Canadians know energy short-sightedness when they see it. This quality distinguishes them from their neighbors to the south.
Election-year goofiness targeting the oil sands of Alberta has nearly escaped notice in the US. But it’s creating an uproar in Canada.
Well it should. The oil sands represent a world-class resource. Their development dominates—some say overheats—the Albertan economy and accounts for much of the economic growth of all of Canada. Oil sands and heavy oil have the potential to generate wealth for many decades. And a market needing oil lies just across the border.
Fickle market
But that market is fickle. A few politicians have discovered that the production of oil sands and heavy oil emits more greenhouse gases than that of most conventional oil. They see this as a reason to shun the development and use of unconventional hydrocarbons. Their choosiness plays into the hands of extremists who want humanity to quit burning hydrocarbons of any type.
Congress initially raised alarm about the environmental drawbacks of oil sands with a section in last year’s Energy Independence and Security Act that seems to prohibit federal agencies from buying fuels derived from unconventional crude. Lawmakers have said they didn’t intend to impose such a ban. An effort to clarify the measure is under way.
The idea, however, won’t die. Last month the US Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution modeled on the federal initiative. It called for bans on purchases for use in city vehicles of any fuel with life-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases deemed excessive. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who spoke at the meeting, later took an apparent jab at oil sands with a comment about “dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive” oil.
These developments have received little attention in the US. In Canada, however, they’re big news. A June 26 article in the Calgary Herald, for example, said grumbles about oil sands in the US have stimulated efforts to develop markets elsewhere.
Political revulsion toward oil sands serves no legitimate interest and highlights the confusion rampant in US discussions of energy. A country with an appetite for oil as strong as that of the US—an appetite that will remain hearty no matter what policies the nation adopts—can’t afford to spurn supply from any source. It also can’t afford to appear hypocritical in international affairs, as the US so often does on energy.
The country perpetually regrets its dependence on oil from far-off exporters thought to be hostile, for example, yet now resists supply from a friendly and nearby neighbor. It frets about the reliability of supply from foreign producers yet gives no apparent thought to its own reliability as a consumer. For persuasive economic reasons, the US so far has refused to adopt limits on emissions of greenhouse gases. But it doesn’t hesitate to act on climate change when the target is an energy resource central to the economy of another country—a country that happens to be a premier ally.
What’s more, resistance to the use of products derived from bitumen and heavy oil conflicts with environmental values. Contrary to the unrealistic wishes driving energy politics, the US and the world will continue to use oil in large amounts for many decades. The substance has advantages of scale and form against which nonhydrocarbon energy sources can’t easily compete. Energy policy should aim not to eradicate the use of oil and other fossil energy but rather to manage the environmental consequences of that use while helping other energy forms gain economic traction as supply supplements.
A laboratory
The oil sands of Alberta present nearly every environmental and social problem associated with oil development and consumption. They also offer the immediate economic compulsion to find solutions. Alberta thus is a commercial-scale laboratory from which energy companies, governments, and environmental groups can learn much about managing the disadvantages of fossil energy in order to responsibly exploit the many advantages.
To foreclose such important work, as the US initiatives obviously seek to do, indeed would be short-sighted. It also would be irresponsible.
