Quote:
Originally Posted by b1crunch
So in your view there's a 'hidden agenda' by the government to favour wood pellet production and burning over oil and gas production? So, governments are labeling wood pellet production and burning as 'green' because they have some vested interest in doing it, but these same governments lie and/or deceive about practises in the oil and gas industry? And you're suggesting that these governments don't support wood pellet burning because it is supposedly 'green' but for other (unspecified) nefarious reasons? Do I understand you correctly?
|
https://www.canadianbiomassmagazine....arbon-economy/
What I noticed of interest is at the bottom of the page : Funded by the Government of Canada
I don't believe that the Government of Canada normally funds oil sands or oil production websites or encourages pro oil production. We all know how Canadian Energy Center is funded by the UCP and government of Alberta, but considering that wood pellets have higher carbon emissions then coal, isn't a graphic like this extremely misleading when it's accounting for CO2 being reabsorbed by newly planted trees?
CO2 emissions are CO2 emissions, there is no such thing as 'green' CO2 emission. It doesn't matter if the CO2 emissions come from a tree or a coal, in the atmosphere it is all treated the same, and it is all absorbed from the same trees with CO2 sequestration.
More trees planted = better absorption, but that is separate from the actual act of burning wood pellets or coal. Oil companies plants trees year round.
https://syncrude.ca/2020/08/26/11-mi...yncrude-sites/
Meanwhile planting trees is a Liberal campaign promise and one that is barely outpacing private companies efforts.
Yes, if the government of Canada is promoting wood pellets as 'green' and funding and encouraging its use and funding misleading statistics, it most certainly does look like the government has a bias not embedded in science and favouring one industry over another.