iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Canada Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Suggests Country Might Miss Goal

Reuters  |  Posted: 04/11/2012 5:18 pm Updated: 04/12/2012 10:03 am


* Emission figures signal targeted cut will be hard to hit

* Emissions grew by 0.25 pct in 2010, economy by 3.2 percent

* Government says economic recovery is the priority (Recasts lead, adds reaction, details, background)

By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA, April 11 (Reuters) - Although Canada's output of greenhouse gases was almost unchanged in 2010 from 2009, the major oil producer will find it tough to meet its 2020 emissions-cut target, government figures signaled on Wednesday.

Conservative government officials hailed the data, which showed emissions in Canada rose by just 0.25 percent in 2010 from the year before, hitting 692 megatons. The economy grew by 3.2 percent in the same period.

Canada has committed to cutting emissions to 607 megatons by 2020, a goal that critics say will be very hard to meet due to big increases in production in the oil-rich tar sands of northern Alberta. Tar sands output generates more greenhouse gases than conventional oil production.

Green activists complain the right-of-center government is ignoring the environment to focus on the needs of the oil and gas industry, and they say Ottawa has yet to produce a strategy to curb output of the harmful gases that will allow it to reach its 2020 target.

"We are still well off course for meeting our emissions target, and without a national plan we're likely to see Canada's emissions continue to grow," said P.J. Partington, a climate policy analyst at the Pembina Institute think tank.

"This challenge is especially true with the oil sands, where rapid expansion is projected to cancel out any progress being made elsewhere," he told Reuters.

Production from Alberta's tar sands is expected to nearly double to almost 4 million barrels per day by 2021.

Government officials said they were seeing good progress in the bid to reach the 2020 target - which represents a 17 percent reduction from 2005 emissions - but gave few details.

"While our continued economic recovery remains our government's top priority, today's news demonstrates that our work to balance the need for a cleaner and healthier environment while protecting jobs and growth is working," Environment Minister Peter Kent said in a statement.

The report said that since 1990, emissions have grown by 17.5 percent, while the economy has expanded by 60.5 percent.

John Bennett, executive director of the Sierra Club Canada, said the government's failure to impose a cap on industrial emissions means the 2010 figures are meaningless.

"We are reaching a tipping point," Bennett said. "Emissions must start dropping rapidly to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Where is the sense of urgency? Where are the regulations? Where are the programs to make it happen? Nowhere."

The Conservatives were heavily criticized late last year for announcing Canada will pull out of the Kyoto accord on climate change because the country could not reach the greenhouse-gas reduction target it had agreed to in the international pact.

Wednesday's report said increases in efficiency and technological improvements continue to weaken the link between economic growth and emissions.

Fossil fuel industries showed a decrease in emissions of about 5.5 megatons between 2005 and 2010, the report said, with a 17 percent drop in natural gas production being offset partly by a 48 percent increase in oil sands output. (Reporting by David Ljunggren; Editing by Peter Galloway)

FOLLOW GREEN

* Emission figures signal targeted cut will be hard to hit * Emissions grew by 0.25 pct in 2010, economy by 3.2 percent * Government says economic recovery is the priorit...
* Emission figures signal targeted cut will be hard to hit * Emissions grew by 0.25 pct in 2010, economy by 3.2 percent * Government says economic recovery is the priorit...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 135
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
10:34 PM on 04/12/2012
man-made global warming is a social science..
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rg9rts
Carpe Diem! This aint rehearsal
06:18 PM on 04/12/2012
The Canadians need to talk to the US TPGOP about courses in denial. We are experts at it.
photo
albertarick
These are questions for wise men with skinny arms
10:39 AM on 04/14/2012
I especially enjoyed the new "talking point" that oil pays for health care.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:28 PM on 04/12/2012
"Green activists complain the right-of-center government is ignoring the environment to focus on the needs of the oil and gas industry"

