Because there's nothing to back it up.
"To extract this oil, a diverse boreal forest the size of Michigan is being destroyed"
The size of Michigan is 56,804 square miles Source.
"Alberta’s oil sands underlie 140,200 km2 (54,132 square miles) of land in the Athabasca, Cold Lake and Peace River areas in northern Alberta. As of March 31, 2009, just 602 km2 are disturbed by oil sands mining, about the size of the City of Edmonton, which accounts for 0.3% of the oil sands area, or 0.1% of the total land area of Alberta."
Source
Okay, so the oil sands themselves are about the size of Michigan, except it's about 2,000 square miles short. Which is a big area. Why not pick a state like Wisonconsin, which is 54,310 square miles? Because that would be accurate!
Anyways, 602 square kilometers (the area disturbed as of last year) is about 233 square miles. (1 square km = 0.3861022159 square miles)... so is Rethink Alberta suggesting that 233 = 56 804? Somebody failed basic math.
"To extract this oil, a diverse boreal forest the size of Michigan is being destroyed"
The size of Michigan is 56,804 square miles Source.
"Alberta’s oil sands underlie 140,200 km2 (54,132 square miles) of land in the Athabasca, Cold Lake and Peace River areas in northern Alberta. As of March 31, 2009, just 602 km2 are disturbed by oil sands mining, about the size of the City of Edmonton, which accounts for 0.3% of the oil sands area, or 0.1% of the total land area of Alberta."
Source
Okay, so the oil sands themselves are about the size of Michigan, except it's about 2,000 square miles short. Which is a big area. Why not pick a state like Wisonconsin, which is 54,310 square miles? Because that would be accurate!
Anyways, 602 square kilometers (the area disturbed as of last year) is about 233 square miles. (1 square km = 0.3861022159 square miles)... so is Rethink Alberta suggesting that 233 = 56 804? Somebody failed basic math.
No comments:
Post a Comment