Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Unlikely to Wade Into Oil Sands Debate
Environmental groups want president to take stand against 'dirty oil'
WASHINGTON - The issue of Canada's carbon-heavy oil sands may be stickier than ever as Barack Obama readies for his lightning visit to Ottawa tomorrow.
But as environmental pressure mounts on the U.S. president to adopt a hard line against Alberta's "dirty oil," sources in Washington expect Obama to sidestep the question so as not to sully a journey intended to send a positive message of renewed Canada-U.S. engagement.
"Nobody is preparing an agenda that would sour the atmosphere. This is going to be all about renewing and refreshing," said Gordon Giffin, a former U.S. ambassador to Canada.
Giffin, who was involved in sweeping aside "potential aggravations" in the run-up to previous presidential visits to Ottawa during the Clinton era, said he expects the oil sands issue to be addressed in broader strokes, as the leaders discuss the prospects for a "continental approach" to energy and the environment.
"The 49th parallel is not a hermetically sealed border," Giffin said. "We share the air, we share the water, and there is a sense that the Obama administration is interested in working out these problems together."
Obama hinted at such a continent-wide approach to energy and the environment in an interview last night, outlining to the CBC's Peter Mansbridge the "possibility of a template that we can create between Canada, the United States and Mexico."
"It is possible for us to create a set of clean energy mechanisms that allow us to use things not just like oil sands, but also coal," said Obama. "The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we have our own homegrown problems in terms of dealing with a cheap energy source that creates a big carbon footprint."
Obama's pragmatic message on Canadian energy comes amid weeks of hard activism on the part of environmental and native groups, including a full-page ad yesterday in USA Today challenging what it called Ottawa's "flawed climate policy designed to allow tar sands expansion."
The ad, posted by environmental group ForestEthics, the Mikisew Cree and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations communities, urged Obama not to provide "special treatment for Canada's fastest-growing source of (carbon) emissions."
Giffin told the Star the pressure is welcome, provided it leaves room for realistic solutions.
"We're not all going to be getting fuel from a corn cob to run our car next week," he said. "But there is every reason to believe that we can and will invest much more in technology as quickly as possible to provide the transition away from fossil fuels. Myself, I'd rather pay a premium for Alberta oil rather than continuing to import from Venezuela or the Middle East, if I know the premium is going toward clean-technology investment."
- Posted in
8 Comments so far
Show AllUntil the US adopts hemp and algae for fuel, our addiction and shackled dependence to crude oil is unlikely to stop. I'm sorry but it's we the people who are desperate for snorting out that oil. Please tell your reps and sens to overturn the ban on hemp and provide more funding for generating oil from algae.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
We need reasonable sized cars running on methane. Fill up free at any landfill or beanery and get a carbon cerdit to boot. Argentina runs it's cars on natural gas - why can't America.
Natural gas (methane) is a little too dangerous to be in millions of cars. In truth, no "solution" is ideal. Imagine the environmental impact of all those plug in hybrid batteries going into landfills. I like the air car (it stores its fuel as compressed air, which it generates itself) the best, but even it is not "ideal".
For those interested in the fuel debate, I'd look at James Howard Kunstler's book, The Long Emergency. kunster.com He's a bright and high amusing author. Basically, he says that we will use every single thing we can because nothing packs the power of oil. Oil will never completely disappear, it will just become too expensive to extract. The culture of "happy motoring" will diminish and it will completely change the way we live; I'd say for the better, but we're not going to like it at all.
TAR SANDS, TAR SANDS, TAR SANDS! Got it? The industry wishes to refer to the tar sands as "oil sands" because it makes it sound like it's oil with a little sand mixed in. NO. It's a sticky gooey tar like substance with various types of soil mixed in, sand, silt, clay... etc. If it were "oil sands" we could just filter it but this stuff requires massive amounts of energy to heat the TAR up in order to process it. It's the type of thing that is only viable when oil prices are very high and government subsidies and allowances for pollution are granted.
I guess thats why Obama sees no need to wade into the debate. With oil at 35 dollar a barrel, nobody is going near tar sands, and even oil sands is no longer as attractive.
Kernal corn ethanol produces about 5% of the gasoline needs in the US and is produced from about 25% of the US corn crop. So, the ex-ambassador's point lacks much in terms of effective comparison.
While the Athabasca tar sands may be now counted as proven reserves comparable to 70% of the reserves in the MidEast, the energy required to extract and refine such tar and the carbon emissions (inclusive of CO2, methane, etc.) far exceed the carbon emissions required to refine the sulfur heavy oil from Venezuela's Orinoco field and refining facilities already exist for refining the latter. In the 1990s, Athabasca tar was only profitable for extracting and refining if the world oil price exceeded roughly $100/bbl. Thus, the rejection of the Venezuelan oil for the Alberta tar is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, while reaping more harm of pollution on a world where carbon emissions polluted the atmosphere cannot be removed.
This forcible isolationist, we-they, plutocratic foreign policy vis-a-vis Venezuela is only pushed by the US because it is unable to inject its own corporate capital into situations where the US can exert control.
Michael Slattery
Emily Horswill And as everyone of reads or hears knows using corn and land to produce it, means less food for a hungry world. On top of that corn eats fertilizer. The answer is hemp which fertilizes the land for the next crop as it grows, feeds the people royally on grain for cereal and bread and flour with offering 9 times the protein available from any other known food. In the articles I have written about it, I call it The Miracle Paper Plant and miracle it is. As the first plant grown by human hands, I believe it is the food referred to in the Bible as mana and, yes, it also makes paper which has a life span no one has measured, but certainly greater than the polluting paper. I'll cover all bases and say that The Paper Plant can produce 85 per cent of human needs. But I am getting off the track.
We were discussing pollution, and we are: while making paper from our forests requires a vicious pollutant that will eat holes in marble, devour bones and hair, kills fish and about anything worth while, the paper plant is processed in water which it absorbs in elephantine quantities and returns to the atmosphere as ozone. And it is not marijuana, but one of thousands of plants belonging to hemp family. It was sentenced to oblivion because certain merchants had products that could not compete. In truth was too good for the human race. It needs new curriculum.
It is the only known renewable that can meet the world’s energy needs and, simultaneously, cleanse the atmosphere.
But most people now know it. Why, in article after article is it left outside when we so desperately need to bring it in? Where is the UN? We ought to be writing, talking and shouting about it. It should part of every environmental discussion.
THANK YOU ! Finally, another aware user who fully understands the beauty of HEMP ! God bless you !