Draft

A somewhat rambling Essay on Ethical Choices for an Energy Economy

The International Energy Agency reported in May 2011 that global CO2 emissions in 2010 grew to an unprecedented high of 30.6 gigatons, a 5% increase over 2008 levels even after a recession induced dip in 2009. After a dismally below par Copenhagen meeting on climate change in 2009, world leaders had at least agreed that global temperature increases should be limited to 2C to avoid unacceptable risks of climate change. The IEA stressed that to meet the 2C target, total global emissions growth for the next 9 years would have to be limited to the same amount that it grew over the last one year. The scientific obsession with climate change is not about bodily discomfort caused by a rise in temperature, but rather what it portends. Exaggerated results of climate changes may have already begun to show up in the form of unusual record rainfall, heat waves, and tornadoes in North America; droughts leading to failing harvests in Africa and central US, and extreme weather fluctuations in Europe and other parts of the world. If we add to these the air, water and land pollution that result from the activities that produce GHGs, we are facing global catastrophes. Managing these is a challenge to say the least, but it is imperative that we do so, if we are not to disrupt the lives of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict, to quote Nicholas Stern. Yet, with all the climate-induced disasters happening and more waiting to explode, the 2C target seems to have been forgotten. Ennui, weariness, seems to have set in over climate talks, accompanied by belligerent posturing between developed and developing nations over who should be the prime mover to curb emissions. It is true that much of the spurt in emissions growth come from developing countries like India, China and the Asian tigers, less affected by the recent economic downturn that beset developed countries of North America and Europe. When one extrapolates the per capita emissions of India (1.5 tonnes) and China (5.8 tonnes) to those of the most developed countries (over 10 tonnes), further dramatic growth is in the cards, unless drastic steps are taken. Indeed, the situation demands immediate action on a global scale. Political posturing aside, one could say, with guarded optimism perhaps, that developing countries are responding to the challenge. In India a government study based on 2007 data has made it the world's fifth biggest emitter after China, the US, Europe and Russia, even though, despite rapid economic growth, Indias emissions are less than a third of those from China or the United States. India plans to publish its emissions inventory every two years from now on, setting an example of transparency for developing nations. In 2009, China invested $34.6B in clean energy, compared with the US investment of $18.6B. Chinas operating hydropower

capacity in 2009 reached 197 million kilowatts, the highest in the world, and installed wind power capacity is expected to exceed 30 million kilowatts in 2010. Both countries have set, and are aggressively pursuing, national targets for renewable energy. It is interesting to note that, contrary to the rather ambivalent positions taken recently by North America (i.e. US and Canada), both Indian and Chinese governments recognise the correlation between GHGs emissions and global climate and environment quality, and the need for ameliorative action. To their credit, they have come to see the scientific consensus not only as challenges to overcome, but also as opportunities for transforming their energy and development paradigms. In reducing GHGs per unit of power produced, India and China have a major advantage over developed countries: Their foreseen growth in demand is huge compared to their current energy production. This growth will have to be provided for on new facilities, for which they have not only the benefit of the latest engineering knowledge and environmental research, but also the freedom to chose from an array of technologies. Nevertheless, given the forecasted growth in energy demand and the pressure for economic development, both countries acknowledge that controlling the growth in absolute emissions to acceptable levels will be an overwhelming challenge. The hope is that developing countries make their choices rationally and with global sensitivity, and not be swayed by narrow corporate interests. In developed countries with mature infrastructures, where preservation of energy supply rather than addressing demand growth is the major concern, changes in the mix of resources used for power generation have to come largely through replacement of existing facilities. Unless these facilities were due for replacement anyway, replacement is difficult to rationalise in economic terms, and justification often lies in the ethics or politics of energy generation, distribution and consumption. Add to that formidable stakes on the status quo, and change becomes very difficult indeed. The US, an erstwhile world leader in climate and environment research and a significant contributor to global emissions, seems to have tied up whatever leadership they have in a web of political and moneyed interests. Freedom from Arab oil is the new mantra, and if one were to listen to the slew of Republican presidential hopefuls, the only way to achieve this without dire consequences to the US economy is by the use of North American fossil fuels. Ignoring the possibilities of resurrecting the economy by converting to alternate energy, they argue that this time of severe unemployment, rising energy costs (and dependence on Middle East oil) is not the time to be talking about clean energy.1 An OECD Policy Brief in 2009 argued that the continuing global recession is no excuse for inaction, suggesting instead that immediate action to implement a cost-effective international climate agreement can be relatively inexpensive; with the costs increasing over time once the economy is on the mend. The IEA adds:

