take action NOW 
watch youtube videos 

Posts Tagged ‘Secure Our Fuels’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Hoosier State Rep., Environmental Attorney in TN Underscore LCFS Threats

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

While the US Senate continues to march forward with sweeping global warming legislation, many experts and policymakers outside of Washington are sounding the alarm about a national, one-size-fits-all low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). Over the weekend, Indiana state representative Dave Wolkins wrote a column entitled “Low-carbon fuel standard would hurt Indiana’s economy” in the South Bend Tribune. Wolkins, who represents Indiana’s 18th legislative district and serves as his party’s top member on the Environmental Affairs Committee, write this about an LCFS:

A new federal proposal threatens to raise fuel prices, strengthen our foreign energy dependence and cost us thousands of high quality jobs. With the current economic conditions and Indiana’s unemployment in the 10 percent range now is not the time for such a proposal.

[An LCFS] is not about making the fuel in your car today better, cleaner or more affordable; but it is designed to make the fuels we rely on today more scarce, more expensive and less available. To that end, it will be successful.

An LCFS will in fact give a competitive edge to far-away dictators and will increase our dependence on foreign oil. As a state that relies on energy production and refining jobs, Indiana cannot afford this costly job-killing mandate.

And last week, energy and environmental policy expert Tom Mullikin made his way from Nashville to Chattanooga, highlighting the economic and environmental threats that an LCFS presents. Mullikin’s presentation was covered by the Cleveland Daily Banner. The paper’s managing editor, David Davis, reports this under the headline “Mullikin: Climate policy can cause shift of jobs”:

Because more of the oil being produced in Canada is heavier, it will receive a higher carbon intensity score, which will discourage its use.

“By not using Canadian crude oil, we will put our country’s energy security at risk,” Mullikin said.

The low carbon fuel standard is an idea that originated in California that imports only about 1 percent of its crude oil from Canada. Nationally, however, the U.S. would be forced to rely on lighter crude from the Middle East. Canada is currently the top importer of crude oil into the U.S. An LCFS will also result in volatile gas and commodity prices, the loss of U.S. refinery and pipeline jobs, and an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.

“Make no mistake, this crude oil will be used, even if we are prohibited from using it in the U.S. In August, a Chinese oil company made a major investment in a Canadian oil sands project. They clearly value this resource,” Mullikin said.

He said sending Canadian crude oil to countries like China, instead of the U.S., would increase global greenhouse gas emissions because it would be transported farther and processed by refineries in countries with weaker environmental regulations.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Another Week, Another Energy Expert in Another VA Paper Highlighting LCFS Threats

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Last week, Rear Admiral [Ret.] James J. Carey took to the pages of the Richmond Times-Dispatch to underscore the national security threats posed by a nationwide, one-size-fits-all low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). As you may recall, Adm. Carey writes this in his column “LCFS: A Great Blow to American Security”:

Of all the current and future components of the Senate cap-and-trade bill, no provision stands at greater odds with that imperative than an infrequently mentioned policy proposal known as the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Added initially to the House’s version of cap-and-trade, some in Congress are chafing for its inclusion in the Senate version expected to be debated later this fall. If successfully added, an LCFS would initiate a direct and systematic assault on the energy and economic security of this nation.

An LCFS, if passed, would erode our present situation even more than it currently is. And it would render our country, and those who both live in it and have spent their lives defending it, less secure as a result.

And over the weekend, Consumer Energy Alliance’s vice president Michael Whatley – a low carbon fuel standard expert – penned a column in the Hampton Roads Daily Press. Under the headline “Low-carbon fuel standards would cost Virginians,” Whatley writes this:

The Western refinery in Yorktown is situated on some of the most patriotic real estate in the country. You don’t need me to run through the history; you know what was won there, what was forever lost, and what sort of mission-critical infrastructure it — and the entire Hampton Roads area — supports today.

But would you believe that most of the oil processed at the Yorktown facility comes from Brazil? Of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that — Brazil is one of America’s closest trading partners. We’re so close, in fact, that President Barack Obama’s national security adviser announced this summer that the U.S. government would be investing $10 billion in Brazil’s offshore energy exploration program.

