#Pembina pipelin

[rabbitcruiser]

Bower Ponds, Red Deer (No. 7)

The Red Deer River is the water source for the City of Red Deer and the surrounding area. Pipelines cross under the river and there have been leaks disrupting access to potable water. Increased water flow of the Red Deer River system during heavy rainfall in June 2008 eroded supporting soil, freely exposing a section of Pembina Pipeline Corporation's Cremona crude oil pipeline to the Red Deer River currents. About 75 to 125 barrels (11,900 to 19,900 L; 2,600 to 4,400 imp gal; 3,200 to 5,200 US gal) of crude oil flowed upstream from the break point under a Red Deer River channel, leaving an oily sheen on Gleniffer Reservoir and 6,800 kg (15,000 lb) of oil-soaked debris. The remediation was not completed until 2011.

Heavy rains in early June 2012 caused a similar but larger leak on a Plains Midstream Canada 46-year-old pipeline on a Red Deer River tributary, Jackson Creek, Alberta (51°52′19″N 114°36′23″W) near Gleniffer Lake and Dickson Dam, which spilled approximately 1,000 and 3,000 barrels (160,000 and 480,000 L; 35,000 and 105,000 imp gal; 42,000 and 126,000 US gal) of light sour crude oil into the Red Deer River.

Source: Wikipedia

[college-girl199328]

The grocery store parking lots with work trucks bearing bumper stickers proclaim love for Canadian pipelines. The highway becomes a stream of pickups, their orange safety flags tower above the worksite for visibility — tucked down for travel. Outside a local hotel, vehicles assigned to a controversial RCMP unit tasked with policing opposition to industrial projects make up the trucks and SUVs flanking the building.

They’re all here because the Coastal GasLink pipeline is being built to connect underground shale gas formations in the province’s northeast with marine shipping routes on the Pacific coast, about 120 kilometers from Smithers as the crow flies. Until recently, there was only one liquefaction and export facility preparing to receive the gas — now there are two.

In mid-March, B.C.’s NDP government approved Cedar LNG, a partnership between the Haisla Nation and Pembina Pipeline Corporation. The pending final investment decision, the liquefaction and export terminal would be built over the tidal waters of Douglas Channel across from the Haisla village of Kitamaat, just a few kilometers from LNG Canada. Cedar LNG would export three million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) annually, about 30 percent of what its larger neighbor plans to ship when it starts operations in 2026. Like LNG Canada, it would receive its supply from Coastal GasLink.

Premier David Eby and Haisla elected chief councilor Crystal Smith announced the decision at a press conference on March 14, “an unprecedented opportunity for both Haisla Nation and the region.”

“Today’s announcement marks a historic milestone for Cedar LNG and the Haisla Nation’s journey towards economic self-determination,” Smith said in a statement. “Together with our partner, Pembina Pipeline, we are setting a new standard for responsible and sustainable energy development that protects the environment and our traditional way of life.”

Hot on the heels of the announcement, the province said it is developing new regulations for the oil and gas sector, including an emissions cap and a requirement that all new projects have a “credible plan” to reach net zero by 2030. For example, Ksi Lisims, a proposed liquefaction facility on Nisga’a territory, now needs to include an emissions reduction plan as part of its environmental assessment.

But the rule doesn’t apply to the newly approved project. Instead, the Haisla Nation is signing a memorandum of understanding with the province to explore opportunities for emissions reductions beyond its approved plan.

“Already proposed to be one of the lowest-emitting facilities in the world, we will be working in partnership to further reduce the project’s emissions,” Eby said.

Critics and climate activists decry B.C.’s approval of another gas export terminal, while supporters applaud the decision as an act of reconciliation. Meanwhile, energy analysts cautiously approved the province’s plan to implement new policies and regulations but question how effective they will be at curbing emissions from already approved projects.

Cedar LNG’s approval was announced less than a week before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its latest report, which warns the decisions governments to make this decade “will have impacts now and for thousands of years.”

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres didn’t mince words in a video message released with the report, noting, “the rate of temperature rise in the last half-century is the highest in 2,000 years.” He called the document a “survival guide for humanity that guide should not approve or fund new oil and gas projects and stop expanding existing fossil fuel reserves.

“In short, our world needs climate action on all fronts — everything, everywhere, all at once,” Guterres fed from the contentious Coastal GasLink pipeline. According to documents filed with the B.C. environmental assessment office, the plant would emit around 8.6 megatonnes of equivalent carbon pollution over its 40-year lifespan. Upstream, the project would add an additional 39 megatonnes, about the same amount of emissions produced by putting 8.4 million cars on the road for a year or driving around the planet 12 million times.

The provincial approval is subject to 16 conditions, including developing an emissions reduction plan that aligns with climate goals. The plant will power its turbines with electricity supplied by Hydro, which minimizes — but doesn’t eliminate — emissions produced during the energy-intensive liquefaction process.

“Powered by renewable electricity and with plans to achieve near-zero emissions by 2030, Cedar LNG showcases what responsible resource development can look like as we transition to a clean-energy future,” Minister of Energy, Mines, and Low Carbon Innovation Josie Osborne said in a statement.

According to industry analysis, liquefaction accounts for less than one-third of emissions produced by the gas sector. The rest is added to the atmosphere during extraction, pipeline transport, shipping, regasification, and combustion we track — invisible methane leaks at every step of the process are a problem industry operators and regulators grapple with worldwide.

George Heyman, B.C. minister of environment and climate change strategy, said the new energy framework and emissions cap played a prominent role in the project decision, which took 118 days, more than 60 days past the legislated deadline.

He described Cedar LNG as a relatively small and well-designed project “in terms of doing everything it can to minimize environmental and carbon impact — which is not to say it doesn’t have any” and noted the broader scope of emissions was considered in the approval.

“In my view, it is far more important to have a broad-reaching, sector-wide set of clear rules and regulations that demonstrate how we are going to steadily reduce emissions in the successive failure or credibility on the approval or failure to approve one or another project,” he told The Narwhal in an interview.

If all goes as planned, Cedar LNG would power up its turbines in 2027 and continue operating until 2067, close to two decades after the date 196 countries promised to get emissions down to zero in the Paris Agreement signed in 2015. In 2021, Canada enacted legislation that holds the federal government accountable for that commitment. That means pollution associated with the project, however small, will have to be offset.

As purchased by companies like Disney, Shell, and Gucci were “worthless.” Put another way, no greenhouse gases were prevented from entering the atmosphere corporations used the offsets to market their products as environmentally friendly.

Karena Shaw, a political ecologist and associate professor of environmental studies at the University of Victoria, worries the sector won’t be held accountable.

“What message is this decision sending out to the fossil fuel industry?” she said in an interview. “If we let the industry get away with a ‘credible plan’ to be net zero to lose. A credible plan to get to net zero could be just purchasing the cheapest offsets out there.”

Other methods of decreasing emissions produced by the gas sector include carbon capture reports noted this would be the most costly and least effective way to tackle the problem.

Cedar LNG went through a joint provincial-federal environmental assessment process and its stamp of approval one day after B.C. approved the project. But it’s unknown how the new emissions cap and other regulations like stricter methane rules will affect industry investment.

“There have not yet made final investment decisions,” Heyman noted. “They now know the rules are and can the University of British Columbia, told The Narwhal investors will be paying attention to “local regulatory uncertainty and the long-term outlook in the LNG market.”

He said Indigenous Rights and environmental mandates are the two main drivers of uncertainty in long overdue recognition of Indigenous interest through the [United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples] requirement on Free, Prior, and Informed Consent requires businesses to adapt,” he wrote in an email. “Most of the proposed LNG projects in B.C. have come to naught the choice to build in B.C. or natural gas firms will likely look first.”

Adam Olsen (SȾHENEP), a Green party representative and member of Tsartlip First Nation (WJOȽEȽP), said a “very optimistic person” would view the province’s new energy framework as a regulatory means to make B.C. oil and gas development uneconomical.

“What might come out at the other end of that emissions cap process is simply an unsustainable fossil fuel industry in this province,” he told The Narwhal in an interview.

