Spike in GHG emissions between 1990 and 2005

The jump, however, would have been much higher StatsCan reports, if significant efforts hadn't been made during that time to increase energy efficiency and reduce the emissions that fuel global warming.

Here are some key statistics from the 2007 and 2008 edition of StatsCan's Human Activity and the Environment, released to coincide with Earth Day:

1990: Canada releases 596 megatonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
2005: Canada releases 747 megatonnes of carbon dioxide

"One megatonne is equal to one million tonnes. To put this in perspective, driving a mid-size car about 5,000 kilometres results in about one tonne of emissions," the study says.

Interestingly, the amount of GHGs released "per unit of economic activity" actually decreased in that same period by 18 per cent.

However, Canada's population increased by 17 per cent and energy use ballooned by 23 per cent in that time.

On a global scale, Canada is lagging in terms of its environmental track record, the study suggests, with just over 23 tonnes of GHGs emitted per person in 2005 -- an increase of 8 per cent since 1990.

"Canada has about 0.5 per cent of the world's population, but contributes about 2 per cent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions," the study says.

"This puts Canadians among the highest per capita emitters, largely as a result of the size of the country, the low density of the population, the high energy demands imposed by the climate, our resource-based economy, and the volume of goods we export."

The rate puts Canada in the same category as the U.S. in terms of emissions per person, but significantly behind Germany at 12.1 tonnes, the U.K. at 10.9, Japan at 10.6 and France at 9.2 tonnes.

By 2005, energy production and use accounted for more than 80 per cent of Canada's emissions.

Transportation activities accounted for 27 per cent of all Canadian emissions in that same year.

The amount of greenhouse gas emitted during the production of energy for export was greater than the GHGs emitted during the production of any other exported commodity -- increasing from 17 per cent to 27 per cent of all export production emissions over the 15-year period.

Climate change

The study also compares rising GHG emissions with rising temperatures in Canada, and shows a 1.4-degree Celsius increase in annual temperatures between 1948 and 2007, with the highest temperature increases in the Yukon, North British Columbia Mountains region and the Mackenzie District of the Northwest Territories.

"Glaciers in the Rocky Mountains are receding and thinning, resulting in decreases in flow during the critical driest months of the year in some rivers. Of the 853 glaciers inventoried in 1975 in the North and South Saskatchewan River basins, 328 have disappeared completely," the report states.

"The total glacial area of the North Saskatchewan River Basin declined 22 per cent from 1975 to 1998, while glacial cover decreased 36 per cent in the South Saskatchewan River Basin."

Comments are now closed for this story

Kevin Aubie
said

Ian, you are correct about "The Great Global Warming Swindle being debunked, however it should be pointed out that it was Britian's "Channel four" that produced it, a TV channel well known for it's controversial documentaries. These guys will say anything for an audience and have a reputation for producing junk documentaries. In this case, we will never know how much the oil companies paid them, though I'm sure it was substantial.

Robin the Hood
said

Les J
I guess you must have that false statement saved on your PC... its the same one you used in an earlier ctv article.. its a complete lie,.. the Hadley models are forecasting accelerated global warming and every decade since 1970 has seen a greater than 0.3 aver. centigrade temp increase worldwide.

MRC
said

So nice to hear Canadians like Annoyed Citizen & Joe make their comments and that they can be heard.

All of our modern problems are about growth rates & OVERPOPULATION and our international monetary system that is based on this growth.

Pollution emissions should be measured per square kilometre, not per person; otherwise, countries like China get low numbers and look good because there is over 1.3 BILLON PEOPLE IN CHINA (let's not forget to mention their neighbours, India, as well!)

As always, just sit back, think for yourself, and be open to BOTH SIDES of the story.

To all you "Global-Warmers" out there, realize this: leaders of the world like George W. Bush love you because you're distracted.

Kevin Aubie
said

In response to annoyed citizen. You are in a poor position to tell people to get informed. If you had done any research, rather than being a propaganda pawn, you would know it's a well established fact that the so-called great documentary "The great Global Warming Swindle" has been completely and utterly debunked as a piece of oil company propaganda full of inaccuracies. It was fully funded by oil companies. Who do you think has your best interest in mind, the oil co's or the top scientists around the world? Who do you get your nutrition info from? Local fast food outlets? It is you that should inform yourself. I would suggest you and others like you watch the documentaries "Proof The Great Global Warming Was A Scam", "The Denial Machine", and "Global Dimming", to name only a few, all made by reputable investigative reporters, and available on the net via p2p or streaming video sites. You'd be best to educate yourself now to avoid future embarrassment and ridicule.

Ian
said

Annoyed Citizen, that BBC documentary has been thoroughly debunked.

Les J
said

The average global temperature, according to to UAH, RSS and Hadley, have all DECLINED since 1998. Even NASA-GISS shows NO WARMING.

If it starts warming up again, I'll worry.

But with the AO and PDO entering a negative phase, and solar cycle 24 delayed, and global ice levels at record levels; its unlikely we will see any warming soon.

Rod
said

I continue to wonder why there is anyone left who doesn't get how global warming works. Certain molocules, such as CO2 and methane are opaque to infrared radiation. This is a demonstrable fact. Light falling on the earth from the sun is absorbed and re-emitted in the infrared range. But CO2 prevents it from penetrating the atmosphere and being broadcast out into space. Some of the CO2 warming is necessary to prevent an ice age, and levels of CO2 have risen and fallen, over hundreds of thousands of years, due to natural causes. The amount in the atmosphere up to the 1800's was trapped in a cycle, being taken up by plants, burned and returned to the atmosphere, then being re-absorbed. All of the oil and coal in the earth's crust was once in the atmosphere, but is now trapped in these deposits. By burning fossil fuels, we are dumping back CO2 that is not part of the cycle faster than the earth can reabsorb it, in part due to our burning huge tracts of forest, increasing CO2 burden, while reducing the power of the environment to take it out of the atmosphere. So the excess CO2 stays in our environment, where it continues to absorb more and more infrared radiation. This has been measured. Burning fossil fuels is not much different from lighting your barbeque in your house, then wondering why you can't breathe.This is basic science, and was predicted over 150 years ago when it was realized that CO2 had this property. Global warming deniers often argue that there is not enough CO2 to increase temperature, but scientific measurements done in hundred of studies have proven them wrong. The causitive factor is known, and the correlative studies show that CO2 is directly related to our burning of fossil fuels. The case is closed, the verdict is in, and we are guilty. And by the way, the "vibrations" from radio and TV do not "shake up" the dust particles in the atmosphere, because they operate on different frequencies.

GP
said

All the prediction models/forecasts are coming in on the low side...time to deal with this.

Time for a national tax neutral carbon tax

Annoyed Citizen
said

To respond to Kevin Aubie's comment... The theory of anthropogenic (man made) global warming is based on mathematical models. They are often very inaccurate because they leave out many crucial variables. For example, they do not take into consideration solar winds which have a much higher correlation with the increase of earth's temperature than does the increase in so called GHG. If you overlap the temperature increase graph with the increase in CO2 graph using the same scale, you will notice that the temperature increase preceds the increase in CO2. This refutes the HYPOTHESIS that CO2 increases earth's temperature. People should get informed!! There is good scientific evidence that demonstrates that anthropogenic global warming is not true. A great documentary by the BBC called The Great Global Warming Swindle brings forward many good SCIENTIFIC evidence that shows that anthropogenic global warming is not true. For example, while the temperature on earth's surface has increased slightly, the temperature in earth's atmosphere has remained relatively stable. Anyone who understands the principle of a greenhouse also understand that this causes a huge hole in the anthropogenic global warming theory. The media and politician (by no means experts on the subject) CHOOSES only to report on research that support anthropogenic global warming theory. If the media chose to report on both sides of the argument, then the population would be better informed and less bias towards on side of the argument.

AC in Ottawa
said

Hi,

I'm not a real global warming believer either. But I not here to debate that.
I prefer to think of it as Global Pollution. And if managing GHG also reduces overall pollution, I'm all for it.

Joe
said

It's all about population. A dollar spent on reducing population is multiple more times better for the penvironment.

"Per capita emissions' is irrelevent to a better Nature. It's total emissions that is the physical impact.

Emission rates based on sq. kilometers is actually what meaures impact or not. Countries like Denmark, the UK, Belgium, etc. are the big emitters.

Robin da Hood
said

The selfish, devious way countries - particularly Canada - are disregarding the issue of Global warming is a disgrace and condemns future generations to an environmentally impoverished planet. So far all the conferences, protocols and official lip service have only been public relations stunts and this report reveals no major polluter is really serious about doing what the vast scientific consensus states needs to be done to avert dangerous climate change. Even the rule of law - which ratification of Kyoto is - is ignored when it comes to the economy. The baby boom "me, myself and I" generation will go down in history as the most vilified and shameful of any that preceded it. I feel embarrassed to be part of such a careless, arrogant society. We had the opportunity to do something but were too self centered and greedy to do anything! Steven Hawkins was correct when he said the jury is still out concerning the existence of intelligence on Planet Earth.

Kevin Aubie
said

I agree with DD. There are many other reasons to reduce ghg emissions other than global warming. Google ocean acidification for one very good reason. As for DM in NB, who is among the 14 % of the population that still believes man made GHG's are irrelevant to global warming. It's to be expected that you can't convince 100% of the people of anything, regardless of how much scientific evidence there is. Many people for example continued to believe the world was flat for hundreds of years after it was scientifically proven beyond a doubt. In addition we now have billion dollar oil co. propaganda campaigns working hard to dispute any link between man made GHG and Global warming. To deny the link is tantamount to saying you don't believe in science. I think we're pretty much to the point where opinions like this are completely disregarded by all intelligent clear thinking people.

duck
said

I wonder????? I would agree we are dumping more stuff into the air and expecting the earth to absorb our polution. However I wonder if we are keeping a lot of the polution airborne by our use of the airwaves to send signals and sound waves. Does the constant vibration of our airways keep particles suspended in the air and not allow the dust (polution) to settle to the earth and be cleaned up naturally. Perhaps that would be a good research project for an aspiring scientist.

DM in NB
said

The places that they are comparing Canada to all are densely populated with mass-transit rail systems. Canada is the second largest country in the world, with vast distances between major populated areas. The ONLY way to get goods between locations is either drive it or fly it (some does also go by rail, but the amount is small compared to other transport). Northern locations REQUIRE goods to be flown there. So yes, of course emissions will be higher here in comparison to there, to suggest otherwise would be idiotic.

Since "manmade GHGs" are irrelevant to global warming (or "climate change") anyway, why is this being spun as making it look like we're not doing well? The part of this that stands out less than the headline is energy use decreased 23 percent, which is fantastic, and shows that the initiatives from the government are working to promote efficiency.

DD
said

One doesn't need to believe in global warming to help reduce GHG. Reducing them reduces pollution and the related respiratory diseases including childhood asthma rates which are very high. Reducing them reduces dependence on foreign oil and the associated conflicts. It also saves you money.

Installing CFL light bulbs, programmable thermostats and adding insulation can save an individual hundreds of dollars a year (Tstats in my home reduced my power bill $300 a year). Buying a more fuel efficient car reduces the amount of gas you buy. Simple rain barrels can reduce the amount of water necessary to water flowers and lawns.

It doesn't take much effort. That's all that is required...a little effort...and a sense of social responsibility. Sadly, all too often, both are lacking.

Related Websites

StatsCan on climate change

Pick your location

Top Stories -

News Sections

News Programs

Features

Browse: