 | 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
May I quibble slightly with your numbers?
Using your numbers as quoted... 3 years at 2% and 5 years at 1%.
2004 754
2005 2% >> 769
2006 2% >> 784
2007 2% >> 800
2008 1% >> 808
2009 1% >> 816
2010 1% >> 824
2011 1% >> 832
2012 1% >> 841
So I went back and checked the original numbers 754/599 over 14 years >> 1.258 >> 25.8% increase which annualised/compounded is approx 1.65% pa.
Redoing the numbers:
2004 754
2005 1.65% >> 766
2006 1.65% >> 779
2007 1.65% >> 791
2008 1% >> 800
2009 1% >> 808
2010 1% >> 816
2011 1% >> 824
2012 1% >> 832
Closer to your 2007 figure but still bigger than your 2012 result. Where does the 1% come from? Is it fixed/quoted or a guesstimate? It would have to be 0.75% annual for next 5 years to reach the lower result of 820.
I notice that the largest category is “All Others” at 29%. Is this where manufacturing and (non-oil/gas) industry are placed? Are there any other significant sub-sets included under “All Others?”
Antoinetta III
A lot of the data is out of date as the tar sands has grown so fast that the percentages are out of whack... Last I checked, home heating accounted for roughly a third of total domestic GHGs. The Sierra Club seems to agree.
The use of "Others" is really strange when you consider the massive amount of heat it takes to make those massive open concept houses on the arctic plains even a little bit comfortable. I used to live in one. The solution my parents had to making the almost completely glass encased rear of the house warm in the cold dark winter was... Install another furnace.
Here's a different organization of the same GHG source data for 2004, the most recent publicly available in Canada.
Transportation - 24% (rail and marine are minor components)
Other industry - 20% (includes petroleum refining at 4%)
Electricity generation - 17% (3/4 from coal-fired)
Fossil fuel production - 16% (includes pipelines)
Commercial and residential sectors - 11%
Agriculture and forestry - 8% (excludes off-road transport)
Waste management - 4% (mostly methane from landfills)
The largest single component of "other industry" is manufacturing.
I'd be surprised if home heating was such a small proportion (gas, and wood).
Home and commercial A/C would be buried in the 'electricity' sector. Given how little of Canadian electricity is produced from coal, it's striking what a large chunk of GHGs it produces.
There's a bit of a myth about the magnitude of heating emissions in Canada. GHG emissions from the residential sector in 2004 were 43 MT CO2eq (5.7% of Canada's total), primarily related to space and water heating. According to EC, this figure does not include biomass combustion, however, so it represents primarily consumption of distillate and NG. The inventory lumps the use of wood for residential heating together with emissions from forest fires. In any case, I imagine wood combustion is a small fraction of residential heating.
I agree that home and commercial AC is buried in electricity production, as is the growing use of heat pumps, where the electricity comes from non-renewables.