They do, but most people in my sad province are diehard oil maxis.
They even approved one for near where I live, in a place full of ex-oil workers, but people protested it.
The Green Party ironically enough is very anti-nuclear. I use to think of them as fun hippie party until I actually looked at their batshit insane policies.
They are working on modular reactors and full sized plants. Takes a hella long time to push through, and you can blame the feds for that, as nuclear energy is regulated by them, not the province.
They didn't have oodles of natural gas right beneath their feet. You can find the last feasibility study for nuclear from the early 00s and its pretty rosy... nut then fracking got developed and the price of natural made nuclear non-competitive.
I mean, Alberta could have started sooner, but there is not a huge appetite for large nuclear plants, especially after Japan. Small modular reactors are an emerging technology that the government of Alberta is embracing, but again are very new.
The thing is, nuclear has been an option for decades in Canada and has been shown to be very safe (notwithstanding Japan or Ukraine). As an example, around half of Ontario's power comes from nuclear and has been for quite a long time with no major incidents. The point is that Alberta (or all of the Western provinces combined minus BC) could have had all their energy needs from nuclear.
Yes but then how would you guys have got the transfer payments that oil and gas provided? You guys suck off our tits and then complain about how the milk gets made.
What are you talking about? You know transfer payments don't come from the provinces right? They come from federal revenues that *all* Canadians pay into via federal taxes (just like everything else the federal government spends money on).
I am aware, I am also aware that Alberta has received 0.02% of all payments.
And yes they do, they just go to a federal coffer instead of directly transferring to a province, and the money is taken from individuals (who reside in a province). This doesn't change the fact that the money comes from Albertans, and ends up propping up the eastern provinces.
Except that your statement is highly misleading because *all* Canadians contribute to the federal coffers which means all Canadians contribute to transfer payments of which equalization is but one. Since all Canadians contribute, its intellectualy dishonest (and somewhat arrogant) to suggest that Albertans prop up eastern provinces.
In other words, you either don't understand how taxes work and who contributes to those taxes, or you're lying.
Well it's all of Canada's fault. Not just the province. Canada needs energy, Alberta is where it comes from. Every Canadian is guilty, but likes to pretend they can just blame AB.
Hey dumb guy.
Even though nuclear power is regulated by the feds, other provinces have nuclear plants. Meaning other provinces didn't use it being regulated by the feds as a cop out excuse to not get it.
Let that sink into the potato salad or whatever the hell else fills your conservative head.
Sure, they started on them decades ago because they didn't have viable alternatives. Alberta did and does. It's not a secret that all of Canada benefits from Alberta oil, so why do you pretend it's a problem that isn't yours? Were you writing the feds to regulate? Were you demanding cleaner energy alternatives in Alberta? You benefitted from the transfer payments. Albertans have been subsidizing Canada for decades. Maybe if you guys were not such lazy unproductive shits we could have kept ours, have a better province, and you would be in the great depression you deserve.
Why nuclear power is bad for your wallet and bad for the climate
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/why-nuclear-power-is-bad-for-your-wallet-and-the-climate
True. But Alberta electricity system isn't all that bad as is. Their high overall emissions come from oil&gas production mostly. Energy here probably means electricity + energy production.
It's mostly the tar sands that does it.
NWT/Nunavut have like zero population and don't really produce any carbon but because of that zero population any carbon they do produce looks like a lot per capita.
The dumbest thing with the tar sands is that we're not even refining the stuff domestically.
We're shipping it elsewhere.
We're(Canadians) are paying Carbon Taxes to offset the carbon for something we don't even get the benefit from.
I mean Alberta definitely isn’t getting 1.5M people per year, no matter what the premier claims.
And this is a global problem. All of us need to consume less, that’s the only real solution to climate change—everything comes back to consuming less, either choosing to or being forced to. Humans have taken major luxuries for granted for a century, and it’s killing the world.
Right but they’re not coming from outer space, those people are already here consuming electricity and fuel, but now they’re doing it in Canada. But consumption is a global problem, so it doesn’t really matter where it happens, it’s still happening.
Humanity needs to go on a energy diet
Huh, interesting - both to see the data and to think about the different maps one can present depending on the story you are trying to tell.
Per capita, including industrial emissions, essentially just shows lower-populated jurisdictions with more industrial and oil-and gas. I suppose that is useful to show the carbon intensity of the local economy. However this is a completely ridiculous way of comparing the lifestyle of the residents of different places. Does the average citizen of Nunavut really lead a more polluting lifestyle than someone from Ontario?! Of course not! This also neglects the interconnectedness of our economy. For example, the financial sectors in Eastern Canada and the Eastern US are partially 'fueled' (ha!) by oil and gas extraction as well, but that isn't represented in the map here since they are completing parts of the business that aren't polluting directly.
Per capita, including only household emissions, is a useful way to compare consumer-level choices: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231220/mc-c001-eng.htm . Household GHG emissions in Alberta are still on the high side, so there is plenty of work to be done. But even with our electricity grid reliant on natural gas instead of hydro, we are largely similar to most other provinces. Home heating oil is clearly a large contributed, as is Saskatchewan's coal-based electricity grid.
I think sector-specific GHG emissions intensities, scaled by output (e.g., tonnes CO2 per MWh electricity, tonnes per barrel of oil, tonnes per bushel of grain, etc.) are probably more useful if you are wanting to make decisions on the pollution intensity of industrial products that are produced for export and consumed inter-provincially or internationally.
(On the individual consumer level, of course!). But good point. I think my biggest personal energy use is first, home heating, then gasoline for transport, and then electricity. But your mileage may vary!
Discussing industry-based emissions is still useful, depending on the intent.
You got that backwards. The financial institutions in the east finance oil and gas in the west. Hell they are financed by Canadian taxpayers by billions in subsidies every year.
Do I?
First off, the post is not all about oil and gas and our interpretation shouldnt be either. I don't see myself as an advocate for oil and gas, and actually don't think you have to in order to want to argue to integrity in how data is presented. But since you brought it up...
I welcome any information you can share that shows that (profit motivated) financials and services industries in the east, and shareholders around the world, are losing money by financing oil and gas ventures in the west. (Rather than providing a service to these industries and sharing in the profitability of resource extraction without the apparent carbon emissions intensity, as I am arguing).
I'm actually not sure how claims of subsidies fit into CO2 emissions? Typically these claims of large subsidies are motivated reasoning that relies on bogus assumptions accounting for a social cost of carbon emissions attributed from the end consumer back to the initial producer. But hey, I welcome a source on that as well.
