Can't really buy the articles I've read on this so far because it's an economist saying it. Let me talk to a few of the thousands of scientists in Canada that have been muzzled by the provincial/federal government before I make an informed opinion on this.
On a high level analysis, I guess it should be noted that just because it does not produce A LOT of CO2, does not mean it doesn't contribute a sizeable portion of emissions. I think the take away if this is indeed the case is that reducing CO2 emissions by targeting one polluter does not solve the problem, and only serves to cause damage to people in that one area. Reducing CO2 will be accomplished by collectively reducing CO2 across all sectors. Unless all of a sudden politicians pull a John Howard (Australian PM who went against party base to curb gun violence), I don't see that happening in the near future.
When it comes to the tar sands, my bigger beef is the damage done to the boreal forest. Though there are reclamation projects in place, I don't see how you can possibly re-plant a forest to it's original condition.
I'm not trying to spur a "use it or lose it" debate, but I'd be much more interested in hearing the environmental impact of razing a forest and all the energy intensive processes necessary to produce one litre of oil sand crude vs. conventional crude.
|