Letter pubs.acs.org/est
Response to Hrudey et al. Letter in Reference to Timoney Critique of Royal Society of Canada Report
H
rudey et al.’s response1 to a Viewpoint article2 illustrates an inability to focus on the issues. Rather than recognize deficiencies in the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) report,3 and address them, the authors responded with an ad hominem attack. I will not follow that facile path and attack the integrity or motives of Hrudey et al. but will instead focus on matters that relate to bitumen exploitation. Hrudey et al. state that I started and finished my Viewpoint article with misleading assertions, viz., that “Bitumen production and processing in Alberta, Canada has become the world’s largest energy project” and that “Issues of bitumen development have global environmental and public health relevance.” Hrudey et al. attempt to demonstrate that the statements are misleading by stating: “Current oil sands production is about 1.8% of current world oil production and contributes less than 0.1% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, thus neither of Timoney’s claims of global relevance have any quantitative foundation.” Both statements betray misunderstanding and a narrow view of what constitutes relevance. Bitumen development of the lower Athabasca River is the world’s largest energy project, as I stated. Comparing my statement to world oil production is a sleight of hand. The oil industry is not a project, it is an industrial sector. If there are any larger energy projects, Hrudey et al. were not forthcoming with that fact. Issues of bitumen development have global relevance. With rising demand and declining availability of conventional oil, bitumen’s share of global oil production is becoming increasingly significant. The allusion to greenhouse gases is an attempt at misdirection. I did not discuss greenhouse gases in my Viewpoint article. Global relevance derives from a host of issues, including water use and water contamination under a regime of increasing water scarcity; controversial pipelines in the United States and Canada; public health concerns that still require attention after years of promised health studies; emerging links between air and water pollution; the irreversible loss of peatlands and, incidentally, their vast stores of greenhouse gases; failure to enforce the Fisheries Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act; the de facto loss of treaty rights; failure of reclamation; contamination of groundwater; elevated human cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan; the fact that a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a Ramsar Wetland of International Significance (Wood Buffalo National Park and the Peace-Athabasca Delta) lie directly downstream of the bitumen developments; and the world public’s sustained interest in these issues. Hrudey et al. provide the nolo contendere that they “were not conducting an academic literature review.” Yet the RSC refers to its report3 as “the most comprehensive evidence-based assessment” and “an independent review”. If their effort was not an academic review, then what was it? There are serious deficiencies in the RSC report (please see the full review for details).4 Although Hrudey et al. attempt to © 2012 American Chemical Society
divert attention from their report’s deficiencies and direct readers to their list of publications (which are largely irrelevant to the issues at hand), the facts speak louder. Obfuscation and denial do not advance understanding of the issues.
Kevin Timoney,*
■
Treeline Ecological Research, 21551 Township Road 520, Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada T8E 1E3
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*Phone/fax: 780-922-3741; e-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare the following competing financial interest(s): The author conducts ecological and other scientific studies on behalf of governments, industry, conservation groups, non-governmental organizations and citizens, and First Nations. This work was conducted in the public interest without financial compensation.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Hrudey, S. E.; Naeth, M. A.; Therrien, R.; Van Der Kraak, G.; Gosselin, P.; Plourde, A.; Xu, Z. Response to Timoney critique of royal society of canada expert panel on oil sands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (8), 4257−4258, DOI: 10.1021/es300858k. (2) Timoney, K. Environmental and health impacts of Canada’s bitumen industry: In search of answers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 2496−2497, DOI: 10.1021/es300513u. (3) Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada’s Oil Sands Industry; Royal Society of Canada: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2010. (4) Timoney, K. Scientific Review of “The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel: Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada’s Oil Sands Industry. http://www.treeline-ecological.ca/public/pdf/RSC Review.pdf (accessed April 4, 2012).
Received: April 10, 2012 Accepted: April 11, 2012 Published: April 19, 2012 4685
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es301357g | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 4685−4685