He said others would argue the government used the framework and the memorandum of understanding which lack details — as a smokescreen for green-lighting another fossil fuel project.

“With so little detail on that energy action framework, it’s near impossible to actually determine to happen said the details will be released over the next few months, along with timelines on when changes will be implemented.

Getting a solid return on exporting B.C. gas to buyers across the Pacific has always been somewhat iffy years been this sort of back and forth around the sector in British Columbia,” she said to be the first to go when the market gets pinched.”

In early February, Calgary-based TC Energy announced a revised cost estimate for the Coastal GasLink pipeline of $14.5 billion, more than double its original estimate. That price, the pipeline operator said, could rise by another $1.2 billion if construction isn’t completed this year.

Antweiler said the International Energy Agency’s analysis of global gas demand forecasts either minimal growth or significant decreases, noting “investors will be reasonably cautious given these scenarios.”

“This said, energy security can still lead to regional expansions as the reliability of supply can play an important role, or if a carbon border adjustment mechanism introduced in the [European Union] requires buyers to shift from high-carbon-emission to low-carbon-emission sources.”

Shaw said companies are holding out for now, likely waiting to see what happens as the province develops its regulations and hoping governments will make investments of more than $5.4 billion in financial incentives to LNG Canada and commit to spending more than $700 million of taxpayer dollars to secure support from First Nations for the pipeline and the sector at large.

“If they get enough subsidies and support from the government, they can make something out of it,” she said backing is something Ellis Ross, Skeena MLA with the B.C. Liberals and a member of Haisla Nation would like to see.

“I sincerely hope Cedar LNG is granted similar tax breaks to those received by LNG Canada,” he said in a statement Haisla nation is no stranger to industrial development on its territories. Canada-based mining company Rio Tinto Alcan has operated its aluminum smelter in Kitimat for about 70 years in the coastal community and has seen the impacts of decades of commercial logging.

While the nation has financial agreements with LNG Canada and Coastal GasLink, economic benefits have been a byproduct of projects brought forward by outside parties. In contrast, Cedar LNG is hailed as Canada’s first Indigenous-led liquefied natural gas project. With majority ownership, the Haisla Nation is calling the shots.

“Today is about changing the course of history for my Indigenous Peoples everywhere in history, where Indigenous people were left on the sidelines of economic development in their territories,” Smith said at the announcement.

“I am extremely gratified that an initiative we worked on behalf of the Haisla people finally got the respect it deserves from the provincial government,” he said in a statement following the announcement.

Premier Eby said approving Cedar LNG doesn’t mean sacrificing the environment and that the dichotomy — the idea that you can only have economic development by abandoning environmental holding the environmental principles you have to give up on jobs and opportunities — is a false idea,” he said. “The future in British Columbia around major projects or projects involving land or resources need to be done in partnership with First Nations.”

But critics say there’s another false dichotomy embedded in the government’s actions. If economic reconciliation is only achieved through fossil fuel infrastructure, other economic opportunities for Indigenous communities are obscured or displaced. The narrative also ignores the root cause of economic inequity: colonization.

“The historical context of these issues is critically important to understanding the mechanisms by which colonization, genocide, land dispossession, and forced assimilation policies translate into the conditions of poverty that the Indigenous people experience today in B.C.,” a 2022 First Nations Leadership Council report on economic disparity noted.

“Indigenous revenue should not be fettered by a single project,” Olsen said. “It should be viewed as ‘How do we participate? How do Indigenous nations participate and benefit from their lands and territories without having to approve devastating climate-change-inducing projects?’ ”

The greenhouse gases emitted by projects like Cedar LNG have some Indigenous leaders speaking out against increased activity in the fossil fuel sector.

“I am worried about the warming planet and resulting climate emergency that is being driven globally by major industrial resource extraction,” Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, said in a statement. “The expansion of the LNG industry and associated fracking that was greenlit … is frightening when we think about how this will impact the lands and waters in this province and across the world.”

While Haisla and other nations in B.C. have historically for projects like Cedar LNG and the Coastal GasLink pipeline, not all Indigenous leaders are behind the industry. Notably, Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs oppose the Coastal GasLink project is being built on their territory without consent — a central tenet of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was passed into law in B.C. in 2019.

“While they’re saying this is economic reconciliation for the Haisla, the pipeline is being dragged across other territories,” Olsen said. “There are huge amounts of challenges — $36 million is being spent on the RCMP protection of that pipeline against other Indigenous people.”

Premier Eby didn’t directly respond to a question about controversy and backlash over Coastal GasLink are going to have challenges along the way,” he told reporters.

Olsen said it’s important to note he’s not speaking against the Haisla by criticizing the framing of the decision and would like to see more options provided to Indigenous communities and for all governments — Indigenous and non-Indigenous — to speak openly.

“It shouldn’t be a zero-sum game for the Haisla,” he said. “It shouldn’t be that if the government doesn’t approve thistle economic development for them. We should be able to have an honest conversation about the fact that fossil fuels are increasing the climate emergency we’re facing and the hostility of the climate and this planet we live on.”

As temperatures continue to rise globally, ecosystems become increasingly uninhabitable for species. Extreme weather events — droughts, wildfires, heat domes, and atmospheric rivers — can take out entire fish or wildlife.

In B.C., the decline of keystone species like salmon has decades of industrial activity. Clearcut logging, hydroelectric facilities, mining, agriculture, and other human impacts have wreaked havoc on species and natural systems. In the northeast, where gas for Cedar LNG and other facilities is extracted, cumulative impacts were center stage in a landmark 2021 court ruling, which found the province guilty of infringing on Blueberry River First Nations’ Treaty Rights by permitting and encouraging widespread development.

“As we’ve seen from the Blueberry River case, there are limits to how much those landscapes can take,” Shaw, outlining a plan for how gas extraction on the territory will be managed moving forward. At the time, Premier Eby said the fossil fuel industry could continue digging as much gas out of the ground as companies could get their hands on just had to have a smaller footprint on the surface.

Now, with the emissions cap and energy framework further constraining the sector, it’s unclear how companies like energy company ARC Resources, which inked a deal with the Haisla Nation and Pembina Pipeline Corporation to provide 50 percent of Cedar LNG’s supply, will get the gas out of the ground, construction continues on Coastal GasLink.

“There are immediate, proximate impacts around extraction and the pipeline itself, but then there’s the broader contribution to climate change,” Shaw said. “There’s always the question of why this project starts saying no. This is what the gut punch is for me. We’re trying to say no everywhere — and this is part of everywhere.”

[newsbites]

The $3-billion Cedar liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility proposed by the Haisla Nation has been granted an environmental assessment certificate by the provincial government, bringing construction of the floating facility in Kitimat, B.C., one step closer to a start date.

B.C. Premier David Eby said it is the largest First Nations-owned infrastructure project in the country, will employ 500 people during construction and support 100 full-time jobs once operational.

#LNG

#gas

#First Nations

#BC

#Canada

#news

#via Politicoast

#world news

[8infinity]

Got $5,000? These 2 Stocks Pay Dividends Every Month

[fuckyeahanarchistposters]

It’s Not Over Yet: NO LNG

For People - For Water - For Salmon - For the Future

Screen print by Roger Peet . July 2019

“I made this poster to support ongoing efforts to stop the Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas terminal and Pembina pipeline, a fossil-fuel boondoggle that the people of southern Oregon and Northern California have been resisting for several years now. Rural people, Indigenous people, youth, elders and everyone who loves the land have maintained a spirited opposition to this terrible idea, and have won several important victories. Unfortunately the fight isn’t over until it’s over, and this is a reminder of that. In addition to this edition on nice paper, I made a big run of this print on cheaper paper for Rogue Climate to distribute in affected communities. Sales of this print will support more work like that. More information about the fight to stop the pipeline is available here.

This print is made from analog films: a linocut printed on vellum and a sheet of rubylith. No computers involved.”

[stockcalc]

Pembina Pipeline (PPL:TSE) Fundamental Valuation Report

Pembina Pipeline (PPL:TSE) Fundamental Valuation Report

Fundamental Valuation Report Pembina Pipeline(PPL:TSE) Energy:Oil & Gas Midstream This Report was generated using the valuation tools available on StockCalc.com. For a free 30 day trial click here. –Close Price/Date$38.06 (CAD) 05/07/2021 Weighted Valuation$37.75 (CAD) Overall RatingFairly valued to slightly Overvalued by 0.8% Valuation Models Comparables: $35.57 (CAD) Multiples: $37.99…

[allthecanadianpolitics]

At A CASINO in the small coastal town of North Bend, Oregon, dozens of law enforcement officers and corporate security personnel gathered for a two-day training on how to wage propaganda battles against protesters. The November 2018 event was organized by the National Sheriffs’ Association, one of the country’s largest law enforcement organizations, and hosted by the Coos County Sheriff’s Office, which has spent years monitoring opposition to the Jordan Cove Energy Project — a proposed liquid natural gas pipeline and export terminal that the Trump administration has named one of its highest-priority infrastructure projects.

The cost of the event, however — totaling $26,250 — was paid by Pembina Pipeline Corp., the Canadian fossil fuel company that owns the Jordan Cove project.

In fact, for nearly four years, Pembina was the sole funding source of a unit in the sheriff’s office dedicated to handling security concerns related to Jordan Cove — despite the fact that there is not yet any physical infrastructure in place to keep secure. The pipeline and terminal cannot begin construction without approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is scheduled to vote on whether to license the project in February. Yet between 2016 and 2020, the department’s liquid natural gas division, known as a “combined services unit,” spent at least $2 million of Pembina’s money. The energy company put the funding on hold in April 2019 but left open the possibility that the arrangement could be revived in the future. Pembina and the sheriff’s department are currently discussing how they may continue to work together, and Coos County Sheriff Craig Zanni said he expects the partnership to be renewed.

In addition to hosting the law enforcement training, the unit used Pembina’s funds to purchase riot control equipment, monitor the activities of Jordan Cove opponents, and coordinate intelligence-gathering operations with private security companies that also worked for Pembina. Local residents, environmental activists, and tribal members have staged rallies and sit-ins and participated in public hearings in opposition to the project, which they say would exacerbate the global climate crisis, damage vital waterways, and violate Indigenous sovereignty. Dozens of property owners could see their land seized via eminent domain.

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @abpoli @politicsofcanada @pnwpol

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from The Intercept:

At a casino in the small coastal town of North Bend, Oregon, dozens of law enforcement officers and corporate security personnel gathered for a two-day training on how to wage propaganda battles against protesters. The November 2018 event was organized by the National Sheriffs’ Association, one of the country’s largest law enforcement organizations, and hosted by the Coos County Sheriff’s Office, which has spent years monitoring opposition to the Jordan Cove Energy Project — a proposed liquid natural gas pipeline and export terminal that the Trump administration has named one of its highest-priority infrastructure projects.

The cost of the event, however — totaling $26,250 — was paid by Pembina Pipeline Corp., the Canadian fossil fuel company that owns the Jordan Cove project.

In fact, for nearly four years, Pembina was the sole funding source of a unit in the sheriff’s office dedicated to handling security concerns related to Jordan Cove — despite the fact that there is not yet any physical infrastructure in place to keep secure.

The Coos County partnership is an extreme example of a trend in policing that has gained momentum across the United States — particularly since thousands of protesters from around the world gathered at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017 in an effort to halt construction of the Dakota Access pipeline. Corporations are developing creative means to funnel millions of dollars to local law enforcement groups, and this funding has often been paired with increasingly elaborate private security and propaganda operations.

An investigation by The Intercept and Type Investigations, based on more than 15,000 pages of documents obtained via open records requests from the Coos County Sheriff’s Office and the city of Portland, sheds light on the fusion of public and private interests working to monitor and stymie opposition to the Jordan Cove Energy Project. The documents also reveal new details about a network of private actors profiting off the suppression of protest movements nationwide, among them veterans of the Dakota Access pipeline campaign who have since contributed to the policing efforts around Jordan Cove.

