Great context by Statistics Canada that provided the figure, because probably until you read what 1 petajoule meant, it was just some big amount of energy. Many other great statistics from the source’s analytical summary is below. The source report link is at the end and contains even more with over 120 pages of analysis on Canadian and provincial energy statistics.

You know, our Canadian media might not cover a lot of our environmental statistics like some other countries’ media, but our statistics agency in Statistics Canada is second to none. Too bad some of our other federal departments don’t jump on these to put out announcements and their own articles with more in-depth coverage of some specifics. [Envirostats author]

Most of the 2.0% decline was due to declining consumption in the nation’s industrial and residential sectors that was more than the 2.0% net, but offset by increases in consumption in the transportation sector, particularly fuel used to pipe natural gas, as well as a small increase in the commercial and public administration sector.

Energy use derived from the three main fossil fuels – natural gas, refined petroleum products and coal – declined 1.0%, due to reductions in demand from the pulp and paper, chemical and residential sectors.

The industrial sector, the biggest user of energy, consumed 2.6% less in 2005 than the year before. The reduction was due primarily to two industries: pulp and paper, and chemical. Historically, the industrial sector accounts for just under one-third (31%) of total energy consumption, the highest proportion of all sectors.

Demand slipped 1.1% in the residential and agriculture sector, which accounts for about 20% of total consumption.

Energy consumption increased 1.8% in the transportation sector and edged up 0.5% in the commercial and public administration sector. The transportation sector, the second largest user of energy, accounted for about 30% of final demand.

Crude oil production falls

Canadian companies produced about 146 million cubic metres of crude oil in 2005, down 2.1% over 2004. (A cubic metre contains 1,000 litres). This amounted to about 401 000 cubic metres a day.

While decreases were recorded for all types of crude oil production, the most significant decline occurred in synthetic crude oil where a facility fire hampered output throughout the first three quarters of 2005.

However, production levels in the fourth quarter were strong reflecting the return to normal production in the oil sands area combined with the start up of production at the White Rose Field in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

Alberta’s oil sands remain an important source of crude oil production. In 2005, they accounted for over 39% of total crude oil and equivalent production, up slightly from 38% in 2004 and well above the proportion of 28% in 2000.

In 2005, the oil sands produced 149 000 cubic metres of oil a day. In 2006, this figure had jumped to an estimated 159 000 cubic metres of oil a day, roughly 50% of Canada’s total crude oil production.

By 2010, oil sands production is forecasted to surpass 477 000 cubic metres of oil a day, or 67% of total Canadian crude oil production. Capital investment is expected to reach an estimated $11 billion in 2006 and $16 billion in 2007.

Exports of crude oil, primarily to the United States, decreased 2.4% from 2004. These exports now account for more than 62% of all Canadian production.

The US Midwest is still the most significant market for Western Canadian crude oil, consuming 57% of total exports to the United States. According to the United States Energy Information Administration, Canadian crude oil now represents 16% of total US demand for imported crude oil.

In 2005, average Canadian crude oil prices rose to more than $52 a barrel. This was a 30% increase over 2004, and more than double 1990 prices.

Natural gas production posts modest gain

Natural gas production increased 2.0% in 2005 from 2004. Despite record gas drilling activity in the last three years, production gains have been modest as a result of lower productivity from maturing wells.

Natural gas exports reached 4 066 petajoules in 2005, up 1.1% from 4 022 petajoules in 2004. Slightly higher production levels combined with lower domestic demand, due to milder weather in Canada, resulted in higher exports in 2005.

Well over half (56%) of total Canadian natural gas production goes for export. In the United States, Canadian natural gas accounts for 17% of total American demand for natural gas.

Canada’s trade surplus for crude petroleum, refined petroleum and other products, natural gas, coal and electricity reached $53.0 billion in 2005, up from $43.5 billion the year before.

Marginal increase in electricity production

Electricity production from primary sources (hydro, nuclear, wind and tidal) increased 5.7% in 2005 as water conditions continued to improve in many parts of Canada. Nuclear generation posted a marginal increase in 2005.

Hydro generation accounted for 59% of electric power in 2005, the largest source. Nuclear energy provided about 14% of total Canadian electricity production.

However, in Ontario, nuclear power accounts for more than 51% of total electricity generation, enough to supply all the homes in the province.

Nationally, electricity generated using fossil fuels declined marginally in 2005, due to higher generation from primary sources and rising thermal fuel costs.

Although electricity generation from wind, solar and tidal continues to increase, total generation from these sources currently represents less than 0.5% of total generation.

Two large wind projects started up in late 2005: a 99-megawatt project located in St. Leon, Manitoba, and the 150-megawatt “Centennial project” in Swift Current, Saskatchewan.

Electricity demand increased 1.2% in 2005, mainly the result of increased demand by smelting and refining.

First decline in volumes of motor gasoline sales in 14 years

Volumes of motor gasoline sales declined in 2005 for the first time since 1991, possibly the result of soaring prices at the pump. Canadian drivers consumed more than 40 billion litres of motor gasoline, down slightly from 2004 levels.

Gasoline prices across Canada peaked in September 2005. In Montréal, prices reached an average of 118.5 cents per litre for regular unleaded at self-service stations. In Toronto, they averaged 107.2 cents, in Edmonton 102.2 cents and in Vancouver 112.7 cents.

