tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post9076316079673599816..comments2023-10-04T09:14:48.238-07:00Comments on The Dismal Environmentalist: Keystone XL, part IIShi-Ling Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107645856467768210noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6632107027964300533.post-79676931847453612422011-09-05T18:19:09.180-07:002011-09-05T18:19:09.180-07:00Hi Shi-Ling,
That's not exactly what I meant ...Hi Shi-Ling,<br /><br />That's not exactly what I meant to say with that post. My point was that, if you are going to evaluate GHG impacts of a project, you should develop two credible scenarios - one with and one without the project - and report the difference. You should not implicitly assume that, in the absence of the project, none of the oil would be shipped, no other oil would be sourced, and the replacement energy sources would be all emissions free. I am ABSOLUTELY in favour of having GHG impacts assessed in the environmental assessment of a project. I would like to see GHGs treated as global pollutants, recognizing that emissions leakage matters - so what happens elsewhere because you decide not to build your project is relevant.<br /><br />Thanks for reading and linking to me writing!<br /><br />AndrewAndrew Leachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18234607803994534675noreply@blogger.com