Are Canada's CO2 stats material to global warming, or are they being over-dramatized because this is a Canadian publication? The graph in the article shows that Canada has 5x the per capita CO2 extraction of China, but on the other hand China has 40x as many people.
(For context, I think global warming is very real and addressing it should be a top priority, but I also believe that sensationalist articles often do more harm than good.)
> Are Canada's CO2 stats material to global warming, or are they being over-dramatized because this is a Canadian publication?
Canada has an extremely important role in the future of CO2 emissions, because it has some of the largest left resources of oil on the planet with its tar sands. And it's a particularly nasty one with an emission footprint far higher than "conventional" oil.
Whether or not Canada will leave a substantial part of that untapped is quite significant.
TO add to this I believe at ~60$/barrel the oil sands become economically feasible. So we're not a big factor today but as soon as the easy fracking fields start to dry up and the oil costs rises a bit we're going to be right back in the game!
Suncor, one of the largest players in tar sands oil said in one of their earnings call transcripts that their cost was $30/barrel. I can dig it up if you need a citation, but it was right around the time the WTI dropped below $30.
Even though Canada's total contribution may be small compared to one of the greatest-polluting countries on the planet, our contribution is still significant. Yes it's highlighted because it's a Canadian publication, but it's still something we need to take more seriously. Personally I see this article as more of a wake-up call than sensationalist.
Do note that it's CO2 extraction not consumption - it's counting oil that's extracted in Canada but burnt elsewhere; reducing local consumption wouldn't change that number, it's about the global oil production.
(For context, I think global warming is very real and addressing it should be a top priority, but I also believe that sensationalist articles often do more harm than good.)