Oils Well that Ends

 An article in the Economist Business section: “On shifting oil sands” asks: Canada’s oil industry is booming. Can it last?

Looser regulations will help with pipelines—but may not boost production

Mark Carney, Canada’s prime minister, is intent on promoting a speedier process that will apply to a new pipeline under development to British Columbia. Lisa Baiton of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, an industry group, has spoken of a “generational opportunity” to rally political and public support behind new oil projects.

Enbridge, an energy-infrastructure firm, has paused construction of a pipeline to the east, citing a lack of commitments by producers to provide enough oil to make it worthwhile.

The unique challenges of the oil sands provide an explanation. Investment in new sites has been virtually non-existent since the oil price crashed in 2014 as demand weakened while America’s shale oil gushed and opec opened the taps. “It cannot be overstated how much that changed the industry,” says Kent Fellows of the University of Calgary. Moreover, projects in the oil sands take far longer to develop than conventional wells. They require enormous amounts of capital that could be tied up for five to ten years before profits flow. Uncertainty over the future price of oil—and the danger that a change of government might lead to the reinstatement of tighter regulations—make for risky bets. (Canada's Oil Industry Is Booming. Can It Last?, n.d.)

References

Canada's oil industry is booming. Can it last? (n.d.). The Economist. Retrieved September 7, 2026, from https://www.economist.com/business/2026/08/20/canadas-oil-industry-is-booming-can-it-last? 

Guidelines for change after COVID-19

When Canada has put the COVID-19 crisis behind us, we will likely make changes in our attitudes toward how we restore our economy and what changes will better prepare us for the future.

Contemplate economic change

Merran Smith & Dan Woynillowicz offer an opinion on April 8 2020 in the National Observer that Canada should come out of COVID-19 with a new economy. The stark reality is that Canada’s traditionally strong oil and gas sector is confronted with both cyclical and structural change. It will never return to its halcyon boom days of the early 2000s. We need to shift from a mantra of “no barrel left behind” to one in which no oil worker or region is left behind. And we need to reorient and rebuild our energy sector with a focus on clean energy.

 To start, renewable power sources, energy storage and transmission lines. More public transit, walking paths and bike lanes. Clean fuel and renewable gas plants that draw on waste streams from forestry, agriculture and municipal garbage. Electric vehicle charging stations and a domestic zero-emission transportation industry that already spans buses, trucks, cars and ferries. Energy efficient homes, buildings and factories.
And for all this building, let’s use Canadian-made, low-carbon concrete and steel, or sustainably produced mass timber. Let’s use the metals and minerals abundant in Canada in those wind turbines, solar panels and batteries.
To build this workforce, we need support for training and retraining Canadians whose past jobs may not return. Many of these programs can and should start while unemployed workers are sitting at home.1

The Resilience web site discusses COVID-19 and a New New Deal. On a societal level, Covid-19 is opening doors and perceptions at unprecedented rates. This group urges us to amplify any insights and revelations that help us as a global society to use this shock to our future benefit.

 The original New Deal, led by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, established between 1933 and 1939, employed 8.5 million people, lifting them and their families from poverty. The New Deal became fundamental to a more progressive government; Social Security, banking regulations like the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, home loans, farm and rural programs, the Civilian Conservation Corps and a significant expansion of the National Park Service were just a few of the elements that led to a remarkable transformation of our government.2

Changes after COVID-19

During an Interview with Pope Francis on April 8, 2020 Austen Ivereigh asked whether it was possible to see an economy that is more human, and if the Pope sees the crisis and the economic devastation it is wreaking as a chance for an ecological conversion, for reassessing priorities and lifestyles.

 “every crisis contains both danger and opportunity: the opportunity to move out from the danger. Today I believe we have to slow down our rate of production and consumption (Laudato si’, 191) and to learn to understand and contemplate the natural world. We need to reconnect with our real surroundings. This is the opportunity for conversion...Yes, I see early signs of an economy that is less liquid, more human”, he adds,  “but let us not lose our memory once all this is past, let us not file it away and go back to where we were. This is the time to take the decisive step, to move from using and misusing nature to contemplating it. We have lost the contemplative dimension; we have to get it back at this time.”3

Sea level rise

Marc Stenger (Troyes, France), bishop president of Pax Christi International, reminds us that Pope Francis offers us this monumental gift of “Laudato Si” which could become more and more our Charter in the post-coronavirus era. Our responsibility as we define the new economy after the COVID-19 crisis is to contemplate a plan to restore greater concern for the economic health of all people and encourage our greater kinship with Nature and care of the planet.

References

1	(2020, April 8). Let's come out of COVID-19 with a new economy | National .... Retrieved April 15, 2020, from https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/04/08/opinion/lets-come-out-covid-19-new-economy
2	(2020, March 25). COVID-19 and a New New Deal - Resilience. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-03-25/covid-19-and-a-new-new-deal/
3	(2020, April 8). Pope: How I am living through the Covid-19 pandemic .... Retrieved April 15, 2020, from https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2020-04/pope-how-i-am-living-through-the-covid-19-pandemic.html
4	(2020, March 23). Covid 19 - Pax Christi International. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from https://paxchristi.net/2020/03/23/covid-19/

Professional analysis of Teck may deflate political football

Unfortunately the decision by the Teck organization to end the Frontier oil sands project could not fail to become a political football.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5474405.1582579247!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/fort-hills-suncor.jpg

Perhaps we can benefit from analysis about the decision from professionals in investing, economics, climate science, and engineering. Kyle Bakx explains for CBC News what the unexpected Teck decision to pull the plug on Frontier oil sands project means for the federal government, investors, climate and Indigenous groups.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.4844680.1581444415!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/teck-frontier-infographic.jpg

The reasons for shelving Frontier are a mix of low investor interest and environmental concerns, Teck CEO Don Lindsay said. 

"Global capital markets are changing rapidly, and investors and customers are increasingly looking for jurisdictions to have a framework in place that reconciles resource development and climate change," Lindsay wrote. For environmental groups that want Canada's economy to transition away from fossil fuels, the shelving of the project was made all the more significant by the fact that the company's CEO cited the climate as one of the key reasons for the decision.The project was expected to produce about four million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year over 40 years…The Liberals are on both the winning and losing sides of the Teck decision. In the loss column, another company has turfed a major project on their watch. The investment climate in Canada's energy sector was already bad; this won't help1.

Scott Gilmore writing in MacLeans comments that every major player and investor understands the days of oil are numbered. Politicians are the only ones too shameless to say it out loud. He notes the betrayal of lifer politicians who won’t tell them the truth.

 Most of my friends and family back home either work in the oil patch or have jobs and businesses that directly depend on its health. So, I am especially sympathetic to the pain, worry and anger as their economy continues to sputter.
Who I am not sympathetic towards are cynical politicians like Kenney who continue to lie to Albertans in order to intentionally exacerbate this pain, worry and anger.

Kenney, Scheer, Teck, every major energy company that is not already in the oil sands, Bay Street, Wall Street, and the banking and insurance industries, all know that the days of oil are all but over. But the politicians are the only ones too frightened or too shameless to say it out loud.
There is no doubt that a concern about Canada’s regulatory process was the straw that broke the Teck camel’s back. But, in order for that to be the metaphorical last straw, the camel has to be already straining under several bales of hay.
The three heaviest bales in that load are the facts that the global price of oil is well below the point that would make the Frontier mine profitable, no one anywhere is predicting those prices will increase, and investors are fleeing the oil industry because the emerging global consensus is that if we don’t address climate change now the very existence of the human race is at stake.
That is not a claim being made by Greta Thurnberg, or a wild-eyed Extinction Rebellion activist. That comes directly from the multinational investment bank JPMorgan. In an internal report on the threat climate change poses to their investments, which was leaked last week, the bank’s economists noted, “We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened.”
Investors are not just avoiding Alberta’s oil sands, they don’t want to put money into oil anywhere, period. Furthermore, these investors, and even Teck itself, all publicly acknowledge that a carbon tax is the most effective way to combat climate change. And Kenney know this. But he not only won’t tell Albertans this difficult truth, he will spend millions of their own tax dollars on disinformation efforts to try and convince them it’s all just a conspiracy against them, that reality itself is betraying Albertans.2

Aaron Wherry, of CBC News, who has covered Parliament Hill since 2007 and has written for Maclean's, the National Post and the Globe and Mail and author of Promise & Peril, a book about Justin Trudeau's years in power writes that on its own merits, Teck Frontier probably didn't deserve to be framed as a litmus test of anything. On one hand, its economic viability was in serious doubt; on the other, its emissions weren't necessarily going to be decisive in Canada's pursuit of its international climate targets. But its loudest proponents and opponents framed it as a referendum on the future of either the oil sector or the climate.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5445341.1582655444!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/teck-protest-in-calgary-extinction-rebellion-and-canada-action.jpg

 Essentially, he has tried to argue for doing three things simultaneously: advancing reconciliation, buttressing the short-term situation and medium-term future of the Prairie-based oil and gas sector, and reducing Canada's emissions for the long-term.
That balancing act is very vulnerable to attack. For one thing, those goals will sometimes come into direct conflict — through Indigenous communities objecting to a pipeline, environmentalists condemning development of the oilsands or Alberta politicians condemning new environmental regulations.
On any issue, the loudest voices are the ones least likely to ever be satisfied. And Trudeau can be accused of not moving fast enough or far enough in any one direction.3

Moving on this too slowly

Clifford Krauss reports in The New York Times that a major effort to expand development of Canada’s oil sands has collapsed shortly before a deadline for government approval, undone by investor concerns over oil’s future and the political fault lines between economic and environmental priorities.

Oil price and supply

 Kevin Birn, a vice president and oil-sands expert at the consultancy IHS Markit, estimated that for a project like Frontier to break even, the price of West Texas intermediate oil, the North American benchmark, would need to average $65 a barrel over a decade or more of operations. That is roughly $15 above the current price, and other analysts put the break-even figure at $80 to $85.
But until Sunday night, despite a regulatory review that cost it hundreds of millions of dollars, Teck Resources refused to give up. The company argued that its project, at a cost of 20.6 billion Canadian dollars ($15.5 billion), would create 7,000 construction and 2,500 operational jobs and eventually generate more than 70 billion Canadian dollars in local and national government revenue. Andrew Leach, a professor of energy economics at the University of Alberta, said some might read the project’s demise as a fatal blow to oil-sands development, but he interpreted Teck Resources’ decision as a pragmatic one.
“Teck was clear that it does not want a situation where one project has to answer for all of Canada’s climate policies and climate commitments,” he said. Moreover, he added, “global investors are not prepared to help a company the size of Teck to build a multibillion-dollar project. The global market was not prepared to be part of the political football.”
No new oil-sands mine has opened since 2018, but more than a dozen proposals are awaiting regulatory approval or investment decisions. Mr. Leach said some of those were economically and environmentally more viable than the Frontier project.
But resistance to new pipelines and high production costs have steadily reduced investments in oil-sands fields. There has been an exodus of international oil companies, including ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell and Equinor of Norway.
At the same time, there are questions about the market outlook. While world demand is roughly 100 million barrels a day, a figure that increases by 1 percent every year, the International Energy Agency projects that growth will begin to slow considerably in 2025. The agency says demand could fall to 67 million barrels a day in 2040, especially if governments increase regulation and electric cars become commonplace.
Reduced demand would focus production on places where it is cheapest, like Saudi Arabia.4

The professional analysis of this decision gives thinking people on all sides of these issues the opportunity to see some changes that may come to provide some more certainty for investment, indigenous reconciliation in the area of land use rights, government support for jobs more aligned with Canada’s international commitments to net zero emissions, and redefinition of market capitalism

Repairing capitalism for all stakeholders

to include all stakeholders, investors, employees, and communities in their corporate responsibilities.

References

1	(2020, February 25). Winners and losers from Teck's decision to pull the plug on .... Retrieved February 25, 2020, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/teck-frontier-trudeau-1.5473866
2	(2020, February 24). The real betrayal of Albertans? Lifer politicians who won't tell .... Retrieved February 25, 2020, from https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-real-betrayal-of-albertans-lifer-politicians-who-wont-tell-them-the-truth/
3	(2020, February 25). How Teck Frontier became a symbol of the future Canada .... Retrieved February 25, 2020, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/teck-frontier-mine-climate-pipeline-carbon-tax-1.5471315
4	(2020, February 24). Canada Oil-Sands Plan Collapses Over Politics and Economics. Retrieved February 25, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/business/energy-environment/frontier-oil-sands-canada.html

Alberta Bitumen and Cars

Sandra Laville reports that global carmakers are among the leading opponents of action on the climate crisis.

A question of balance for the planet

This is according to an exclusive analysis of the way major corporations frustrate or undermine initiatives to cut greenhouse gases. The research, for the Guardian, revealed that since 2015, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, Daimler, BMW, Toyota and General Motors have been among the strongest opponents of regulations to help countries meet the 1.5C warming limit in the Paris agreement. The car industry in the US and Europe has attempted to block, delay and frustrate initiatives to regulate and reduce emissions from the transport sector and slow the move to electric vehicles, the report says.

Edward Collins, author of The Carbon Policy Footprint, said: “Corporations have a profound impact on the climate change agenda not only through physical emissions but through influencing of the climate change policy agendas being introduced by governments around the world.
“The sector has dug in hard to dampen rising vehicle emissions and fuel economy standards. Through their lobbying, auto companies have delayed the transition of a sector that sucks up a huge proportion of oil demand globally...”
Julia Poliscanova, the clean vehicles director for the Transport & Environment NGO, said the automotive industry was seeking to eke out the last profits of the traditional engine by frustrating emissions reduction targets and questioning every aspect of electric technology, from expressing apparent concerns about the affordability for consumers to querying if the infrastructure will be in place in time.
“The car industry has always maximised its profits from its existing models and products for as long as is possible to make their money and delay and work around the regulations,” she said.
“They have known for years – since 2013 – the standards coming in on emissions in 2021. They have had years to prepare but they didn’t. Instead they pushed their SUV market, maximised its sales reach to make profits from these high-polluting, high-margin vehicles for as long as possible and now they are scrambling to comply, claiming how difficult it is to meet the targets, but they only have themselves to blame.”1

Barry Saxifrage reports that Canadians and Americans currently drive the world's most climate polluting cars and trucks.

Canadian car, trucks, and GHG

On average they emit more than 60 tonnes of climate pollution (tCO2) each over their lifespan. To meet our Paris Climate Agreement goals, all our cars and trucks will need to quickly transition to nearly zero-emissions.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/09/04/analysis/canadian-cars-are-worlds-dirtiest-ev-age-essential 

If you look back at that chart, (MIT did the math and created an interactive chart on their CarbonCounter.com website.) you'll see that only electric vehicles are clean enough to meet future climate targets. And only then if they are also fuelled with fairly clean electricity.
I customized that chart to use the emissions-intensity of the super-clean electricity that most Canadians have access to: 20 gCO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). With electricity that clean, EVs meet future climate targets.
But if the electricity they use is too dirty, then even the cleanest cars no longer meet even the 2040 targets. This is the case with the current electricity supply in Alberta, Saskatchewan and many U.S. coal-burning states.
So the climate task ahead is two pronged. First, we need to stop buying new vehicles that burn gasoline. All new vehicles need to be able to run on zero-emissions energy. The cleanest option available today is a BEV.
Second, we need to clean up the electricity supply in regions where it is still too climate polluting. Let's take a quick look at each of these in turn.2 

Jason Markusoff reports that three of Canada’s oil sands giants ran full-page ads in newspapers across the country that made a bold claim that some of their operations are producing oil “with a smaller greenhouse impact than the oil average.” What’s more, the ad suggested, shuttering the oil sands could result in higher carbon fuels replacing their products. Trouble is, a close look at the leading comparisons of the world’s crude oil sources, assembled by governments, academics and private-sector analysts, shows that, overall, producing a barrel of crude from oil sands still emits more greenhouse gas than the average of all sources. The best or newest oil sands developments, whose emissions are below the mean, remain exceptions. “You have a lot of amazing trees here. But it is not the forest,” says Benjamin Israel, senior analyst at the Pembina Institute, a clean energy think tank.

Industry leaders say they’ll continue to pursue ways to drive down the oil sands’ per-barrel emissions (also known as their carbon intensity) with a variety of promising innovations and huge sums invested in further research.3 

Oil that can be produced cheaply with low emissions can become more highly sought after. The oil sands have long struggled on both those scores. The energy source fueling the BEV’s will need to produce much less GHG emissions than the bitumen from the oil sands.

References

1	(2019, October 14). Exclusive: Carmakers among key opponents of climate action .... Retrieved October 18, 2019, from https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/10/14/news/exclusive-carmakers-among-key-opponents-climate-action
2	(2019, September 4). Canadian cars are the world's dirtiest | National Observer. Retrieved October 18, 2019, from https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/09/04/analysis/canadian-cars-are-worlds-dirtiest-ev-age-essential
3	(2019, October 16). Scrubbing the oil sands' record - Macleans.ca. Retrieved October 18, 2019, from https://www.macleans.ca/economy/scrubbing-the-oil-sands-record/

Ethics involved in crucial balance

The public good is advanced when we are vigilant about bringing to light practices in business, investing and climate change mitigation that may be in conflict with ethical values of truth telling, transparency, care for others, and care for the planet.

Consider the balance

When brought to light, these practices may be factually assessed to form the basis for our individual and communal response to ethical missteps. The Economist reports that even as concerns about global warming grow, energy firms are planning to increase fossil-fuel production. None more than ExxonMobil. The major oil companies are responding to incentives set by society. The financial returns from oil are higher than those from renewables.

 It would be wrong to conclude that the energy firms must therefore be evil. They are responding to incentives set by society. The financial returns from oil are higher than those from renewables. For now, worldwide demand for oil is growing by 1-2% a year, similar to the average over the past five decades—and the typical major derives a minority of its stockmarket value from profits it will make after 2030. However much the majors are vilified by climate warriors, many of whom drive cars and take planes, it is not just legal for them to maximise profits, it is also a requirement that shareholders can enforce.
Some hope that the oil companies will gradually head in a new direction, but that looks optimistic. It would be rash to rely on brilliant innovations to save the day. Global investment in renewables, at $300bn a year, is dwarfed by what is being committed to fossil fuels. Even in the car industry, where scores of electric models are being launched, around 85% of vehicles are still expected to use internal-combustion engines in 2030.
So, too, the boom in ethical investing. Funds with $32trn of assets have joined to put pressure on the world’s biggest emitters. Fund managers, facing a collapse in their traditional business, are glad to sell green products which, helpfully, come with higher fees. But few big investment groups have dumped the shares of big energy firms. Despite much publicity, oil companies’ recent commitments to green investors remain modest.1

Asher Schechter, writer and editor of ProMarket, the blog of Chicago Booth’s George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, writes that it is time to rethink Milton Friedman’s argument that corporate managers should “conduct the business in accordance with [shareholders’] desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.”

 While agreeing with Milton Friedman’s premise that managers should care only about shareholders’ interests, Nobel Laureate Oliver Hart of Harvard and Chicago Booth’s Luigi Zingales reject the view that shareholders care only about money. A company’s ultimate shareholders are ordinary people who, in addition to caring about money, are also concerned about a myriad of ethical and social issues: they purchase electric cars to lower their carbon footprint; they buy free-range chicken or fair-trade coffee because they view this as the ethical—albeit more expensive—choice. They are, in other words, prosocial in their day-to-day life—at least to some extent. “If consumers and owners of private companies take social factors into account and internalize externalities in their own behavior, why would they not want the public companies they invest in to do the same?” Hart and Zingales ask.2

The graphic below demonstrates some compatibility between conservative ethics democracy and carbon tax.

Conservative carbon tax

On Earth Day 2019, faith leaders from across Canada came together to issue an urgent call to climate action.

 “In October 2018, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a landmark report indicating that our global community has until 2030 to dramatically change course and avoid serious climate consequences,” says Willard Metzger, Executive Director of Citizens for Public Justice (CPJ). “Now, more than ever, we believe that it is important to amplify our shared laments and shared commitments, as people of faith, to work towards climate justice.”
“Throughout scripture we read of repentance, community, compassion, and renewal: from the Genesis call ‘to work and take care of [the Earth]’ through to the Psalmist’s celebration of ‘God’s handiwork’ and the rejoicing too of the trees; recalling the prophets’ devastation at the destruction of the land, but also the Epistle message of renewal and life eternal,” continues Peter Noteboom, General Secretary of the Canadian Council of Churches. “Ever-present in the Gospels, and central to our faith is Jesus’ resurrection and promise of new life.”
“Young people from all over the world are leading the way, speaking passionately from their hearts about the state of emergency created by climate change and the need for immediate action,” says Jennifer Henry, Executive Director of KAIROS. “Inspired and challenged by their commitment, we add our voices and we commit our action, deeply aware of the spiritual crisis we face.”3

Their collective message is clear: the global climate crisis has reached a critical stage and requires an urgent moral and spiritual response.

A new peer-reviewed study by government scientists and others was published in April in the journal, Nature Communications. Based on airplane measurements of emissions, the research suggests that government officials need to revise guidelines currently used to measure carbon dioxide emissions from the oil and gas (O&G) sector. In their research, scientists collected data showing that four major oil sands facilities in northern Alberta emitted far more pollution than what they actually reported.

 The study’s lead author, John Liggio, told National Observer that Environment and Climate Change Canada shared its findings with industry representatives over the course of several conference calls and they were receptive to working with the government to “get to the bottom of why there is this discrepancy."
The office of Environment and Climate Change Canada Minister Catherine McKenna said the federal government was working with emissions-intensive sectors like the oilsands to help them reduce pollution and operate more efficiently, while noting that the industry and government had previously been relying on internationally-accepted standards for measuring greenhouse gas emissions.
“While this is just one study, we are taking these findings seriously and will be reviewing them in light of Canada’s commitment to fight climate change and build a stronger economy,” McKenna’s spokeswoman Sabrina Kim told National Observer.
Kim added that Canada would continue to prepare its GHG inventory in accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change reporting guidelines in line with the international community.
While the oilsands industry — an economic driver for Canada — struggles to deal with selling a discounted product in an increasingly uneconomical landscape, it also faces stiff opposition from some Indigenous groups as well as municipalities, provinces and environmental groups to its efforts to promote the expansion of pipelines that would support growth.
Oilsands extraction is a costly process, requiring vast amounts of energy and water for each barrel of oil.
"The objective of limiting the increase in global temperature to <1.5 °C this century is dependent upon reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to net zero," said the study. "The large contribution of the O&G sector to global GHG emissions underscores the need for accurate sectoral GHG emissions in national inventories."
Canada's pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming by 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 will require a significant shift in the operations of the industry, which has also seen the retreat of global majors and a retrenchment in investment from those that remain amid stagnant prices, particularly for the heavy, sour crude oil of which Alberta has a surplus.4

Ethical standards are embraced by serious liberals, conservatives, people affiliated with religious organizations and most citizens of our countries. These ethical standards need to drive our actions in business, investing, and infrastructure transformation due to climate change.

References

1	(2019, February 9). The truth about big oil and climate change - The Economist. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/02/09/the-truth-about-big-oil-and-climate-change
2	(2017, December 7). It's time to rethink Milton Friedman's 'shareholder value' argument .... Retrieved April 24, 2019, from http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/it-s-time-rethink-milton-friedman-s-shareholder-value-argument
3	(2019, April 18). On Earth Day, Canadian faith leaders issue urgent plea for climate .... Retrieved April 23, 2019, from https://www.kairoscanada.org/canadian-faith-leaders-issue-urgent-plea-climate-action
4	(2019, April 23). Oilsands lobby speechless as government scientists point to higher .... Retrieved April 24, 2019, from https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/04/23/news/oilsands-lobby-speechless-government-scientists-point-higher-pollution

Pope, politician and Pulitzer person on poverty and oil