For Pete’s sake, even the last US President, a man not highly praised for his environmentalism, said America was addicted to fossil fuels. If fossil fuels are an addiction, then Canadian tar sands oil are crack. Put it another way, using the same metaphor: the US causes the massive drug violence and corruption in Mexico by virtue of the sad reality that so many of our citizens have habits and the money to feed them. Similarly, the fact that Alberta is becoming more and more a petrostate by the day owing to its dependence on the tar sands is a consequence of American dependence on oil. Have they heard of the “resource curse” up there?
I last wrote about this issue in May: Alberta Tar Sands – Pressure is Building. It is not a pretty picture inasmuch as the Canadians are devastating vast swathes of territory to produce a product that, at the end of the day, has a much higher carbon footprint than conventional crude.
Now the US government has given, in a very real sense, its official seal of approval. The US Department of State yesterday issued a permit to build a pipeline. See this from the “San Francisco Chronicle.” But that’s not the end of it. According to the article, “Environmental groups had urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to reject the permit, saying extracting and refining crude from Canada’s oil sands emits high amounts of greenhouse gases and threatens the water and air. A coalition of environmental and Native American organizations vowed Thursday to challenge the permit in court, expressing disappointment with President Barack Obama’s administration.”
The State Department release, Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued, says the pipeline “…will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States.” It also says, regarding the environmental concerns, that many factors were taken into account “…including greenhouse gas emissions. The administration believes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are best addressed through each country’s robust domestic policies and a strong international agreement.” Huh? So our domestic policy is to take Canadian oil that will greatly exacerbate the climate crisis. Is that right? For all the ins and outs of the review process, go to the special State Dept. website for the project.
This issue has been looming for quite some time. Reuters reported here in June that Hillary Clinton had been asked to deny the permits. ForestEthics have a vigorous campaign on the tar sands and tried to get the Secretary’s attention. In a letter to Clinton, they said “For the U.S., continued dependence on tar sands oil would impair plans to reduce our carbon footprint in the short and long term.” Earlier this month, the FT noted that Decision on pipeline threatens to soil Obama’s green image. They quoted the director of climate change at WWF-Canada: “Approving new mega-projects like the Alberta Clipper pipeline would lock North America into the old, high-carbon energy economy. We need to invest in the green economy of the future, not pour billions into the Betamax of the energy world.” The administration decision is antithetical to those other progressive, smart decisions on renewables and environmental protection that they have been taking and I have been chronicling here.
For more on the exploitation of the tar sands, see this blockbuster article from National Geographic Magazine from March.
