While Canada claims to be a climate leader, the oil and gas we export to other countries have the potential to produce more emissions in a year than every sector in Canada combined, an independent analysis reveals.
Does that mean that a country that imports 100% of the oil it burns should be counted as having no emissions?
No, but It’s still a bad thing to sell something that’s got a negative global effect. This measures that effect.
We sell a very large amount.
Any time you say nuclear power most people think of Homer Simpson and Fukushima. Canada could be cranking out reactors and fuel for local and international use but it’s ‘too dangerous.’
It is too dangerous, and we don’t need that risk. Renewables work great.
It’s perceived as dangerous but it’s much safer than any other form of electricity production. It’s just more expensive because we don’t have the construction capacity to just build all the nuclear infrastructure we would need without a serious premium. But once they’re running, nuclear shakes out to be cheaper than undoing the climate damage we caused by saving money with fossil fuels
You didn’t even address the waste, which is the biggest danger
Proven false.
Waste of nuclear power plants is the most well-regulated specifically because of the anxiety surrounding it. The environmental waste of fossil fuel burning is MORE radioactive than the environmental waste of nuclear power plants. The most potent waste of nuclear plants is contained in a small enough volume to place in concrete casks, submerged in large pools of water (which blocks enough of the radiation to make it lower than background levels), and stored on-site under constant monitoring.
If you’re worried about waste, you should be championing nuclear power, not shunning it.
If you’re worried about long-term storage, we have MUCH more time to find a solution for dealing with the contained waste from nuclear power than we do to avert the environmental catastrophe that’s resulting from us continuing to spew carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.
And if you’re wondering what the biggest danger actually is, it’s the construction of the plants. Which is a uniform risk across all types of power plants, not uniquely high for nuclear.
What you’re saying doesn’t make sense. But, yes, big nuclear can wrap itself up in a nice package and do a lot of hand waving, just like Big Coal says they have “clean coal”
I love the efficiency and risk comparisons of 1970s nuclear power and 2070s solar.
No, but since Canada can regulate/limit the oil and gas it exports, this is still a useful number.
Imports also need to be counted.
Unfortunately climate change is every country’s responsibility to fix, since every bit helps.
I disagree - its double counted. Once in Canada, once when actually used.
It’s only double counted in a situation where you’re actually counting both sides. This is a Canadian study published by a Canadian outlet about the impacts of Canadian policy.
They’re not trying to balance the books, so to speak, they’re evaluating transactions on a single account.
Yes, but if you are considering Canada carbon you can’t include both everything they sell and everything they import. The earth is a closed system.
If you want to assess Canadas impact you can’t include impacts other countries have- thats their impact and your making Canada response for them. You could, and should, include net exports of fuel.
I agree, it is double counted.
However, when it comes to emissions, the buyer and seller should bear half (or something close to that) of the responsibility each. Take the number and divide it in half if you wish, but the producer shifting responsibility to the buyer is not a fair share of the blame, and figures like this help give a sense of how much this is being done.
💯
