Yesterday, two important reports were released and their conclusions are startling. First was the Munk Centre's report cataloguing a "pollution delivery system" from Alberta, Canada, to the Great Lakes. It warned that the air and water pollution from increased tar sands refining in the Great Lakes region will adversely effect the Great Lakes - which represent some 20% percent of the earth's fresh water supplies and serve 30 million people just on the U.S. side of the border.  As my colleague, Josh Mogerman, queried "Which is more important to North America, fresh water or more oil?"

The second report was a report by the RAND Corporation and commissioned by the National Commission on Energy. It concluded that in spite of the dangerous global warming pollution and profligate water and energy use from further developing our transportation fuels from Canada's tar sands, they are likely to be highly resistant, unlike liquid coal, to pricing carbon. The report's author noted in a Greenwire piece, you'd have to price carbon at $250 per ton before you'd see an impact on slowing the tar sands. 

So, in sum this means that investment in the tar sands is likely to continue to grow in spite of the threat of putting a price on carbon pollution. Any limitation on its development will have to come through government policy and regulation directed at its development or policies such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard adopted by California.  Pricing carbon, whether that is through a cap-and-trade system or a tax, is not likely to be enough - we need to do more and we need to do it fast.

Before we know it, this "pollution delivery system" will be constructed and Americans will never have had the chance to debate a clean energy future. All the major oil companies are busy - right now - building this system and they have gotten help in a big way from Congress.  Last week, the dirty secret of the "Bailout package" was the nearly billion dollars in subsidies for refinery expansions that record-profit earning oil companies have already committed to building. And those subsidies don't require those expansions to control their carbon dioxide or other pollution.

We like to say that we are at a global warming and energy cross-roads, but that implies a choice.  We need to insist that our politicians debate this choice out loud and in an accountable way rather than bury these subsidies in the fine print of a massive bill. We, the American people, know we can do better - there are all kinds of solutions from improving our infrastructure and public transportation to mass-producing plug in hybrid cars to investing in smart growth. And guess what?  If we do all this, we can also help climb our way out of this mess we are in by creating good jobs for Americans in building the clean energy future.

Last week, I heard an old tax professor of mine from law school deride the bailout bill's tag-ons, like the tax relief for the production of arrowheads and bicycle commuting benefits (which actually sound good to me!) What he failed to mention were the really big ones - the billion dollar ones - that will ensure the tar sands "pollution delivery system" is delivered lock, stock and barrel to a Great Lake near you.

That is, unless you and I demand a different future.