I went to a panel discussion earlier this week at NYU’s Center for Global Affairs. This is where I’m teaching now and they have, in addition to their great MS and extensive Continuing Ed programs, quite a bit of excellent public programming. The Canadian Consulate in New York City cosponsored this event.
Here’s what we know about Canada and the US relative to energy: Canada is the largest supplier of oil, natural gas, uranium and electricity to the US. Beyond this, there’s a very great complexity and depth indeed to the relationship. (For a wealth of information, go to the Canadian Centre for Energy Information.) The panelists talked about how important the relationship was and how the US has come to rely on Canada for an extraordinary amount of relatively inexpensive energy and, most importantly, a secure supply.
One general concern that the panelists shared was that in light of the push for renewables and robust regimes for controlling GHG by the Obama administration and Congress, both at the national and international levels, that Canada’s contributions would be curtailed. One panelist went so far as to characterize Obama’s policy as “anti-hydrocarbon.” (Hmm. Is that a bad thing?)
The issue of the tar sands in Alberta was mentioned, but not really met head on. (The accepted term in Canada and in the energy industry is “oil sands.”) I wrote on this here about a year ago. One particular 600-lb gorilla in this is that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, specifically Section 526, says that for any fuel bought by the federal government “the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional sources.” That provision, if enforced, would bar fuel from the oil sands – one of Canada’s singlemost lucrative exports. (See also Obama may be tough on Canada’s tar sands from “Nature News” today and A sticky ending for the tar sands from “The Economist” last month.)
What the Canadians must do, according to Joseph Doucet from the University of Alberta, is recognize the environmental concerns of their biggest customer and address them. My comment to an official from the Consulate later was that the US is not, by any stretch of the imagination, alone in its environmental concerns. The EU is fairly united on getting a comprehensive and tough international protocol out of Copenhagen in December, as indeed much of the OECD is as well.
The panelists all seemed to agree that Canada needs a coherent and comprehensive energy policy, including how they intend to deal with climate change. President Obama is making his first foreign trip next week to meet with Canadian PM Stephen Harper. Energy and the environment will be at the top of the agenda.
