Pergamon Drrrg.v COI~YW. Mgm Vol. 38. No. 5, pp. 217-224. 1997

Copyright I 1996 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd

PII: so196-89oq%)ooo37-4 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

0196-8904/97 $17.00 + 0.00

CANADIAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: 1990-2000

LARRY HUGHES and SANDY SCOTT Whale Lake Research Institute, P.O. Box 631, Station M, Halifax. Nova Scotia, Canada B3J 2T3

(Received 7 September 1995)

Abstract-The recent Berlin conference on the changing atmosphere has highlighted two major problems: first, the planet’s atmospheric chemistry is undergoing radical and potentially dangerous changes from the anthropomorphic emission of a variety of gases; and second, despite promises and treaty obligations, a number of countries (including the United States, Australia and Canada) are hindering efforts to stabilize these emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. An examination of the Canadian government’s own data for carbon dioxide and methane emissions from energy sources indicates why the Canadian stabilization target cannot be met: gross emissions are increasing, per capita emissions are increasing, and emissions in terms of gross domestic product are showing minimal change. Copyright 80 1996 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd

1 INTRODUCTION

The greenhouse effect is one of the processes that permits life to exist on this planet [l]. A percentage of solar radiation is trapped by clouds, water vapour and other trace amounts of atmospheric gases (notably carbon dioxide and ozone), thereby keeping the planet’s average temperature at 15°C; without the greenhouse effect, the planet’s temperature would drop to - 18-C and the planet would be covered with ice [2]. On the other hand, increasing the levels of some existing trace gases (such as carbon dioxide or methane) or the addition of entirely new gases (notably chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs) could significantly alter the planet’s average temperature [3].

Over the past decade, the term “greenhouse effect” has become synonymous with the anthropomorphic emission of gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane and CFCs, and the associated impact these gases would have upon the planet’s atmosphere. Computer models and other studies have shown that the expected long term effects of these emissions could result in significant climate changes [4] with potentially devastating results [5].

In the 198Os, the greenhouse effect and its potential for climate change was seen by many Canadian politicians as a vote-catching vehicle with untold photo-ops. With little or no justification, Canadians were told that the world looked upon Canada as an environmental leader. These claims were reinforced in a variety of ways: Canada hosted the 1988 Toronto World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere, put the world’s first “green plan” into action in 1990 [6]. and endorsed the 1992 Rio Protocol. At the Toronto conference, Canada agreed to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 20% of 1988 levels by the year 2005 [7]. By 1990, when it was discovered that a 20% cut in emissions could not be achieved, Canada pledged to stabilize its carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

The 1995 Berlin conference on the changing atmosphere finally indicated that the vast majority of Canadians have done little more than talk about the greenhouse effect. An examination of the Canadian government’s own data for carbon dioxide and methane emissions from energy sources shows why the stabilization target cannot be met: gross emissions are increasing, per capita emissions are increasing and emissions in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) are showing minimal change. Without a radical departure from the existing “lifestyle” of most Canadians, there appears to be little hope for stabilizing CO? emissions or meeting any other reduction target.

217

218 HUGHES and SCOTT: CANADIAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

2 CANADIAN ENERGY REQUIREMENTS: 19752000

Canada, the second largest country in the world, is blessed (some would say cursed) with an abundance of coal, oil, natural gas, hydro-electricity and wood. The availability of cheap energy supplies has allowed Canada to attain one of the world’s highest standards of living while, at the same time, encouraging a spendthrift attitude with respect to energy usage. Furthermore, in those regions that do not have direct access to cheap energy, government subsidies are used to help defray energy costs.

2.1 Energy demand The effect of cheap energy is most readily demonstrated by examining Canadian historical and

projected energy demand for the period 1975-2000. Energy statistics are produced by a number of different Canadian government departments; of these, the National Energy Board (NEB) is the main source of energy supply and demand information (both historical and projected) which it publishes periodically.

