David Suzuki and The Bottom Line

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/david-suzuki-looks-back-with-a-hint-of-regret/article1623210/

The Bottom Line is as much about people’s mindset toward environmental issues as about the issues themselves. “It’s about what we come to value and believe,” he explains. For example, two programs will be devoted to the oil sands – not simply on the environment, but the social and economic implications for the region and Canada.  “We have a situation today where the Prime Minister has said for four years, ‘We can’t do anything about climate change; it’ll destroy the economy.’ So the economy comes before the very atmosphere that we depend on for our weather and climate and our breathing. “I would suggest that there’s a very radically different bottom line, which is, if you don’t have air for two or three minutes, you’re dead. It’s the same for water. If you don’t have water for a few days, if you don’t have food for a few weeks … Surely to God, it ought to be our highest priority to protect these. But we pour toxic chemicals into them, because that’s the price of doing business.”

The economy  is a subset of the environment - not the other way around.

Syncrude is Guilty

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/syncrude-guilty-in-ducks-trial/article1618384/

A judge has found oil sands giant Syncrude Canada Ltd. guilty of a pair of environmental charges stemming from the deaths of 1,606 birds two years ago. Provincial Court Judge Ken Tjosvold ruled Friday that Syncrude was indeed responsible for its tailings pond where the ducks were found, and it “did not deploy the [bird] deterrents early enough and quickly enough” around the 12-square-kilometre pond, which contained toxic, oily bitumen byproduct.

Mr. White [the lawyer acting for Syncrude] will recommend his clients appeal because he believes the “judgment is incorrect,” arguing that to find the company guilty when its tailings pond was provincially licensed could effectively make all such ponds illegal.

It is to be hoped that Mr White is correct and that this ruling has serious repercussions for resource extraction industries.  (However, had Syncrude taken steps to prevent ducks from landing on its ponds, it wouldn't have been found guilty. ) June 25, 2010 may be identifiable later as the day where the tide turned against polluters - the day where they became responsible for their "externalities."  How can it be profitable to extract resources if taxpayers are left with the bills for cleanup of horrible messes?  It shouldn't be....

Ruling Expected in The Case of the Dead Ducks

No - I haven't found an undiscovered  Agatha Christie manuscript secreted in Grandmother's trunk.  The Globe and Mail contains an excellent article on Syncrude and those ducks that perished in their tailings pond. 

More than two years after 1,606 dead ducks were first found in a northern Alberta industrial tailings pond, a judge is scheduled to rule Friday afternoon on whether the deaths amounted to a violation of provincial or federal law.

A guilty verdict would be a major victory for environmentalists, long critical of Alberta's oil sands. But energy giant Syncrude Canada Ltd., which has been operating in the oil sands for over 30 years, warns such a verdict would effectively make tailings ponds – which are essential in the refining of Alberta's oil sands bitumen – illegal, bringing the economically vital industry to a standstill.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/ruling-expected-in-syncrude-duck-trial/article1617402/?cmpid=rss1

In other words, tar sands miners are worried that the costs of their "externalities" may be brought home to them. 

Nasty Conclusions

I'm drawing nasty conclusions from the news reports on BP's environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100609/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_sketchy_plans

BP PLC's 582-page regional spill plan for the Gulf, and its 52-page, site-specific plan for the Deepwater Horizon rig vastly understate the dangers posed by an uncontrolled leak and vastly overstate the company's preparedness to deal with one, according to an Associated Press analysis. The lengthy plans were approved by the federal government last year before BP drilled its ill-fated well. ... Among the glaring errors in the report: A professor is listed in BP's 2009 response plan for a Gulf of Mexico oil spill as a national wildlife expert. He died in 2005.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/06/bp-campaign-donations-obama

Who's BP's favorite politician ever? If you're just going by the numbers, it's none other than President Barack Obama, who leads BP's lifetime campaign donation list with $77,051. That puts him just ahead of reliable oilmen such as Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young, his retired colleague Sen. Ted Stevens, and George W. Bush. According to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, BP and its employees have given more than $3.4 million to federal candidates since 1990.

