I think these graphs speak for themselves:
...the pipeline expansion would completely undermine not just B.C.'s emissions reduction policy, but the entire country's emissions reduction policy.
The second graph shows the estimated gap (i.e. necessary reductions) between the most recent national emissions estimate (2010, 692 Mt) and the policy goal for 2020 (17% reduction, ~607 Mt). The emissions embedded in the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline (82.5 Mt) is alone almost as great as the Canadian 2020 emissions gap (85.3 Mt). Add in the original Kinder Morgan proposal, the recent proposed bump in capacity, and the emissions embedded in oil exports of the pipeline would be 1.6 times the national emissions gap.
So the Harper government's policy re Northern Gateway undermines its (stated) policy on emissions.
Did everyone see the photo's of, the sky over Beijing China? It was broad daylight. The pollution turned the sky pitch black. The pollution level, was right off the charts. Not that it matters. Harper, Premier Redford, Enbridge and Communist China, don't believe in pollution. Even when, China's pollution drifts as far as BC. Even when the acid in the sea, is right up to BC's shores. Their greed comes first. Big oil says, their greed had better come first.
The tar pits are poisoning Alberta's lakes. The huge Athabasca watershed, is already contaminated. Pipe bursts have contaminated a towns drinking water. Alberta will become, a polluted wasteland.
We are united with, the BC F.N. people. We do not want that dirty Bitumen, anywhere near our beautiful province.
Harper is pursuing "sectoral" emissions reductions. If you're not in the bitumen sector, you must reduce your emissions... a lot.
Then again I'm still waiting for some reliable numbers on the emissions from BC's fracked gas bonanza in the northeast.
As I read Simon's somewhat incoherent ramblings it became apparent that he is crediting British Columbia with the carbon emissions values of Alberta bitumen transported across B.C. for consumption abroad. There are a number of ways that could be challenged although I'm not one of those particularly inclined to take up that argument.
There is the well-made argument that much of China's GHG emissions should be credited to Western consumer nations who utilize Chinese factories to make the stuff that lines WalMart shelves. That is indeed a powerful argument.
And, I suppose, it could likewise be argued that we, not the Chinese (and other customers) should be dinged for the carbon emissions from fossil fuels we export to power their factories to make the crap we buy back to line the shelves at WalMart. Yet there is a circuitous element to it all that is probably, at the very least, inaccurate.
Good point. As I've noted elsewhere, one of the reasons Canada ships bitumen raw is to save the emissions involved in refining it. Which is hypocritical, but a common tactic.
Post a Comment