The NEB divides the demand information into a number of sectors; notably residential, commercial, industrial, transport (road and other), electrical generation and non-energy (e.g. refinery losses). Table 1 details historical Canadian energy demand for the years 1975-1990, while the years 1995 and 2000 are projections based upon the continuing use of current technology (producing the lowest NEB growth projection for this period). The total end use (i.e. the total energy demand from all sectors) has been expected to grow by more than 43% over this 25 year period. The average annual growth has been forecast to increase at a slightly higher rate over the 10 year projected period (1.6%) than during the 15 year historical period (1.5%).

The total yearly electrical demand is also shown in this Table; over the same 25 year period, electrical demand has been predicted to rise by 154%. Part of this increase can be attributed to the growing use of electrical devices and electric space heating in the residential and commercial sectors. The final row of Table 1 lists the primary energy demand (i.e. the total energy demand from all sectors, including electrical generation), which increases by almost 57% from 7078.6 PJ (petajoules) in 1975 to 11107.0 PJ in 2000.

It is worth noting that, in 1975, Canada’s population was approximately 22.5 x lo6 [8], giving a per capita energy demand of 315 GJ (gigajoules). By the year 2000, when the population is expected to reach 31.5 x 106, per capita energy demand will increase some 12% to 353 GJ. Over the 25 year period, the rise in demand for energy (57%) exceeds the growth in population (40%).

2.2 Energy supply For the most part, Canadian energy demand is met by indigenous sources: coal (mined in British

Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia), oil and natural gas (found primarily in British Columbia and Alberta) and hydro-electric power (with major dam sites in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland). A number of nuclear facilities exist in Ontario and New Brunswick.

The NEB information on energy supply for the 1975-2000 period is given in Table 2. The table shows a growth in all energy sources over this period with the exception of oil which, from a peak of 3763.7 PJ in 1975, falls to a low of 3045.4 PJ in 1985 before climbing back to 3590.7 PJ by the year 2000. The reason for the decline in oil demand in the late 1970s and early 1980s was the series

Sector

Residential Commercial Industrial Transport (Road) Transport (Other) Non-energy Total end use Electrical generation Primary demand

Table I. Canadian energy demand by sector: 1975-2000 (Petajoules)

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

1321.8 1396.5 1392.0 1449.9 1475.5 696.7 778.6 821.3 892.8 959.1

2019.8 2399.4 2342.3 2540.6 2743.5 1286.2 1544.6 1414.5 1513.4 1584.9 338.1 417.2 320.0 382.0 404.4 356.0 524.4 607.0 632.6 757.2

6018.6 7060.8 6897.0 7411.3 7924.4 1525.0 2079.9 2577.4 2952.2 3439.7 7078.6 8426.9 8497.0 9237.4 10.109.2

2000

1512.8 1022.0 3081.3 1720.0 449.4 846.5

8631.8 3874.5

I1,107.0

HUGHES and SCOTT; CANADIAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 219

Table 2. Canadian energy supply by fuel: 1975-2000 (Petajoules)

Fuel source 1975 1980 1985 I990 1995 2000

Nuclear Hydro-electric Coal Oil Natural gas Biomass

114.2 445.8 693.7 823.1 1156.5 1237.0 734.5 844.9 973.8 1018.8 I 112.2 1192.7 580.7 823.7 1015.7 1050.6 1102.5 1246.6

3763.7 3964.6 3045.4 3268.7 3309.4 3590.7 1573.5 1786.8 2099. I 2299.7 2555.6 2837.3 360.6 455.3 514.5 530.8 569.2 626.2

of so-called “oil shocks” that hit the western industrialized nations when the price of oil skyrocketed to $40 U.S. per barrel. Prior to this, most of Canada’s non-hydro-electric energy demand was satisfied by oil (much of it, especially in the eastern provinces, imported); at the time of the oil shocks, a number of provincial governments opted for indigenous coal or natural gas as a replacement for oil.

The result of these decisions, made in the late 1970s has been a marked increase in the use of coal (for electrical generation) and natural gas (for electrical generation and space heating). For example, the use of coal and natural gas has been forecast to increase by 115 and 85%. respectively, over the 25 year period. Furthermore, despite the replacement of oil by other fuels, the demand for oil (both domestic and imported) is increasing in both the industrial and transportation sectors.

