this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
8 points (83.3% liked)

Canada

7185 readers
292 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I think nationalizing the industry (essentially) is a far better state than what we have now but, tbh, I suspect that if we looked at the amount of expected revenue, the amount of damage to extract that revenue, and the GHGs that oil would translate to... we'd probably find the balance lacking for the per capita savings. AFAIK from the environmental studies we've seen on previous site cleanup the externalities purely to drilling are pretty atrocious, when we also consider the refining costs, the GHG costs, the occasional disasters like Lac-Mégantic vs. the expected revenue per Canadian I honestly don't think oil makes much sense.

Going full green and getting the global clout for that while having a clean conscious is a much more appealing possibility.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

I think nationalizing the industry is a far better state than what we have now

You may recall that was attempted in small part with the creation of Petro Canada.

And that it was subsequently privatized by a subsequent conservative government.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

we should take use and

"take use" is a weird construct.

harness the resources that we have.

Here's the thing: Every ounce burned creates emissions, which harms the atmosphere, which is already at a tipping point, and this on a 20-year lag. Burning the already extracted oil that's being stored now will be enough to absolutely destroy to planet to where we can't live on it, and we're currently in the future we made 20 years ago, and the future we'd have if we only drastically reduced consumption just after Y2K but didn't stop using it completely. We did neither, and so we have all this stashed oil we're eager to use.

So we don't even have to extract another ounce if we want to wreck the planet to where we're extinct: We just need to use our reserves. Extracting that oil is no longer important, then. We can shut the rigs and walk away, and it's already too late unless we make some serious investment in reversing what we've already done. We haven't made appreciable progress yet, so killer heat-waves and 'small' killer storms that only cause a few hundred-billion-dollars worth of damage and a few thousand deaths each year is a nightmare scenario we're only going to experience for a short time before it gets worse and keeps getting worth for 20 years -- or more, if we keep going.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

I think nationalizing the industry (essentially) is a far better state than what we have now

Justin tried doing that with a small portion of the sector and wow did that backfire. The whiny cons didn't put that broken record away for months.