THE WORLD’S GREENEST CITIES
Green City No. 2: Vancouver, Canada
Home to more than half a million people, Vancouver was named the most livable city by the Economist magazine. It’s also Canada’s
model for renewable energy sources, currently supplying 90% of its power supply with hydroelectric energy.

In 2005, the City of Vancouver implemented a green building strategy to ensure that all buildings constructed offer better
environmental and health performance for both occupants and citizens.

The city plans to reduce its greenhouse emissions to levels 20% lower than reported in 1990 during the formation of the
Kyoto Protocol. To do this, the city plans to invest in wind, solar, wave and tidal energy systems.

Government honchos are even proposing to implement emerging technologies like solar-powered trash compactors that
hold five times the waste of conventional bins, thereby putting fewer pollution-spewing garbage trucks on the roads.
THE WORLD’S GREENEST CITIES
Green City No. 2: Vancouver, Canada
Home to more than half a million people, Vancouver was named the most livable city by the Economist magazine. It’s also Canada’s
model for renewable energy sources, currently supplying 90% of its power supply with hydroelectric energy.

In 2005, the City of Vancouver implemented a green building strategy to ensure that all buildings constructed offer better
environmental and health performance for both occupants and citizens.

The city plans to reduce its greenhouse emissions to levels 20% lower than reported in 1990 during the formation of the
Kyoto Protocol. To do this, the city plans to invest in wind, solar, wave and tidal energy systems.

Government honchos are even proposing to implement emerging technologies like solar-powered trash compactors that
hold five times the waste of conventional bins, thereby putting fewer pollution-spewing garbage trucks on the roads.
THE WORLD’S GREENEST CITIES
Green City No. 2: Vancouver, Canada
Home to more than half a million people, Vancouver was named the most livable city by the Economist magazine. It’s also Canada’s
model for renewable energy sources, currently supplying 90% of its power supply with hydroelectric energy.

In 2005, the City of Vancouver implemented a green building strategy to ensure that all buildings constructed offer better
environmental and health performance for both occupants and citizens.

The city plans to reduce its greenhouse emissions to levels 20% lower than reported in 1990 during the formation of the
Kyoto Protocol. To do this, the city plans to invest in wind, solar, wave and tidal energy systems.

Government honchos are even proposing to implement emerging technologies like solar-powered trash compactors that
hold five times the waste of conventional bins, thereby putting fewer pollution-spewing garbage trucks on the roads.
THE WORLD’S GREENEST CITIES
Green City No. 2: Vancouver, Canada
Home to more than half a million people, Vancouver was named the most livable city by the Economist magazine. It’s also Canada’s
model for renewable energy sources, currently supplying 90% of its power supply with hydroelectric energy.

In 2005, the City of Vancouver implemented a green building strategy to ensure that all buildings constructed offer better
environmental and health performance for both occupants and citizens.

The city plans to reduce its greenhouse emissions to levels 20% lower than reported in 1990 during the formation of the
Kyoto Protocol. To do this, the city plans to invest in wind, solar, wave and tidal energy systems.

Government honchos are even proposing to implement emerging technologies like solar-powered trash compactors that
hold five times the waste of conventional bins, thereby putting fewer pollution-spewing garbage trucks on the roads.
Energy Conservation
Energy conservation isn't sexy, but in the short term it's the best investment you could make, both for
reducing greenhouse gases, and also often for increasing profits. There are two complimentary ways to
conserve energy – the first is through the use of energy-efficient technologies, the second through
changing our habits so that we use less energy. Both are necessary.
Transportation
Globally, about 18% of greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. In some industrialized
nations transport is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, for instance in the United
States it accounts for about one third of greenhouse gas emissions, and it adds up to one quarter of
Canadian emissions. In the European Union, transport is one of the fastest growing sources of emissions,
and threatens to undermine European reductions in other sectors. Part of the reason for the enormous
energy consumption of transport, and associated greenhouse gas emissions, is the way society is
organized - patterns of trade and urban development commit us to inefficiencies in transport which have
been subsidized by the historically low cost of oil. Deep-seated changes in the way we build our
infrastructure and run our economy are needed. The other inefficiency in our transport system comes from
the internal combustion engine, which wastes most of the heat from the fuel as heat or noise. In today's
vehicles, only about 13% of the energy from the fuel actually reaches the wheels. And in a singleoccupant vehicle, only about 1% of the fuel-energy is actually moving the driver. The good news is that
the technology exists today to make vehicles that are vastly more efficient than the ones we are driving.
Using advanced materials such as carbon fibers, it is possible to make a car far lighter, and therefore
more fuel efficient, without compromising safety. And, while fuel cells have advanced greatly over the past
decade, battery technology has come even further, and a number of high performance electric cars are
already on the market this year, and more will be coming over the next few years. Electric cars eliminate
much of the waste energy that occurs with internal combustion engines.
Food and Agriculture
Consider the concept of a "ratio of energy" for food - this is the balance between the energy content of a
food to the energy inputs. This ratio compares the calories contained in a food to all the energy used to
grow, process, package and distribute the food product. The energy ratio (energy out/energy in) has
dropped from being close to 100 for traditional pre-industrial food to less than 1 for most of the food
products in industrialized countries today - meaning for every calorie in the food we now eat, we use the
equivalent of a calorie of energy to produce it. This is because energy inputs, mostly oil and natural gas,
have increased dramatically; we are essentially "eating oil". Apart from the inputs needed to grow food,
let's take a look at where our food comes from. One comparison between a shopping basket of food at a
local supermarket in Toronto, and the same food bought at the farmers' market found that the food at the
farmer's market had traveled an average of 101 km to reach the consumer, while the supermarket
produce had traveled an average of 5,364 km to reach the consumer. How does this affect global
warming? As an extreme example, transporting half a kilo of fresh New Zealand lamb to Toronto by plane
produces over 8 kilograms of CO2, as compared with 7 grams of CO2 produced from trucking the meat in
from Flamborough, Ontario (about one thousandth as much).
Green Building
In Canada, heating accounts for about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. Although we think that in
Canada's cold climate we need to use this energy, in fact at least half of this, and probably much more,
could be saved by building efficient, highly insulated buildings that take full advantage of the sun's
radiation in winter. If well designed, these houses would also be cooler in summer.
In building an efficient house you must consider design, as well as materials and construction techniques.
Maximizing the capture of the sun's energy in winter and minimizing it in summer is called passive
solar design. The key to passive solar design is efficient windows that are placed and oriented in the house
to capture the maximum winter sun. However, it's important to realize that even in passive solar design
windows rarely gain more energy in the day than they lose at night.
Building techniques and materials for high efficiency buildings vary greatly - these may range from
conventional double-studded walls and insulation, to foam blocks, to reclaimed materials such as tires, to
natural building materials such as straw bales. Reclaimed and natural materials offer the added benefits of
substantially reducing green house gas emissions produced in making the materials needed to build your
home.
Retrofit of old buildings
Old buildings offer great opportunities for improving energy efficiency. These include insulating walls,
sealing cracks, replacing old doors and windows, upgrading heating systems, etc. These measures and
others can increase the efficiency of a house by as much as 50%.
Game Over for the Climate
By JAMES HANSEN Published: May 9, 2012
GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a
recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit
the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”
If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.
Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide
emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue
to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea
level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the
disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal
cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would
be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades,
the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semipermanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding.
Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s
Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.
If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama
has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires
in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty
fuels in the ground.
The global warming signal is now louder than the noise of random weather, as I predicted would happen
by now in the journal Science in 1981. Extremely hot summers have increased noticeably. We can say with
high confidence that the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in 2003, which
killed tens of thousands, were not natural events — they were caused by human-induced climate change.
We have known since the 1800s that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The right amount keeps
the climate conducive to human life. But add too much, as we are doing now, and temperatures will
inevitably rise too high. This is not the result of natural variability, as some argue. The earth is currently in
the part of its long-term orbit cycle where temperatures would normally be cooling. But they are rising —
and it’s because we are forcing them higher with fossil fuel emissions.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m.
over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar
shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300
gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction
to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as
earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.
We need to start reducing emissions significantly, not create new ways to increase them. We should
impose a gradually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, and then distribute 100 percent
of the collections to all Americans on a per-capita basis every month. The government would not get a
penny. This market-based approach would stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth; avoid
enlarging government or having it pick winners or losers. Most Americans, except the heaviest energy
users, would get more back than they paid in increased prices. Not only that, the reduction in oil use
resulting from the carbon price would be nearly six times as great as the oil supply from the proposed
pipeline from Canada, rendering the pipeline superfluous, according to economic models driven by a
slowly rising carbon price.
But instead of placing a rising fee on carbon emissions to make fossil fuels pay their true costs, leveling the
energy playing field, the world’s governments are forcing the public to fund fossil fuels with hundreds of
billions of dollars per year. This encourages a frantic stampede to extract every fossil fuel through
mountaintop removal, long wall mining, hydraulic fracturing, tar sands and tar shale extraction, and deep
ocean and Arctic drilling.
President Obama speaks of a “planet in peril,” but he does not provide the leadership needed to change the
world’s course. Our leaders must speak candidly to the public — which yearns for open, honest discussion
— explaining that our continued technological leadership and economic well-being demand a reasoned
change of our energy course. History has shown that the American public can rise to the challenge, but
leadership is essential.
The science of the situation is clear — it’s time for the politics to follow. This is a plan that can unify
conservatives and liberals, environmentalists and business. Every major national science academy in the
world has reported that global warming is real, caused mostly by humans, and requires urgent action. The
cost of acting goes far higher the longer we wait — we can’t wait any longer to avoid the worst and be
judged immoral by coming generations.
James Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is the author of “Storms of My
Grandchildren.”
CLIMATE & ENERGY
Canadians are witnessing the devastating effects of climate change on the world. We know that the
problem isn’t going away, and Canadians want to be part of the solution. Our energy is heavily
supplied by greenhouse gas emissions-producing fossil fuels like — oil, coal and gas. And today, Canada
is escalating its investment in oil production to supply a North American market dominated by oil-burning
cars.
The solution lies in shifting the way we think. To reduce emissions, we need to start talking about energy.
Because, energy—how we create it and how we use it—is at the heart of the issue. The answer isn’t
just about taking cars off the road; it’s also about taking cars—and everything else we use—off the
carbon. And there is no better place on Earth for this to happen than Canada.
Canada’s natural advantage
Canada has some of the greatest renewable energy potential on the planet. If we invest in our “natural
advantage”—the power of our oceans, our wide-open spaces, and our rushing rivers—we can make
renewable energy Canada’s source of power for the next generation.
We have the means and expertise to do this. And we can develop the technology to export our green
energy technology and skills to countries searching for low-carbon alternatives.
Sustainable transportation and electric vehicles
Did you know that about 30 per cent of Canada’s emissions come from our transportation sector, which
runs on oil? Or that electric vehicles (EVs) running on B.C.’s mostly renewable energy grid release an
astounding 97 per cent fewer emissions than a gas-fuelled car?
EVs emit less greenhouse gas pollution than gas-fuelled cars, even when powered by electricity
generated in by fossil fuels like coal-dominated Alberta. And the emissions get increasingly lower as we
switch to renewable energy sources. EVs also offer the potential to shift demand away from carbon-based