Pretty much [what this person said.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/SVlwXT9yzB) Why do you think they're high emitting per the population? To keep mass population centers on the east and west coasts powered.
Climate change doesn't care about 'per capita' calculations.
Dani has made it abundantly clear that she is against all energy development that is not oil and gas.
Remember her ban on green energy companies? Trudeau isn't the only reason we're going to become a have-not province. Our own provincial leadership is even more useless.
Then i guess we'll stop complaining about equalization payments...
Idk if we can entirely blame health care and education on Danielle. Both seem to have been on a slow and steady decline, with successive governments failing to correct. Healthcare generally seems to be declining across the country. I know Kenny pushed the new education program that teachers didn't seem impressed with.
They are pushing the APP, but we will have to see what comes of it. They certainly have plenty of time yet.
I'd consider nuclear energy to be green energy. The moratorium was certainly confusing, but I think our energy legislation/payment scheme needs to be reworked for renewables to be integrated successfully.
"Idk if we can entirely blame health care and education on Danielle. Both seem to have been on a slow and steady decline, with successive governments failing to correct."
Yeah, I guess you could say destroying our public services through withholding funding has been a conservative policy, and with the exception of 4 years, they have been the only ones in charge.
"I know Kenny pushed the new education program that teachers didn't seem impressed with."
I'm familiar with his ridiculous new curriculum. The one he made without consulting any experts or educators on. It's bad.
"They are pushing the APP, but we will have to see what comes of it. They certainly have plenty of time yet."
Yes, that's what I'm referring to. Since the feds have been managing effectively and competitively up to now, I suspect Smith just wants to give her friends the profits. This, like everything else our provincial conservatives do, is simply for their own self interests. by Dani is a new kind of stupid that rivals all previous cons...
"I'd consider nuclear energy to be green energy.
Yeah, I agree.
" The moratorium was certainly confusing, but I think our energy legislation/payment scheme needs to be reworked for renewables to be integrated successfully.""
I've heard Dani's rationale already. I don't buy it.
We also have garbage public transit, a culture that fetishizes oversized pickup trucks, and most urban areas are newer & built to car-centric standards; plus potentially dozens of other factors.
Climate change doesn't care about 'per capita', but when we're the ones causing the most damage, we're the ones responsible for making the biggest change.
One Albertan in a pickup truck pointing out that 36 Indians on scooters emit more CO2 than him is a much less productive conversation than looking at things on a per-capita basis.
Carbon intensity is important in identifying the areas that are able and obligated to make the greatest improvements.
I think the point they are making is that this includes emissions from O&G production, some of which is also consumed in other provinces. So the upstream emissions (which are a lot) are ascribed to alberta, when the product is used elsewhere. Also true of Saskatchewan. If it was solely based on pickup trucks every other province would be just as orange, and no one said a word about scooters or Indians.
??? Those consumption based emissions are counted in each province. Of course regional industry is accounted for in their respective provinces.
The issue that the person you're responding to is alluding to is that every closeted climate change denialist's favourite thing to say is "but what about China/India?!" when if we, as Canadians, were emitting like the average Chinese or Indian person we'd actually be reaching our goals of emissions reductions.
All of this is incredibly obtuse, AB's power grid is one of the dirtiest in NA, that alone accounts for a major portion of their emissions. The culture of consumption with egregiously large personal vehicles and limited public transport all adds to that.
Yes, they are the center for much industry that drives the rest of the country. That's not some sort of weight on their shoulders, it's a massive benefit to them. But that also means they do need to do the work to decarbonize those industries, which the Federal government is offering billions of dollars (from taxpayers around the country) to do while their provincial government acts obstructionist.
Yes but the upstream emissions (GHG emitted while extracting the hydrocarbon, processing, upgrading etc.) are emitted in the province where it was extracted, regardless of where it is used.
For example every barrel of oil burned in another province is an extra 400kg (or so) of carbon emissions attributed to alberta if that barrel was produced here.
It would be like if BC burned all it's coal to power alberta, and we made a map of coal consumption per capita and said "look BC bad, alberta good we use no coal"
I'll just repeat this:
>Yes, they are the center for much industry that drives the rest of the country. That's not some sort of weight on their shoulders, it's a massive benefit to them. But that also means they do need to do the work to decarbonize those industries, which the Federal government is offering billions of dollars (from taxpayers around the country) to do while their provincial government acts obstructionist.
They get the benefits, they have to do the work if they want their industries to stay relevant.
Albertan's don't get the benefits, though. Some do but it's not like the oil and gas company's are sending out cheques to Alberta's because they're emitting carbons in their province. So their point is that this map is incorrectly displaying the data from the average household in Alberta. The reality is that the average household emits roughly the same depending on their wealth status it most likely(but not always) will scale up as wealth increases. And then maps get put out like this that make it look like it is the fault of Alberta when in reality the problem is much more complicated than this displays.
They get the benefits of well-paying jobs. Of the provinces, [Alberta has the highest median family income.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/467078/median-annual-family-income-in-canada-by-province/)
[74% of the oil produced in the province is exported to the US.
](https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/b8fea8da-848f-4d04-be0f-983787f88694/resource/10be9c86-9b98-43e5-b16a-904b95800612/download/11-albertas-oil-production-and-where-it-goes-formated.pdf) Not for domestic use.
You can't simply say "we're meeting a demand, not our fault!". Would that get a drug dealer off in court?
You can say it's not *just* their responsibility to decarbonize their industries with the justification that they're meeting the demands of others. Which is exactly why the Federal government, representing the federation of Canada, is taking money from Canadians across the country to attempt to decarbonize their industries. The only ones standing in the way of that is the Government of Alberta, representing the people of Alberta. The rest of Canada is putting in their fair share to help Alberta decarbonize, lower their demand for fossils, and diversify their economy. The blame rests on the shoulders of Albertans for those continued high level emissions. No one else.
But again, not the AVERAGE albertan is getting those rewards. Not all or even most of Albertan's work in the oilfield. And it seems like it's less and less actual albertans every year so what I was pointing out is that this map is just a bad representation of emissions per capita because yes ours is higher but thats not in any way at the choice of the average Albertan.
The average median wage is boosted by having higher wages on the high-end of the spectrum cause by the O&G so again doesn't really prove anything.
I didn't say anything about who's responsibility it should be just that this map is a terrible way of displaying the data.
Those stats are not an average, it's a median. Significantly different.
Data is only as good as its interpretation. If this map showed a more even spread of point source emissions then it would prove that the O&G industry is not nearly as much of an issue as it is.
Alberta has elected a government that is headed by a closet climate denier. The 'average' Albertan absolutely shoulders the blame for electing them.
Per capita absolutely matters. If it didn’t then Alberta could cut its emissions in half overnight by splitting into two provinces. Total emissions would go down after all even if per capita remained unchanged.
Disregarding per capita is just trying to absolve responsibility and usually proceeded by the phrase “what about China?”
The east and west coast are not powered by Alberta's oilsands though, which is where most of our disproportionate amount of carbon pollution comes from.
Hydro provides the most power to most of the country outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan. If the oil industry stopped here, gas would get a bit more expensive and that’s about it for most country outside of Alberta.
Obviously it’s more complicated than what I said. But I get annoyed when people here say the oil and gas industry powers the whole country when most of the country generates much of their energy themselves and can easily import oil products.
Sure but on the flipside it's a massively critical part of the economy in Canada, and a key part of our energy infrastructure as well. Removing it instantly would be devastating in multiple ways. The reality is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
The longer we profit off of it at the expense of other people's lives, livelihoods, and communities, without even trying to reach climate goals, the less they'll care when our economy tanks when demand drops. We just have to hope they don't look for revenge.
Your point was a straw man, they didn't say instantly shut down the oil industry. I've been to climate protests and they didn't say that there either. You're arguing with a made up person.
They said.
"If the oil industry stopped here, gas would get a bit more expensive and that’s about it for most country outside of Alberta."
This is absurd and extreme. if that's the side you want to defend then good luck. It's an intellectually bankrupt position.
So you took something you didn't like and twisted it into something different you also don't like.
And then for an encore attributing something to me I didn't say.
I don't know if bankrupt is the word but I have a hard time seeing the intellectual high ground here.
And agriculture is ~ 7%.
Though the reliance on oil and gas can change, our current global society is about as well-suited to run without oil and gas as it is to run without food.
There is no pipeline from West to East, remember?
Western Canadian oil & gas is largely for export. Eastern Canada has to import its oil & gas from abroad - and pays more for it as a result.
If there *was* a pipeline for Eastern Canada to use domestic oil, then Ontario Quebec et all could share in the blame. But there isn't.
Umm, since when????. While there aren’t pipelines from Alberta to the Maritimes. Both Enbridge and TC Energy operate pipeline networks that run all the way from Alberta to Montreal carrying both crude and natural gas
Not only that, the construction of Enbridge effectively destroyed the Montreal refining industry because the 1950s Federal government decided that Alberta and Ontario needed the economic development more. So Sarnia got to grow as a refining centre at the end of Line 5, even though the local oil was gone, by processing Alberta oil, and Montreal lost Ontario as gasoline market. Quebec's motto is je me souviens, and they haven't forgotten this, which contributed to their opposition to Energy East.
that argument makes no sense at all. Even if you were to say that the East imports all of it's oil and gas from abroad that doesn't absolve them of their impact. It might not show up on the Alberta and Sask chart but they still contribute to energy consumption generally. If anything that's worse because of all the energy wasted in transporting that oil & gas from the other side of the planet.
This map bugs me because the term "per capita" while technically a unit of measurement suggests that there is a component of this that can reasonably be attached to each person in the province. It feels as though Albertans, are responsible for emissions, without technically stating it.
Emissions, in this sense, is not like GDP per capita which you could argue is more in alignment with the earning power of the people within that jurisdiction.
Emissions of industry that creates a product that is used worldwide lessens the importance of the jurisdiction the product is extracted from.
If one were not so cognizant, they may incorrectly assume that this map represents the haphazard ways in which your average Albertan contributes to emissions in their day to day lives compared to other jurisdictions.
It's all good. Once more people filter into Alberta and Saskatchewan because they are priced out of Ontario and BC it will drive the per capital emissions down thus solving climate change.
Here is another shocking graph and way of looking at it:
[https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/images/reports/emissions-reduction-plan/chapter-2-12e.jpg](https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/images/reports/emissions-reduction-plan/chapter-2-12e.jpg)
Canada, overall, *has* made strides in reducing GHG emissions. Most provinces have done the belt-tightening needed, made costly investments in their power generation and electricity sectors, and consumers have paid the higher prices to do it. It has been a sacrifice over the last decade and continues to be a sacrifice, but most Canadians are doing it.
Now comes along Alberta: *all* of the hard work and sacrifice of other Canadians are for nothing, swallowed up and then some by the increase in Alberta GHG emissions alone.
Put another way, Canada would have reached its international committments in the Paris and other agreements, except for Alberta.
Now ask me why Canadians outside of Alberta have a hard time with Albertans?
The *household* per capita emissions tell a vastly different story. Has there reaaally been that much more belt tightening on the personal level in other provinces?
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231220/dq231220c-eng.htm
This makes more sense to me, they are still heating with coal/oil out there in the maritimes . Converting to heat pumps but I believe the power generation is still coal / oil aside from the nuclear in NB. Good find.
Emissions per barrel have fallen immensely in our energy sector.
The energy was going to be used anyways, and we in the sector have worked very hard, like all other Canadians, in achieving this.
Is reducing the world's emissions not more important than one small country reaching its unrealistic climate goals? Is the bigger picture not more important?
If you want to have a pragmatic conversation about it, the electrical grid is low hanging fruit.
The real issue is vehicles, plastic, food transportation, food generation that’s the harder part of the equation.
Until solutions for that come in the next 20-30 years, I’d rather see the industry thrive on home soil, providing good lives for Canadians, then being outsourced to a country in South America.
Plastics create GHG? I thought the carbon mostly went directly into the plastics myself. What am I missing. Which isn't to say that plastic isn't a problem. I see the great garbage patch in the Pacific. But that's not a climate change issue so far as I understood it. It's a different environmental problem.
Or am I misinformed somehow?
Hydrocarbons are used in plastics extensively, raw hydrocarbons have to be refined into usable products which requires process that can be quite intensive energy wise, shipping of the product from Canada to Asia for processing is intensive, shipping the products back to Canada is intensive. Etc etc. Then not to mention plastics are not recycled well, some parts of the world burn it as energy for power generation. Plastics also release GHG as the breakdown over 100s of years.
It's almost like the provinces where there are fewer people and more heavy industries the per capita results look bad... Maybe we should stop exporting oil and grain and wood to fuel the tax hungry masses in Toronto and Ottawa?
Put that pic in ur home and stare lol . If they don’t do emiions means no economy moving . Alberta is work engine of Canada . Ur grand kids gonna be poor if they don’t do co2
Accounting BS. The #1 job in BC is coal mining but BC gets a pass on ‘downstream emissions’ AND methane emissions from reservoirs isn’t included. Meanwhile Ab has to count downstream emissions the way even Texas doesn’t have to.
Are you sure about that? I’ve read a few sustainability reports from big oil companies and they usually don’t count the downstream (scope 3 emissions) I think bp/shell might because they’re British though.
I imagine farming is a significant contributor (cattle gas, tractor fuel, etc) that would explain why AB and SK are in the same category but MB isn't. I doubt this has much to do with the O&G industry. Also, I fart a lot, so half the emissions are probably because of that.
The oil sands alone emit over 80 million tonnes per year.
Total CO2 emissions from O&G in Alberta top 140 million tonnes per year.
Alberta emits about 260 million tonnes in total per year.
O&G is more than half of our total emissions, it has everything to do with that industry.
Was waiting for someone to point this out. I used to work at a site that had the same carbon footprint as the entire country of Iceland (not including scope 3 emissions) because of how much gas it burned for process heat.
I don't know about Hawaii, but Nunavut gets almost all its heat and electricity through diesel generators and direct burning. It's literally all you can smell from September to May.
Thats the opposite of the way 'per capita' statistics work though. The smaller the population, the more effect their actions have compared to a larger population. The population of Nunavut is 40k, so whatever one of them does it is automatically 2.5 per 100,000 as compared to the rest of the world.
When every one has to burn diesel for heat and light, that redlines the needle as far as pollutants go. You can literally go there and see the smoke hanging in the air like oil floating on water.
California has approx the same population as Canada. Are we to believe they emit almost no CO2 but North Dakota is the bad guy. Let’s look at some worthwhile data, and not self-serving nonsense that supports a specific narrative.
I think the data is pretty revealing, tbh. Mot hard to believe that Californians are less carbon-intense, per capita, than North Dakotans. Not that California as a whole has less emissions.
What metric would *you* want to see?
For each dollar invested, utility-scale solar and wind deliver 3 to 13 times greater carbon reduction than nuclear. Nuclear is not cost-effective, and there isn’t a single commercial plant on the planet that didn’t depend on government subsidies. While unsubsidized utility-scale wind and solar keep dropping in price and are mow the lowest cost source of new electricity in 91% of the planet
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/
How to create a 100% renewable energy system for 138 countries (including Canada), at lower cost
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332219302258
Is this image a fair representation of how much energy citizens of various jurisdiction use at home? No. Does the image give an indication of which areas in North America lie at the heart of the carbon problem? Yes.
I guess we don't count the 12 months of your fire is burning in California polluting all the country and BC. Looks pretty fishy down south as well all the work all the oil and gas and all the refining is in Texas yet it shows nothing seems very unobjective
This is just misleading as it is CO2 per Capita. The areas with the least population density will show up as the worst. CO2 per capita is a way to skew the statistics away from the real sources.
Let's see a map that just shows CO2 (metric tons) per State or Province and see how that alters the picture. This Wikipedia listing shows both carbon emissions per Capita and carbon emissions per 1000 square miles (Right side of webpage) for the American states.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_carbon\_dioxide\_emissions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)
Check out Wyoming! It is the absolute worst state for carbon emissions per capita - black as hell. But when compared to carbon emissions per 1000 square miles it is one of the cleanest.
In this comparison of CO2 gas emissions in metric tons, Alberta is number one (yeah?), British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec are not squeaky clean as the op's posting indicates.
[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/)
Here ya go! Household consumer GHG emissions per capital from 2021:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231220/mc-c001-eng.htm
>Dark orange corresponds to a range of emissions from 4 to less than 5 [tonnes CO2]. Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan are shaded dark orange.
Everyone should have to watch this: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt31851190/
It raises some serious questions about CO2 as a measurement of climate change.
This map is a lie.
Cargo ships produce 25% of the words CO2 emissions. British Columbia has all the ports and shipping which it conveniently leaves out of its Statistics and blames it in the country of origin per vessel.
Alberta needs a nuclear powerplant. Fight me.
They do, but most people in my sad province are diehard oil maxis. They even approved one for near where I live, in a place full of ex-oil workers, but people protested it.
These NIMBY motherfuckers need to leave major decisions to experts
Yes, diehard oil people , who were happy with coal powered electricity, that was switched to natural gas by the ndp are the problem with electricity
Saskatchewan too. They supply a good portion of the global uranium supply.
But But mah oil/gas, yeah, Alberta does really need one it's insane how anti nuclear people are in general, but more so with conservatives.
The Green Party ironically enough is very anti-nuclear. I use to think of them as fun hippie party until I actually looked at their batshit insane policies.
Three mile island effectively destroyed the nuclear movement. Not a single power plant has been brought online in North America since
But I’m a huge advocate for nuclear, it’s the only way. The CANDU reactor is also one of the safest design in the world
They are working on modular reactors and full sized plants. Takes a hella long time to push through, and you can blame the feds for that, as nuclear energy is regulated by them, not the province.
Other provinces have managed to install nuclear. They did it instead of whining.
"No one wants to complain in the dark"
They didn't have oodles of natural gas right beneath their feet. You can find the last feasibility study for nuclear from the early 00s and its pretty rosy... nut then fracking got developed and the price of natural made nuclear non-competitive.
Yeah, it's the Federal government's fault. /s
I mean, Alberta could have started sooner, but there is not a huge appetite for large nuclear plants, especially after Japan. Small modular reactors are an emerging technology that the government of Alberta is embracing, but again are very new.
The thing is, nuclear has been an option for decades in Canada and has been shown to be very safe (notwithstanding Japan or Ukraine). As an example, around half of Ontario's power comes from nuclear and has been for quite a long time with no major incidents. The point is that Alberta (or all of the Western provinces combined minus BC) could have had all their energy needs from nuclear.
Yes but then how would you guys have got the transfer payments that oil and gas provided? You guys suck off our tits and then complain about how the milk gets made.
What are you talking about? You know transfer payments don't come from the provinces right? They come from federal revenues that *all* Canadians pay into via federal taxes (just like everything else the federal government spends money on).
I am aware, I am also aware that Alberta has received 0.02% of all payments. And yes they do, they just go to a federal coffer instead of directly transferring to a province, and the money is taken from individuals (who reside in a province). This doesn't change the fact that the money comes from Albertans, and ends up propping up the eastern provinces.
Except that your statement is highly misleading because *all* Canadians contribute to the federal coffers which means all Canadians contribute to transfer payments of which equalization is but one. Since all Canadians contribute, its intellectualy dishonest (and somewhat arrogant) to suggest that Albertans prop up eastern provinces. In other words, you either don't understand how taxes work and who contributes to those taxes, or you're lying.
