Last week, Whole Foods Market Inc. and Bed, Bath and Beyond Inc. announced plans to eliminate Canadian oil sands from its supply chain companies — in partnership with the environmental pressure group ForestEthics. The Globe and Mail reports that this action by Whole Foods is “part of its ecostrategy to cut energy costs, appeal to its environmentally aware customers, and raise the pressure on oil companies operating in northern Alberta to find cleaner ways of producing fuel.”
However, the Toronto Star reports on the reality of Whole Foods’ commitment:
The policy change is more easily said than done, given the complexities of the fuel supply chain. Whole Foods officials told the Toronto Star the company will continue to use fuels derived from Alberta tar sands “in the Rocky Mountain region because as of now there is no alternative source.
According to the Canadian Press, Whole Foods’ master plan to purge its transportation fleet of energy derived from the oil-sands appears to be focused on a single refinery in a single state – begging the question of how the company intends to apply this new policy to its remaining 288 locations spread across three countries. Also left unaddressed is how Whole Foods locations in states such as Montana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois can possibly expect to comply with this structure – given that more than 50 percent of petroleum supplies available in these states come from Canada.
On the heels of this announcement, Michael Whatley, vice-president of Consumer Energy Alliance and a leading American expert on the oil-sands, released this statement:
“The anti-oil sands position taken by these companies fails to take into account that GHG emissions from oil sands are comparable to other U.S. crude oil imports – and continue to go lower every year,” said Whatley. “More than that, it fails to recognize that turning our backs on this secure, affordable, North American energy resource will simply allow our competitors in China and elsewhere to claim energy that would’ve otherwise come to us — rendering our country even more dependent on the Middle East for its energy.”
“These announcements send a troubling message to our closest strategic and trading ally,” Whatley added, citing our nation’s long-time partnership with Canada. “One can only assume these companies will also boycott heavy oil produced in places like California, Mexico and Venezuela – as well as crude produced in the Middle East, and then shipped over 10,000 miles to get here. Otherwise, this exercise seems fairly hypocritical in the best case, and downright disingenuous in the worst.”
Don Martin with the National Post captured the relevance of this announcement in regards to Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in the U.S. through his article “Alberta’s economy doesn’t fit Whole Foods ‘values,’ ” where he writes:
Now, this is not going to raise any risk to oilsand exports bound for a nation with an insatiable thirst for fossil fuels, particularly with new pipelines snaking south from northern Alberta to underutilized American refineries. South of the border, a dozen states are in the process of drafting bitumen blockades called LCFSs, low-carbon fuel standards which Gary Mar, Alberta’s man in Washington, says actually means ‘Less Competition for Saudi’ if they block the Fort McMurray motherlode.
As this announcement was made, the Wisconsin state senate conducted a hearing on Governor Doyle’s climate change legislation, where two key committee members spoke out against the inclusion of an LCFS provision in the bill. According to Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR), both Senators Jeff Plale of South Milwaukee and Bob Jauch of Poplar say they’re concerned about how an LCFS would determine what kind of oil gets used in Wisconsin.
The WPR segment reports the following:
Sen. Plale says that bothers him because it would mean the state would have to buy more oil from places like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. And he says it would cost his district jobs. If the state goes with oil sands, the $40 million shovels that help process the sand are built in his district at either Bucyrus or Harnischfeger.
Sen. Jauch’s concerns are also local. His district includes Murphy Oil, which refines and sells the crude it buys from across the border in Canada. Jauch told members of Gov. Jim Doyle’s administration that they need to drop this plan to focus on the rest of the renewable energy bill.
Senators Jauch and Plale have been paying attention to their constituents and listening to small businesses across Wisconsin, such as the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, who recently wrote a column on the negative consequences of an LCFS.
While the fight in Wisconsin is far from over, it is clear that the threat of an LCFS still exists in the Badger State, as well as in many other states and regions, including the Mid-West, the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic. Hopefully more state and national policymakers will take notice of Wisconsin’s debate and follow Sens. Jauch and Plale’s lead by exposing the dangerous reality of adopting LCFS proposals.
[...] derived from Canada’s oil sands for their transportation fleets, a host of stories from both Canadian and U.S. news outlets quickly surfaced. However, Bed Bath & Beyond is beginning to hedge its position, understanding [...]