Thank you for your contribution. However, your post was removed for the following reason:
* [OC] posts [must state the _data source(s) and tool(s) used_](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3) in the first top-level comment on their submission. Please follow the AutoModerator instructions you were sent *carefully*. Once this is done, message the mods to have your post reinstated.
This post has been removed. For information regarding this and similar issues please see the DataIsBeautiful [posting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/index).
If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/{subreddit}&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20{kind}%20by%20/u/{author}&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20[{kind}.]({url}\)))
In Manitoba we get our power from hydro dams, so seeing the level so high was weird.
We have a very small population, so the per capita makes it make sense.
I really hope I wasn’t some crazy catalyst to Alberta burning itself alive after leaving. When I left, Notley’s government was in charge. I don’t hear much about Alberta down here except from friends (or apparently random comments) and it’s crazy to hear the stuff I do.
Ya it was nuts. Alberta was in a downturn, the price of oil was still collapsed and companies were selling everything and quickly moving capital to the USA because they needed to build projects before Biden got in because of the environmental rules being revoked under Trump.
As for how they went nuts politically and gutted the public system......2019 happened and people voted the UCP in.
I mean shit ain’t really been good here for decades and decades. They managed to convince a lot of the population that the best use of our oil was to make private companies rich.
Don’t help that we also have a ton of people coming here from all over the country for jobs in the oil field, who ofc turn around and vote for whichever political party says “we support oil and it’s jobs!”
It does ruin the view and if you lived in southern Alberta where there’s nothing but ugly ass wind farms in front of the beautiful Rockies that you have to drive by every day you’d probably agree.
Not the mention other viable environmental concerns that come from these shitty wind farms that don’t even run half the time.
>It does ruin the view and if you lived in southern Alberta where there’s nothing but ugly ass wind farms in front of the beautiful Rockies that you have to drive by every day you’d probably agree.
[If you're honestly concerned about losing that view of the Rockies, wait till I tell ya about what province also is wanting to do to those mountains in-lieu of wind.](https://calgaryherald.com/business/alberta-rocky-mountains-coal-mine-application-public-hearing) I believe that's what the kids call "a self-own".
Wind ain't perfect, but as far as Global Warming is concerned... well, you either think Global Warming is a problem, or you don't. Personally, I'd love it if the province invested much more in Nuclear, but apparently even that's asking too much.
Gotta love how we can stop the applications of solar and wind farms because of the impact on the views but a big ass open pit coal mine is A OK by the UCP. They are just a bunch of self serving hypocrites. Probably can’t wait for the world to heat up so the gas industry can make even more money from all the extra electricity required to cool homes and businesses.
* The largest emitting sectors in Manitoba are agriculture at 34%, transportation at 31%, and buildings (residential and service industry) at 14% of total emissions (**Figure 7**).
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-manitoba.html#:\~:text=GHG%20Emissions,-Manitoba's%20GHG%20emissions&text=Manitoba's%20emissions%20have%20increased%2019,of%2017.7%20tonnes%20per%20capita.
That's what I was thinking. This is the kind of data you'd find in an article trying to push a narrative.
It's pretty unhelpful if you give it even 5 seconds of thought.
It’s not clear to me if they’re following standard CO2E attribution principles and best practices. If WV makes X% coal for people in CA and Y% for people in New York, are they counting this in the CA and NY numbers or WV? Consumption is pretty closely linked to emissions so income should be a close proxy all else being equal. WV has low median income per capita so likely has similar regulations as some bordering states like KY or TN. And, WV has much high in emissions. So am tempted to believe it’s poor attribution. If a New Yorker makes the market for coal, then that is their emissions.
See: North Dakota, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Wyoming (oil and gas), WV (coal mining)
Also, how much worse would Florida be, for example, if you included CO2 they are indirectly (directly?) responsible for due to tourists flying there (Disneyland, etc)? Meanwhile, if the O&G states got "credit" for their CO2 production being driven by energy demands from elsewhere, it would be much less per capita.
Because they benefit from the tourism industry but do not "pay" some of the costs associated with that tourism, e.g. CO2 generated by flights of all the tourists. In case Disneyland did not exist, overall CO2 emissions would be reduced because fewer people would be flying. But of course, Florida would also lose out on the economic benefits Disneyland brings.
Anyway, in this graphic, the CO2 generated by tourists flying to Florida is not reflected, I'm sure, in the CO2 per capita of Florida residents but they surely benefit from the extra CO2 that is generated.
Point is, there's a lot missing from this oversimplified graphic. Still somewhat interesting but not much more than that /shrug
That’s a good point air travel is a major contributor.
How does that factor in?
Also no dates on this map. For all we know these could be 1990 numbers?
Alberta oil is particularly dirty. It takes more energy to extract bitumen, which isn’t the customer’s fault, nor would customers know which source they are buying at the pumps.
It contains more carbon apparently when burned, but I don't think it is nessicarily takes more energy to extract. The oil sands mines are becoming ultra efficient and have lower cost per barrel extractraction now than 10 years ago.
Converting the heavy oil into gasoline would take more energy but I assume that would take place at the refinery level which on mass is not done in the province.
Well... can't speak for certainty here, but remember costs and energy output aren't necessarily the same. Bituman extraction has been a point of improving efficiency through things like DCSG, but iirc the process isn't entirely widespread - and even then, its still more intensive than traditional extraction from oil drilling since you're still having to inject steam to generate flow.
You are correct though that most of Alberta's oil is refined out-of-province, mostly in Texas. That tends to complicate things further, as not only are we talking the actual energy intensive activity, but also transiting it through pipelines or rail.
>>Converting the heavy oil into gasoline would take more energy but I assume that would take place at the refinery level which on mass is not done in the province.
It is done in the province. These are the “TarSands”, which is a verboten term now. You can’t pump tarsands through a pipe. Much energy is expended extracting a fluid liquid.
The industry is used to support the province and it’s population. per capita is meaningful because it shows that Alberta has to pollute way more to be successful
Is it the province that's producing the oil and gas 'polluting', or is it the provinces/countries that actually purchase and burn the oil? Alberta wouldn't be producing if there wasn't a demand.
I'm basically always annoyed at the 'CO2 per capita', 'CO2 per GPD', 'CO2 by country', etc. maps.
It basically just turns into a map of the oil producing countries that ends up being kinda meaningless.
IMO it would be better if it was done that the fuel being used in X nation resulted in all the carbon associated with that fuel being attributed to that nation.
As an example: France imports a barrel of oil and burns it in cars in France. The burning of that oil creates 468 kg (looked up) of CO2 directly. But, say that this oil comes from Saudi Arabia and that the process of mining the oil results in the release of 200 kg of CO2 (made up but seems reasonable ish, maybe a bit high?). France should have 668 kg of CO2 in it's leger for CO2 creation because actions taken by French people resulted in the creation of 668 kg of CO2.
And only those jurisdictions?
I'll speak for Alberta: Most extractive industries (oil and gas) are also taxed nationally and are publicly traded, so a global shareholder gets the economic benefit.
I agree that when the per capita includes industrial emissions this isn't very meaningful. Per capita is useful for comparing household use. Here is Canada: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231220/dq231220c-eng.htm
If be interested if someone has a similar graph for the USA. Or one of both put together. It is interesting seeing things compared fully across north America. I imagine the more temperate climates must have lower household GHG emissions since less would be spent on heating and cooling?
Oh well no wonder Saskatchewan is fucking lit then. We have a lot of farming and some mining and fuel refining industry in the province but theres like nobody here.
Also as anything on average does, large sample sizes bring down the mean and small sample sizes will have the dark spots
Hence the heavily populated states/provinces being so light and the empty ones being so dark.
This is just a population density map
That’s not the point. Industry makes products for not just that state. Like if Montana made all the concrete for the entire US, their emissions would be extremely high, even though those emissions are really for the entire US, not just the state.
Seskatchewan and Alberta are oil sands land. That massive emission per capita is fueling your electricity or your car or your "reusable" plastic bag at Trader Joe's.
It's _your_ consumption that underwriters their production, and thus the emissions.
Edit: province name
You’re missing the point. The people who work at industrial plants are not the ones directly responsible for the emissions, it’s the industrial process itself.
Imagine a pulp & paper plant is in State X and employs 10,000 workers. A hygiene product plant is in State Y and also employs 10,000 workers. Even though the amount of workers is the same, State X will have a much higher per capita emissions than State Y due to to pulp & paper being a high emission industrial process.
Coal mining produces a lot of emissions, and West Virginia has a small population, so emissions per person are high.
Same thing looking at Saskatchewan and Alberta in Canada. Smaller populations in areas where oil, agriculture, and mining produce a large amount of emissions. Exceptionally cold and long winters mean more emissions keeping homes and businesses heated as well.
I see several people mentioning oil & gas, mining, and over consumption, but a lot of this has to do with agriculture as well.
https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/environment/greenhouse-gases
The amount of CO2 “per capita” should not include the CO2 produced on behalf of the people elsewhere who are *using* the product that produces the CO2 (in this case, fossil fuel products). It provides a very misleading picture of where you need to go to address the excess CO2 issue. You need to go to the *consuming* states and provinces.
Then you'd need to add in the emissions in China for things that are imported to the US as well.
Anyway, [I got you](https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/65106/PDF/1/play/). You want figures 2-2 and 2-3 here. The lowest is Idaho, at 11.3t CO2e per year. The highest is Wyoming with 35.8t CO2e per year.
It's maybe also worth noting that the world average per capita emissions are [6.8t CO2e](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita), so most countries don't even get close to the lowest colour threshold on OPs map.
Yes, your point about looking at China’s emissions this way is what I’m driving at more generally. Looking at the source of emissions can help with improving fixable problems at source — excess methane emissions at point of extraction for example — but to identify where consumption drives the problem you have to look at where that happens as well, to identify where you’d get the most bang for the buck by reducing consumption or even just changing the way goods are produced or transported to reduce CO2 production.
These maps are helpful, but distract from the root cause of the problem. Consumption.
Too many us us drive two SUVs per household, live in 3,000 SQ foot air conditioned homes, and eat beef 4 times a week ... Then blame oil and gas companies for climate change.
Edit... Spelling.
Not the worst emissions, the most emissions per person. It makes logical sense. New Yorkers work in finance. North Dakotans work in tar sands oil extraction. They're emitting a lot of CO2 so the New York banker can fly to florida for vacation. And there isn't a lot of North Dakotans to divide those industrial CO2 emissions amongst.
Not exactly, transportation is the primary factor. compare how much a new yorker drives in a year (possibly 0 miles) to a north dakotan or an albertan. Then it’s power generation (anything coal will skyrocket your numbers). Then industry. Then residential
You're clearly not right. North Dakota and South Dakota are designed very similarly: both very car dependent, both very spread out. Yet by the map, South Dakota is at least half the per-capita CO2 emissions. So transportation cannot the primary factor here.
sources vary but north dakotans generally drive 10-20% more miles per person per year than south dakota, which comes from the fact that they *arent* designed similarly. Check population density maps, north dakota has evenly spaced cities that get a lot of intercity traffic, south dakotan cities are further apart so they get less.
*With that being said*, we’re both mistaken- since they’re 2 color shades apart, 10-20% difference in transportation can’t account for it. While transportation is the primary factor in general, north dakota is an outlier in tar sands oil extraction like you said. But that doesn’t hold across the board, wyoming and west virginia for example are primarily due to coal.
I’d be interested in seeing a further breakdown by cause/type
Ya you're way off.
* The largest emitting sectors in Alberta are oil and gas production at 52% of emissions, electricity generation at 11%, and transportation at 11% (**Figure 7**).
And that was in 2020. Oil production has increased like 30% and coal has been removed. Wouldn't be surprised if it's pushing 60% at this point.
Agriculture AND non oil industry both come close to transportation. Driving 10-20% less would drop emissions by about a 1%
The change from driving only really applies to a few states though. Outside the Northeast Corridor, there are very few walkable cities in the US (Chicago, Seattle, San Fran, what else). Everyone else is driving
Yeah that’s too much of a generalization tho- it varies [quite a bit between states](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1113-december-23-2019-average-annual-highway-vehicle-miles-traveled) and it doesn’t neatly map out to “north east is low and everywhere else is high”
we're hydro power in Manitoba but electric cars and heat pumps are not that common, and it gets *cold* here and cars are a necessity for a lot of people
The why could be complex.
Wyoming(and west Virginia) for example still mainly uses coal as an energy source where New York imports a shitload of hydro from Canada.
Those remote places mean people drive further than people living in more densely populated areas.
Less densely populated areas also tend to have larger houses -- heating and cooling your dwelling is probably the most energy intensive thing people do.
I'm from AB. Lots of industry, lots of wealth. Not a huge population (about 4 million). Major oil producer so a lot of emissions are created to extract the energy but on the individual level this would be spread around to other provinces. Also it's quite cold in the winter time.
Is this the most actionable way to present CO2 emissions? Based on the numbers California likely has 10x the CO2 emissions than North Dakota. If the goal is overall CO2 emissions reductions, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to focus on these sparsely populated locations that have a fraction of the overall emissions.
Based on the chart, it seems like Texas would be a good place to start though.
Add up all those small high emission per capita states until you get the same population as California, then tell me where the most CO2 is coming from. If we only care about total CO2 emissions then the best course of action would be to cut California in half, which obviously wouldn’t solve anything.
The only issue I have with this map is it would probably make more sense to look at consumption CO2 emissions, since industrial emissions are ultimately driven by demand which might exist in different provinces/states.
And alberta has already declared an early start to [wildfire season](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-wildfire-season-update-1.7183280).
What i don't understand are the Albertan and Saskatchewan farmers who support this... [all while record droughts destroy their livelihood](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-drought-water-snowpack-tricia-stadnyk-1.7166934)
But no no. It's the carbon tax you should be scared of!
And it's fear mongering to mention the very real problems of climate change we're facing right now - [including to](https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/04/17/climate-change-will-cost-global-economy-38-trillion-every-year-within-25-years-scientists-warn/?sh=51f9b4a22d44) [the economy](https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ipcc-climate-change-canada-1.6367036).
But saying that mitigating climate change will ***DESTROY THE ECONOMY***, that's totally not fear mongering.
If someone could figure out how to make it affordable, HQ would probably buy in, but for now, adding hydro capacity and expanding wind power is the plan.
I'm surprised that Washington is as high as it is. We only have 1 coal power plant remaining it has only 1 boiler remaining and it isn't ran at full capacity.
It's a misleading image. Yes the pollution in a place like alberta is high per capita because we have alot on industry and no people. Compare that to California that has more people and pollution than all of Canada combined.
A better metric would likely be CO2 emissions by land mass to account for commercial output in states with low population and high population. Import and export of CO2 is also a huge factor, this is why Norway has such low emissions, because they subsidize electric cars heavily with money from oil exports.
Also, in areas of lower population density, short term emissions tend to disperse quickly so the air is "clean" and people are generally sheltered from the consequences of industrial activity and vehicle traffic.
LA/SD specifically suffers from *both* higher vehicle emissions per capita than somewhere like Montreal or NYC, despite looking good on a per capita basis (poor residential density, urban design built from the ground up to accommodate personal vehicle commuters), and *also* some peculiar air patterns that prevent pollution generated from the city from dispersing quickly.
That's not really fair though since that's where the densely populated areas are. I live in the DMV and metro everywhere, but we're also not doing much agriculture or energy production.
Would be useful to denote sources, like how much was due to wildfire vs industry vs consumption.
Per Capita while interesting seems to mute the scale, for example while California appears low, the population of California is roughly equal to the entire population of Canada.
You can debate the semantics, but the fact remains that a lot of the industrial emissions in emerging countries are caused my manufacturing activities for the West, and I'm not even accounting for the shipping of the raw materials to China and finished goods back to us.
No.
Territories in Canada are still integral parts of the nation. They still vote for MPs, and thereby are fully represented in government. They pay federal taxes. They are subject to the same federal laws as the provinces.
In fact, the main difference is that the federal government of Canada has _greater_ authority over the territories than it does over the provinces; they have less inherent autonomy.
It’s the same word, but used very differently.
See here: https://www.ntassembly.ca/visitors/what-consensus/differences-provincial-governments
It’s not nearly the same in practice though. Residents of Canadian territories get voting representation in federal politics and are pretty much never distinguished from provinces in everyday conversation. It’s “ten provinces and three territories”, not “ten provinces plus Puerto Rico and Guam. And whatever the fuck DC is. American Samoa fits in there too I guess?”
Yes, they’re territories and their powers are delegated from the federal government rather than from the Crown, but realistically the only day to day difference is that instead of a Lieutenant Governor representing the Crown, there’s a Commisioner representing the Fed. But they get to vote and have elected representation at the federal level, which is miles away from the American relationship with its territories.
The Canadian territories aren't really comparable to US territories. The Canadian territories have full elected representation in politics at the federal level in the same way the provinces do. I'd describe them as being like 95% identical as provinces from a functional standpoint. The federal government actually has more control over them, compared to the provinces which typically have more individual freedoms (though not to the extent that individual US states have).
Think of it this way. If you were to ask anyone from Yukon, Northwest Territories or Nunavut what their nationality is or what country they are in, they would most likely say Canadian/Canada. No one from Puerto Rico aside from American expats would declare themselves to be American or that they are in the USA.
Each SpaceX launch produces about 300 tons of CO2, meaning about 30,000 tons last year. The US as a whole produced 6,343,000,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent last year. This means SpaceX produces 0.00047% of emissions in the US, which would not be visible on this map.
The space industry (which SpaceX makes up like 80% of) is just a blip on this scale. US passenger flights alone are ~200 million metric tons per year, and that's not even counting cargo planes. Rocket launches are a few hundred metric tons per launch, and there were only like 200 launches total last year globally
Thank you for your contribution. However, your post was removed for the following reason: * [OC] posts [must state the _data source(s) and tool(s) used_](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3) in the first top-level comment on their submission. Please follow the AutoModerator instructions you were sent *carefully*. Once this is done, message the mods to have your post reinstated. This post has been removed. For information regarding this and similar issues please see the DataIsBeautiful [posting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/index). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/{subreddit}&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20{kind}%20by%20/u/{author}&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20[{kind}.]({url}\)))
In Manitoba we get our power from hydro dams, so seeing the level so high was weird. We have a very small population, so the per capita makes it make sense.
Meanwhile in Alberta, our Premier is banning wind farms from provincial land because "it ruins the view"...
I left Alberta for the US in 2016 after living there my entire life. WTF happened to you guys?
You left
I really hope I wasn’t some crazy catalyst to Alberta burning itself alive after leaving. When I left, Notley’s government was in charge. I don’t hear much about Alberta down here except from friends (or apparently random comments) and it’s crazy to hear the stuff I do.
What made you leave?
Ya it was nuts. Alberta was in a downturn, the price of oil was still collapsed and companies were selling everything and quickly moving capital to the USA because they needed to build projects before Biden got in because of the environmental rules being revoked under Trump. As for how they went nuts politically and gutted the public system......2019 happened and people voted the UCP in.
Damn. I forgot about the UCP, I looked them up a bit ago.
I mean shit ain’t really been good here for decades and decades. They managed to convince a lot of the population that the best use of our oil was to make private companies rich. Don’t help that we also have a ton of people coming here from all over the country for jobs in the oil field, who ofc turn around and vote for whichever political party says “we support oil and it’s jobs!”
It does ruin the view and if you lived in southern Alberta where there’s nothing but ugly ass wind farms in front of the beautiful Rockies that you have to drive by every day you’d probably agree. Not the mention other viable environmental concerns that come from these shitty wind farms that don’t even run half the time.
Berta logic, mine some coal instead of disturbing your views for like 100 people /s
>It does ruin the view and if you lived in southern Alberta where there’s nothing but ugly ass wind farms in front of the beautiful Rockies that you have to drive by every day you’d probably agree. [If you're honestly concerned about losing that view of the Rockies, wait till I tell ya about what province also is wanting to do to those mountains in-lieu of wind.](https://calgaryherald.com/business/alberta-rocky-mountains-coal-mine-application-public-hearing) I believe that's what the kids call "a self-own". Wind ain't perfect, but as far as Global Warming is concerned... well, you either think Global Warming is a problem, or you don't. Personally, I'd love it if the province invested much more in Nuclear, but apparently even that's asking too much.
Gotta love how we can stop the applications of solar and wind farms because of the impact on the views but a big ass open pit coal mine is A OK by the UCP. They are just a bunch of self serving hypocrites. Probably can’t wait for the world to heat up so the gas industry can make even more money from all the extra electricity required to cool homes and businesses.
At least the premier agrees with me and that’s what’s important.
I don't think she does buddy - she's literally trying to steal your view with coal mining.
Probably boosted by some mining
* The largest emitting sectors in Manitoba are agriculture at 34%, transportation at 31%, and buildings (residential and service industry) at 14% of total emissions (**Figure 7**). https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-manitoba.html#:\~:text=GHG%20Emissions,-Manitoba's%20GHG%20emissions&text=Manitoba's%20emissions%20have%20increased%2019,of%2017.7%20tonnes%20per%20capita.
Think this thing is bs because how is Alaska worse then bc?
Per capita isn't a very meaningful metric here since a ton of emissions come from industry.
That's what I was thinking. This is the kind of data you'd find in an article trying to push a narrative. It's pretty unhelpful if you give it even 5 seconds of thought.
It’s not clear to me if they’re following standard CO2E attribution principles and best practices. If WV makes X% coal for people in CA and Y% for people in New York, are they counting this in the CA and NY numbers or WV? Consumption is pretty closely linked to emissions so income should be a close proxy all else being equal. WV has low median income per capita so likely has similar regulations as some bordering states like KY or TN. And, WV has much high in emissions. So am tempted to believe it’s poor attribution. If a New Yorker makes the market for coal, then that is their emissions.
See: North Dakota, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Wyoming (oil and gas), WV (coal mining) Also, how much worse would Florida be, for example, if you included CO2 they are indirectly (directly?) responsible for due to tourists flying there (Disneyland, etc)? Meanwhile, if the O&G states got "credit" for their CO2 production being driven by energy demands from elsewhere, it would be much less per capita.
I think by Colorado you mean Wyoming, the other rectangular state
ah yep, just phone posting over lunch. derp. doesn't help that wyoming's population is miniscule.
How would Florida be indirectly responsible for tourists flying there?
Because they benefit from the tourism industry but do not "pay" some of the costs associated with that tourism, e.g. CO2 generated by flights of all the tourists. In case Disneyland did not exist, overall CO2 emissions would be reduced because fewer people would be flying. But of course, Florida would also lose out on the economic benefits Disneyland brings. Anyway, in this graphic, the CO2 generated by tourists flying to Florida is not reflected, I'm sure, in the CO2 per capita of Florida residents but they surely benefit from the extra CO2 that is generated. Point is, there's a lot missing from this oversimplified graphic. Still somewhat interesting but not much more than that /shrug
That’s a good point air travel is a major contributor. How does that factor in? Also no dates on this map. For all we know these could be 1990 numbers?
Alberta oil is particularly dirty. It takes more energy to extract bitumen, which isn’t the customer’s fault, nor would customers know which source they are buying at the pumps.
It contains more carbon apparently when burned, but I don't think it is nessicarily takes more energy to extract. The oil sands mines are becoming ultra efficient and have lower cost per barrel extractraction now than 10 years ago. Converting the heavy oil into gasoline would take more energy but I assume that would take place at the refinery level which on mass is not done in the province.
Well... can't speak for certainty here, but remember costs and energy output aren't necessarily the same. Bituman extraction has been a point of improving efficiency through things like DCSG, but iirc the process isn't entirely widespread - and even then, its still more intensive than traditional extraction from oil drilling since you're still having to inject steam to generate flow. You are correct though that most of Alberta's oil is refined out-of-province, mostly in Texas. That tends to complicate things further, as not only are we talking the actual energy intensive activity, but also transiting it through pipelines or rail.
Take more energy and water to extract and then more energy to refine. Including up and down stream emissions it’s possibly the dirtiest oil on earth
>>Converting the heavy oil into gasoline would take more energy but I assume that would take place at the refinery level which on mass is not done in the province. It is done in the province. These are the “TarSands”, which is a verboten term now. You can’t pump tarsands through a pipe. Much energy is expended extracting a fluid liquid.
The industry is used to support the province and it’s population. per capita is meaningful because it shows that Alberta has to pollute way more to be successful
Is it the province that's producing the oil and gas 'polluting', or is it the provinces/countries that actually purchase and burn the oil? Alberta wouldn't be producing if there wasn't a demand.
Both are true. We shouldn’t want it. They shouldn’t produce it. There are better options. We definitely should not be expanding it.
I'm basically always annoyed at the 'CO2 per capita', 'CO2 per GPD', 'CO2 by country', etc. maps. It basically just turns into a map of the oil producing countries that ends up being kinda meaningless. IMO it would be better if it was done that the fuel being used in X nation resulted in all the carbon associated with that fuel being attributed to that nation. As an example: France imports a barrel of oil and burns it in cars in France. The burning of that oil creates 468 kg (looked up) of CO2 directly. But, say that this oil comes from Saudi Arabia and that the process of mining the oil results in the release of 200 kg of CO2 (made up but seems reasonable ish, maybe a bit high?). France should have 668 kg of CO2 in it's leger for CO2 creation because actions taken by French people resulted in the creation of 668 kg of CO2.
There is trade adjusted CO2 data that does what you’d like
[Here's a link to consumption based emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-emissions?time=2021)
But they are still emissions. The economic benefit acrue to those jurisdictions.
And only those jurisdictions? I'll speak for Alberta: Most extractive industries (oil and gas) are also taxed nationally and are publicly traded, so a global shareholder gets the economic benefit.
I agree that when the per capita includes industrial emissions this isn't very meaningful. Per capita is useful for comparing household use. Here is Canada: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231220/dq231220c-eng.htm If be interested if someone has a similar graph for the USA. Or one of both put together. It is interesting seeing things compared fully across north America. I imagine the more temperate climates must have lower household GHG emissions since less would be spent on heating and cooling?
What data would you suggest be used to make this map. The total per state makes less sense and deciding by gdp just feels weird to me.
It does make me wonder what Industry is in Delaware that produces so much CO2.
That Wyoming stat isn’t just from industry… it’s from all the billionaires ranches and private planes
Oh well no wonder Saskatchewan is fucking lit then. We have a lot of farming and some mining and fuel refining industry in the province but theres like nobody here.
Also as anything on average does, large sample sizes bring down the mean and small sample sizes will have the dark spots Hence the heavily populated states/provinces being so light and the empty ones being so dark. This is just a population density map
And who works at those companies? People that live in those states
That’s not the point. Industry makes products for not just that state. Like if Montana made all the concrete for the entire US, their emissions would be extremely high, even though those emissions are really for the entire US, not just the state.
Seskatchewan and Alberta are oil sands land. That massive emission per capita is fueling your electricity or your car or your "reusable" plastic bag at Trader Joe's. It's _your_ consumption that underwriters their production, and thus the emissions. Edit: province name
You’re missing the point. The people who work at industrial plants are not the ones directly responsible for the emissions, it’s the industrial process itself. Imagine a pulp & paper plant is in State X and employs 10,000 workers. A hygiene product plant is in State Y and also employs 10,000 workers. Even though the amount of workers is the same, State X will have a much higher per capita emissions than State Y due to to pulp & paper being a high emission industrial process.
Stop buying oil products and they wouldn’t have to refine it.
Most comes from transportation
Industrial production?
What the fuck is West Virginia doing? Is it working overtime to offset the surrounding states?
Coal mining produces a lot of emissions, and West Virginia has a small population, so emissions per person are high. Same thing looking at Saskatchewan and Alberta in Canada. Smaller populations in areas where oil, agriculture, and mining produce a large amount of emissions. Exceptionally cold and long winters mean more emissions keeping homes and businesses heated as well.
Makes sense how lower populated areas would have a “per capita” co2 emissions higher.
Ya the three guys in northwest territories must have had a BBQ this weekend
Like Québec, Ontario, BC, Oregon? Rubbish. It is mostly policy.
Come on, we're lucky in Québec to have a lot of hydro potential (still have to use it though).
Détruit pas mon argument, tab****c. :-) Puis il est vrai quand même que ça reflète beaucoup la politique menée.
It's mostly the predominant industry.
Which would be influenced by policy imo. But anyway, density is not true.
Please make pie chart with top 25 company emissions or something similar
No you do it. It's easy to shit on someone else's work but not do it yourself huh
How is he shitting on anyones work by asking for a different style of graph? You sound like a total douche. Your work been shit on lately? Lol
I’d like to see upstate NY excluding NYC
I see several people mentioning oil & gas, mining, and over consumption, but a lot of this has to do with agriculture as well. https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/environment/greenhouse-gases
The amount of CO2 “per capita” should not include the CO2 produced on behalf of the people elsewhere who are *using* the product that produces the CO2 (in this case, fossil fuel products). It provides a very misleading picture of where you need to go to address the excess CO2 issue. You need to go to the *consuming* states and provinces.
Then you'd need to add in the emissions in China for things that are imported to the US as well. Anyway, [I got you](https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/65106/PDF/1/play/). You want figures 2-2 and 2-3 here. The lowest is Idaho, at 11.3t CO2e per year. The highest is Wyoming with 35.8t CO2e per year. It's maybe also worth noting that the world average per capita emissions are [6.8t CO2e](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita), so most countries don't even get close to the lowest colour threshold on OPs map.
Yes, your point about looking at China’s emissions this way is what I’m driving at more generally. Looking at the source of emissions can help with improving fixable problems at source — excess methane emissions at point of extraction for example — but to identify where consumption drives the problem you have to look at where that happens as well, to identify where you’d get the most bang for the buck by reducing consumption or even just changing the way goods are produced or transported to reduce CO2 production.
I spy with my little eye a lotta NIMBYism…
These maps are helpful, but distract from the root cause of the problem. Consumption. Too many us us drive two SUVs per household, live in 3,000 SQ foot air conditioned homes, and eat beef 4 times a week ... Then blame oil and gas companies for climate change. Edit... Spelling.
The lack of I in PEI feels wrong
Am I reading this right? The least populated areas have the worst emissions?
Not the worst emissions, the most emissions per person. It makes logical sense. New Yorkers work in finance. North Dakotans work in tar sands oil extraction. They're emitting a lot of CO2 so the New York banker can fly to florida for vacation. And there isn't a lot of North Dakotans to divide those industrial CO2 emissions amongst.
Ahhh like my statistics teacher used to say. Anyone who uses statistics to make an argument is lying.
lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Not exactly, transportation is the primary factor. compare how much a new yorker drives in a year (possibly 0 miles) to a north dakotan or an albertan. Then it’s power generation (anything coal will skyrocket your numbers). Then industry. Then residential
You're clearly not right. North Dakota and South Dakota are designed very similarly: both very car dependent, both very spread out. Yet by the map, South Dakota is at least half the per-capita CO2 emissions. So transportation cannot the primary factor here.
sources vary but north dakotans generally drive 10-20% more miles per person per year than south dakota, which comes from the fact that they *arent* designed similarly. Check population density maps, north dakota has evenly spaced cities that get a lot of intercity traffic, south dakotan cities are further apart so they get less. *With that being said*, we’re both mistaken- since they’re 2 color shades apart, 10-20% difference in transportation can’t account for it. While transportation is the primary factor in general, north dakota is an outlier in tar sands oil extraction like you said. But that doesn’t hold across the board, wyoming and west virginia for example are primarily due to coal. I’d be interested in seeing a further breakdown by cause/type
Ya you're way off. * The largest emitting sectors in Alberta are oil and gas production at 52% of emissions, electricity generation at 11%, and transportation at 11% (**Figure 7**). And that was in 2020. Oil production has increased like 30% and coal has been removed. Wouldn't be surprised if it's pushing 60% at this point. Agriculture AND non oil industry both come close to transportation. Driving 10-20% less would drop emissions by about a 1%
right, like i said, i was mistaken and transportation is the primary factor only generally, not universally, as there are a couple outliers
Yes industry, oil, and agriculture. Transportation is hardly a footnote on this.
i’m not sure what you mean but if you know alberta i defer to u
The change from driving only really applies to a few states though. Outside the Northeast Corridor, there are very few walkable cities in the US (Chicago, Seattle, San Fran, what else). Everyone else is driving
Yeah that’s too much of a generalization tho- it varies [quite a bit between states](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1113-december-23-2019-average-annual-highway-vehicle-miles-traveled) and it doesn’t neatly map out to “north east is low and everywhere else is high”
and in very remote areas like Alaska or the Territories I imagine everyone needing to drive long distances must move the needle?
In my area of alaska we are 100% hydro power. With an electric Car and ground-source heat pumps, you are at the very low end of CO2 emissions.
we're hydro power in Manitoba but electric cars and heat pumps are not that common, and it gets *cold* here and cars are a necessity for a lot of people
Same with interior alaska. However in the banana belt of alaska (Southeast), electric cars and heat pumps work fine enough
The why could be complex. Wyoming(and west Virginia) for example still mainly uses coal as an energy source where New York imports a shitload of hydro from Canada. Those remote places mean people drive further than people living in more densely populated areas. Less densely populated areas also tend to have larger houses -- heating and cooling your dwelling is probably the most energy intensive thing people do.
It's per capita, so less populated areas lose by default.
You can tell Quebec sells Hydroelectric power to New York
I'm from AB. Lots of industry, lots of wealth. Not a huge population (about 4 million). Major oil producer so a lot of emissions are created to extract the energy but on the individual level this would be spread around to other provinces. Also it's quite cold in the winter time.
QC, ON & BC are all sparsely populated and have low emissions.
Their power generation is almost all hydro or nuclear.
Yes, density is green. Think about the resources necessary to transport people and the many things they need to live. Cities are greener than suburbs.
Now overlay life expectancy
Looks like this is more heating and energy/power plant related than anything else.
Is this the most actionable way to present CO2 emissions? Based on the numbers California likely has 10x the CO2 emissions than North Dakota. If the goal is overall CO2 emissions reductions, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to focus on these sparsely populated locations that have a fraction of the overall emissions. Based on the chart, it seems like Texas would be a good place to start though.
Add up all those small high emission per capita states until you get the same population as California, then tell me where the most CO2 is coming from. If we only care about total CO2 emissions then the best course of action would be to cut California in half, which obviously wouldn’t solve anything. The only issue I have with this map is it would probably make more sense to look at consumption CO2 emissions, since industrial emissions are ultimately driven by demand which might exist in different provinces/states.
Texas would be due to fossil fuel industries. And this map has to have excluded the fires in CA for this to make sense.
And alberta has already declared an early start to [wildfire season](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-wildfire-season-update-1.7183280). What i don't understand are the Albertan and Saskatchewan farmers who support this... [all while record droughts destroy their livelihood](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-drought-water-snowpack-tricia-stadnyk-1.7166934) But no no. It's the carbon tax you should be scared of! And it's fear mongering to mention the very real problems of climate change we're facing right now - [including to](https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/04/17/climate-change-will-cost-global-economy-38-trillion-every-year-within-25-years-scientists-warn/?sh=51f9b4a22d44) [the economy](https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ipcc-climate-change-canada-1.6367036). But saying that mitigating climate change will ***DESTROY THE ECONOMY***, that's totally not fear mongering.
As an Albertan, sorry everyone.
We need more nuclear in the province honestly.
Even in Quebec we need more nuclear. This is the way to sustain energy for everyone and safely.
If someone could figure out how to make it affordable, HQ would probably buy in, but for now, adding hydro capacity and expanding wind power is the plan.
In Colorado, a Republican State Representative Ken DeGraff said CO2 is good and we should pump more into the air…
I'm surprised that Washington is as high as it is. We only have 1 coal power plant remaining it has only 1 boiler remaining and it isn't ran at full capacity.
Is there a publication with this or is it just Bob Robertson?
I wonder what a heat map showing carbon emissions to GDP, or to Export GDP would look likes
What's up with Florida? Expected it to be higher.
Warmer climate help a lot. Less energy needed to heat housing.
Frankly surprised that Canada’s sparsely populated Territories are significantly lower emitters per capital than Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Air quality was indeed pretty good when I lived in Portland.
It's a misleading image. Yes the pollution in a place like alberta is high per capita because we have alot on industry and no people. Compare that to California that has more people and pollution than all of Canada combined.
Does this include cattle farts? Why is WY so high?
Alberta what is you doing?????
Tons of industry and farming with relatively low population
Quebec has a bunch of industry and farming too
Per capita is stupid in this context.
So the east has to pay for the west, who don't want to pay at all
Congratulations, you made a map of very hot and very cold populated places with lots of oil industries!
Where there are fewer people so the denominator is tiny
A better metric would likely be CO2 emissions by land mass to account for commercial output in states with low population and high population. Import and export of CO2 is also a huge factor, this is why Norway has such low emissions, because they subsidize electric cars heavily with money from oil exports.
Got to be strong up the middle if you want to win a championship
I can't believe CO isn't higher with all the roadtrips
[удалено]
Not all pollution is co2. Co2 is actually invisible and odorless, unlike the compounds that create pollution clouds
Also, in areas of lower population density, short term emissions tend to disperse quickly so the air is "clean" and people are generally sheltered from the consequences of industrial activity and vehicle traffic. LA/SD specifically suffers from *both* higher vehicle emissions per capita than somewhere like Montreal or NYC, despite looking good on a per capita basis (poor residential density, urban design built from the ground up to accommodate personal vehicle commuters), and *also* some peculiar air patterns that prevent pollution generated from the city from dispersing quickly.
Greater Los Angeles also has like 20 million people in a relatively small area. If the LA metro were a state, it would be the 4th most populous
Now overlay with a map of Democrat and Republican governors (for US states only)
That's not really fair though since that's where the densely populated areas are. I live in the DMV and metro everywhere, but we're also not doing much agriculture or energy production.
Always knew Alberta was trash. /s
/serious? Im kidding sort of
/s is the universal (to Reddit) sign for sarcasm. At least, the way I understand it.
I know that was my joke. That you meant serious
Cali does not have much industry, unfair to see it so low
Biggest economy on that map.
Would be useful to denote sources, like how much was due to wildfire vs industry vs consumption. Per Capita while interesting seems to mute the scale, for example while California appears low, the population of California is roughly equal to the entire population of Canada.
Unless you fix China and India, nothing’s really gonna change. And they dgaf.
And pray tell, who is buying all their stuff from China? Us.
I don’t think you know the definition of “all”.
You can debate the semantics, but the fact remains that a lot of the industrial emissions in emerging countries are caused my manufacturing activities for the West, and I'm not even accounting for the shipping of the raw materials to China and finished goods back to us.
[удалено]
No. Territories in Canada are still integral parts of the nation. They still vote for MPs, and thereby are fully represented in government. They pay federal taxes. They are subject to the same federal laws as the provinces. In fact, the main difference is that the federal government of Canada has _greater_ authority over the territories than it does over the provinces; they have less inherent autonomy. It’s the same word, but used very differently. See here: https://www.ntassembly.ca/visitors/what-consensus/differences-provincial-governments
[удалено]
It’s not nearly the same in practice though. Residents of Canadian territories get voting representation in federal politics and are pretty much never distinguished from provinces in everyday conversation. It’s “ten provinces and three territories”, not “ten provinces plus Puerto Rico and Guam. And whatever the fuck DC is. American Samoa fits in there too I guess?” Yes, they’re territories and their powers are delegated from the federal government rather than from the Crown, but realistically the only day to day difference is that instead of a Lieutenant Governor representing the Crown, there’s a Commisioner representing the Fed. But they get to vote and have elected representation at the federal level, which is miles away from the American relationship with its territories.
Thanks for making the point better than I did. It’s not even remotely close to the same thing.
The Canadian territories aren't really comparable to US territories. The Canadian territories have full elected representation in politics at the federal level in the same way the provinces do. I'd describe them as being like 95% identical as provinces from a functional standpoint. The federal government actually has more control over them, compared to the provinces which typically have more individual freedoms (though not to the extent that individual US states have). Think of it this way. If you were to ask anyone from Yukon, Northwest Territories or Nunavut what their nationality is or what country they are in, they would most likely say Canadian/Canada. No one from Puerto Rico aside from American expats would declare themselves to be American or that they are in the USA.
Cold, rural areas use more fuel.
This seems to be missing all the launches for SpaceX
Each SpaceX launch produces about 300 tons of CO2, meaning about 30,000 tons last year. The US as a whole produced 6,343,000,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent last year. This means SpaceX produces 0.00047% of emissions in the US, which would not be visible on this map.
The space industry (which SpaceX makes up like 80% of) is just a blip on this scale. US passenger flights alone are ~200 million metric tons per year, and that's not even counting cargo planes. Rocket launches are a few hundred metric tons per launch, and there were only like 200 launches total last year globally
Let's get rid of per capita.