DENVER -- At a recent stop in Denver to address the Petroleum Club, Gary Doer, Canada’s ambassador to the U.S., outlined three priorities for achieving energy independence for North America. “When you reflect back 20 years ago on the lines for gasoline, the meetings every month of OPEC where the price of gas kept going up even though supply was not being provided to the most important customers, it brings us to the point of opportunity that we’ve talked about, thought about, dreamed about, never acted on but can today, in 2014.

“We are competing with OPEC—forget the love, trust and pixie dust—we’re competing for customers in the U.S., and we are taking it to the next level in proclaiming in North America that we can have energy independence in our neighborhood.” He thinks this is possible within the next five years.

The first priority echoes former Secretary of State George Shultz’s call for energy efficiency as the starting point. New light-duty vehicle emission standards in Canada and the U.S. are key, as is work that is underway on heavy-duty truck standards. Previously, standards varied from state to state and province to province. Massive increases in energy efficiency and reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are available, he said. With 8 million heavy-duty trucks in the U.S. and 1 million in Canada, using natural gas as fuel for that transportation mode and the benefits of incentives offer significant opportunities, he said.

The second priority is developing renewables. “Easier said than done,” he said, “but up to 64% of [Canada's] electricity is produced by renewables … hydro, geothermal, wind and solar.” The biggest challenge is in having traditional energy placed on transmission lines that can be approved. Approvals from one state to another in the U.S. can take seven years, he said. Canada has instituted a new law that requires a decision on projects within two years. “We need to have a larger vision before trying to determine the smaller decisions,” he said.

The third priority is the safe development of shale gas, he said. “The latest research shows 300 years of gas supply. This has tremendous benefit for Canada and the U.S., with the potential to in-source more manufacturing back to North America.

“When I listen to American companies and their concerns about the loss of innovation and intellectual property, and theft of intellectual property, the new energy availability and affordability will mean more jobs will come back or will be sourced in North America.”

North American oil also presents a tremendous opportunity for independence, Doer said. He lauded Mexico for recent changes to its constitution to allow investment in its oil and natural gas resources.

As for the Keystone XL pipeline debate, he said that while he always expected opposition, “I didn’t think the most energy-efficient way of moving oil would be opposed on the basis of environmental concerns.” Pipelines have fewer emissions, better safety records and lower costs, according to the U.S. Department of State’s report on the project, he said—“28% to 42% higher emissions on rail. … When people say it’s the environment vs. jobs, that’s not true. It’s more negative for the environment if not approved.”

Nor is it a question of whether the oil sands will be developed. “They will be developed,” he said. “Oil is coming.”

“Since the proposal on Keystone was delayed, contrary to all science and undertakings by the country that science would dictate, Canada is now looking at two pipelines to the West Coast and two to the East Coast”—aiming for Asia and India, respectively.

“If you stop trade and pipelines to the south, you are going to get them to the east and the west and have oil going north as we see the melting of ice and more opportunities there. I believe strongly that the logic of approving the pipeline is there. The debate has never been about the public interest. … It’s a false debate, and we should have the backbone to take it on.”