What could make Canada's oil sands and U.S.-Canadian relations worse? How about adding a nuclear option to mine oil from Canadian tar sands (Independent)
and with nearly $200 Billion already invested in this unproven technology ... it gets worse (CBC)
Just one day before the second meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Greenpeace activists have taken aim at a big Shell oil sands operation in Canada, "blockading" a giant dump truck and calling for an end to "dirty oil." ... The Greenpeace stunt comes just after the organization released a new report by noted oil sands opponent Andrew Nikiforuk, which argues that Canada's fast-growing oil sands operations could over the next decade become a bigger source of greenhouse-gas emissions than a host of smallish European nations.
The whole spat over Canada's oil sands-or tar sands to environmentalists-boils down to the simple question of which really matters more: Clean energy or energy security.
Oil sands are energy intensive, and lead to higher greenhouse-gas emissions than "regular" oil production (though just how much is still a question of debate).
But oil sands are also next door to the U.S., in a stable and friendly country-making them an attractive alternative for an administration that has sought to end dependence not necessarily on oil, but on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela. Plenty of folks argue that the energy security part of oil sands outweighs their environmental disadvantages.
Now that the "national security" component of energy policy is gaining so many adherents in Congress, will Canada's oil sands get a free ride in Washington?