It is regrettable too that the debate (if one can call it that) has become inextricably politicised, with the conservatives by and large in both countries nixing scientific evidence and reasoned judgement. This is not a political issue, but it is an issue where the uniformed can be easily swayed by charlatans and interest groups vending spurious arguments and data (apparently missed by serious scientists!) as irrefutable scientific truths.

Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions2. North American actions on curbing GHG emissions is being closely watched, not only by developing countries but also by the G8 and other developed countries as well. Among the hot buttons attracting much attention, the hottest is undoubtedly the Alberta Tar Sands (Oil Sands, to its proponents). Everything about the Tar Sands is impressive: 190,000 sq. km. (the approximate equivalent of England or Florida) of bitumen soaked sand containing an estimated two trillion barrels of oil, represents an oil cache second only to the reserves in Saudi Arabia, and enough to last North America for a century. Over the last twelve years or so, more than $120 B has been spent in developing the tar sands, and as a consequence for almost a decade now Canada has been the largest supplier of oil to the US, replacing Saudi Arabia. The Tar Sands are the largest industrial project, the largest energy development on the face of the earth. Its current production of approximately 2M bbl/day is set to quadruple over the next twenty years or so. Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, described it as a monumental challenge, requiring vast amounts of capital ... an enterprise of epic proportions. It is a source of much revenue, not only to a slew of multinational oil corporations (Exxon, Husky, Chevron, Shell, BP, Syncrude, Suncor, among others3), but also to the Canadian federal and provincial governments. Every dollar invested in the oil sands creates about $8 worth of economic activity with one-third of that economic value generated outside Alberta in Canada, the U.S. and around the world. According to Canadian Energy Research Institute, Alberta can expect $184 billion in royalties over the next 25 years. As far as the US is concerned, the Tar Sands oil offers the convenience of direct pipeline delivery: no shipping; reliable, stable source not affected by weather disturbances, and the oil comes from a friendly, democratic country with which it has close economic ties. The Tar Sands has endeared Canada to the US and vice versa. However, all the benefits have come at a litany of environmental costs. When the negatives are pointed out, the standard response from proponents of the project is to deny their validity or their seriousness altogether. The Tar Sands project represents the single largest GHG emitter in the world. The province of Alberta, with 10% of Canadas population, emits 40% of the countrys GHGs, exceeding that from all the cars in Canada. Unchecked, this could rise from 40 million tonnes to 142 million tonnes by 2020, contributing to an emissions growth rate that is faster than for any other country. Among developed countries, the US and Canada top the list of per capita GHG emissions, and Canadas GHG emissions have grown more, since 1990, than any other G8 nation. The Tar Sands is playing a major role in this rise. For a developed country with access to the latest technology and technical expertise, Canadas total GHG emission is staggering: Canada (population 35 million) emits a third as much GHG as India (population 1.2 billion).
2

See: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/09/364895/iea-global-warming-delaying-action-is-a-falseeconomy/?mobile=nc 3 See, http://oilsands.infomine.com/companiesproperties/

