Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Canada's CO2 emissions went up while USA went down???


Recommended Posts

WTH? https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-co2-emissions.pdf. Fake biased study from a gas company? Although this one's British.

According to Wikipedia, it may be true: from 2015 to 2016, US went down (5,172,336 to 5,011,687) while Canada went up (555,401 to 675,919). Also, our emissions per capita is not that far from the US. Do note that Barrack was in power then but then so was Trudeau. In any event, there's a lot of work that needs to happen here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gnarcore said:

Cool....we're 35 million vs 330 million and have far more of a CO2 recapture from BC and Quebec alone. So while per capita we aren't great overall Canada is barely a blip on the pollution radar worldwide. 

Canada, being the gigantic land mass it is, has the lowest CO2 emissions per km2 than any other nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. The data I’ve seen suggests Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have either declined slightly or remained fairly flat since around 2000.

 

D86B3B1D-A39A-47F7-BD48-98AE91171875.png.6743ce4b5ab08cdbd055b30d8e692db4.png

Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

 

And that the oil sands are the main factor. Other sectors have seen decreases, while the increased production from the oil sands has caused a steep increase in emissions attributed to that sector.

 

DA0B4197-A508-4A6B-B2E9-89FC770F637E.thumb.png.6e7abf8c15b2b2d06c4b3c9ea499f797.png

Source: https://www.pembina.org/reports/clearing-the-air-climate-oilsands.pdf

 

Not really surprising when you consider the increased production from an oil source that’s known to be quite high in emissions.

 

50593B60-1959-456E-8BE1-3FF8657FBA91.png.21aa5dcc163a0c053cae7ad44c27d9be.png

BAA910D3-47B6-4EF4-915E-A27D39859D79.png.42f7cb69e5eb36fa9429beeaae19849b.png

Source: http://www.pembina.org/blog/real-ghg-trend-

 

On the other hand, as high as the per barrel emissions are for oil sands, they have decreased from where they were decades ago (although apparently this decreased per barrel emissions trend has reversed somewhat in recent years).

 

Not sure where the 3.4% increase in 2017 (cited in the BP study) is coming from. In the previous decade, the same BP study reports an emissions growth rate per annum of only 0.3%.

 

So 3.4% is a pretty big jump for one year (if accurate).

 

All in all though, it would seem that Canada is making a fair amount of longterm progress in reducing emissions from several sectors (since we seem to be doing OK overall), despite the increases coming from the oil sands production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gnarcore said:

Cool....we're 35 million vs 330 million and have far more of a CO2 recapture from BC and Quebec alone. So while per capita we aren't great overall Canada is barely a blip on the pollution radar worldwide. 

Moreover, the oceans contain nearly 40,000 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere has very low CO2 compared to the oceans - currently is about 700 to 720 billion tons which is also quite low in compare to many periods of recent times on earth.  Humans contribute up to about 3 percent additional load through land use and fossil fuel burning on this balance. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is small in terms of global historical fluctuations but a balance is a balance and any change needs to be evaluated.    However, perspective is important and the Canadian values when put in perspective of these massive numbers....barely a decimal point on a decimal point.    I believe this is why choosing carbon taxation in Canada over other uses for that societal government money (poverty reduction, health care etc. etc.) gets some so frustrated.  

 

What people should be interested in are solar fluctuations which dramatically impact growing conditions on earth - a small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce but we (humans) like to overstate our importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Moreover, the oceans contain nearly 40,000 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere has very low CO2 compared to the oceans - currently is about 700 to 720 billion tons which is also quite low in compare to many periods of recent times on earth.  Humans contribute up to about 3 percent additional load through land use and fossil fuel burning on this balance. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is small in terms of global historical fluctuations but a balance is a balance and any change needs to be evaluated.    However, perspective is important and the Canadian values when put in perspective of these massive numbers....barely a decimal point on a decimal point.    I believe this is why choosing carbon taxation in Canada over other uses for that societal government money (poverty reduction, health care etc. etc.) gets some so frustrated.  

 

What people should be interested in are solar fluctuations which dramatically impact growing conditions on earth - a small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce but we (humans) like to overstate our importance.

Shhhh, you aren't supposed to talk so loudly in church!

 

ydT3Cfk.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Do these numbers mean we are really (as humans) being kind of arrogant about our effect of global climate?  

All of the doomsday predictions have been overblown to the point of Chicken Little to the power of infinity.

 

The wicked politicization of this particular science is anti-human in nature, in my opinion.  Post modern hysteria through bullied consensus mongering.

 

And those on the other end of the spectrum that believe we are having no effect on the environment are just as bad.  I will say this, that we are, at best, perhaps having an effect on climate, one so small, so far, that it falls within the margin of error in calculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, xereau said:

All of the doomsday predictions have been overblown to the point of Chicken Little to the power of infinity.

