Jump to content

Canada's Greenhouse Guilty


Recommended Posts

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.

Here's the thing then...

If transportation creates 35% of GHG emissions and we want to reduce our GHG output by 50%, eliminating transportation (and the refining of petroleum) would still only reduce it by 35%. Assuming demand for transportation will only increase as population increases, this is highly unreasonable (y'know, if asking that all transportation being eliminated wasn't unreasonable enough for you).

Let's face it, reducing GHG to a level that's going to make any sort of difference in the environment is damn near impossible. Not to mention the fact that Global Warming, to the effect that they're expecting in the next 100 years, would actually benefit Canada by creating longer growing seasons, more useable land, etc.

Environmental policy is nothing more than a political game played on the public. Yeah, GHG are a problem, but I don't expect any political party to fix the situation because I don't think they can. We're wasting valuable resources trying to lower GHG when they could be going towards helping when environment change affects us. (read: repairing levees in New Orleans, moving populations from coastal areas as sea levels rise, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Do you think the production of those cars is any cleaner? The vehicles still need oil for a lubricant. Hybrids still use some amount of petrol, which has to be refined. Hybrids also have severely toxic battery packs that will surely be disposed of in an irresponsible manner in the future.

It's just like those compact fluorescent spiral bulbs they sell at the hardware stores now. Sure they use less hydro, but who's going to dispose of them properly? Those bulbs contain small amounts of mercury. With the thousands being sold around the country, I can promise you there will be a mercury problem in the future.

Think cancer is going to get better? Guess again.

Sure, GHG emissions may drop...but I'm almost certain the environment will be much more 'toxic' and polluted in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

# - 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.

Syncrude Canada, Suncor Energy Inc. Oil Sands. Actaully both oil sand companies and combined looks like the 3rd largest in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Do you think the production of those cars is any cleaner?

What a hypocrate. You know the computer you are typing on uses something 7 times the water to produce than a car to be produced? It also creates a huge amount of green house gases to be produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

There we go again making up numbers as we go. Transportation actually accounts for 25% of GHG emissions vs 19% for oil and gas production (that's higher in 2006 and probably exceeding transportation at this point).

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.ns...060901xe06.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on who you ask:

In 2003, the transportation sector accounted for approximately 28 percent of secondary energy use in Canada and about 34 percent of related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/Publications/statis...tion.cfm?attr=0

Hmm. In fact, I'll suggest that no one has a freakin idea who uses what or even how much GHG is being emitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Do you think the production of those cars is any cleaner?

What a hypocrate. You know the computer you are typing on uses something 7 times the water to produce than a car to be produced? It also creates a huge amount of green house gases to be produced.

It's spelled hypocrite and what gives you the faintest indication that I care how much GHG I produce?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Good question, I've wondered that myself. Maybe they keep track of how much fuel people fill up with and then assume it's consumed in the same province? I wonder if they keep track of CO2 that is exhaled? I guess not, though techincally I suppose one could figure out how much food people consume and calculate it from that. Just a guess though, I have no clue what I'm talking about.

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.

Gas taxes should also help pay for our maintaining our roads etc... I'd be curious to know how much revenue is generated by gas taxes and how much money is used to build roads etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gas taxes should also help pay for our maintaining our roads etc... I'd be curious to know how much revenue is generated by gas taxes and how much money is used to build roads etc.

The Feds collect around a billion a year in gas taxes from BC. A big bitch was that only about 4% was returned to the province. If they spent the rest on infrastructure is sure as heck wasn't in BC. Perhaps some of it went to build the Confederation Bridge to a Province that has 1/5 the population of Vancouver Island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Feds collect around a billion a year in gas taxes from BC. A big bitch was that only about 4% was returned to the province. If they spent the rest on infrastructure is sure as heck wasn't in BC. Perhaps some of it went to build the Confederation Bridge to a Province that has 1/5 the population of Vancouver Island.

A single project can cost billions. The twinning of the port-mann bridge for example is supposed to cost about a billion and a half. I imagine that, including all of BC, that would add up to quite a lot of money:

We noted that the project would cost in the range of $1.4 billion - about $125 million per year for

debt repayment and maintenance over the next 35 years. We also noted that funding for a project

of this scale is not currently in the provincial budget.

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. In fact, I'll suggest that no one has a freakin idea who uses what or even how much GHG is being emitted.
Where the numbers for Kyoto get really messy is in so-called sinks. Trees, for example, absorb CO2. But then when trees burn or die and decompose, the CO2 absorbed gets released back into the atmosphere. But some CO2 remains trapped in the earth. (The fossil fuels we are now burning were CO2 trapped in the earth millions of years ago.) So, how do we calculate this? And given the size of Canada's forests, this is no small matter. Suffice to say that Canadian negotiators were not all that good when this was calculated for the Kyoto Accord.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. In fact, I'll suggest that no one has a freakin idea who uses what or even how much GHG is being emitted.
Where the numbers for Kyoto get really messy is in so-called sinks. Trees, for example, absorb CO2. But then when trees burn or die and decompose, the CO2 absorbed gets released back into the atmosphere. But some CO2 remains trapped in the earth. (The fossil fuels we are now burning were CO2 trapped in the earth millions of years ago.) So, how do we calculate this? And given the size of Canada's forests, this is no small matter. Suffice to say that Canadian negotiators were not all that good when this was calculated for the Kyoto Accord.

Can we plant more trees and not care about CO2 emissions then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we plant more trees and not care about CO2 emissions then?

Where would we put them? Most of Canada is forested (well the parts that can support forests) except for in cities & developed areas. I don't think it's going to matter much anyways. Even if all of Canada was forested, I doubt it would come close to removing as much CO2 as we produce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Feds collect around a billion a year in gas taxes from BC. A big bitch was that only about 4% was returned to the province. If they spent the rest on infrastructure is sure as heck wasn't in BC. Perhaps some of it went to build the Confederation Bridge to a Province that has 1/5 the population of Vancouver Island.

A single project can cost billions. The twinning of the port-mann bridge for example is supposed to cost about a billion and a half. I imagine that, including all of BC, that would add up to quite a lot of money:

We noted that the project would cost in the range of $1.4 billion - about $125 million per year for

debt repayment and maintenance over the next 35 years. We also noted that funding for a project

of this scale is not currently in the provincial budget.

Link

There has only been one crossing added to the Fraser River since the 1950's and that was in the mid eighties. This to provide access to the country's largest port. One and a half years fuel tax sent by BC to the Federal Government would pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the two-lane undivided highway that links Fort McMurray with the rest of the world? Most of the country's new jobs and economy rely on a highway that is essientially not even fit to be a residential road. Many die each year.

I think we need some gas tax returned too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Good question, I've wondered that myself. Maybe they keep track of how much fuel people fill up with and then assume it's consumed in the same province? I wonder if they keep track of CO2 that is exhaled? I guess not, though techincally I suppose one could figure out how much food people consume and calculate it from that. Just a guess though, I have no clue what I'm talking about.

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.

Gas taxes should also help pay for our maintaining our roads etc... I'd be curious to know how much revenue is generated by gas taxes and how much money is used to build roads etc.

Don't quote me on this, I could be wrong since I'm only making assumptions, but I think they're only determining anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Most times they'll just call it greenhouse effect for short, which makes things a little confusing. What they're determining is probably the amount of greenhouse gas that has been produced due to human activities above and beyond simply existing. Although population growth (both in humans and other animal species) would create more CO2, presumably the forrests and oceans would absorb those amounts of CO2. So, when they determine how much GHG is produced by each province, I would go on the assumption they're strictly talking about that which is actually 'produced' by us as opposed to what we would naturally emit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. In fact, I'll suggest that no one has a freakin idea who uses what or even how much GHG is being emitted.
Where the numbers for Kyoto get really messy is in so-called sinks. Trees, for example, absorb CO2. But then when trees burn or die and decompose, the CO2 absorbed gets released back into the atmosphere. But some CO2 remains trapped in the earth. (The fossil fuels we are now burning were CO2 trapped in the earth millions of years ago.) So, how do we calculate this? And given the size of Canada's forests, this is no small matter. Suffice to say that Canadian negotiators were not all that good when this was calculated for the Kyoto Accord.

Not to mention, more trees are being planted now than ever due to strict regulations in forestry. When you purchase a lumber or paper product that is FSC certified, in essence you're ordering more trees to be planted. With the excess CO2 in the atmosphere trees have more air to 'breathe' to assist with photosynthesis.

This isn't even half the problem, although kudos to you for recognizing this issue in determining the CO2 problem. We must also consider how this effects the global mean temperature. Ceteris paribus, CO2 should cause the temperature to rise, but all other things are not equal. There are other factors that play into temperature. There are things like tropospheric aerosol, particles in the atmosphere, burning organic carbon (as opposed to fossil fuel), land use changes (how heat is reflected) and so on that scientists have yet been able to determine their overall effect in cooling the earth.

How often are forecasters correct to the exact degree as close as one week into the future? Very rarely. Now we're talking about a fraction of a degree change over the next 100 years. There are literally hundreds of factors that play together to create temperature, and as a rule the southern hemisphere is cooling, where the northern is warming. These two conditions have been averaged together to determine the effect.

So, although CO2, with all things being equal, should increase the average global temperature that doesn't necessarily mean the temperature will increase. The catastrophic effects that are foreseen by anthropogenic global warming are only due to the rise in temperature; therefore, without knowing precisely what the rise in temperature will be, we cannot, with any amount of certainty, predict catastrophic events of the future.

Dumping billions of dollars into reducing GHG is a 'better safe than sorry' approach that will cost other areas of serious concern to lose out on those dollars wasted on greenhouse endeavours. Feed the homeless, educate people and fix healthcare, these are only a fraction of things the money could be better spent on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BC and Qubec run almost entirly on Hydro power. Why the fuck would they need wind they both export engery they have so much.

Not so in BC which is now a net importer of power. There hasn't been a major hydro project in BC for over 40 years. There is only one more possible major hydro project which is the Site C proposal on the Peace and the environmentalist opposition to any more major dams is powerful. All sorts of other options are being looked into, gas, coal, wind etc., about the only exception being nuclear which is not PC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I don't have a problem with alberta cowbows driving pickups. What irritates me is all those "urban cowbows" and soccer moms in Vancouver and Toronto who need big, powerful all wheel drive SUVs to drive back and forth on the paved roads to work. We're talking about people who have never and will never go off road, and never put anything in the back but groceries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...