Kyoto Exit Leaves Climate Fight Up To Provinces (PHOTOS)

Kyoto Canada Protocal Climate Change

First Posted: 01/18/12 06:31 AM ET Updated: 01/19/12 10:27 PM ET

As Canada begins the process of withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol this year, and Quebec launches the country's first cap-and-trade system regulating greenhouse gas emissions, it's clearer than ever that in the absence of national standards, the provinces are moving ahead with their own initiatives to combat climate change.

Both here and in the U.S., state- and provincial-level governments have set their own emission-reduction targets and passed regulations to help reach them.

In some cases, the targets have been too ambitious or the legislation has lacked teeth, but there have also been some real strides made toward reducing greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions.

While California is usually cited as a North American leader in taking on climate change, Canada has a few of its own climate pioneers: British Columbia's carbon tax has been praised internationally as a successful example of effective carbon pricing; Nova Scotia is the first jurisdiction in North America to regulate the electricity sector.

We take a look at which Canadian governments are doing what to reduce their carbon footprint.

Loading Slideshow...
  • Canada's Top Polluting Provinces

    As Canada begins the process of withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol this year, here's a look at the country's top polluting provinces. (Mt CO2 eq refers to megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is the standard international unit of measurement for reporting GHG emissions. It expresses all greenhouse gases emissions in terms of the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, CO2. One megatonne is equal to one million tonnes.) * Signatories to the Kyoto Protocol submit greenhouse gas emissions inventories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change annually, but the data itself lags two years behind. ** Facility-reportedemissions are those reported by large industrial facilities like fossil-fuel-powered power plants, mining An activist wears a mask depicting the face of Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, during a protest in Durban on the sidelines of the UN climate talks, on December 5, 2011. (ALEXANDER JOE/AFP/Getty Images) <em>With files from CBC</em>

  • 7. Quebec - Per capita: 10.4 tonnes CO2 equivalent

    Emissions target: 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 2009* emissions: - Total: 81.7 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 10.4 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: -1.9 per cent % of Canada's total emissions: 11.8 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 8 per cent) LEGISLATION: Cap and trade -- Quebec will be the first jurisdiction in Canada to adopt a cap and trade system for reducing emissions, effective January 2012. The first year will be a transition year in which participants are to get a feel for how the system works but are not obliged to comply with the caps. Under the system, the province establishes an overall emissions objective and then sets specific caps on individual sectors based on average emissions in that sector or on a company by company basis. Emitters whose emissions are below the cap will be able to sell emissions credits to companies whose emissions exceed the cap. Quebec will be part of the same cap-and-trade system as California since both are members of the Western Climate Initiative. Some environmental groups, including the Pembina Institute, have said the auction price for emissions credits that Quebec has set --$10 per tonne in 2013 and $15 per tonne in 2020 -- is too low to motivate significant reductions in emissions and have urged the province to raise them. Carbon tax -- Quebec was the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a carbon tax in 2007. The tax applies to about 50 fuel producers and distributors that use a large amount of hydrocarbons. The $200 million collected annually through the tax goes to fund projects that are part of the province's Climate Change Action Plan. The tax rate varies depending on the amount of carbon released during combustion: - Gasoline: 0.8 cents/litre - Diesel: 0.9 cents/litre - Propane: 0.5 cents/litre - Light heating oil: 0.96 cents/litre - Heavy heating oil: 1 cent/litre - Coke used in steel making: 1.3 cents/litre - Coal: $8/tonne Energy -- It's no accident that Quebec is one of the few provinces to have reduced its emissions from 1990 levels: 96 per cent of the province's electrical power comes from renewable sources. While hydro power is its biggest strength, it has also invested heavily in wind power and aims to develop 4,000 MW of wind-generated electricity by 2015. (Alamy)

