But that is the sad factor in the equation. The development of the oil sands is predicated on an increased demand for petroleum based products worldwide. Petroleum based products produce green house gases, which contribute to global warming. Contrary to the article, I don't really think most people believe the U.S.'s thirst for non-renewable energy sources is decreasing, and it's obvious the demand from places like China and India will only go up. That being said, they're going to get it where it's cheap, like the Sudan, and where the U.S. won't or can't touch, so the overly pricey production of the oil sands probably isn't too high on their list.

While organizations like Greenpeace may go a step beyond the logical, you can no more stifle their attempt to bring awareness to the issue than you can tell someone working in Fort McMurray to shut up when they remind everyone that their livelihoods depend on the continuing growth of the oil sands. The Alberta government has been pushed to make the changes they have for the very fact that people are aware of the situation with the oil sands, which would not be possible without the help of independent environmental organizations. Canada won't run out of oil too quickly or go broke, and it certainly isn't an unstable dictatorship or anything like that so in many respects it is the most qualified country on the planet to actually do something about it's greenhouse gas emissions, which is why I think a lot of people see it as an easy target.

The oil sands are just one of many examples of our inefficient and shortsighted dependence on oil, and as one of the most prosperous countries on the planet, Canada can afford to take some action to try and make it better, so I wouldn't go too far in trying to undermine the arguments of people who are trying to do that, just to protect Canada's economic position, which is unquestionably strong and stable in this respect. Politically Canada will undermine itself by trying to make it a non-issue, as public opinion reigns supreme in places like the U.S., and will win over good relations with Canada any day. Sure, maybe the oil sands gets a worse rap than it should, but it still pollutes, and Canada continues to be pretty belligerent about people attacking it, which will only intensifies focus on it. This is an opportunity to save face and build stronger relations, rather than a time to become more defensive about a resource that from a pragmatic economic standpoint is a sure-fire goldmine.

Watch your use of the word "wrong."

Not only do I think you're analysis is wrong- but the word is very cocky and destroys any credibility you might have had.

Your analysis is underpinned with an opinion that is no more valid than Ms.Beach's, yet you arrogantly say it is the a "global scientific consensus" which it is obviously not.

Furthermore, in your analysis you say oil is the reason for our energy dependence. I am NOT AT ALL CONVINCED that alternative energy sources will reduce our energy dependence. Ms. Beach is right to take a stab at America's bio-fuel industry. It is an absolute joke!

My points is that tar sands oil is not making America any more secure for the reasons Gal Luft discusses in the quote.

So sure, the author is not an oil or finance expert and her role is to make a point about keeping cosy with the Canadians. I'm all for freindly neighborly relations.

But still many of the statements she has made about tar sands are wrong. Her analysis of US oil demand is wrong and therefore much of the basis of her argument is wrong.

The USA's relations with many nations would be much better if it didn't need to worry about oil supply. The only way to ease its oil supply worries is to cut demand. Making a special case in its environmental legislation for Canada won't do it.

Carbon cutting is clearly in the interests of the nation as global warming will hit America really very hard. It's not a spurious assumption its global scientific consensus.