Canada's dirty oil may disrupt Obama's clean energy plans
August 10
John Guerrerio
Trading our dependence upon 'bloody oil' for 'dirty oil' does not solve the problem.
A 1,000-mile long pipeline that is designed to carry around 800,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada’s Alberta oil sands across the border into Wisconsin may receive final spproval by the end of this month. Enbridge Energy, with headquarters located in Alberta, Canada is in charge of the project and is awaiting final approval from the U.S. State Department in order to begin construction. "We’re going to start construction at the end of this month,” the company said. “We believe we will have a successful outcome and look forward to completion by mid-2010. We’re not worried at all”; but should they be worried. Is this the future that America wants? Who can stop this from happening?
If America agrees to continue to increase its dependence upon Canada's dirty oil, our own national clean energy future will be at stake.
Instead of fighting wars in the Middle East in order to procure resources for future generations, America will be trading energy security for an environmental disaster of unimaginable proportions. Oil sands reserves in Alberta are huge, about the size of Florida, but the oil comes out in the form of bitumen. This type of oil is considered the dirtiest of all forms because of the energy and water intensive processes that are necessary to refine it to workable crude. The refining process for bitumen releases 30% more emissions than conventional oil; it takes three barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil from bitumen; toxic tailings pond litter the landscape in the region; and 1.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day are needed to operate the oil sands project.
50 years ago, one barrel of oil was used to extract 100 additional barrels; the Alberta oil sands uses one barrel of oil to produce 5 new ones. Let's apply the same indirect land use changes we are applying to the ethanol industry to the oil industry. If we did, the oild sands project would shut down just like the ethanol industry did.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have some serious weighing of options to consider. On the one hand is the stability of the oil economy; on the other is the clean energy intiative that was one of the mainstays of their collective campaign. To renege on the promises of a cleaner energy future would undoubtedly cause millions of supporters to become angry protesters, or worse yet, apathetic non-participants once again. How can our government consider ignoring the voices of a majority of its own citizenry and call itself a democracy?
Purchasing oil from Canada's oil sands will severely limit America's involvement in the climate talks in Copenhagen later this year. Purchasing oil with 30% more emissions attached to it will cause the American figures for emission reduction targets to rise substantially. Instead of reducing emissions 10% (from 1990 levels) by 2020, America will have to settle for increasing emissions by 10-20% (from 1990 levels). As America's committment goes, so does China's; as America and China go, so does the world.
Two new studies that were funded by organizations heavily invested in the oil sands reported that producing crude from the oil sands only increases greenhouse gases by about 10%, a finding less worse than the original one. Upon closer inspection, however, the figures show improvement not because oil from Canada is getting cleaner, rather the oil from Nigeria, Mexico, Iraq, and Venezuela is getting dirtier; so crude from the oil sands is getting better only in comparison. Overall, extracting oil across the globe is getting dirtier and more water intensive.
So who will benefit from the oil pipeline being constructed across the border? Naturally, Canada is looking for a place to sell its oil; they have invested a lot of money in destroying their own environment, and without economic compensataion the Canadian citizenry will probably rise up in rebellion against the project; but does America need to be the buyer? Should we really compromise our capacity to lead the global clean energy revolution and captialize on new technology over the course the next century for some really dirty oil in our backyard? Canada has already decided to build its own Titanic and sink it in the wilderness in Alberta somewhere; without America's buying power, the project will have to shut down.
The responsibility for granting the permit to cross the border with Canada falls directly on Secretary Clinton's shoulders. No doubt she is working closely with President Obama's energy teams in deciding how dirty America wants to be going forward. Are all politicians full of hot, dirty air? There is no way America should be importing increasing amounts of the dirtiest oil on earth if we are serious about leading the world forward toward a clean energy future.
The approval of this pipeline will give us an indication of just how far the Obama Administration is willing to go in the international climate talks later this year. If the U.S. decides to up-the-ante on the amount of dirty oil from Canada, our negotiating power in Copenhagen will be severely limited, and clean energy will remain a pipedream in the near future.
We will wait and see; by the end of August, we should know the degree to which the Obama Administration is committed to clean energy. The tea leaves will be arranged neatly to tell us where the climate and energy bill are going and how much leadership America will provide in Copenhagen. For the sake of all living creatures everywhere, my fingers are crossed.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2903-Energy-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Canadas-dirty-...