  • 6. Ontario - Per capita: 12.6 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target: 15 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 2009* emissions: - Total: 165 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 12.6 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: -6.5 per cent % of Canada's total emissions: 23.9 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 20 per cent) LEGISLATION: Energy -- The province passed the Green Energy Act in 2009, which set the course for the province's transition to cleaner sources of energy and greater energy efficiency. It came with financial incentives for the development of wind, solar and biomass power-generation projects and created the feed-in tariff program by which producers of renewable energy are paid premium rates to supply the province's power grid. The Act also includes provisions to promote energy conservation and green construction in the public sector. Coal -- The province plans to phase out all of its coal-fired electricity generation by 2014 and replace it with wind, solar and other clean-energy sources. A total of 19 units at five coal plants will be shut; eight have been closed already. In the past decade, the province has gone from relying on coal for 27 per cent of its electricity needs to seven per cent. Cap and trade -- Ontario is part of the Western Climate Initiative and has the legislation in place to implement a cap-and-trade system but has not yet done so. In the last election, the Liberals said they were still committed to setting up the system but did not say when that might happen. Fuel -- Along with the federal regulations on renewable content, Ontario has committed to reducing carbon content in transportation fuels by 10 per cent by 2020. Emissions -- In 2009, Ontarioamended its Environmental Protection Act to allow greenhouse gas emissions to be regulated and laid the groundwork for a cap-and-trade system. As of 2010, any facility emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent has to report its emissions annually, but there are no limits on these emissions as yet. (GEOFF ROBINS/AFP/Getty Images)

  • 5. B.C. - Per capita: 14.3 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target:33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020 2009* emissions: - Total: 63.8 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 14.3 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: +28.1 per cent (2 per cent below 2007 levels) % of Canada's total emissions: 9.2 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 5 per cent) LEGISLATION: Carbon tax -- B.C. introduced a tax on fossil fuels in 2008. It started at $10/tonne and will rise by $5 a year until 2012. It is currently at $25/tonne and applies to gasoline, diesel, natural gas, heating fuel, propane and coal -- and to peat and tires when used to produce energy. Revenue raised from the tax is put toward lowering other taxes. The tax covers about 70 per cent of B.C.'s emissions. Electricity -- B.C.'s Clean Energy Act requires that 93 per cent of the province's electricity come from renewable sources and aims to make B.C. not only self-sufficient in terms of its electricity supply but also to be a net exporter of clean electricity. Some have criticized the legislation, because it reverses B.C.'s past policy of generating only enough electricity to meet the province's own needs and allows the government to exploit rivers and the environment by selling surplus power. It also mergers the generating and transmission sides of the electricity sector that past governments had taken pains to separate. This can undermine the oversight authority of the B.C. Utilities Commission, particularly its ability to reject certain hydro power projects, critics say. Coal -- B.C. has abandoned coal-fired electricity generation in favour of renewables but is still Canada's biggest exporter of coal. In 2010, it exported about 23 million tonnes. Fuel -- B.C.'s Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements Regulation has targets for reducing emissions from transportation fuels. Its overall target is to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels by 10 per cent by 2020. Carbon intensity measures the CO2 equivalent emissions of fuel per unit of energy. The regulations also stipulate that gasoline must have five per cent renewable content beginning in 2010 and diesel must have five per cent renewable content by 2012. The province is also testing a fleet of 20 fuel-cell buses that have zero tailpipe emissions. The $89.5 million federal-provincial project runs until March 2014. Public sector -- In June 2011, the province announced it had succeeding in making government operations carbon neutral, meaning that by reducing emissions and purchasing carbon offsets for reductions made in other sectors, the net contribution to the province's emissions from the public sector would be zero. Many have questioned the government's methodology in declaring itself carbon neutral, pointing out that it exempted some government-owned operations, such as BC Ferries, and didn't give credit to some institutions for reducing certain heavy-emitting activities, such as commuting. Cap and trade -- B.C. is a member of the Western Climate Initiative formed in 2007 between several U.S. states and four Canadian provinces. The members of the initiative have agreed to set a regional target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions of 15 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, which is less ambitious than the federal target Canada and the U.S. agreed to under the Copenhagen Accord; and to establish a regional cap-and-trade program. Although B.C. has the legislation in place to implement a cap-and-trade system and had initially said it would launch the program in 2012, the Liberal government under new leader Christy Clark has not committed to carrying out the plan and is currently reviewing whether a cap-and-trade model is the best way to meet the provincial target. So far, only Quebec and California have moved forward with the cap-and-trade plan. Both are to begin a trial year of operation in 2012. Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia, Canada, speaks during the World Economic Forum - India Economic Summit in Mumbai on November 14, 2011. (PUNIT PARANJPE/AFP/Getty Images)