[college-girl199328]

Imperial Oil Ltd. is going ahead with a $720-million project to build a renewable diesel facility at its Strathcona refinery near Edmonton. The project, first announced in August 2021, is expected to produce 20,000 barrels per day of renewable diesel once it is complete.

That will make it the largest facility of its kind in Canada, upon its expected completion in 2025, and one of the largest renewable diesel complexes in North America.

Renewable diesel is the term given to a biomass-based fuel that is chemically equivalent to petroleum diesel. This means it can be transported directly in petroleum pipelines or sold at retail stations without any infrastructure modifications or fuel blending.

Renewable diesel can be made from vegetable oil, animal fats, used cooking oil or even algae. In Imperial's case, the Strathcona refinery facility will use locally sourced vegetable oils — such as canola, soybean and sunflower.

Imperial will also be partnering with Pennsylvania-based Air Products — which is building a hydrogen facility near Edmonton — to supply hydrogen via pipeline to the Strathcona refinery. Low-carbon hydrogen will also be used for the production of renewable diesel.

As a non-fossil fuel-based product, renewable diesel produced at the Imperial facility is expected to reduce annual greenhouse emissions by about three million tonnes compared to conventional fuels, the company said.

A significant portion of the production from the Strathcona renewable diesel facility will be sent to British Columbia to support the province's plan to lower carbon emissions. The company also plans to use renewable diesel in its own operations as part of its emission reduction plans.

The facility's construction will create about 600 direct construction jobs, Imperial said. The news was also praised by clean energy think-tank the Pembina Institute, which called it a "positive announcement."

Pembina, as well as other environmental organizations, has been critical of the Canadian oilsands industry over the last year for what the think-tank believes is the industry's failure to move quickly on decarbonization plans during a period of high commodity prices and record profits for oil companies.

Imperial, for example, reported its 2022 third-quarter profit more than doubled compared with a year ago, totalling $2.03 billion — an impressive figure that's been used as ammunition by critics who believe the company, and others like it, can afford to invest more in environmental initiatives.

Imperial is also a member of the Pathways Alliance, a consortium of oil and gas companies that have committed to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from operations by 2050. Among that group's proposals is a massive carbon capture and storage network in northern Alberta, though a final investment decision for that project has not yet been made.

Jan Gorski, the Pembina Institute's oil and gas program director, said in order to thrive in a net-zero world, Canadian energy companies need to diversify away from fossil fuels, while at the same time reducing the carbon footprint of their oil and gas production methods.

The renewable diesel announcement falls into that first category. Wetmore said from Imperial's perspective, renewable diesel is just one piece of a "layered" emissions reduction challenge.

[karungdadap]

Important Information about The Difference between Sale and Sell Kinder Morgan Agrees to Sell U.S. Portion of Cochin Pipeline and Its 70 Percent Interest in KML to Pembina Pipeline Corporation #difference #sale #sell #english #differencebetweensaleandsell #saleversussell

Kinder Morgan, Inc. KMI, -1.32% today announced that it has agreed to sell the U.S. portion of the Cochin Pipeline ... reviewing our comparable GAAP measures, understanding the differences between the ... source https://soviralfull.com/difference-between-sale-and-sell/#d899df866170a2bf379fc9412a1fbcd4

[8infinity]

Got $5,000? These 2 Stocks Pay Dividends Every Month

[soapboxca]

Let’s save the planet using stats!

I recently came across a blog post by The Pembina Institute entitled The most important climate numbers you need to know. The post uses data from the National Inventory Report (NIR), which is the account of all GHG emissions from Canada that we submit to the UN annually. Using this data, Pembina highlights two provinces and three sectors: Alberta and Ontario are responsible for 60% of the countries emissions, and Oil and Gas, Transport, and Buildings are responsible for 70% of our emissions. If we want to reduce our emissions, those are the places we need to focus.

So I thought k great start. Let’s revive my blog that’s been dead for 2 years and dig deeper into the numbers to see what we can learn!