Unfortunately, a new policy being advanced in Congress known as the low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) threatens to cut off a critical energy supply source that Virginians — both civilian and military — depend on for high-quality, affordable fuel. Brazilian crude doesn’t have any more carbon in it than other forms of oil. It doesn’t emit more carbon dioxide when refined into gasoline and used in our engines. But it does take a bit more energy to bring to market. And if you’re a proponent of an LCFS, that’s grounds for immediate exile.

Whatley adds this:

Most Americans have never heard of an LCFS — and that’s the way it will stay, if all goes according to plan. With all the attention being paid right now to cap-and-trade, advocates are hoping that the marquee isn’t big enough to include a statement on the perils of an LCFS.

But now you know: An LCFS means higher prices at the pump, fewer good-paying jobs for Virginians, and expanded dependence on foreign, unstable regimes for the energy we need to run this country.

Secure Our Fuels is continuing its public outreach and educational efforts as the Senate moves forward with its consideration of global warming legislation. In fact, this week radio advertisements began running in Tennessee urging voters and concerned citizens to contact US Senator Lamar Alexander – who has long supported an LCFS, but appears recently to be rethinking his stance – and ask him to oppose a job-killing low carbon fuel mandate that would weaken our energy security and increase our dangerous dependence on unstable regions of the world for our energy.

Here is the script of that ad:

In international news, Communist China continues to buy up North American energy reserves. China is already working with Cuba to drill just 90 miles off our coast, and has now inked a deal to secure vast supplies of Canadian oil – oil that could have come to the U.S.

China is buying all the North American energy it can get. Remarkably, our own Congress appears to be in on the deal – pushing a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard that can ban Canadian oil from crossing our border, making it easier for China to buy up to 2 million barrels per day from our own backyard.

A Low-Carbon Fuel Standard would increase our dependence on foreign regimes, and reward China with even more access to North American supplies. What’s Congress thinking?

Call Senator Alexander at 615-736-5129. Tell him to oppose Low-Carbon Fuel Standards and fight for North American energy security.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 1 Comment »

Playa Del Carmen

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

Top DOE energy policy analyst Carmen Difiglio stuns conference crowd with presentation detailing how BAD an LCFS would be for America

As convention venues go, the annual transportation conference at the Asilomar resort in Pacific Grove, Calif. is about as good as they come. A round of golf at Pebble Beach in the morning, a stimulating discussion on CAFE standards in the afternoon, and a long walk down the shoreline of the famed Monterey Peninsula at night — convention-goers to this invitation-only event may know exactly what to expect when they come each year, but that doesn’t make the experience any less wonderful.

Good thing for him, Carmen Difiglio’s invitation wasn’t conditioned on pre-event approval of his presentation. Turns out Mr. Difiglio doesn’t think a nationwide Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), as initially introduced in Waxman-Markey, is such a good idea. And at a conference like this, talk like that will relegate you to the back of the dining hall, where you’ll be forced to eat your Monterey salmon boudin noir on choucroute all by your lonesome.

But who cares what he thinks? His boss should: As the deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Energy, Mr. Difiglio is the Obama administration’s lead energy policy analyst. This is a man who helped develop the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990; headed up the energy technology division at the International Energy Agency; directed the U.S. Alternative Fuels Council; and supervised the creation (apparently not the unveiling!) of the National Energy Strategy before that. When he talks, smart people listen – and then advise their bosses on what to do, say and think next.

Mr. Difiglio gave a presentation at the Asilomar conference in July and although he’s careful to indicate that the conclusions he puts forth “do not reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Energy,” it’s worthwhile, nonetheless, to see what the Energy Department’s top policy analyst has to say about one of the most complicated, and potentially sweeping, policy proposals making its way around Congress today.

Here are some of the key conclusions, pulled verbatim, from his presentation:

A national LCFS* is not estimated to:

  • significantly increase world-wide biofuel production.
  • discourage production of petroleum feed stocks with higher [greenhouse gas] emissions.
  • appreciably reduce world-wide carbon emissions

In case you’re scoring at home, those three things that Mr. Difiglio says an LCFS will not achieve – they’re the same things that LCFS proponents universally cite as reasons we need to immediately implement the policy, even if it results in higher prices at the pump, fewer jobs for American workers here at home, and a significant diminution in American security as our competitors in China claim energy resources previously earmarked for U.S. markets.

