When it comes to the future of Alberta's oilsands, it is time for a reality check in both Canada and the United States.

Given the legislative deadlock in Washington these days and the hyperbolic ranting on some American news channels, rational thinking on this subject could be almost impossible down there. It may not be much easier up here.

How important are these projects to Canada?

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach knows he has a selling job to do. (Canadian Press)

Just look at the recent budget of the Alberta government. That should tell you they are very important indeed.

Tuesday's provincial budget shows that, for the first time, government revenues from the oilsands outstrip what the province is taking in from either conventional oil or from the previous cash cow, natural gas.

It is projected to outstrip both oil and gas combined by 2013, which means that future budgets will rely even more on the oilsands to finance health care, education and the like.

What's more, all Canadians better hope that the powers in Edmonton have these numbers right.

Because it is not just Alberta that will benefit from the cash cow that is the oilsands.

Increased revenues from these projects will mean more tax money for the federal treasury as well as lucrative contracts for countless suppliers all across the country.

Dirty oil?

The fly in the ointment here is that in the same week that the Alberta budget came down, two influential retail chains in the U.S. — the organic Whole Foods Markets and home retailer Bed Bath and Beyond — signed up for a consumer campaign launched by the environmental lobby group ForestEthics.

It is a campaign in which these retailers pledge to not use energy produced from the "dirty" oilsands in their deliveries or in other parts of their operations.

ForestEthics is pushing hard to get companies in the Fortune 500 to sign on to the campaign as well. That is where the reality check comes in.

I say reality check because no matter how green we try to make ourselves — and I think we should be trying hard — Canadians are going to need oil and plenty of it for years to come. And so will the Americans.

To make these plants cost effective, most of the production must be exported. In fact, most of it already goes to the United States.

Americans can find other sources of oil. But we are already their biggest foreign energy supplier, something they don't always realize.

Plus, their other sources — the Middle East, Venezuela and Nigeria — are not only further away, but much less politically stable.

Get the word out

The real problem here is that most Americans don't have a clue of the importance our energy resources are for them.

Shame on them for not knowing, Shame on us for not telling them loud and clear.

It is our energy that keeps them warm in the winter and cool in summer, and without it they are going to have a very difficult time competing with rising powers like China, India and Brazil.

Getting that message out is becoming increasingly important.

Op-ed articles in the New York Times and USA Today can help. As can forums at scholarly think-tanks. But how do we really do it?

Well, like it or not, those cable television news programs and talk-radio big mouths are what is driving political debate in the U.S. right now. That is where we have to tell the Americans that without our oil they are doomed.

That will get their attention. And it has the added benefit of being true.

Why the U.S.?

Why do we need to be so insistent?

After all, it is our oil and, if the U.S. doesn't want it, a pipeline to the West Coast will enable us to export it to China, India or whoever else wants this energy to compete.

Well, the fact is that it is in our clear overall economic interest to ship our oil to a country with which our own economy is so intertwined.

The Suncor oilsands plant at Fort McMurray in 2003. (Canadian Press)

Simply put, if Americans prosper, so do Canadians. That is what the latest flap over the protectionist "Buy American" legislation was all about.

Selling oil to China and other developing nations means it will be used to manufacture things they will want to sell back to us.

Short term, it makes us money selling the oil. Longer term, it keeps us in the hewers-of-wood, drawers-of-water category of centuries past.

But in addition to making the Americans understand the importance of our energy supplies, we also have to contend with the ForestEthics and other environmental groups that attack the oil as dirty.

We should be glad to take that on in the most direct way possible — by cleaning up our act.

Even if all our oilsands production was only for domestic consumption, surely Canadians would want it to be as clean and environmental friendly as possible.

Do any Canadians — any Albertans — want to live in a dirty country? Of course not.

So the carbon sequestration research by the Alberta government should continue, despite what the Wildrose Alliance opposition party says.

But industry has to step up, too. And so does the Harper government in Ottawa.

It says it wants a greenhouse gas reduction strategy that is in line with the U.S. Well, the oil sands are clearly part of that and will be an even greater part if we let consumer boycotts dictate our energy policies.

We shouldn't have to wait for the American details and strategy to start making our case. That is the reality check on this side of the border.