Canadians third highest per capita polluters

[leeroy]

OTTAWA - Individual Canadians remain the third-highest per capita polluters in the world, according to new figures released by Statistics Canada on Tuesday.

Each Canadian produces an average of 23 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year, trailing Americans who produce an average of 24.4 tonnes of emissions per year and Australians, who produce an average of 27.7 tonnes of emissions per year.

An average car produces about five tonnes of CO2 emissions in a year.

While some developing countries, such as India and China, are among the biggest polluters overall, the per capita emissions of those countries are up to 20 times less than those in Canada. The Statistics Canada publication, Human Activity and the Environment, also notes that developed countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany have per capita emissions that are about half those of Canada, which are growing faster than any other industrialized nation.

"The largest source of this growth was the production of fossil fuels, including coal, crude oil and natural gas, for export," reads the Statistics Canada, released to coincide with Earth Day. "In both 1990 and 2003, the production of these fuels for export resulted in more GHG emissions than the production of any other exported commodity. Over the period, as worldwide demand for fuels surged, GHG emissions from the production of exported fuels."

The new Statistics Canada publication also noted that the country is also feeling serious impacts of global warming on its territory, such as new insect infestations and melting glaciers.

"Climate change is predicted to affect all Canadians to a greater or lesser extent as a result of its impact on their environment, health and economy," said the report. "Climate changes are expected to vary regionally. While it is not possible to predict changes with certainty, there is a very high degree of agreement among scientists that changes are already occurring and that further changes will occur."

The federal statistical agency also notes that average temperatures in Canada rose by 1.4 degrees Celsius from 1948 to 2007.

"Canadians will face challenges in dealing with and adapting to the effects of climate change," said the report. "Regional droughts may result in water shortages; rising sea levels and heavy precipitation events may lead to greater flood damage; warmer temperatures will favour more frequent thunderstorms and tornadoes."

[Gettin'r'round]

whatever. I'm not 100% convinced on this global warming. It's from the same folks who brought you the coming ice age and malthusian global famine. Skeptics are called deiniers re: the holocaust. When science becomes dogma there are PROBLEMS and you better look out. This didn't happen with the ozone layer. We took action and now it's getting better. BTW David Suzuki is a geneticist, with no qualifications whatsoever about the enviroment. But that won't stop him. Take a look at biofuels,it's causing starvation and food riots. Nice! Did anyone do the math on this one? Even if we took all of the farmland in NA out of food into fuel production it wouldn't even reach half of our fuel needs, and we would all be starving. Sweet! Damm the poor and save the planet? Hurricanes? There have been cat. 4-5 ones throughout history, there are just more damm humans in the path of those hurricanes than before. And does ANYONE remember the really devastating ones last year? They were predictied but sadly for the global warming folks, noth-ing! And one really snowy cold year! Oh, but it's "climate change!". No your're calling it global warming no?

[Bowlcut]

whatever. I'm not 100% convinced on this global warming. It's from the same folks who brought you the coming ice age and malthusian global famine. Skeptics are called deiniers re: the holocaust. When science becomes dogma there are PROBLEMS and you better look out. This didn't happen with the ozone layer. We took action and now it's getting better. BTW David Suzuki is a geneticist, with no qualifications whatsoever about the enviroment. But that won't stop him. Take a look at biofuels,it's causing starvation and food riots. Nice! Did anyone do the math on this one? Even if we took all of the farmland in NA out of food into fuel production it wouldn't even reach half of our fuel needs, and we would all be starving. Sweet! Damm the poor and save the planet? Hurricanes? There have been cat. 4-5 ones throughout history, there are just more damm humans in the path of those hurricanes than before. And does ANYONE remember the really devastating ones last year? They were predictied but sadly for the global warming folks, noth-ing! And one really snowy cold year! Oh, but it's "climate change!". No your're calling it global warming no?


Did any environmentalist seriously advocate biofuels? Zuzuki was against them from that start. As for hurricanes you can't make any judgements because the data is inconclusive because we only have real data on them from after weather satellites went into orbit.
I talked to a guy who did is PhD on global warming and its effect on weather in the USA and Canada and the general belief is that climate change will most likely not effect the number of hurricanes per year, but rather increase their intensity so that we have ones like Andrew more often.

[Gib]

No it really is called climate change. Arguing semantics over an issue like that is retarded. There are SO many faulty points in the theory that it shows a pretty poor grasp of it all to identify a recent cold winter as the big proof that it needs to be looked at more closely

[Bowlcut]

No it really is called climate change. Arguing semantics over an issue like that is retarded. There are SO many faulty points in the theory that it shows a pretty poor grasp of it all to identify a recent cold winter as the big proof that it needs to be looked at more closely


By using your logic one really hot summer would be sufficient in validating the merits of global warming.
Trends are what is needed to provide with a better understanding, but if one really wanted to know what global warming might do to the east coast they will find out that as the Gulf Current from Carribean fails to travel as far northward during the winter that the eastern seaboard will be colder. Scientists are predicting the current will not travel as far up the Atlantic coast as in the past because of the increased ocean salinity in the Carribean.


The science is far from conclusive, but find one serious scientist who doubts global warming that is not the recipient of funding by Oil and Coal companies.

[trykillthis]

The government needs to ban fuels from food crops. Such a waste especially with the way global food stocks are going. They should also ban they hydrogen car as well. ANother waste.

[Gettin'r'round]

hydrogen car!! BWAWAhaaaa. The Germans, ie BWW, took a 6 or 7 series, spent $$$$ and made a hydrogen car that put out 3X the CO2 versus a regular 6 series.....It's s cop-out to keep big oil going. ie switch from gas to hydrogen and keep the stations, pipelines, cash flowing. blah!

GM has the answer. The VOLT. Plug into the grid @ night when it's cheap and the base (ie nuke) power plants are running. Just waiting for the battery technology to improve. The Volt is expected 2010. If it works as advertised, LOOK OUT!

[Gib]

"By using your logic one really hot summer would be sufficient in validating the merits of global warming." I was saying just the opposite, but poor punctuation made it seem the opposite lol


"Trends are what is needed to provide with a better understanding, but if one really wanted to know what global warming might do to the east coast they will find out that as the Gulf Current from Carribean fails to travel as far northward during the winter that the eastern seaboard will be colder. Scientists are predicting the current will not travel as far up the Atlantic coast as in the past because of the increased ocean salinity in the Carribean."


The science is far from conclusive, but find one serious scientist who doubts global warming that is not the recipient of funding by Oil and Coal companies.

I think you misunderstood me, as I didnt explain myself too well; Climate change is a fact. It IS happening. Using one cold winter, or one warm one, to use as proof of climate change happening (or not happening) is foolish though.

The question is: How much of climate change is directly related to Man's influence? Is this a 100,000 year cycle the Earth goes through? Or is it directly caused by our burning of fossil fuels?

[Bowlcut]

"By using your logic one really hot summer would be sufficient in validating the merits of global warming." I was saying just the opposite, but poor punctuation made it seem the opposite lol


"Trends are what is needed to provide with a better understanding, but if one really wanted to know what global warming might do to the east coast they will find out that as the Gulf Current from Carribean fails to travel as far northward during the winter that the eastern seaboard will be colder. Scientists are predicting the current will not travel as far up the Atlantic coast as in the past because of the increased ocean salinity in the Carribean."


The science is far from conclusive, but find one serious scientist who doubts global warming that is not the recipient of funding by Oil and Coal companies.

I think you misunderstood me, as I didnt explain myself too well; Climate change is a fact. It IS happening. Using one cold winter, or one warm one, to use as proof of climate change happening (or not happening) is foolish though.

The question is: How much of climate change is directly related to Man's influence? Is this a 100,000 year cycle the Earth goes through? Or is it directly caused by our burning of fossil fuels?

No worries. I think we will see more data continue to come out in coming years, but I believe we can all agree that there are many economic benefits for becoming more energy efficient, especially at $120 barrel oil. We can also agree that tar sands development has real environment problems in water pollution and in 100 years water is what we will be killing each other over.

[Freebsd1977]

Another waste of our tax money. ENOUGH with the science studies, spend the money to actually make change. Same goes with all the research money going to save some endangered monkey in some small faraway island. We got real problems, spend the moeny on actual problems like AIDS, HIV, cancers, diabetes, etc...