Remember the 1994 Stanley Cup finals? As you may recall, Mike Richter – the goalie then for the New York Rangers – played a significant role in securing Lord Stanley that year, bringing a close to the fabled “Curse of 1940.” In fact, in an action-packed, edge-of-your-seat Game 4 shoot-out, Richter famously shut down Pavel Bure – the Vancouver Canucks sharp-shooting, fast-flying forward.
And while Richter effectively handled the “Russian Rocket” in ’94, raining on the parade of Canadian hockey fans, the U.S. Hockey Hall of Famer is now working to undercut our nation’s energy security.
Taking to the pages of Minnesota’s largest newspaper, Richter – the outreach chair on the Sierra Club’s National Advancement Council – writes this in a recent Star Tribune column under the headline “Of Canada, the Olympics and dirty oil”:
If we allow Canada’s oil sands project to creep across our border, it will lock our nation into dependence on yet another foreign source of oil, just as our local clean-energy industry is beginning to thrive.
However, Canada currently helps meet nearly 17 percent of the total fuel demands that keeps the American economy running each day. In fact, Canada – not Middle Eastern oil, or oil derived from other unstable, unfriendly regions of the world – is our nation’s top oil provider. So how much of Minnesota’s oil comes from Canada’s sands? 83 percent. And why does Mr. Richter support denying Minnesota consumers, manufacturers, families and seniors living on fixed-incomes access to these affordable North American energy reserves? You should ask him.
Richter adds this in his column:
Right now, we are poised to become a leader in the global clean-energy economy. By taking the steps to ensure that we are the leader of the next industrial revolution, we can reignite our economy, bolster national security and improve the health of our people.
One of the most important things we can do to demonstrate that leadership is to say no to Canada’s oil sands. For now, the decision rests with the Obama administration. By denying permits for pipelines and refineries in the United States, President Obama can signal to the world that we are serious about fighting climate change and helping American clean-energy technologies thrive.
Everyone – including Mr. Richter – is entitled to their own opinion. However, no one is entitled to their own set of facts.
Consider this: If the federal government, or individual states, were to ban Canadian oil from reaching American consumers – as a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) seeks to achieve – where would the fuel come from to meet our nation’s growing energy needs and to help drive economic activity and growth?
Lighter forms of crude are generally found and produced in some of the most hostile regions of the world. Understanding that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) – the U.S. Energy Department’s statistical and analytical agency – has determined that our nation will continue to rely on oil until at least 2035, is it responsible or commonsense policy to turn our backs on Canadian oil to meet these rising demands, and to favor oil from faraway, hostile regimes?
But assuming that the U.S. adopts the misguided policies that Richter is advocating for, what are the ultimate consequences? Who are the winners and losers?
American consumers – who will be forced to pay even higher prices at the pump – are the ultimate losers.
And if the U.S. banned Canadian energy, does that mean global greenhouse gas (GHS) emissions will decrease? Absolutely not. China – our chief competitor in the global economy – is working aggressively to secure access to Canada’s oil sands. Some independent experts – and even a top advisor to President Obama – have determined that GHGs would actually increase under such a unilateral ban on these resources from the U.S.
The winners? Well, those who have an economic and financial interest in ensuring that our most affordable, reliable and secure forms of energy become prohibitively expensive. Say, for example, a venture capital firm that invests in alternative forms of energy that simply cannot compete with more affordable forms, such as Canada’s oil sands. That’s funny, because Mr. Richter is the founding partner of Environmental Capital Partners (ECP) — a firm that does just that. Coincidence? We’ll let the American consumers decide.
As U.S. consumers continue to weather these terribly difficult and challenging economic times and hardships, and more and more jobs continue to be lost, leaders in Washington and in state capitols must focus on advancing energy policies that aim to keep prices stable and affordable by promoting more energy of all forms, and using what we have more wisely at the same time. Regrettably, banning Canada’s oil – the core of a LCFS – would only deepen our dangerous dependence on oil from unfriendly regions of world, and severely hit struggling consumers in their pocketbooks at a time when they can afford it least.
[...] anyone else like opponents of secure, affordable energy resources from Canada are coming out of the woodwork these days? Protests in Canada during the Olympics, anti-sands LCFS legislation advancing in [...]