Guilbeault Will Not Promise No Increase In Canada’s Oil And Gas Exports

On June 9, 2023 Guilbeault indicated that he will not promise to “limit Canada’s oil exports by requiring that they not exceed Canada's current percentage of total world exports.” This came in the form of his response to a petition presented to the House of Commons by Robert Oliphant (who is also a Liberal). See link.
 
Part of the petition states, “Increasing Canadian oil export would negate some or all the gains made from domestic reductions and contribute to an increase in climate change damage to many parts of the country.” This part of the petition implies and recognizes that further "downstream emissions" are created when the exported/sold product, oil, is used/burned.


Yet, in response to that petition, Guilbeault appears to be ignoring the subject of downstream emissions when he states,
Quote:
“[Our] objective is to limit the emissions from the production of oil and natural gas as the cap becomes more stringent over time, irrespective of whether the production is for domestic consumption or for export. Accordingly, the purpose of the emissions cap is to encourage private sector investment in decarbonizing the oil and gas sector; it is not a cap on oil and gas production.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects there to be demand for oil and natural gas by 2050. As the Canadian oil and gas sector decarbonizes to meet our climate targets, it can position itself to be the lowest emission intensity supplier of oil to meet this demand.”

End Quote


Guilbeault appears to be ignoring the part of the petition which states, “Increasing Canadian oil export would negate some or all the gains made from domestic reductions.”

 
In other words, he appears to be ignoring the part of the petition that points to the fact that, globally speaking, the burning of the exported fuel itself will increase global emissions far more than any domestic reduction in emissions from the process of producing that fuel.

 
That fact is true regardless of whether or not Canada can “position itself to be the lowest emission intensity supplier of oil”in a global market.


Just because the “International Energy Agency (IEA) expects there to be demand for oil and natural gas by 2050” doesn’t mean that those expectations align with a livable planet: The IPCC has said in its Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C  that, for global warming to be limited to 1.5 °C, "Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050.” See link.  


What equation is Guilbeault using to arrive at that net zero by 2050 or is he using any equation at all?

Also, is Guilbeault operating on the assumption that  importers of oil will choose Canada's oil over others simply because it may, in the future (if all goes according to his market incentive plans) be produced with lower emissions than the alternatives? That multi-faceted assumption exposes our planet to the risk of exceeding the temperatures that are compatible with a livable planet.

Also, on June 26, 2023, the International Institute for Sustainable Development released an extensive report which concludes that…“[Global] buyers of Canadian oil are focused on price, reliability, and quality—not on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) credentials.” See link. This is an urgent "writing on the wall" message about financially protecting Canadians from a global downturn in demand for our oil and gas exports.

But the most disturbing part of his response is the fact that Guilbeault appears to be ignoring any discussion of downstream emissions even after the petition explicitly flagged those emissions. 

Footnote: Also interesting are these facts:

His response to the petition was tabled on June 9, 2023 when Ottawa was in a blanket of smoke from wildfires. 

On June 17, 2019 the Liberal government declared a climate emergency. A day later June 18, 2019, they approved the TMX pipeline which sends oil to a coastal port for export. 

On June 19, 2019, Guilbeault announced that he was seeking the Liberal Party of Canada nomination for the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie in the 2019 Canadian federal election.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Choosing Nuclear Power is Needlessly Putting More Tools of Death Into Our Future

Choosing Nuclear Power is Needlessly Putting More Tools of Death Into Our Future: Two existential crises and the obvious alternative “Atomic Accomplice: How Canada deals in deadly deceit” a book written by Paul McKay in 2009 has a foreword by David Suzuki. One chapter is called, “Plutonim, the immortal outlaw.” (p 129) The word “immortal” refers to the fact that plutonium remains lethal for 250,000 years. McKay writes, “As a matter of physics, plutonium is created in every nuclear reactor of every make, model, size, purpose, or country of origin or operation…It takes a mere 8 kilograms to make a Nagasaki-scale bomb….” He continues, “Each year the odds grow worse that some of this accumulating, effectively immortal plutonium will be diverted by pariah states, or sold covertly for cash, or stolen for a bomb or nuclear blackmail. In 2009, the International Atomic Energy Agency disclosed that its data base includes 1,646 reports of trafficking, theft or loss of nuclear materials
Read more

Is COVID-19 more important than the climate emergency?

COVID-19 could possibly kill between 1% and 5% of those diagnosed if unstopped, but climate change will certainly kill 100% of humanity if unstopped. Why then did all federal parties pass an emergency motion on March 13 , which says, among other things, that C-4, the bill to implement the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement on trade (CUSMA), or NAFTA 2.0, was deemed to be passed at third reading -- when that agreement doesn’t even mention the climate crisis -- a crisis which literally threatens our continued existence? Sources: News of motion passed: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parliament-suspended-1.5496469 New NAFTA is Failing on the Climate Emergency: https://behindthenumbers.ca/2020/02/19/whats-next-for-the-new-nafta-and-what-if-anything-can-canadians-do-about-it-now/
Read more

The Cancer of Voter Inequality is part of a Fatal Mix

Image
        Fair Vote Canada links to research showing that countries with an electoral system based on proportional representation act faster on climate change, score higher on Yale’s Environmental Performance Index, and have made 117% greater use of renewable sources of energy. The climate crisis is now the most frightening symptom of the ongoing massive political crisis that gave rise to it and that underpins it at its root. One of the main sources of that “root rot” in Canada, both federally and provincially, is an electoral system based on false majorities and voter inequality. For many decades our deception-riddled electoral system has been undermining our attempts to hold elections that try to uphold even the most basic of democratic principles: the principle of “majority rules.”  For far too long we have mislead ourselves by using the phrase, “majority government” to refer to a government that has won a majority of seats instead of a majority of votes from actual people. Every
Read more