Bold move to get the true information on how sustainable a given fuel is. Glad that we are starting to define 'sustainable' in numerical terms (cradle-to-cradle life-cycle analysis) not emotional ones, as green-washing starts to overwhelm other more authentic green initiatives.
However, one step forward in reducing emissions by damning non-conventional oil products is a step backward in a movement to friendly-nation petroleum product sources - ho-hum, no-one said this was going to be easy or straight-forward.

Is there a way to tell if the fuel you are buying comes from Tar Sands or CTL. It all looks the same to me.

Shouldn't you make sure that you have a viable alternative before you draw a line in the sand.

Jer:

Did anyone rate fuels and energy as to their complete-total GHG emissions for a given task? If we did, fuel from opened strip mine tar sands operations may still be about the worse, but others may not be that far behind.

Matching the proper vehicle (with the least overall GHG and waste) to the task may not be easy to do but virtual simulation tests could do it.

Important points are brought up. However, I have a bone to pick with their proposal to cut "unconventional" sources of oil out the picture.

I suppose continuing to import close to $700 billion/year worth of foreign oil from our friends at OPEC and other oppressive regimes is a better choice?

Mayors, can you hear that huge sucking sound? That's another $700 billion being sucked out of our ailing economy this year.

Here we are 5 yrs into the Global War on Terrorism- continuing to enrich the very regimes and terrorists our troops are fighting and dying to contain. And the Green extreme would prefer the status quo: Americans ignorantly committing treason at the gas pumps in their consumption of foreign oil.

GREEN-EXTREME wake up! Coal, ANWAR, shale sands, and our coastlines have enough oil to significantly reduce our $700 billion/yr addiction on foreign oil while creating thousands of US jobs in the process.

Who is payrolling these Mayors' conferences, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Americans- we must use less energy!
CONSERVE ENERGY, build nuclear, wind + solar power plants and drill responsibly (locally), use carbon sequestration for coal-to-liquids and shale plants, etc- or we can all expect more and more wars to secure access to dwindling global oil reserves + continue to enrich our enemies! Seems like a no-brainer to me, Sierra Club.

(But perhaps few members of the GREEN EXTREME would allow their children to serve in our nation's military.)

Flame suit on.

Let the Yankee's Freeze in the Dark!!!

Down with Stelmach and Stephen Harper and all the other greedy Conservatives!!! Even though this will affect my standard of living and taxes, I DON'T CARE. Close the border to Canadian filthy oil and the filthy corruption it brings.

The dirtiness of fuels is represented fairly well in their cost of production, but this can be improved by taxing petroleum to pay for the costs it incurs among the people: health problems, political problems, and climate problems. Someone should tell the mayors to rest assured that if they will support taxes on the dirtiest fuels, those fuels will tend to disappear. Subsidies for clean fuels, though would level the playing field. Solar and Wind power have effects on climate and ecology, but those are small next to the high costs of fossil fuels (deaths, injuries, criminal behavior requiring a 'justice' system, prisons, uncountable policemen).

We seem to be saying the same thing over and again. The effect of market pricing on petroleum has driven the price of gas higher than ANY proposed carbon tax near term. The effect of high cost gas is not surprising - GM shutters big truck, SUV plants, little guys go broke, everyone clamors for EVs and domestic drilling. Do we want electrification faster???? Not that hard - offer a $10k tax credit for the purchase of every PHEV with 40 mile all-EV range or better. Then sit back and watch the world's automakers rush EVs to market.

I was so please to read this article, exposing the oil sands for what it is, here in Canada most of us bury our heads in the sand while we 'talk' green. Even though this provides funds for the government coffers and of course the oil shareholders it's negetive effects are huge and is not in the best interest of the country, the environment or society; we need to dim the lights a little till we can provide alternatives - who in government has the guts?

@EETE,

"Let the Yankee's Freeze in the Dark!!!", but only if they don't conserve energy. Using 5 x as much energy per person as the rest of the world is not cool.

Please remember that Canada also produces a sizable quantity of conventionally drilled oil in addition to the oil sands stuff. Canada wouldn't be producing it if the US didn't buy so much of it. If Canada didn't have to service US energy needs, Canada would be able to use it's own oil supply without having to touch the oil sands. Carbon taxes should be on the consumers, not on the producers.

Re: “... emits approximately three times the carbon dioxide pollution ...”

Carbon dioxide emissions are not pollution. Carbon dioxide released by man near ground level is heavier than air and sinks in air relatively quickly rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere. While sinking, it stratifies from air; after sinking and stratifying, it tends to remain close to the ground. The carbon dioxide can then dissolve in soil water or alternatively it may find its way down to low-lying water bodies or down to ocean level where it can readily mix and dissolve in water or react with water to form weak carbonic acid. Carbon dioxide is also removed immediately from the lower atmosphere by rainfall.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries A.D., many measurements of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide were higher than present-day carbon dioxide measurements and there was no runaway greenhouse-gas global warming effect.

Of course David is right, not to mention low lying carbon dioxide also gets absorbed by plants which grow better with higher concentrations. But sometimes we need an issue to galvanize the masses, afterall we 'do' need to clean up our mess and diversify our economy, reduce our dependance on the middle east etc. so it fits and I'm not going to tell anyone...

Dr. Robert Skinner, an expert in unconventional oils from the Oxford Institute of Energy, summed up the oil sands folly on a US radio program in November 2003:
It is sometimes helpful to stand on the moon and observe what we do on Earth...I hope that I don't have the following question from my granddaughter20 years from now:
"Grandpa, did you take natural gas from the Artic down to Alberta to boil water to make steam to melt tar out of the oil sands, then use more natural gas to produce hydrogen to make the tar molecules into gasoline so North Americans could drive 4-tonne vehicles 5 km to sports clubs to spend 15 minutes riding stationary bikes; did you really do that Gandpa?"

