Is the U.S. About to Help Canada Significantly Increase Its Carbon Pollution?

The State Department – the same US government agency in charge of international global warming negotiations – is poised to make a decision which would help expand tar sands in Canada.  Expansion of tar sands in Canada will dramatically increase Canada’s global warming pollution according to a new Canadian government report, putting it significantly out of reach of the commitment it made at Copenhagen.  The Obama Administration has a simple choice – help stop global warming and reject the Keystone XL project OR approve Keystone XL and help another country fail to meet its global warming commitments.  The Obama Administration should not make a decision which would push Canada to fail to meet a commitment made as a part of the Copenhagen Accord – an agreement brokered in person by President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

The choice has become even more obvious as news broke that the Canadian government had released a projection showing that tar sands expansion would be the single largest contributor to the growth in Canada’s global warming pollution (see figure).  The report, as noted by the Globe and Mail, predicts that global warming pollution from tar sands will “rise by 62 megatonnes, tripling its 2005 levels.”  So the single most important action that Canada could take to help meet its global warming commitment made in Copenhagen would be to stop tar sands expansion.

 

The implication of tar sands expansion on Canada’s ability to meet its Copenhagen commitments is even more obvious when looking at the view of the energy minister from the Province of Alberta – the province home to tar sands.  As the Globe and Mail reported: “Energy Minister Ron Liepert said Alberta does not want to see Canada meet its commitments to international greenhouse-gas-reduction protocols.” 

As my colleague recently pointed out: President Obama is writing the climate legacy of his first term now.  President Obama is developing standards that address the two biggest sources of global warming pollution: Power plants and cars.  And President Obama has another important choice – to put a stop to the expansion of tar sands.  After all, as the New York Times notes: “The vast majority of oil produced from the [tar sands] deposits is shipped to the United States.”  

So by rejecting the Keystone XL project the Obama Administration could single-handedly make the most important decision to aid Canada in meeting its international global warming commitment.  After all, as President Obama stated in Copenhagen: “We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past -- with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet.”

The choice is now in front of the Obama Administration – take action to help stop global warming and reject the Keystone XL project.

 

Follow Jake Schmidt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jschmidtnrdc

Comments

[KarlaElisa]

03:48 PM on 08/10/2011

"The report, as noted by the Globe and Mail, predicts that global warming pollution from tar sands will “rise by 62 megatonnes, tripling its 2005 levels.”

this is so effed up it's not funny.

[Gypsyflame]

10:24 AM on 08/10/2011

And, so what if the water source for millions of Americans becomes polluted. I say let the pipeline go to ports in Canada and not come through the US at all.

[Genders]

09:16 PM on 08/09/2011

13B$. How long to build? for 5% increase in our oil from Canada. Last I heard those tar sand had negative net energy value.

Why don't we spend the money on waste bio oil instead.

[Malcolm Hensley]

12:12 AM on 08/10/2011

What? Last you heard those tar sand had a negative net energy net energy value???
Think oil companies don't know how to use a calculator?

Getting oil out of places like North Dakota from oil shale is only $60-75 dollars a barrel and much better for oil sands!

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/25/markets/100_dollar_oil/index.htm

Now personally I'm against this project because the mid western refineries are getting a deal! The oil is basically trapped until we build this pipeline so the oil can be exported to the world.

[Genders]

09:11 PM on 08/10/2011

Yup, perhaps the processes has gotten better, or the pr, I don't know which.

"In Iraq, the process of using one barrel of oil generates 100 new barrels. In the tar sands, estimates of 3 to 1 and even as low as 1.5 to 1 have been made. Offsetting the net energy loss would require minimally 25-30 tar sands facilities for one Saudi plant operating at the same capacity."

http://oilsandstruth.org/topics/energy

[NJP1]

05:40 PM on 08/09/2011

Obama has no choice but to accede to the oil extraction from the tarsands. Consider his problem: he has an economy locked into the use of oil as an energy source at every level. Forget renewables and alternatives, they are never going to supply more than 10% of the country’s needs and can have no influence on food supplies 99% of which are oil-dependent. Virtually all employment also needs oil in one way or another. He knows that oil output is in terminal decline, but the tarsands buy a few more years of supply, even though the environmental cost is appalling. If he refuses to tap into the tarsands that means he has to buy more oil from countries unfriendly to the USA, where political upheaval could cut off the supply on an instant, sending the US economy into an even faster decline than it is already. Refusing the tarsands supply would also guarantee his departure from office and election of a President who would tear the country apart to get the last dregs of oil. This is a problem for the world, as oil goes into decline, the struggle to maintain supply will get more desperate and will lead to escalating armed conflict as oil becomes scarcer. Obama knows this, but also knows that he has real trouble on his hands if people can’t afford their gas. http://www.yourmedievalfuture.com/