  • 4. Manitoba - Per capita: 16.6 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target: none 2009* emissions: - Total: 20.3 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 16.6 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: +9.6 per cent % of Canada's total emissions: 3.1 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 1 per cent) LEGISLATION: Emissions -- Under the NDP government of Gary Doer, Manitoba passed the Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Actin 2008, which committed the government to reducing emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. It abandoned that target this December, after Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol -- although, with 2012 fast approaching and Manitoba's emissions nowhere near six per cent below 1990 levels, the move was largely moot. Carbon tax -- The provinceintroduced a small carbon tax of $10 a tonne of CO2 equivalent on coal-fired electricity generation in July 2011, but it only affects three companies that are large emitters of greenhouse gases. Cap and trade -- Manitoba is a member of the Western Climate Initiative but has not yet laid the legislative groundwork for setting up a cap-and-trade system in the province. Manitoba Legislature in Winnipeg. (<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jezz/">Flickr: Jezz's Photostream</a>

  • 3. Nova Scotia - 22.3 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target: 10 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 2009* emissions: - Total: 21 Mt CO2 eq. - per capita: 22.3 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: +10.5 per cent % of Canada's total emissions: 3 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 4 per cent) LEGISLATION: Electricity -- Almost 90 per cent of Nova Scotia's electrical power comes from fossil fuels, mostly coal. In 2009, the province passed regulations limiting emissions in the electricity sector. It set caps on any facility emitting more than 10,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year. Clean energy -- The province passed an Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act that sets targets for reducing emissions and increasing energy efficiency and the use of renewable fuel sources. The province aims to get 25 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015. Two Canadian bagpipers play in front of the town clock in Halifax. (Tim BREAKMEIE/AFP/Getty Images)

  • 2. Alberta - Per capita: 63.6 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target: 14 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050 2009* emissions: - Total: 234 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 63.6 tonnes CO2 eq. % difference from 1990: +36.7 per cent % of Canada's total emissions: 33.8 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 47 per cent) Alberta has also expressed its target as a 50 per cent reduction in emissions intensity below 1990 levels by 2020, which according to the Pembina Institute, translates to a reduction of 60 megatonnes in annual emissions below the business-as-usual level by 2020. Emissions intensity doesn't measure emissions in absolute terms but instead factors in GDP to measure GHG as a unit of production. This means that if production increases, emissions can increase and the province can still meet its target. Alberta's 2008 climate change strategy expresses its reduction targets as a cut in annual emissions of 50 Mt by 2020 and 200 Mt by 2050, a cut of 50 per cent below business as usual level. LEGISLATION: Emissions -- Alberta was the first province to implement regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions when in 2003 it passed the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act. That act gave the province the right to regulate emissions, require mandatory reporting of emissions from certain facilities and set an overall provincial target of reducing emissions intensity to 50 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020. In 2007, the province added the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation. Under those laws, as of March 2008, existing facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas per year had to cap their emissions intensity at 12 per cent below the average for 2003-2005. Facilities built from 2000 on have a three-year reprieve before they have to start reducing emissions intensity by two per cent a year for five years. Emitters can choose to pay a penalty for exceeding their targets of $15 for every tonne over their limit. The money goes into the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund, which as of September 2011 had collected $257 million -- from about $40 million in 2008. In 2009, the province set up a Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation to invest the fund money into "emission reduction technologies." They can also purchase credits to offset their own emissions from emitters that have already reached their reduction targets or from companies that are not subject to the regulations (i.e. those who emit less than 100,000 tonnes a year) but have voluntarily reduced emissions. Environmentalists have criticized Alberta's emissions regulations for several reasons: - Measuring emissions intensity instead of absolute emissions allows the province to keep increasing emissions. The Alberta Environmental Law Centre has said that studies have shown that the province will be able to meet its emissions intensity target of 50 per cent below 1990 levels even if absolute emissions grow by 60 to 80 per cent above 1990 levels. According to the Pembina Institute, between 1990 and 2009, Alberta's greenhouse gas emissions increased more than those of any other jurisdiction in North America. - The regulations apply only to large emitters. - The $15/tonne penalty for exceeding reduction targets is not high enough to motivate changes in behaviour. Electricity -- Small-scale producers of renewable energy can feed the provincial grid and are compensated at the retail, rather than wholesale, price for electricity. As of 2005, almost all of the electricity in government buildings comes from renewable sources like wind and biomass, but overall, renewables still make up only five per cent of the province's total generating capacity. About 45 per cent comes from coal, and 40 per cent from natural gas. Coal --About 59 per cent of the province's electricity generation is fuelled by coal. Alberta angered many environmentalists in August 2011 when it approved a new $1.7-billion coal plant at a facility near Grande Cache owned by Maxim Power. The company plans to build a 500-megawatt generating station next to its existing 150-megawatt H.R. Milner plant, which is to shut down in 2012. The Pembina Institute estimates the new plant will emit more than three million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year -- the equivalent of adding 590,000 vehicles to the road. Source: Canada's 2011 national greenhouse gas inventory submission to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Aerial view of the Suncor oil sands extraction facility near the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta on October 23, 2009. (MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images)