To his credit, Mr. Difiglio pulls no punches in rendering an honest assessment of how much secure, affordable energy U.S. consumers can expect to lose under an LCFS, and how much of that energy our friends in China and elsewhere in Asia will gobble up in our stead.

The chart below was taken directly from Mr. Difiglio’s presentation (slide 16), and shows that under an LCFS, nearly 2 million barrels of secure Canadian crude A DAY would be diverted to Asian markets by 2025 – energy that, under the “reference case” scenario, would have been sent to and used by grateful energy consumers in the United States:

The imposition of an LCFS won’t do a thing to impede Canada’s efforts to develop its homegrown oil sands, according to DOE’s top energy policy analyst – the only thing it will impede is Americans’ ability to access those resources as more and more of them are shipped away to China. Armed with this analysis, Mr. Difiglio then takes on another article of faith among the pro-LCFS crowd: the idea that global greenhouse gas emissions would significantly drop, even though more than 80 percent of transportation sector emissions come from the combustion (not the production) of refined fuel.

Mr. Difiglio makes short work of this canard as well (debunked in a recent study), laying out in clear detail what should be apparent to anyone with the capacity for honest observation. Would an LCFS limit the amount of energy available to Americans, and thus marginally reduce the amount of carbon we, as Americans, emit? It might. But every bit of that reduction would be swallowed up and spit out by our competitors around the world – countries like China, which will be more than happy to take this energy off our hands and emit significantly more carbon in the process of consuming it along the way. Mr. Difiglio’s chart makes this point plain:

Carmen Difiglio is not a maker of public policy; only an analyst thereof. Ultimately, it will be incumbent upon our policy-makers to take a close look at the work that Mr. Difiglio and other credible sources have done in this area, and decide whether the stated goals of an LCFS align with the actual benefits we as Americans, informed by these analyses, should expect to receive.

But if Mr. Difiglio’s research is any indication, the disconnect between these two phenomena are wide and growing wider. Still to be answered is whether the disconnect between Mr. Difiglio’s bosses and the American people is of similar expanse.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | 2 Comments »

ICYMI – SD State Rep. in Sioux Falls Paper: “LCFS will make fuel more scarce, expensive”

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

SD State Rep. in State’s Largest Paper on What an LCFS Means: “Higher prices at the pump, fewer good-paying jobs for Americans and expanded dependence on energy from unstable regions of the world”

  • “The low-carbon fuel standard isn’t at all interested in making the fuel in your car today better, cleaner or more affordable. It’s only interested in making those fuels scarcer, more expensive and less available. Achieve that, the logic goes, and newer, lower-carbon fuel options will be forced to come online in the future since the American people won’t be able to afford the fuels on the market right now.”

Policy will make fuel more scarce, expensive
Sioux Falls Argus Leader
By Rep. Val Rausch
October 1, 2009

On Aug. 20, the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources made the historic decision to grant a critical and hard-fought air permit for the Hyperion oil refining project in Elk Point. By now I’m sure you’ve heard plenty about the project: the 1,800 new jobs it will create, the $13.7 billion in local economic activity, the $50 million in annual state tax receipts.

But while everyone’s attention is rightly focused on which series of state, local and federal permits we need next – and when these new jobs actually might start to be created – legislation currently making its way through Congress and supported in full by the White House might render those considerations moot.

The policy is called the low-carbon fuel standard. And if it becomes law, no permit in the world will be able to save the Hyperion project from the proverbial scrap heap.

What is the low-carbon fuel standard? The way its proponents describe it, it doesn’t actually sound half-bad. Who could be against a policy that promises to deliver fuel that’s high in energy and low in price – all while emitting less carbon dioxide from our tailpipes?

Do a little digging, however, and you quickly find out that the low-carbon fuel standard isn’t at all interested in making the fuel in your car today better, cleaner or more affordable. It’s only interested in making those fuels scarcer, more expensive and less available. Achieve that, the logic goes, and newer, lower-carbon fuel options will be forced to come online in the future since the American people won’t be able to afford the fuels on the market right now.

If the devil is in the details, the mechanics of how a low-carbon fuel standard would work in practice could’ve been cribbed straight from Dante. First, bureaucrats gather up samples of crude oil. Each sample is then assigned a carbon score, not based on how much carbon is in the oil (that’s constant) but on how much estimated energy was used to bring that oil to market.

Heavy crudes require more energy to produce than light crudes and therefore receive a higher (read “worse”) life-cycle carbon score. Oil sands from Canada and oil shale from the American Intermountain West are treated even more harshly under this system.

And corn-based ethanol? The way the bureaucrats see it, ethanol is even worse than the rest since farmers in developing countries likely will have to cut down more of their trees to grow corn since Americans are using so much of theirs for fuel. Follow all that?

Of course, the success of the Hyperion project is predicated on steady access to affordable, secure supplies of Canadian crude oil. But under a low-carbon fuel standard, Canada intentionally is singled out for exclusion.

Why is that? Do Canada’s heavier crudes contain more carbon? No. Do they emit more carbon dioxide from the tailpipe? No. Do they at least weigh more than other lighter crudes? Not really.

But thanks to their density and relatively remote point of origination, these sources of oil require a bit more energy to bring to market than other forms of Jed Clampett crude – you know, the kind that springs from the ground via a single, haphazardly discharged shotgun shell.

For supporters of the low-carbon fuel standard, though, production of heavy crude is an original sin. And although the program might not intend to affect the future of South Dakota’s economy for the worse, that’s precisely what it will do – $13.7 billion a year worse.

But wait a minute. Who’s got all the light crude? The kind that the low-carbon fuel-standard scheme is rigged to benefit? Would you believe it if I told you the vast majority of the world’s lightest, sweetest crudes is controlled by some of the world’s least reliable, most dictatorial regimes? Because it is. And a low-carbon fuel standard would be an absolute gift to a region of the world that, in case you haven’t read, doesn’t like the United States all that much.

The vast majority of Americans never has heard of the low-carbon fuel standard, just as its proponents prefer. Now you know: The low-carbon fuel standard means higher prices at the pump, fewer good-paying jobs for Americans and expanded dependence on energy from unstable regions of the world.

Let’s get the permits we need first. And then let’s make sure a nationwide low-carbon fuel standard imposed on us from Washington doesn’t render them useless.

Val Rausch represents South Dakota’s 4th legislative district in the state House. He holds the position of speaker pro tempore.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | No Comments »

Happy Birthday, China

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

What do you get for the country that has everything? LCFS supporters in Congress want to give communist China the gift of 2 million barrels a day of secure, U.S.-bound energy

In just a few hours, the People’s Republic of China will formally begin the celebration of the 60th anniversary of its founding – marked, in part, by an Olympics-style military parade and tattoo showcasing its expanding political, strategic and economic clout.

Fundamental to China’s growing influence over the past several decades has been its ability to secure affordable, reliable forms of energy – a task the Chinese government has taken on with relentless determination and a renewed willingness to go anywhere, do anything, and pay whatever it takes to procure the resources it needs to strengthen its global position relative to its competitors and raise the standard of living for its citizens.

So, what do you get for the nation that has everything? A tie rack, it would seem, is out of the question. Unfortunately, some in Congress are working right now to send our friends in China a birthday gift that will ensure steady, reliable access to energy resources from Canada – offered in the form of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) policy that will allow the Chinese to claim oil reserves previously earmarked for use by American consumers.

Originally included in early drafts of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill narrowly approved by the U.S. House, provisions seeking the imposition of a nationwide LCFS were not added to the initial Boxer-Kerry draft released today. But although U.S. energy consumers and those who value American security appear to have gotten a reprieve from this devastating proposal in this latest round of horse-trading, all signs continue to point to an LCFS being offered as an amendment to cap-and-trade either in committee or on the Senate floor.

Later today, U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a vocal proponent of LCFS, will be holding a press conference to put forth a series of concerns that Senate Republicans have with the Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade draft. Ahead of the event, and in view of the serious economic and security consequences that an LCFS would visit upon the American people, we offer below just a few of the questions that reporters, policy-makers, and members of the general public might want to ask as the debate enters a new phase:

1)       Senator Alexander, now that both the House and Senate have introduced climate bills that exclude a job-killing Low-Carbon Fuel Standard from the text, will you take this opportunity today to rescind your long-standing support for the policy, and commit to dropping all plans to add it into subsequent iterations of the bill as it moves to the Senate floor?

2)       Senator Alexander, a recent analysis compiled by one of President Obama’s own energy advisors found that an LCFS would divert more than 2 million barrels a day of secure, Canadian energy from the United States to our competitors in China. In view of communist China celebrating its 60th birthday this week, do you believe this is an appropriate gift – especially if it comes at the expense of U.S. consumers?

3)       Senator Alexander, you’ve been quoted as saying an LCFS is an “effective way” to reduce carbon emissions without “raising the price of gasoline.” Both of these assertions have been disproven by non-partisan analysis, most recently in a report published in the American Economic Journal by professors from California and North Carolina. Do you still believe that a policy which seeks to limit the amount and type of energy Americans can access would be a free lunch for the American economy?

4)       Senator Alexander, earlier this month, Consumer Energy Alliance sent a letter to National Security Advisor James Jones asking him and the National Security Council to analyze the impact on U.S. security that passage of an LCFS would create. Will you shelve your plans to offer an LCFS amendment in both committee and on the Senate floor until the results of that study are made available to your office?

5)       Senator Alexander, you stand today alongside the minority leadership of the U.S. Senate. Is your support for an LCFS proposal that would ban Canadian energy from crossing the U.S. border a position that your colleagues believe would strengthen U.S security?

More from SecureOurFuels.org:

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | 7 Comments »

CEA Continues Fact-Based LCFS Offensive

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

Just weeks into its nationwide educational campaign highlighting the threat posed by a federal, one-size-fits-all low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) to American consumers, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) continue to pound the pavement, ensuring that common myths about North American oil sands are countered, and that Americans have the facts they deserve.

Last week, a column appeared in the Boston Globe by James Hansen and Aaron Sanger, denouncing the safe, secure, reliable Canadian energy resources that help fuel the US economy. In an effort to correct the record about Canadian energy and the jobs and energy security it provides the US, CEA’s president, David Holt, responded to Hansen’s piece in today’s Boston Globe. Under the headline “If we don’t want it, others will benefit,” Holt wrote this:

We’re told that carbon emissions from the oil sands “are three to five times greater’’ than from conventional oil; not mentioned is that the carbon content of oil is constant, as is the carbon profile of the fuels produced from it. Every gallon of oil-derived gasoline emits 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. And it doesn’t matter if that oil came from Canada or Colorado, the Middle East or the Midwest.

Hansen and Sanger’s solution for destroying the oil sands market? Stop buying things from businesses that use this energy. Others have suggested an outright ban on the oil sands, and have rallied around a policy known as the low-carbon fuel standard to achieve it.

But denying Americans access to this energy won’t deprive the world of its existence. If we don’t want it, our friends in China will be more than happy to take it off our hands – and emit significantly more carbon in the production, transportation, and consumption of this energy than if it had been used to create jobs, security, and competitive economic advantages closer to home.

But CEA’s fight to protect affordable and reliable energy resources has not been limited to major national news outlets. CEA highlighted the grave economic threats posed by an LCFS recently in Montana’s Sidney Herald. Montana – who receives 93 percent of its oil from Canada – would be among the most adversely affected states, should an LCFS become law. Here are key experts from the article entitled “Energy campaigns take off early across country”:

“No state stands to lose more under an LCFS than Montana – it’s not even close. That’s because no state in the Union relies more on Canada to supply its consumers with secure, affordable supplies of energy – 93 percent of the state’s oil comes from there,” says Tucker. “Every bit of that supply would be banned from crossing the border under a federal LCFS – resulting in higher fuel prices for Montanans, far less availability, and serious uncertainty as to how, when and from where Montana is going to fill that supply vacuum.”

“This is when the government comes in and says, ‘here, buy some pieces of paper which we confer value on, calling them carbon credits,’” Tucker says. The government would then use that money to research and develop “greener” fuel technology.

“LCFS is not about less carbon content, it’s about using less fuel,” Tucker says.

“It’s been talked about in a vacuum,” Michael Whatley, vice president of CEA, said. Last spring, low-carbon fuel regulations were in the Waxman-Markey bill, but they were cut out of the version of this bill that passed the House this June. If the bills aren’t budging that contain LCFS, and it’s being cut out from other bills, surely the vacuum of discussion must be air tight and inconsequential, except that the vacuum is Capitol Hill. LCFS is out of the current bills, but if the bill continues moving on, some suspect an amendment will be tacked on.

