this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
162 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

10142 readers
566 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Misinformation is not welcome here.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

While Canada claims to be a climate leader, the oil and gas we export to other countries have the potential to produce more emissions in a year than every sector in Canada combined, an independent analysis reveals.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Does that mean that a country that imports 100% of the oil it burns should be counted as having no emissions?

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, but It's still a bad thing to sell something that's got a negative global effect. This measures that effect.

We sell a very large amount.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Any time you say nuclear power most people think of Homer Simpson and Fukushima. Canada could be cranking out reactors and fuel for local and international use but it's 'too dangerous.'

[–] Sekoia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, but since Canada can regulate/limit the oil and gas it exports, this is still a useful number.

Imports also need to be counted.

Unfortunately climate change is every country's responsibility to fix, since every bit helps.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I disagree - its double counted. Once in Canada, once when actually used.

[–] Spedwell@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's only double counted in a situation where you're actually counting both sides. This is a Canadian study published by a Canadian outlet about the impacts of Canadian policy.

They're not trying to balance the books, so to speak, they're evaluating transactions on a single account.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, but if you are considering Canada carbon you can't include both everything they sell and everything they import. The earth is a closed system.

If you want to assess Canadas impact you can't include impacts other countries have- thats their impact and your making Canada response for them. You could, and should, include net exports of fuel.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree, it is double counted.

However, when it comes to emissions, the buyer and seller should bear half (or something close to that) of the responsibility each. Take the number and divide it in half if you wish, but the producer shifting responsibility to the buyer is not a fair share of the blame, and figures like this help give a sense of how much this is being done.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I have no objection to that when considering country responsibilities - just don't then count it again when the individual buys it.