 | The Round-Up: April 30th 2007 | The Oil Drum: Canada | Peak Oil, Carrying Capacity and Overshoot: Population, the Elephant in the Room |  |
15 comments on Conservative Party plan for Greenhouse Gases in Canada
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Remember that Canada's Kyoto target is actually 6% less than the 599 MT because that was the agreed commitment.
The target is meant to be calculated as the average over the period 2008-2012, so the commitment period begins in just eight months. Canada clearly can't meet it now. The Chretien and Martin governments are at least as much to blame for the failure as the Harper government because it was primarily they who squandered the lead time needed for planning.
I think road transportation has become such a focus for energy conservation because it's the largest single category in the inventory. It's worth keeping in mind that liquid fuels account for only 55% of Canada's GHG emissions. Gas produces all but 3% of the balance. Canada could realise some important savings there and will have to in the long term, as supplies decline.
As an aside, international aviation and international shipping are missing from the inventory because countries couldn't agree on who should count them. So when I take a flight from Vancouver to Manchester, using Canadian aviation fuel, neither Canada nor the UK has to count the emissions.
'gas produces all but 3% of the balance'
Could you give us a cite on that?
Consider:
- release of methane from agricultural activity
- use of coal (primarily in Alberta but also Ontario) to generate electricity -- this I would think is at least 10% of Canadian greenhouse gas production
- general use of biofuels (wood for heat!)
Canada is 'proof' against peak oil (if and when it occurs) in the sense that Canada has effectively a permanent resource in terms of tar sands (but NAFTA and other considerations mean that it will have oil, but at the prevailing world price, which could be very high). However tar sands are fairly devastating from a greenhouse gas point of view (although i am told this problem can be solved, if there is the political will to solve it).
Good catch. I should have said that "It's worth keeping in mind that liquid fuels account for only 55% of Canada's GHG emissions from fossil fuel combustion." So agricultural methane and biomass combustion are not included in those figures.
Emissions from electricity and heat generation in Alberta were 12.5 Mt and in Ontario 8.5 Mt, combining for a contribution to Canada's total of 2.6%.
The source for the fossil fuel data is a 2006 Environment Canada table: Common Reporting Format for the provision of inventory information by Annex 1 Parties to the UNFCC: Table 1A(a). This information may not be on their website and I can send you a copy offline if you email me.