Security trumps environment as Obama gives green light to US consumption of Alberta’s oil.

Posted by Chris Fellingham on June 21, 2009 at 19:23
Canada, Energy

President Obama, in close discussions with Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is to give the green light for US consumption of oil sand oil, or rather the import of fuels considered among the “dirtiest” in the fuel market. In a meeting last week, President Obama decided that the Canada’s oil sands represented an important part of national security supplies for petroleum in America’s near future.

The move is not without immediate precedent, as Francois Cardinal at cybercress.ca notes, both Hillary Clinton had offered support for oil sands at a recent conference on energy security, and Obama’s national Security adviser General Jim Jones was similarly adamant that the US would be foolish to reject the possibility of a stable source from a close partner in Canada.

The move will disappoint many in the green movement, given Obama has previously been less supportive of oil sands, noting that the Us needed to ween itself off dirty and dangerous oil supplies. In particular at a recent summit with Canada, President Obama described US coal as equivalent to Alberta’s oil sands, given environmentalists hope that the US would take a tough line demanding far reaching cleanup efforts if the oil sands were ever to be imported.

Speaking at a recent energy conference the Calgary Herald noted Energy Secretary’s Chu’s position

“This is energy that one hopes to develop in a clean way, and so that you can decrease the environmental footprint, both in the energy invested in order to recover it and on the local environmental issues,” Chu said Monday in response to a Herald query.

“There are also environmental issues having to do with the recovery of the oil sands, the very tarry stuff that’s left behind, the residues. There haven’t been solutions to that yet,” added Chu, who met privately with Premier Ed Stelmach on Monday for about 30 minutes”

How far the environmental issues are pushed depends on a large number of factors, in terms of Canada’ s federal Climate policy projects such as oil sands are only required to reduce the intensity of their energy consumption in order to keep with Canada’s GHG targets, in short allowing growth in absolute Carbon emissions. Worse, of the projects designed to reduce emissions from critical polluting sectors, most of Canada’s research investment is going to “clean coal” rather than oil sands:

“Alberta Minister of Environment Rob Renner said Tuesday that the lion’s share of $ 2 billion planned for the burial of carbon was destined for the coal industry”

However, environmental movements within Canada, have made strong progress in other states such as British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec which could increase the pressure on states such as Alberta to set more ambitious reduction targets and forcing them to channel greater investment into cleaning up the oil sands. Furthermore, the role of California the US’s biggest car using state has effectively banned Alberta oil unless it cleans up, through regional Environmental alliances such as the WCI such policy could be diffused throughout other key states, potentially even within Canada.

In summary, oil sands as noted previously now look set for a stable future, one albeit without the much feared spectacular growth that marked environmentalists concerns prior to the recession and one in which increasing pressure will probably be put on the oil sands to reduce their environmental impact, but in terms of derailment, the oil sands appear to have escaped that pitfall.

Tags: , , ,

10 Comments to Security trumps environment as Obama gives green light to US consumption of Alberta’s oil.

Milan
22 June 2009

The oil sands are touted as a resource equivalent to a second Saudi Arabia. This is the last thing the world needs. There are only so many fossil fuels we can burn while still having a decent shot of avoiding catastrophic climate change. As a result, fossil fuels are an industry with no long-term future. This is indirectly demonstrated by the shamefully weak greenhouse gas mitigation targets adopted by Alberta. They know that even if CCS development progresses perfectly, it will not let them bring their emissions in line with what is sustainable.

More:

http://www.sindark.com/2008/09/26/how-much-carbon-dioxide-can-we-release/

http://www.sindark.com/2009/01/23/the-fossil-fuel-industry-has-no-long-term-future/

[...] Jun 22, 2009 United States, Great Britain and Russia Climate Action In the News [...]

noaaprogrammer
22 June 2009

– just think of it as man cleaning up a big Mother-nature oil spill. True, it now goes from being a carbon footprint in the sand to one in the sky, but over time, the majority of it will end up in the ocean, gradually incrementing its pH by such a small amount over such a long period of time that the sea creatures will have plenty of time to evolve and adapt.

Henry chance
22 June 2009

The pipeline is under construction. It started over 1 year ago. With crude up, it is now more profitible for the canadian economy. Our partner is one of our largest sourfces of oil and trading.

Tom C.
23 June 2009

i would like to see one AGW cite obe single solitary peer reviewed back engineered paper that proves AGW casued by co2. Answer; there is none, zip, zero, never has been. It’s all a big lie. If you have it refernce it, show it, just do something rather than lie.

Chris
23 June 2009

Milan – I agree that the oil sands are inconsistent with any serious Climate Change target, its liuke the UK and Kingsnorth Power station. The real problem, as I highlighted in a previous post is that there is too much weath and concomitant geo-political power to be gained from developing tar sands that I imagine they will receive a large amount of political protection.

Presumably this could also have a knock on effect in international negotiations where other countries use Canada’s oil sands as leverage for their own special opt-out.

Either the environment lobby will have to really push to change Canadian attitudes – and/or international pressure to move forward again, or the same groups will demand deeper cuts elsewhere to compensate. Neither seems ideal.

[...] Climatico » Security trumps environment as Obama gives green light … [...]

ddbleader61
24 June 2009

Er…Canada has provinces not states. Not that much of the discourse in the U.S. about the tar sands recognizes Canada’s sovereignty over its own resources anyway.

Chris
25 June 2009

Tom – CI’m not quite sure where you’re coming from there.

ddbleader 61 – I apologise for the mistake ( provinces not states) but there is a significant amount of discourse in the US on Canada’s tar sands within the environmental and scientific movement and its far too much a simplification to say US recognises canada’s right to its own resources – that somewhat misses the point of all climate negotiations.

[...] what could possibly go wrong, again? Lefty heads popped all over America and Canada as President O spoke favorably of Alberta

Leave a comment