Who Produces CO2equiv Emissions in Canada

Environment Canada has emissions data on 537 facilities in Canada. As Andrew Leach points out these only cover roughly 35% of emissions in Canada, but they provide some useful data.

Unfortunately the emissions are not ranked by who emits the most.  So I took it upon myself to do so, with some pretty big technical support from Rob Schmidt.  The numbers are as follows:

 

[Edited to add] Joel Wood asked how these break down by industry.  Environment Canada has the following:

Facilities in Alberta accounted for the largest share of reported emissions, with approximately 47% of the total, followed by Ontario with 21%. Next were Saskatchewan and Quebec, which accounted for 9% and 8% of reported emissions respectively...

When completing a report for the GHGRP, a reporter is required to identify the main activities occurring at its facility using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).⁴ In 2010, three NAICS-defined industrial sectors accounted for the majority ofGHG emissions – Utilities, primarily those generating electricity from fossil fuel, representing 40%; Manufacturing, accounting for 30%; and Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction, accounting for 26% (Figure 1). The Manufacturing sector includes, but is not limited to, facilities engaged in cement and lime manufacturing; pulp and paper mills; petroleum refineries; chemical manufacturing; and iron, steel, aluminium and base metals production facilities. Activities of reporting facilities within Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction include: production of petroleum and natural gas; oil sands mining, bitumen production and upgrading; and mining of coal, iron ore, other metals, potash and diamonds.

Note that these figures are only for the facilities that reported, not GHG emissions as a whole.  The facility reports make up only 35% of all GHG emissions in Canada.

Cam Stark made this excellent graphical dashboard representation of the 2010 data.  Look at the big dots around Sarnia and Hamilton!

 

Comments

[Mike Moffatt]

Note: This is an incomplete list, as it covers only facilities which have had GHGs over 50kt in last 5 years. Also doesn't cover agriculture, individuals, etc. Hence the 35% figure.

[Joel W]

Would be interesting to have a breakdown by NAICS.

[Mike Moffatt]

There's a very detailed list with NAICS, available here:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=8044859A-1

Click on: [Downloadable Emissions Data [MS Excel version, 3.01 MB]: Complete set of emissions data by facility from 2004-2010]

[Joel W]

Thanks!

[Mike Moffatt]

I've updated the post with more info by source.

[Patrick]

Wow. Sure looks like thermal power generation is the elephant in the room.

[Bill]

The Globe and Mail reports oilsands expansion may occur more rapidly than expected:

In other words, where the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers suggests oil sands output could surge by 1.4-million a day between 2011 and 2020, CIBC’s read of the numbers suggests it could be more like two-million to 2.5-million – an analysis that portends financial difficulties for an oil patch that sees prices nosedive when there’s too much oil and not enough pipe.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/streetwise/hidden-oil-sands-growth-bodes-ill-for-crude/article2436773/

Much of this expansion is in energy intensive in situ production. So, your data may be old, and this rapid expansion may not figure into your 35% survey.

[Mike Moffatt]

Naturally. I can't report on data that hasn't been collected or things that have yet to happen.

[Bill]

Yeah, but it's like reporting on the political direction of Canada by reviewing the Liberal's (at less than 30% support) policy platform.

[Mike Moffatt]

Oh, there's no doubt they'll change. Do keep in mind, however, that "Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction" accounts for 26% of the emissions on this list, and this list only accounts for 35% of overall emissions.

[Bill]

Oh, I keep it in mind. I'm not sure others who look at this data do, though.

Percy Saltzman forecast: Large dots to appear over Northern Alberta...

[rsj]

Not sure why you are ranking individual firms by CO_2 emissions, as you want to measure pollution rather than industry consolidation. E.g. a hundred small power plants that generate 10 MW and emit 10 tons of CO_2 each versus one huge plant that generates 1000 MW and emits 50 tons.

If you want to identify industrial sectors that pollute the most, then you would aggregate all NAICS members and make a separate list. In that case, you can't exclude small operators for the reason stated above. And one would suspect that small operators, due to economies of scale, will be the least efficient, or the largest polluters.

[The Keystone Garter]

Excellent. The NAIC classifiactions suck. Should breakdown oil gas coal tar. Also the materials too. Metals and wood and cement can be competitors for anyone using the data to lower footprint.

If you give me the figures for every tenth location or so, I will fill in some other unaccounted sources if you want. I can estimate MPB dieoff in BC/AB, forest fires, and peat moss land use changes or drought. There are other natural emissions I can't. From a location point of view the MPB outbreak started at one BC location and could've been funded to be avoided in mid-90s. Forest fires start somewhere. Peat bog land use would probably worsen existing project's footprints where there is peat. Especially if someone figures out how to harvest existing peat bogs sustainably to sequester trees beneath artificial peat bogs.