 

The wicked politicization of this particular science is anti-human in nature, in my opinion.  Post modern hysteria through bullied consensus mongering.

 

And those on the other end of the spectrum that believe we are having no effect on the environment are just as bad.  I will say this, that we are, at best, perhaps having an effect on climate, one so small, so far, that it falls within the margin of error in calculation.

That settles it.  I’m trading in my electric scooter for one of the fancy gas ones!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gnarcore said:

Cool....we're 35 million vs 330 million and have far more of a CO2 recapture from BC and Quebec alone. So while per capita we aren't great overall Canada is barely a blip on the pollution radar worldwide. 

Right. Won't stop the government from taxing you to death. Don't worry though, Jugdish over there on the Indian subcontinent will make up for your emissions ten fold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Moreover, the oceans contain nearly 40,000 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere has very low CO2 compared to the oceans - currently is about 700 to 720 billion tons which is also quite low in compare to many periods of recent times on earth.  Humans contribute up to about 3 percent additional load through land use and fossil fuel burning on this balance. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is small in terms of global historical fluctuations but a balance is a balance and any change needs to be evaluated.    However, perspective is important and the Canadian values when put in perspective of these massive numbers....barely a decimal point on a decimal point.    I believe this is why choosing carbon taxation in Canada over other uses for that societal government money (poverty reduction, health care etc. etc.) gets some so frustrated.  

 

What people should be interested in are solar fluctuations which dramatically impact growing conditions on earth - a small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce but we (humans) like to overstate our importance.

Sorry but that is completely backward and just plain bad science.  The oceans are getting absolutely destroyed by massive increases in dissolved CO2 since the oceans are absorbing the vast majority of human-generated CO2.  The atmospheric levels are the tip of the iceberg in terms of human damage given the ocean's capacity to be a carbon sink.  In fact the oceans are already overloaded and have flipped from being carbon sinks to net carbon sources due to acidification but few have gotten the message because what's hidden under the sea is not much concern to us land dwellers.  Unfortunately convincing people of this has less to do with providing facts and more to do with the recipient having the background to be able to absorb those facts.  This might be a decent starting point though: https://xkcd.com/1732/

 

On the original point of Canada vs the US, the answer here is very simple:  The BP data is broadly correct.  Canada's oilsand extraction has led to increased CO2 emissions but the US has seen HUGE decreases in recent years as fracking has caused gas prices to plummet.  Coal is being phased out purely because it is too expensive as plants are either replaced to gas or converted to run on gas.  Coal is twice as dirty for generating power as gas and coal mining is worse still than fracking or drilling.  Last year Texas retired coal plants that provided 20% of the state's electricity because it's cheaper to run gas, wind and solar.  It is worth bearing in mind though that Canada is already 80% powered by renewable energy and nuclear so cutting our emissions without reducing oilsands extraction is WAY harder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, xereau said:

Shhhh, you aren't supposed to talk so loudly in church!

 

ydT3Cfk.jpg

In denier world:

 

There has been no global warming since 1995

 

is the same as:

 

There was a warming trend, but not statistically significant at the 95% significance level.

 

 

Quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#

 

 

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Be careful when you live in the denier blogosphere.  They tend to be populated by people who don't understand science, don't bother to read and comprehend the original source material, or BOTH.

 

BTW it only took a quick google search to debunk the first claim on that meme.  Want to wager that the other info is B.S.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, xereau said:

All of the doomsday predictions have been overblown to the point of Chicken Little to the power of infinity.

 

The wicked politicization of this particular science is anti-human in nature, in my opinion.  Post modern hysteria through bullied consensus mongering.

 

And those on the other end of the spectrum that believe we are having no effect on the environment are just as bad.  I will say this, that we are, at best, perhaps having an effect on climate, one so small, so far, that it falls within the margin of error in calculation.

My parents told me they grew up when acid rain and the ph of the Great Lakes was beyond a 'point of no return' and "scientific consensus" was for no more fish or vegetation in/around Lake Ontario by about 2010 and that it would take 200 to 300 years to return to "normal" if all industry was shut down immediately.   Things are not perfect but around Sudbury, for instance, massive recovery.   It hasn't been doomsday - still not ideal and pollution improvements will be required but the "consensus" projection never did happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

My parents told me they grew up when acid rain and the ph of the Great Lakes was beyond a 'point of no return' and "scientific consensus" was for no more fish or vegetation in/around Lake Ontario by about 2010 and that it would take 200 to 300 years to return to "normal" if all industry was shut down immediately.   Things are not perfect but around Sudbury, for instance, massive recovery.   It hasn't been doomsday - still not ideal and pollution improvements will be required but the "consensus" projection never did happen.

Was the same priests in white lab coats that were screaming Ice Age.  Maurice Strong and crowd.  They have an alternative motive, and it is not saving the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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