Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Mexican President Felipe Calderón, and U.S. President Barack Obama emerged from a summit Monday in Guadalajara, Mexico with a set of trilateral climate policy goals. In the document, the North American leaders pledge to work together to set mid and long-term emissions reductions goals, share information on adaptation efforts, and offer support to Mexico’s proposed Green Fund.
And while the pledge marks a show of good faith—not unlike a memorandum of understanding that emerged from a U.S.-China economic summit last month—its underscores the tricky balance each nation must strike in aspiring to global cooperation while guarding its own interests.
Permits for a 1,000-mile long pipeline to carry oil from Alberta's oil sands to northwest Wisconsin could be approved by the U.S. State Department by the end of the month. If permits are approved and a pipeline constructed both nations will benefit from the reliable flow of oil and money between countries with a positive, long-standing relationship.
But while the supply of oil to be derived from the sands is massive, there is still debate about the environmental effects of its extraction and refining.
In a 2008 Weekly Policy Commentary RFF Senior Fellow Joel Darmstadter said the life cycle CO2 emissions of oil sands are about 20 percent greater than those involved in conventional crude oil processing. Citing a RAND Corporation study, Darmstadter said that the only real way oil sands can compete under a carbon-constrained regime will be with the successful implementation of carbon capture and sequestration. But while the trilateral agreement included a pledge for further research and a “carbon atlas” to locate major emissions sources and potential storage sites for captured carbon, the technology is still in its formative years.
So while he is pledging to reduce carbon emissions, some are wondering if President Obama can have energy security without compromising his environmental goals.