On its Web site, www.secureourfuels.org, the page which explains LCFS ends with this, “LCFS? How about ‘Little Chance in Fooling Society?’ At least we hope.”

CEA will continue to fight for all forms of energy – wind, solar, hydro, coal, oil and gas – to help ensure that American consumers have access to affordable and reliable energy resources. An “all-of-the-above” approach to our long-term energy security will help see that this goal is achieved.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 3 Comments »

CEA: Canadian Energy Critical to US Economy, National Security

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

With Prime Minister Harper in Washington, non-partisan consumer group calls on North American leaders to reject LCFS proposals

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Earlier today, Prime Minister Steven Harper met with President Barack Obama to discuss a number of critical issues – and energy, as expected, was among the most prominent. David Holt, president of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), issued this statement in response:

“Canada is among our most important economic and strategic partners and a critical supplier of secure, affordable energy to American consumers; indeed, we get more of our energy from Canada than any other country in the world. It’s a relationship that very much serves our interest to preserve, protect and strengthen – and we’re hopeful that today’s meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Harper serves to do precisely that.

“In plain terms, though, this relationship would be put in serious peril if efforts in Congress to pass a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard scheme were ultimately successful. It’s our hope these two world leaders had the occasion to discuss this threat, and that President Obama had the chance to hear firsthand how serious the consequences surrounding a policy like that would be.”

“While an LCFS may sound attractive, its intent and purpose is to ban affordable and reliable North American energy from reaching American consumers. The result? Increase American energy dependence on some of the most unstable regions of the world and significantly higher fuel prices for consumer, businesses and farmers throughout the nation.”

Known as CEA’s “Secure Our Fuels” campaign, the work of enlisting the American people in support of affordable energy nationwide kicked off several two weeks ago with radio and television ads running in several key states to engage those who stand to be most impacted under an LCFS. Visit SecureOurFuels.org to view our latest television and radio ads, and learn more about how an LCFS will increase energy costs for American consumers while expanding our dependence on foreign, unstable regions of the world to fuel our economy.

NOTE:

  • In a positive development, the US State Department recently helped strengthening our critical energy partnership with Canada. In August, an executive order was signed, helping to ensure that the Alberta Clipper pipeline project continues to move forward, which will help deliver more affordable energy from one of our closest allies to America’s small businesses, working families and retirees. Click HERE to read more about this commonsense, job-creating development.
  • Legislative proposals, such as a low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS), which was originally included in the Waxman-Markey climate bill, would effectively ban Canadian energy from reaching American consumers. This would invariably raise gas prices at the pump and expand our dependence on energy from some of the most unfriendly regions of the world. Studies have even determined that an LCFS may even increase greenhouse gas emissions. It is expected that the US Senate – either as a stand-alone bill, or as part of a large climate-change proposal – will consider an LCFS this fall.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | 1 Comment »

Dear Mr. President

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

5 Questions Stephen Harper Might Want to Ask President Obama at the White House Today

Today, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper will meet with President Obama at the White House to discuss ways in which our nations can build on the strong economic and strategic relationship we have in place, and help one another emerge from the current economic downturn in a stronger, more secure position than when we entered it.

Among the many topics expected to be considered, energy figures to be the most prominent – the United States relies more on Canada for its oil than it does any other country. Unfortunately, as Congress considers a nationwide Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) that explicitly targets and seeks to punish Canadian oil, the future of that partnership finds itself today in serious doubt.

Ahead of today’s meeting, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) released a list of five critical questions that Prime Minister Harper might consider asking President Obama during his visit:

1)      Mr. President, last year the United States imported 1.5 million barrels of oil a day derived from the Canadian oil sands, and that number is expected to climb to 4.3 million barrels a day over the next two decades. Do you consider this good news or bad? And do you see the value in using this secure Canadian energy as a tool to confront your country’s growing dependence on foreign, often unstable regimes?

2)      Mr. President, as a member of the Senate last Congress, you introduced S. 1324 – legislation to impose a nationwide Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, even though your home state of Illinois relies on Canada for 55 percent of its daily oil. Can you recognize now the extent to which an LCFS would prevent secure, affordable Canadian energy resources from crossing the border – potentially forcing your country to fill that vacuum with additional energy imports from overseas?

