GHG Emissions

[socialist]

I found this neat little chart on Canada's GHG emissions. It shows that Canada's GHG emissions were highest in 2000, and 2009 - 2011 have been the lowest. I don't think this graph is accurate as I believe emissions have gone through the roof with the current CPC government. Waldo, please explain this graph to me.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=68EE206C-1&offset=2&toc=show

[TimG]

I don't think this graph is accurate as I believe emissions have gone through the roof with the current CPC government.

What? Facts don't align with delusions of environmentalists? You should not be surprised. Enviros are usually clueless about reality.

From the page you linked:

A levelling off of emissions from electric power generation, which had been rising rapidly until then. In 2000, coal generation was at or close to its highest level ever. Since then, the contribution of coal-fired generation to the electricity supply mix has been declining (Statistics Canada 2011a).

The increased prevalence of energy efficiency and emission reduction programs, including federal measures such as regulations for light-duty vehicles and provincial and territorial actions such as Alberta's Specified Gas Emitters Regulation.

Structural changes involving a shift from an industrial-oriented economy to a more service-based economy. Between 2000 and 2008, the gross domestic product (GDP) of the service industries rose by 32%, while heavy industries and manufacturing together grew by only 3%. Service industries are less emission intensive than goods producing industries, so this ongoing change has lowered Canadian GHG emissions.

The peak in the production of conventional oil in 1998 in Canada and the levelling off of gas production in 2002 (Statistics Canada 2011b). In both cases, this was the result of limited conventional reserves. More recently, conventional oil and natural gas production has fallen, which has reduced fugitive emissions and has offset the impact of rising non-conventional production to some extent.

Edited January 11, 2014 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

I found this neat little chart on Canada's GHG emissions. It shows that Canada's GHG emissions were highest in 2000, and 2009 - 2011 have been the lowest. I don't think this graph is accurate as I believe emissions have gone through the roof with the current CPC government. Waldo, please explain this graph to me.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=68EE206C-1&offset=2&toc=show

The graph is correct. I think the main drivers of the levelling off/decrease are the stagnant economy (less industry = less energy demand) and a continuing drive towards lessening of GHG intensity. Cars are more mileage efficient - so are furnaces and other appliances. Coal is being phased out. Even the Oil Sands, a contributor of about 7% to Canada's total GHG, are using at least 25% energy to extract a barrel of oil compared to a980 - and some of the newer facilities have increased that to 50%.

As usual, there are three sides to every story - one side, the other side - and the truth. Given the facts, what should sincerely trouble you is the fact that you genuinely thought that GHG emissions under Harper had gone "sky high". It demonstrates how the media is biased in their presentation of "the facts".

Edited January 11, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[socialist]

The graph is correct. I think the main drivers of the levelling off/decrease are the stagnant economy (less industry = less energy demand) and a continuing drive towards lessening of GHG intensity. Cars are more mileage efficient - so are furnaces and other appliances. Coal is being phased out. Even the Oil Sands, a contributor of about 7% to Canada's total GHG, are using at least 25% energy to extract a barrel of oil compared to a980 - and some of the newer facilities have increased that to 50%.

As usual, there are three sides to every story - one side, the other side - and the truth. Given the facts, what should sincerely trouble you is the fact that you genuinely thought that GHG emissions under Harper had gone "sky high". It demonstrates how the media is biased in their presentation of "the facts".

I would say that the recession of 2009 has actually caused people to consume less, not the policies of the Harper government.

[TimG]

I would say that the recession of 2009 has actually caused people to consume less, not the policies of the Harper government.

Which is why the NDP wants to reduce emissions by killing the economy. No need to worry about CO2 if people can't pay for gas or power.

[socialist]

Which is why the NDP wants to reduce emissions by killing the economy. No need to worry about CO2 if people can't pay for gas or power.

People won't have to worry about paying for anything if we continue to destroy Gaia.

[Keepitsimple]

People won't have to worry about paying for anything if we continue to destroy Gaia.

I'll say it again - what should sincerely trouble you is the fact that you genuinely thought that GHG emissions under Harper had gone "sky high". It demonstrates how the media is biased in their presentation of "the facts". Do you not feel any emabarassment or frustration in being so mis-led - being herded into the flock of sheep that listen to only one side of the debate? - because there NEEDS to be open debate....the science is nowhere near "settled".

Edited January 12, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Waldo, please explain this graph to me. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=68EE206C-1&offset=2&toc=show

any reductions in that graph are associated with the global recession... notwithstanding Harper Conservative accounting tricks as previously discussed in another MLW thread (see quote below). There are no, again no, Harper Conservative policies that can be pointed to as having contributed to any reductions. More pointedly, even with those Harper Conservative tricks included, Environment Canada's 2020 emissions trend projection has Canada realizing only a 3% below 2005 emissions level... no where near the 17% pledged/committed level that Harper Conservatives agreed to; that 17% figure, itself, being a much watered down target as it was (in regards 1990 levels).

.

it was just a short while back that Harper Conservative Environment Minister Peter Kent released their updated Canada’s Emissions Trends Report... with a heavily emphasized (and false) claim taking credit for the fact that Canada is halfway toward reaching its target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

notwithstanding that lil' recession thingee where emissions associated with most of the developed global community being reduced, there is Harper Conservative trickery... and then there is reality:

Sept 2012 - Canada 'playing with numbers' on carbon target claims - Harper Conservatives accused of using accounting tricks to take credit for emission declines

Canada's claims of progress on meeting its carbon targets do not add up, according to an independent analysis published on Wednesday.

In August, the government said it was halfway to its 2020 emissions goal of a 17% cut on 2005 levels, but the analysis – the first to date – says Canada's cuts amount to one-third at best.

"They're [Canada] just playing with numbers to pretend they've actually done something to reduce their emissions," said Marion Vieweg, a policy analyst working with the Climate Action Tracker (CAT), an independent science-based assessment that tracks the emission commitments and actions of countries.

The Canadian government is taking credit for the emissions declines caused by the 2009 recession and the energy trend away from coal to gas, Vieweg told the Guardian from Bangkok at the close of the latest UN climate summit.

"There is no information in their reports about their policies that are actually driving emission reductions."

"The [stephen] Harper government has been working hard to reduce emissions," said the environment minister, Peter Kent, last month, announcing the government's statistics. Only a year ago the Harper government said it was 25% cent of the way to its 2020 target.

A big part of the difference is a change in the UN rules this year that allows Canada to claim emissions credits for its vast forests because they absorb CO2. But on the other side of the ledger, Canada is one of biggest logging nations and its forests have experienced massive fires and insect outbreaks that have killed hundreds of millions of trees in recent years. Those emissions are missing in Canada's new numbers and the Harper government assumes there will be few fires or insect problems over the next eight years to 2020, says Vieweg.

Meanwhile emissions from Canada's huge tar sands operations will represent 51% of the entire oil/gas sector in 2012, an increase from a share of only 20% in 2005.

Canada has been using current data and measuring it against old projections. And it has begun using a methodology previously only used by developing countries, the CAT report found.

"Canada is using accounting tricks to make it look like they are taking action when it's not," she said.

.

[Guest Derek L]

any reductions in that graph are associated with the global recession...

In your view, would the sudden growth in smaller, more efficient & hybrid cars also have been a factor?

[waldo]

The graph is correct. I think the main drivers of the levelling off/decrease are the stagnant economy (less industry = less energy demand) and a continuing drive towards lessening of GHG intensity. Cars are more mileage efficient - so are furnaces and other appliances. Coal is being phased out. Even the Oil Sands, a contributor of about 7% to Canada's total GHG, are using at least 25% energy to extract a barrel of oil compared to a980 - and some of the newer facilities have increased that to 50%.

can you name/detail any Harper Conservative policies that you might presume to associate with the OP graph?

continuing drive towards lessening of GHG intensity? Do you even know the distinction between intensity and absolute emissions? In any case, care to describe/detail that "drive"?

per your statement, "Even the Oil Sands, a contributor of about 7% to Canada's total GHG, are using at least 25% energy to extract a barrel of oil compared to a980 - and some of the newer facilities have increased that to 50%", that much touted CAPP statistic has nothing to do with the actual emissions output number. More pointedly, that energy reduction figure has been dropping, year over year in CAPP statements. Even accepting to that figure, it effectively represents a ~21% rise in energy use as compared to the earlier years energy use reductions claimed.

[Shady]

In your view, would the sudden growth in smaller, more efficient & hybrid cars also have been a factor?

And less use of coal as electricity.

[waldo]

In your view, would the sudden growth in smaller, more efficient & hybrid cars also have been a factor?

new regulations for new cars/light-duty vehicles (2011-2016 model years) came in starting with 2011 model years... the OP graph predates those regs. They will have an influence... even more so for new heavy-duty truck regs (which are even farther down the pipe). I've just now been trying to find stats on new vehicle sales/emission reductions... can't find anything at the moment. For what it's worth, my inclination is to think that any significant reductions realized in those 2011-2014 new vehicles on the road, will be offset by additional vehicles being driven... notwithstanding emissions from such things as non-essential idling, driving practices, vehicle maintenance, etc.

[Keepitsimple]

Although yes you're still on ignore Waldo, I did view one of your posts......I still get curious every now and then to see if a leopard can change its spots - or maybe just rub a few off. No such luck. The point of the topic by Socialist was clear - he saw a graph that showed that Canada's total emissions had actually been reduced - and not risen "sky high" under Harper as he was led to believe. Regardless of the economy, regulations (or lack), personal conservation, etc. - the graph is factually correct - and as I posted back to Socialist - it should be of great concern to him that he has been so mis-led on the facts. Your bluster can't change that fact. Case closed.

[waldo]

And less use of coal as electricity.

Canada doesn't have much coal generation left... thank you Ontario Liberals. Harper Conservative coal regulations were "window dressing"... as no new coal plants are being built... or are on any projections of being built. One can ask why Harper Conservatives didn't bring in any regs to address gas/new gas plant generations... anyone?

of course, I always get a charge out of the same guys who perk up to trumpet coal emission reductions... are the same guys lambasting Ontario Liberals over presumed effects of shifting from coal on Ontario electricity costs. Hey Shady!

[Guest Derek L]

new regulations for new cars/light-duty vehicles (2011-2016 model years) came in starting with 2011 model years... the OP graph predates those regs. They will have an influence... even more so for new heavy-duty truck regs (which are even farther down the pipe). I've just now been trying to find stats on new vehicle sales/emission reductions... can't find anything at the moment. For what it's worth, my inclination is to think that any significant reductions realized in those 2011-2014 new vehicles on the road, will be offset by additional vehicles being driven... notwithstanding emissions from such things as non-essential idling, driving practices, vehicle maintenance, etc.

Anecdotal, but in the Lower Mainland, I would say the trend away from large SUVs to smaller subcompacts has been growing for a decade. I don’t know if this is a trend just here or across North America, but I’m sure eventually this will have a large impact on GHG emissions……..

As to additional vehicles being driven and offsetting higher efficiency models, how so? If my wife replaces her Cadillac SUV with a hybrid, how does that translate into increased driving, likewise with the North American population in general? Are you including growth in car ownership in the developing world?

Edited January 12, 2014 by Derek L

[waldo]

Although yes you're still on ignore Waldo, I did view one of your posts......I still get curious every now and then to see if a leopard can change its spots - or maybe just rub a few off. No such luck. The point of the topic by Socialist was clear - he saw a graph that showed that Canada's total emissions had actually been reduced - and not risen "sky high" under Harper as he was led to believe. Regardless of the economy, regulations (or lack), personal conservation, etc. - the graph is factually correct - and as I posted back to Socialist - it should be of great concern to him that he has been so mis-led on the facts. Your bluster can't change that fact. Case closed.

ya ya, Simple... I'm forever on your ignore list... until I'm not... which is very, very often hey!

your plaintive whines over your perceived media slights would be a fine addition to the Media Party thread. Is that graph correct... when you factor in the identified Harper Conservative porkies (creative accounting). Makes me wonder if that graph actually includes 2009 data - you know, the data Environment Canada held back because Harper Conservatives didn't like what it was saying about tarsands impacts.... is that data back in now, hey?

of course, your claimed "selective" ignoring of my posts has you, apparently, missing the thrust of my replies here. Again, Harper Conservatives have done nothing, policy wise, to address emission levels within that graph. Anything Harper Conservatives have done has been a lock-step response to the U.S. actions... see coal regulations... see passenger/light truck regulations. Harper Conservatives have taken no initiative - none - to do anything on their own. And, again, projections have Canada on a failed path to realizing Harper Conservative pledged/committed 17% below 2005 level emission reductions.

[waldo]

Anecdotal, but in the Lower Mainland, I would say the trend away from large SUVs to smaller subcompacts has been growing for a decade. I don’t know if this is a trend just here or across North America, but I’m sure eventually this will have a large impact on GHG emissions……..

my anecdotes are different. I don't see much of a reduction in SUVs... I don't see many trucks, outright, in VanCity/WestEnd. It's only when I reach NewWest and outward from there that I begin to notice trucks, big time... to the point I think I'm back in Alberta!

As to additional vehicles being driven and offsetting higher efficiency models, how so? If my wife replaces her Cadillac SUV with a hybrid, how does that translate into increased driving, likewise with the North American population in general? Are you including growth in car ownership in the developing world?

just additional vehicles added, regardless of their efficiencies. I'd like to provide a better stat but Wiki suggests only ~5000 hybrids have been sold in Canada between Jan 1, 2011 & Sept 2013. A blog, for what it's worth: 2246 sold in 2013 (to September)

[Guest Derek L]

my anecdotes are different. I don't see much of a reduction in SUVs... I don't see many trucks, outright, in VanCity/WestEnd. It's only when I reach NewWest and outward from there that I begin to notice trucks, big time... to the point I think I'm back in Alberta!

Fair enough……I, a (big) truck owner, would add though that the efficiency of even big V8s has improved substantially over similar models the decade previous, as it also appears that newer models are getting better still.

just additional vehicles added, regardless of their efficiencies. I'd like to provide a better stat but Wiki suggests only ~5000 hybrids have been sold in Canada between Jan 1, 2011 & Sept 2013. A blog, for what it's worth: 2246 sold in 2013 (to September)

I still would be interested in seeing data relating to the growth in smaller cars, though not necessarily hybrids, I would still think that little Fiat or Cobalt would be an improvement over the larger SUVs and min-vans that use to appear everywhere……..Again anecdotic, but the trend of various service or city/government fleets over to smaller Ford Transit types from larger full size vans must have a positive net-impact.

[Shady]

Canada doesn't have much coal generation left... thank you Ontario Liberals. Harper Conservative coal regulations were "window dressing"... as no new coal plants are being built... or are on any projections of being built. One can ask why Harper Conservatives didn't bring in any regs to address gas/new gas plant generations... anyone?

of course, I always get a charge out of the same guys who perk up to trumpet coal emission reductions... are the same guys lambasting Ontario Liberals over presumed effects of shifting from coal on Ontario electricity costs. Hey Shady!

So you agree that there are other factors besides a recession. Good. But yes, I don't like what the liberals have done in Ontario. The vast majority don't. It's bad energy policy and bad economic policy.

[waldo]

So you agree that there are other factors besides a recession. Good. But yes, I don't like what the liberals have done in Ontario. The vast majority don't. It's bad energy policy and bad economic policy.

no - in terms of coal, Ontario coal generation plants... the Lakeview Mississauga plant was decommissioned in 2005 (prior to the recessionary based emissions decline). The only impacting change during the period in question was the closing of 2 (of 4) generating units within the Lambton plant in late 2010... by that time, per the OP graphic, emissions are back on the rise again, if ever so slightly. Of course, the rest of Ontario's planned shuttering/conversion of its remaining active coal plants will occur later this year.

but again, as I said, its always quite telling to read the Ontario Liberal bashers tout presumed emission reductions associated with the policy intent to close/convert coal plants! Good on ya, hey Shady!

[socialist]

Thanks for the clarification waldo. When I first saw this graph the first thought that came to mind was that it was probably cooked to make the CPC look good. We will never know because democracy has been tampered with.

[Boges]

but again, as I said, its always quite telling to read the Ontario Liberal bashers tout presumed emission reductions associated with the policy intent to close/convert coal plants! Good on ya, hey Shady!

But it was accomplished with all that evil fracked natural gas from out west! Unless of course when they plan to build a plant then cancel it to save seats.

[waldo]

But it was accomplished with all that evil fracked natural gas from out west! Unless of course when they plan to build a plant then cancel it to save seats.

"was accomplished"... your past tense! Notwithstanding the distinction between gas plant electricity generation and direct 'end use' of gas, can you show Ontario imported fracked (shale gas) during that period? Given the significant hit to Canadian exports of conventional gas to the U.S. (re: "U.S. shale gas boom"), I expect Canadian companies will be somewhat aggressive to extend on the distribution of conventional gas to Ontario. Certainly, Ontario's Enbridge and Union Gas have designs on importing shale sourced gas (from the U.S.) into the GTA... but it isn't happening, yet.

[Boges]

http://www.uniongas.com/about-us/about-natural-gas/Natural-Gas-Q-and-A

Union Gas buys natural gas from a variety of suppliers and has access to a several alternate pipelines to transport natural gas into our system. Western Canadian suppliers comprise the largest source of natural gas which is then transported to our pipeline system through TransCanada Pipelines Limited. Additional natural gas is purchased from U.S. sources and Ontario producers. Through diversity of suppliers and a prudent mix of short and long term gas supply contracts, we secure a reliable supply at a fair price.

http://www.capp.ca/canadaIndustry/naturalGas/ShaleGas/Pages/default.aspx

This map shows that the Shale Basin in Saskatchewan and Alberta appear larger than that of Marcellus (NY, OH, PA)

http://www.capp.ca/PublishingImages/425W/NorthAmerica-Shale-Gas-Basins.jpg

It doesn't take a huge leap of faith to believe that Western Ontario Gas will soon include Shale gas.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Boges

[waldo]

that's not what you said in your earlier post. You used the past tense... and I highlighted you used the past tense. In your latest post you drop a quote which says nothing about (fracked) shale gas.

from your past tense reference, you now shift into a future "faith"... none of which supports your earlier post. In any case, as I said, your now stated future "faith" must contend with those same sources who have (and will, for a period of time) seen/see their U.S. export market of conventional gas reduced, big time. Accordingly, as I suggested, those same sources will be somewhat aggressive in trying to offset that U.S. export loss by extending on the existing distribution of conventional gas... say into Ontario.