california
Well-Known Member
"Here is where we are going to have to agree to disagree on KM pipeline expansion to tidewater. Probably not for the reasons that you may think. I oppose the expansion of the oil industry in Canada. Stay the same size? Yes, but only if this industry can get a handle on GHGs. Currently Alberta has offered to cap at 100 Megatonnes (Mt) from around 70 Mt per year, present. So what this means there will be no chance that Alberta can help meet Canada's commitments unless others do more. That's not fair, we all have to do our share. Until I see a plan with action that sets a course to lowering GHG's then it's hard for me to change my position. I suspect that many of us feel this way."
I would agree we all have to do our part to reduce GHG, but limiting oil production in Canada will do nothing to achieve that. Canada produces about 5% of the worlds oil, any increase or decrease in production in Canada will have a negligible effect on worldwide supply or prices. The oil will come from somewhere. What should of course be supported is initiatives to reduce fossil fuel consumption in Canada, as its only through consumption decreases that GHG emissions can come down overall. To achieve the goals based on production cuts or freezes in Canada in isolation does nothing to reduce worldwide GHG emissions, only local ones.
I would agree we all have to do our part to reduce GHG, but limiting oil production in Canada will do nothing to achieve that. Canada produces about 5% of the worlds oil, any increase or decrease in production in Canada will have a negligible effect on worldwide supply or prices. The oil will come from somewhere. What should of course be supported is initiatives to reduce fossil fuel consumption in Canada, as its only through consumption decreases that GHG emissions can come down overall. To achieve the goals based on production cuts or freezes in Canada in isolation does nothing to reduce worldwide GHG emissions, only local ones.