fuel in our most energy-intense sector: transportation.
By the end of 2012, most major car companies will have an EV in the Canadian market. And WWF will
launch and champion a National Electric Vehicle Campaign to catalyze a nation-wide transition to EVs.
Through key strategies—such as targeting national fleets, public-private partnerships and strong
engagement with governments and utilities—we aim to put over 100,000 EVs on the road by 2015.
THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE REPORT
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential of Electric Vehicles: 2025 Outlook Report
WWF explores the potential impact of EVs on reducing carbon emissions in Canada.
In order to capitalize on this technology, Canada must create the infrastructure (e.g. public and accessible
charging stations), incentives (e.g. tax rebates) and public awareness to build a receptive EV market.
A future built on renewable energy will be our legacy for the next generation.
WHY WE NEED TO ACT NOW
Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 32 per cent in the past 15 years. And, Canada’s
Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on the planet.
Across Canada and around the globe, climate change has a far-reaching impact on people, our
economy, wildlife and natural spaces that many species call home.
For example, warming temperatures are melting sea ice, glaciers and caps in the Canadian Arctic and
adversely affecting waters, forests, plants and animals in that region—not to mention the people in these
communities that reply on those resources.
As the mercury continues to rise, scientists predict that parts of Canada will experience more
hazardous weather, such as prolonged droughts, heat waves and heavy spring rains.
Virtually every analysis—including by Canada’s own National Roundtable on the Environment and the
Economy—shows it costs far less to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now than to adopt to
climate change later.
Straight talk on climate change - Josh Laughren talks about climate change,
Canada’s natural advantage with renewable energy—and the high cost of doing
nothing about global warming.
In a nutshell, what is climate change?
Josh: There are more precise technical definitions but climate change—or global warming—refers to an
increase in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans that is caused by an increase in the
amount of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like carbon dioxide and methane. This is mainly caused
by burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil.
Heat-trapping gases are a good thing—we’d be a cold dead planet without them—and carbon dioxide is
critical for plant growth. The problem is that we are pumping so much many greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere that we are changing the planet’s heat balance. This affects everything from sea levels and
the acidity of our oceans, to precipitation and extreme weather events. And it’s happening so fast that
humans and other species are going to have a very hard time adjusting if we don’t rein it in.
If things continue as they are, it’s expected that many species will simply not be able to adjust in time, and
will go extinct. And that’s not even getting into the difficulties it will create for our own species.
What’s at the heart of this issue?
Josh: Simply put, we have to reduce the amount of heat- trapping gases we emit, with carbon dioxide
being the main culprit. That means we have to reduce our use of fossil fuels, like burning coal for heat,
and using oil and gas for transportation.
There are two key strategies to do this. First, we must use and waste less energy by driving less and
choosing lower emissions vehicles, designing energy-efficient buildings and cities, and improving public
transit. etc. Second, we need to switch from relying on fossil fuels to producing energy responsibly from
renewable sources, like wind, hydro, solar, geothermal (heat energy from underground), and biomass
(energy derived from plant and other organic material).
What is WWF-Canada doing about climate change?
Josh: Transportation and electricity production are the two biggest sources of Canada’s greenhouse gas
emissions. At WWF-Canada, we’re focused on and helping to develop renewable energy and reducing
transportation emissions by supporting public transit and encouraging the use of electric vehicles. There
are other solutions too, like preserving our forests, which act as huge “carbon sinks,” which help absorb
carbon dioxide and keep new sources of emissions from entering the atmosphere.
WWF is raising awareness and helping Canadians reduce their footprint through our Living Planet
Community website on wwf.ca and events like Earth Hour. We’re also working with leading businesses to
help them reduce their impact on the environment. And, most importantly, we’re pushing governments to
implement sound policies and make investments that will get Canada on track. Our case is that much
stronger when we can show we have millions of Canadians behind us who are taking action and
expecting our governments to do the same.
How is Canada poised as far as renewable energy sources compared to other countries?
Josh: We’re blessed with a large country with abundant natural resources. Not just oil, but other sources
of energy like hydro, solar, wind and geothermal. We have perhaps the best renewable energy potential
on the planet, and a highly educated workforce with the technological and manufacturing know-how to use
it—all at a time when the world needs renewable energy and the expertise to develop it. It’s a window of
opportunity, but one that may close as other countries overtake us. For example, last year in the U.S.,
solar power output grew by 47%, geothermal by 9%, hydro by 30% and wind by about 27%, compared to
2010. In Germany, an amazing 10% of all roofs now have solar energy or heating, and wind power grew
