Japan Automakers Plan to Step Up Exports of Small-Cars
Washington Governor Issues Executive Order Directing State Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gases; Consideration of California Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Highway Electrification

CFR Report Says Energy Security and Climate Change Concerns With Oil Sands Can be Reconciled

Oil sands supply chain. Source: Levi 2009. Click to enlarge.

A new report from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)—The Canadian Oil Sands: Energy Security vs Climate Changeclaims that prudent greenhouse gas regulations can limit emissions from Canadian oil sands while still enabling robust development of the energy resource.

The report argues that oil sands production delivers both energy security benefits and climate change damages, but warns that both are often overstated. “For the near future, the economic and security value of oil sands expansion will likely outweigh the climate damages that the oil sands create,” it says, “but climate concerns cannot and must not be ignored, and will become more important over time.” Policymakers, it emphasizes, must carefully balance the two concerns.

Smart regulation can place a fair and reasonable price on the oil sands’ greenhouse gas emissions, providing the right incentive to reduce them, but ill-conceived regulation could undermine US and Canadian climate and security goals.

—Michael A. Levi, CFR’s David M. Rubenstein senior fellow for energy and the environment and the report’s author

Levi argues that it is important to integrate US and Canadian cap-and-trade systems, while warning against the risks of a Canada-only cap-and-trade scheme and against an ill-designed US low-carbon fuel standard.

In the contentious debate about oil sands, some argue that the United States should discourage the development of oil sands because its operations generate more climate-damaging greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil production. Others argue that the United States should actively encourage their development because it would strengthen US energy security with a supply of oil from a friendly and stable neighbor.

This report contends that both arguments are exaggerated, but also that neither is without merit. On the climate side, the report argues that the development of Canadian oil sands are is not the “climate catastrophe” that some claim. While oil sands’ life cycle greenhouse gas emissions—those entailed in production, transport, refining, and ultimate use—are greater than those associated with conventional oil, Levi points out that the total emissions from oil sands production in Canada are equal to less than 0.1% of the global total—“a small piece of the [global] emissions picture.

Levi assesses six dimensions of energy security, including oil prices, vulnerability to supply shocks and terrorism, and wealth transfers to hostile states. He concludes that even while “the energy security benefits of robust Canadian oil sands production are real,” the Canadian oil sands are not central to energy security. “Because oil is essentially traded on a global market, [the security benefits of oil sands are] not as large as some might intuitively assume. Oil sands exploitation will not fundamentally change the global oil picture.” Nonetheless, the report finds meaningful benefits from oil sands in moderating global oil prices and in cutting damaging wealth transfers.

The report emphasizes that global economic conditions and Canadian policy will remain the major factors shaping the oil sands’ future. But because the United States is the natural destination for oil sands products, US policy will be important. It urges US policymakers to balance energy security and climate goals by working with Canada to promote strong incentives to cut the emissions associated with each barrel produced from the oil sands, without directly discouraging production itself.

Levi argues that US policy should center on four basic elements:

  1. Link US and Canadian cap-and-trade systems. Fair and stable carbon pricing in Canada would help both countries reap the benefits of the oil sands while mitigating their damages. Linking the cap-and-trade systems that are likely to evolve in the two countries is the best way to do that. The United States should also ensure that Canada is able to initially provide a small number of free emissions permits to oil sands producers. This would mitigate a risk of allowing carbon pricing to raise world oil prices (delivering windfalls to low-cost producers) while maintaining most incentives for oil sands operators to cut emissions.

  2. Tread carefully with any low-carbon fuel standard. The United States should design any low-carbon fuel standard so that the oil sands, which should already face a reasonable carbon cost, are not penalized again (and perhaps much more heavily) for their higher emissions. An ill-designed scheme could burden the oil sands (along with several other US oil sources) in ways that would damage US energy security without providing commensurate climate benefits.

  3. Focus US technology support on higher-payoff areas. There may be pressure for the United States to provide funds for research, development, and demonstration efforts in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) or nuclear power for the oil sands. While basic technical cooperation is always valuable, these would generally not be US dollars well spent, according to the report. The scale of the other energy and climate problems facing the United States demands that US energy innovation support focus elsewhere, including in CCS for power plants (a substantially distinct problem) as well as in renewables, transmission, and efficiency.

  4. Resist the use of other US environmental regulations to constrain oil sands. So long as the oil sands are expected to face a fair carbon price, the United States should resist attempts to use US environmental regulations to block permitting of oil sands-related pipelines or refineries on climate grounds. Some may also try to use such regulations as a back door to dealing with the local social and environmental effects of oil sands development in Canada. Decisions on how to deal with these local effects—many of which can be disturbing—should be made by the affected communities in Canada rather than forced by outside US action, according to the report. The direct effects of pipelines and refineries on communities in the United States should be dealt with on the same basis as the effects of other oil-related infrastructure.




"..prudent greenhouse gas regulations can limit emissions from Canadian oil sands while still enabling robust development of the energy resource."

It's hard to tell where the truth lies. Some say we have decades of oil sands energy and centuries of coal energy. Others say that to use such energy endangers world climate and our lives. Another Missourian, Samuel Clemens, said, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

Oil is yet another commodity in civilization's inventory, yet it's profits are consistently high. It's hard to see the profit a diverse majority of scientists reap in documenting global climate changes and impacts.


This report is pure, self-serving, BS.

“For the near future, the economic and security value of oil sands expansion will likely outweigh the climate damages that the oil sands create,”
Spoken like a true economist. How the heil can an economist dictate what damages global warming will bring, they aren't scientists. Well, I guess in the near future, they are indeed correct. They are simply sweeping it under the rug, shifting the "near future" problems onto future generations.

In the context of national security, the opening up of ANY fossil fuel reserves in North America will worsen our independence and national security, if doing this prolongs unreasonably low prices of gasoline, which then further stalls the development of alternative technologies.

National energy independence will not be achieved until the price of fossil fuel energy exceeds that needed to get electric transportation over the hump of economies of scale.

Imagine if there was no such thing as fossil fuels. Last century we would have developed alternative energy capture and usage technologies. We'd have cheap good electric cars everywhere. Energy would be cheap and ubiquitous. People would produce and consume their own energy, leading to no global-scale speculative bubbles. Furthermore, we would have no global warming problem. It's ironic how merely the supply of a cheap source of energy can so fundamentally screw up society to the point of near collapse.


"Imagine if there was no such thing as fossil fuels. Last century we would have developed alternative energy capture and usage technologies. We'd have cheap good electric cars everywhere."

It's interesting to note that BEVs have as long a history as ICEVs. 'Few people realize that successful electric automobiles were being produced as early as the 1880's. For over 20 years, electric cars were commercially produced, and were for some years in heady competition with internal combustion and steam-powered carriages. Not until internal combustion technology and promotion, along with cheap fuel, had outstripped all competition, did electric cars drop out of the automotive picture.'

The comments to this entry are closed.