3 CANADIAN CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS: 1990-2000

Carbon dioxide (CO!) is an odourless, colourless gas that can be produced by the combustion of carbon-based materials, such as coal, oil, natural gas or biomass. Worldwide, human activities have resulted in a 13% rise in the concentration of CO? over the period 1959-1993 [9]. The NEB began including carbon dioxide emissions levels in their 1991 data [lo] and continued to do so in their 1994 data [ 111.

3.1 Carbon dioxide emissions b)l jiiel

Carbon dioxide emissions in Canada come from three major sources: coal, oil, and natural gas; the NEB does not consider biomass to be an emission source, since it is considered to be a net sink, removing CO? from the atmosphere. The expected growth in demand over the 199@-2000 period (from Table 2) is coal (18.6%), oil (9.8%), and natural gas (23.4%). Since there is essentially a one-to-one correlation between the combustion of a fossil fuel and the CO? it emits, the percentage CO? emissions per fuel can be expected to rise by about the same percentage as the demand increase.

3.2 Carbon dioxide emissions by sector

CO? emissions per sector are shown in Table 3. In all sectors (including electrical generation), with the exception of residential, there is a marked increase in CO? emissions for the 1990-2000 period: commercial (7.9%), transportation (12.9%), electrical generation (22.4%), and industrial (22.6%).

The decline in residential CO? emissions is not the result of an increased energy efficiency in the home; instead, it is due to the replacement of oil by natural gas and electricity as fuels for space

Table 3. Gross and net carbon dioxide emissions: 199&2000 (kilotonnes)

Sector 1990 1992 1994 1995 I996 I998 2000

Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Electric power Upstream oil/gas Gross emissions Biomass Net emissions

49.561 48,320 48,135 47.920 27.43 I 27,892 28.173 28.513

133.039 128,410 137,434 143.630 132,008 126,026 133,637 136,798 92.076 97.132 87,992 94.910 27.123 30.46 I 33,209 34,098

510.823 505,496 5 18.300 537.265 49,584 47,255 49.721 51,395

461,238 458,241 468,579 485.870

47,828 47.8 I9 47.806 28,978 29,546 29.604

143,427 156,657 163,105 139,368 144,477 149,044 100.343 I 10.248 112.737 34,908 40.422 44.964

552.450 583.771 602,593 52,598 54.603 55,333

499,852 529.168 547.260

220 HUGHES and SCOTT: CANADIAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Table 4. Carbon dioxide emissions per capita: 1990-2000

1990 1992 1994 1995 1996 1998 2000

Population (millions) 27.8 28.4 29.2 29.6 30.0 30.8 31.5 CO? per capita (tonnes) 16.6 16.1 16.0 16.4 16.7 17.2 17.4

heating and domestic hot water. Although natural gas emits less CO? than does oil, the residential emission levels are somewhat misleading, since all CO? emission levels from electrical generation (including residential electricity demand) are listed with “Electric Power”.

3.3 Total carbon dioxide emissions The COZ emission levels shown in Table 3 are calculated from the energy requirements of

all sectors of the economy; totals are listed in terms of “Gross” (i.e. all emissions) and “Net” (i.e., the Gross emissions less the amount of CO? that biomass is expected to remove from the atmosphere). Table 3 lists the “Gross”, “Biomass”, and “Net” taken from the NEB’s 1991 and 1994 emission data for the years 1990-2000.

Other than a slight dip in the early 1990s due to an economic recession, there is a steady annual increase of 1.7% in the year-over-year gross CO1 emissions. The overall growth in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 to 2000 is some 17.9%. The annual growth in net CO2 emissions is also 1.7%, with an increase of 18.6% from 1990 to 2000.

3.4 Emissions and population A second, perhaps more telling, method of measuring a country’s carbon dioxide emissions is

to consider emissions on a per-capita basis. World-wide carbon dioxide emissions in the early 1990s (from both the burning of fossil fuels and forest destruction) amount to some 8.5 x lo9 tonnes [12]; given a world population of about 5.5 x lo9 [13], this means that the annual average per capita emission is roughly 1.5 tonnes.

Despite its size (9.976 x lo6 km’), Canada has a relatively small population (27.8 x lo6 in 1990) with a population density of only 2.8 per km’. The majority of the population is located within two hundred miles of the United States’ border.

Statistics Canada (the statistics department of the Canadian government) projects the Canadian population will grow from 27.8 x lo6 in 1990 (actual) [14], to an estimated 31.5 x lo6 by the turn of the century [15]. Table 4 lists the Canadian population for the years 1990-2000 and the calculated per capita carbon dioxide emissions. The table shows that, despite a slight decrease in the early 1990s (due, almost entirely, to the aforementioned economic recession), per capita emissions are expected to increase by some 4.8%, from 16.6 to 17.4 tonnes per capita.

3.5 Emissions and GDP A third method of measuring emissions is to consider the energy intensity (i.e. the amount of

energy consumed to make a unit of gross domestic product). This is a rather useful approach, since it can indicate whether a country is using its energy more (or less) efficiently in terms of the goods that it produces. Over time, as processes become more efficient and a country enters the “new” economy, energy intensity is expected to decline.

Table 5 lists the energy intensity for the Canadian commercial and industrial sectors. Industrial COr emissions include the petrochemical industry but exclude electrical power generation and biomass burning. The GDP data for 1990-1994 is actual data [16]; 1995 and 1996 assume growth rates of 4 and 2.4%, respectively [17]; 1997-2000 assume a constant growth rate of 2% per annum.

Table 5. Energy intensity (commercial and industrial): 1990-2000

1990 1992 1994 1995 1996 1998 2000

GDP ($ x 109) 412.9 405.3 440.6 458.2 469.2 488.2 507.9 Commercial (kt) 27,074 27,892 28,173 28,798 28,513 29,546 29,604 Industrial (kt) 133,039 128,410 137,434 143,630 143,427 156,657 163,105 Intensity ($/kt) 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6

HUGHES and SCOTT: CANADIAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 221

Table 6. Methane emissions capita: 1992-2000 per

Source 1992 1994 1995 1996 1998 2000

Total emissions (kt) 1473 1586 1671 1723 1825 1844 CHI per capita (kg) 51.9 55.4 56.4 57.9 61.1 61.2

Over the period 1990-2000, there is little change in energy intensity, the rate of GDP growth closely matches the growth in emissions of the commercial and industrial sectors. Should the GDP growth be higher than those projected, and the CO? emissions remain constant or decline, the energy intensity would improve.

4 CANADIAN METHANE EMISSIONS: 1992-2000

Methane (CH,), another greenhouse gas, is of particular interest for a number of reasons: first, the annual rate of emission increase is about 0.8% [18]; second, it is 2&30 times more effective at trapping heat than COz [19]; and third, should the planet be experiencing a temperature increase, an uncontrollable rise in methane emissions may occur as northern tundra and permafrost begin to melt [20]. Sources of methane include enteric fermentation in livestock and insects, rice fields and wetlands, incomplete biomass burning, land fills, and gas and coal fields [21].

Canadian methane emissions were first included in the 1994 NEB data, starting with a base year of 1992. The NEB data refers to four different energy-related sources only: oil and gas production; natural gas pipelines; coal beds in western Canada; and coal beds in eastern Canada. Table 6 shows the total expected methane emissions for Canada between the years 1992 and 2000; methane from other sources would increase this total. The annual rate of increase in methane emissions for this period is estimated to be about 3.4% (31% over the entire period), well above the world annual rate of 0.8%.

On a per capita basis, emissions are quite small (when compared to CO, emissions), in the range of SO-60 kg a year. However, over the period 1992-2000, the per capita CH, emissions are expected to increase by 17.9%.

5 TOTAL EMISSIONS

Total greenhouse gas emissions can be expressed in terms of CO?-equivalents; that is, the heat-trapping potential of gases other than CO? are calculated in relation to CO?. For example, every molecule of CH, is equivalent to 20-30 molecules of CO?.

