The National Observer's Barry Saxifrage has just digested BP's latest, "Statistical Review of World Energy," and it's not a pretty picture for our government or for the Canadian people. As consumers of fossil fuels, Canadians use more per capita than 99 per cent of humanity. We are in the top one per cent. Our per capita consumption is five times that of the global median.
The myth of fossil energy's declining market share.
Saxifrage agrees that fossil energy has lost three per cent of market share over the past 30 years but, like so many claims in this petro-state, that too is first grade bullshit.
The House of Commons is knee deep in broken promises.
The climate doesn't care about “market share” or how much renewable energy we use. What our climate system reacts to is the total amount of fossil fuels burned. That's the solid black line on the chart. And it, clearly, hasn't fallen. It's rocketed up by 65 per cent. That's what is fuelling the climate crisis. That's what is threatening our future. And that's the line that must fall quickly if we hope to preserve and pass along the safe and sane climate that most of us were fortunate enough to be born into.
You can see that we haven't been cutting back as promised. We keep burning
more.
One bright spot is that our coal burning has declined. But that relatively small bit of climate progress has been wiped out many times over by our increases in both fossil oil and fossil gas burning.
At this point, eliminating coal won't even get us to back to our starting line. As the chart shows, our rising fossil oil and gas burn is now higher than all our fossil burning (including coal) was in 2005. That's the baseline year we promised to make big cuts from in our Copenhagen and Paris Agreement climate targets.We just can't quit ya.
The author's third chart shows the growth in carbon energy versus clean energy in Canada since 2005. Yes, clean energy has increased (until recently) but nowhere near the pace of fossil fuels.
And the winner is...
Canada burns the most per person. We now burn even more than the Americans; twice as much as the Europeans; and three times the global average.
Second, Canadians are still burning as much as we did back in 1990. In fact, we burn a bit more per person now.
In contrast, the Americans cut their fossil burn by 15 per cent per person. The Europeans now burn 22 per cent less. And the U.K. burns 37 per cent less per person than they did in 1990. So, clearly it is possible for wealthy, technologically advanced countries to turn down the fossil burner — at least at the per-person level.Saxifrage points out what others have noted. Nations that do cut national emissions always have a clear, binding plan. That means successive governments are obliged to meet that same plan. Canada, by contrast, has aspirational targets - the ultimate tribute to, well, bullshit.
I don't care if you are a Liberal. I don't care that the Conservatives are worse. When it comes to the climate crisis and the future of Canada, our planet, our grandchildren, the distinctions between Liberals and Tories are all but irrelevant. A Tory will like shamelessly straight into your face. A Liberal lies just as shamelessly straight into your face. One's climate promises are as worthless as the other's.
Years ago it was published that the yearly net growth of automobiles in Greater Vancouver was 88,000. That's after deducting those that went to the junkyard. The collective fleet grew by 88,000. It's undoubtedly more by now. Why the growth? Mostly population; more people buying cars.
ReplyDeleteHouses are getting bigger and very few are energy efficient. We are still using construction standards that haven't changed during the last 50 years.
But Mound, unlike every other nationality, Canadians are proud to wear their national flag when abroad!
ReplyDeleteIt is July here in southern alberta
ReplyDeleteJust had furnace on to beat the chill {thunder heads with hail)
Put on 6000 miles last year getting two people to medical specialists
nothing is really "local" everything comes from away
be prepared for-40C to+40C, torrential rain, hail,the odd 180km wind or a tornado
so what i'm saying is
Canada is arguably the second largest and second coldest country in the world
A bad combination for conserving energy
and a fact never figured in to Canadas' "footprint" to my knowledge
Toby, my first house was on 18th just off Arbutus. It was a great neighbourhood of well maintained and neatly tended 1,200 sq. ft. bungalows. There were lanes behind the houses and each house had a single car garage. 50X110' lots.
ReplyDeleteThen the area was taken over. The bungalows were bulldozed. Multi-storey McMansions went up. Those single car garages were replaced with multi-car garages, 3-bays minimum, some up to 5. Street parking was overrun.
Now the whole Cambie corridor/Oakridge area has been transformed. The single-family homes of my day have yielded to endless rows of condo-apartments. Each condo has at least one parking space, some may have two. The city's population density has worsened year after year.
Few remember this but the city held a plebiscite in the 70s on whether it should develop a new traffic grid with more arterial roads to accommodate increased traffic into and out of the city. That was roundly defeated. The traffic grid remained unchanged. That didn't stop a developer-dominated city council from granting every demand for more housing, more housing density.
Vancouver is now one of the worst cities for traffic in North America. I think Conde Nast rated it the very worst. I missed the city a bit when I retired to the island but I refuse to go back there now although I did give in for my daughter's wedding.
ReplyDeleteLungta, Canada's footprint is incredibly flexible depending on who has what to prove. Canada has always been a cold country although it is warming and today, as ever, we're mainly grouped within 100 miles of the American border. Necessity, as you point out, is a factor but it's not an excuse. Every country needs to slash its greenhouse gas emissions or, as a global civilization, we're kaput. We are not pulling our weight, doing our bit.
This is a global emergency. Again I repeat Churchill's line to the effect that 'Sometimes it is not enough that we do our best. Sometimes we must do what is required.'
NPoV, our flag doesn't mean what it once did when it was worn abroad.
ReplyDeleteYou are right. Here in Southern Alberta the exact same thing has happened. That being huge houses with at least three car garages built.
ReplyDeleteIn this neck of the woods, were 99% vote Conservative look down their noses if a person should live in a small house and drive a small car. If it isn’t huge and own it get out of my way is the attitude and where 99% support Trump and want to separate. Souther Alberta does not support Man made. Climate change. Anyong
I've lived in Calgary. I've lived in Northern BC. I know what it's like for winter to drop to minus 30, minus 40 and stay there week after week. Ice fog can settle down over Calgary and just stay there.
ReplyDeleteSo, in that context just one of many possible examples. Twenty years ago Saskatchewan sponsored research that culminated in the R2000 house, a form of construction that could keep warm on mostly body heat through a prairie winter and reasonably cool with minimal AC in summer. Look it up. The R2000 efficiency standard has been available for any builder to use but they don't because it might cost a few percent more. Worse, none of our governments require houses to be built to these standards.
ReplyDeleteWhat's clear is that Canada isn't on course to meet our own emissions targets for 2030 much less the UN's 50 per cent target. The IPCC has been 'behind the curve' on emissions cuts since its inception. When the panel calls for 50 per cent you can assume that's a "best case" number. And we're doing next to nothing to meet it.