BTW this post is v v long so there’s I made a bullet list TLDR at the end. K cool moving on.

1. I Wanna Talk About Transportation

Ok so I know Oil and Gas is the biggest emitter and super important for Canada’s climate strategy, but I want to take that sector out of the conversation for now, and here’s why. We already know the best way to dramatically reduce emissions from producing oil and gas: stop producing oil and gas. That just will not happen as long as it makes money to keep going. Since the industry and emissions are mostly restricted to Alberta, and since almost all of Alberta’s oil is exported, there’s not much to talk about for the rest of Canada other than opposing pipelines.

Once we take Oil and Gas out of the picture it becomes clear that we have to look at Transportation. Here’s a Pareto chart of the remaining emissions by sector:

Transportation is by far the biggest emissions source, and it’s not even close. The next place sector doesn’t even produce half the emissions transportation does.

Transportation is also interesting to talk about because, unlike oil and gas, it directly impacts all of us. Each province and territory has people and things that need to move around. If we dig in we might find that some provinces do it better than others, and find areas where we can learn from each other.

2. Let’s Break It Down Further!

So what’s nice about the NIR is it breaks the numbers down into useful subcategories. Within Transportation, there’s Passenger (moving people), Freight (moving stuff), and Other. Here’s a pie chart of how that breaks down:

With each of passenger and freight transportation accounting for about half of all transportation emissions, clearly we have to tackle both. So let’s look at them one at a time.

3. Moving People Depends On How Many People Need To Move. Shocking.

Ok so you might assume that passenger emissions would be proportional to population; the more people moving around, the more emissions generated. And yeah good assumption. Here’s a graph showing passenger transport emissions from each province against population:

The dots are all pretty damn close to that linear trendline, meaning yeah emissions from passenger transportation in Canada correlate pretty dang strongly with population. While this is quite logical it’s a bit disappoint. To me, this means it’s likely that no province is really leading the pack for passenger vehicle emissions reduction, so there aren’t many lessons to be learned. We’ll probably have to look internationally for best practices we can copy.

What the graph also shows that I didn’t mention before is that you can separate the data into personal vehicles (cars, light trucks, motorcycles) and mass transportation (bus, rail, domestic aviation). When you do this, you see that personal vehicles account for nearly all (91%) of the emissions from passenger transportation. That’s a big deal. To me, that means that if we want to do better on passenger transportation, we have to figure out how to get people to drive less, or at least drive more efficient cars. Improving our mass transportation vehicles by doing things like replacing buses with electric ones is nice and all but unless that translates to people getting out of their cars and onto those buses the impact will be small.

4. BuT wE cAn Go DeEpEr!

I have one more graph for the passenger data that brings up some interesting questions, so stay with me.

Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, BC, and Saskatchewan (in that order) produce the most emissions from passenger vehicles. These five provinces account for 87% of Canada’s passenger vehicle emissions. Here’s a graph of the per-person emissions from passenger vehicles for these provinces since 1991:

So I know I said all provinces are doing about the same when you control for population, and they are but if you zoom in a few interesting things show up here that raise questions I definitely don’t have answers for.

BC and Ontario match really closely from 1991 to 1998, and then they split up with BC doing better than Ontario. What happened in 1998?

BC and Ontario are now close again because BC’s per-person emissions have been climbing since 2011. What happened in 2011?

Saskatchewan has been steadily increasing its per person passenger emissions with a big increase from 2005 to 2010. During this same time period, the four largest provinces all had per-person emissions decreases. What is going on in Saskatchewan, especially since 2005?

These would be fun research questions!

5. We Also Move Stuff And Things

Oh yeah Freight. So freight is currently responsible for 41% of Canada’s transportation emissions, but this wasn’t always the case. Take a look at this graph comparing emissions from passenger and freight vehicles since 1990:

While passenger vehicle emissions have been increasing with Canada’s population, emissions from freight vehicles have increased twice as quickly. Especially between 1995 and 2012. That’s super interesting! I would love to know why.

