The carbon bubble argument is tied to the environmental assessment of oil sands petroleum versus other forms of energy. This assessment does not depend on the current view the Canadian government has on global warming, whether it believes or not in climate science, or whether it believes that oil sands exploitation contributes to global warming more than another form of energy production.
Given the extroverted nature of the oil extractive sector, in terms of markets and predominance of foreign firms and foreign capital, the view and polices formulated in other countries and regions, movements in other societies, could have a profound impact on carbon assets.
This should be obvious after the failure of a quick start for the Keystone pipeline as well as the recent decision by a major Swedish pension fund to divest from part of the carbon sector tied to dirty coal and oil sands.
The third impact is on the promising area of economic growth, which represents a great potential in terms of job quality and quantity that extractivism has shut out, the wide field of investment in the ecological transition, and the decarbonification of our energy base.
Paradoxically, Canada is—