Is it cynical to make a connection between money spent on politicans and favourable regulatory regimes? However cynical, it doesn't happen  in Canada, right?  We don't allow the public interest to be subverted by political connections, do we?   Maybe.  "Oil" sands mining flourishes in Canada - even if it is much less than green.  Jeff Rubin, an economist, notes that:

There’s nothing clean about the production of synthetic oil from tar sands. The production of a single barrel of synthetic oil pollutes some 125 gallons of fresh water and emits over 200 pounds of carbon dioxide, principally as a result of the combustion of the natural gas, over 1,000 cubic feet of it, needed to generate the heat to separate the oil from the sand and then process it.  Currently, Canadian tar sands produce roughly one and a quarter million barrels per day, but the International Energy Agency (IEA) is projecting ultimate production at around 4 million barrels per day. Do the math on carbon emissions and water pollution, and you begin to get a sense of what has made the tar sands the most recent bête noire of the world environmental movement. ...The tar sands aren’t a greener alternative to deep-water oil. They’re just a more expensive alternative. And the more that synthetic oil from tar sands replaces deep-water production, the more you’ll pay to burn it.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/jeff-rubins-smaller-world/gulf-oil-disaster-doesnt-make-the-tar-sands-green/article1596265/

The government of Canada has subsidized development of the  tar sands in the past and continues to do so to the tune of $ 1 billion per year according to Kairos' report Pumped Up.   Moreover , the party currently in power has ties to the energy sector.  For example, Clarke Cross is a hired lobbyist for Enbridge who formerly worked for Canadian Alliance Party MPs. Yaroslav Baran lobbied the federal government on behalf of Enbridge throughout 2006 and is also a long time Conservative Party staffer (Out on the Tar Sands Mainline , Polaris Institute.)   This cozy relationship between oil and gas corporations and federal politicians has culminated in the  Conservatives tabling an omnibus bill that "is trying to rollback key environmental assessment rules through an omnibus bill currently under review by a House of Commons Committee. " http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2010/05/04/rollbacks-to-canadian-environmental-legislation-come-on-the-heels-of-the-gulf-oil-disaster/  

This cozy intimacy will lead to more environmental destruction in Canada unless the Senate breaks up the bill .  A nasty conclusion indeed .

Why Are We Doing This?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/gulf-oil-spill-runs-a-pipeline-to-our-collective-unconscious/article1584868/

"This is what I don't understand,” she admitted. “If BP doesn't know how to cut off the well, why are they drilling on the bottom of the ocean in the first place?”
“Don't be ridiculous,” another man at the table replied. “It's a mile deep. It's not just a question of shutting off a tap.”

Why are we drilling a mile deep if we have no idea how we are going to plug leaks or clean up spills?  Risky behaviour and no idea of consequences will be coped with is symtomatic of  addictions.  Have a look at the article diagram for a visual depiction of the size of the oil spill - it is gigantic.   And, read right to the end. There,  Ian Brown states "The temptation is to pass it all off as American. We ought to remember the oil sands in our own backyard. Their toxic tailing ponds already cover more than 50 square kilometres. They're a stone's throw from the Athabasca River, one of the continent's most delicate watersheds. Let's hope they don't spring a leak. "

Water Shortages in The Tar Sands

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/oil-sands-report-warns-of-investor-risk/article1571659/

Oil sands companies could soon run out of water and, in years to come, find themselves with a shrinking market for their product, according to grim new research.  Under current expansion plans, companies could run out of adequate winter water supplies as early as 2014, estimates the report, which was prepared for Boston-based investor and environmental advocacy group Ceres....“All of this should give investors pause as they consider anteing up for what has become a $200-billion bet,” said Douglas Kogan, director of climate risk management for research group Riskmetrics Group, which wrote the report. “There may be safer places to put their money, and certainly more environmentally sustainable ones.”

