Last week, former Vice President Al Gore sat down with The Toronto Star to warn Canadians about how the “dangers of the oil sands.”
But rather than focusing on and highlighting the positive economic and security benefits associated with Canada’s vast energy supplies – which provides American consumers, families and businesses more than 2.5 million barrels of petroleum each day and are considered one of the world’s largest known energy deposits – Gore claims that these abundant reserves will “jeopardize the survival of our species.”
Despite this rhetoric, and baseless claims that “Gas from the tar sands gives a Prius the same carbon footprint as a Hummer,” affordable energy advocates are getting the facts out.
Ed Stelmach, the Premier of Alberta, writes this in yesterday’s Toronto Star under the headline “Oil-sands hysteria only confuses climate debate”:
A realistic and reasonable discussion about oil-sands development must be based on fact. Sadly, Gore’s doomsday assertions about an industry that makes up less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are neither realistic, reasonable nor factual.
The fact is, Alberta’s responsible energy development yields tremendous benefits for all Canadians. While the Canadian economy may not be important to Gore, it certainly is to Canadians. Alberta’s energy resources mean jobs for hundreds of thousands of Canadians across this country and, incidentally, thousands of Americans as well.
Critics of the oil sands, such as Gore, seem to dismiss the fact that 80 per cent of emissions from a barrel of oil come from the end use – the tailpipe. In reality, Ontario drivers produce more greenhouse gas emissions than the oil sands. Comprehensive and independent studies have shown that when considering the full life cycle of a barrel of oil – including getting the oil out of the ground, refining it, then transporting it to market – there is very little difference in greenhouse gas emissions from a litre of gas made from oil sands or Saudi crude.
But it’s not just secure energy advocates in government speaking out on this critical issue. Reliable, affordable energy is the linchpin to America’s manufacturing base. And their voice is being heard, too.
In a recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel column, James Buchen, vice president of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, writes this about the dangers of an LCFS – which would effectively block over 50 percent of Wisconsin’s oil that currently comes from Canada:
A Low Carbon Fuel Standard sounds harmless enough, but this misguided policy would penalize Wisconsin’s dominant source of motor fuel: Canadian crude oil. Studies have shown that such a standard will raise gas prices; it’s a bit like a global warming gas tax. But it gets worse because an LCFS would also threaten many of our state’s family-supporting manufacturing jobs that supply the Canadian oil industry.
Today, more than 50% of our state’s motor fuel comes from Canadian oil…Because Canadian oil is located on our own continent and comes from one of our closest allies, it represents a stable and secure source of energy for Wisconsin. We refine this vital energy resource at our state’s only oil refinery in Superior, and President Barack Obama’s administration recently approved plans to expand the pipeline from Alberta to our state. Equally significant are the thousands of Wisconsin manufacturing jobs tied directly to the Canadian oil industry as suppliers of heavy equipment.
Driving up the cost of Canadian oil with an LCFS will punish Wisconsin consumers by hitting families, farmers, truckers and businesses with higher prices at the pump…We simply cannot afford to saddle consumers with higher energy costs as we struggle to emerge from a deep economic recession.
Earlier this year, Congress had the good sense to reject a national LCFS, recognizing it would harm consumers. Wisconsin lawmakers should follow suit. Any way you cut it, a Low Carbon Fuel Standard is a lose-lose proposition for Wisconsin consumers and workers.
Help keep America’s energy secure, affordable and reliable by telling Congress to oppose a job-killing LCFS. American consumers cannot affordable higher energy costs and an even deeper dependence on unstable regions of the world to fuel our economy.