Scientists and ecologists despairingly point out that GHG emissions is only part of the environmental degradation story, which is one of wanton wastefulness, wilful negligence and moral failing. For example: The oil extraction process is resource intensive: the sand has to be heated in order to squeeze the oil out of it, needing in energy equivalence terms, one barrel of energy for every three extracted; the process uses enough natural gas to heat 3 million Canadian homes. Two to four barrels of water per barrel of oil extracted, is also required to heat and separate the oil from the sand. The Tar Sands mining operations are licensed to divert 349 million cubic meters of water from the Athabasca River twice the amount of water used by the city of Calgary. Suspended impurities and carcinogens from the bitumen contaminate this water, producing 1.8 billion litres of toxic sludge every day. To allow the impurities to settle, the sludge is held in tailing ponds for a long time. The term ponds conjures up mental images of gentle, tree-lined waters in which little boys canoe and fish. These ponds really are 60 km. of toxic lakes all along the Athabasca river4, the major river that runs through the region and is the source of water not only for the project but also for the human population and the regional flora and fauna. The tailing ponds are contained by sand banks, which have a tendency to leak. The Syncrude Tailings Dam near Fort McMurray is second in size only to Chinas Three Gorges Dam. Industry is required to clean up the tailings. However, there are no known methods of effectively cleaning up the tailings. The in situ process of oil extraction (80% of the oil will be extracted using this method), threatens the worlds third largest watershed, as well as Canadas Boreal Forest5, the largest remaining ecosystem on earth larger than Brazils Amazon rain forests. Home to a rich array of flora and fauna, including bears, wolves and the worlds largest caribou herds, the boreal region stores more freshwater in its wetlands and lakes and more carbon in its trees, soil, and peat than anywhere else on the planet. The risk to this unique treasure is immense. If all available deposits are extracted the potential area impacted will cover a land area the size of Florida. The community of Fort Chipewyan, located downstream from the Athabasca Tar Sands project, has reported higher than normal incidents of cancer and other diseases. Though confirmed by doctors and nurses active in the area, and confirmed by studies, this has been refuted by the government and industry in a manner reminiscent of the movie Erin Brokovich. Native food sources such as moose meat, has also been found to have dangerously elevated levels of arsenic. Other studies have found elevated levels of

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40997 Download a picture (click top left hand link) of the tailing ponds to appreciate its size. 5 The bitumen is below the Boreal Forests, which has consequently to be destroyed in order to get at the oil. The oil extraction companies are apparently required to restore the forests to its pristine state, and there are some pictures on the net of such restored forests. There is little detail available on how complete this restoration is to be, and how companies can be held to their commitments.

mercury, lead and eleven other toxic elements in the oil sands main fresh water source, the Athabasca River6,7. Companies exploiting the Tar Sands have been granted extremely generous financial considerations (capital cost allowances; subsidies in the form of low royalties; free rides on GHG emissions; accelerated depreciation; etc. 8).

The second hot button issue erupted from the apparent approval, and later denial, by the Obama administration of permission to build a controversial, seventeen hundred mile pipeline extension project that would pump bitumen from the Tar Sands in Alberta to the Texas coast. Over the last three years, the pipeline project (called the Keystone XL) has become a focus of environmental campaigners, concerned citizens, and politicians who argue the pipeline would encourage oil production from the Alberta Tar Sands, undermine US clean energy future and increase its dependence on Tar Sands fuels at high costs. If built, Keystone XL will carry 900,000 barrels of the world's dirtiest oil per day through America's agricultural heartland. It will cross the Sandhills in Nebraska, the large wetland ecosystem, and the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world. The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, provides drinking water for two million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture... a major leak would devastate the mid-western U.S. economy, endanger public water supplies, crop lands, wildlife habitats and recreational opportunities. Portions of the pipeline will also cross an active seismic zone that had a 4.3 magnitude earthquake as recently as 2002. Opponents claim that TransCanada Pipelines, which will build and own the pipeline, applied to the U.S. government to use thinner steel and pump at higher pressures than normal9. A serious failure of the pipeline could make the Macondo Blowout (BP oil spill) seem like a walk in the park. The stated advantages for the US and Canada are primarily: (for the US) guaranteed oil supply from a reliable safe source; job creation at a time when jobs are badly needed; reduced transportation costs and risks; (and for Canada) a steady market for Tar Sands oil. Some politicians and the petroleum industry tout the creation of 20,000 well-paying construction and engineering jobs10 across the US that would come from the project, and even enjoy some union support. In response, two major unions representing more than 300,000 workers issued a joint press release in which they said: "We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil Many jobs could also be created in energy conservation, upgrading the grid, maintaining and

