Dear Editor:
The main flaw in Trudeau’s argument for the pipeline is that its economic success depends on climate failure.
If we were successful at reducing demand for oil-burning products enough to slow climate change, then the price of oil to the producer would fall substantially. This is because the price of oil is very demand sensitive.
A small change in demand results in a large change in price. Canadian tar sands are expensive to extract making Canada a marginal supplier. If the price stays below $45 per barrel it will be uneconomic to sell at the quantities planned for the new pipeline. Real solutions, like requiring all cars built after 2020 to be electric or hydrogen fuel cell powered will reduce demand for oil-burning products and save the climate but puts Canada in a conflict of interest. Trudeau is right about the economic benefits from selling more bitumen if you assume demand stays high.
So either we do what needs to be done to contain climate change, which by its success would put tar sands out of business, or we plan for climate failure and hope we are still burning too much oil by the time the pipeline is
built.
Paul Hundal
West Vancouver
What are your thoughts? Send us a letter via email by clicking here or post a comment below.
