Those are good questions, very deep questions.
Let me address, first of all, the question of oil upgrading. The impediments to oil upgrading have to do with our customers and where refinery capacity is located in the rest of the country. Alberta says, “We want as much value-added in Alberta as possible.” The dichotomy is that you have refineries in the U.S. that are still saying, “But I want oil, and I'll take it in any form.” Some may say, as you see by the EnCana announcement, “I'll take it out even as bitumen”, which is the lowest value to Canada. I've seen estimates that 15% bitumen taken out of Canada over the life of the oil sands will result in a $500 billion loss in economic activity in Canada. So we need to upgrade in Canada if we can. But our customers are saying, “I don't want to buy gasoline and diesel, because I've got the upgrading capability here.”
So it's a really market force situation. There is nothing to stop that. You are seeing the construction of upgraders, at least in Alberta, that will convert bitumen, which is the lowest-value product out of the oil sands, to synthetic oil, which is the next stage. There's no reason why we can't refine beyond that to gasoline, diesel, and petrochemical. We could and should continue to build these kinds of industries.
I think you'll see a constant tension between good government intentions—and as a Canadian, I support the intention to see the greatest possible value-added and economic activity in Canada—and the global market that says, “I want to buy the cheapest raw material I can, because I want to do the upgrading to get the economic activity in my country.” That's the short answer to that question.
On your question of global warming, I'll answer it this way. Five years ago I wasn't sure. Today, I think there is conclusive evidence that global warming is occurring. What it's due to isn't yet answered. Is it anthropogenic? Is it natural cycles? Is it a combination of both? We really don't know, and we probably won't be able to answer that question for decades. The point is, can we afford to wait until we know the answer when there are some things that we can do something about right now?
We're at 300 ppms CO2 in the atmosphere right now. Applying a trajectory to what's already built, we're going to hit 450. This amount will definitely have some consequences, as far as the best scientists in the world can tell. Now, this might be coming from nature, man, or a combination. But we can't control nature. We can only control the man-made part.
That's the best answer I can give you on global warming. But let us not think for a minute that it is man who is causing global warming, because nature puts more greenhouse gases into the air than man. Between us, we're causing global warming. Man's the only one who can control it. Nature tends to work a little more slowly, in cycles of a few million years. Just to give you an idea, nature releases vast quantities of methane from decomposition of gas hydrates, marsh bogs, and so on, and methane is 13 to 15 times worse, as a greenhouse gas, than carbon dioxide.