Things are getting a little crazy when those hauling vast quantities of already sequestered carbon out of the ground are then expected to laboriously re-sequester a small fraction of it. If you're going to allow tar sands extraction at all, just charge that industry a hefty amount for carbon credits and be done with it. The oil sands products can then be exported to the US and other countries.

Some of the money collected could then be used on ramping up production and distribution of biogas/biomethane and bio-SNG in other provinces, for which Canada has vast feedstocks. Excess gas produced in summer could be stored in spent natural gas fields for winter use by compressing it with wind-powered turbines.

The balance of the emissions certificate income could be spent on incentives to migrate the vehicle fleet from diesel - which is a hassle in arctic climates - to CNG/ANG.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter which industry emits net CO2, all that matters is how much is emitted in total.

Rafael:

I like your idea of charging 'carbon credits' not to say 'carbon or GHG tax' at the GHG emission sources.

For Alberta tar sands, at a very low $50/tonne, this would mean around:

1) $50 x 25 MT = $1.25 B a year for 2006

2) $50 x 50 MT = $2.5 B a year by 2008.

3) $50 x 75 MT = $3.75 B a year by 2015

Considering the huge profits made by the Canadian Oil Cos, they should have no problems to pay this GHG tax.

The same could apply to coal fired power generating plants. They produce twice as much GHG in Alberta and even more in Ontario.

Alternatively, Canada could pay some of it's remaining $490 B debt at the rate of an extra $10+ B a year.

SPEAKING OF NATURAL GAS, GUYS GOOGLE:

STRATFOR Fuel Technology: Geopolitically Significant Microbes?

ITS THE FIRST ONE, THOUGH THE NEXT FEW ARE GOOD TOO.

MarkBC:

Assuming that solar panel + controls + storage unit* will soon reach $3 per watt. A $300, 100- watt panel system could produce the equivalent of 18.68 million BTU in 25 years, i.e. at 6 hrs/day in a dry sunny place.

* Storage units can be downsized where solar systems supply peak demand during daytime hours only.

A $100 barrel of oil contains about 5.8 million BTU of energy or about 1/3 the energy produced by the above $300 solar system. Three barrels of Oil ($300) contain about 18 million BTU or about the same energy as the $300 solar system.

Basically, solar will soon compete with Oil at $100+ a barrel.

Within 10 years, when oil price is between $150 and $200 a barrel and solar systems & storage units are mass produced, solar energy may be as cheap if not cheaper than oil.

Rafael

You are right, but 100Megatonnes of CO2 might be difficult to offset. The real question is : are these tar Sande really worth to extract ? They are burning the last bubble of natural gas to produce that low quality crude, in short we are burning a clean energy to make a dirty energy, or turning gold into lead ...

I know you can say there is no pipeline to use that gas,etc. We shouldn't extract that oil if we can't do it cleanly and with a correct EROI. Just as it shouldn't be allowed to burn natural gas to distillate ethanol. Natural gas is the cleanest energy, we could burn in our car or cities bus more efficiently than gazoline or ethanol, it is a crime to hydrogenate bituminen with it and then to burn it into gas guzzlers and other SUVs.

"Global Cooling", dream on!

Why don't you invest in that theory, and let us know when you get rich!

The nice thing about this carbon storage regulation is that the laws of thermodynamics make it nearly impossible - it is tantamount to shutting down the mining of bituminous sand and coal-fired plants.

Sequestering CO2 from natural gas production is possible - CO2 can be separated at little additional cost. Separating CO2 from the products of coal or heavy oil combustion requires enormous amounts of energy since CO2 is in low concentration and pressure in flue gas, with contaminants. You then have to use CCS on the additional energy required, and so on. In the end, you are consuming great amounts of expensive energy and bringing the cost of this dirty energy up higher than the cost of clean energy.

Obviously the average consumer Canadian is going to like hearing this a lot more than a proposal for a consumer carbon tax. (which might actually do some good! ) Ya! Stick it to the big multinational coorporations that make billions per year! As opposed to stick it to the middle class Canadian with 3 cars and a new 2000ft2 house in the burbs.

As for the timelines of the above proposals its just another example of all talk and no action. Obviously the government isn't going to do anything revolutionary. It comes down to us as consumers to make a difference. As much as this scares me all I can really do is try to be the change that I want to see in this world.

On a positive note by driving nicely over the last 2 days I've brought my average fuel economy down from 7.7 to 7.2 l/100km city! (2004 matrix) so I save.....calculating... $1/week... hmmm

Oh no the big bad green house gases are coming to get us. Here comes the Canadian government to the rescue.

In case you didn't notice the sun dose shine on whatever is underneath a solar panel before the panel is put up. The earth's average albedo, ~36% a solar panel ~10%. To lower the albedo even a fraction of a percent we would have to cover millions of square km.

say world energy consumption ~20TW

@10% thats 2 x 10^11 m^2, say the sun shines 25% of the time so thats
800,000 km^2. This would cover the worlds current energy needs, so an area smaller than british columbia, for the entire worlds needs.....Those were pretty simple calculations.

"In the end, you are consuming great amounts of expensive energy and bringing the cost of this dirty energy up higher than the cost of clean energy."

In the end that might be the only solution, and it will require all governments to get on board equally to enforce. If the costs of sequestering carbon back from coal pants is incorporated into the equation then we wouldn't see many more of those!

This is why the poeple saying that the private sector alone should be responsible for reducing GHG's are out to lunch because there is no incentive for them to do so.

Stan, can you show us the simple calculation ?