Canada's Greenhouse Guilty

[August1991]

# - Company - CO2 tonne equiv - % all Cdn emissions

1 Ontario Power Generation ............ 24,887,358 ON 3.3%

2 Transalta Utilities Corporation........ 22,672,480 AB 3.0%

3 Saskatchewan Power Corporation.. 13,669,500 SK 1.8%

4 Alberta Power (2000).................... 11,957,574 AB 1.6%

5 Nova Scotia Power ....................... 10,570,678 NS 1.4%

6 Syncrude Canada ........................ 10,367,463 AB 1.3%

7 Suncor Energy Inc. Oil Sands......... 8,599,254 AB 1.1%

8 EPCOR Generation Inc................... 6,898,565 AB 0.9%

9 Petro-Canada................................ 5,731,121 AB 0.8%

10 Dofasco Inc................................. 4,863,485 ON 0.6%

Total Top 10 Companies 120,217,478 15.9%

Pollution Watch

According to the link, Canada's GHG emissions were about 760 million tonnes in 2004 (all GHG from all sources). [Does that make sense?]

The top five GHG producers are there because of coal and they burn coal to produce electricity. Canadians must pay more for electricity.

It would be in Quebec's interest to charge more for electricity in Quebec, consume less electricity in Quebec as a result and sell the surplus to Ontario.

[geoffrey]

The top five GHG producers are there because of coal and they burn coal to produce electricity. Canadians must pay more for electricity.

It would be in Quebec's interest to charge more for electricity in Quebec, consume less electricity in Quebec as a result and sell the surplus to Ontario.

It also makes about as much sense to increase car costs and have Ontarians buy less cars and export more? Hmmm no.

Transportation accounts for some 60-70% of our GHG emissions and is the leading contributor to smog. That's the real issue at hand, these cars are the problem.

I'd deal with that if you want to reduce GHG's before some coal power. The technology behind clean coal is promising as well, I wouldn't want to discourage what might end up being one of the cleanest forms of generation.

[August1991]

The technology behind clean coal is promising as well, I wouldn't want to discourage what might end up being one of the cleanest forms of generation.

The term 'clean coal' usually means coal low in sulphur or coal-burning stations that clean sulphur before it is emitted as sulphur dioxide (so-called acid rain).

Coal and greenhouse gases (GHG, mostly CO2) are similar to identical. You burn coal, you get CO2. We could potentially capture CO2 emissions (an obvious example would be to plant new trees near coal burning stations) but there are other mechanisms. This would be 'clean' CO2 coal.

If we accept that GHG are a long term risk to the environment, then we would want to reduce or fix GHG emissions in the cheapest way possible. I agree that cars cause GHG but looking at the list above, it's obvious that coal burned to produce electricity is a major source of GHG in Canada.

Canadians have cheap electricity and as a result, we waste it. That's an obvious place to start. There are other good reasons to raise electricity prices. Lucien Bouchard would agree.

[geoffrey]

So lets just plant some trees and be over with this nonsense.

[August1991]

The auto industry in Ontario produces more GHG's than the oil patch. Yet who get's the government subsidies? A head scratcher ain't it?

Not true. Alberta produces more greenhouse gases than Ontario (despite it's much smaller population). This is largely due to the oil patch.

I find this rather hard to believe. Not saying it's wrong but I'd like to see evidence.

The link above implies that Alberta is the province which emits the most greenhouse gases (the CBC implied such in its reports). That's wrong however.

The report only includes "large industrial facilities" or about one-third of Canada's entire GHG emissions. The rest of the emissions (two-thirds) are from everything else and probably follow the population. Since Ontario has the bulk of Canada's population (and almost three times Alberta's population), I'd say off hand that Ontario is the largest single emitter of GHGs.

[Slavik44]

The auto industry in Ontario produces more GHG's than the oil patch. Yet who get's the government subsidies? A head scratcher ain't it?

Not true. Alberta produces more greenhouse gases than Ontario (despite it's much smaller population). This is largely due to the oil patch.

I find this rather hard to believe. Not saying it's wrong but I'd like to see evidence.

The link above implies that Alberta is the province which emits the most greenhouse gases (the CBC implied such in its reports). That's wrong however.

The report only includes "large industrial facilities" or about one-third of Canada's entire GHG emissions. The rest of the emissions (two-thirds) are from everything else and probably follow the population. Since Ontario has the bulk of Canada's population (and almost three times Alberta's population), I'd say off hand that Ontario is the largest single emitter of GHGs.