  • 1. Saskatchewan - Per capita: 71 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target: 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020 2009* emissions: - Total: 73.1 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 71 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: +69 per cent % of Canada's total emissions: 7.3 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 9 per cent) LEGISLATION: Emissions -- The province passed a Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Act in 2010 that allows it to regulate emissions but has not yet implemented emissions limits on facilities or required them to report their greenhouse gas emissions. Regulations to that effect are expected to be introduced in 2012, with the first caps coming into force in 2013. The province plans to set a price on carbon and have facilities that exceed the caps pay into a green technology fund similar to the one that exists in Alberta. Saskatchewan's emissions have grown more than those of any other province since 1990, increasing by 69 per cent. This is largely due to the explosive growth in the province's oil and gas sector, which accounts for 37 per cent of its total emissions. Saskatchewan is Canada's second largest producer of oil after Alberta and accounts for about 20 per cent of the country's oil production. Potash mining and the expansion of coal-fired power generation have also contributed to the growth in emissions. Coal -- About 60 per cent of Saskatchewan's electricity comes from coal-fired generation. The province has no plans to phase out coal but instead aims to retrofit existing units to include carbon capture and storage technology to reduce emissions. (<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/justaprairieboy/">Flickr: Just a Prairie Boy's photostream</a>)

  • Canada - Per capita: 20.5 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target: 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 This is the target Canada agreed to under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which laid out the broad outlines of a possible agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol once it expires in 2012. It is a smaller cut over a longer period than what Canada originally agreed to under Kyoto, which would have required Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The target mirrors the one proposed by the U.S. during the Copenhagen negotiations. After announcing on Dec. 12 that Canada will withdraw from Kyoto, Environment Minister Peter Kent said the government will stick to the Copenhagen target, even though it is not legally binding as the Kyoto target was. Canada's 2009*emissions: - Total: 690 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 20.5 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: +16.9 per cent LEGISLATION: Coal -- federal emissions limits for coal-fired power plants are to come into force in July 2015. They will limit emissions to 375 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced per year. Emitters will be able to use carbon capture and storage to meet their emissions caps. The regulation will apply to any coal-fired unit commissioned after July 1, 2015, or at the end of its useful life -- which is the lesser of 45 years or the year 2020. Some critics say this limits the effectiveness of the law since about two-thirds of Canadian coal plants won't be subject to the regulations until 2020, and nine plants won't have to comply until 2030. Some also fear that the 2015 starting date for newly commissioned plants could prompt a rush to get new coal plants online before then to avoid being subject to the regulations. Indeed, one example of this already happened in Alberta, where Maxim Power received approval in August 2011 to build a new coal plant that won't have to comply with the emissions caps. Canada has 51 coal-burning electricity plants, which account for 13 per cent of the country's greenhouse gas emissions; 33 of the plants will be at the end of their life by 2025. Fuel -- In 2010, the government passed a regulation requiring an average of five per cent renewable content in gasoline and an annual average of two per cent in diesel fuel and heating oil. It adopted fuel emissionsstandards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2011-2016 that mirror those introduced in the U.S. Cars and light trucks account for 12 per cent of Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions (and 43 per cent of transportation emissions). The transportation sector as a whole accounts for 27 per cent of overall emissions. Parliament Hill is blanketed in snow 18 December 2007 in Ottawa, Canada, (MICHEL COMTE/AFP/Getty Images)