When expressed in terms of CO?-equivalents, the annual Canadian per capita greenhouse gas emissions from CO? and CH4 (taken at a ratio of 20-to-l) increase by 7.6% from 17.2 tonnes (1992) to 18.5 tonnes (2000) (see Table 7). Furthermore, the CO:-equivalent emissions per capita in the year 2000 are 6.3% higher when compared with CO: emissions alone (from Table 4).

6 EMISSION STABILIZATION

One method of categorizing the emission of greenhouse gases in fossil-fuel based economies is to use per capita CO? emissions and the per capita energy demand. Assuming that the emissions are either low or high and the demand is either low or high (a low demand is taken to mean that the fuel is being used more efficiently), then there are four possible categories:

Emissions low; Demand low. In a fossil-fuel based economy, this is the ideal, in which emissions are low and the energy is used as efficiently as possible.

Table 7. Total greenhouse emissions per capita: 1992-2000

Source 1992 1994 1995 1996 1998 2000

CO? Emissions (kt) 458,241 468,579 485.870 499.852 529.168 547,260 CHI Emissions (kt) 1473 1586 1671 I723 1825 1844 CO, Equivalent (kt) 487,701 500.299 519,290 534,312 565,668 584.140 Per capita (tonnes) 17.2 17.1 17.5 17.8 18.4 18.5

222 HUGHES and SCOTT: CANADIAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Emissions low; Demand high. An economy with low CO1 emissions and high energy demand can be one that relies predominently on natural gas but does not use the energy efficiently.

Emissions high; Demand low. This is not an ideal category, since the emissions are high; however, the energy is used efficiently. A coal-based economy could fit into this category.

Emissions high; Demand high. This is the worst case, since the available energy is not used efficiently and the per capita emission is high.

In 1995, Canadian COr emissions are calculated to be 16.4 tonnes per capita (ranking within the world’s top three) with a per capita energy demand of some 341 GJ (placing it amongst the highest in the world). Using the above categorization scheme, Canada fits into the final category, in which both emissions and demand are high. To achieve the ideal of both low emissions and low demand, it will be necessary to make a number of changes to Canadian energy consumption patterns. Given that Canada has pledged to stabilize its emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000, it is instructive to consider the likelihood of meeting this target. The limiting factors are the time remaining in the decade and the apparent lack of political will to institute the necessary changes.

All that can be realistically achieved in this time frame is a number of short, and possibly some medium-term, objectives. Major modifications to the existing physical infrastructure (such as thermal power stations or many industrial processes) are unrealistic given the available time. (A 20 year strategy for reducing Canadian emissions is described in Ref. [22]; the complete paper can be found in Ref. [23].)

6.1 Residential and commercial sectors Canada is unique among the circumpolar countries in that there are no district heating or

cogeneration schemes worth mentioning; space heating is achieved through electric resistance heaters or by burning fossil fuels (notably oil or natural gas) in furnaces found in homes, apartment buildings or office blocks.

In the short-term (i.e. immediately), the only realistic way in which emissions could be reduced in the residential and commercial sectors is to encourage individuals to follow more energy efficient energy practices. For example, energy demand can be lowered by reducing the requirements for lighting and space heating and cooling (i.e. air conditioning).

Further emission reductions in these sectors will require government action in the form of legislation. For example, a home heating fuel tax could be introduced that would come into effect when consumption went above a certain level (in an effort to protect people on fixed incomes). The revenues obtained from this tax could be used as rebates to encourage the purchase of energy efficient appliances (for example, fluorescent rather than incandescent light bulbs [24]) or additional insulation for homes.

During the period leading up to 2000, a number of medium-term measures could be initiated. For example, legislation could be enacted requiring all new buildings (i.e. residential and commercial space) to be designed and built to maximize solar gain (either passive or active). Furthermore, new residential areas would have to be constructed with local cogeneration systems. The percentage of the housing stock that would be affected by this legislation would be minimal by the year 2000; however, its impact would become more apparent into the next decade.

