Whose energy independence?
Tar sands are key to energy security plans in the US election, but federal parties ignore Canada’s dependence on foreign oil
RICARDO ACUÑA / ualberta.ca/parkland
One of the ways in which the current US presidential election differs from the current Canadian federal election is that oil prices, energy independence and energy security are all critical campaign issues for the US.
Americans are upset about high prices at the pump, and they are clearly concerned about being so dependent on “volatile” countries in the Middle East and Venezuela for more than a quarter of their petroleum needs.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats have responded by making energy security and independence a key plank in their respective platforms, and senators Obama and McCain have gone out of their way to ensure they are addressing these issues in every speech.
The key issue they are addressing is the fact that the US currently imports more than 12 million barrels of oil per day, which represents almost 60 per cent of its annual consumption of oil. With a full-out war being waged in Iraq, another one possibly on the way in Iran and an unabashedly unfriendly government in Venezuela, Americans are rightly concerned about the security of their supply. Add to that the reality that terrorist attacks against oil company facilities throughout the Middle East and Africa have been on the rise, and you can gain an appreciation for their level of concern.
It is to that end that John McCain is promising that “in a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025.” Not to be outdone, Barack Obama is promising to “eliminate” the US’s need for Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil “within 10 years.”
Combined, the Persian Gulf and Venezuela account for just over 26 per cent of US oil imports. Both candidates are vowing to eliminate the need for these imports through some combination of conservation measures and the promotion of “alternative fuels.” Obama includes a windfall profits tax in his plan, and McCain wants to end the current moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf.
Although their specific plans differ substantively, there can be no doubt that it is incredibly smart and strategic for them to be addressing these questions in such a high-profile way during this election.
These same issues, however, will receive no airtime or profile whatsoever during Canada’s current federal election. Why would they?
Contrary to popular belief, Canada imports substantial amounts of oil every year—about 40 per cent of all the oil we consume in Canada is imported. Breaking those numbers down regionally shows that Eastern Canada is dependent on imports for 90 per cent of its oil needs.
Of the almost 850 000 barrels that Canada imports each day, almost half comes from OPEC countries, including Algeria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In other words, we are almost twice as dependent on volatile countries for our imports as the United States. Despite that fact, not one of Canada’s federal parties even mentions energy security on their websites or in their platforms.
If we as Canadians can understand why the US would want to eliminate the need for the 26 per cent of their imports that come from the Middle East and Venezuela, why are we sitting back and doing nothing about the fact that more than 45 per cent of our imports come from similarly volatile countries?
Is it because of Alberta’s tar sands, which are estimated to hold the world’s second largest reserve of oil after Saudi Arabia?
The sad reality is that 75 per cent of tar sands oil is exported directly to the United States, meaning it is completely useless to most Canadians. That proportion will rise even further thanks to the five new pipelines being planned and developed to carry even more tar sands product to the United States.
Given that virtually all of the pipelines leaving Alberta flow south of the border, it’s absurd to think that somehow the tar sands provide energy security and independence for Canada. In fact the opposite is true.
The United States National Energy Policy acknowledges explicitly that Alberta’s tar sands are a cornerstone of US energy security. Both Obama’s and McCain’s energy security plans would fail miserably if they were not able to rely on growing and secure supplies from Alberta.
In other words, Alberta’s tar sands are the key element in all of the US’s explicitly articulated energy security and independence plans, yet they contribute nothing at all to Canada’s own energy security. And given the resounding silence coming from Ottawa and the federal parties on this issue, it’s clear that this situation will not change any time soon.
The bottom line is that if OPEC stopped exporting oil tomorrow, we in Canada would lose over 45 per cent of our oil imports and the United States would lose 26 per cent of theirs. Yet their political leaders are elaborating a plan to address this problem with our oil, and we are not.
As Canadians, it’s incumbent upon us to demand that our political leaders pay at least as much attention to our energy security as the Americans are to their own. It is also critical that we demand an energy policy which ensures that Canadian oil is used to guarantee Canada’s energy independence before it gets sent south to secure that of the Americans. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away, it will make it worse—especially given the continued growth in our oil exports. The federal election has just started. Now is the time to make this an issue. V
Ricardo Acuña is executive director of the Parkland Institute, a non-partisan public policy research institute housed at the University of Alberta.