7. Quebec - Per capita: 10.4 tonnes CO2 equivalent
6. Ontario - Per capita: 12.6 tonnes CO2 eq.
5. B.C. - Per capita: 14.3 tonnes CO2 eq.
4. Manitoba - Per capita: 16.6 tonnes CO2 eq.
3. Nova Scotia - per capita: 22.3 tonnes CO2 eq.
2. Alberta - Per capita: 63.6 tonnes CO2 eq.
1. Saskatchewan - Per capita: 71 tonnes CO2 eq.
Canada - Per capita: 20.5 tonnes CO2 eq.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA POLITICS

As Canada begins the process of withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol this year, and Quebec launches the country's first cap-and-trade system regulating greenhouse gas emissions, it's clearer than ever ...
As Canada begins the process of withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol this year, and Quebec launches the country's first cap-and-trade system regulating greenhouse gas emissions, it's clearer than ever ...
Filed by Michael Bolen  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 133
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phil Van Voorhis
06:10 PM on 01/20/2012
test
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Henk Bos
11:03 PM on 01/19/2012
For all the trolls on this thread.
The biggest poluter in Ontrio and quite possibly in Canada is none other than McNutties power plant call "Nanticoke" on the shores of Lake Erie.This facility that the Liberals suppose to moth ball back in 2007. This facility has the dubious honour as the leading spewer of toxic emissions that cause acid rain, smog, nitogen oxcide, sulpher dioxide, hydrocarbons and is the countries largest source of green house gas. Every year it pumps out 17.6 milliom tonnes of green house gas.
Of the worlds 50,000 coal fired electricty plant Nanticoke ranks 65 for it pollutant emissions, even bigger than Alberta oil sands.
So I want all my ill informed school childern to breath easy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Filthy
05:12 PM on 01/20/2012
You're playing pretty hard and fast with the truth there Henk. Nanticoke was built by Premier John Robarts Conservative government, which was at that point the eighth consecutive conservative government in Ontario. I don't think you can call it McGuinty's Power Plant as I think he was still in high school at the time.

Secondly since 2004, when the Libs came to power the carbon output at Nanticoke has gone from 17.6 million tonnes down to 5 million tonnes. Four of it's eight burners have been closed down and it's scheduled to be shut completely in 2015.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nanticoke_emissions_2004-2009.png
08:48 PM on 01/22/2012
there you go messing up a pretty good rant with those pesky facts
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cameron d
Good Guys Win
06:27 PM on 01/19/2012
So the three most populated Provinces are also the ones with the least C02 emissions. Amazingly that doesn't surprise me at all. This is not sarcasm.
05:23 PM on 01/19/2012
I hope no one who cares about this issue ever burns wood in a fire or god forbid heats a home with the stuff. Check out the emissions for wood of both C02 and particulate. Egads that is not Green. Personally I have never met an environmentalist who didn't love a fire.
06:00 PM on 01/19/2012
So Dumb.... Are you trying to actually equate a bonfire with huge industrial plants or the monstrousity that is the oil tar sands... Seriously Idiotic.

Canadians used to lead the world on this issue. Now we're lead by ppl like you.
07:07 PM on 01/19/2012
Who exactly was the leader when Canadians led on this issue? Not in my lifetime, and I am old.
With the new seat count, you might be getting used to the new natural governing party.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProgressiveCDN
A Progressive Moderate
06:23 PM on 01/19/2012
Do you just enjoy saying dumb things?
How can you compare a bonfire or even just logs in a fireplace to huge industrial plants or tar sands?? ... Ignorance really must be bliss
06:43 PM on 01/19/2012
Uh, we have 330 million folks in North America. If they all BBQ and toast some marshmallows over the fire on the same day, I'd hate to stick around. Give me the emission controlled exhaust of a Honda Fit any day. Next to no CO, NOX, or unburnt hydrocarbons. Thank god for catalytic converters. You think pollution is bad? Try living in London in the 1500's.
04:31 PM on 01/19/2012
Trees, plants and vegetation gobble up CO2...45% more than was thought.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/29/plants-gobbling-up-co2-45-more-than-thought/
03:13 PM on 01/19/2012
What a load of Crap. I think of air Pollution as smog. You know the stuff that makes it hard to breathe and takes out the old and infirm. Co2 has Zilch to do with air pollution. A Co2 rich body of air is one where the plants will thrive. Let's talk air pollution. Like the Syndney coal mines, The Supersmelter, the Coal and BBQ haze that wafts up from the Ohio valley . The Diesel particulate that makes Europe hard to take in the city.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ansdlmol
04:09 PM on 01/19/2012
There is a wealth of difference between CO2 emissions and particulate atmospheric polution. Gobal warming has been attributed to high CO2 emissions not to heavy particulate concentrations. Your impressions regarding diesel emissions is also incorrect. In Europe new diesel techknowledgy has all but eliminated the heavy polution once attributed to diesel fuel. However you are correct in that heavy duty trucks still pour out massives amounts of particulate matter here in north America and this should be corrected by mandating all future vehicle be driven by natural gas and all existing vehicles converted when at all possible. Emission control bodies shold also enforce retirement of the many old trucks responsible for clouding our skies with their heavy polution.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
10:59 PM on 01/21/2012
CO2 emissions is a very good proxy for mercury and heavy metals pollution.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phil Van Voorhis
03:11 PM on 01/19/2012
This is one huge, ugly industry! Take some time and watch the numberious YouTube videos - both for and against - on this industry. Then decide where you stand. This is about a lot more than jobs. Here are a few (the last three are pro-industry):

Tar Sands Oil Extraction - The Dirty Truth
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkwoRivP17A

About the Alberta Oil Sands
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcXdLCjzy8s

From Tar Sands to Tankers: the battle to stop Enbridge
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqQV596Qp-c

60 Minutes - The Alberta Oil Sands
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALCTOs2zakc

Keystone XL-Get the Facts
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmnoaMFZ5lY

The Story Of The Alberta Oil Sands
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBePqKw7tyk

Toxic Tar Sands -- see it to believe it
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yikj99t7J8M

60 Minutes - The Alberta Oil Sands
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALCTOs2zakc

Canada's Oil Sands - Come see for yourself (Part 1)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHGD1N-Vix4

Canada's Oil Sands - Come see for yourself (Part 2)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfl0wUXKPvo

Oil Sands Mining and Reclamation... from birth to rebirth
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbfxtey9S0c
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Filthy
05:24 PM on 01/20/2012
The environmental impact of the tar sands doesn't really impact the need for oil so what one's opinion is after watching is really quite irrelevant. I don't like garbage dumps. A compelling YouTube video about the nastiness of garbage dumps isn't even necessary to convince me. They stink. But successfully stopping the creation of one in my own back yard doesn't eliminate the need for a garbage dump, it simply moves it somewhere that I can't see it.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
11:03 PM on 01/21/2012
Wrong. Waste bio char eliminates dumps, creates heat and bio fuels, and char for burying to improve poor soils or just to be carbon negative.

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/biochar-alone-could-offset-12-of-all-human-greenhouse-gas-emissions-study.html

We don't need either garbage dumps or tar sands.

rooftop solar, offshore wind, efficiency, and waste bio char can supply all we need for a world first world life. forever, 24/7, carbon negative, no dumps, not tar sands, no nukes coal or oil.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
10:59 PM on 01/21/2012
FF, great links, saved.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Raymond Madore
02:23 PM on 01/19/2012
I've reread this article, thanks to jack lewis

