Canada Failing to Put Climate Change Plans in Action

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
So glad that you support the new pipeline cancellations that put us back on track.
 
Last edited:

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Your article is before the latest pipeline cancellations which environmentalists are happy about because it greatly reduces carbon emissions.

They thank you for your support in their cause.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
More Flossy bullshit...........

Oil is normally transported by one of four options:

  • Pipeline – the most commonly used form of oil transportation is through oil pipelines. Pipelines are typically used to move crude oil from the wellhead to gathering and processing facilities and from there to refineries and tanker loading facilities. Pipelines require significantly less energy to operate than trucks or rail and have a lower carbon footprint.
  • Rail – Oil shipment by train has become a growing phenomenon as new oil reserves are identified across the globe. The relatively small capital costs and construction period make rail transport an ideal alternative to pipelines for long distance shipping. However speed, carbon emissions and accidents are some significant drawbacks to rail transport.
  • Truck – while the most limited oil transportation method in terms of storage capacity, trucks have the greatest flexibility in potential destinations. Trucks are often the last step in the transport process, delivering oil and refined petroleum products to their intended storage destinations.
  • Ship – where oil transport over land is not suitable, oil can be transported by ship. A typical 30,000-barrel tank barge can carry the equivalent of 45 rail tank cars at about one-third the cost. Compared to a pipeline, barges are cheaper by 20-35%, depending on the route. Tank barges traditionally carry petrochemicals and natural gas feedstocks to chemical plants. The drawbacks are typically speed and environmental concerns.
https://www.studentenergy.org/topics/ff-transport
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Yes we already know we have enough oil, so pulling a pipeline doesn't mean increasing other methods of transport.

We already know that.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Looks like Canada is sticking to trucks and trains. As the article clearly states, the Trudeau Govt. is failing to keep to its climate change commitments.

But seriously... did anyone believe that they would?
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
26,542
6,923
113
B.C.
Your article is before the latest pipeline cancellations which environmentalists are happy about because it greatly reduces carbon emissions.

They thank you for your support in their cause.
How does transporting oil by tankers both land ( rail cars ) or sea ( ocean freighters ) reduce carbon emissions ?
Does the same amount of oil not get used in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes ? Do the oil tankers not create more GHG's than pipelines .Please explain how this reduces carbon emissions ?
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
How does transporting oil by tankers both land ( rail cars ) or sea ( ocean freighters ) reduce carbon emissions ?
Does the same amount of oil not get used in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes ? Do the oil tankers not create more GHG's than pipelines .Please explain how this reduces carbon emissions ?
He can't!
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
How does transporting oil by tankers both land ( rail cars ) or sea ( ocean freighters ) reduce carbon emissions ?
Does the same amount of oil not get used in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes ? Do the oil tankers not create more GHG's than pipelines .Please explain how this reduces carbon emissions ?

Good luck trying to get an answer from him on this!

You completely crushed him already.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Already answered my furry neanderthals.


Looks like Canada is sticking to trucks and trains. As the article clearly states, the Trudeau Govt. is failing to keep to its climate change commitments.

But seriously... did anyone believe that they would?

How does transporting oil by tankers both land ( rail cars ) or sea ( ocean freighters ) reduce carbon emissions ?
Does the same amount of oil not get used in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes ? Do the oil tankers not create more GHG's than pipelines .Please explain how this reduces carbon emissions ?

....

Yes we already know we have enough oil, so pulling a pipeline doesn't mean increasing other methods of transport.

We already know that.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Silly fool... as Canada's population increases more fossil fuels will be needed. Therefore more road, rail, and water transport is needed. That means an increase of carbon emissions.

*snicker*
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,607
5,250
113
Olympus Mons
Already answered my furry neanderthals.






....
No you didn't. The pipeline would take us off foreign oil. How is relying on Saudi Arabia to supply eastern Canada helping anything or anyone but the Saudis? Are you seriously trying to suggest that a pipeline to eastern Canada would create more emissions than supertankers from the Middle East already generate? A pipeline would reduce our gross GHG emissions, not increase them.

Oh, and your "logic" that no pipeline doesn't translate into increased oil traffic via other methods is seriously flawed. Firstly if, as you argue, we already produce enough oil to supply ourselves, why are we still importing Saudi oil? Secondly, a pipeline would also reduce GHGs from transporting oil across the country via rail and truck. Is this not your big f*cking concern in life, reducing GHGs? Tell us how not having an eastern flow pipeline will reduce our GHG emissions. I can't wait to hear this one.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Silly fool... as Canada's population increases more fossil fuels will be needed. Therefore more road, rail, and water transport is needed. That means an increase of carbon emissions.

*snicker*

That's where you're wrong!

Tater tot made careful calculations and elected to only allow low emission, carbon-free immigrants to enter Canada.

Pretty smrt, right?