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/elevated-levels-of-toxins-found-in-athabascariver/article1689578/ 7 http://www.tarsandswatch.org/files/Water%20Contamination.pdf 8 http://www.tarsandswatch.org/files/Economic%20Dislocation.pdf 9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline 10 Industry and the project proponents have been accused of overinflating the job creation potential. See this link for some comments on the job-creation numbers. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/01/20/the-truthabout-keystone-xl-few-jobs-no-energy-security-60041

expanding public transportation jobs that can help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency."11 It is not quite clear whether the decision to deny the application to build the pipeline signals a victory for the environmentalists, or is merely a political ploy to buy time. The state department did add that the denial of the permit application does not preclude any subsequent permit application or applications for similar projects." Obama, in his statement, blamed Republican politics that prevented a full assessment of the pipelines impact. He has ordered a full study of the pipelines impact, including exploration of alternate paths for the pipeline. However, this decision, permanent or not, has not deterred Canada, which now is pursuing plan B to sell oil to China. Plan B will involve building a pipeline from Northern Alberta to Kitimat in BC where the tar sands crude will be loaded on to tankers to transport to Asia and to the US. Concerns have been raised, not only about dangers to the environment, but also about the economics and the ethics of the whole plan12 13. Alberta seems further bent on being the continents smoke stack. On June 30th, the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) approved the Milner Expansion Project, a 500MW coal fired generating facility to be built west of Edmonton. As the International Youth Climate Movement puts it, the project gives Calgary-based Maxim Power Corporation license to produce some of the filthiest power on the planet for 45 years while emitting 3Mt per year of GHGs. Albertas filthy tar sands are already the scourge of the planet, and this approval adds insult to injury. In May, the Canadian government committed to reducing carbon emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 202014. Professor Mark Jaccard of Simon Frazer University argues that this target cannot be met with the approval of such plants. Not only that, the Canadian government was due to bring in new emission regulations for coal fired power plants, and the AUC, at the request of Maxim Power Corporation, rushed the approval of the plant to circumvent the pending regulations. The federal Minister of the Environment too was complicit in the approval, as he is on record that he would not allow approvals to sneak in under the wire: yet that is what he personally allowed to happen. As well, the approval flaunts Albertas own Climate Change Strategy, according to which the province is to reduce GHGs by 4 Mt/year. This project alone will put 3 Mt/yr back into the atmosphere.15 Alberta is not alone in this type of disregard for the environment: they are national and global in scope, and they are the result of the type of self-serving decisions made elsewhere in the world as well. No particular nation need be singled out for censorship for promoting them. They generate
11

Two Major Unions Oppose Approval of the Keystone XL Pipieline Transport Workers Union, and Amalgamated Transit Union, http://www.tarsandsaction.org/two-major-unions-oppose-approval-of-the-keystone-xlpipeline/ 12 http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/our-work/gbr/issues/tar-sands-pipeline-and-tanker-traffic 13 http://www.straight.com/article-580371/vancouver/david-suzuki-northern-gateway-pipeline-project-about-profitsversus-environment 14 Under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada had committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by the five-year commitment period of 2008 to 2012. Under the Copenhagen Accord, the 2009 successor to the Kyoto Protocol, Canada committed to reducing emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. In Dec 2011, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Accord.
15

http://www.facebook.com/notes/international-youth-climate-movement/permit-to-pollute-dodging-new-lawagency-approves-alberta-coal-plant/10150263678707963?ref=nf

