this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024

162 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

7078 readers

498 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Regions

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL)

List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

List of All Teams: unknown
Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

List of All Teams: unknown
Toronto Raptors

Soccer

List of All Teams: unknown
General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Universities

UBC
UWaterloo
SFU
UoGuelph
OTU
McGill
U Western
UofT
UofA: unknown

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social & Culture

Rules

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

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

162

Canada doesn't count emissions from oil and gas exports. So we did (newsinteractives.cbc.ca)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months 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.'

[+] [email protected] -11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It is too dangerous, and we don't need that risk. Renewables work great.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's perceived as dangerous but it's much safer than any other form of electricity production. It's just more expensive because we don't have the construction capacity to just build all the nuclear infrastructure we would need without a serious premium. But once they're running, nuclear shakes out to be cheaper than undoing the climate damage we caused by saving money with fossil fuels

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You didn't even address the waste, which is the biggest danger

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Proven false.

Waste of nuclear power plants is the most well-regulated specifically because of the anxiety surrounding it. The environmental waste of fossil fuel burning is MORE radioactive than the environmental waste of nuclear power plants. The most potent waste of nuclear plants is contained in a small enough volume to place in concrete casks, submerged in large pools of water (which blocks enough of the radiation to make it lower than background levels), and stored on-site under constant monitoring.

If you're worried about waste, you should be championing nuclear power, not shunning it.

If you're worried about long-term storage, we have MUCH more time to find a solution for dealing with the contained waste from nuclear power than we do to avert the environmental catastrophe that's resulting from us continuing to spew carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.

And if you're wondering what the biggest danger actually is, it's the construction of the plants. Which is a uniform risk across all types of power plants, not uniquely high for nuclear.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

What you're saying doesn't make sense. But, yes, big nuclear can wrap itself up in a nice package and do a lot of hand waving, just like Big Coal says they have "clean coal"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

What part are you having trouble with?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I love the efficiency and risk comparisons of 1970s nuclear power and 2070s solar.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

💯