Does the Trade-off Between Energy Security and Climate Change Protection Matter? The Canadian Tar Sands Case

  • Laura Castellucci
Part of the Lecture Notes in Energy book series (LNEN, volume 31)


Energy security may have different meanings. In addressing the energy security question from an economic perspective, a standard definition “as reliable and adequate supply of energy at reasonable prices” may be accepted once the meaning of “reasonable prices” is given. Since the problem concerns the society as a whole (be it a single nation or the European Community or the OECD countries), prices to be considered are those for the society as a whole. This is to say that external costs have to be added to the market prices and that they are represented by the negative impacts on climate change, i.e. GHG emissions. The Canadian tar sands are analyzed as a case study to investigate how each viable energy mix for Europe performs with respect to both energy security and climate change. The minimization of the risk of supply disruption and of GHG emissions being the optimum target. Needless to say, those choices that produce positive impacts on both are preferred ones while choices having opposite impacts need a comparison among their economic costs and benefits.


Gross Domestic Product Climate Policy International Energy Agency Energy Security Gross Domestic Product Growth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Barsky RB, Kilian L (2004) Oil and the macroeconomy since the 1970s. J Econ Perspect 18(4):115–134Google Scholar
  2. Brandt A (2011) Upstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canada oil sands as a feedstock for European refineries. Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  3. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (2014). 9 June 2014,
  4. Chignell S, Gross R (2012) “Not locked-in? the overlooked impact of new gas-fired generation investment on long-term decarbonisation. A Case study of lock-into new CCGT in the UK”, ICEPT WP 2012Google Scholar
  5. Conference Board of Canada (2010),
  6. Cunado J, Perez de Gracia F (2003) Do oil price shocks matter? Evidence from some European countries. Energy Econ, 25:137–154Google Scholar
  7. EEA (2014) Why did GHG emissions decrease in the EU between 1990 and 2012?
  8. EIA, Energy Information Administration (2014) Official energy statistics from the US government.
  9. European Commission Climate Action 2030 framework for climate and energy policies and Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050Google Scholar
  10. European Commission, COM (2014a) 689 final, “Progress towards achieving the Kyoto and the EU 2020 objectives”Google Scholar
  11. European Commission, COM (2014b) 330 final, communication from the commission to the European parliament and the council, European energy security strategyGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission, SWD (2014c) 330final/3, Commission Staff Working Document, In Depth Study of European Energy SecurityGoogle Scholar
  13. Fattouh B (2011) An anatomy of the crude oil pricing system. Institute for Energy Studies, Oxford, WPM 40, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuel Quality Directive (2009/30/EC)Google Scholar
  15. Gerlagh R (2011) Too much oil. CESifo Econ Stud 57:79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grubb M (2001) Who’s afraid of atmospheric stabilisation? Making the link between energy resources and climate change. Energy Policy, 29:837–845Google Scholar
  17. Hamilton (2005) “Oil and the Macroeconomy”, Palgrave DictionaryGoogle Scholar
  18. Ibrahimov M, Azizov Z (2011) Oil market structure and pricing. Crude oil and oil products marketing and pricing: what is the price of crude oil? IPEDR, vol 22. IACSIT Press, Singapore, p. 59Google Scholar
  19. IEA, International Energy Agency (2014), Energy technology perspectives.
  20. Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Wuppertal Institute for Climate, CE Solutions for Environment, Economy and Technology (2005) Policy review on decoupling: development indicators to assess decoupling of economic development and environment pressure in EU-25 and AC-3 countriesGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC (2013), Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Jemenez-Rodriguez R, Sanchez M (2005) Oil price shocks and real GDP growth: empirical evidence for some OECD countries. Appl Econ 2005:37Google Scholar
  23. Mech M (2011) A comprehensive guide to the alberta oil sands. Understanding the environmental and human impacts, export implications, and political, economic and industry influences, p 7/8.
  24. OECD (2001) Environment strategy for the first decade of the 21st centuryGoogle Scholar
  25. OECD (2002) Indicators to measure decoupling of environment pressure from economic growthGoogle Scholar
  26. Steger S, Bleischwitz R (2011) Drivers for the use of materials across countries. J Cleaner Prod 19(8):816–826Google Scholar
  27. The Pembina Institute (2012) Oil sands, heavy crudes, and the EU fuel-quality directive.
  28. The Energy Journal (2013) Special Issue, “On financial speculation in the oil markets and the determinants of the price of oil” 34(3)Google Scholar
  29. Tol RSJ (2014) Climate economics: economic analysis of climate, climate change and climate policy. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  30. UNEP (2011) Decoupling natural resources and environmental impact from economic growth. A report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource PanelGoogle Scholar
  31. UNEP (2014) Decoupling 2: technologies, opportunities and policy optionsGoogle Scholar
  32. Van der Ploeg (2013) Cumulative carbon emissions and the green paradox”, OxCarre Research Paper, 110Google Scholar
  33. Van der Ploeg F.- Withagen C., 2013, Global Warming and the green Paradox. OxCarre Research Paper 116Google Scholar
  34. Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers, GabriolaGoogle Scholar
  35. Winzer C (2012) Conceptualizing energy security. Energy policy 46:36–48Google Scholar
  36. World Resources Institute.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Rome “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly
  2. 2.RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations