174
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2026
174 points (99.4% liked)
World News
58277 readers
2018 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
As a Canadian, I'm mixed on this. I acknowledge the argument that oil is still a product that is going to remain in demand for a long time still, even as demand declines. I don't see the middle east conflict being entire over for a long time yet either, so having a conflict free (ish? As long as the US doesn't invade) source may help our allies as they move to other energy sources.
That said, I don't know that the cost is worth the potential returns, and every day it seems more certain that the Canadian taxpayer is going to bear the cost of this "Nation Building Project." That's a lot of money that could have been spent on securing low carbon infrastructure at home.
As a British Columbian, no it is absolutely not worth the loss of our natural coast and endangerment of our ocean life. Fuck Carney. We could invest in much greener forms of energy as nation building projects.
But we need to appease the Chuds in Alberta. Remember, this is the province that almost blew itself up with 100 nuclear bombs for mining.
Mixed feelings as well. But it does mean we can sell the same amount of oil at higher prices to world markets instead of selling at a discount to the US.
Not really though. I mean, there's a reason we set up to ship most of it to the US in the first place. Most other countries on earth have suppliers that are much closer/already meeting their needs. We've got a window here where we might steal some market share from the middle east, but even then, most countries aren't going to want to keep paying higher prices for Canadian oil when the dust settles, and they have every incentive to move to cheaper energy sources in the mean time. Non-energy petro-chems aren't nearly as big a market as fuel, and the push to avoid plastic where we can is making even that questionable.
The US discount isn't that big when you factor in the added cost of getting it either over the mountains or past Hudson bay. If Brent Crude drops below $40/barrel we'll be losing money on every barrel we ship. You'ld have to pay other countries to take it.
Today there's some sense to it, but in the long term? We better hope the price of oil stays over $100/barrel for the rest of the decade, and people don't decide gas costs too much and they'd be better off with an electric car.
I'm not sure. The price of oil is the price of oil...except that Canada sells its oil to the USA at a discount because where else can we sell it.
The fact that Canada sends almost all of our oil to the USA means that the USA buys less at the normal world price from other sources. This increases supply in the world market. If Canada shifts its sales to the world market, then the USA has to buy more from that world market at the higher price also balancing out the supply/demand on the world market.
Net result would be that the USA will have to pay more for Canadian oil, because why would we sell it to them at a discount if we can sell it on the world market at the full price. This just means that we get more money for the same production.
All that assumes that production stays the same. If that holds true then the net environmental impact is relatively neutral except for the pipeline itself.
If the pipeline allows production to increase, then there's obviously a potential for greater environmental impact, although it's not really clear that greater supply would mean greater demand. But the Canadian oil is dirty to extract no that's bad.
However, any amount of excess pipeline capacity away from the USA is a win for Canada economically and politically, as far as I'm concerned.
If Brent crude drops below $40/barrel, that would probably mean that demand had dropped so much that the days of burning oil are coming to a close. I'm not going to complain about that.
Right, but we could have done that 20 years ago, and we didn't. Why? Because the cost of the infrastructure to do it is more than the discount we are forced to take from the Americans. The question is are we going to be signing up for a permanent national penalty in the form of debt on a bad investment that doesn't pan out long term. And are we doing it for the sake of people who are wishfully thinking a few new pipes will solve all Alberta's problems, but aren't actually going to see any benefits from it, because the profits all end up in American pockets regardless?
The vast majority of Albertans don't even know that the pipeline projects are moving forward. Why? Because it's so far from their daily life it doesn't make an actual difference to their lived experience. It's an Article of Faith that Ontario hates us because oil, and there's literally no policy on earth that's going to change that, because it's not grounded in reality, it's grounded in the Mythological idea of what Alberta is that we were all raised on. It's identity politics. And there's no way to inject a counter narrative because the only sources of media out here are owned by American Hedge Funds with a vested interest in keeping us in a state of perpetual civil unrest.
This pipeline is more of a hedge, imo. Carney doesn't want us to get caught with our pants down in case of a more critical issue with the US.
Which is fair, and I get that. It's a complicated question of just how critical it is for our future success and prosperity though. He's making a gamble that this is the best use of resources and political capital and it's either going to prove very smart, or it's going to be a boat anchor on our economy for decades and the chance of either is a coin flip.
On the other hand, we're going to be building infrastructure for burning more fossil fuels during a climate emergency. It doesn't look like we're making healthy choices.
Why are we building infrastructure for using expensive and dirty fuel?
Yeah I think this just buys us time to get the pipeline to Ontario setup so we can start refining our own oil. Which is another mixed bag of feelings, but it's completely idiotic to import crude from the middle east when we have our own a few provinces away
It’s going to be important moving forward for Canada to drop 100% of its dependency on the USA. The USA is a failed country and its implosion will destroy its allies. Time to make new friends.
I'm not disagreeing with that sentiment. The question is, who's buying? Because the global oil market is declining, and the countries that need it now, are the ones moving fastest away from oil. Our oil isn't cheap to extract, it's not near a port and the transport costs are going to mean we're at a price disadvantage in a shrinking market. I get the sentiment that this isn't over yet, but at what point are we throwing good money after bad to build infrastructure that's never going to break even, let alone turn a profit?
China. Also, tar sand sludge is a shit form of oil, needs a lot of refining, it's not sweet crude. It's not even oil, it's bitumen or sour crude.
China is already looking at peak consumption before the end of the decade. That's a small window.
They thought tmx was gonna be a dead pipe too, but humanity are idiots.
Yeah, but the thing is, reality has this weird habit of giving you just enough rope to hang yourself with, and then snapping the noose closed when you actually do it. The tax man for the idiot tax takes his sweet time getting there, but he doesn't suffer excuses when he arrives.
Maybe he’s just trying to keep Alberta happy and engaged.
Yeaaah, about that. I'm an Albertan, and it's not helping.
Different albertans. Pipelines keep a few albertans happy, those who facilitate Americans owning 99% of any oil&gas resource projects and reap the profits, because then they get some kickbacks.
It's making albertans happy; just nowhere near all or even a significant number of them. It's making the "important" albertans happy, if you ask Marlaina.
The problem is, those "Important" Albertans don't really control their hounds as well as they think they do. To use a pop-culture reference, I feel like they're going to end up sharing Ramsey Bolton's fate, and unfortunately the rest of us are on the menu with them.
What would?
Not policy. The problem has to do with the media ecosystem in Alberta. We are saturated in pro-American/Oil-boss propaganda and while just under half of us recognize it for what it is, over half don't. Policy isn't going to change anything, because over half of us don't know or care what the policy actually is, what laws, programs, and actions are actually out there, or have any idea how to find out if we wanted to.
It's not a policy problem, it's a messaging problem and a community problem.