they are saying, rather than being Luddites in false colours, they would be demanding massive new nuclear.
4

Unimpressed one,

29/07/2008 12:59:40
So another own goal by the eco-nuts, no surprises there then. But how long will it take for the penny to drop that nothing the greens have pronounced on, not a single eco-disaster, has come to pass. Rather their policies regarding banning DDT or the latest 'climate change catastrophe' have resulted in misery and death for millions. Their track record of protecting the planet, their raison d'etre, is abysmal for the simple reason, they put their own twisted agendas first without regard for knock-on effects and certainly without any thought for the communities they might affect.
5

Unimpressed one,

29/07/2008 13:11:15
"Unconventional fuel sources may seem attractive in the short term, but ultimately the environmental and economic costs are unthinkable."

I hope he's referring to wind power. This report is so full of luddite green mantras that it could serve as part of the Gaia bible. Hope to Christ they didn't pay him to produce this tripe.
6

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 29/07/2008 15:15:57
#2 2 dogs in D.C.

But then you have the problem of methane gas emissions from the horses and the erosion of the ozone layer.
7

2dogs in D.C.,

29/07/2008 18:44:04
Hi, Tim. I wondered if someone would pick up on that. I'm not in the least suprised it was you. Good job, Tim. Do me a favor and give Chester a good ear scritching for me.
8

Saoghal Beag,

29/07/2008 19:51:52
Nelly nelly nelly, just cos your lovely nulcear plants don't have a chimney stack does not mena that they do not genreate CO2. from mining, processing and refining, all very energy intensive and fossil fuel dependent, to the construction, decommissioning, handling and disposal of waste, all energy intensive. Even with current fuel sources it is very questionable whether nuclear is even energy neutral or carbon neutral.

you never think of moving to france?
9

Saoghal Beag,

29/07/2008 19:53:04
oh netty nuclear, can we look forward to seriously discounted nuclear energy once EDF take over BE? I'd expect them to generate at the same costs as there french plants.
10

falonian,

Alberta, Canada 01/08/2008 23:22:26
Oh you poor ignorant fools...
I live in Alberta, and therefore, get the curse of seeing this disgusting process at work. Being on the front line has shown me the endless greed and utter lack of consideration for anything except the almighty dollar from everyone involved in the tar sands development here. You can see the tailings ponds from space at this point, not to mention the amount of the boreal forest that has been leveled for the out-of-control development here.
The problem is that we have lived in a system for far to long that doesn't recognize the full consequences of it's actions - unrestricted economy. Now we are at a point wherein we have many very serious problems, including environmental problems. For those of you that seem to think climate change is a lie - this year we have already seem various 'catastrophies' throughout North America and the world: flooding I think was probably the most obvious of these. It IS happening, you just need to pull your heads out of your a$$'s and smell the more frequent natural disasters occuring each year.
As for Nuclear - how much neuclear waste can this planet possibly store? Especially safely... Are we just supposed to tell some country far from any potential earthquakes that tehy need to clear out so that we can turn that region of the world into a toxic waste dump? And yes - the extraction and transport of uranium are INCREDIBLY energy intensive, but of course the nuclear power companies aren't going to tell you that.
Wake up people, seriously, because it's idiots like you that are holding us back! Do you really think that we could take utter advantage of this ecosystem and its natural resources endlessly without any consequence? Notice that I called it an 'ecosystem'; do a little reading on how an ecosystem works, and then think about what we've been doing to OUR ecosystem for the last century.
11

Nanniè in the Kirkyard,

29/03/2009 14:48:51
#5
well said

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.