Is Barack Obama bad for Canada?

Luiza Savage recently wrote an article for Macleans that connects Obama’s efforts to remake American energy policy to adverse effects on the Canadian economy. The argument goes something like this:

The oil sands currently export about half of their production of 1.2 million barrels per day to the U.S. According to the Canadian Energy Research Institute in Calgary, that production will more than double over the next 25 years to four million barrels per day, with most of that oil going to the U.S. For Canada, that will mean 380,000 new jobs—and an additional $1.4 trillion in GDP, which will kick off $252 billion in tax revenues, more than half of which would go to Ottawa. Obama’s climate change legislation calls for reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 (a target Macleans calls ‘whopping’), implementing a ‘cap-and-trade’ policy (which passed the House yesterday by a razor thin 219-212 vote), and requires utilities to get at least 15% of their electricity from renewable fuels. Oh, and provisions that would punish imports from countries whose carbon regulations are deemed by Washington to be less stringent than those of the U.S., meant to address the potential competitive imbalance created for some U.S. industries by the costs of compliance with the new cap and trade regime.

Of course, oil sands production emits up to 15 per cent more greenhouse gases than the production of conventional oil, not to mention the toll it takes on the landscape. Luiza writes: “The reality is that Obama is leading an aggressive effort to remake American energy policy with potentially severe consequences for the oil sands, and by extension, the Canadian economy. … Obama may be a self-proclaimed multilateralist, but the provision holds the potential for a unilateral economic wallop—or at least allowing Washington a very heavy hand in the writing of climate rules of its trading partners.”

According to Macleans’ Luiza Savage, Barack Obama is bad for Canada because he is pro-environment. But we should endeavor to be a world leader in the green industry, and what we’re doing in Alberta is despicable.

For every barrel of synthetic oil produced in Alberta, more than 80 kg of greenhouse gases are released in to the atmosphere and between 2000 and 4000 barrels of waste water are dumped into tailing ponds. The production also threatens Canada’s international commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, in which we agreed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by 2012. Instead, our greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 24%, with the oil sands accounting for nearly 4% of our total emissions. We are ranked as the 8th largest emitter of greenhouse gas, quite high considering our population.

In 2008 we produced 438,000 cubic metres per day of crude oil, crude bitumen, and natural gas condensate. Of that amount, 65% was exported (283,000 cubic metres per day), almost all of it to the U.S. We could be supplying the U.S. with all the oil they want right now while developing green technology and energy that we could supply them with later. This would make us leaders in environmentally friendly energy & technology  (and allow us to enjoy the related economic boon), make our energy policy superior to that of the U.S. (thereby rendering any potential ‘protectionist’ aspect to U.S. energy policy moot), and help us meet our international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

So is Obama really bad for Canada?


About brent

Motorcycles, movies, music, photography, politics. These are a few of my favourite things.
This entry was posted in Economics, Environment and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Is Barack Obama bad for Canada?

  1. Nick Gjergji says:

    So is Obama really bad for Canada?
    This is good that you are talking for oil production from oil sands, the pollution and Mr. Obama concepts for dirty oil sands.
    Mr. Obama really is good for Canada. This is because He is making every effort to bring back the US from the recession, stop the unemployment, and develop the US economy. On other side this can be translated on more energy requirement, being this from wind Sun or whatever else. One thing is clear to me. The US during years 1981-2008 have increased the coal production by 1.1 %to 1.5 % reaching the coal production 1062 million tones on year 2008. I believe that Mr. Obama know that the produced coal from the US is polluting the atmosphere. And this pollution is 15.7 % of the total pollution on the world only from coal.
    Let we see the Canadian oil production including here conventional oil and dirty oil from oil sands. The Canadian oil production during 2008 reached 156.7 million tones which is only 14.7 % of all coal production from the US on the same year.
    If Mr. Obama is talking for dirty oil, I believe that he has the good intention to drop even more the price of oil. Having this intention hi will help the US to recover the economy.
    Mr. Obama understands that the energy demand in the US requires spending billions of dollars to import the energy they need. Simple calculations will help everybody to understand that the US president Mr. Obama is saving the country and other countries, the oil producers including here and the Canada, are paying for this. I will mention on these moments that based on the US oil consumption, more than 50 % of it is from import. This 50% is around 10 million barrel per day. If the oil price will be the highest that all we tasted during 2008, let say 140 $/bbl, then the US needs 1.4 billion US Dollar to by it. For a year the US will need 511 Billion dollars for this import.
    In fact Mr. Obama has been very successful during all the time he is the President of US. The Oil price dropped bellow 40$/bbl and it is actually about 70 $/BBL. Using simple calculations I will accept that the average oil price during this time of year 2009 is 55 $/ bbl, that means that Mr. Obama is saving about 850 million dollars on every day or about 300 billion of dollars for the year 2008. We can understand on this point that a part of the US savings is lost indirectly from Canadian oil export, being this conventional or dirty oil from oil sands.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s