What will be our answer????

It stratifies in air in some cases, not always. It must also be remembered that when cumbusted, it's hot and therefore less dense. There are many cases where heavier molecules get moved around and mixed in the atmosphere.

CO2 is a pollutant. Only choroplast organelles in the presense of light makes use of it in photosynthesis. Otherwise plants require O2 just like every other living thing.

It stratifies in air in some cases, not always. It must also be remembered that when cumbusted, it's hot and therefore less dense. There are many cases where heavier molecules get moved around and mixed in the atmosphere.

CO2 is a pollutant. Only choroplast organelles in the presense of light makes use of it in photosynthesis. Otherwise plants require O2 just like every other living thing.

I firmly believe that we are indeed lucky that our mayors and the rest of us have a natural instinct to save our planet. I applaud “tracking the origin of fuel to facilitate life cycle analysis”
I would also like to believe the mayors were being practical when they propose:
• creating/increasing fringe benefits for bicycle commuters/public transit users.
• coordinated national bicycling strategy (are you kidding me? Sure biking is great. But overall impact ? – zip)
• Supporting … Amtrak system .. enhance the network (Oh yah, bring back the trains and the steamers and the wagons and chopping your own wood).
But they seek to prevent-discontinue the purchase of unconventional or synthetic fuels for state vehicles. Such as fuels from oil sands, coal to liquids and oil shale. And that the continued production and purchase of these fuels should be stopped as it slows the transition to clean, renewable energy sources. They believe they see an imminent threat and this is how to save their planet? And just what planet is that?
Jer has a good point; “one step forward in reducing emissions by damning non-conventional oil products is a step backward” [for energy independence].
Global warming is almost certainly “true”, and probably approaching unstoppability. I think catastrophic effects from the oil crisis are here.
And Joseph; “Shouldn't you make sure that you have a viable alternative before you draw a line in the sand. “ (More like before you put your head in it.
Also DieselHybrid; “I suppose continuing to import close to $700 billion/year worth of foreign oil …. CONSERVE ENERGY, build nuclear, wind + solar power plants and drill responsibly (locally), use carbon sequestration for coal-to-liquids and shale plants, etc- or we can all expect more and more wars … + continue to enrich our enemies! “
I was glad to see few support the mayors in such lunacy (so far).
And I would love to believe that CO2 is harmless. Science might not prove global warming 100%, but CO2 does have a huge greenhouse effect. Sure CO2 is heavier than air, but they mix rapidly. Surface properties separate oil and water but NOT GASSES. Has the air and water stratified over the whole world and remained that way - So if you go downhill too far you end up in the ocean and drowned? Yes, of course.
Well it’s simple. CO2 does the same thing. Most people don’t know it, but death valley is full of CO2 (it’s called “death” valley, Duh) and it has the capacity to hold billions of tons more CO2. In fact many valleys throughout the world are death traps, full of trapped CO2. . . . . I don’t think so.
Oh, and if you stand on the moon and observe what we do on the earth you will see no evidence of covilization good or bad. Of course you'll see no evidence of intelligent life even up close.
Nope I'll tell my grandaughter 20 years from now "No we just said 'turn down the lights' and no one listened and then just bought more oil and now, they get to tell you that you cannot expose your face in public, because they own us."

"they get to tell you that you cannot expose your face in public, because they own us."

Huh? Which theory is this?

Mark M,

"But sometimes we need an issue to galvanize the masses.."

Right. But next time try to find one with more plausibility - getting caught with hand in the cookie jar makes it harder to sell the next story.

Sorry David and Mark, your comments about CO2 sinking and being absorbed by plants and thus taken out of the atmosphere aren't valid.

Increasing CO2 concentrations may stimulate more plant growth but those plants eventually die and release that CO2 back into the atmosphere. The processes involved in actually removing CO2 to geological processes take centuries, not decades, in the case of methane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

I am currently working as a piping / power engineer and I could move to Alberta and make SOOO much money .... but I won't because I'd be SOOOOO much a part of the problem. I am uncorruptable. My student loan will be following me around for a while.

Wow, there isn't any carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It all stratified out.

The true believers with nothing to do, can always mobilize for these pernicious petitions.

This is similar to Carter's old oil and new oil. Old oil had one tax rate with 'windfall taxes'; new oil did not. Amazing the number of politicians who were caught changing the documents for indistinguishable oil from "old oil" with high tax, to "new oil" with lower tax.

Simply a change or two on a piece of paper, and millions were made.

Reminds me of the Saddam Hussein's Oil for Food program. Many a Marxist-socialist was caught with their fingers in that cookie jar, too.

Mark_BC you are exactly what turns me off to people in the enviro movement. You have to go around flaunting to people how great you are because of some sacrifice you supposedly made. Look at me I drive a Prius. Look at me I wont take a job in Alberta. Etc. Well I'm looking and not impressed. If you want to do something good for the environment just do it dont get this snooty attitude and come here to brag about your "sacrifices" (stupidity).

Let's not talk about the Iraqi cookie jar and George W.'s corporate friends' hands.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people are either stupid or willfully ignorant.  Take the clown who posted as David Wozney:

Carbon dioxide emissions are not pollution. Carbon dioxide released by man near ground level is heavier than air and sinks in air relatively quickly rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere.

Oh, wait.

You'd think that someone with a brain would have read his own references, like this one:

In a place with no air movement like the bottom of a dry well

Although it quickly dissipates when it leaves the ground...

I'd suspect trollishness, but I've met people who really are stupid enough to think they got a science education from right-wing talk radio.