From the Scientific American:
"NEW YORK—Further development of Alberta's famous oil sands
will be neither the climate disaster that activists fear nor the energy security (external - login to view)
panacea that proponents suggest it is, the Council on Foreign Relations (external - login to view)
concludes in a new report (external - login to view)
Importing more oil from Canada and less from the Middle East would also probably drive down the United States' current account deficit, the scholar writes. Due to the close proximity of the two North American countries and their tight trading relationship, money diverted to Canada to purchase energy is much more likely to be recycled back into the U.S. economy through direct purchases of goods and services than if that same capital is sent to Saudi Arabia and other OPEC states.
And despite fears by climate change activists that increased oil sand production has profoundly negative consequences to global warming (external - login to view)
, Alberta's massive reserve base contributes relatively little to the problem at a global scale, Levi says.
Though increasing oil sands production, which many expect will triple by 2030, will grow Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to a huge extent if business-as-usual practices continue, the added carbon dioxide emissions are marginal in the U.S. and global contexts. Studies show CO2 output from oil sands production is equivalent to 0.5 percent of U.S. aggregate emissions from energy use and less than 0.1 percent of total global emissions."
Will Canada's Tar Sands Destroy the Global Climate?: Scientific American (external - login to view)
For our edification, a map of all the pre-existing pipelines currently running through the Ogallala Aquifier: