Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Your first assumption is a major assumption. The counter-factual to not building NGP isn't simply waving your hand and saying the oil is still produced anyway. Unless oil finds markets it stays in the ground. GHGs are central to this question. Canada has made targetsto reduce its GHGs by 17 percent by 2020. To achieve these targets the government would need to demonstrate how building the pipeline and the new upstream oil production that will come would be consistent with those targets. It's basic math.
You can't count all the upstream benefits of the pipeline without equally counting all the upstream costs. The benefits are widely touted, X amount of investment in oil sands infrastructure and jobs Jobs JOBS! The costs are GHG emissions and other environmental impacts from that production. The Harper government expressly forebade any consideration of the costs which is a fundamentally inconsistent and pre-emptive methodology.
|
The Assumption that limiting domestic GHG production will achieve any measurable goal outside of itself is the biggest assumption of all.
People need to work to feed their families.
Besides, with the Liberals back in power in Ontario we can count on needing jobs in the west more than ever.