I don't want to get into the whole oilsands debate as it's been done before but just want to comment on what a horrible effort of a spin job that article is and how ironic it is that he focuses on the word "incomplete" as the basis for his argument.
Just one example
Quote:
6) Oil sands not even the largest source of CO2 emissions in Alberta (coal-fired electricity).
|
Begs the question: why is he only reporting CO2 and not all Greenhouse gases? Severly "incomplete" as CO2 by itself is only one of several greenhouse gases. Could it be that it is the only one that is less that coal-fired electricity? If he's going to address global warming gases then look at the full picture and ummm tell the "whole story".
FTR: Oilsands are the largest source of GGs in Alberta.