Well when it comes to total greenhouse gas emmissions these were the statistics I could dig up for provinces. Unfortuantely they are from 1998, so they might have changed.

Canada 692 MT

Alberta 201 MT

Ontario 198 MT

Quebec 90 MT

B.C & Territories 65 MT

Saskatchewan 60 MT

Atlantic Canada 53 MT

Manitoba 22 MT

[Biblio Bibuli]

Well when it comes to total greenhouse gas emmissions these were the statistics I could dig up for provinces. Unfortuantely they are from 1998, so they might have changed.

Canada 692 MT

Alberta 201 MT

Ontario 198 MT

Quebec 90 MT

B.C & Territories 65 MT

Saskatchewan 60 MT

Atlantic Canada 53 MT

Manitoba 22 MT

That means that, per capita, Alberta greenhouse gasses are 4 times that of Ontario.

I'll be damned.

[geoffrey]

That's because we have to carry the extra GHG burden of producing the fuels that Ontario uses. That's sillyness to blame us for your own consumption.

[apollo19]

The top five GHG producers are there because of coal and they burn coal to produce electricity. Canadians must pay more for electricity.

It would be in Quebec's interest to charge more for electricity in Quebec, consume less electricity in Quebec as a result and sell the surplus to Ontario.

It also makes about as much sense to increase car costs and have Ontarians buy less cars and export more? Hmmm no.

Transportation accounts for some 60-70% of our GHG emissions and is the leading contributor to smog. That's the real issue at hand, these cars are the problem.

I'd deal with that if you want to reduce GHG's before some coal power. The technology behind clean coal is promising as well, I wouldn't want to discourage what might end up being one of the cleanest forms of generation.

I think what we need to do before focusing on cars is building new power facilities (nuclear/wind/hydro) so that coal plants can be slowly decommissioned. McGuinty has already announced this for Ontario, and I hope Alberta (which gets most of its power from coal) makes a similar move quickly. Cars are getting better with respect to GHG's, with hydrogen/gas combo cars slowly making appearances, and people driving less due to the price of gas. It seems that the only people really opposed en masse to reducing GHG's are Albertans, and I'm guessing that many people there are worried that non-renewable resource (oil) revenue which subsidizes their tax cuts will be lessened.

[geoffrey]

Alberta is maxed out on wind production, we can't build anymore, its actually limited by science unfortunately.

We're the only province that has reached our maximum wind capacity though.

Why are we the bad guys again? We seem to be the only ones actually doing something beyond simple rhetoric.

Raising gas prices will have VERY VERY VERY little effect in the short-term. Gas consumption is almost as inelastic as cigarettes.

[August1991]

Alberta's electricity industry created 47 megatonnes of GHGs in 2000, and that could increase to over 57 megatonnes by 2010 if new coal-fired plants proposed by EPCOR and TransAlta go ahead. Alberta already produces as many GHG emissions as Quebec, British Columbia, Atlantic Canada and the Northern Territories combined.

Link

So, Alberta's electricity generating sector produces about 25% of the province's GHG emissions. Oil sands accounts for about 10%.

1. Large industrial emitters of greenhouse gases in Alberta represented 47 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta and 64 per cent of all greenhouse gases emitted by industry in the province. These results are based on comparing the reported emissions for 2004 to the provincial data in the National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada 1990–2004.

2. The highest percentages of total greenhouse gas emissions reported from large industrial emitters were from power plants (46 per cent), oil sands facilities (18 per cent) and gas plants (8 per cent).

Link

It is unfortunate that the Tories took down all of the data that was available on the federal environment department website. The National Inventory Report, cited above, is no longer available.

----

Albertans don't emit GHGs for the fun of it. They do it to produce products other people want to buy. It is the consumers of Albertan products that are ultimately responsible for GHGs.

It is not obvious at all that a carbon tax would fall solely on Albertans.

Human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are a threat but they're not an imminent threat. We have time to think about this problem, understand it better and deal with it intelligently. Incidentally, unlike smog which should be dealt with provincially since smog is a local problem, GHGs must be dealt with at the federal level through international agreements.

I think Alberta might want to think about CO2 sequestration or natural sinks of some sort.

[apollo19]

Alberta is maxed out on wind production, we can't build anymore, its actually limited by science unfortunately.

We're the only province that has reached our maximum wind capacity though.

Why are we the bad guys again? We seem to be the only ones actually doing something beyond simple rhetoric.