6.2 Transportation Canadians love their cars-90% of all trips are by automobile (a higher per capita percentage

than in the United States) [25]. To make matters worse, little consideration is given to alternative modes of transport, such as bus or rail; in fact, a recent federal government funded passenger transport report claims that the automobile makes less impact upon the environment than does the train [25]. Over the past 5 years, the national passenger rail system has been gutted as part of the government’s drive towards subsidy reduction. Since transportation depends almost entirely upon oil, and transportation in Canada relies heavily on road transport, improvements in the transportation sector could make the biggest impact on CO? emissions in the short-term.

Energy demand in the transportation sector could be lowered by limiting the volume of motorized transportation (particularly the private automobile) permitted in cities; this can be achieved by restricting the availability or increasing the cost of parking [26]. Since most major cities

HUGHES and SCOTT; CANADIAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 223

in Canada have some form of public transportation, it is reasonable to expect that people would not suffer greatly by the proposed restrictions.

Further reductions could be made by shifting goods now moved by truck to rail, thereby reversing the long, slow decline in rail transportation. The two national rail companies would be required to relearn the meaning of service, though, before such a policy could be widely accepted.

A fuel consumption tax could also be applied to those transportation modes deemed to be CO?-intensive. The monies obtained from these taxes could be applied in developing efficient public and rapid transportation systems, thereby further reducing the demand for private road transportation [24].

6.3 Total savings

The proposed changes are probably the most realistic that can be realized by the year 2000, given the time remaining in the decade and the minimal legislative action required on the part of the government. Assuming that these changes take place by 2000 and a 2.5% decrease in gross emissions (equivalent to a 10% drop in transportation emissions) is realized in all sectors (including industrial and electrical generation), then the overall net emissions (i.e. removing the biomass factor) will drop to about 1998 levels. Per capita emissions (including CH,) would decline to some 18.1 tonnes.

In any set of calculations using projected data, there is always the possibility that the projections are too high. For example, assuming that the growth in gross emissions by the year 2000 for both COZ and CH, is only two-thirds as great as those projected by the National Energy Board, the net emissions could be at about the 1997 level. A 2.5% decline in gross COZ emissions would put net emissions at 1996 levels; the per capita emissions would fall to about 17.0 tonnes. On the other hand, the 2.5% decline may be overly optimistic: a 1% decline in gross emissions would lower net emissions to about the 1997 level, with per capita emissions slightly over 17.3 tonnes.

In each of the above situations, minor declines in emissions are achieved, but not enough to claim that emissions have stabilized; and given the past rates of growth in energy demand, one could assume that these declines would be short-lived. Two other uncontrollable (and potentially politically damaging) emission reduction scenarios are an economic downturn (as in the early 1990s) or a dramatic increase in oil prices (as in the late 1970s). Neither of these is desirable, since they are typically short-term and cannot be taken as solutions, since emissions invariably grow once the problem is passed.

7 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The overriding problem in meeting the emissions stabilization target is the time remaining in the decade (about 5 years). Stabilization was first proposed in 1990, the Rio accord was signed in June 1992, ratified in December 1992 and came into force in March 1994 [27]. A number of public consultations were held prior to October 1994 as input for the Berlin conference in April 1995. There has been much talk and very little action; in short, the 5 years since stabilization was first proposed have been wasted (7 years, if the time from the 1988 Toronto atmospheric conference is included).

It is safe to say that, without some form of concerted government policy, there can be little hope of meeting any targets, since emissions continue to grow. Sadly, many governments (both provincial and federal) have trumpeted minor environmental successes while hindering actions that could have major benefits (both environmental and economic) [28]. For example, Canada’s much heralded conservation triumph in defending the Greenland turbot stock comes at a time when the northern cod stocks are at 1% of their 1990 levels. On the other hand, proposals to build local cogeneration plants are thwarted because electrical utilities refuse to grant wheeling rights to independent producers [29].

Despite the promises, claims, and treaty obligations made by the government of Canada with respect to greenhouse gas stabilization or reduction, Canadians are making little headway in dealing with their greenhouse gas emissions. The expected growth in emissions over the 1990-2000 period, although small in terms of the planet’s overall carbon budget, when considered on a per capita basis, ranks Canada within the world’s top three.

