@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail Neither of these two things are facts. The carbon footprint of Canadian crude oil is increasing and, unless you can cite a comprehensive source more recent than Masnadi et al 2018, even Kearl (and likely Fort Hills) barrels are well (about 30%) above the global average. 
@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail This is a great example of two common misconceptions in one tweet. First, the word intensity matters. Second, the makeup of Canadian oil matters too. What do I mean? It's true that the emissions intensity of the average oil sands barrel had been decreasing until about 2015.
@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail But, over that same period of time, total emissions have increased. Oil sands have also become a larger share of total Canadian oil production meaning that, even as oil sands emissions intensity has dropped, the average emissions intensity of a Canadian barrel has increased.
@CDNEnergyCentre @billmckibben @globeandmail You wouldn't confuse speed and distance. Don't confuse emissions and emissions intensity. And, don't confuse oil sands with Canadian crude oil. The words are different for a reason: the first is a subset of the second.