I predicted this: not the shrinking markets  -  the water shortages.  Check your RRSP and make sure you're not investing in the tar sands.  And nag your pension plan administrators regarding the issue.  Not only will you be environmentally responsible, you'll make more money investing elsewhere.  Where ??? Run proposed investments through my link titled "Corporate Environmental and Social Reports."

Syncrude and Those Dead Ducks

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/court-hears-final-arguments-in-syncrude-trial/article1566630/

A lawyer for Syncrude says charges faced by the oil sands giant over 1,600 dead ducks on its tailing pond are a cheap shot and a gross overreaction by prosecutors.....  If Syncrude is found guilty, then the ground will have shifted for every company in Alberta, Mr. White argued....Crown prosecutors, in their final arguments, have said the case is clear: Syncrude is mandated to take steps to keep birds off the tailings ponds and didn't do it.  Court has heard that Syncrude staff assigned to get air cannons and scarecrows deployed on the pond were two weeks behind schedule that spring and didn't get going until mid-April. Even when they did, the seven-member team couldn't do much. Their boats were out of service and they had one truck to deliver all the equipment. They managed to get eight cannons around the pond compared with 130 the year before.

If Syncrude is found guilty, then the ground will have shifted for every company in Alberta.  Precisely, Mr White, precisely.   The ducks aside, what happens to those toxic tailing ponds in the long term?

The Impacts of Fossil Fuel Subsidies

http://blog.iisd.org/2010/04/22/earth-day-time-to-consider-how-fossil-fuel-subsidy-reform-can-contribute-to-climate-change-energy-security-and-poverty-alleviation-goals/

Fossil-fuel subsidies drive to the heart of sustainable development: removing them has the potential to dramatically reduce carbon emissions and open investment pathways for cleaner sources of energy; it frees vast sums of money – for both developed and developing country budgets – to spend on other priorities such as healthcare and education; and it helps to move us away from our dependency on what we know well to be a finite resource.

http://www.oilsandswatch.org/media-release/1242

Groups from across Canada today renewed calls for the federal government to eliminate massive tax subsidies to the country's booming oil and gas industry. Last fall the groups formally petitioned Canada's Auditor General to investigate the billions of dollars in government tax breaks to oil and gas companies....The most recent data, based on government figures, show that the industry receives $1.4 billion annually in federal tax breaks.

Why does the fossil fuel extraction industry need tax breaks and government subsidies?  Does that poor, pitiful struggling industry  need  help  from governments of all stripes including  the Canadian government?  It must - it receives them.  So, we the taxpayers, are helping the fossil fuel industry belch greenhouse gas emissions!  As the former President of Costa Rica, J.M. Figueres, stated, "if you don't want more of something, then don't subsidize it."  

More on Those Dead Ducks

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100421/edm_syncrude_100421/20100421/?hub=EdmontonHome

Documents obtained by CTV News show oil giant Syncrude knew several birds had been landing on its tailings ponds before more than 1,600 ducks were found coated in bitumen.  This comes as a series of employee interviews were entered as evidence at the company trial.  The documents show details from interviews conducted with about 20 Syncrude employees.  And on one page, an e-mail was shown suggesting the company knew about the waterfowl landing on the tailings ponds before the May 2008 incident.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Shortfall+bird+protection+deliberate+Syncrude/2941727/story.html

Senior Syncrude officials couldn't tell federal and provincial investigators why resources for the company's waterfowl protection plan declined in the years prior to the 2008, when more than 1,600 ducks died on a tailings pond.  Court documents show Alberta Environment investigator Sean Harris raised the issue with Syncrude managers a month after the ducks died, asking why the number of scare cannons being deployed to deter waterfowl dropped from 150 in 2001 to 67 in 2007. He also noted the number of deployed effigies or scarecrows dropped from 100 in 2001 to 27 in 2007.

Perhaps Syncrude needed to pinch pennies and decided not to worry about a few dead ducks.  (The Oil Sands Project reported earnings of only $ 737 million for the year ended 2007.)  They may regret their parsimony now that the chickens of bad publicity are coming home to roost. 