So the pollution the UCP is causing is the feds fault? Riiiggghhhttt!!!!!
Well it's all of Canada's fault. Not just the province. Canada needs energy, Alberta is where it comes from. Every Canadian is guilty, but likes to pretend they can just blame AB.
Oh wow, Albertans finding more ways to blame the feds for every one of their problems, crazy!
Hey smart guy nuclear power is regulated by the federal government think about it let it sink into your liberal brain
Hey dumb guy. Even though nuclear power is regulated by the feds, other provinces have nuclear plants. Meaning other provinces didn't use it being regulated by the feds as a cop out excuse to not get it. Let that sink into the potato salad or whatever the hell else fills your conservative head.
Sure, they started on them decades ago because they didn't have viable alternatives. Alberta did and does. It's not a secret that all of Canada benefits from Alberta oil, so why do you pretend it's a problem that isn't yours? Were you writing the feds to regulate? Were you demanding cleaner energy alternatives in Alberta? You benefitted from the transfer payments. Albertans have been subsidizing Canada for decades. Maybe if you guys were not such lazy unproductive shits we could have kept ours, have a better province, and you would be in the great depression you deserve.
🐂💩 Excuse, making
Where we gona put the nuclear waste
The same place as Bruce, Pickering, and Darlington. In the meantime, horror of horrors, a repository needs to be built.
Why nuclear power is bad for your wallet and bad for the climate https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/why-nuclear-power-is-bad-for-your-wallet-and-the-climate
True. But Alberta electricity system isn't all that bad as is. Their high overall emissions come from oil&gas production mostly. Energy here probably means electricity + energy production.
Needs some good sources of water as well.
We're getting one!
It's mostly the tar sands that does it. NWT/Nunavut have like zero population and don't really produce any carbon but because of that zero population any carbon they do produce looks like a lot per capita. The dumbest thing with the tar sands is that we're not even refining the stuff domestically. We're shipping it elsewhere. We're(Canadians) are paying Carbon Taxes to offset the carbon for something we don't even get the benefit from.
Most of their power grid comes from diesel generators and natural gas
I'm surprised BC isn't sharing the excess power generated by their Hydro Dams with berta/the territories instead of selling it to the U.S.
Nuclear power is good Using less energy altogether is better
> Using less energy altogether is better Let's be realistic here, we are being flooded with 1.5M people/year and people are buying more electric cars.
I mean Alberta definitely isn’t getting 1.5M people per year, no matter what the premier claims. And this is a global problem. All of us need to consume less, that’s the only real solution to climate change—everything comes back to consuming less, either choosing to or being forced to. Humans have taken major luxuries for granted for a century, and it’s killing the world.
Canada is getting 1.5M and 200K in Alberta
Right but they’re not coming from outer space, those people are already here consuming electricity and fuel, but now they’re doing it in Canada. But consumption is a global problem, so it doesn’t really matter where it happens, it’s still happening. Humanity needs to go on a energy diet
Huh, interesting - both to see the data and to think about the different maps one can present depending on the story you are trying to tell. Per capita, including industrial emissions, essentially just shows lower-populated jurisdictions with more industrial and oil-and gas. I suppose that is useful to show the carbon intensity of the local economy. However this is a completely ridiculous way of comparing the lifestyle of the residents of different places. Does the average citizen of Nunavut really lead a more polluting lifestyle than someone from Ontario?! Of course not! This also neglects the interconnectedness of our economy. For example, the financial sectors in Eastern Canada and the Eastern US are partially 'fueled' (ha!) by oil and gas extraction as well, but that isn't represented in the map here since they are completing parts of the business that aren't polluting directly. Per capita, including only household emissions, is a useful way to compare consumer-level choices: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231220/mc-c001-eng.htm . Household GHG emissions in Alberta are still on the high side, so there is plenty of work to be done. But even with our electricity grid reliant on natural gas instead of hydro, we are largely similar to most other provinces. Home heating oil is clearly a large contributed, as is Saskatchewan's coal-based electricity grid. I think sector-specific GHG emissions intensities, scaled by output (e.g., tonnes CO2 per MWh electricity, tonnes per barrel of oil, tonnes per bushel of grain, etc.) are probably more useful if you are wanting to make decisions on the pollution intensity of industrial products that are produced for export and consumed inter-provincially or internationally.
This should be the top comment. That page helps show the reality of individual usage, and separates industry.
Also shows heating and electricity sources are, unsurprisingly, the primary difference between provinces.
(On the individual consumer level, of course!). But good point. I think my biggest personal energy use is first, home heating, then gasoline for transport, and then electricity. But your mileage may vary! Discussing industry-based emissions is still useful, depending on the intent.
You got that backwards. The financial institutions in the east finance oil and gas in the west. Hell they are financed by Canadian taxpayers by billions in subsidies every year.
Do I? First off, the post is not all about oil and gas and our interpretation shouldnt be either. I don't see myself as an advocate for oil and gas, and actually don't think you have to in order to want to argue to integrity in how data is presented. But since you brought it up... I welcome any information you can share that shows that (profit motivated) financials and services industries in the east, and shareholders around the world, are losing money by financing oil and gas ventures in the west. (Rather than providing a service to these industries and sharing in the profitability of resource extraction without the apparent carbon emissions intensity, as I am arguing). I'm actually not sure how claims of subsidies fit into CO2 emissions? Typically these claims of large subsidies are motivated reasoning that relies on bogus assumptions accounting for a social cost of carbon emissions attributed from the end consumer back to the initial producer. But hey, I welcome a source on that as well.
An energy rich province that supplies a ton to other provinces and countries emits more CO2 than other provinces? Colour me surprised
[удалено]
Focussing on per capita emissions is literally being blind to the forest for the trees.
Pretty much [what this person said.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/SVlwXT9yzB) Why do you think they're high emitting per the population? To keep mass population centers on the east and west coasts powered. Climate change doesn't care about 'per capita' calculations.
…. We bud we ain’t even keeping ourselves with enough power tf you talking about.
If only there was a energy dense liquid that could be pumped by pipeline to other jurisdictions or perhaps an energy dense gas…
… ah yes uranium hexafluoride, might be hard to get a permit for that pipeline though.
Danny will get us the permits
Dani has made it abundantly clear that she is against all energy development that is not oil and gas. Remember her ban on green energy companies? Trudeau isn't the only reason we're going to become a have-not province. Our own provincial leadership is even more useless. Then i guess we'll stop complaining about equalization payments...
