Indeed, as 70 % of the American oil consumption is related to transportation, promoting fuel-efficiency improvements, enacting tax incentives for economic vehicles, or reinvesting in public transportation systems would help alleviating the burden of oil dependency, while reducing GES emissions. Still, many experts underline the fact that such measures may be solutions on the long run only, as behavioral changes require time, and as the post-2008 drop on oil prices has reduced the relative competitiveness of alternative fuel sources (biofuels, coal-to-liquids and gas-to-liquids) on the short run.

Besides, it should not be forgotten that oil imports account for roughly 60 % of the US consumption (a continuous 20-year increase before the crisis: 1985-2006). Among the main crude suppliers: Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela and Iraq. As suggested in recent reports by the RAND (see A. Goldthau’s post) or the American think tank CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), oil supplies diversification’s impact on international relationships could be noticeable, reducing (modestly, yet) the threats of political tensions on the security of supply and the tensions on the oil markets (due to certain increase of oil production). Thus, the RAND assesses that the tensions in Middle East cost 90-110$ billion a year (20 to 35 times the cost of Alberta Clipper project).

Furthermore, the expected volume (800.000 bbl a day, equal to the daily import from Nigeria) might contribute in enhancing the exploitation of Alberta tar sands resources, thanks to the settlement of transport infrastructures (as for the current project, already built along an existing pipeline). Without mentioning the fact that the workforce needed on the project (expected to reach 3.000) may let hope positive side effects on local employment (North Dakota and Minnesota).

It would have seemed difficult for the Obama Administration not to grant the project its approval, given the conjuncture and the political signal already provided by the stimulus package (61,3$ billion for energy, only): the pipeline is expected to be running by mid-2010. Which suggests the difficulty to compare the project (at least in terms of oil dependency) with environmental and sustainable measures, given their difference of time scale.

800.000 bbl/day is about 1/30th of the USA’s daily consumption. So the comment that it would lock North America into the old, high-carbon energy economy, is way off the mark.

Tar Sands are a problem environmentally speaking, but in my opinion the land degradation / water issue is far more important than the small impact on CO2 emissions.

As long as both countries are committed to cutting emissions, it should not matter where they come from. I know campaigners love figureheads of hate, butthe whole point of carbon trading or taxation, is that the most efficient solutions are found, not the ones that make campaigners the most happy.