3)      Mr. President, the U.S. State Department’s recent decision to grant a permit to the Alberta Clipper pipeline project, an $8 billion project, will only serve to strengthen our countries’ economic and strategic relationship in the years to come. Have you considered how passage of a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard policy might impact that investment, the jobs that are tied to it, and the direction of that relationship?

4)      Mr. President, perhaps you’ve seen recent reports from my home province of Alberta of China’s $1.7 billion investment of our oil sands region. It’s been widely assumed for a number of years that the preponderance of Canadian oil reserves from Alberta would be sent to the United States. Has the fact that China is now an active player in our oil sands region changed your thinking at all regarding imperative of, and potential competition in, obtaining this energy?

5)      Finally, Mr. President, protesters outside these gates today continue to claim that energy derived from the Canadian oil sands has a higher carbon content than other energy sources, and have based their support for a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard policy upon that supposition. But are you aware that several respected sources have found that an LCFS policy imposed by Congress might actually increase the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the air – a function of the added emissions from sending these resources to China instead of the United States?

Read More:

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts | 1 Comment »

Greenpeace’s War on Reality

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

Group hopes release of “new” report filled with tired, old invective on the Canadian oil sands impacts LCFS policy debate in Washington

Though they may be separated by a border and an acronym, activists pushing for a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in the United States and those working to end the development of the oil sands in Canada are fighting two fronts in the same battle: namely, the battle against affordable, abundant energy.

Convince Congress to pass a nationwide LCFS in America, the thinking goes, and you’ve successfully imposed a de facto ban on those resources crossing the U.S. border – denying millions of Americans access to that secure energy. Eliminate the United States from the equation, the thinking continues, and getting Canada to end its work in the oil sands becomes a whole lot more manageable. After all, who wants to invest all that time, energy and money developing a market with no serious buyer in sight?

Last month, that line of reasoning went straight out the window. News out of Alberta of PetroChina’s involvement (financial and otherwise) in the oil sands eliminated all doubt, if any remained, that even if U.S. policymakers end our unique relationship on energy with Canada, those resources will continue to be produced for, sold to and used by millions (billions?) of grateful energy consumers in Asia – impacting America’s economic and strategic position, but doing nothing to limit the emission of carbon dioxide (in fact, according to one respected study, emissions may actually increase under an LCFS).

But don’t tell any of that to the band of activists who will high-stepping in front of the White House tomorrow afternoon during the Canadian prime minister’s visit with President Obama. Flush with cash, they’re running ads in some of the most expensive media markets in the country, according to CanWest newswire:

To coincide with Harper’s visit to the White House, [Forest Ethics], along with the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), have bought ads in the online editions of the New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico.com, a website well read among lawmakers in the U.S. capital. …

In conjunction with Harper’s visit, the environmental groups are also distributing anti-oil sands DVDs to Capitol Hill lawmakers involved in negotiations on a final climate change bill. They also plan to hand out copies of the video to tourists outside the White House during Harper’s visit.

Ads, protests, fliers, DVDs – and, entirely coincidentally, a new anti-sands report issued just this week by Greenpeace Canada. Do these guys know how to coordinate their media, or what?

Titled “Dirty Oil” and authored by long-time activist Andrew Nikiforuk (whose broadsides include book-length polemics against trade, technology and, predictably, energy), the paper is filled with classic regurgitations related to the environmental record of Canadian energy, expertly cherry-picking key statistics and baseline figures (the GHG chart from a decade ago is our favorite, page 15) to make the case that Canadian oil sands energy is in a league of its own when it comes to the emission of CO2.

But is it? Any technician can tell you that Canadian energy has the same amount of carbon as you’d find in oil anywhere else in the world. And any fuel scientist can tell you that, once combusted, gasoline derived from the oil sands emits the same amount of carbon dioxide (19.4 pounds per gallon) as gasoline distilled from any other source.

Sure, some forms of Canadian crude require a little extra energy to bring to market, but remember: nearly 80 percent of carbon emissions come from the combustion of gasoline in the tank, emitting a volume of CO2 that is constant. Attacking the oil sands on the basis of its “lifecycle” carbon score? A lot like blaming the back-up tight-end for a season’s worth of turnovers.

But just in case you’re keeping score at home, the lifecycle content of oil derived from the Canadian sands is significantly less than activists from Greenpeace would want you to know. Consider the findings of a report released in June by the Alberta Energy Research Institute:

Life cycle well-to-wheels results from the Study … show that the [greenhouse gas] emissions from producing transportation fuels from oil sands bitumen are smaller than suggested by previous studies.

Our results show that the [lifecycle greenhouse gas] difference between Arab-Medium [oil] and bitumen [from the oil sands] is less than 18% for bitumen from SAGD and approximately 10% for bitumen from mining. … If shipped to the [American Midwest], the difference between Arab-Medium and bitumen drops to 15% for bitumen produced by SAGD. … The gap between [Nigerian light oil] and diluted bitumen sent to the [American Midwest] is only 6%.

Quite a difference from activist-funded studies suggesting that oil sands energy emits 40 percent more CO2 emissions than conventional oil resources, isn’t it?  It turns out there’s more to this story than simply whether oil is heavy or light, sweet or sour, domestic or overseas. The real consideration is how these energy resources are being produced, what processes are in place to ensure efficiency, and of course: what sort of technology is being brought to bear to add to that efficiency. According to Alberta premier Ed Stelmach, emissions tied to Canadian oil sands work account for one-tenth of one-percent of the world’s GHG inventory.

None of which seems to matter to opponents of Canadian energy. This comes from yesterday’s (Toronto) Globe and Mail:

[A] documentary that premiered in Switzerland and is now playing at the Toronto International Film Festival depicts the [oil sands’] projects’ … environmental impact; and a delegation of Chinese journalists is planning a visit to the landscape of northeastern Alberta.

While those Chinese journalists are in town, maybe they can check out the work happening now in the Mackay River and Dover oil sands plays. These are projects in which the Chinese government, mentioned above, has taken a significant financial stake. And under LCFS policies currently being considered by Congress, that stake stands to grow even larger in the years to come.

The only difference from a GHG perspective? Instead of piping that energy a few hundred miles south, it’ll be piped west a few thousand miles, loaded onto a barge, and shipped a few thousand more miles half-a-world away to Asia. The difference from an American economic and strategic one? A lot more far-reaching than that.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Action Alerts, Blog | 3 Comments »

‘Hero of the Taxpayers’ Working to Raise Energy Taxes in the Form of an LCFS

Thursday, September 10th, 2009

U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander has a long record of fighting for American taxpayers. In fact, on his website, under “The Senator’s Awards,” he lists several accolades from the Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). The title is called the “Hero of the Taxpayer,” and it is awarded to members of Congress that gain high marks from ATR by supporting legislation that does not increase the tax burden and cost of living on Americans.

Recently, ATR highlighted an energy proposal called a low-carbon fuel standard, or an LCFS. The non-partisan, non-profit tax experts wrote this in a position paper:

The United States’ largest oil supplier, Canada, gets most of its oil from oil sands. These oil sands, like the oil shale in the western US, have a high carbon lifecycle. A LCFS would restrict our access to the Canadian oil sands, which provided about 18 percent of the oil to the US in 2007. The US consumes nearly all of the Canadian oil exports.

A LCFS would likely increase biofuel use from corn-ethanol, thus increasing the cost of food. Costs of reaching a 90% LCFS using ethanol would range between $65.5 billion and $760 billion annually; which are $570 and $6520 per year per household. These LCFS would increase subsidies to corn ethanol, costing taxpayers between $1 billion and $17 billion.

The 10% reduction in fuel greenhouse gas emissions mandated by a LCFS would increase the cost of ethanol by 46%; from $2.01 per gallon to $2.93 per gallon. The price of gasoline would also increase by $0.61 per gallon.

The experts at ATR closed with this:

An LCFS will:

  • Increase transportation costs and taxes.
  • Increase food costs around the world because of increased corn-ethanol use.
  • Cut off oil supplies from Canada and the western US, making the US more dependent on less secure sources of energy.

    • So, if an LCFS will increase transportation costs and taxes, and ban Canadian energy from reaching American consumers while only adding to our dependence on oil from unstable regions of the world, why does Senator Alexander maintain support for such a scheme?

    Tags: , , , , , ,
    Posted in Blog | No Comments »

    « Older Entries
    Newer Entries »

    DOCUMENT CENTER

    INTERACTIVE MAP

    Find out the fuel profile of your state – and what a one-size-fits-all national fuel mandate might mean for jobs, gas prices, and security.

    image