" />
Building a world of
resilient communities.



Canada’s Oil Sands: Energy Security, or Energy Disaster?

The 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline would carry heavy crude oil from Alberta to America’s Gulf Coast refineries. In this Climate One debate, a panel of experts argues for and against the controversial pipeline.

For Alex Pourbaix, President of Energy and Oil Pipelines, TransCanada, the pipeline builder, and Cassie Doyle, Canada’s Consul General in San Francisco, the merits of the project are clear: America would bank a stable, secure supply of crude from a friendly neighbor. Why would the United States opt to buy crude from anyone other than Canada if given a choice?, asks Pourbaix. “To suggest that those other countries are more responsible environmental citizens than Canada begs comprehension. It is far more compelling to be getting your oil needs from Canada, rather than getting it from other countries such as Libya, Nigeria, or Venezuela,” he says. Cassie Doyle downplays the environmental impact of processing the Alberta oil sands’ heavy crude. “We assume that the oil sands production is static when it comes to environmental performance. When, since 1990, we’ve seen a 30% improvement in the carbon intensity per barrel.”

Sierra Club Chairman Carl Pope and Jason Mark, Editor of the Earth Island Journal, dismiss both claims – that Keystone XL crude will stay in the United States and can be extracted without exacerbating climate change – as implausible. “This is really an export pipeline. It’s not really an import pipeline,” says Pope. “The United States is going to be used as a transit zone and a refining zone. We’re going to take the environmental risks.”

Jason Mark faults the State Department environmental review for not acknowledging the pipeline’s contribution to climate change. “The U.S. State Department said that this pipeline would have ‘no significant environmental impact.’ As a journalist, that felt to me like the classic example of the headline writer not actually reading the story.” Mark highlights what is, to him, the even larger issue. “Is the United States going to be complicit in burning megatons more carbon dioxide that’s going to fuel run-away climate change?” We have a choice, he says, “Do we continue to make investments that leave us on the path of a carbon-intensive economy? Or, when do we make the hard decision that says we’re going to stop using oil?”

Cassie Doyle, Consul General, Canada; Former Canadian Deputy Minister of Natural Resources
Jason Mark, Earth Island Institute
Carl Pope, Chairman, The Sierra Club
Alex Pourbaix, President of Energy and Oil Pipelines, TransCanada

Download the audio here.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.

Sign up for regular Resilience bulletins direct to your email.

Take action!  

Find out more about Community Resilience. See our COMMUNITIES page
Start your own projects. See our RESOURCES page.
Help build resilience. DONATE NOW.


This is a community site and the discussion is moderated. The rules in brief: no personal abuse and no climate denial. Complete Guidelines.

Hottest five-year period on record is 2011-2015, says WMO

The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) announced today that 2015 is …

It's Too Late to "Save" the Climate, But Not Too Late to Save Ourselves

Yet another United Nations climate confab is about to commence, this time in …

Competing Visions of Sustainability: Scarcity or Abundance?

In this essay I explore how assumptions of nature’s Scarcity and …

Genetically engineered salmon: What could possibly go wrong?

As U.S. regulators cleared genetically engineered salmon for sale in the …

Pale Tradescantia

There is a toxin here. The air or soil is harbouring a pollutant and the …

On Thin Ice: Big Northern Lakes Are Being Rapidly Transformed

As temperatures rise, the world’s iconic northern lakes are undergoing …

The Elephant in Paris – the Military and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In the aftermath of the terrible killings in Paris, military responses are …