Raising gas prices will have VERY VERY VERY little effect in the short-term. Gas consumption is almost as inelastic as cigarettes.

Alberta is often poked at because it has the highest emissions-per-capita, as well as flirting with Ontario for highest total emissions, despite having 1/4 the population. I'm not saying it's all Alberta's fault, and Ontario can certainly improve -- and steps are being taken on power generation. What is the problem with a carbon tax though? As long as the burden would be on consumers and not businesses, I don't see how Albertan's would bear the brunt of it to fill Quebec's coffers.

[gc1765]

Transportation accounts for some 60-70% of our GHG emissions and is the leading contributor to smog. That's the real issue at hand, these cars are the problem.

I agree. Cars are the problem. But a car doesn't emit GHG unless you put gas in it. Someone who only drives their car once in a while is not contributing nearly as much to GHG emissions as someone who drives to work everyday. It would be nice if more people took public transit. The smartest move that Harper has made yet is the transit tax credit. I hope it will encourage more people to take public transit....then again maybe not, people are addicted to their cars. It doesn't help that certains areas have horrible bus service.

Not true. Alberta produces more greenhouse gases than Ontario (despite it's much smaller population). This is largely due to the oil patch.

I find this rather hard to believe. Not saying it's wrong but I'd like to see evidence.

The link above implies that Alberta is the province which emits the most greenhouse gases (the CBC implied such in its reports). That's wrong however.

The report only includes "large industrial facilities" or about one-third of Canada's entire GHG emissions. The rest of the emissions (two-thirds) are from everything else and probably follow the population. Since Ontario has the bulk of Canada's population (and almost three times Alberta's population), I'd say off hand that Ontario is the largest single emitter of GHGs.

Are you sure? How about This one

CALGARY - Alberta's greenhouse-gas emissions have once again topped all other provinces -- accounting for nearly a third of the country's total emissions, the latest government figures show.

The province's emissions rose to 39.4 per cent above its 1990 level in 2004, with the oil and gas industry cast as the main culprit behind the 235 megatonnes of greenhouse gases released into the air, the federal government's national inventory report states.

Where does it say that includes only "large industrial facilities"?

[Biblio Bibuli]

Transportation accounts for some 60-70% of our GHG emissions

I agree. Cars are the problem. But a car doesn't emit GHG unless you put gas in it. Someone who only drives their car once in a while is not contributing nearly as much to GHG emissions as someone who drives to work everyday.

I can drive hundreds of miles compared to what it takes those modern Alberta cowboys to get to their local watering hole in their monster trucks.

[August1991]

gc1765, I'm mistaken. That news report is based on the National Inventory which is available online here.

The province of Alberta generated 12.6% of Canada's GDP in 2004, with 10% of the total population. Between 1990 and 2004, GDP and GHG output increased 69.4% and 39.4% to $130.6 billion and 234.5 Mt, respectively.

(I'll bet Rona Ambrose personally approved that wording.)

In 2004, Canada's most populated province - at 12.4 million, or 38.8% of the total - generated 27.2% (203.1 Mt) of total GHG emissions (Table A11-6) and 42.1% of the country's GDP ($438.3 billion). Between 1990 and 2004, Ontario's emissions increased 26.5 Mt (15.0%), while GDP and population increased 49.9% and 20.3%, respectively.

So, Alberta generates 234.5 Mt compared to Ontario's 203.1 Mt by all sources. Of course, Alberta - like Canada in general - emits these GHGs on behalf of the people who buy its products.

The Environment Canada link above provides lots of information about the sources of these GHGs.

[geoffrey]

How do they really know how much GHG are being emitted?? I've always wondered. It's not like they have the people to go check every source of emissions. My breathing hasn't been measured by EC lately.

Just curious.

What exactly though, do you expect Alberta to do to cut GHG emissions in the short run, say next 8-10 years? We already can't build more wind... we have no sources of hydro (another reason why Quebec thinks they are hot shit when it comes to GHG but really aren't).

[Wilber]

If natural gas consumption by Syncrude for oil extraction is as big a problem as some say when it comes to CO2 production, I wonder how high the price of oil will have to get before using nukes to provide the steam for oil extraction will become economical. Great place for it, away from large population centers, geologically stable and not subject to extreme weather such as hurricanes.

I agree. Cars are the problem. But a car doesn't emit GHG unless you put gas in it. Someone who only drives their car once in a while is not contributing nearly as much to GHG emissions as someone who drives to work everyday.

As well as better public tramsit, more diesels and hybrids. What people drive is as important as how much they drive.

[gc1765]

That's because we have to carry the extra GHG burden of producing the fuels that Ontario uses. That's sillyness to blame us for your own consumption.

Fair enough. But if that's the case, you can't say that a carbon tax would unfairly hurt Albertans. Afterall, it's Ontario that's using the fuels, right? So if that's the case, they would be the ones paying in the end.

Anyways, higher gas prices (ie higher gas tax or "carbon tax") might not discourage people from driving (though I think it would a little bit) but that money could be used to invest in other environmentally friendly energy sources.

[August1991]

Transportation accounts for some 60-70% of our GHG emissions and is the leading contributor to smog.

That's false or at least misleading.

From the National Inventory:

Transport is a large and diverse subsector, accounting for 26% of Canada's GHG emissions in 2004.... Overall, transport was the second largest emissions-producing category in 2004, contributing 190 Mt and accounting for 28% of Canada's emissions growth from 1990 to 2004.

But that number excludes emissions in the refining of oil which is necessary to create the fuel used for transport.

[gc1765]

I agree. Cars are the problem. But a car doesn't emit GHG unless you put gas in it. Someone who only drives their car once in a while is not contributing nearly as much to GHG emissions as someone who drives to work everyday.

As well as better public tramsit, more diesels and hybrids. What people drive is as important as how much they drive.

Hey that's pretty much what I just said! Right below the line that you quoted:

It would be nice if more people took public transit. The smartest move that Harper has made yet is the transit tax credit. I hope it will encourage more people to take public transit....then again maybe not, people are addicted to their cars. It doesn't help that certains areas have horrible bus service.

Hybrids will help a little, but I doubt they would help as much as public transit.

[cybercoma]

Transportation accounts for some 60-70% of our GHG emissions and is the leading contributor to smog.

That's false or at least misleading.

From the National Inventory:

Transport is a large and diverse subsector, accounting for 26% of Canada's GHG emissions in 2004.... Overall, transport was the second largest emissions-producing category in 2004, contributing 190 Mt and accounting for 28% of Canada's emissions growth from 1990 to 2004.

But that number excludes emissions in the refining of oil which is necessary to create the fuel used for transport.

Which could potentially raise it to the levels that geoffrey suggested since Alberta's main industry is oil and it's the larget GHG producer, yadda yadda, etc. etc.

[Wilber]

Anyways, higher gas prices (ie higher gas tax or "carbon tax") might not discourage people from driving (though I think it would a little bit) but that money could be used to invest in other environmentally friendly energy sources.

Gas prices have doubled in the last few years. I don't see any less traffic. The idea that a higher gas or carbon tax will be invested in "environmentally friendly energy sources" is a noble thought but the Federal government has been collecting billions in fuel taxes for years while doing little or nothing along that line. As usual, I'm sure they would find more politically expedient things to spend it on.

[August1991]

But that number excludes emissions in the refining of oil which is necessary to create the fuel used for transport.

Which could potentially raise it to the levels that geoffrey suggested since Alberta's main industry is oil and it's the larget GHG producer, yadda yadda, etc. etc.

Uh, no.

Petroleum Refining and Manufacture of Solid Fuels and Other Energy Industries25 (2004 GHG emissions, 78.6 Mt) The Petroleum Refining category includes emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels during the production of refined petroleum products and the upgrading of heavy oil and bitumen to produce synthetic crude oil.

Transport, all in (creating gasoline and then burning it), might be around 35% of all Canadian GHGs. Not insignificant.

[mikedavid00]

But that number excludes emissions in the refining of oil which is necessary to create the fuel used for transport.

Which could potentially raise it to the levels that geoffrey suggested since Alberta's main industry is oil and it's the larget GHG producer, yadda yadda, etc. etc.

Uh, no.

Petroleum Refining and Manufacture of Solid Fuels and Other Energy Industries25 (2004 GHG emissions, 78.6 Mt) The Petroleum Refining category includes emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels during the production of refined petroleum products and the upgrading of heavy oil and bitumen to produce synthetic crude oil.

Transport, all in (creating gasoline and then burning it), might be around 35% of all Canadian GHGs. Not insignificant.

The days of gas burning cars are numbered though. Can't we just wait it out?

[Canadian Blue]

Personally I use superclean fuel, I'm not sure how much it helps the environment, but even if it's a little I think it's worth it. Perhaps cutting down the taxes a little bit on fuels that burn cleaner would help the situation temporarily until Hybrids, and more energy efficient cars are being produced.