Well, it is a democracy. Oil and gas are where the money is

(well - oil anyway. Gas - the US technologiests pretty much destroyed the price for gas by creating a massive glut of fracked gas. All the more gas to extract the oil ... )
02:20 PM on 04/12/2012
They do not care if they miss any arbitrary goal. They use the revenue from oil and mining to fund their free medical plans. I for one would much rather prefer drilling taxing and getting free health care
photo
albertarick
These are questions for wise men with skinny arms
02:39 PM on 04/12/2012
The oil revenues, or lack thereof, has not been used to pay for health care. We have had universal health care here since long before the oil sands where developed.
02:55 PM on 04/12/2012
You had a gaping hole in your budget in the 1990s, and in order to prevent cuts in social services and the health plan, the government expanded the royalties it collects from the mining and oil industry. this and not some progressive fairy is what allows you to continue to have free health care yet not have it tear your budget apart. Those two industries are the primary drivers of government revenue. So yes you has it before, but it was bankrupting you, oil and minerals reversed - so stop looking a gift horse in the mouth
photo
yukonsam
This space reserved for self-referential irony.
02:01 PM on 04/12/2012
Dig it all up. Burn it all. Just leave detailed notes about where we went wrong for the next species that evolves sentience.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rg9rts
Carpe Diem! This aint rehearsal
06:20 PM on 04/12/2012
Based on another article in the Science section, it looks like baboons.
01:55 PM on 04/12/2012
We have a greenhouse goal?

I thought Harper burned all the greenhouses!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
north of 60
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
01:52 PM on 04/12/2012
Most Canadians outside of Toronto and Vancouver don't feel guilty about the Oil Sands at all.
It's far more important for all of us to use less oil in our daily lives than be too concerned because some of it comes from the oil sands.

Alberta has 300,000 square kilometers of boreal forest which absorbs 30 tons of carbon [110 tons CO2] per sq km per year. We've got the oil sands CO2 emissions covered, and that's just Alberta's boreal forest.

What's absorbing your urban CO2 emissions?
How many miles of highly polluting air travel do you log in a year? How big is your 'urban carbon footprint'? If you're not living an Amish lifestyle, then you're just Green Hypocrites.

Here's a simple exercise to put the oil sands issue into perspective. Using Google Earth or Google Maps [satellite mode] find any big city, then zoom out to an altitude that shows all of it. Then find the oil sands operation north of Ft Mac Alberta and zoom to the same altitude. Now honestly ask yourself which of the two has the greater environmental impact.

Yeah, and that's just one city.
02:21 PM on 04/12/2012
Plus it pays for your free health care. That's the choice, stop mining up oil sands and watch your budget explode again like in the 90s or drill and mine and enjoy the free medical care.

I've been to Canada, they really do not care about this
photo
albertarick
These are questions for wise men with skinny arms
02:46 PM on 04/12/2012
I live in Canada, and yes we do care about this, not everyone but those who are informed do. The budget explosion in the 90's had nothing to do with oil revenues. It was mostly the result of huge subsidies and grants to large corporations and poor fiscal management by the Mulroney Conservatives, NAFTA, etc... Oil has never paid for health care in Canada.
06:14 PM on 04/13/2012
You don't understand, them city folks own Alberta boreal forest .
Good points. How much C02 was produced shipping the Toronto set their french wines, starbucks fair trade coffee, chinese doodads bought on Queen Street?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
12:15 PM on 04/12/2012
"Government says economic recovery is the priority"

As it should be. I wish we had the same priority.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:34 PM on 04/12/2012
You mean you wish the right wing had the same priority instead of doing everything it can to prevent economic recovery just to regain power?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
02:06 PM on 04/12/2012
Hmm ... the right without the left is your focus? No, I wish the US, like Canada, had made economic recovery the priority. While Canada invested in jobs and energy, we invested in HCR and other priorities.
01:50 PM on 04/12/2012
Economic recovery from what, exactly?

The Canadian economy has been booming in many locations (Prairies and the West Coast) throughout the global recession. Employment remains high, home prices are stable, and Canada's sovereign debt is rated AAA. GDP slowed a bit for three quarters, but is currently posting gains. “By any conventional metric," says one analyst, "Canada’s economic performance can thus be demonstrated to have surpassed those of its peers during and subsequent to the recession.”

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/8801-canadas-remarkable-economic-recovery

If more of the wealth from natural resources left Alberta and went to the rest of the country, this would be an even bigger gain for the economy. But neo-conservative self-interest predominates in the Harper era, and if you aren't blessed with oil under your feet, that's clearly your own poor damn fault.
12:06 PM on 04/12/2012
Is this article serious ? It criticizes Canada and at the bottom is a slide show that shows Canada producing 1/10th of the U.S. and almost 1/15th of China .

Get real - where's the full page article slamming the U.S. and China . I've scanned HuffPo and I haven't found it .
01:56 PM on 04/12/2012
It's per capita emissions that matter, not gross emissions by nationality. China is ranked 78, and Canada 15 (and rising). Canada is only slightly behind the US, but with only 10% of the population.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
north of 60
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
11:39 PM on 04/12/2012
Bullfudge. It's total emissions that effect the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, NOT per-capita emissions.

To follow your 'logic' would you rather receive $100 from one person instead of 10 cents each from 10,000 people?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PlayTOE
Morals evolved due to cooperative group living
09:42 AM on 04/12/2012
The Tar sands oil extraction process is one of the things most Canadians are ashamed of ... but don't have better suggestions for improving.

We need better technology to survive.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:19 PM on 04/12/2012
We already have that technology, we have had it for century's and the Governments and large banks will not let it out... Watch this... http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_code-new_energy_technology

You should all read and watch these examples also pass it along!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PlayTOE
Morals evolved due to cooperative group living
12:57 PM on 04/12/2012
Wind ans solar are just fine power sources. We don't need to hope that someone will develop free power. (and lets not pretend that over unity is here till someone presents a device that other people can copy).
02:27 PM on 04/12/2012
Cold fusion???? How about dilithium crystals?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:29 PM on 04/12/2012
'We' need to change our collective priorities before technology has a chance to 'save' us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PlayTOE
Morals evolved due to cooperative group living
12:59 PM on 04/12/2012
Our priority should be getting the new green alternatives up and running, not on propping up the fossil fuel gluttons.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
willowtree3
Adopt a shelter animal.
08:51 AM on 04/12/2012
"Conservative" thinking.= As long as I'm working, who cares if my kids or grandkids
choke on air and water pollution? That's their problem.
Canada has as many short sighted loons in their government as we do in the gop.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rickthaluddite
What noisy cats are we
11:23 AM on 04/12/2012
My dad shares that philosophy. It's sad for me to think about the future of my 14 and 12 year old nephew and niece. Baby Boomers and (my) Generation X are mostly to blame for not encouraging and embracing greener living. The tagline on Ontario license plates used to be KEEP IT BEAUTIFUL, now YOURS TO DISCOVER conveys a different message.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
12:17 PM on 04/12/2012
"As long as I'm working, who cares if my kids or grandkids choke on air and water pollution?"

But the EPA shows that our air and water are getting cleaner by the decade. Your question has a sign error in it.

"As long as I'm working and our air and water are getting cleaner, is it a win-win for me and my kids and grandkids?"
photo
albertarick
These are questions for wise men with skinny arms
02:14 PM on 04/12/2012
That may be the case in the US. In Canada we are currently attempting to fabricate the next couple of decades of the same type of data. Its actually pretty easy. You stop testing in areas where you would suspect pollution, and when you run into pollution, cut the research that found it.
photo
golfvue3
It's all ball bearings these days.
08:44 AM on 04/12/2012
Tipping point? LMAO Al Gore.

Global warming due to CO2 is happening - but it's hardly a disaster. And he world population is not going to stop from using every last bit of fossil fuels in the next 100+ years - so we're better off just dealing with the consequences (which are generally entirely over-exagerated). Because the consequences of getting off fossil fuels will be much more of a problem in the near future than a couple degrees in temp.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
greengrl
The more you know, the less you believe.
09:34 AM on 04/12/2012
"the consequences (which are generally entirely over-exagerated)"

So what climate research have you personally conducted, how many peer reviewed articles have you actually read, and how many degrees in a climate related field do you hold?

I can answer in the affirmative for all these questions and do not in any way believe the problems are over-exaggerated. "A couple degrees in temp" is a much bigger deal than you have been lead to believe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
haddanuff
Progressives think 'We' while cons think "Me"
10:42 AM on 04/12/2012
I wonder what golf will say when the box he's living in, heats up "a couple degrees"?
02:34 PM on 04/12/2012
Any credible climate scientist can not predict the future. They run models, and none predict an Apocalypse. Everyone assumes that climate change can only be 100% negative. Nothing is ever 100% negative in science my friend. There is always silver lining. As an example, deaths from exposure could decrease (cold kills many old people). More CO2 could increase pant metabolism and help regrow deforested areas (when oxygen levels rose in the late Cretaceous period, animals bodies grew huge - 6 foot mosquito). In fact most of the truly credible science is pretty neutral (the IPCC and NASA). Yes there will be changes, some good some bad. We are a dynamic and creative species, whatever happens we will be quite fine.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Monk Monkey
Watching probability clouds precipitate
03:53 PM on 04/12/2012
Please explain this over-exageration.

Couple degrees in temperature? Oh, okay, how's that impact our oceanic ecosystems? Current flows? Regional rainfall? Marine life? Arctic and antarctic ice shelves? Sea height?

