Archives
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010

December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009

December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008

December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007

December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006

December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005

December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004

December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002

December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001

December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000

December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999

April 1998

Good intentions gone wrong with city fuel order

Globe and Mail
December 11, 2008
By JOHN BARBER

Email this page

'The tar sands is one of the greatest ecological crimes in North American history," declares Councillor Gord Perks, a veteran environmental activist now serving as the uncompromising green conscience of Mayor David Miller's city hall.

So why did the City of Toronto just go out of its way, following the strictest environmental protocols, to buy $17-million worth of tar-sands oil to run its large, allegedly green fleet of vehicles?

The answer is a parable of good intentions gone, if not awry, certainly wide of the intended mark - one that keeps moving as industry, activists and government wrestle over the meaning of green.

Everybody wants to do the right thing, says Matt Price of Environmental Defence Canada, which protested against what it considers to be a dirty-oil deal.

"But it's unhelpful when you have people with good intentions coming up with unfortunate results."

Good intentions in this case date back almost a decade, when the city decided to specify low-sulphur diesel fuel, then a rare commodity in Canada, in its tenders.

Since then, new federal regulations have come into effect, phasing out more polluting fuel.

"Once again, the City of Toronto set a benchmark and all the other governments ran to catch up," Mr. Perks boasts.

Then the city ran even further ahead, demanding its supplier deliver diesel fuel laced with maximum amounts of vegetable oil, called biodiesel, and gasoline diluted with the maximum amount of ethanol, which is also derived from vegetable sources.

The stated aim is to reduce airborne pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions relative to unblended fossil fuels.

While the federal government has promised to mandate a minimum 5-per-cent ethanol content in gasoline, the city specified a blend containing 10 per cent.

Put your latest good intentions out to tender and what do you get? A single bidder for the 2009 fleet fuel contract, Suncor Energy Products Inc., a company that describes itself as "strategically focused on developing Canada's Athabasca oil sands."

It also so happens that Suncor is Canada's leading producer of ethanol, having opened a $220-million plant near Sarnia two years ago, with more than $30-million in provincial assistance.

This summer it announced a $120-million expansion that will boost the plant's production to 400 million litres a year.

But the problem here, according to environmentalists, is not just a matter of accepting some bad with the good. Current opinion says that there is nothing green about biofuels, and indeed that no fuel could be more destructive to climate than that harvested from farm fields and tar sands - the very blend our green-minded city just ordered a vast amount of.

The truth of the ethanol debate depends on which factors one includes in the "life-cycle analysis" of its use as fuel.

Previously unaccounted-for deforestation caused by ethanol demand has tipped the balance, according to Mr. Price, with the latest models now predicting that using the fuel will lead to higher emissions than straight fossil fuels.

"Arguably you could get a better carbon outcome simply by going with Shell instead of Suncor at this point," Mr. Price said.

The climate argument doesn't even consider the effect of widespread ethanol production on food prices - a concern that inspired Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty this summer to abandon a promise to mandate provincewide use of the same 10-per-cent ethanol blend the city just ordered.

But what really queers the deal is the origin of the main ingredient:

According to the same life-cycle analyses that now condemn biofuels, tar-sands oil has three times the carbon impact of conventional oil.

Less conscientious cities will hardly burn any of the stuff. But do-gooding Toronto will be swimming in it.

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes.