this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
9 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7206 readers
343 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ 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
 

The Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion (TMX) was meant to shrink the discount on Canadian oil versus U.S. crude but three months in the differential is wider than when commercial operations on the project started.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That would be an ecological disaster.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No. Massive crude oil spilled into the watersheds of BC and Alberta would be far worse. The fact that this needs explaining to you is telling of your actual concern for the environment.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Guess you need to review the IPCC reports

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

No, it would be an ecological and humanitarian disaster.

While Alberta's ecosystem is barely hanging on thanks to decades of de-facto oil industry government. BCs is struggling from climate change.

Then you have to thank Pierre Pollievre and Harper for the pipeline route that passes through at least one municipal watershed.

But not Nestle's watershed. They changed the route for Nestle.