We can also graph freight emissions against population for each province the way we did for passenger emissions. Here is that:

Looks a bit different! The dots aren’t sitting nicely on the line anymore. Ontario and Quebec have lower per-person freight emissions while Alberta and Saskatchewan have higher emissions. Perhaps Ontario and Quebec have some best practices to share! Would love to look into that.

6. BuT wE cAn Go DeEpEr (again)!

Ok last graph. Remember how 5 provinces are responsible for 87% of passenger vehicle emissions? Those same 5 provinces produce 88% of freight emissions. So here’s the graph of freight emissions per person from those provinces since 1991:

We already knew that some provinces were doing better than others, but now we can really see some differences! Here are my highlights:

Quebec and Ontario match really closely, like too close to be a coincidence. I know they’re neighbours and ship a lot between each other but there’s gotta be more to it than that.

From 1991 to 1995, the big 4 provinces were pretty flat. Then Alberta yeeted itself up for almost two decades while the other three stayed pretty flat. What happened in Alberta from 1995 to 2014 that didn’t happen in the rest of the country? And how did Alberta start to turn it around in 2014?

Once again, Saskatchewan has been steadily increasing its per person freight emissions with a big increase starting around 2005. What is going on in Saskatchewan, especially since 2005, and is it the same thing that’s driving passenger vehicle emissions?

7. So What Did We Learn Kiddos? (The TLDR)

I had fun I hope you did too. After all these graphs here’s what we got!

Pembina pointed out that:

Alberta and Ontario produce 60% of Canada’s GHG emissions,

Oil and Gas, Transport, and Buildings are responsible for 70% of our emissions

I pointed out that:

Transportation produces almost as much GHG emissions as oil and gas, and more than twice as much as the next most polluting sector.

Emissions among Canadian provinces from passenger vehicles are highly correlated to population, so we probably have to look outside the country for new best practices that will have a major impact.

Personal vehicles produce 9 times as much emissions as buses, trains, and airplanes combined, so we should focus more on getting people out of their cars rather than things like electric buses (though we should do that too).

Emissions from freight vehicles have increased twice as much as those from passenger vehicles since 1990

Alberta and Saskatchewan have the highest per-person emissions from freight vehicles, while Ontario and Quebec have the lowest.

I asked the following questions:

Why did BC suddenly start doing better on per-person passenger vehicle emissions than Ontario in 1998 when they were very similar before then?

Why have BC’s per-person passenger vehicle emissions been climbing since 2011?

Why did Saskatchewan have a big increase in per-person passenger vehicle emissions from 2005 to 2010 while the four largest provinces all had per-person emissions decreases?

Why have Quebec’s and Ontario’s per-person freight emissions been almost identical to each other since 1990, and what are they doing that other provinces can learn from?

Why did Alberta have a sudden increase in per-person freight emissions starting in 1995 that lasted until 2014 while the other largest provinces stayed fairly flat? And how did Alberta start to turn it around in 2014?

Again, why did Saskatchewan have a big increase in per-person freight emissions starting around 2005? Is it the same thing that’s driving passenger vehicle emissions?

So in the end after all that I basically just took a starting point and made a whole bunch of starting points for further research but that’s showbiz (read: research) baby! Anyway if anybody has answers to any of my Qs, do let me know! I luv 2 learn. But seriously if anybody actually reads this whole thing and wants to talk about it I would love to talk about it.

[leftpress]

Southern Oregon: Pipeline Pusher’s Car Blocked By Feces

Anonymous Contributor | It's Going Down | March 11th 2019

The post Southern Oregon: Pipeline Pusher’s Car Blocked By Feces appeared first on It's Going Down.

The following communique was anonymously submitted to It’s Going Down. It reads: Monday, March 11, 2019 – Michael Hinrichs, mediocre propagandist for the proposed Jordan Cove Energy Project and Pacific Connector Pipeline, traveled to Southern Oregon today, selling Pembina’s particular brand of bullshit.  Hinrichs brought his crappy lies to the Roseburg Chamber of Commerce— lies […]

→ READ MORE ←

Get your Latest News From The Leftist Front on LeftPress.News → Support Us On Patreon! ←