Quote:
Originally Posted by puckedoff
I do like how Trudeau wants the pipeline analysis to consider the upstream impact of the pipeline. Should be fairly easy to determine that a pipe in the ground creates less emissions than a train, but what do I know, I'm no scientist (don't even own a lab coat).
|
The issue is that no other industry considers upstream/downstream impacts.
We don't calculate the GHG generated from the lifetime usage of the cars that a GM factory produces. Nor do we calculate the impact of GHG of the steel foundry or tire maker where the factory would get their raw material.
Why should pipelines have to consider where their oil comes from, and also the impact of burning that product at the end?
The upstream impact is a burden that should be completely isolated to the oil producers. The downstream impact is a burden shouldered by the consumer.
The pipeline company should be responsible for the GHG that is directly involved in constructing and operating the pipeline, including planning for the risks of a pipeline failure.
Now, if we want to argue that every single major infrastructure project and business needs to be accounting for the upstream and downstream impacts of the production, I'm okay with that. For example, the TransCanada highway encourages so much economic activity which all generate GHG, and thus the highway is environmentally untenable. I won't agree, but at least it will be consistent.
PS. I'm aware that Trudeau specifically mentioned upstream impacts, but my point regarding how no other industry or business is subject to the upstream impacts still stands even when most of my examples are downstream impacts. Also a lot of the rhetoric is also talking about downstream impact - the "oil must stay in the ground" narrative is all about what happens when it is burned, and not the pipeline itself.