A nice story on the silver or gold lining of global warming with all the green jobs generated, with more similar statistics attached below as excerpts from the source.

The number of jobs created was what was compared to the pharmaceutical industry, not the revenue generated or anything to do with money where I suspect the pharmaceutical industry would reverse the ratio. It was a bit unfair of the source, UNEP, to pick a big industry that is growing but in no way to the extent, but which makes a lot of money so it has a big presence in people’s minds. [Envirostats author]

- The renewable energy programmes in Germany and Spain are merely ten years old but have already created several hundred thousand jobs.

- The Indian city of Delhi is introducing new eco-friendly compressed natural gas buses that will create an additional 18,000 new jobs. - The ethanol programme in Brazil has created half a million jobs and its bio-diesel programme is specifically designed to benefit hundreds of thousands of mostly poor smallholder farmers.

- By the year 2020, Germany will have more jobs in the field of environmental technologies than in its entire automotive industry.

- In Europe, a 20 per cent increase in energy efficiency would create about a million jobs. The same applies in emerging and developing countries.

- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Press Release, Dec 6 2007

This is a poll, not a final result, obviously, but if it had proved inaccurate, some mention and correction would have taken place. 

Some things that were not mentioned was inflation hasn’t increased THAT much in the past year.

Another thing not mentioned was that the Canadian dollar has seen a huge increase in value in the past year, going past the US dollar for a while recently, even, and is close to parity that there is a lot of cross-border shopping of late. It buys more now, in other words, and for that, we Canadians are spending more.

Perhaps the saddest part in all of this statistic was that only half our holiday spendings go towards others, 50.6%.

That’s consumerism, my friends, not giving. Maybe we’re still thinking like a kid that Santa Claus will be doing the giving or something.

And what’s with the 6% not planning to give gifts? I appreciate it is difficult for some to give but you know, I still believe in it’s the thought that counts and I’ve had challenges to giving before, but I’ve always overcome them, and I’ve always felt better for it.

Minh Tan
Envirostats author

The poll, which surveyed 2,600 participants from Nov. 27 to Nov. 30, found that 94 per cent of Canadians planned on giving gifts, budgeting an average of $733.

The survey also found 97 per cent of shoppers planned to rely on bricks and mortar stores. The number of shoppers who planned to do some shopping online has increased to 43 per cent, up five per cent from last year.

About 29 per cent of Canadians planned to buy cash-loaded gift cards, representing a jump of 10 per cent over the past two years, according to the poll.

- Retail Council of Canada via the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Dec 14 2007

The per capita calculation was my doing from a population of 32.3121 million in 2005 from Statistics Canada. I don’t know why when they report these things they don’t put it into context.

The offset cost was also my doing, at $29 per tonne CO2 equivalent from information in Stat 0624.

This was one of many statistical highlights from the source, which I won’t have time to blog all those environmental statistics due to other environmental statistics I have access to that may not be captured elsewhere and due to limited time. I would highly recommend those interested in Canadian environmental statistics to check out the source below, though.

The 25% and 6% do not add up to 33% because the “base” became smaller in the reduction. Just take an example of 100 and do the math of 25% increase to 125 and then have 125 divided by 94 (the 100 minus 6%) and you’ll see.

CO2 equivalents refers to the fact that some greenhouse gases have a lot more global warming potential (GWP) than CO2 to do damage to the environment that the same mass of these other gases do some multiple of the CO2 weight required to do the same damage. See Stat 0117 for some examples.

The Canadian per capita total is one of the highest value in the world, partially reflected in the last statistic’s body text where Canadian CO2 emissions performance (not just purely emissions but also what was being done about it) was rated 4th worst in the world. Unfortunately, the Conservative government we currently have in place is making Canada lose all of its credibility, not just in the environmental arena but especially there. Again, the political masters probably intervened to eliminate our relative world standings in these reports, but you’d never catch them saying that. [Envirostats author]

- Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators 2007 by Statistics Canada (2.2 MB)

- Canadian population in 2005 via Statistics Canada

I love these sort of niche statistics, but I have to say, I thought this figure would have been higher. There was something said about “in Canada”, but I think that’s the press source’s error because no NHL team plays exclusive in Canada and I don’t think the study was just on Canadian teams given the initiative to be carbon neutral through paying for offsets is league-wide. However, the David Suzuki Foundation does good science, has vested interested in putting in a higher number than true, if they would skew anything at all although I am by no means suggesting they are, and they know the NHL players can all afford $290 or a little more if need be so despite all this, it is what it is at 10 tonnes (which would be metric and not short cause we use metric in Canada).

Beware, any NHL player, who refuses to carbon neutralize themselves!

Let’s see the other major sports get on this bandwagon. Kudos to the NHL for doing this!

At $29 per tonne CO2 and if the hockey players are generating 10 tonnes per year with all that jet setting and airport setting, how many of us could offset some of our transport and other CO2 emissions, if we can’t afford it for our entire lifestyle? [Envirostats author]

- The David Suzuki Foundation via Reuters, Dec 7 2007

Heaters will be used for more than 237 days a year, when outdoor temperatures are lower than 15C, says the report, from Market Transformation. A further 80,000 tons of carbon dioxide will be produced next year by patio heaters in private gardens, according to an earlier study by the Energy Saving Trust.

This is apparently a hotly debated topic in Britain for quite some time that I haven’t heard about in North America, and definitely not in Canada, where we’ve had a smoking ban for some years now. I don’t frequent the bars that much, and I have no reason to be out on the patio any time it’s cold because I don’t smoke, but I hope we don’t have a lot of patio heaters around. We probably have far fewer than in Britain, though, so that might be why I haven’t heard about it as an issue. I run a lot around town and I frequently encounter smokers outside restaurants in the cold, which is what Friends of the Earth in Britain is proposing, that smokers just put on a “jumper” outside and smoke (or presumably stop smoking as first choice) rather than request a patio heater. What they are worrying about in Britain, I think is that pubs will use patio heaters as a business advantage to attract smoking patrons, and who can blame them? If I were a smoker, I’d go to such a pub.

Maybe the British could just learn to be a little tough like us Canadians. :-) 

The source newsletter also has some interesting statistics and other information about British recycling. [Envirostats author]

- Individual and household patio heater statistics by the Energy Savings Trust Green Barometer publication (Jul 2007)

- Anticipated pub patio heater contributions by Market Transformations via The Telegraph, Dec 2 2007

- Green Barometer newsletter by the Energy Savings Trust, Jul 2007 (1.5 MB)