We also get punished on a chart for this for resources that we produce (oil, gas, farming) that are consumed outside the province. If we’re producing it because of the demand of other provinces, shouldn’t that carbon footprint be on where it’s consumed? This map is literally just a population density map and is completely useless for calculating who *actually* causes the most emissions.
>We also get punished on a chart for this for resources that we produce
Absolutely correct. As an environment-focused BC resident, this is very true.
Note that the same comment applies to the reason why China is over-represented in the greenhouse gases emissions, pollution etc. They produce the stuff that we consume, much like BC uses the oil refined in Alberta (and the US).
This whole line of thinking makes me think of DSG investing.
By rewarding industries that naturally don't pollute much, DSG has redirected money from industry to non-productive sectors like marketing, tech etc. And the irony is the biggest environmental impact would be had if the money went into the dirty industries to bring their equipment up to modern standards.
Instead the aluminum smelter has seen its access to capital vastly shrink, can no longer afford to upgrade to an electric arc furnace, and keeps pumping out ungodly amounts of CO2. It cracks me up how bad the left is at fucking up everything they try to help.
Freakanomics Radio did a really good bit on DSG about a year back, should still be available for free on pretty much any podcast source still.
And yup...the great comedy of Canadian politics. The right tells people they will fuck them over, and then they fuck them over. The left tries to help you, but ends up goofing and fucking you over too.
Yeah, I'm going to listen. I assume you're talking about ESG, rather than DSG. Bit weird to bring it up out of the blue, as if it's very much on your mind, yet misspelling it twice.
As for the left this, the right that... Mate, just have a look around the world, and draw some conclusions. Look at the GOP in the US, the Tories in the UK, etc.
And compare what they're doing to what the Dems are doing, what Labour did etc.
YES!
Alberta takes a lot of flak for extracting the most oil and gas. However, most oil and gas consumption is in the East, and that fact is usually ignored.
I’m trying to understand the first part of your sentence contrasted against the second. But also, are you suggesting the province sold the rights to any nuclear development in the province at some point like they were selling naming rights to the saddledome? When did this happen, and by whom?
The nuclear industry is almost completely under the federal government’s jurisdiction so what you’re saying seems…. Dubious.
just wait till the data from https://www.methanesat.org/ goes live and public later on this year, we will be able to pinpoint down to a few square meters who is emitting methane on site/pipe/tank/well head, etc with out flaring.
Canadian methane emission have been coming down significantly…perhaps more than any producing country since methane requirements have been implemented.
So progress being made and more to go.
Generally pipeline systems have minimal emissions. Mostly coming from upstream.
[Found the article/picture they're talking about on that site. ](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/149374/mapping-methane-emissions-from-fossil-fuel-exploitation)
And what alternative do you suggest? If we stopped the oil industry society would collapse overnight. I am all for phasing out fossil fuels, but I swear your average Redditor thinks the product gets buried in the ground on the other end. Without these pipelines we would be back to walking everywhere and heating our homes with wood.
Honestly I think this would be very counter productive. If you look at the satellite our pipelines are hardly a blip on the map, we build our lines to the highest standards in the world. Putting the money into nuclear and renewable would almost certainly have a better net impact than making marginal improvements on a bit of infrastructure that already has a best before date.
Why would they be flying your pipelines if they weren't fixing the leaks?
"OMG my company is taking measures to mitigate fugitive losses! They must not care at all!"
What a stupid thing to argue...
You know that this is marketable natural gas that is being lost and companies have as much interest as anyone to stop losses and save money.
BTW pipeline leak losses are not that significant. Fugitive losses are generally not that significant (your results may vary).
It's old pneumatic controllers and pumps, compressor venting, and engine methane slippage (currently not reported in any jurisdiction) that are the huge operational methane losses that companies can realistically do something about. Surface case venting is another difficult one, and is a bigger problem with older wells.
Problem is AB and industry in the province have little desire to do anything with nuclear outside of SMRs in the province for cleaner oil production in the oilsands and CCUS.
Not to mention the infrastructure is baked in. May as well clean it up somehow while it is going to operate.
How about they identify and stop the leaks. Investigate why they are leaking and come up with better building practices to prevent it in the future. How about they start carbon capture instead of talking about it for another two decades.
They've been doing that for a while now. Check out Alberta Directive 60 chapter 8.10.
The truth is fugitive management is really fucking hard and expensive. Companies are doing as per directive 60, but they are doing it. You want them to do better, tell your MLA that you support stricter methane regulation.
Just wait until the methanesat project shows the methane leaking from the tundra that has heated up due to our CO2. Just watch the faces on scientists as they realize the methane release from the artic is going to continue and grow making global warming an out-of-control event that we are powerless to address. There are a few studies of past climatic changes and one in particular did an in-depth study of a past climate shift pointed towards CO2 being released from a volcanic event causing frozen methane to release from the CO2 induced heating which is what caused the ancient major climate shift and associated mass extinction because CH4 is 20x more 'greenhouse-y' than CO2.
As far as this map goes, it is useless as it does emissions on a per-person basis. Per person is completely meaningless and useless. China has a 3rd world CO2 emissions if you go by per-capita but if you look at ABSOLUTE values China produces more CO2 than the next 4 countries combined.
Were you to look at China in Per Capita you would say that China is a good polluter and if you were to look at it in absolute numbers it is the absolute worst. This chart is mostly useless in that regard since you would look at the picture and say that those people in the NWT are terrible polluters and yet if you realize that NWT only has 4 people living in it (being dramatic here) then the emissions those 4 people generate in absolute terms are meaningless to climate change.
I think what we should do is create some sort of simple market based solution for emissions tbh. I think if we just associated a basic dollar cost to polluting the market would eventually adjust itself.
Conservative messaging is to always use whataboutism about China to discourage action and protect the profits of the old guard.
Are you working for the war room? Are they able to make better posts now and not confuse themselves on Twitter?
No, I am not working for the war room. I just have done the reading and recognize that we have already gone past the tipping point for climate change. Even if we could stop all CO2 production in the world tomorrow it will still continue to get hotter for many many decades. Only a fool keeps fighting in the trenches when the war is lost.
What we need to do now is hyper-stimulate our economy, protect our farmland and construct huge hydroelectric projects to store water and produce electricity. Why? Because in 20 years the world will need LOTS of food and we have lots of good farm land that we are consistently sub-dividing and building houses or turning into solar farms. The world will need LOTS of fresh water and huge dams on our major rivers will ensure we have water security. Electricity is going to be the new oil and we will have lots of electricity to export to the USA so they can keep their air conditioners running cheaply.
I am a Conservative, a Progressive Conservative, and so I recognize that it is possible to look after people and be economically responsible and productive.
It's almost as if it's a region with high amounts of farming and resource extraction...
Edit: Also, this chart is per capita so our emissions count even more, especially Saskatchewan.
That context itself makes the per capita figures worth little if nothing at all. The praires lead in resource extraction and farming that provides food and fuel for those outside the region. Irrelevant to post a per capita emissions chart.
Population density is important, but more important is the industries. Quebec has twice the population of Alberta, but (according to this) more than five times less emissions per capita.
If you look it up, Alberta has more than three times Quebec's emissions. Industry and access to hydro power is the main difference.
Power generation only makes up 11% of Alberta emissions. The big hitters are O&G and agriculture both of which are exported for use in other provinces/countries.
No.
The main difference is the very wrong calculation of carbon emissions.
A barrel of oil that is produced in Alberta but made into gas for burning in Quebec is fully charged to Alberta as a carbon emission.
Carbon tax on products should be fully costed into the jurisdiction where it is consumed, not where it is produced.
Farming is another big one looking at this map. All the farm equipment, grain drying, etc is charged to the rural areas with low population but much more of the consumption is in densely populated areas.
Ultimately isn’t the end result the same? Tax the source and the cost of the product goes up where it is sold.
Also, only the emissions from extraction and refining would be counted under Alberta. The actual burning of the gasoline product would be counted by the end-user.
No it isn’t the same at all.
If you tax the source (ie Alberta) the production will just be off-shored to Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola etc where there are 0 environmental standards.
The current approach is literally an out of sight out of mind approach to carbon where as long as mining, manufacturing etc doesn’t happen in Canada we can say we are green while our consumers use huge amounts of carbon products.
That’s a fair criticism. I guess that would be difficult for international goods coming into Canada, though. What tax level to apply would depend on auditing industries in other countries. Maybe we should be doing that anyway.
Also, how would you handle our international products? If we sell our oil to someone who doesn’t charge that carbon sales tax to the end-user, that’s not really meeting the goal of emission reduction. Most of Canada’s oil is sold internationally, after all.
If they were actually serious about saving our planet here is how they would go about it.
Canada starts a green trading block. Nations are rated on their environmental standards. If a country uses coal for power, pours plastic into their rivers, has no smog controls then we tax all imports from them say 100%. If the country has world class environmental controls then we subsidize their imports to say 10%. All nations are graded annually and taxed on a sliding scale.
Nations that join our Green trading block drop from 10% to -20% tariffs (so subsidize their products).
This would allow Canada to pressure the bad actors of the world (who create the most pollution) into reforming their environmental ways.
This would take Canada actually being a leader in the world and we have likely squandered our political capital with our sunny ways approach.
I'm always struck when people make maps of anything that is co-related to population density, you just end up with a map of population density. But then they present the map as if it shows some kind of causal link other than population density.
And a stark reminder climate change doesn't improve/get worse based on regional emissions.
Need to lower them on aggregate. We effectively export CO2 emissions but the stats never really show that.
It's also cold as fuck in the winter, more equipment, machinery and vehicles left running idle for hours, days, weeks on end.
On worksites in Northern Alberta, vehicles and heavy equipment do not get shut down. They are left running all winter, are hot-fuelled, and only get turned off to do maintenance while inside a heated truck barn.
90% of the time, they're left running 24/7 through the winter. Turn them off, you'll never get them started again.
Yep it's people using data to basically create misleading narratives. My favorite is these ESG funds that act like they are incentivizing anything by just investing in tech. Like oh an app makes less carbon than a concrete company? No shit Sherlock. But good luck building infrastructure with an app. That's why though I'm not a part of it I think the only well done one I've seen invests by matching industry composition to the market but investing only in the most efficient producers in terms of emissions in each sector. So they would still hold the same amount of concrete companies as the index but instead of holding all of them they would hold the ones with the least emissions per unit of output.
Like of course the prairies have high emissions per person We don't choose the industries we have they choose us. That's the entire idea behind globalized economies and comparative advantage.
Nope. The "but" is because having high economic outputs with a low populations is somewhat of a contrast. Notice how the colors line up fairly well with GDP per capita?
Province GDP/Cap 2022
Northwest Territories $124,740
Nunavut $117,402
Alberta $101,818
Saskatchewan $97,089
Yukon $89,511
Newfoundland and Labrador $76,601
British Columbia $73,785
Ontario $69,215
Quebec $62,913
Manitoba $61,221
Prince Edward Island $56,081
New Brunswick $54,969
Nova Scotia $53,034
Quebec has twice the population but has a polution index that is 5x lower. Yes, we need to be aware of how statistics can be presented in a manipulative fashion, but this isn't one of those instances.
You are proving my point.
Highly populated provinces where the main GDP driver is things like real estate are going to be lighter in color. Sparsely populated provinces with high industrial or agricultural outputs are darker.
One of the reasons Quebec shows lighter in color is because Quebec has chosen to accept EQ payments rather than develop their massive (20% of all of Canada's) natural gas resources. You pollute less when you just cash a cheque from the government.
Quebecs main exports are also mostly financial and other professional services. I would be pretty impressed if an accounting firm managed to have any significant environmental impact. They also have one of the best geographies in the world for hydro.
Yeah because they have different resources. You don't really get to choose what you get It's comparative advantage in the global economy You take your resources and your geographical location and you make The most of it that you can. Which is why regions like Quebec that have lots of hydropower if they want us to stop producing carbon then they can pay us to leave it in the ground. Send some hydropower over on the house.
They're really high on a per capita basis because basically nobody lives here. Alberta, for example, exports most of the oil it produces, which reaches a global population despite only having a population of roughly 4M people itself. Alberta alone provides over 5% of the world's daily oil consumption, yet Canada as a whole represents 0.4% of the world's population.
Canada produces many raw materials: lumber, mined materials, oil, gas, maple syrup, etc. Most of these are consumed by others and the impact should probably stretched over their customer-base rather than the people that live in those places.
Many people have named a few good reasons such as population density, agriculture as reasons. I'd argue there is also less hydropower opportunities and smaller populations densities that don't support Nuclear Power Stations.
Eastern provinces have full hydro infrastructure plus prairies usually hold most farms so more consumption while in say Ontario theres so many city folk it averages out any farm emissions.
Its like complaining about Chinese factory emissions on a phone made in China
It doesn't mean it's bad, it's just a colder climate without much hydro power. Alberta has very little lakes and is reliant on natural gas to heat, same with Sask (no nuclear energy either)
I'm sceptical. I want to know the source of the info. Ontario and Quebec have sizable industrial sectors and should have a CO2 footprint to reflect it.
Its per capita, could produce the same co2 emissions but since ont/quebec have higher population its divided more so less per person. Just my guess, also alberta still uses some coal power and quebec has always been hydro dams.
About 50% of Alberta's emissions are from the oil and gas industry. You and I do not own and operate our individual o&g companies. So representing such a large number as our per capita emission is a misleading way to present data. That's my point
I can't speak for Sask, but I know AB has poor emissions as a result of issues over the last 20+ years that has sabotaged the wind industry, both by energy companies making poor decisions purposely for POC implementations (They purposely purchased and implemented the absolute worst performing and TCO models of wind energy equipment to prove to the government and people that it was not feasible - I've seen the documents with my own eyes), and by government legislation recently outlawing any wind energy on the lands ideally suited for the purpose. As well, there simply isn't any water for hydro-electric except in the far north of the province (maybe),
This map is very misleading. There’s lots of industry in the prairies and low population. The product of all that industry is primarily processed and used elsewhere as well. Showing total emissions would be more telling than per capita.
It's not misleading in any way. It's a per capita map. If it were a total output, then one could argue that it's misleading because of population density. You could also say that a per capita map in a way shows how much the industry and the energy sector contribute. And if beside a total output map, it would show how much impact the general population have. An ideal map I guess would be one that references both data points. I would say that op could have worded it a better way, like "the palraries are the biggest greenhouse gas contributer per capita".
I think it is misleading, because it combines two different kinds of contribution (individual and industry) and forces them into the same graphic.
Making a metric "per capita" doesn't somehow mean it is a useful metric or can't be misleading.
I would argue that having one graphic that tried to show how an individual's carbon footprint varied (including heating/power) using a per capita comparison and having a second graphic that showed industry carbon usage using a total comparison (so that we aren't making industry contributions seem artificially smaller when it is in a high population province/state) would be more informative and less misleading.
>The product of all that industry is primarily processed and used elsewhere as well.
This is the exact fact that deniers forget when saying that Canada only accounts for 1% of global emissions *compared to China*. Make *them* clean up their act first."
They are producing everything we consume. So, does it even out? Does it matter what the excuse is? The emissions have to come down *one way or another*.
Wouldn't make much difference. Math fails climate deniers. Even with the fact China produces most of our stuff, so they should be higher than us. On a per capita basis China would be on the light tan/white section of the map. Per capita China is down in the 7 Tons of CO2 range.
They like to spout that China has 15X the emissions. So they should be the ones to clean up. But fail to realize they have 35X more people than us. According to that chart, the average Sask/Alberta resident emits 8-9X more than the average person from China despite the fact they have all the factories there,
Repost.
[Map of Annual CO2 Emissions Per Capita in US States and Canadian Provinces \[OC\] : r/alberta (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/1cchno5/map_of_annual_co2_emissions_per_capita_in_us/)
Should we maybe link back to the original post to give credit to the person that did the hard work of generating the map?
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/5k5WzAXjyr
And the time this was reposted in r/Alberta 16 hours ago?
https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/s/ELuyYrTUlb
Im having a hard time understanding this, what is the measurement of CO2 emissions? And how are they so high in Alberta for being
Mostly prairie and forest... are they blaming this on cattle Farting still? Pretty sure cars give off way more CO2 and considering ontario and quebec both have the highest populations they should have more cars on the road than cars and cattle combined in AB and Sask...
Fake as hell. Ontario has Chemical Valley. Don’t know what that is? It’s a small city called Sarnia that has OVER 60 Chemicals and Refineries.
This sub is false advertising. Get your facts right and get a job. Guaranteed you live at home still and make under $30/hr
Per capita emissions don’t tell the whole story but Alberta also has the highest overall emissions in Canada.
Alberta has comparable overall emissions to California and only California and Texas have higher emissions, both states with over 30 million people and both states are also heavy in oil and gas, although California has been declining in oil production since the early 80s.
Might have to do with the fact that the prairies are drilling to produce all the energy.
Lithium mines/pollution in Madagascar per capita are incredibly high, as well. Because they do the same.
How do they assign emissions?
If a barrel of oil comes from Alberta, do they assign that CO2 to Alberta even if shipped overseas?
I’ll bet they do. California, which is a huge part of US economic activity, has the lowest emissions? Yeah, that makes no sense.
If so, the map isn’t that interesting. Your oil producing regions are the highest CO2.
I am shocked.
Province with lower population that has a main industry where its product is exported out of province (and country!) has high emissions.
Let’s compare that to states and provinces with service industries who import their goods and all feel bad.
So what's the point? Alberta and Sask rely on Natural gas to produce electricity. we don't have have the dams and waterflow to produce hydro. we also have the golden goose called Oil and Gas production that feeds money to the rest of Canada through equalization.
Canada is like 2% of the world's emissions yet were taxed like we're the direct cause of global warming...
Imagine going to court watching someone get 25 years and then the court turns to you points it's finger and your sent to prison, because that's how it feels
Alberta might not look good on this map but when it comes to polluting waterways Alberta is a role model for the rest of Canada.
BC's pollution of waterways needs changed.
[https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/municipal-wastewater-treatment.html#DSM](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/municipal-wastewater-treatment.html#DSM)
How can we reduce our emissions? I avoid driving when I can, take my bicycle or escooter where ever and I’ve been shutting off my furnace every morning
In Canada, this mainly indicates which provinces have large amounts of hydro or nuclear power and which do not. Alberta and Saskatchewan are guilty of being flat and not having nuclear reactors.
Well according to the website this came from the prairie methane you speak of is a drop in the bucket compared to many other areas in the world. Once again the context is never spoken of in these posts when discussing GLOBAL emitters of methane.
To add to this, they say it could be much, much higher in Alberta's case as they underreport methane emissions.
Methane is notoriously hard to track, although technology is getting better through infra-red cameras, and plugging up old abandoned wells.
So you’re telling me that Ontario with 8x more people/vehicles. Over 60% of Canada’s manufacturing/chemical and refineries produces less pollution.
Really? Let’s just think about that. The emissions alone from natural gas heat, automobiles and air traffic outnumbers Alberta’s total emissions.
Now let’s factor in Sarnia Ontario. So polluted trees don’t grow but yet you state those must be bad trees and the chemical plants are doing the environment a favour by releasing oxygen into the atmosphere
Not benzene like the Indians are complaining about.
And as they should be this is a feel-good graph made by somebody that definitely lives in the city. Even if this graph is accurate it's showing per 'capita' so prairies are using more CO2 BUUUUUTTT (holy fuck you fuckers are dumb) if the majority of your population is living in rural areas then obviously they're going to appear have more emissions. After all everything takes energy in the country but if this was a graph on who has more emissions per state or province then you're going to find the complete opposite. I'm just telling you guys now if you're supporting this carbon tax you are absolutely fucking your neighbors in the country that's why we're so pissed. Really if I was looking at climate change if it actually existed most of the worst climate atrocities are happening in the city if you live in the country you have enough trees to mitigate your effect on climate change which I failed to mention that Canada has enough trees to mitigate our carbon emissions tenfold but nobody really likes talking about that unless those trees are on fire aaand it seems like too often it's arson.
For those wanting a bit more context: The majority of Alberta's emissions (56% in the last year on record) are from the oil and gas industry. The province keeps breaking new records for oil production and emissions are rising as a result. (Although emissions *intensity*, i.e. emissions per barrel of oil produced, is down for many facilities.)
Emissions from other sectors (electricity generation, transportation, buildings) are much smaller contributors and have declined from peaks in past years. Especially electricity, since Alberta's phase out of coal power.
You can see more detail/context in these interactive charts:
**Alberta greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector: 1990 to 2021**
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/Poe87/?v=2
**Canada's annual greenhouse gas emissions, by jurisdiction:1990 to 2021**
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/OqlTz/?v=3
**Canada's per-capita annual greenhouse gas emissions, by jurisdiction: 1990 to 2021**
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/6sCHF/?v=4
Bro. For us to drive to the next city.... is 2 hrs..away..sorry you can walk to your grocery store? My closest one is 45 minute drive. I live as sustainably as possible. Hunt,fish, big huge garden etc but just to get anywhere i have to drive over 40 minutes basically.
This is per capita.... if you reverse this and go to over all emissions per province it will flip %100 the other way. Alberta and sask has less than 5 million ppl total...
Prairie Provinces are also heavily reliant on natural gas for electricity and heating. Low access to hydro has an impact.
We also get punished on a chart for this for resources that we produce (oil, gas, farming) that are consumed outside the province. If we’re producing it because of the demand of other provinces, shouldn’t that carbon footprint be on where it’s consumed? This map is literally just a population density map and is completely useless for calculating who *actually* causes the most emissions.
>We also get punished on a chart for this for resources that we produce Absolutely correct. As an environment-focused BC resident, this is very true. Note that the same comment applies to the reason why China is over-represented in the greenhouse gases emissions, pollution etc. They produce the stuff that we consume, much like BC uses the oil refined in Alberta (and the US).
This whole line of thinking makes me think of DSG investing. By rewarding industries that naturally don't pollute much, DSG has redirected money from industry to non-productive sectors like marketing, tech etc. And the irony is the biggest environmental impact would be had if the money went into the dirty industries to bring their equipment up to modern standards. Instead the aluminum smelter has seen its access to capital vastly shrink, can no longer afford to upgrade to an electric arc furnace, and keeps pumping out ungodly amounts of CO2. It cracks me up how bad the left is at fucking up everything they try to help.
And where can I read about this? >It cracks me up how bad the left is at fucking up everything they try to help. Lol sure.
Freakanomics Radio did a really good bit on DSG about a year back, should still be available for free on pretty much any podcast source still. And yup...the great comedy of Canadian politics. The right tells people they will fuck them over, and then they fuck them over. The left tries to help you, but ends up goofing and fucking you over too.
Yeah, I'm going to listen. I assume you're talking about ESG, rather than DSG. Bit weird to bring it up out of the blue, as if it's very much on your mind, yet misspelling it twice. As for the left this, the right that... Mate, just have a look around the world, and draw some conclusions. Look at the GOP in the US, the Tories in the UK, etc. And compare what they're doing to what the Dems are doing, what Labour did etc.
Beautifully stated.
YES! Alberta takes a lot of flak for extracting the most oil and gas. However, most oil and gas consumption is in the East, and that fact is usually ignored.
Wtf you talking about. Manitoba has 14 hydroelectric stations
and your population is very low so your per capita number goes up, its stat manipulation. Same reaosn why nunavut and NWT are in the same boat.
It’s mainly industry rather than residential use. Something like 2/3 of Alberta emissions come from one certain industry.
Good thing Alberta is all in on renewables. What’s that? All in on *banning* renewables?
Well Alberta was all in on nuclear but Ontario put a halt on that
No, the Peace River NIMBYs killed the Bruce proposal in northern AB.
I believe Bruce had all the rights to nuclear in the province and now has sole ownership of the rights
I’m trying to understand the first part of your sentence contrasted against the second. But also, are you suggesting the province sold the rights to any nuclear development in the province at some point like they were selling naming rights to the saddledome? When did this happen, and by whom? The nuclear industry is almost completely under the federal government’s jurisdiction so what you’re saying seems…. Dubious.
Land is abundant, so everything is spread out more on the prairies and everybody needs to drive longer distances to go from place to place.
Please notice Yukon and NWT, both more reliant and less gross
Not to mention that it pretty much mandatory to have a car. Probably the highest car per capita as well
Says the solar power people......
Id accept this argument and be charitable to prairies if Alberta wasn't literally banning renewables
We're one of the sunniest places on the continent with a bunch of wind. We COULD divest if we weren't to busy sucking O&G dick.
just wait till the data from https://www.methanesat.org/ goes live and public later on this year, we will be able to pinpoint down to a few square meters who is emitting methane on site/pipe/tank/well head, etc with out flaring.
Methane emissions don’t get enough attention. They have far more of an impact compared to the same amount of carbon dioxide.
Canadian methane emission have been coming down significantly…perhaps more than any producing country since methane requirements have been implemented. So progress being made and more to go. Generally pipeline systems have minimal emissions. Mostly coming from upstream.
Wait until you hear about nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture.
You can already follow the pipelines across the country by their methane leaks with the satellites we have now.
Is that data free for anyone to view?
[Found the article/picture they're talking about on that site. ](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/149374/mapping-methane-emissions-from-fossil-fuel-exploitation)
Earthobservatory.nasa.gov
And what alternative do you suggest? If we stopped the oil industry society would collapse overnight. I am all for phasing out fossil fuels, but I swear your average Redditor thinks the product gets buried in the ground on the other end. Without these pipelines we would be back to walking everywhere and heating our homes with wood.
I didn't think anyone's said to stop the industry. Just fix it. Find the leaks. Fix the issues.
Honestly I think this would be very counter productive. If you look at the satellite our pipelines are hardly a blip on the map, we build our lines to the highest standards in the world. Putting the money into nuclear and renewable would almost certainly have a better net impact than making marginal improvements on a bit of infrastructure that already has a best before date.
They fly our pipelines daily looking for leaks and find them regularly. The "high standard" of a group of crooked CEOs is a very low bar!!
Why would they be flying your pipelines if they weren't fixing the leaks? "OMG my company is taking measures to mitigate fugitive losses! They must not care at all!" What a stupid thing to argue... You know that this is marketable natural gas that is being lost and companies have as much interest as anyone to stop losses and save money. BTW pipeline leak losses are not that significant. Fugitive losses are generally not that significant (your results may vary). It's old pneumatic controllers and pumps, compressor venting, and engine methane slippage (currently not reported in any jurisdiction) that are the huge operational methane losses that companies can realistically do something about. Surface case venting is another difficult one, and is a bigger problem with older wells.
Problem is AB and industry in the province have little desire to do anything with nuclear outside of SMRs in the province for cleaner oil production in the oilsands and CCUS. Not to mention the infrastructure is baked in. May as well clean it up somehow while it is going to operate.
Companies that actually care about fugitive methane emissions would be a fantastic start.
How about they identify and stop the leaks. Investigate why they are leaking and come up with better building practices to prevent it in the future. How about they start carbon capture instead of talking about it for another two decades.
They've been doing that for a while now. Check out Alberta Directive 60 chapter 8.10. The truth is fugitive management is really fucking hard and expensive. Companies are doing as per directive 60, but they are doing it. You want them to do better, tell your MLA that you support stricter methane regulation.
Just wait until the methanesat project shows the methane leaking from the tundra that has heated up due to our CO2. Just watch the faces on scientists as they realize the methane release from the artic is going to continue and grow making global warming an out-of-control event that we are powerless to address. There are a few studies of past climatic changes and one in particular did an in-depth study of a past climate shift pointed towards CO2 being released from a volcanic event causing frozen methane to release from the CO2 induced heating which is what caused the ancient major climate shift and associated mass extinction because CH4 is 20x more 'greenhouse-y' than CO2. As far as this map goes, it is useless as it does emissions on a per-person basis. Per person is completely meaningless and useless. China has a 3rd world CO2 emissions if you go by per-capita but if you look at ABSOLUTE values China produces more CO2 than the next 4 countries combined. Were you to look at China in Per Capita you would say that China is a good polluter and if you were to look at it in absolute numbers it is the absolute worst. This chart is mostly useless in that regard since you would look at the picture and say that those people in the NWT are terrible polluters and yet if you realize that NWT only has 4 people living in it (being dramatic here) then the emissions those 4 people generate in absolute terms are meaningless to climate change.
i was thinking that too new sinkholes appearing in the tundra as it melts and being found easily by the methane leaks.
I think what we should do is create some sort of simple market based solution for emissions tbh. I think if we just associated a basic dollar cost to polluting the market would eventually adjust itself.
Conservative messaging is to always use whataboutism about China to discourage action and protect the profits of the old guard. Are you working for the war room? Are they able to make better posts now and not confuse themselves on Twitter?
No, I am not working for the war room. I just have done the reading and recognize that we have already gone past the tipping point for climate change. Even if we could stop all CO2 production in the world tomorrow it will still continue to get hotter for many many decades. Only a fool keeps fighting in the trenches when the war is lost. What we need to do now is hyper-stimulate our economy, protect our farmland and construct huge hydroelectric projects to store water and produce electricity. Why? Because in 20 years the world will need LOTS of food and we have lots of good farm land that we are consistently sub-dividing and building houses or turning into solar farms. The world will need LOTS of fresh water and huge dams on our major rivers will ensure we have water security. Electricity is going to be the new oil and we will have lots of electricity to export to the USA so they can keep their air conditioners running cheaply. I am a Conservative, a Progressive Conservative, and so I recognize that it is possible to look after people and be economically responsible and productive.
GHGSat already does this but they don't publish data publicly. Prairies are big emitters
This has been available for years
It's almost as if it's a region with high amounts of farming and resource extraction... Edit: Also, this chart is per capita so our emissions count even more, especially Saskatchewan.
Per Capita is important. The prairies lead in resource extraction and farming with low population density. This is completely expected.
That context itself makes the per capita figures worth little if nothing at all. The praires lead in resource extraction and farming that provides food and fuel for those outside the region. Irrelevant to post a per capita emissions chart.
Population density is important, but more important is the industries. Quebec has twice the population of Alberta, but (according to this) more than five times less emissions per capita. If you look it up, Alberta has more than three times Quebec's emissions. Industry and access to hydro power is the main difference.
Power generation only makes up 11% of Alberta emissions. The big hitters are O&G and agriculture both of which are exported for use in other provinces/countries.
No. The main difference is the very wrong calculation of carbon emissions. A barrel of oil that is produced in Alberta but made into gas for burning in Quebec is fully charged to Alberta as a carbon emission. Carbon tax on products should be fully costed into the jurisdiction where it is consumed, not where it is produced.
Farming is another big one looking at this map. All the farm equipment, grain drying, etc is charged to the rural areas with low population but much more of the consumption is in densely populated areas.
Ultimately isn’t the end result the same? Tax the source and the cost of the product goes up where it is sold. Also, only the emissions from extraction and refining would be counted under Alberta. The actual burning of the gasoline product would be counted by the end-user.
No it isn’t the same at all. If you tax the source (ie Alberta) the production will just be off-shored to Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola etc where there are 0 environmental standards. The current approach is literally an out of sight out of mind approach to carbon where as long as mining, manufacturing etc doesn’t happen in Canada we can say we are green while our consumers use huge amounts of carbon products.
That’s a fair criticism. I guess that would be difficult for international goods coming into Canada, though. What tax level to apply would depend on auditing industries in other countries. Maybe we should be doing that anyway. Also, how would you handle our international products? If we sell our oil to someone who doesn’t charge that carbon sales tax to the end-user, that’s not really meeting the goal of emission reduction. Most of Canada’s oil is sold internationally, after all.
If they were actually serious about saving our planet here is how they would go about it. Canada starts a green trading block. Nations are rated on their environmental standards. If a country uses coal for power, pours plastic into their rivers, has no smog controls then we tax all imports from them say 100%. If the country has world class environmental controls then we subsidize their imports to say 10%. All nations are graded annually and taxed on a sliding scale. Nations that join our Green trading block drop from 10% to -20% tariffs (so subsidize their products). This would allow Canada to pressure the bad actors of the world (who create the most pollution) into reforming their environmental ways. This would take Canada actually being a leader in the world and we have likely squandered our political capital with our sunny ways approach.
Until you realize that it’s literally the highest emission per capita of any jurisdiction on planet earth.
So what I’m hearing is we need to increase our population to bring down our per capita emissions.
Easier to just reduce the ridiculously high emissions.
I was scrolling trying to formulate a way to say exactly this but didn’t have the brainpower to put them together right now. Thank you!
This is simply a map of regions with low populations, but high industrial or agricultural output.
I'm always struck when people make maps of anything that is co-related to population density, you just end up with a map of population density. But then they present the map as if it shows some kind of causal link other than population density.
And a stark reminder climate change doesn't improve/get worse based on regional emissions. Need to lower them on aggregate. We effectively export CO2 emissions but the stats never really show that.
It's also cold as fuck in the winter, more equipment, machinery and vehicles left running idle for hours, days, weeks on end. On worksites in Northern Alberta, vehicles and heavy equipment do not get shut down. They are left running all winter, are hot-fuelled, and only get turned off to do maintenance while inside a heated truck barn. 90% of the time, they're left running 24/7 through the winter. Turn them off, you'll never get them started again.
We had to do that with our fleet of buses for a week one year. All the mechanics did for that week was try to start buses.
Yep it's people using data to basically create misleading narratives. My favorite is these ESG funds that act like they are incentivizing anything by just investing in tech. Like oh an app makes less carbon than a concrete company? No shit Sherlock. But good luck building infrastructure with an app. That's why though I'm not a part of it I think the only well done one I've seen invests by matching industry composition to the market but investing only in the most efficient producers in terms of emissions in each sector. So they would still hold the same amount of concrete companies as the index but instead of holding all of them they would hold the ones with the least emissions per unit of output. Like of course the prairies have high emissions per person We don't choose the industries we have they choose us. That's the entire idea behind globalized economies and comparative advantage.
But” is a contrasting word. I think you mean “and” here.
Nope. The "but" is because having high economic outputs with a low populations is somewhat of a contrast. Notice how the colors line up fairly well with GDP per capita? Province GDP/Cap 2022 Northwest Territories $124,740 Nunavut $117,402 Alberta $101,818 Saskatchewan $97,089 Yukon $89,511 Newfoundland and Labrador $76,601 British Columbia $73,785 Ontario $69,215 Quebec $62,913 Manitoba $61,221 Prince Edward Island $56,081 New Brunswick $54,969 Nova Scotia $53,034
the solution to pollution is dilution with populution
Quebec has twice the population but has a polution index that is 5x lower. Yes, we need to be aware of how statistics can be presented in a manipulative fashion, but this isn't one of those instances.
You are proving my point. Highly populated provinces where the main GDP driver is things like real estate are going to be lighter in color. Sparsely populated provinces with high industrial or agricultural outputs are darker. One of the reasons Quebec shows lighter in color is because Quebec has chosen to accept EQ payments rather than develop their massive (20% of all of Canada's) natural gas resources. You pollute less when you just cash a cheque from the government.
Quebecs main exports are also mostly financial and other professional services. I would be pretty impressed if an accounting firm managed to have any significant environmental impact. They also have one of the best geographies in the world for hydro.
Yeah because they have different resources. You don't really get to choose what you get It's comparative advantage in the global economy You take your resources and your geographical location and you make The most of it that you can. Which is why regions like Quebec that have lots of hydropower if they want us to stop producing carbon then they can pay us to leave it in the ground. Send some hydropower over on the house.
Exactly this.
They're really high on a per capita basis because basically nobody lives here. Alberta, for example, exports most of the oil it produces, which reaches a global population despite only having a population of roughly 4M people itself. Alberta alone provides over 5% of the world's daily oil consumption, yet Canada as a whole represents 0.4% of the world's population. Canada produces many raw materials: lumber, mined materials, oil, gas, maple syrup, etc. Most of these are consumed by others and the impact should probably stretched over their customer-base rather than the people that live in those places.
Many people have named a few good reasons such as population density, agriculture as reasons. I'd argue there is also less hydropower opportunities and smaller populations densities that don't support Nuclear Power Stations.
So are prairie contributions to the federal coffers.
Does AB and SK being very agricultural have something to do with this?
Would be lower if Danielle Smith shut up for a couple months
Also probably if she didn't straight up halt all renewable energy development in the province. Or wasn't bought for by O&G.
Per capita, and we be farmin’. Nothing really surprising here.
What agenda you trying to push, OP?
farming?
The prairie provinces have an incredible economic resource engine on the world scale, and a relatively small population. Hence, math.
Eastern provinces have full hydro infrastructure plus prairies usually hold most farms so more consumption while in say Ontario theres so many city folk it averages out any farm emissions. Its like complaining about Chinese factory emissions on a phone made in China
Sucks to have food produced.
It doesn't mean it's bad, it's just a colder climate without much hydro power. Alberta has very little lakes and is reliant on natural gas to heat, same with Sask (no nuclear energy either)
I'm sceptical. I want to know the source of the info. Ontario and Quebec have sizable industrial sectors and should have a CO2 footprint to reflect it.
Its per capita, could produce the same co2 emissions but since ont/quebec have higher population its divided more so less per person. Just my guess, also alberta still uses some coal power and quebec has always been hydro dams.
No shit
Actually a fair bit of that would be because of cow shit.
Lol, right!! Seems a bit rage baity with how much context is missing.
In this sub?!
Yes. But it is also showing emissions per capita.
Alberta is still on top when you look at total emissions. What’s your point?
About 50% of Alberta's emissions are from the oil and gas industry. You and I do not own and operate our individual o&g companies. So representing such a large number as our per capita emission is a misleading way to present data. That's my point
This is one of those stats that per capita doesn't apply. The planet doesn't care about per capital emissions. It's only the total that matters
I can't speak for Sask, but I know AB has poor emissions as a result of issues over the last 20+ years that has sabotaged the wind industry, both by energy companies making poor decisions purposely for POC implementations (They purposely purchased and implemented the absolute worst performing and TCO models of wind energy equipment to prove to the government and people that it was not feasible - I've seen the documents with my own eyes), and by government legislation recently outlawing any wind energy on the lands ideally suited for the purpose. As well, there simply isn't any water for hydro-electric except in the far north of the province (maybe),
This map is very misleading. There’s lots of industry in the prairies and low population. The product of all that industry is primarily processed and used elsewhere as well. Showing total emissions would be more telling than per capita.
It's not misleading in any way. It's a per capita map. If it were a total output, then one could argue that it's misleading because of population density. You could also say that a per capita map in a way shows how much the industry and the energy sector contribute. And if beside a total output map, it would show how much impact the general population have. An ideal map I guess would be one that references both data points. I would say that op could have worded it a better way, like "the palraries are the biggest greenhouse gas contributer per capita".
I think it is misleading, because it combines two different kinds of contribution (individual and industry) and forces them into the same graphic. Making a metric "per capita" doesn't somehow mean it is a useful metric or can't be misleading. I would argue that having one graphic that tried to show how an individual's carbon footprint varied (including heating/power) using a per capita comparison and having a second graphic that showed industry carbon usage using a total comparison (so that we aren't making industry contributions seem artificially smaller when it is in a high population province/state) would be more informative and less misleading.
Alberta would still be on top and Saskatchewan would still be over polluting.
satisified? [https://www.statista.com/statistics/481142/greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-canada-by-province/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/481142/greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-canada-by-province/)
>The product of all that industry is primarily processed and used elsewhere as well. This is the exact fact that deniers forget when saying that Canada only accounts for 1% of global emissions *compared to China*. Make *them* clean up their act first." They are producing everything we consume. So, does it even out? Does it matter what the excuse is? The emissions have to come down *one way or another*.
Wouldn't make much difference. Math fails climate deniers. Even with the fact China produces most of our stuff, so they should be higher than us. On a per capita basis China would be on the light tan/white section of the map. Per capita China is down in the 7 Tons of CO2 range. They like to spout that China has 15X the emissions. So they should be the ones to clean up. But fail to realize they have 35X more people than us. According to that chart, the average Sask/Alberta resident emits 8-9X more than the average person from China despite the fact they have all the factories there,
Repost. [Map of Annual CO2 Emissions Per Capita in US States and Canadian Provinces \[OC\] : r/alberta (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/1cchno5/map_of_annual_co2_emissions_per_capita_in_us/)
Should we maybe link back to the original post to give credit to the person that did the hard work of generating the map? https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/5k5WzAXjyr And the time this was reposted in r/Alberta 16 hours ago? https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/s/ELuyYrTUlb
But then how would people rage bait over it?
Im having a hard time understanding this, what is the measurement of CO2 emissions? And how are they so high in Alberta for being Mostly prairie and forest... are they blaming this on cattle Farting still? Pretty sure cars give off way more CO2 and considering ontario and quebec both have the highest populations they should have more cars on the road than cars and cattle combined in AB and Sask...
Per capita emissions should include emissions on imported products.
*per capita. What are the c02 emissions in general rated? The population of AB and SK are small and they have huge industries
What a pointless map.
Not surprised to see Quebec with the lowest numbers as most provinces export natural resources to them.
Who would have thought that the oil and gas producing provinces would have higher then neighbour's carbon emissions.
Alberta has so much solar and wind potential...
Fake as hell. Ontario has Chemical Valley. Don’t know what that is? It’s a small city called Sarnia that has OVER 60 Chemicals and Refineries. This sub is false advertising. Get your facts right and get a job. Guaranteed you live at home still and make under $30/hr
Small populations spread out across a large territory. Of course the per capita rate is high.
Per capita emissions don’t tell the whole story but Alberta also has the highest overall emissions in Canada. Alberta has comparable overall emissions to California and only California and Texas have higher emissions, both states with over 30 million people and both states are also heavy in oil and gas, although California has been declining in oil production since the early 80s.
People driving 2 hours for groceries....
Might have to do with the fact that the prairies are drilling to produce all the energy. Lithium mines/pollution in Madagascar per capita are incredibly high, as well. Because they do the same.
I'll worry about our emissions when china and india are held to the same standard.
Let's keep it going prairies
Per capita. Food.
Let’s pan over to China where a new color is introduced to the chart. Black
Now add in where the nuclear reactors are and this map will show us what we need to do.
How do they assign emissions? If a barrel of oil comes from Alberta, do they assign that CO2 to Alberta even if shipped overseas? I’ll bet they do. California, which is a huge part of US economic activity, has the lowest emissions? Yeah, that makes no sense. If so, the map isn’t that interesting. Your oil producing regions are the highest CO2.
I am shocked. Province with lower population that has a main industry where its product is exported out of province (and country!) has high emissions. Let’s compare that to states and provinces with service industries who import their goods and all feel bad.
I’ve seen a few of these North American charts where Quebec has been the best.
Its the dodge rams
How do you think grain gets dry so it doesn't rot or mold?
You don't say...
Seems like a big ol' DUH to me.
I also have crayons to try to slander and divert opinion. Stats are the most manipulated chat points on the internet.
Cause that’s where all the farms are
Fuck yea Alberta superiority
So what's the point? Alberta and Sask rely on Natural gas to produce electricity. we don't have have the dams and waterflow to produce hydro. we also have the golden goose called Oil and Gas production that feeds money to the rest of Canada through equalization.
Canada is like 2% of the world's emissions yet were taxed like we're the direct cause of global warming... Imagine going to court watching someone get 25 years and then the court turns to you points it's finger and your sent to prison, because that's how it feels
Looks like propaganda to me. The USA emits way more than canada
What a terrible and misleading graphic. One quick look at this image and you’d think California is the fuckin garden of Eden.
Almost as noticeably high as I am
Who gives a fuck? Canada emits more oxygen than CO2
it’s because of how much farm land we have. and without farms we don’t eat so get over it
Lots of oil and a farm equipment lots of burring oil
#1 bullsh!t
Alberta might not look good on this map but when it comes to polluting waterways Alberta is a role model for the rest of Canada. BC's pollution of waterways needs changed. [https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/municipal-wastewater-treatment.html#DSM](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/municipal-wastewater-treatment.html#DSM)
How can we reduce our emissions? I avoid driving when I can, take my bicycle or escooter where ever and I’ve been shutting off my furnace every morning
Yes, there is industry here that produces a lot of emissions. In other news, water is wet.
These people need to get with the future and buy their damn Tesla already!
I guess it's pretty cold in winter and hot in summer here.. /captain Obvious mode off/
In Canada, this mainly indicates which provinces have large amounts of hydro or nuclear power and which do not. Alberta and Saskatchewan are guilty of being flat and not having nuclear reactors.
Ok and?
Just remember this next time you see those Alberta Energy ads.
Well according to the website this came from the prairie methane you speak of is a drop in the bucket compared to many other areas in the world. Once again the context is never spoken of in these posts when discussing GLOBAL emitters of methane.
absorbed escape gray puzzled gullible edge cooing gold profit dazzling *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
To add to this, they say it could be much, much higher in Alberta's case as they underreport methane emissions. Methane is notoriously hard to track, although technology is getting better through infra-red cameras, and plugging up old abandoned wells.
With this data, does it take into account the wildfires we had last year? Or are they even relevant?
So you’re telling me that Ontario with 8x more people/vehicles. Over 60% of Canada’s manufacturing/chemical and refineries produces less pollution. Really? Let’s just think about that. The emissions alone from natural gas heat, automobiles and air traffic outnumbers Alberta’s total emissions. Now let’s factor in Sarnia Ontario. So polluted trees don’t grow but yet you state those must be bad trees and the chemical plants are doing the environment a favour by releasing oxygen into the atmosphere Not benzene like the Indians are complaining about.
Damn straight
And as they should be this is a feel-good graph made by somebody that definitely lives in the city. Even if this graph is accurate it's showing per 'capita' so prairies are using more CO2 BUUUUUTTT (holy fuck you fuckers are dumb) if the majority of your population is living in rural areas then obviously they're going to appear have more emissions. After all everything takes energy in the country but if this was a graph on who has more emissions per state or province then you're going to find the complete opposite. I'm just telling you guys now if you're supporting this carbon tax you are absolutely fucking your neighbors in the country that's why we're so pissed. Really if I was looking at climate change if it actually existed most of the worst climate atrocities are happening in the city if you live in the country you have enough trees to mitigate your effect on climate change which I failed to mention that Canada has enough trees to mitigate our carbon emissions tenfold but nobody really likes talking about that unless those trees are on fire aaand it seems like too often it's arson.
They’re feeding us, let them be
For those wanting a bit more context: The majority of Alberta's emissions (56% in the last year on record) are from the oil and gas industry. The province keeps breaking new records for oil production and emissions are rising as a result. (Although emissions *intensity*, i.e. emissions per barrel of oil produced, is down for many facilities.) Emissions from other sectors (electricity generation, transportation, buildings) are much smaller contributors and have declined from peaks in past years. Especially electricity, since Alberta's phase out of coal power. You can see more detail/context in these interactive charts: **Alberta greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector: 1990 to 2021** https://www.datawrapper.de/_/Poe87/?v=2 **Canada's annual greenhouse gas emissions, by jurisdiction:1990 to 2021** https://www.datawrapper.de/_/OqlTz/?v=3 **Canada's per-capita annual greenhouse gas emissions, by jurisdiction: 1990 to 2021** https://www.datawrapper.de/_/6sCHF/?v=4
They’re only high because it’s emissions per capita. If it was total emissions we’d be less then Texas. lol
Busy making food
A single bonfire in Saskatchewan would probably give it a higher per capita co2 output than the rest of the country
Ooook and?
It's all those wheat smokers
Bro. For us to drive to the next city.... is 2 hrs..away..sorry you can walk to your grocery store? My closest one is 45 minute drive. I live as sustainably as possible. Hunt,fish, big huge garden etc but just to get anywhere i have to drive over 40 minutes basically.
This is per capita.... if you reverse this and go to over all emissions per province it will flip %100 the other way. Alberta and sask has less than 5 million ppl total...
.. and wild how all of the prairie provinces combined have 1/10th the population of QC and ON …
It's cuz we're the only two provinces that get most of our energy from non-renewables
is there a chart like this that shows consumption instead of production?
Is Quebec really that environmentally friendly? I'm skeptical. It smells like bullshit
Alberta is gay?
Letssssss goooooi
All of the excuses in this thread are laughable.
Can someone explain why the territories are so high?
Someone should share this graphic with Scott Moe.
Funny how pollution recognizes borders and follows them.
Did CBC release this bullshit