Thread by @politicalham

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail There are so many inaccuracies in your response to McKibben it's embarrassing. Let's discuss a few, shall we?

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 2/"Canadian gas" is not considered one of the greenest, ie low-emissions. The Canadian Energy Research Institute recently pegged the CDN average leak rate at 1.5%. BC is 0.3%, Alberta is much higher because of leaky old wells. SK is sky-high.

Oh, and leak data is unreliable.

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 3/The carbon footprint of Canada’s crude oil is NOT steadily decreasing. The carbon-intensity of heavy oil sands crude from new plants is, but the comprehensive cf. 2018 IHS MarkIt study, results are highly variable between companies and projects.

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 4/This IHS graph captures the problem quite nicely: declining intensity coupled with rising absolute emissions. Given that the industry will grow production by at least 1 million b/d by 2030, there is no chance total emissions will decline in the near future.

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 5/Canada does NOT have a national climate plan that includes an oil sands emissions cap. Premier Kenney campaigned against the cap during the election and only agreed to it because Ottawa told him doing so would put oil sands projects on the new C69 assessment projects list.

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 6/Sure Alberta has a large emitters carbon levy...but TIER is only 2/3 as effective at cutting emissions from the oil sands as the CCIR it replaced. Specifically, TIER rewards high emitters and fails to reward efficient producers like CCIR did. Hardly an improvement.

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 7/You have to STOP referring to IEA scenarios as "forecasts." I interviewed Tim Gould, the IEA economist responsible for modelling, and he says the agency only forecasts out 5 yrs. Tacking on the Sustainable Development scenario doesn't absolve this sin.

energi.media/markham-on-ene…

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 8/Where is the proof Canada has world-leading environmental standards? The only study to consider this question was commissioned by CAPP in 2014 and it only reported on regulatory DESIGN, not PERFORMANCE.

Without proof of performance, your claim is meaningless.

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 9/You claim that getting natural gas to countries like China and India would displace coal and reduce global emissions. Where is the proof that China and India will buy Canadian LNG to displace coal for power generation?

This conclusion is assumed but never demonstrated.

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 10/Finally, the Canadian Assoc of Petroleum Producers has spent the past four years lobbying against the very national climate plan you laud. Even now it is lobbying for the upstream sector to be exempted from the Clean Fuel Standards regulations. And industry supported the...

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 11/...CPC climate plan that would have gutted that climate plan (instead of strengthening it) and undertaken a radical shift from a combination of carbon pricing, regs, and subsidies to an almost exclusive focus on innovation subsidies, which would be woefully inadequate.

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 12/Your op-ed is a sad collection of industry talking points that distort the evidence or are flat out fallacious.

Your op-ed is propaganda.

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 13/After sleeping on it, I thought of a few more egregious claims...

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 14/"Under the IEA’s most optimistic 'sustainable development scenario'... world oil consumption would still be 67 million barrels b/d by 2040."

Oil prices collapsed in late 2014 and fell from over $100 to below $30, took several years to recover...

@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail 15/...because of a global oversupply of 1.5-2 million b/d.

What makes you think 33 million b/d of demand can be PERMANENTLY destroyed and oil prices will still be high enough to support Alberta production?

The WCSB is a high-cost basin. Are you expecting that to change?