Obama talks climate change in Canada

Barack Obama and his Canadian counterpart, Stephen Harper, just wrapped up a joint press conference. Of course, no one said anything particularly newsworthy, but a few comments are worth mentioning.

First, Harper said his approach to climate change, an approach that favors Bush-style emissions intensity (relative to economic output) is no different from Obama's preferred absolute reductions. Here's the rough transcript:

Harper: WHEN I LOOK AT THE PRESIDENT'S PLATFORM, THE KIND OF TARGETS HIS ADMINISTRATION HAS LAID OUT FOR THE REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GASES ARE VERY SIMILAR TO OURS. YOU SAY WE HAVE INTENSITY AND THE TRUTH IS THAT THESE ARE TWO WAYS OF MEASURING THE SAME THING, YOU CAN CONVERT ONE TO THE OTHER IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, AND SO I'M QUITE OPTIMISTIC.

I don't know of any serious observers who would share that opinion, but at least he's optimistic. On to more interesting matters. One of the biggest challenges for US-Canadian relations in the next few years will be what to do with Alberta's tar sands, which are just about the worst way to extract oil from the Earth. Here's Obama, referring to the "agree-to-talk-later" agreement on clean energy research he just signed with Harper:

HERE IN CANADA YOU HAVE THE ISSUE OF THE OILSANDS, IN THE UNITED STATES WE HAVE ISSUES AROUND COAL, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ARE EXTRAORDINARILY PLENTIFUL AND RUNS A LOT OF OUR POWER PLANTS AND IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO CAPTURE THE CARBON THAT WOULD MAKE AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE IN HOW WE OPERATE. RIGHT NOW THE TECHNOLOGIES ARE AT LEAST NOT COST EFFECTIVE. AND SO MY EXPECTATION IS THAT THIS CLEAN ENERGY DIALOGUE WILL MOVE US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS OVERNIGHT AS PRIME MINISTER INDICATED

Comparing the oils sands with coal suggests Obama has done his homework. They pose the same threat and face the same threat. Reducing emissions sufficiently to forestall catastrophic climate change will require the closing of all coal-fired power plants, and abandoning the tar sands. Coal is vital to a lot of states' economies, but the tar sands are even more important to Alberta and Canada's economy in general. How to shut them down without sparking a separatist movement in Alberta will be tricky, to say the least.

Obama is suggesting that carbon capture is the only way out of this impasse. Maybe he's right, but we're at least 15 years away from commercializing that kind of technology, which is what the clean-energy agreement is all about, I suppose. I just don't think we can wait that long to start winding down the continent's largest industrial development.

More like this

Intensity, shmintensity... Give it up, Stevie... We have to reduce total emissions... quickly... "Intensity" is old-Bushspeak code for "slow down our increase in emissions"... It says to me that he still doesn't "get it" or is too afraid of his core to admit it... "Intensity" is the dog-whistle by which he communicates with the tar sands interests...

What's the target for tar sands production? 5million barrels per day within the decade? Somewhere in that ballpark, iirc. Sure... with full CC&S... sure... dream on.

There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. The cost of fuel effects every facet of consumer goods from production to shipping costs. After a brief reprieve gas is inching back up. OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. There is a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now

The tar sands are economically viable when oil is expensive - at the same prices that lead people and governments to look for alternatives, even without considering carbon emissions. In the long run, it's self-limiting (but disastrous in the short run). Coal, unfortunately, is much cheaper, at least for the next while. Carbon considerations are what's needed to prevent coal from ruining the picture.

How now Obama?