Those Dead Ducks

A few dead ducks in Syncrude's tailings ponds don't matter: after all, hunters kill millions of ducks per annum.   And wind power kills birds - so it must be OK that ducks drown in toxic goo.  Why are we wasting money on a trial?  We are only damaging the reputation - and that reputation was carefully built  too - of a great Canadian energy company - and perhaps the entire industry.  This isn't my opinion - it is that of Gwyn Morgan's in the Monday, April 19th business section of the Globe and Mail.  On page B7 to be exact.

I hope his eyes are brown!  Syncrude is on trial as prosecutors allege that the company broke the law.  Remember those stupid kids who sluiced ducks out of season and posted their hilarious video on You Tube?  They were charged  with killing migratory birds - and convicted.  Afterwards, one of them said:

"What happened was severe," he added. "A few ducks were killed and that's tragic. But this has been getting coast to coast and international coverage when endangered species are being killed everywhere, all over the planet." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2009/08/11/sask-youtube-duck-hunter-convicted-observations.html

Sounds rather like the arguments Mr Gwyn Morgan used.  Yes, we killed a few ducks - but other people do worse things.  I hope Syncrude's lawyers have better arguments than that to present in court.  Is he suggesting that , since trials are expensive, that we shouldn't charge and try alleged child abusers?  After all, worse things have happened - look at the Holocaust! 

I think Mr Morgan is  spinning on behalf of tar sands producers and their carefully built reputation.   I'm sure he is worried about the effects on the industry if Syndcrude is convicted - and is therfore attempting to build support for the industry.   However, suggesting that Syncrude and the industry should be exempt from the rule of law seems a tad excessive to me.

NAFTA and The Tar Sands

http://environmentaldefence.ca/pressroom/viewnews.php?id=764

A coalition of environmental organizations and citizens filed a citizens’ submission today with the environmental side-body of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The submission alleges that the Canadian government is failing to enforce the anti-pollution provisions of the federal Fisheries Act by allowing the tar sands tailings ponds to leak contaminated materials into both surface waters and groundwater in the Athabasca watershed.  The citizens’ submission documents cases where contaminated tailings leakage has reached surface waters in addition to the ongoing massive and increasing leakage from un-lined tar sands tailings ponds into the region’s groundwater. The Fisheries Act prohibits the discharge of substances harmful to fish, yet the federal government has never prosecuted documented infractions nor has it enacted regulations that would permit the discharge.

A very interesting tactic!  Let's hope it works .  Think of the long term implications to industry if they  are forced to accountand pay for their "externalities."   Gee , clean water and viable ecoysystems for the rest of us versus theri profits - I know which I prefer!

It is shameful that the Canadian government doesn't enforce its own regulations.  Particularly when a paper published in the peer reviewed Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences concludes that " oil sands development is a greater source of contamination than previously realized."

Peak Oil

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/markets/streetwise/where-china-sees-oil-prices/article1532555/

“In our minds, the Sinopec deal reflects the appetite and lower cost of capital of eager Chinese buyers,” said a report from energy analyst Greg Pardy at RBC Dominion Securities.
After running the numbers, with an 8.5 per cent tax discount rate, Mr. Pardy concluded the $4.65-billion price tag on this deal imples a long-term oil price of $95 a barrel.
At Peters & Co., analyst Jeff Martin used a 10 per cent tax discount rate for his projections, and concluded the Sinopec purchase is based on a $106-a-barrel expectation on oil.

Chinese purchasers seem to think that light sweet crude prices are headed up.  Think of the impacts high oil prices will have on our unsustainable way of life.  

Peak Oil

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply

The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.  The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel. 
"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

http://www.jeffrubinssmallerworld.com/2010/03/31/new-price-peak-by-next-year/

Does anyone still believe the reassuring forecasts from discredited feel-good organizations like the International Energy Agency about new sources of cheap supply, like those that once flowed from places like Prudhoe Bay in Alaska or the North Sea? If so, where is that supply of new affordable oil coming from? Surely not from tar sands or from ultra-deep water fields six miles below the ocean’s floor.  By the fourth quarter of this year, oil prices will be back in triple-digit range, and by next year oil prices will rise to record highs, taking out the high-water mark of $147 per barrel that was set back before the recession began in 2008.

Shouldn't we be using the cheap energy aka oil remaining to build a more sustainable way of life?  Obviously, cheap oil isn't going to last forever:  why not use what we've got left to create light rapid transit, local food supplies, alternate sources of electricity, and a happier way of life?
 
Moreover, we'd be working to solve the problem of climate change instead of playing of  "Last One Standing."    Why live in denial until disaster strikes?

Ecocide

Were this to pass, I predict that groups like the Hutarees would scream that the UN was taking over thier lives.  
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/09/ecocide-crime-genocide-un-environmental-damage

A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace - alongside genocide and crimes against humanity - is being launched in the UK.  The proposal for the United Nations to accept "ecocide" as a fifth "crime against peace", which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.   The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.  Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.

I think it is a great idea: it is a way of making industries and corporations accountanble for costs currently downloaded to the populace at large or the gloabal commons.

Higgins will launch her campaign through a website – thisisecocide.com – asking for global support to pressure national governments to vote for the proposed law if it is accepted by the UN Law commission. The deadline for the text is January, and a vote has been scheduled on other amendments in 2012. It would need a two-thirds majority of the 197 member countries to pass.

http://www.thisisecocide.com/
Check out Polly Higgins website above for more information and actions you can take.   (Please notice Canada made it to a list of the worst examples of ecocide - thanks - Alberta tar sands producers.)

Tar Sands Producers Have Plans to Spend Money on Expansion

http://www.wwf.org.uk/news_feed.cfm?3757/Tar-sands-billions-could-be-better-spent

The thought-provoking new WWF/Co-op report, Opportunity Cost of the Tar Sands, puts into perspective the estimated £254 billion ($379 billion) that the big oil companies are planning to invest in tar sands between now and 2025.  It explains how this money could instead be used to kick-start ambitious green energy plans in Europe, or to enable the world to hit half the UN’s Millennium Development Goals in the 49 least-developed countries, which would mean averting four million child deaths annually.The money that oil companies want to pump into tar sands would cover the cost of the proposed Desertec Industrial Initiative, linking North African solar plants into a supergrid supplying 15% of Europe’s electricity by 2050. Or it could fund a Europe-wide shift to electric vehicles.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Oilsands+defensive+after+double+attack/2686142/story.html"

"If Canada extracts its probable reserves of oil from tar sands, this will almost single-handedly commit the world to dangerous levels of CO2 in the atmosphere — contributing to dangerous climate change, destroying ecosystems and habitats around the world," said Butfield. "The $379-billion question is: Will the oil companies listen? For the planet's sake, they have to."

Reason totters on its throne ......379 Billion dollars to extract dirty oil and emit how much greenhouse gases?

Syncrude Goes to Court

Call me naive: I'm  wondering why Syncrude is fighting federal and provincial charges in the case of the dead ducks in their tailings pond.  Syncrude has apologized in public for the  1600 duck deaths.  So why isn't Syncrude taking its legal fees and putting its money into measures to prevent this from happening again? 
Not only that, their public relations staff could announce that Syncrude fully accepts responsibility amd os saving taxpayers the cost of a full trial. The answer, of course, is that the issue at stake is bigger than a one time incident. 
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2010/03/01/edmonton-syncrude-trial-dead-ducks.html

Speaking outside the courthouse Monday, Sierra Club Prairie director Lindsay Telfer said the case goes far beyond the ducks, and the "tailings ponds themselves are on trial.  I think that this incident specifically showed the world just how toxic the tailings ponds are," she said. "We know now that the waters have killed 1,600 ducks, we know that those waters are leaking into the Athabasca [River] and we know downstream communities have significant health problems."  Environmentalists and observers from the oil industry are watching the trial closely because it could set a precedent for tailings-pond operators.

