« "Does Canada have Dutch disease?" is a question without a meaningful answer | Main | The Decline of Manufacturing in Canada - 1926-2011: Dutch Disease? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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.

Would be interesting to have a breakdown by NAICS.

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


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


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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad