Uninstall the xposed module and stop worrying about free ramUnusedfree ram is wasted ram when it comes to apps running <| sep |> I would like to point out that it actually is the case . Recent work on the subject suggests each barrel of forgone oilsands production lowers global consumption by 0 . 6 barrels , with 0 . 4 barrels replaced by producers elsewhere in the worldThere are methodological flaws to that study , as discussed in this Andrew Leach article 101 isgreatbutgetitright which is also linked in the Tombe Maclean ' s link you provided . Basically , their model is too simple to estimate the actual potential impact of not approving the pipeline Keystone XL in this case . If you look to more recent work such as this completed for the Ontario Energy Board as part of Energy East hearings , you ' ll note that in when using an actual oil markets model , the net increase to global GHGs by approving a pipeline is neglibleThe Energy East project will increase global GHG emissions from wellstotank , but the impact is modest as global GHGs increase by 0 . 01 % If you ' re familiar with GHG accounting at all , you ' ll realize this is a rounding error in terms of global emissions . Here is a decent article outlining the effectiveness of pipeline protests lowering emissions as expected , it does reduce emissions but there are obviously much more economically efficient ways to do soI ' m not saying that opposing pipelines wouldn ' t lower emissions in Canada , because they would at the margin , but there wouldn ' t be an impact on global GHGs . Given our temperature targets agreed to at COP 21 , and the fact that existing extraction infrastructure globally will already take us over this limit , I think we should either mandate all new FF infrastructure has to abate GHG emissions equal to or preferably slightly greater than its entire footprint downstream and upstream . It is up to us as a rich developed nation to start making the hard choices todayAs you ' ll see in my reply below , I would disagree with this approach . It ' s up to us as a rich developed nation to develop the policies and technology to deal with oil and gas emissions . That doesn ' t mean halting oil and gas production though . I understand it our SCC values used are likely a massive underestimate most of the ~ 50 $ tonne models we rely on , and wont even hit that level until 2022 , assume climate change wont effect economic growth , contrary to the opinion of economists in the field , so the groDICE model of ~ 300 $ tonne is probably more accurateYou should qualify that with some economists in the field . There ' s a pretty healthy academic debate about the social cost of carbon . The MooreDiaz work is interesting , but not definitive in any way . They admit a shortcoming of the DICE model is its inability to adequately account for the impacts of mitigation costs on economic growth . You can see that in Figure 2 , with no impact on percaptia GDP observed with any carbon price imposed . It ' s intuitive that a price of $ 220 USD imposed on the global market would have some implications on productivity and growth . They themselves stateFor both these reasons , the results regarding very rapid , nearterm mitigation should not be overinterpreted as evidence that such a policy would necessarily be economically optimal . It ' s also odd in that we wouldn ' t actually need to reach a price of $ 220 USDtonne given most mitigation would kick in well before that , with even carbon capture and storage being viable at less than $ 150 tonne . It ' s been a while since I really looked into DICE , so I can ' t recall why this might be the case . From a practioner ' s perspective , I don ' t think this work is very useful for setting policy . There ' s a willingness to pay issue creating a sort of price ceiling for carbon prices these days . Put another way , a $ 220 USD price is not possible for most governments to enact in any way , no matter what an economic model might estimate . Thanks for linking the MooreDiaz paper . It was good to read through it again .