Oil and gas lobby group says emissions cap could cost sector $75B in lost investment ( www.cbc.ca )

A new report commissioned by an industry lobby group on the federal government's proposed emissions cap stirred up strong reactions from both oil and gas supporters and environmental groups on Monday.

The report, by S&P Global Commodity Insights, was commissioned by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to examine the impact of various proposed emissions-reducing policies on Canada's conventional (non-oilsands) oil and gas producers.

Its conclusions Monday were used to support the industry argument that legislating an emissions ceiling will inhibit investment and growth, even as opponents argued the report's methodology was flawed.

The commissioned report concludes that if oil and gas drillers were required to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2030, industry could see $75 billion less in capital investment over the course of the next nine years compared with current policy conditions.

delirious_owl , (edited )
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

Great! Exactly what's needed.

The only question is: is it enough? Well, and, what is the target increase in losses for next year?

AnotherDirtyAnglo ,

Why the fuck can't we let millionaires and billionaires take a hit now and then?

themeatbridge ,

Don't threaten me with a good time

Beaver ,
@Beaver@lemmy.ca avatar

Who cares about those oil executives

some_guy ,

All right, everybody. Millionaire capitalists are in trouble. Let's all tighten our belts and ration even harder. We can't have them lose their private jets, huge McMansions, and fleets of sports cars. It's time to dig deep. Save the 1%!

GreyEyedGhost ,

These aren't the kind of guys who buy McMansions.

girlfreddy OP ,
@girlfreddy@lemmy.ca avatar

Yeah. They're more the underground-bunker-in-Hawaii style.

psvrh , (edited )
@psvrh@lemmy.ca avatar

Oh no, not the capital investment! Anything but that!

For the record, the oil industry's global profits were $4T. Not revenue, profit. $75B in investment sounds like a lot, until you realize all it means is that they'll need to dig into that $4T to fund stuff, and that $75B is less than two percent of $4T, and the actual hit to revenue and income will be even less.

They can cut back on avocado toast, as it were.

FireRetardant ,

This cap means very little if Canada remains a top oil exporter, all the oil that doesn't get burned here will just be shipped out and burnt elsewhere.

The biggest thing Canada could do for climate change is keep its oil in the ground and stop selling billions of dollars worth every year.

corsicanguppy ,

We have an election coming up, and the O&G poster children could get back into power and set us back decades again.

asg101 ,

What's the price for a livable planet?

FunderPants ,

To hear oil barons tell it, only oil and gas losses count. Billions lost due to climate change don't count.

Kichae ,

Makes sense. They only count their money. Though, they also see the rest of us as temporary stores of their money, so they don't want that going to climate related issues, either.

joshhsoj1902 ,

Sounds like a good incentive for them to implement the carbon capture they are so obsessed with.

streetfestival ,
@streetfestival@lemmy.ca avatar

From what I've read, carbon capture is, at best, an effective part of a transition away from reliance on fossil fuels as we systemically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, at worst, a bogus intervention, designed to distract populations from the larger necessary task of reducing reliance on fossil fuels and perpetuate the idea that we're not facing crisis and can stay the course of doing little.

Tl;Dr: when fossil fuel companies talk about carbon capture, they're lying and distracting from the real issues in order to keep doing what they're doing

delirious_owl ,
@delirious_owl@discuss.online avatar

Carbon is captured by planting trees.

But you can't expect that to help without also stopping drilling for fossil fuels.

xmunk ,

Awesome, let's double it!

InEnduringGrowStrong ,
@InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works avatar

Oh no...

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Its conclusions Monday were used to support the industry argument that legislating an emissions ceiling will inhibit investment and growth, even as opponents argued the report's methodology was flawed.

The study says that would translate to one million barrels of oil equivalent less of production per day by 2030 compared with current forecasts, and 51,000 fewer jobs by 2030 than under existing government policies.

"Declines in production forced on the industry by a stringent emissions cap will result in significant job losses for Canadians, severe impacts on the economy and our GDP, and have the potential to compromise Canada's energy security and prosperity," Baiton said.

Everything in it flows from false assumptions that make it so deeply flawed, it amounts to disinformation," said Oliver Anderson, spokesperson for Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, in an email.

Clean energy think-tank The Pembina Institute said the CAPP report includes only conventional oil and gas drillers and leaves out oilsands production, which accounts for the vast majority of the industry's emissions profile.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith also waded in Monday, issuing a joint statement with the province's environment and energy ministers in which she referred to the proposed cap as a "reckless gamble that will devastate Canadian families and do nothing to reduce global emissions."

The original article contains 730 words, the summary contains 210 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

girlfreddy OP ,
@girlfreddy@lemmy.ca avatar

Fuck off O&G.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •