Enough with the greenwash, tar sands are worse than we thought

Published by

Climate Progress

A new study finds the tar sands have yet higher CO2 emissions than expected because of the threat they post to forests and peatlands.

That is no bombshell: Climate Progress has previously pointed out that tar sands development threatens the carbon-rich boreal forests. Now it has been quantified.

A new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that existing industry plans for exploiting the tar sands will destroy over 29,500 hectares (65%) of local peatland.  Peatlands are better known as bogs, moors, mires, and swamp forests. Their decaying organic matter is rich in carbon and already emerging as a major amplifying carbon-cycle feedback.

The study, “Oil sands mining and reclamation cause massiveloss of peatland and stored carbon,” finds that this destruction will release stored carbon equivalent to 42 to 173 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, “as much as 7-years worth of mining and upgrading emissions at 2010 production levels. The study notes that this “will reduce carbon sequestration potential by 5,734–7,241 metric tons C/y” and points out

These losses have not previously been quantified, and should be included with the already high estimates of carbon emissions from oil sands mining and bitumen upgrading

The study also slams the industry’s claim can restore the tar sands “to a sustainable landscape that is equal to or better than how we found it”:

Claims by industry that they will “return the land we use – including reclaiming tailings ponds – to a sustainable landscape that is equal to or better than how we found it” (33) and that it “will be replanted with the same trees and plants and formed into habitat for the same species” (34) are clearly greenwashing.The postmining landscape will support >65% less peatland. One consequence of this transformation is a dramatic loss of carbon storage and sequestration potential, the cost of which has not been factored into land-use decisions. To fairly evaluate the costs and benefits of oil sands mining in Alberta, impacts on naturalc apital and ecosystem services must be rigorously assessed

CP has previously reported on research that makes clear there is no place for a major expansion of the tar sands if we want to avoid catastrophic global warming. This study reinforces that conclusion.

This article was originally published on Climate Progressthinkprogress.org/romm/issue/. Reproduced with permission.

Share
Published by

Recent Posts

Judge dismisses legal bid to prevent gas fracking in the Top End

Activists have lost their court bid to prevent gas exploration in the Northern Territory after…

26 June 2026

Nuclear reactors taken offline in France, as extreme heat pushes river temperatures into danger zone

EDF has taken nearly 10% of its nuclear power capacity offline this week, to avoid…

26 June 2026

South Australia swings from three days of 100 pct renewables to worst drought in 7 years

South Australia just experienced its worst wind drought in seven years. The fleet of short-duration…

26 June 2026

“Not consulted:” Local councils in the dark on LNP plan to “scrap” huge renewable zone and “evaporate” benefits

Local government leaders say they were in the dark over state Coalition plans to revise…

26 June 2026

Solar Insiders Podcast: Virtual networks and the real pursuit of energy democracy

Deakin University's Andrea La Nauze on the early findings from an Australia-first trial of technology…

26 June 2026

Why a faster transition to renewables is on the wish-list for central bankers

This century there have been six main occasions when inflation exceeded the Reserve Bank of…

26 June 2026