224 HUGHES and SCOTT: CANADIAN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

If Canada was the only country on the planet, then its levels of greenhouse gas emissions would not be an issue. However, Canada is not alone, and more importantly, its level of per capita GDP and life style is a goal to which many other countries aspire. Newly industrializing countries can hardly be expected to curtail economic plans in order to allow countries, such as Canada, to continue its energy spendthrift ways. It is time for Canada’s actions to match its rhetoric.

REFERENCES

1. F. Pearce, Turning up the Heat; Our Perilous Future in the Global Greenhouse. The Bodley Head, London (1989). 2. V. Ramanathan, Science 240, 293-299 (1988). 3. J. Leggett (Editor), Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1990). 4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Chmate Change 1992: The IPCC Supplementary Report.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992). 5. D. Wysham, The Ecologist 24(6), 204206 (1994). 6. Government of Canada, Canada’s Green P/an: The First Year (1991). The Green Plan was a $3 billion “action” plan

for sustainable development announced in December 1990. It was terminated in late April 1995, as part of the federal government’s cost cutting program.

7. Prime Minister of Canada The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, Notes for an address at the International Conference on the Changing Atmosphere, Toronto, Canada, 21 June (1988).

8. Communications Division Statistics Canada, Canada Yearbook, 1994. Ottawa (1993). 9. D. Roodman, Global temperature rises slightly. In Vital Signs 1994-1995, pp. 6667. World Resources Institute (1994).

IO. National Energy Board, Canadian Energy Supply and Demand 1990-2010 (June 1991). 1 I. National Energy Board, Canadian Energy Supp/y and Demand 1993-2010 (December 1994). 12. C. Mlot, Greenhouse warming. In The 1992 Information Please Enoironmentai Almanac, pp. 269-278. World Resources

Institute (1992). 13. L. Brown, H. Kane and D. Roodman, Vital Signs 1994-1995. Earthscan/Worldwatch Institute (1994). 14. Statistics Canada Demographics Division, Rerisedlntercensal Population and Family Estimates, Ju/y I, 1971-1991. Cat.

91-537. Statistics Canada (July 1994). 15. M. V. George (ed.), Population Projections for Canada, Provinces and Territories 1993-2016. Cat. 91-520 Occasional,

Statistics Canada (December 1994). 16. Statistics Canada Industry Measures and Analysis Division. Gross Domestic Product by Industry. Cat. 15-001 System

of National Accounts. Statistics Canada (Jan 1995). 17. C. Leitao. Canada’s Economic Outlook (Economic forecasts to 1996). Technical report, Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto

(April 1995). 18. G. I. Pearman and P. J. Fraser, Nature 332, 489-490 (1988). 19. F. Lyman (ed.), The Greenhouse Trap. World Resources Institute (1990). 20. F. Pearce, New Scientist 28, 1654 (4 March 1989). 21. R. E. Dickinson and R. J. Cicerone, Nature 319, 109-115 (9 January 1986). 22. L. Hughes and S. Scott, Canada, carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. Emironment (November 1989). 23. L. Hughes and S. Scott, Canada, carbon dioxide, and the greenhouse effect. International Journal of Energy.

Enrironment, Economics l(2), 1 I l-l I7 (1991). 24. L. R. Brown (ed.), State of the World 1989. A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society.

W. W. Norton and Company (1989). 25. L. D. Hyndman (chair), Directions: the final reports of the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation.

Minister of Supply and Services, Canada (1992). 4 volume set. 26. P. Hughes, Personal Transportation and the Greenhouse Effect. Earthscan (1993). 27. UNFCCC. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 28. D. Bueckert, Canada’s not so green, admits Copps. The Haltfax Mail-Star (I I April 1995). One of a series of articles

to appear after the 1995 Berlin Conference. Copps refers to Shelia Copps. the Canadian Minister of the Environment. 29. L. Hughes and S. Scott, A Clean Energy Policy for Nolya Scotia. Technical report, Whale Lake Research Institute (May

1993).