I guess the issue that we can't tell from your argument is that we've been told what happens to bitumen that's burned in China doesn't count; the only thing that counts is in the sands and at the wellhead. However, if we are not counting all the actual impacts of burning a barrel of oil, how do you tell us the world would be better off by us shipping bitumen, which right now is the highest carbon-intensive source on the planet, that it gets burned someplace else but we don't count that, yet we then say we're actually net zero?
Come on. That doesn't make sense.