jobs, earn generous returns to investors and promoters, and fill government coffers they are the darlings of politicians, especially those seeking re-election. It is tempting then to ignore the present and potential harm they portend, especially if the harm is not imminent, or are in constituencies such as unrepresented populations and future generations. Harm to the environment; fresh water; fisheries, forests, agricultural land and wildlife, all seem remote from our daily lives and concerns. Yet it affects us all, including the ones who think their status or wealth buys them immunity. Even if some did feel concerned, however, practical mitigating action is not obvious. It is not the kind of problem that can be solved by conscription and going to war against, or by finger pointing towards your neighbour. Real solutions will come only when we are willing to admit that we are our own worst enemy. These types of concerns call for a new and expanded set of decision criteria that address nor only immediate business and economic realities, but also considerations such as inclusiveness; fairness; equity; our legacy for future generations; and what we do to our fellow human beings on this planet, considerations that we have hitherto chosen to ignore. Yes, we are indeed our brothers (and our sisters) keepers. Modern, civilised values would see anything else as unethical. Undoubtedly, the energy economy is vital to our civilization, but the current fossil-fuel based model of this economy is no longer sustainable. At projected rates of energy consumption and resource depletion, the world will not only soon render fossil resources economically unviable, but also pollute the planet to an extent that, for a large proportion of the human population, will make it extremely uncomfortable and dangerous to live in. Energy from fossil fuels is a paradigm that has served us well, but all indications are that continued reliance on it could cause serious irreversible harm to present and future generations on a global scale never before experienced. However, we do have choices for we now have the knowledge and the means to produce energy from cleaner, safer and inexhaustible sources, and also to be more parsimonious in its use. The decisions made today could strengthen and stabilize the global economy, or commit us to a decline leading to waste, disease and strife, and less and less choice. How and when we exercise our choices will dictate whether the transition will be painless or not. As the Luddite movement famously exemplified, even in the face of obvious benefits, not all transitions take place without opposition from entrenched habits and interests. The transition from fossil fuels based energy to cleaner energy will happen, but it will happen only when a critical mass of people share a vision of a cleaner, healthier, richer and equitable life for present and future generations. A few already have that vision, but the vision will become actionable only when it is widely shared, and its ends desired. This vision is not primarily a technology driven vision in which the nation with the biggest and fanciest wind turbines or solar farms will become the richest nation on earth; nor is it an economic-growth-for-ever driven vision. Rather, it is a vision in which cooperation trumps, for people will see themselves as bounded by a common prospect, yet have choices to pursue their own exciting future. Those staunchly defending the status quo often fall back on principles of economics, especially the free market mechanism (as interpreted by them) to deliver a just society. In our capitalismoriented society, acting for the common good is anathema. The market, where every individual

pursues his/her own self-interest is supposed to take care of the common good. Adam Smith is often the god invoked to defend their point of view. In each of the examples cited, clearly self-interest of dominant parties prevails over common good. In truth Adam Smith (and other leading economists) argued that if self-interest is to lead to the common good, then the exercise of self-interest must be restrained by what is morally and legally correct. The pursuit of self-interest devoid of moral underpinnings, they said, leads to selfishness and chaos, and the invisible hand is likely to wallop us back into line. It is our collective moral duty to heed the perils of careless pursuit of self-interest. We uphold our professed values only when sustainability and a concern for others take precedence over selfishness. In the examples we have looked at, the pursuit of the common good is in fact in our individual self-interest. I would like to close with the following thoughts on economics from a talk by John Ikerd16 ...contemporary economics is concerned totally and completely with pursuit of short run, self interests. Economics recognizes no unique social value a community or a society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. Economics recognizes no unique spiritual values and concern for the environment, at least for its sustainability, is fundamentally spiritual. Economist and the industrial, corporate interests that now would raise economists to the priesthood would cast out those of us who still believe that quality of life has social and spiritual dimensions that are just as important as our narrow economic self-interests. Does this kind of economics really make sense as a guiding philosophy for America -and as a model for the rest of human society? Do we actually believe that the greatest greed results in the greatest good? Or are we a society that is being shamed into doing things that dont make sense because we dont want to be publicly degraded and labelled nave and unrealistic, as being economically illiterate and irrational? Its economics that is out of date not small family businesses, caring communities, loving families, nations with integrity, and cultures with values. We have no ethical or moral obligation to accept economics as the final arbitrator of who gets a job and who doesnt, who stays in business and who doesnt, what we do in communities and what we dont, where food is produced and where it is not, whether or not we trade, or of anything else. We dont have to abandon "good" things from the past just because something "more economically efficient" comes along. We dont have to accept "bad" things in the future just because they are "more economically efficient" than some "good" alternative. We can choose what we want to keep from the past and what we want to accept in the future. The market is not God no matter what the economic priests would lead us to believe. Economics is a creation of people. We simply cannot turn loose the thing we created for our benefit and allow it to exploit the very people it was designed to serve. It just doesnt make any sense. Common sense demands that we rethink and directly challenge the fundamental principles that underlie conventional economic thinking line by line, row by row, from the ground up. Any effort to sustain humanity that fails to attack the problem at its root cause ultimately is destined to fail. The root cause of the current crisis in American
16

Rethinking the Economics of Self-Interest, http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Rethinking.html

agriculture is the same as the root cause of ecological degradation and of social and moral decay a society that blindly accepts the economic bottom line as if it were the word of God. People will pursue their self-interest it is an inherent aspect of being human. But, people, by nature, do not pursue only their narrow short-run individual self-interest. It is within the fundamental nature of people also to care about others and accept the responsibilities of humanity. Rethinking does not require that people deny their selfinterest. Instead, it will require that we rise above the economics of greed to an economics of enlightenment. The invisible hand can still translate the pursuit of selfinterests into the greatest good for society, but only if each person pursues an enlightened self-interest a self-interest that values relationships and ethics as important dimensions of our individual well-being. Enlightened self-interests includes narrow self-interest (which focuses on individual possessions) but it includes also interests that are shared, in which one has only partial ownership (which focuses on relationships, community, and social values) and interests that are purely altruistic (which focuses on interests that are solely others, which one pursues only out of a sense of stewardship, ethics, or morality). All three self-interests, shared-interests, and altruistic-interests -- contribute to ones well being or quality of life, but not in the same sense that greed might enhance ones material success. Each contributes to a more enlightened sense of quality of life which explicitly recognizes that each individual is but a part of the whole of society, which in turn must conform to some higher order of things or code of natural laws. Canada and the US are globally recognised leaders in many areas of human endeavour, especially in areas that impinge on quality of life. Environment management is one such area in which the world looks to them for guidance. Of late, their words and actions have been sorely disappointing. ********************************* Humanity did not move from the stone age for the lack of stones, or give up sailing vessels for the lack of wind ********************************* Dr. J. Roy Joseph Jan, 2012

Some Interesting References In Depth: Fort Chipewyan a report by the Polaris Institutes Energy Program http://www.tarsandswatch.org/depth-fort-chipewyan Elevated levels of Toxins found in Athabasca River Globe and Mail, Aug 30, 2010, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/elevated-levels-of-toxins-foundin-athabasca-river/article1689578/ Tar Sands, the Basics,-- The Polaris Institute: http://www.tarsandswatch.org/files/The%20Basics.pdf Climate Change Concern Tumbles in the US and China, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/aug/30/climatechange-opinion-skeptic# Keystone Pipeline Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline What the Tar Sands and the Keystone XL pipeline mean for Climate Change http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/23/tar-sands-keystone-xlclimate?commentpage=2#start-of-comments Keystone XL: A Line in the Sands for ObamaAmy Goodman, The Gaurdian, Aug 24, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/24/keystonexlobama-oil-sands?INTCMP=SRCH Tar Sands and the Carbon Numbers NY Times Opinion Pages Editorial, Aug 21, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/opinion/tar-sands-and-the-carbonnumbers.html?_r=2 China keeps promise to curb carbon emission http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2010-07/04/content_20416888.htm A Giant Pipeline carrying Dirty Oil from Canada to Texas. What could go Wrong? http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/01/transcanada-keystone-pipeline-map#alberta http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continuedrop.aspx Tar Sands companies: http://oilsands.infomine.com/companiesproperties/ Revenues from the Tar Sands: http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca/economicinvestment.html Ten things you should know about the Oil Sands http://finance.sympatico.ca/galleries/oil_sands.htm?feedname=FINANCE_GALLERYOil-Sands&pos=1&nolookup=true

Permit to Pollute: Dodging New Law, Agency Approves Alberta Coal Plant by International Youth Climate Movement on Thursday, August 11, 2011, http://www.facebook.com/notes/international-youth-climate-movement/permit-topollute-dodging-new-law-agency-approves-alberta-coalplant/10150263678707963?ref=nf An economics essay worth reading: http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Rethinking.html