once again 'per capita' ie population by province blatant propaganda

what about by province period what's the report on that???????????
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Filthy
05:27 PM on 01/20/2012
You had to reread the article to understand what per capita meant? And you characterize your inability to grasp this the first time as indicative of some sort of sinister intent by the author? Curious.
02:23 PM on 01/19/2012
It is interesting how provinces that do not have the resources like Saskatchewan and Alberta have, are so quick to point fingers. As if they would not take the same path if this stuff was in their backyard.......
Fort McMurray is commonly called the second largest city in Newfoundland, because of the enormous population of workers from that province. This town actively employs people all over Canada, where there are no jobs, but activists in other provinces still choose to separate themselves. If you drive a car or heat with gas you are part of this statistic, whether you like it or not.
photo
turkeylurky
Just keepin it real........
02:21 PM on 01/19/2012
I'm not surprised that Saskachewan is the #1 polluter.
It takes a lot of chemicals and energy to produce genuine sealskin bindings,,
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Glass Cannon
Let every eye negotiate for itself.
02:04 PM on 01/19/2012
I was going to waste that five minutes on Huffpost anyway.

But, I will say that when it's a problem, like pollution, it's Alberta's problem. When it's money, it's everyone's money. Or or it seems.
01:48 PM on 01/19/2012
As someone from SK, it's exactly who I thought it would be.
12:34 PM on 01/19/2012
2. Ontario: population: 13,119,251 total carbon: 165,302,562
3. Quebec: population: 7,856,881 total carbon: 136,440,210
5. B.C.: population: 4,479,934 total carbon: 64,063,056
7. Manitoba: population: 1,226,196 total carbon: 20,354,853
6. Nova Scotia: population: 940,397 total carbon: 20,970,853
1. Alberta: population: 3,703,979 total carbon: 235,573,064
4. Sask.: population: 1,034,974 total carbon: 73,483,154

Provincial population according to Wikipedia, multiplied by the per capita figures given in this article. I've given them numbers ranking them by total amount. As you can see, the real story is that Alberta produces WAY more total carbon than any other province. The way this article presents the facts is a prime example of how to lie with statistics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony Pepperoni
Where did all the good Republicans go?
01:04 PM on 01/19/2012
Nice work. That does make more sense since much of it is industry and not personal consumption that is creating the CO2.
01:04 PM on 01/19/2012
While your numbers are probably OK, the article is only a lie for anyone who doesn't understand what "per capita" means (not sure if they are able to even use the internet...).
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Michael Bolen
02:51 PM on 01/19/2012
The total emissions are in the captions if you wish to compare between provinces.
photo
laymancanuck
IGNORANCE has used up its quota of TOLERANCE
12:31 PM on 01/19/2012
The finger pointers seem to forget that they are all prospering because of Alta and Sask. We all agree we have a problem but blame, we all share in the bounty. The situation is not stag net, billions are going into R and D to deal with these issues. For one of the few times in history Canada's international image is tarnished. It's embarrassing but how 'bout that prosperity Eh.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony Pepperoni
Where did all the good Republicans go?
01:05 PM on 01/19/2012
Billions should go into R&D for renewable energy.
photo
laymancanuck
IGNORANCE has used up its quota of TOLERANCE
01:08 PM on 01/19/2012
Agree with you on that one, some of tech can be transferred to other industries.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Runey
religion is why we can't have nice things.
01:21 PM on 01/19/2012
I have not seen a single benefit from either province. In fact those politicians consider the other provinces "have not" provinces and refuse to share the wealth, let alone all the bad they're doing.
01:59 PM on 01/19/2012
transfer payments anyone??
photo
laymancanuck
IGNORANCE has used up its quota of TOLERANCE
02:50 PM on 01/19/2012
Because Canada is an energy exporter all Canadians benefit from greater valued loonie. Considering so much of our food, cloths and consumer goods are imported we all have a higher standard of living because of energy. You benefit in ways you are not aware of.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
verita vincera
Lies only extend suffering
12:05 PM on 01/19/2012
Vegetation and ultimately people cannot survive without C02. Plants dies oxygen decreases and generate more Heat for Humankind.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Runey
religion is why we can't have nice things.
01:22 PM on 01/19/2012
hilarious faux snooze science
Jack Canuckski
Canadian Observer of the passing scene
01:24 PM on 01/19/2012
Absolutely right. Also, we cannot live without iodine or arsenic, but when there is too much arsenic, there is a serious problem. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.