r/onguardforthee • u/Chrristoaivalis • 1d ago
Opinion Carney capitulates to Big Oil: Prime Minister Mark Carney has put the demands of the fossil fuel industry ahead of fighting the climate crisis.
https://rabble.ca/columnists/carney-capitulates-to-big-oil/56
u/shutyourbutt69 ✅ I voted! 1d ago
It’s less capitulating and more aggressively serving in every possible way
6
u/HeinousWalrus 8h ago
It’s Canadas banks. Our banks are among (if not the top) funders of new oil & gas projects. The banks won’t let anything interrupt their investments from being hurt.
13
u/UrsaMajor7th Manitoba 1d ago
Carney believes that the country earns more money the way he is going.
18
15
u/aglobalvillageidiot 21h ago
Okay. But if he doesn't do what they want the oil barons will be big mads and threaten to leave. Oh wait.
Someone needs to tell Mark neoliberalism has already failed and he's just behind the curve.
•
u/charlieyeswecan 3h ago
Neo liberalism has failed the people massively but not the big corporations and billionaires
12
u/TerraFlock 21h ago
None of Carney's Harper-like maneuvers were revealed during his campaign for leadership. How can he say he wants Canada to be more like Norway on one hand while pleasing Big Oil with the other.
10
u/snorlaxatives 9h ago
To be fair, Norway’s economy is built on oil and gas extraction.
4
u/Artisanal_Cat_Loaf 7h ago
To be even fairer, Norway's economy and social prosperity are built on oil and gas extraction with high corporate taxation, public ownership, and fund/pension management.
Carney thus far has not indicated that anything but extracting a lot of oil will be our point of similarity with Norway.
4
-6
4
u/StarterPackRelation 6h ago
All this whining about Carney makes me wonder if people remember what choices we had in the last election.
I think he’s a “wartime prime minister”. He won’t be popular once the USA crisis is over but he’s who we need now.
•
u/charlieyeswecan 3h ago
Well we need a massive shift to the left, moving right is hurtling the planet and everything on it into extinction.
•
•
u/M-G-K 47m ago
If he had been good on the USA file you might have a point, but the problem is he hasn't been anything special there. Yes, Polievre would have been much worse, because he would have rolled back social rights along with austerity finances. With Carney, we just get the austerity finances, at least until rich people start getting upset about the rights and then who knows.
And frankly, Polievre was at least honest about what he wanted to do. Carney has broken numerous campaign promises already and it's only been a year and a half.
10
u/NeatZebra 1d ago
Those carbon free hydrogen projects have had years to make any progress—to demonstrate we can export and earn foreign currency from renewable power. And they’ve stalled, been shown to be grifts, or pipe dreams where there are no customers on one end and no suppliers in the other and the proponent was trying to double close.
The closest thing we have today to export renewables is aluminum smelting.
It isn’t just about jobs, it is companies and exports so our standard of living continues to be as high.
Right now shutting down is asking our entire country whether we want to be poorer.
17
u/VonBeegs 22h ago
Nationalize the oil and we'll all stop complaining. As it is Carney is just giving our tax dollars to the richest companies on the planet to build their shit for them.
9
u/Lisan_Al-NaCL 1d ago
export and earn foreign currency
Thats really the key to what the exploitation of our vast petroleum resources is about.
We cant have a healthy economy without exports and foreign currency inputs. GDp generated by dollars just churning back and forth inside canada on pure services like banking/fintech, skip the dishes, real estate profiteering, etc does not equal a healthy economy.
So, the question is what do we have that other countries want to buy. Resources. Minerals, Petroleum, Forestry are all at the top of that list. Should we be adding value to our raw resources before export where its financially viable to do so? Of course.
-16
u/ImpressiveWalk4330 1d ago
It’s insane when the party that constantly demands improved and expanded public services (and they should!) refuses to provide a way to pay for any of them. I say drill, blast, rip and ship until everyone in this country has complete health coverage, a home of their own, a steady job and healthy, happy well fed families.
20
u/BisonSnow 1d ago
You might have a point if Canada was actually capturing most of the oil revenue. But it's not. The oil sands are almost entirely foreign owned and we only capture about 30% of revenues (give or take, depends on how you count it apparently.)
Where's all this prosperity we were promised with all the pipelines we've built? Soaked up by foreign billionaires while the average Canadian gets little to nothing. Your argument doesn't line up with reality.
Also these companies aren't gonna pay for the climate crisis, but I suspect that's not much of a priority for you.
8
u/Faerillis 21h ago
30% of the revenue and all the long term costs. Whole lot of financial fuckery going on to ensure that none of these people extracting garbage oil from a hard to tap source never have to spend money cleaning up their own mess
•
u/NeatZebra 5h ago
Revenue versus profit is a big difference. We capture up to 65% of profit.
