1/The discredited Ethical Oil argument is trotted out in Corbella's latest. Here's why the Norges decision is NOT hypocritical:
2/The Canadian companies were excluded under the excessive GHG emissions criteria. Pointing fingers at Norges investment in countries w/poor human rights records is cheap whataboutism to deflect from the fact that Alberta oil sands crude has REALLY high carbon-intensity.
3/Now, emissions:
Crude oil global average = 18 kg CO2e/b
Average for all Norwegian oil = 9 kg CO2e/b
Equinor’s giant Johan Sverdrup offshore field = 0.67 kg CO2/b
Oil sands average: 77 kg CO2e/b
Oil sands worst: 127 kg CO2e/b
Spot the pattern? Too bad the Herald didn't.
Crude oil global average = 18 kg CO2e/b
Average for all Norwegian oil = 9 kg CO2e/b
Equinor’s giant Johan Sverdrup offshore field = 0.67 kg CO2/b
Oil sands average: 77 kg CO2e/b
Oil sands worst: 127 kg CO2e/b
Spot the pattern? Too bad the Herald didn't.
4/Under the Council of Ethics' guidelines, Norges had every right to blacklist the 4 oil sands producers.
In fact, it had already withdrawn most of its investments in the oil sands in 2014.
Therefore, Norges was being consistent, not hypocritical.
In fact, it had already withdrawn most of its investments in the oil sands in 2014.
Therefore, Norges was being consistent, not hypocritical.