Pascal's wager is more appropriate here than it is to the consideration of God.
photo
golfvue3
It's all ball bearings these days.
07:48 AM on 04/12/2012
They don't care. Canada likes to complain about Americans, and then do everything they can to emulate us. This includes destroying the land in order to attain the level of affluence they envy. Tragic that they can't learn from our mistakes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:47 AM on 04/12/2012
you forgot the baby killing military you stand behind that invades other countries every fwe years and your complete disregard for the rest of the world. but why learn anything about anyone else when you live in the greatest country on earth right ?
11:23 AM on 04/12/2012
See, the thing is, that sort of comment is based on bitterness and emotion.

The US and Canada have forged a trade partnership that is the envy of the World. If anything, Americans care too much about the rest of the World. They should possibly leave some of these wretched countries to slaughter their own.

However, then then the ROTW screams, "Where are the Americans? Why are they not helping us?!".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
12:21 PM on 04/12/2012
Regardless, striving for a better standard of living is good. I applaud the Canadians. Plus, buying oil from Canada over the Middle East helps mitigate the need for military usage. Protecting a pipeline in N. Dakota sure beats protecting the Straight of Hormuz.
photo
farmilyman
everything is illusion
02:08 AM on 04/12/2012
It's a picture of the effects of greed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:22 PM on 04/12/2012
http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_code-new_energy_technology

Explains it all!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mudshark12
Now who are you jiving with that cosmik debris?
01:39 AM on 04/12/2012
Refining the Athabasca Tar Sands is Canada's Doom. It will produce twice as much bad as it does good. Until a way is found to SAFELY refine the synthetic oil from oil shale it's best to leave it where it is. It will always be there waiting for a break though in refining technology.

Oil sands extraction is generally held to be more environmentally damaging than conventional crude oil. It can affect the land when the bitumen is initially mined, water by its requirement of large quantities of water during separation of the oil and sand and the air due to the release of carbon dioxide and other emissions. Heavy metals such as vanadium, nickel, lead, cobalt, mercury, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, selenium, copper, manganese, iron and zinc are naturally present in oil sands and may be concentrated by the extraction process. The environmental impact caused by oil sand extraction is frequently criticized by environmental groups such as Greenpeace, Climate Reality Project, 350.org, MoveOn, League of Conservation Voters, Patagonia, Sierra Club, and Energy Action Coalition.[48][49] The European Union has indicated that it may vote to label oil sands oil as "highly polluting". Although oil sands exports to Europe are minimal, the issue has caused friction between the EU and Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

http://blog.nwf.org/2012/04/wildlife-in-peril-nine-species-in-the-tar-sands-war-zone/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
north of 60
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
01:35 PM on 04/12/2012
About 90% of the water used for oilsand extraction is recycled or brackish saline water. The other opinions stated are exaggerated and incorrect as well.

Live like the Amish and don't expect the rest of us to embrace your radical beliefs, but don't use any petroleum products in your life, or you'll be just another greenwashed hypocrite.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Monk Monkey
Watching probability clouds precipitate
04:02 PM on 04/12/2012
Nonsense. Regardless of whether or not the water used is "recycled" or "brackish," the refining process toxifies the water - basically ruins the water.

Your Amish comment is ridiculous. What's Amish about utilizing renewable sources of energy?

"Greenwashed" hypocrite - get of it. The first world system makes it extremely difficult to avoid using all oil based produts - most toothpastes, non-organic produce, shampoo, conditioner, automobile components, metal composites, etc. Any effort to reduce the amount of oil products consumed should be celebrated, not ridiculed by short-sighted primates as "fringe."

It is the people who share your perspective who will be blamed in the future, and currently by those of us aware enough to understand it is our responsibility to leave the Earth in better shape for our children and all life than how we found it.
03:00 PM on 04/12/2012
"European Union has indicated that it may vote to label oil sands oil as "highly polluting"."

Oh dear, please no. Nothing like one of Europes useless organizations 'labeling' anyone anything. This is a place that caused two of the greatest conflagrations of all time in the teens and forties. Invented genocide, colonialism, imperialism and any other ism you could dislike. And if Canada laughs them off, will they send us to the Hague??? Oh dear, nothing like an ineffectual court with no real punishment and no authority. WHO CARES what Europe says
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mudshark12
Now who are you jiving with that cosmik debris?
03:36 PM on 04/12/2012
We will see what develops.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Monk Monkey
Watching probability clouds precipitate
04:04 PM on 04/12/2012
Every governmening body on Earth cares what Europe does. Economics, big guy. It's global now.