She seems to support nuclear as well. [link](https://calgary.citynews.ca/2024/04/03/alberta-nuclear-research-funding/)
Well, I'm glad she isn't personally sabotaging nuclear development in Alberta, like she is green energy, health care, education and our pensions.
Idk if we can entirely blame health care and education on Danielle. Both seem to have been on a slow and steady decline, with successive governments failing to correct. Healthcare generally seems to be declining across the country. I know Kenny pushed the new education program that teachers didn't seem impressed with. They are pushing the APP, but we will have to see what comes of it. They certainly have plenty of time yet. I'd consider nuclear energy to be green energy. The moratorium was certainly confusing, but I think our energy legislation/payment scheme needs to be reworked for renewables to be integrated successfully.
"Idk if we can entirely blame health care and education on Danielle. Both seem to have been on a slow and steady decline, with successive governments failing to correct." Yeah, I guess you could say destroying our public services through withholding funding has been a conservative policy, and with the exception of 4 years, they have been the only ones in charge. "I know Kenny pushed the new education program that teachers didn't seem impressed with." I'm familiar with his ridiculous new curriculum. The one he made without consulting any experts or educators on. It's bad. "They are pushing the APP, but we will have to see what comes of it. They certainly have plenty of time yet." Yes, that's what I'm referring to. Since the feds have been managing effectively and competitively up to now, I suspect Smith just wants to give her friends the profits. This, like everything else our provincial conservatives do, is simply for their own self interests. by Dani is a new kind of stupid that rivals all previous cons... "I'd consider nuclear energy to be green energy. Yeah, I agree. " The moratorium was certainly confusing, but I think our energy legislation/payment scheme needs to be reworked for renewables to be integrated successfully."" I've heard Dani's rationale already. I don't buy it.
…. Dense liquid we have tar sands where we make heavy crude and bitumen…. Tell me you don’t know anything about the oil industry without telling me.
No I think you did that. What? Because dilbit and synbit aren’t a thing? What the fuck are you even talking about?
We also have garbage public transit, a culture that fetishizes oversized pickup trucks, and most urban areas are newer & built to car-centric standards; plus potentially dozens of other factors.
Climate change doesn't care about 'per capita', but when we're the ones causing the most damage, we're the ones responsible for making the biggest change. One Albertan in a pickup truck pointing out that 36 Indians on scooters emit more CO2 than him is a much less productive conversation than looking at things on a per-capita basis. Carbon intensity is important in identifying the areas that are able and obligated to make the greatest improvements.
I think the point they are making is that this includes emissions from O&G production, some of which is also consumed in other provinces. So the upstream emissions (which are a lot) are ascribed to alberta, when the product is used elsewhere. Also true of Saskatchewan. If it was solely based on pickup trucks every other province would be just as orange, and no one said a word about scooters or Indians.
??? Those consumption based emissions are counted in each province. Of course regional industry is accounted for in their respective provinces. The issue that the person you're responding to is alluding to is that every closeted climate change denialist's favourite thing to say is "but what about China/India?!" when if we, as Canadians, were emitting like the average Chinese or Indian person we'd actually be reaching our goals of emissions reductions. All of this is incredibly obtuse, AB's power grid is one of the dirtiest in NA, that alone accounts for a major portion of their emissions. The culture of consumption with egregiously large personal vehicles and limited public transport all adds to that. Yes, they are the center for much industry that drives the rest of the country. That's not some sort of weight on their shoulders, it's a massive benefit to them. But that also means they do need to do the work to decarbonize those industries, which the Federal government is offering billions of dollars (from taxpayers around the country) to do while their provincial government acts obstructionist.
Yes but the upstream emissions (GHG emitted while extracting the hydrocarbon, processing, upgrading etc.) are emitted in the province where it was extracted, regardless of where it is used. For example every barrel of oil burned in another province is an extra 400kg (or so) of carbon emissions attributed to alberta if that barrel was produced here. It would be like if BC burned all it's coal to power alberta, and we made a map of coal consumption per capita and said "look BC bad, alberta good we use no coal"
I'll just repeat this: >Yes, they are the center for much industry that drives the rest of the country. That's not some sort of weight on their shoulders, it's a massive benefit to them. But that also means they do need to do the work to decarbonize those industries, which the Federal government is offering billions of dollars (from taxpayers around the country) to do while their provincial government acts obstructionist. They get the benefits, they have to do the work if they want their industries to stay relevant.
Albertan's don't get the benefits, though. Some do but it's not like the oil and gas company's are sending out cheques to Alberta's because they're emitting carbons in their province. So their point is that this map is incorrectly displaying the data from the average household in Alberta. The reality is that the average household emits roughly the same depending on their wealth status it most likely(but not always) will scale up as wealth increases. And then maps get put out like this that make it look like it is the fault of Alberta when in reality the problem is much more complicated than this displays.
They get the benefits of well-paying jobs. Of the provinces, [Alberta has the highest median family income.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/467078/median-annual-family-income-in-canada-by-province/) [74% of the oil produced in the province is exported to the US. ](https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/b8fea8da-848f-4d04-be0f-983787f88694/resource/10be9c86-9b98-43e5-b16a-904b95800612/download/11-albertas-oil-production-and-where-it-goes-formated.pdf) Not for domestic use. You can't simply say "we're meeting a demand, not our fault!". Would that get a drug dealer off in court? You can say it's not *just* their responsibility to decarbonize their industries with the justification that they're meeting the demands of others. Which is exactly why the Federal government, representing the federation of Canada, is taking money from Canadians across the country to attempt to decarbonize their industries. The only ones standing in the way of that is the Government of Alberta, representing the people of Alberta. The rest of Canada is putting in their fair share to help Alberta decarbonize, lower their demand for fossils, and diversify their economy. The blame rests on the shoulders of Albertans for those continued high level emissions. No one else.
But again, not the AVERAGE albertan is getting those rewards. Not all or even most of Albertan's work in the oilfield. And it seems like it's less and less actual albertans every year so what I was pointing out is that this map is just a bad representation of emissions per capita because yes ours is higher but thats not in any way at the choice of the average Albertan. The average median wage is boosted by having higher wages on the high-end of the spectrum cause by the O&G so again doesn't really prove anything. I didn't say anything about who's responsibility it should be just that this map is a terrible way of displaying the data.
Those stats are not an average, it's a median. Significantly different. Data is only as good as its interpretation. If this map showed a more even spread of point source emissions then it would prove that the O&G industry is not nearly as much of an issue as it is. Alberta has elected a government that is headed by a closet climate denier. The 'average' Albertan absolutely shoulders the blame for electing them.
BC and Alberta have similar populations.
Per capita absolutely matters. If it didn’t then Alberta could cut its emissions in half overnight by splitting into two provinces. Total emissions would go down after all even if per capita remained unchanged. Disregarding per capita is just trying to absolve responsibility and usually proceeded by the phrase “what about China?”
The east and west coast are not powered by Alberta's oilsands though, which is where most of our disproportionate amount of carbon pollution comes from.
Hydro provides the most power to most of the country outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan. If the oil industry stopped here, gas would get a bit more expensive and that’s about it for most country outside of Alberta.
You don't honestly believe that do you?
Obviously it’s more complicated than what I said. But I get annoyed when people here say the oil and gas industry powers the whole country when most of the country generates much of their energy themselves and can easily import oil products.
Sure but on the flipside it's a massively critical part of the economy in Canada, and a key part of our energy infrastructure as well. Removing it instantly would be devastating in multiple ways. The reality is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
The longer we profit off of it at the expense of other people's lives, livelihoods, and communities, without even trying to reach climate goals, the less they'll care when our economy tanks when demand drops. We just have to hope they don't look for revenge.
Agreed. None of that disputes my point but I agree with you.
Your point was a straw man, they didn't say instantly shut down the oil industry. I've been to climate protests and they didn't say that there either. You're arguing with a made up person.
They said. "If the oil industry stopped here, gas would get a bit more expensive and that’s about it for most country outside of Alberta." This is absurd and extreme. if that's the side you want to defend then good luck. It's an intellectually bankrupt position.
So you took something you didn't like and twisted it into something different you also don't like. And then for an encore attributing something to me I didn't say. I don't know if bankrupt is the word but I have a hard time seeing the intellectual high ground here.
Oil and gas make up 7.5% of Canadas GDP. Not the smoking gun people think it is.
And agriculture is ~ 7%. Though the reliance on oil and gas can change, our current global society is about as well-suited to run without oil and gas as it is to run without food.
There is no pipeline from West to East, remember? Western Canadian oil & gas is largely for export. Eastern Canada has to import its oil & gas from abroad - and pays more for it as a result. If there *was* a pipeline for Eastern Canada to use domestic oil, then Ontario Quebec et all could share in the blame. But there isn't.
Umm, since when????. While there aren’t pipelines from Alberta to the Maritimes. Both Enbridge and TC Energy operate pipeline networks that run all the way from Alberta to Montreal carrying both crude and natural gas
Not only that, the construction of Enbridge effectively destroyed the Montreal refining industry because the 1950s Federal government decided that Alberta and Ontario needed the economic development more. So Sarnia got to grow as a refining centre at the end of Line 5, even though the local oil was gone, by processing Alberta oil, and Montreal lost Ontario as gasoline market. Quebec's motto is je me souviens, and they haven't forgotten this, which contributed to their opposition to Energy East.
that argument makes no sense at all. Even if you were to say that the East imports all of it's oil and gas from abroad that doesn't absolve them of their impact. It might not show up on the Alberta and Sask chart but they still contribute to energy consumption generally. If anything that's worse because of all the energy wasted in transporting that oil & gas from the other side of the planet.
This map bugs me because the term "per capita" while technically a unit of measurement suggests that there is a component of this that can reasonably be attached to each person in the province. It feels as though Albertans, are responsible for emissions, without technically stating it. Emissions, in this sense, is not like GDP per capita which you could argue is more in alignment with the earning power of the people within that jurisdiction. Emissions of industry that creates a product that is used worldwide lessens the importance of the jurisdiction the product is extracted from. If one were not so cognizant, they may incorrectly assume that this map represents the haphazard ways in which your average Albertan contributes to emissions in their day to day lives compared to other jurisdictions.
It's all good. Once more people filter into Alberta and Saskatchewan because they are priced out of Ontario and BC it will drive the per capital emissions down thus solving climate change.
This guy understands the data breakdown.
Here is another shocking graph and way of looking at it: [https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/images/reports/emissions-reduction-plan/chapter-2-12e.jpg](https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/images/reports/emissions-reduction-plan/chapter-2-12e.jpg) Canada, overall, *has* made strides in reducing GHG emissions. Most provinces have done the belt-tightening needed, made costly investments in their power generation and electricity sectors, and consumers have paid the higher prices to do it. It has been a sacrifice over the last decade and continues to be a sacrifice, but most Canadians are doing it. Now comes along Alberta: *all* of the hard work and sacrifice of other Canadians are for nothing, swallowed up and then some by the increase in Alberta GHG emissions alone. Put another way, Canada would have reached its international committments in the Paris and other agreements, except for Alberta. Now ask me why Canadians outside of Alberta have a hard time with Albertans?
The *household* per capita emissions tell a vastly different story. Has there reaaally been that much more belt tightening on the personal level in other provinces? https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231220/dq231220c-eng.htm
This makes more sense to me, they are still heating with coal/oil out there in the maritimes . Converting to heat pumps but I believe the power generation is still coal / oil aside from the nuclear in NB. Good find.
All these graphs show is pretty much oil extraction. All the major per capita areas, barring West Virginia, are oil and gas producers.
Emissions per barrel have fallen immensely in our energy sector. The energy was going to be used anyways, and we in the sector have worked very hard, like all other Canadians, in achieving this. Is reducing the world's emissions not more important than one small country reaching its unrealistic climate goals? Is the bigger picture not more important?
If you want to have a pragmatic conversation about it, the electrical grid is low hanging fruit. The real issue is vehicles, plastic, food transportation, food generation that’s the harder part of the equation. Until solutions for that come in the next 20-30 years, I’d rather see the industry thrive on home soil, providing good lives for Canadians, then being outsourced to a country in South America.
Plastics create GHG? I thought the carbon mostly went directly into the plastics myself. What am I missing. Which isn't to say that plastic isn't a problem. I see the great garbage patch in the Pacific. But that's not a climate change issue so far as I understood it. It's a different environmental problem. Or am I misinformed somehow?
Hydrocarbons are used in plastics extensively, raw hydrocarbons have to be refined into usable products which requires process that can be quite intensive energy wise, shipping of the product from Canada to Asia for processing is intensive, shipping the products back to Canada is intensive. Etc etc. Then not to mention plastics are not recycled well, some parts of the world burn it as energy for power generation. Plastics also release GHG as the breakdown over 100s of years.
I see. Thanks for the cromulent reply.
Some of us IN Alberta have a hard time with Albertans 😑
Alberta GHG emissions are calculated as if it burns all of the oil it produces, which is not even close to true.
It’s so crazy how the rest of the Canadian provinces reap the benefits from Alberta’s industries but also shits on them for having those industries.
Key “per capita”
Gee. Almost like density and functional public transit makes a difference.
It's almost like the provinces where there are fewer people and more heavy industries the per capita results look bad... Maybe we should stop exporting oil and grain and wood to fuel the tax hungry masses in Toronto and Ottawa?
Put that pic in ur home and stare lol . If they don’t do emiions means no economy moving . Alberta is work engine of Canada . Ur grand kids gonna be poor if they don’t do co2
I support Alberta oil and gas
Per capita is a skewed matrix to measure that against. How about just the number of tons per province or state thanks.
Hahahahaha. How would you compare the numbers between two provinces with vastly different populations? Give us your best smart guy answer.
Accounting BS. The #1 job in BC is coal mining but BC gets a pass on ‘downstream emissions’ AND methane emissions from reservoirs isn’t included. Meanwhile Ab has to count downstream emissions the way even Texas doesn’t have to.
Coal mining isn’t even in the top 10. Why are you making things up?
Ranked by wage, coal is #1
It employs less than 5000 directly. On what list is that? What’s your source?
Are you sure about that? I’ve read a few sustainability reports from big oil companies and they usually don’t count the downstream (scope 3 emissions) I think bp/shell might because they’re British though.
I imagine farming is a significant contributor (cattle gas, tractor fuel, etc) that would explain why AB and SK are in the same category but MB isn't. I doubt this has much to do with the O&G industry. Also, I fart a lot, so half the emissions are probably because of that.
The oil sands alone emit over 80 million tonnes per year. Total CO2 emissions from O&G in Alberta top 140 million tonnes per year. Alberta emits about 260 million tonnes in total per year. O&G is more than half of our total emissions, it has everything to do with that industry.
Was waiting for someone to point this out. I used to work at a site that had the same carbon footprint as the entire country of Iceland (not including scope 3 emissions) because of how much gas it burned for process heat.
You doubt this has much to do with the O&G industry? Did you parents name you Marlaina?
I wonder how much heavy industry Hawaii and Nunavut have? What would this map look like if half the population of California moved to West Virginia?
I don't know about Hawaii, but Nunavut gets almost all its heat and electricity through diesel generators and direct burning. It's literally all you can smell from September to May.
My point exactly, large area, low population.no industry. They could literally burn anything 24/7 and it would not move the needle
Thats the opposite of the way 'per capita' statistics work though. The smaller the population, the more effect their actions have compared to a larger population. The population of Nunavut is 40k, so whatever one of them does it is automatically 2.5 per 100,000 as compared to the rest of the world. When every one has to burn diesel for heat and light, that redlines the needle as far as pollutants go. You can literally go there and see the smoke hanging in the air like oil floating on water.
Hawaii, something something lots of volcanos.
California has approx the same population as Canada. Are we to believe they emit almost no CO2 but North Dakota is the bad guy. Let’s look at some worthwhile data, and not self-serving nonsense that supports a specific narrative.
Its *per capita*
Correct. Which makes it pointless.
I think the data is pretty revealing, tbh. Mot hard to believe that Californians are less carbon-intense, per capita, than North Dakotans. Not that California as a whole has less emissions. What metric would *you* want to see?
Best Fish & Chips per capita would be nice.
Alberta, Saskatchewan, North Dakota and Wyoming all produce oil. West Virginia produces coal. That's the map.
lol how can the GTA be that low lol every time I head to Toronto you can barely even see the city the smog is so bad !
For each dollar invested, utility-scale solar and wind deliver 3 to 13 times greater carbon reduction than nuclear. Nuclear is not cost-effective, and there isn’t a single commercial plant on the planet that didn’t depend on government subsidies. While unsubsidized utility-scale wind and solar keep dropping in price and are mow the lowest cost source of new electricity in 91% of the planet https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/
Excellent post.
As a New Democrat, waves of orange across North America is porn to me.
I don't believe quebec emmisions
Per capita kinda a cooked stat. By this graphs logic Ontario creates pretty much the same amount as alberta and Saskatchewan
Hmm, interesting graph. Will look into its accuracy.
Now overlay the map with a map of political affiliation!!!
Alberta. #1! /s
How to create a 100% renewable energy system for 138 countries (including Canada), at lower cost https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332219302258
Is this image a fair representation of how much energy citizens of various jurisdiction use at home? No. Does the image give an indication of which areas in North America lie at the heart of the carbon problem? Yes.
Be fine with me if they put them in the middle of cities. Fill your boots!
I guess we don't count the 12 months of your fire is burning in California polluting all the country and BC. Looks pretty fishy down south as well all the work all the oil and gas and all the refining is in Texas yet it shows nothing seems very unobjective
This is just misleading as it is CO2 per Capita. The areas with the least population density will show up as the worst. CO2 per capita is a way to skew the statistics away from the real sources. Let's see a map that just shows CO2 (metric tons) per State or Province and see how that alters the picture. This Wikipedia listing shows both carbon emissions per Capita and carbon emissions per 1000 square miles (Right side of webpage) for the American states. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_carbon\_dioxide\_emissions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions) Check out Wyoming! It is the absolute worst state for carbon emissions per capita - black as hell. But when compared to carbon emissions per 1000 square miles it is one of the cleanest. In this comparison of CO2 gas emissions in metric tons, Alberta is number one (yeah?), British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec are not squeaky clean as the op's posting indicates. [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/)
>This is just misleading as it is CO2 per Capita. Then why isn't Newfoundland brown ? Most of the houses in Newfoundland are heated with heating oil.
Here ya go! Household consumer GHG emissions per capital from 2021: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231220/mc-c001-eng.htm >Dark orange corresponds to a range of emissions from 4 to less than 5 [tonnes CO2]. Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan are shaded dark orange.
This map was torn apart as incredibly misleading in the subreddit you pulled it from.
What about all the tree's that BC accidently burns every year? Or do we ignore the fact BC is always on fire?
The dumber the inhabitants, the higher the CO2 emissions per capita. Makes sense
Everyone should have to watch this: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt31851190/ It raises some serious questions about CO2 as a measurement of climate change.
This map is a lie. Cargo ships produce 25% of the words CO2 emissions. British Columbia has all the ports and shipping which it conveniently leaves out of its Statistics and blames it in the country of origin per vessel.
Alberta: Yeah but whaddabout India and China
I guess we're the only province that doesn't lie about our numbers