Ramp Metals stock surges on Sprott backing for Saskatchewan project
Ramp compares its project with the eye structure of the Nova-Bollinger nickel-copper mine in Western Australia.
Emissions from Canada’s oilsands are unlikely to make a large contribution to global warming compared to the burning of coal, says a leading climate change researcher.
Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate modeller who was lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and colleague Neil Stewart analyzed how the burning of all global stocks of coal, oil and natural gas would affect temperatures.
The results were published Sunday in the journal Nature and reported by Canadian Press:
They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C. That’s about half the total amount of warming over the last century.
In contrast, the paper concludes that burning all the globe’s vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature. Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by more than three degrees.
7 Comments
Jame Chisholm
That simple means there are more coal resources than oilsand resources. This is poor work by the researcher, as the numbers should be run as “per unit of energy” basis, how much greenhouse gases are emitted.
Neo Neo
So next we decide whose worse Jeffrey Domer, or John Wayne Casey?
Odarellmc
given that the whole global climate issue is a hoax, well the climate is getting warmer, but nto becuase were burning coal and using oil. the author of this article is an embarrassment to your organization..
GT93
What a joke. How can anyone make such predictions? Using computer math models that have not been authenticated with measurable data is proving an hypothesis with another hypothesis. Not exactly the scientific method
Carlson Jeff1
I hope everyone who is opposed to the use of oil are all survavalist because they definitely not realists
truth searcher
This article has received National newspaper attention and is absolutely ludicrous in its logic, or lack thereof. The researchers should have compared the effect of burning adequate coal supplies to equal the energy derived from burning all of the world’s oil supplies, especially over the period of 50 years which was in the scientific report. The comparisons are totally without any scientific basis whatsoever. How does such drivel get published and get carried by chain after chain without anyone questioning the logic of the process or report??
Old Dynamite
A silly comparison.. How about tonnes of CO2 per KWh energy provided?
All of the coal can never be exploited, or even a fraction, due to depth, condition, etc.