And there you have it: tar sands producers are worried this case will set a legal precedent.  They fear they will be forced to take responsibility for their despoilation of the commons.  And if Syncrude loses, might tar sand producers also be forced to account for their emission of greenhouse gases?

 Watch for this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if Syncrude loses. 

For Those Who Think Environmental Activism Does Nothing

On the contrary - environmental activism changes the zietgeist.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/what-the-forestry-industry-is-teaching-the-oil-sands/article1481763/

The leaders of Canada's oil sands, faced with global scorn and protests that have interrupted their operations, are turning to the country's foresters – as well as its miners, who had similar experiences – for guidance on how to respond.  Governments and oil sands companies are environmental targets, just as MacMillan Bloedel was. Anti-oil-sands groups spent last fall staging protests that temporarily shut down several oil sands operations, while shareholders have driven the issue onto the agendas of Statoil, Royal Dutch Shell and BP. Canada has become an angry target among online commentators who see the oil sands as an egregious and greedy foray into the production of “dirty oil.” Among industry leaders, there is a broad recognition that something needs to change. The lesson that is consistent in the forestry and the mining experience is that you cannot sloganeer, you cannot ‘spin' your way out of these types of issues,” .... “The ultimate solutions are rooted in performance.”

So keep up the pressure on oil companies, the Canadian government, and on Alberta.  The pressure is working: tar ands producers now realize that they must perform - not spin.

And You thought Albertans Hated the NEP

Wait until they hear about the following  idea.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/private-gain-or-public-interest

Canada’s oil and gas industry can and should be converted to a public-interest industry whose mandate would be to serve the broader public interest, not just the private interests of owners and shareholders....At present, the private corporations that dominate the oil and gas industry in Canada are inflicting serious environmental harm and causing major social and economic problems...The oil and gas corporations strenuously resist paying adequate royalties to the public owners of these resources, resulting in a loss of government revenue to support public services, infrastructure, and long-term savings.

The authors of this opinion piece suggest that "as with any corporate acquisition, the cost of buying out the industry would be paid for out of its future profits. In other words, the net cost to Canadian taxpayers would be zero, or close to it."  You have to admit, it is an interesting alternative to merely raising royalties and strengthening environmental regulations in the oil patch.  Perhaps "publicizing" the oil and gas industry would upset Albertans - but it would benefit Canadians and our democracy.

Meanwhile In California

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/14/oil-sands-ban-legal-challenge

A lobby group that includes BP and Shell in its membership has launched a legal challenge against low-carbon legislation in California that in effect rules out the use of oil from Canadian tar sands. The action by the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) comes amid growing political, investor and consumer pressure on US oil companies not to participate in the carbon-intensive tar sands of Alberta.

The good news is that pressure is growing on oil companies not to participate in mining the tar sands.  The bad news is that oil companies are fighting to continue business as usual.  Business as usual is not viable for two reasons.  We should be curbing greenhouse gas emissions (just ask the Bangladeshis) to mitigate the effects of climate change - and we should be using our remaining oil wisely to build a sustainable way of life.  Peak oil is gonna hit hard - and wouldn't it be prudent to plan for the  coming crisis? 

On Top of Contamination - Increases in GHG Emissions

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/12/21/bc-greenhouse-gas-increase.html

British Columbia was the only province in the country to report an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from major industries in 2008, according to figures released by Environment Canada.  The figures cover so-called "facility greenhouse gas emissions" from power plants and heavy industries such as mining, pulp and paper, and petroleum.  British Columbia's dubious distinction was largely the result of oil and gas extraction, Environment Canada said.

Not only are we failing to monitor contamination at oil and gas wells,  we are increasing greenhouse gas emissions.   This sounds like an environmental disaster - especially when one considers that most of the natural gas produced in BC is probably going to be used in mining the Alberta tar sands.