Low-Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) are now being considered for adoption in Washington and in state capitals across the nation. And while everyday consumers may be largely unaware of the far-reaching consequences that such a mandate holds, our major global competitors are keenly aware – and excited – about the prospect of acquiring secure, affordable and reliable energy resources that have traditionally been directed to American consumers, businesses and manufacturers.
The Globe and Mail’s Nathan VanderKlippe reports this today under the headline “Pipeline to West Coast gains backing”:
Commercial support is building for a new pipeline to carry oil sands crude on its way to Asia, as Canada’s energy industry seeks diversification from the U.S. market and an escape valve from potentially punitive climate-change regulations.
That comes amid a shifting of the landscape, as industry executives, politicians and economists increasingly promote the idea that it is risky to rely solely on the United States to buy Canadian crude, especially as the oil sands grow in importance and demand for oil stagnates south of the border.
“For sure, the U.S. isn’t going to like it,” Ms. Cooper said. “But that’s good, because it gives us more leverage with the U.S. For example, it makes it more difficult for the U.S. to threaten us with comments about dirty oil.”
The article also highlights the significant amounts of the reliable energy resources that Canada currently sends to U.S. consumers each day, and notes that China is eager secure as much of this energy as it possibly can:
In the second quarter of this year, Canada exported 1.76 million barrels a day to the U.S, but only 24,000 elsewhere. Several major pipelines to the U.S. will also provide ample capacity for years of oil sands growth.
However, new Asian oil sands entrants – including PetroChina and the Korea National Oil Corp. – have helped raise interest in shipping crude to Asia.
But Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) continues to educate, inform and engage American consumers about the economic and national security threats that an LCFS poses. Under the headline “Talking low carbon fuel standards in Kalamazoo,” WWMT-TV – Kalamazoo’s CBS affiliate – reports this:
An environmental attorney heads to Kalamazoo Thursday to talk about federal energy legislation.
The main focus of the discussion is the Low Carbon Fuel Standard proposal.
The House originally included it in cap-and-trade legislation and senators added it to a climate change bill.
Critics argue it keeps Canadian and other sources of secure, North American energy from reaching consumers.
Lawyer Tom Mullikin says that could have a huge economic impact on Michigan because more than half of the state’s oil comes from Canada. He’s also concerned about security risks.
Also this week, in a column Missoulian column entitled “Be skeptical of bureaucratic fuel standard ratings,” Jan Rogers writes this about a nationwide, one-size-fits-all LCFS – which would effectively block 93 percent of Montana’s oil that currently comes from Canada:
LCFS would cause the U.S. to discriminate against the fuels most affordably available to us – domestic oil from California and Colorado, Mayan crude from Mexico and oil sands from Canada, our neighbor to the north and strongest trading ally in the hemisphere.
At the expense of our Canadian neighbors with whom we share a 545-mile border, proponents of an LCFS would rather give a competitive advantage to far-away dictators who will use these new mandates to expand their sphere of influence and share of the market in the United States. Are you shaking your head yet?
With budgets stretched thin and difficult decisions being made every day in these tough economic times, the people of Montana cannot afford even higher energy bills.
Consider: More than 90 percent of the oil Montana consumers depend on comes from across the border in Canada. Ninety-three, to be exact. An LCFS will dramatically impact our fuel supply, our jobs and our economy – there’s simply no way it can’t.