about 20% last year. China is a world leader in manufacturing solar technology and investing massively in
wind power. It is perhaps the greatest revolution in energy in more than a century. Canada could be—and
should be—in the lead.
What’s the cost of not doing anything?
Josh: Every single economic analysis I’ve seen—anywhere in the world, including our own National
Round Table on the Environment and the Economy—comes to the same conclusion: it’s cheaper to act
now to avoid climate change, than it is to adapt to the impact later. The biggest fallacy is that we can’t act
on climate change because it will damage the economy. The exact opposite is true. All we are doing is
avoiding costs now to pay much more later. It’s like avoiding your credit card bill payments while the
interest charges pile up.
The UN climate change talks at the end of 2011 left a lot of people feeling pessimistic. What are
your thoughts on this?
Josh: First, the good news: for the first time at the UN talks, China and India agreed (in principle) to take
on emissions reduction targets—something Canada has long called for. That’s positive, but the pace of
action—countries have committed to developing a deal by 2015, to come into force by 2020—will be too
late to avoid very significant global warming. This leaves an inescapable conclusion that governments
(including our own federal government) are not taking the challenge as seriously as we must. For
example, after a slight dip due to the recession, emissions in Canada are still rising. Most people know
that we have not come close to meeting our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (which was to cut
emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012), but according to our federal government’s own figures, we
are also not even close to being on track to meeting our much more modest federal targets for 2020. If we
can’t control our own emissions, it’s awfully hard to lecture developing countries on their performance.
The good news is that we can, and we have some world-class building blocks: the Green Energy Act in
Ontario; the Carbon Tax in B.C.; support for electric vehicles in Quebec; technological innovation in
Alberta; and world-class renewable energy potential right across the country. Let’s get going.
How can we ensure we leave a living planet for future generations?
Josh: As a nation, let’s start by making sure we take care of the stuff that we know how to do right now.
This includes getting rid of subsidies for fossil fuels—which keep pushing us in the wrong direction—and
replacing them with incentives for renewable energy. We also need to invest heavily in energy efficiency
and conservation on a country-wide scale, which will improve our productivity and save money; and put a
price on carbon through a tax or cap-and-trade policy. We will be judged most harshly by future
generations, not so much if we miss our climate targets, but if we do not try.
Global Warming And Canada
Global warming and Canada is fast becoming a popular topic for debate on climate change. This article
highlights some of the most relevant arguments for and against global warming in Canada.
Some of the main effects of global warming are visible in the most remote northern regions of Canada. Sea ice
is taking longer to form in the winter months and as a result is having a significant impact on the polar bear.
Polar bears are spending an increased level of time living on Canadian land high up in the arctic, reducing the
amount of time they spend hunting over the polar sea ice. As the polar bear can only hunt consistently over
sea ice, this is starting to have a significant impact on the population of polar bears.
Some critics of global warming say there are many positive effects which may very well outweigh the
negatives. These critics see the melting of polar sea ice as an important economical advantage for the future of
Canada's economy.
New species of animals and insects are beginning to appear with reported first time sightings of mosquito's in
Resolute Bay, Nunavut.
Increased deforestation is been seen across Canada's lush forests but not due to increased logging or forest
fires, instead the culprit is the mountain pine beetle. The population of this voracious beetle has exploded due
to warmer weather across many of the Canadian regions, leaving millions of acres of forest affected as trees
begin to die.
Warmer winters have become a noticeable effect of global warming on Canada with pleasant weather
replacing bitterly cold snaps on a more common occurrence. This is welcomed by some of the residents of
Canada's many regions, but what does this mean for citizens such as the Inuit who's livelihoods rely on the
cold weather.
With warmer weather, Canada is beginning to see the ever famous "ice roads" thawing out for a longer period
of the year. This is having an impact on the delivery of supplies for not only industry and businesses, but also
remote populations who rely on these ice roads.
It is clear that global warming and Canada is going to be a hot topic for the future of climate change as the
process begins to threaten Canada's heritage to a greater extent.
Canada and U.S. Among Top 10 Fossil-Fuel Gluttons: WWF
Published May 15, 2012
Canada is one of the world’s most gluttonous consumers of climate-changing fossil fuels, the World Wildlife Foundation
(WWF) said on Tuesday, with an ecological footprint per average Canadian that’s 2.5 greater than that of the typical
planetary citizen.
“More than half of that Canadian footprint is coming from the consumption of fossil fuels, such as gasoline and the
resulting heat-trapping gases that cause global warming,” the conservation group said in its biennial Living Planet Report,
according to Postmedia News.
WWF International released the report in conjunction with the Zoological Society of London, the Global Footprint
Network and the European Space Agency. Canada is just part of the problem, according to the report. The world’s people
in general are consuming much more than the earth can replenish. In fact it takes 1.5 years to put back what we use
collectively in a year, the report said.
Canada is just one of the top 10 most polluting countries ranked in the WWF’s biennial Living Planet Index. Qatar,
Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates head the list, with Denmark, Belgium, the U.S. and Australia appearing before
Canada. The Netherland and Ireland complete the top 10.
In a nutshell, collectively the world’s inhabitants are consuming resources faster than Mother Earth can replenish them,
the report said. This is at least partly because of a reliance on the natural world that we’re unaware of—in other words,
taking Earth’s gifts for granted.
The index marks a 30 percent decrease in biodiversity since 1970, the report said, with the tropics’ biodiversity dropping
60 percent. The temperate regions’ biodiversity rose by 31 percent, but they were recovering from losses last century.
Another disturbing trend is the growing gap between materially wealthy and poor countries, the report said. High-income
countries’ footprint is five times that of low-income nations, CNN noted. And from 1970 to 2008 the high-income
nations’ footprint increased by seven percent, while that of poor countries dropped 60 percent.
“Growing external resource dependencies are putting countries at significant risk,” said Mathis Wackernagel, President of
Global Footprint Network, as quoted by CNN. “Using ever more nature, while having less, is a dangerous strategy, yet
most countries continue to pursue this path.”
In fact it would take 3.5 planets to meet the demand for resources if everyone took in as much as the average
Canadian, Postmedia News reported from the WWF.
“Clearly, the current system of human development, based on increased consumption and a reliance on fossil fuels,
combined with a growing human population and poor overall management and governance of natural resources, is
unsustainable,” Postmedia News said, quoting the report. ”Many countries and populations already face a number of risks
from biodiversity loss, degraded ecosystem services and climate change.”
The Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper would seem to be heading in the other direction of late,
with its withdrawal from the Kyoto Accords last year and the 2012 budget’s focus on streamlining environmental
approvals for projects emanating from the Alberta oil sands, such as Enbridge Corp.’s contested Northern Gateway
pipeline and the Keystone XL pipeline, which is highly controversial in the United States.
“Canadians are blessed with vast natural resources, but without better stewardship and reduced demand on our planet,
these will be lost for future generations,” said Gerald Butts, president and CEO of WWF-Canada, to Postmedia News. ”As
a resource-rich country with a resource-based economy, Canada has an important opportunity to protect our
environmental and economic future by valuing the natural capital that is fundamental to Canada’s economy and identity.”
Below, the views from on the ground, with the WWF’s Jim Leape describing the report’s main points and what it means,
and from above, with Dutch astronaut André Kuipers, speaking to us on behalf of the European Space Agency (ESA)
from aboard the International Space Station. Kuipers took some stunning photos of Mother Earth recently that showcased
just what he is talking about.
Canada's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Monitoring, Reporting and
Verification of Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks
Canada is committed to tackling climate change through sustained action to build a low-carbon economy
that includes reaching a global agreement, working with our North American partners and taking action
domestically.
Accurate and transparent monitoring, reporting and verification of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and
removals is a requirement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This is also
key to demonstrating Canada's progress in reducing greenhouse gases and combating climate change.
Environment Canada is releasing several reports related to greenhouse gas emissions information
simultaneously, beginning April 2012, with the release of 2010 data.
Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions remained level in 2010, despite a growing economy. Overall,
emissions in 2010 were 692 megatonnes, 48 megatonnes lower than 2005 levels. This is a 0.25 percent
increase over 2009 levels, despite a 3.2 percent growth in Canada’s GDP. Per capita emissions remain at
a historic low of 20.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per person; their lowest level since tracking
began in 1990.
Canada's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Monitoring, Reporting and
Verification of Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks
Canada is committed to tackling climate change through sustained action to build a low-carbon economy
that includes reaching a global agreement, working with our North American partners and taking action
domestically.
Accurate and transparent monitoring, reporting and verification of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and
removals is a requirement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This is also
key to demonstrating Canada's progress in reducing greenhouse gases and combating climate change.
Environment Canada is releasing several reports related to greenhouse gas emissions information
simultaneously, beginning April 2012, with the release of 2010 data.
Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions remained level in 2010, despite a growing economy. Overall,
emissions in 2010 were 692 megatonnes, 48 megatonnes lower than 2005 levels. This is a 0.25 percent
increase over 2009 levels, despite a 3.2 percent growth in Canada’s GDP. Per capita emissions remain at
a historic low of 20.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per person; their lowest level since tracking
began in 1990.