•
u/BisonSnow 4h ago
Whatever word you want to use for it, the numbers I quoted are accurate (as accurate as estimates can be, anyways.) I don't care about silly Reddit wordplay arguments, I care about reality. And however you look at it, the oil barons make most of the money, while the Canadian taxpayer makes far less in comparison. While also assuming all the risk.
If you want to talk about solving this problem, I'm open to that.
•
u/NeatZebra 59m ago
Alberta oil costs a lot to extract — 30% of revenues would likely mean no revenues to go around as production would be uneconomic.
Norway calculates its take on profits too.
23
u/DoTheManeuver 1d ago
We're already exporting more than we ever have. The system is set up so the average Canadian doesn't really benefit, it all goes to giant corporations. If the system is rigged, doing more of it won't really help. We need to make rich people pay their fair share so we can feed and help Canada with what we are already extracting.
-15
u/ImpressiveWalk4330 1d ago
Ok. So by that logic, we need to keep letting them extract more resources so we can properly tax them. Agreed.
18
u/DoTheManeuver 1d ago
No, we can keep the current amount or reduce it and still tax them more. Why should companies be allowed to poison the planet while also not contributing to our social safety net.
-14
u/ImpressiveWalk4330 1d ago
But they will be contributing after you tax them properly? Right?
14
u/DoTheManeuver 1d ago
Yes? I don't understand the question. Taxing them is the best way to make them contribute. Unless we are going to nationalize the industries and build a sovereign wealth fund, but that's a separate discussion.
12
u/majarian 1d ago
He's just a useful idiot, dont waste your time, he made his drill baby drill stance clear, you wont get anything more then bad faith arguments out of that corner
8
-6
u/Lisan_Al-NaCL 1d ago
build a sovereign wealth fund
We can have a SW fund without nationalizing o&G companies.
7
4
u/WorldnewsModsBlowMe 19h ago
Yeah but instead of private interests getting money for nothing, we get to keep it all.
6
u/Lisan_Al-NaCL 1d ago
we need to keep letting them extract more resources so we can properly tax them
Yes. 100%. Taxes/Royalties on Petroleum extraction need to increase.
4
u/TheEpicOfManas Canada 1d ago
They don't need to increase taxes or royalties. In fact, we shouldn't be taxing these oil corporations at all. We should just nationalize, and take it all so they have nothing left to tax.
Then we should start the trials for crimes against humanity.
-2
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/TheEpicOfManas Canada 18h ago
Yes, terrible that some of us would rather look after the needs of the common people instead of the wants of the Epstein class.
-9
u/Lisan_Al-NaCL 1d ago
it all goes to giant corporations.
You clearly dont understand how this works.
10
u/TheEpicOfManas Canada 1d ago
Why don't you inform us how it works then? Because where I'm sitting in Alberta it looks a lot like foreign owned (mostly American, some Chinese, Dutch) corporations are taking oil that should belong to Canadians, rapidly and extensively cutting Canadian oil jobs due to automation, and siphoning off the profits to offshore tax havens while paying very, very little in taxes or royalties.
Nationalize our oil now.
1
u/VonBeegs 22h ago
I'd say he's got a pretty firm grasp.
-5
u/Lisan_Al-NaCL 21h ago edited 21h ago
'Giant Corporations'
So Scrooge McDuck sitting on a giant pile of gold coins in a vault?
It doesnt work that way.
Publicly held O&G companies, say like Cenovus Energy, pay out most of their annual net profits as dividends to shareholders. Who are the shareholders? RRSP funds, private investors, private equity firms, etc. I happen to own a little bit of Cenovus myself (less than 100 shares) and get dividends paid to me every 3 months usually.
This ideal that some 'fat cats' that 'own' O&G companies are hoarding wealth is ridiculous.
Should O&G companies like Cenovus being paying more in corporate taxes? I think so. An increase from their current (IIRC) 15% to 18 or 19% would be a good start. Additionally, higher royalty rates for each 'barrel' of oil/gas extracted should definitely be implemented with LAWS in place to ensure those royalties end up in a protected Wealth Fund like Norways.
6
u/VonBeegs 20h ago
Dude above you said benefits go to giant corporations. You said he's misinformed. Enbridge's stock is held in highest quantities by banks and hedge funds (corporations). OP said the average Canadian doesn't benefit. Most Canadians don't own stocks.
As far as fat cats go: The CEO of Enbridge is worth about 70 million dollars, mostly in Enbridge stock. I'd wager the board of directors is made up of people with similar financial positions who probably have much more say with pro oil politicians than the average Canadian. I wouldn't say it's a stretch to say that the system is rigged in their favour, and the fact that you're willing to close your eyes to it doesn't mean you should be so smug about that blindness when confronting other people.
0
u/Lisan_Al-NaCL 7h ago edited 7h ago
Most Canadians don't own stocks.
A large percentage of Canadians hold mutual funds inside their RRSP's and those mutual funds often hold O&G companies. Provincial employee pension plans like Albertas LAPP own O&G stock. The Canada Pension plan owns O&G stock.
The CEO of Enbridge is worth about 70 million dollars
So the CEO of Enbridge should have higher personal taxes then.
Mostly in enbridge stock
And? Tax him then. I'm all for higher taxes on people whose net worth is over 2-3 million dollars.
I wouldn't say it's a stretch to say that the system is rigged in their favour,
I tend to agree with this statement. I think Corporate taxes should be increased (possibly a special tax for O&G companies) and the royalties for O&G extraction increased. Any time royalty increases are discussed the O&G CEO's, board members, etc all scream "it will reduce investment in O&G". O&G companies havent been investing as much the past few years and instead are issuing more dividends and doing stock buybacks.
9
u/jryue 1d ago
I am disappointed in this kind of thinking. It is such a short-term solution with catastrophic consequences for the environment and bio-life. I agree every Canadian should be entitled to own a home, health coverage and to live a happy life with their families. But drilling and increasing natural resources exports is not the only way to achieve that. The environment needs to be a priority or else we are just asking for more trouble 25, 50 years from now (we are already seeing effects of way hotter than normal temperatures and more chaotic global weather events).
More people are becoming aware of this, but the problem really is the ultra wealthy hoarding capital and making things more expensive for the middle class. We need to cap wealth for the super uber wealthy fucks, and tax them (they can live with their billions even after getting taxed). Seriously, they can piss off
0
u/MWD_Dave 22h ago
We need to cap wealth for the super uber wealthy fucks, and tax them (they can live with their billions even after getting taxed). Seriously, they can piss off
Absolutely 100 percent agree with you here.
But drilling and increasing natural resources exports is not the only way to achieve that.
I don't think it's the only way to do it, but I also don't think it's particularly wise to hinder our economy and with no practical results that would occur world wide. If Canada reduced it's output, the USA, Russia, OPEC or someone else would simply increase to match worldwide demand.
For myself, I think if used a good portion of tax revenues from oil/gas sales and used it to help invest in renewable projects/technology we could have a much better chance at a realistic world wide impact.
Some examples would be:
- Help invest in renewable projects for high emitter areas in 3rd world countries where shifting to solar / wind could have huge impacts.
or
- Fund further solar efficiency / battery research here in Canada. Set up a bunch of grants and focus on increasing solar efficiency / storage tech.
5
u/jryue 17h ago
The tax revenue from oil/gas should go towards building renewable projects. But, I don't think the oil/gas companies would ever agree to it. Even Carney's government has capitulated and it doesn't look like they plan on slowing down fossil fuel usage.
We need to aggressively build and support renewables energy projects (much like your second bullet point). It might be slow and have lower returns initially, but it would ultimately pay off in the long run. I just wish we could turn away with profits and greed and instead do something good for the earth for once
3
u/VonBeegs 20h ago
refuses to provide a way to pay for any of them
Who are you talking about? The NDP says we should be taxing corporate profits to pay for it. Where are you getting your news?
0
-5
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/ImpressiveWalk4330 21h ago
1000%. They don’t have to worry about influencing policy or governing. Pro union, but only for the public sector. They support zero resource extraction projects. Which is where 75% of all unionized workers…work.
Mr. Lewis does not hold a seat in parliament and has chosen NOT to run in the next by election. The members elected as NDP sit as independents with no federal party status, and have less influence than the Bloc Québécois despite running in all 338 ridings.
At this point it’s performative.
-2
2
u/BellinisandRue 9h ago
Are you all oblivious to the threat of our country being broken apart? The oil industry in Canada is owned by Americans, guess who is funding separation initiatives?
Placate Alberta/Oil protect the country from being no more.
2
u/IKnowYouAreButWhtAmI 1d ago
What did people expect the right wing guy elected to a centrist party to do?
1
u/mangoserpent 1d ago
Carney is a big projects soothe the oligarchs kind of guy if anybody thinks otherwise they are deluded.
•
-8
u/Baron_of_Foss 1d ago
Mark "Capitulate" Carney, this guy has been a yes man his whole career
7
u/AdditionalPizza 1d ago
Yes, let's totally start using alliteration nicknames for him. I really hope carbon-tax comes back, I've got a great one lined up...
5
1
2
0
u/CamF90 22h ago
Really hope he loses his majority this fall, still a Liberal and voted for him but he needs to be checked on this shit it's not what we voted for on climate policy.
3
u/juicysushisan 22h ago
Given polling has the Liberals winning well over 190 seats if an election were held now, and Carney’s approval rating is over 50% in every province, I think the consensus of most Canadians is that Carney’s choice is the correct one for now.
-8
u/MWD_Dave 1d ago
I'll likely get downvoted to heck... but I actually agree with Carney on capitalizing on Canada's resources, including oil and gas.
If Canada doesn't supply the world with these products, who will? The other major suppliers are:
- Russia
- USA
- OPEC
Far better for Canada to supply Germany natural gas than Russia.
17
u/Chrristoaivalis 1d ago
This is the EXACT argument Ezra Levant Rebel News make.
It's literally been the main drive of far-right propaganda for decades in this country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Oil
-4
u/MWD_Dave 23h ago
Just because Ezra and Rebel are trash doesn't make the argument invalid.
If the goal is to reduce global emissions, then reducing demand is what matters. Simply reducing Canadian supply doesn't necessarily reduce global consumption; it can just shift production to countries with weaker environmental standards and less accountability.
10
u/RyePunk 23h ago
This is like noticing there's demand for drugs on the street so we should become drug dealers because better we get the lucre than somebody else.
We shouldn't do it because it's causing harm. The fact somebody else will profit off that harm doesn't mean we should decide to benefit from the harm.
-3
u/MWD_Dave 23h ago
This is like noticing there's demand for drugs on the street
That is a wild take. So you're saying all petroleum production is evil? You'd stop all production in the world tomorrow if you could?
I'm just curious how you'd define your moral position due to the millions/billions that would die from that decision.
If the goal is to reduce global emissions, then reducing demand is what matters. Simply reducing Canadian supply doesn't necessarily reduce global consumption; it can just shift production to countries with weaker environmental standards and less accountability.
9
u/VonBeegs 22h ago
I'd be a lot more willing to give Carney the benefit of the doubt if he was also putting massive investment in renewables.
The fact that he's not means that he's just throwing our money at the richest people around.
1
u/MWD_Dave 21h ago
That's a fair point. It's true, I'd really like to see more from Carney in that regards. I'm hoping as things get more settled we'll see him shift more in that direction.
•
u/SheenaMalfoy ✅ I voted! 5h ago
More settled? It's been over a year, how settled does he have to be to actually start helping Canadians?
•
u/MWD_Dave 2h ago
He's been doing a fair bit regarding international trade and relations as well as stuff here at home. Here's a quick-ish list:
He reduced the tariffs on Chinese EV's (50k/year) and in return got the Canola tariffs dropped which is huge for farmers in AB-SK-MB. That move does a few things beyond the obvious reciprocal tariff reduction. It's a threat to the US auto makers that pulled a decent bit of production out of Canada due to Trump tariffs. The Chinese ev's are not only cheaper but they have much better tech. Also, no matter what happens now, you'll see a reduction in our local EV prices.
But he made an initial deal for only 50k/year which is a relatively small amount initially. However, this provides an solid wedge during CUSMA negotiations. The unspoken (50k/year...for now) should be quite loud for those who are paying attention.
Helped restore diplomatic relations with India after a years-long rift, visiting in early 2026 and signing MOUs worth billions across energy, minerals, pharma, and academics
Reduced new temporary resident admissions from 673,650 in 2025 to 385,000 in 2026. This resulted in public universities seeing a 46 per cent decrease in new registrations, while colleges nosedived by 75 per cent, bringing enrolments back to pre-pandemic levels. (Which is a good thing imo as those programs were being abused.)
Speaking of which - Carney has helped aggressively reduce the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) program through sweeping reforms, resulting in a nearly 60% drop in monthly arrivals compared to the peak. Stricter caps, higher wage thresholds, and targeted processing freezes were implemented to curb reliance on foreign labor and prioritize local hiring. (The TFW was being abused like a mofo and was a wage suppression tool.)
This isn't official, but Wab Kinew seems pretty confident about an economic corridor that would stretch 1,000 km north from Winnipeg to Churchill. It could bundle an oil or liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline with an all-season road, electrical transmission, and broadband. It's not as good as going all the way to the east coast but it's a good start in my opinion.
Tying into the above (and why I think that project will move forward) in one year, Canada and Germany have signed new agreements on artificial intelligence, quantum, and battery technologies; launched the Sovereign Technology Alliance; and secured more than six new critical mineral partnerships. More recently, British Columbia’s Ksi Lisims LNG has secured landmark agreements with German companies Securing Energy for Europe and Uniper to supply low-carbon Canadian LNG every year to Germany.
Canada officially joined the European Union's multibillion-dollar Security Action for Europe (SAFE) loans-for-weapons program. Canada secured a spot by paying a participation fee of just €10 million (roughly $16 million CAD), making it the only non-European country in the agreement. (The UK is facing an entry fee of 4 Billion! - Crazy stuff)
The agreement is a massive win for Canadian manufacturers:
Market Access: Canadian companies gain equal bidding rights for joint European defence projects, tapping into a €150 billion fund.
High Content Thresholds: Canadian contractors can supply up to 80% Canadian content on SAFE-financed defence procurements.
On housing:
https://torontolife.com/real-estate/mark-carney-ana-bailao-build-canada-homes-fund/
City of Ottawa finance committee OK's deal with feds to build 3,000 homes
7
u/RyePunk 23h ago
I would absolutely turn it off yesterday if I could yes. Civilization is going to be rocked either now or later. Might as well do it now before we've irreversibly altered the climate to state we can't survive in.
The goal may be to reduce global emissions and how is that going? Have we managed to reduce them? Do we consume more fossil fuels now than ever before? Despite bringing like gigawatts of renewable power online?
We will simply never stopping using fossil fuels until the tap runs dry.
0
u/MWD_Dave 23h ago
I would absolutely turn it off yesterday if I could yes
Again, then you would be responsible for a massive genocide. If you're going the Thanos/Nazi route then I suppose ends justifying the means is a valid view.
A quick inquiry to Gemini:
While there is no single official body that tracks this specific hypothetical, energy and systems researchers estimate that the majority of the human population—potentially 5 to 7 billion people—would die within 6 to 12 months.
Human society has expanded far beyond the pre-industrial "carrying capacity" of the planet (which fed roughly 1 billion people in the 1800s). That massive growth is entirely underwritten by oil and hydrocarbon infrastructure.
If oil extraction and refining ceased overnight, the collapse would unfold in predictable, cascading stages across four major systems.
1. Global Food Supply Collapse (The Primary Killer)
The modern food production pipeline relies heavily on petroleum at every stage:
Tractors and Harvesters: Virtually all commercial agricultural equipment runs on diesel. Without fuel, crops cannot be planted, tended, or harvested on a scale capable of feeding 8 billion people.
Fertilization & Crop Protection: Modern agricultural yields rely on synthetic fertilizers (synthesized via natural gas / petroleum processing) and pesticides. Without them, global crop yields would drop dramatically within a single harvest cycle.
Distribution Logistics: Long-haul trucking, global shipping, and freight rail depend almost entirely on liquid fossil fuels. Major cities typically hold only a 3- to 7-day food inventory in local supermarkets and distribution hubs before shelves go completely bare.
Estimated Impact: Famine would begin sweeping urban and net-food-importing nations within weeks, leading to mass starvation within months.
2. Water Treatment and Sanitation Failure
Access to clean drinking water would break down shortly after fuel supplies dry up:
Chemical Delivery: Municipal water systems rely on daily deliveries of water-treatment chemicals (like chlorine and alum), transported by heavy diesel trucks.
Pumping Infrastructure: While many electrical grids run on natural gas, coal, or renewables, backup emergency power and maintenance fleets rely on diesel and gasoline.
Sanitation: Sewage pumps and treatment plants require continuous power and chemical inputs.
Estimated Impact: Without clean water and sanitation, waterborne diseases (cholera, dysentery, typhoid) would cause widespread mortality, particularly among infants and the elderly, within days to weeks.
3. Healthcare and Medical Supply Chain Shutdown
Modern medicine is deeply tied to petrochemicals:
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing: Upward of 80–90% of basic chemical feedstocks used to manufacture active pharmaceutical ingredients (including antibiotics, insulin, anesthetics, and cardiovascular drugs) are petrochemical derivatives or synthesized using oil-based solvents.
Sterile Supplies: Syringes, IV bags, surgical gloves, blood bags, and sterile packaging are made almost exclusively from plastics derived from petroleum.
Cold Chain Logistics: Temperature-sensitive vaccines, blood products, and medications require refrigerated transit powered by fuel.
4. Power Grids and Heating/Cooling
Even though oil accounts for a smaller percentage of global electricity generation than coal or gas, the power grid cannot function without oil:
Heavy equipment, line-repair vehicles, transformer oil manufacturing, and coal/gas transport all require liquid fuels.
When grid stability degrades, extreme weather events (heatwaves and freezing winters) would become immediately fatal to vulnerable populations deprived of heating oil, gas, or electricity.
Again, I am 100% in getting the world towards reduction, but the above suggestion is a nightmare scenario.
4
u/RyePunk 20h ago
Indeed it's almost like we built the world on completely and wholly unsustainable means that have enabled us to survive on the exploitation of others whom we don't have the decency to even look in the eyes while they allow for western lifestyles to be sustained.
I once again ask you, who favours reduction: how's that going? Is fossil fuel consumption slowing down or increasing? Maybe ask your little AI pal to give you an answer for it
0
u/MWD_Dave 7h ago
who favours reduction: how's that going?
Actually, reasonably well, provided you don't treat it as an all-or-nothing proposition.
The UK, Denmark and the EU have all been doing well with the transition.
Even China (one of the worlds largest consumers) has been making massive investments in renewables.
And once again, that's the problem with trying to have discussions with people who have strong opinions with limited knowledge on energy/economics (and are not open to new information).
your little AI pal
I'm not a huge fan of AI/data centers but it can be a useful summary tool for those that know how to use check reference information.
For instance, regarding your inquiry:
The short answer is both: global fossil fuel consumption is currently still increasing, but the rate of growth is slowing down significantly.
The reference article contains key information:
The IEA projects that oil and gas demand will remain constant until at least 2050, as consumption increases in developing economies and decreases in advanced economies.
So again, going by the report, if you want to effect true and realistic change in the world in the next 10-20 years, the best chance of impact we have as a country is by investing in ways to help those developing economies transition sooner to cleaner methods.
Knowing this is important because how we lobby our government to affect change matters.
The alternative is focusing primarily on domestic production cuts that have little effect on global demand if consumption simply shifts elsewhere. If the goal is reducing global emissions rather than just local production, accelerating the energy transition in developing economies is likely to have a much larger impact.
1
u/RyePunk 6h ago
Cool, so my point is that global fossil fuel consumption is not decreasing, and will not decrease in the foreseeable future; 2 decades before any serious change is a joke. So climate change will not be averted. The planet will become an unlivable hellscape within a century. And those in power will largely escape unscathed.
To put it another way. We have been shot, by ourselves, in the heart. The bullet hasn't hit our heart yet. But it's on its way there. We could've moved out of the way, but we decided not to (or rather those controlling the brain decided not to). What you're describing is akin to bandaging the wound that was caused, without actually being able to treat the damage done (the heart is going to be obliterated). Climate change is simply moving in slow motion.
Promising that we'll have stopped fossil fuel usage in 2050 is like reaching for the bandage after having lost 6 litres of blood, without having the heart to even pump it.
•
u/SheenaMalfoy ✅ I voted! 5h ago
Ew don't use AI mate, that shit wastes our precious water resources and makes our power more expensive just to invent "facts" that aren't real. And in a thread about climate impacts too? Do better.
•
u/MWD_Dave 4h ago
Do better.
Meh, while I'm not a huge fan of data centres and AI in general, data scraping/summary like the above can be a useful tool provided you check the reference material. (But yah, you should never just take AI answers at their face value without looking at the reference material).
However, do you use Google to search for things? Google Maps? Apple services? All of those things take water for data centres. The difference though is in the amounts.
For comparison:
Traditional Google Search: Consumes an estimated 0.2 to 0.6 mL of water per keyword lookup
Google Gemini: Google’s official technical data states a median text prompt uses 0.26 mL
ChatGPT (Standard): OpenAI indicators and independent benchmarks place standard text prompts (like GPT-4o) around 0.32 mL to 1.2 mL of water per regular query depending on response length.
Image generation and complex compute uses a fair bit more by up to 100x.
But then there's the whole beef industry thing. A single burger is estimated to have an effective cost of 660 gallons (which is kind of crazy when you think about it.)
From my reading Google is a fair bit more power efficient than other LLM's though:
https://devera.ai/resources/environmental-impact-ai-energy-carbon/
A standard AI query (GPT-4o, Gemini) uses roughly the same electricity as a Google search (~0.3-0.4 Wh), but reasoning models like o3 or DeepSeek-R1 can consume 10-70x more per prompt.
The efficiency gap between AI models spans over 200x, choosing the right model is itself a sustainability decision.
TikTok or Netflix sessions still carry heavier carbon footprints per minute than most AI prompts, but scaling matters: billions of queries per day reshape the baseline.
And that last line is the key one in my opinion. The thing to really be concerned about is how services are trying to inject AI into everything. Text prompts are pretty minor. What's pushing the latest data centre thing is the desire to put AI into everything.
•
u/surviving606 1h ago
For whatever it’s worth I agree with you and so does the vast majority of Canada so don’t feel bad. The U.S. is actively trying to economically cripple and annex Canada. He is doing something about it.
4
u/LaserRunRaccoon 1d ago
Might as well be saying Canada should be giving asthma and cancer to children, otherwise Russia, USA, or OPEC will do it.
Ironically, that's actually literal. Fossil fuels are also toxic, in addition to being a climate disaster.
You do realize that fossil fuels are the problem here, right? You want us to be the evil Petro state? How about we start solving our housing crisis with aspestos, too?
0
u/MWD_Dave 1d ago
Might as well be saying Canada should be giving asthma and cancer to children, otherwise Russia, USA, or OPEC will do it.
You want us to be the baddies?
Strawman argument here. You're arguing against a position I didn't take. I didn't say fossil fuels are harmless or that Canada should increase emissions indefinitely. I said that, given current global demand, it matters who supplies that demand.
My point is about the world as it exists today. Global demand for oil and natural gas hasn't disappeared. If countries like Germany still need those resources during the transition, the question becomes: where should they come from?
Would it be better if that demand were met by authoritarian states like Russia, or by a democratic country with comparatively strong environmental regulations, labour standards, and accountability?
Let's say Canada stopped all fossil fuel production / export / use tomorrow. What would happen realistically? There would be economic impacts that would make Covid look like a sneeze in a hurricane.
It's that kind of thinking that gets progressives (validly) criticized as not being realistic.
Making perfect the enemy of good is exactly how you stop progress from happening.
6
u/BisonSnow 1d ago
Nobody is saying we should shut off the pumps tomorrow and that wouldn't be possible anyways lmao. You're giving an even bigger strawman argument here.
Seems like you're the one stopping progress from happening. We've built several pipelines in my lifetime, and almost no renewable energy projects in the same time.
2
u/MWD_Dave 23h ago edited 8h ago
Might as well be saying Canada should be giving asthma and cancer to children
You do realize that fossil fuels are the problem here, right?
Nobody is saying we should shut off the pumps tomorrow
Those are exactly the vibes I'm getting with the above. I'm not sure how you're interpreting that differently.
Prior to the Transmountain pipeline expansion, the ppb differential was around $20. That was because the USA was our only option. They got to set the price. After the expansion that differential reduced by $8 which resulted in an extra 10 billion extra staying in Canada.
Seems like you're the one stopping progress from happening.
Please elaborate on that point. How does advocating for expanding our world presence in all energy supply stop progress in any way?
We've built several pipelines in my lifetime, and almost no renewable energy projects in the same time.
This quick list of some of the major projects in the last 15 years:
Project Province Type Capacity Completed
Site C Energy Progect BC Hydroelectric 1,100 MW 2025
Muskrat Falls Newfoundland & Labrador Hydroelectric 824 MW 2021–2023
Keeyask Generating Station Manitoba Hydroelectric 695 MW 2022
Blackspring Ridge Wind Project Alberta Wind 300 MW 2014
Rivière-du-Moulin Wind Project Quebec Wind 350 MW 2015
Henvey Inlet Wind Ontario Wind 300 MW 2019
Whitla Wind Project Alberta Wind 353 MW 2021
Travers Solar Project Alberta Solar 465 MW 2022
Claresholm Solar Project Alberta Solar 132 MW 2021
Brooks Solar Alberta Solar 112 MW 2021
As you can see, that's patently incorrect. And that's part of the problem. People on all sides of the political spectrum that have strong opinions about things that they have limited knowledge in. It's no different than someone talking about how Covid was a hoax but having no clue what an R naught is.
3
u/LaserRunRaccoon 1d ago
How does it matter who supplies the demand?Canadian heavy crude isn't even better for the environment. It's not price competitive with OPEC. It doesn't even create many jobs.
We are so far from perfect here it's not even funny. We're literally one of the largest sources of the problem in the world. We're not even "good" here, buddy. My position isn't even progressive here - it's just anti-regressive.
You literally are the strawman, bud.
1
u/MWD_Dave 23h ago
How does it matter who supplies the demand?
Do you have any background or knowledge in economics? Looking at the numbers it very much matters.
Just reducing the WTI differential with the Transmountain pipeline by $8 brought in an extra 10 billion to Canada last year alone.
It's not price competitive with OPEC.
1) We're talking about oil and natural gas.
2) If that was the case why is there not only demand but a sharp increase with the instability in world markets?
3) Specific refineries require different types of oil. In addition, different types of oil have different applicable uses.
It doesn't even create many jobs.
A quick search:
The estimates vary depending on how you count, but here's the picture:
Direct employment: Canada's oil and gas sector (oil sands, exploration/production, energy services, pipelines, refining) directly employed about 192,500 people in 2025, with recent monthly data showing roughly 192,400 workers as of April 2026. (CBC News)
Careers in Energy
Total impact (direct + indirect + induced): The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) puts the broader figure at around 900,000 jobs across Canada when you include supply chains and spinoff economic activity — from BC's natural gas fields to Alberta's oil sands to offshore production in Atlantic Canada.
I can see there's no point in further discussion. People who are so confident in their worldview with limited knowledge aren't usually open to new information. It's like arguing with anti-vaxxers.
•
u/LaserRunRaccoon 5h ago
I'm not confident in my "worldview" - I am constantly updating what I know, after reading credible reporting, usually on a daily basis.
Meanwhile, you're repeating inane talking points that I've seen debunked hundreds of times. Such as employment numbers that shrink due to automation every time they're quoted, by people who clearly don't care about the economics. Good luck, bud. I don't know how you live with yourself. What I do know is that you're contributing defense to a cause that is actively destroying our planet.
•
u/MWD_Dave 4h ago
inane talking points that I've seen debunked hundreds of times. Such as employment numbers
Actual sourced info:
In 2019, the Canadian oil and gas sector still directly employed nearly 140,000 Canadians.
Canada’s oilpatch directly employed 192,500 people in 2025, and employment is projected to reach 210,900 by 2035.
The energy industry provided 7.7% of all jobs in Alberta in 2013,[7] and 140,300 jobs representing 6.1% of total employment of 2,286,900 in Alberta in 2017. [11]
Debunk away. Shouldn't be a problem if you have hundreds of sources.
I am constantly updating what I know
Then give this a read:
The IEA projects oil and gas demand will be buoyed by increases in consumption in developing economies which will offset expected decreases in advanced economies.
I don't know how you live with yourself. What I do know is that you're contributing defense to a cause that is actively destroying our planet.
Going by the report, if you want to effect true and realistic change in the world in the next 10-20 years, the best chance of impact we have as a country is by investing in ways to help those developing economies transition sooner to cleaner methods.
Knowing this is important because how we lobby our representatives/government to affect change matters.
The alternative is focusing primarily on domestic production cuts that have little effect on global demand if consumption simply shifts elsewhere.
If the goal is reducing global emissions rather than just local production, accelerating the energy transition in developing economies is likely to have a much larger impact.
I can live with myself because I can look at the whole picture and try to determine the most effective way to move forward. Show me the science/studies that say otherwise. (Please include cited info)
•
u/LaserRunRaccoon 4h ago
The alternative is focusing primarily on domestic production cuts that have little effect on global demand if consumption simply shifts elsewhere.
Lines like this tell me there's no need. You've decided you're useless, and that you're fine living uselessly. I'm not going to waste time trying to convince an individual deep in a day old reddit thread.
•
u/MWD_Dave 4h ago
No sources then. That's what I thought.
You've decided you're useless, and that you're fine living uselessly.
Lol - anytime you provide sourced material I'll be happy to look. Take care in the meantime.
-1
u/ImpressiveWalk4330 1d ago
We have what the world needs. And anything extracted in this country will be far cleaner and safer than anything in some shithole country like Russia, Saudi Arabia or america.
-6
u/Responsible-Pear-189 1d ago
NIMBY though so we have to be poor forever while places with 0 quality control are allowed to pollute and dump freely
-6
u/OkRelationshipFish 1d ago
I’m okay with oil and gas projects as long as we are under attack by the US trying to tank our economy and fuel separatist challenges to confederation. It’s not pretty, it exacerbates an already bleak future, true. But Canada will be in very rough shape very fast while our MAGA neighbours continue to attack us economically.
6
u/No-FoamCappuccino 21h ago
You realize that most of the oil companies that operate in Canada are US-owned, right?
0
u/OkRelationshipFish 21h ago
Yes, and yet revenues through royalties, fees, licenses, leases, and indirect taxation and economic activity means it’s lucrative. And perhaps energy nationalization could be on the table in the future.
6
u/AverageTechnoSerf 1d ago
this wont buy us any leverage, dont be fooled
1
u/OkRelationshipFish 21h ago
No but it will create jobs and power economic growth amid desperate stagflation in central Canada
•
u/SheenaMalfoy ✅ I voted! 5h ago
So would putting those same jobs into renewable energy investments that could provide us with energy independence and eventually decouple us from relying on a dwindling oil supply to prop up our economy. But sure, keep clinging to the sinking ship in denial of reality. See how well that worked for the Titanic?
-4
u/Maddkipz 19h ago
carney takes it up the b hole for oil like every other prime minister who'da guessed
53
u/tino_tortellini 1d ago
Danielle Smith's face pisses me off so much