Alaskans should look at where their natural gas may go

The governor's letter used an argument we heard during the presidential election campaign, namely that the proposed pipeline could provide "a clean-burning, abundant and low-carbon footprint source of energy" to consumers. The letter declines to mention the reason it is on the agenda in Ottawa next week, though, which is its relationship to the tar sands in Alberta.

Most Americans have not heard of the tar sands even though they are one of the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world. Oil does not flow there though. Instead you find a thick tarry substance called "bitumen" that is mixed in with clay and sand and dirt.

Getting the bitumen out of the ground and turning it into something more resembling regular oil takes massive amounts of energy, mostly from burning natural gas. And now that Canadian natural gas is in decline, the tar sands industry is looking to other sources, like Alaska.

When you look at a map of the proposed Alaska pipeline you'll see that it ends in Northwest Alberta, just a short hop to the tar sands. If the pipeline is built by the proposed 2017 completion date, by that time the tar sands could need the equivalent of roughly half the gas coming from Alaska. Delivery of gas to the Lower 48 could be sparse.

Despite the arguments about Alaska gas being a "clean burning" and "low-carbon" source of energy, in fact sending this gas to the tar sands would produce exactly the opposite result. Producing a barrel of oil from the tar sands leads to three times the greenhouse gas emissions as a barrel of regular oil. Some have characterized this process of turning relatively clean burning natural gas into carbon-heavy oil as "reverse alchemy" -- the equivalent of turning gold into lead.

Global warming is just one product of the tar sands. An area of boreal forest the size of Florida is scheduled to be either strip mined or carved up. Four hundred million gallons a day of toxic tailings are put into "ponds" so big you can see them from space, all of which are leaking into the groundwater. Native people downriver from the tar sands are finding deformed fish and animals and suspect that their own health is being affected.

The reason Prime Minister Harper put the pipeline on the agenda with President Obama stems from fear that dirty tar sands production isn't consistent with the sea change in U.S. energy and global warming policy now under way. The U.S. is the main destination for tar sands oil, and Canada recognizes it will need to harmonize its climate policies with those soon coming out of Washington, D. C. Harper is therefore seeking to link North American climate policy and Canadian energy delivery to the U.S. in the hopes that this gives him leverage to cut a deal to let tar sands pollution continue unchecked.

To be sure, the Alaska pipeline isn't the only chess piece in this political game. There is also competition with the proposed Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline in Canada. Some believe that both pipelines can't be built at the same time.

Instead of buying into this political game, President Obama can help transcend it by refocusing the conversation on the stake of both countries in the new energy economy. Instead of America sending relatively clean burning natural gas to the tar sands in exchange for dirty oil, the U.S. could tell Canada that it wants as much trade in renewable energy as possible. A strong North American climate pact that doesn't give the tar sands a special deal would accelerate the transition to trade in the type of energy production that doesn't put the security of our climate at risk.

Matt Price is the Energy and Climate Project Manager for Environmental Defence Canada in Toronto.