Total demand for all refined petroleum products increased marginally in 2005 over 2004 levels.

Coal production, exports and consumption decreases

Coal production slipped 1.0% in 2005, the result of slightly higher imports.

Final demand for coal by the manufacturing sector declined 1.4% from 2004. Exports of coal fell 6.2%, due primarily to lower demand for Canadian coal from Japan.

Saskatchewan fastest growing province in energy consumption

Energy consumption declined faster than the national average in six provinces: British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Alberta.

Saskatchewan’s growth in consumption led the pack, increasing 2.9% from 2004. Higher demand for natural resource-based products, combined with agricultural gains, contributed more to the growth of the economy than any other industry.

Energy use by all sectors, or “final demand”, declined 3.8% in Prince Edward Island; 2.2% in British Columbia, 1.1% in Alberta and Nova Scotia, 0.6% in Quebec, and 0.5% in New Brunswick.

The decline in Alberta was due primarily to lower energy use in the oil-producing province’s pulp and paper and chemical sectors. Alberta accounted for 18% share of total national consumption.

Energy consumption edged up 0.2% in Ontario , which accounted for over 34% of the country’s entire energy demand. Consumption in Quebec fell slightly, putting its share at 21%.

- Statistics Canada’s newsletter, The Daily, Dec 20 2007

- Report on Energy Supply-demand in Canada 2007, by Statistics Canada (0.8 MB)

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

I’ll let Bob MacDonald, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) science radio program Quirks & Quarks host, do the commenting, actually, via his blog. I just couldn’t call this a statistic but it isn’t my own commentary, either. However, I’ve alluded to our sad state of a federal political government for environmental purposes before.

Minh Tan
Envirostats author

- Bob MacDonald’s Quirks & Quarks blog entry, 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

The source and source story is a study that ranked environmental performance based on climate change performances in 2006, which was a little complicated to try and explain in the headline statistic.

The countries were ranked based on the amount of emissions they produced over the past year, the amount of reductions they made to their emissions levels and the strength of their climate-change policies.

There was no real detail on how much things were weighed, but needless to say, per capita emissions had to be part of the calculations based on some small countries’ output.

The five lowest ranked countries, starting with the worst, were:

• Saudi Arabia
• The United States
• Australia
• Canada
• Luxembourg

That Saudi Arabia was worst is of no surprise to me. They have high overall emissions, never mind per capita. They haven’t done much about it, either. The US and Australia are no surprises, either, but that Canada is that low on the list was a small surprise. I knew we weren’t CO2 saints, but this is a new low for the country. Finally, little Luxembourg is a big surprise. Whatever they’re doing for CO2 emissions, and whatever they’re not doing to curb it, I haven’t heard anything about it, whether CO2 or ecological footprint or otherwise. Their presence is why I said per capita emissions had to be a part of the calculations.

The five best countries were:

• Sweden
• Germany
• Iceland
• Mexico
• India

I don’t know what to make of this list because for countries like Mexico and India, I know about many of their other environmental problems so they have a bad image, but may be quite good for CO2 emissions. Per capita emissions might have helped India be lowest on that list of 56 countries, but I still have a problem because they do have a very large population and much of their energy isn’t clean, either. But whatever. I posted this entry for the headline statistic but could not leave the rest of the story without a comment given some details that might have misled readers.

I’m not sure I’m convinced Germany is second only to Sweden, either, but that again could be based on my knowledge of other Scandanavian environmental situations rather than their CO2 emissions that is biasing my opinion. The source is also German, in part, so it does raise an eyebrow like Spock on Star Trek, but the European But I’ll leave those thoughts at that for your consideration. [Envirostats author]

Canada, with its overall ranking of 53rd out of 56 countries, has fallen from last year, when it was ranked 51st.

“The [Canadian] government is still not making a serious effort to cut greenhouse gas pollution, and that leaves Canada at the back of the pack,” Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute said in a news release.

The Pembina Institute, a Canadian environmental organization, contributed to the study.

“The gap between the government’s rhetoric and its action to date severely weakens Canada’s credibility here in Bali,” Bramley said.

‘Hypocrisy in Canada’s approach’

Bramley, in an interview from Bali, said Canada is making unrealistic demands on other countries, considering the poor job it’s doing, according to the study.

Bramley said Canada could have boosted its ranking over last year by at least 20 positions, to the middle of the pack, if it had strengthened its government policies overseeing areas like industrial emissions.

“Minister Baird is taking some highly obstructive positions coming into these negotiations, particularly the kinds of demands that he’s making of developing countries,” Bramley said.

“When we see how poorly Canada is performing on climate change, it really points to a kind of hypocrisy in Canada’s approach.”

Baird and the Conservative government have pledged to reduce Canada’s overall emissions by 20 per cent from 2006 levels by 2020, but environmentalists and opposition members of parliament have attacked this plan because it fails to meet Canada’s Kyoto obligations.

Under Kyoto, which was signed by Canada under a Liberal government in 1998, Canada is expected to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent from 1990 levels by 2012.

Kyoto was ratified by 141 countries, with each having slightly different targets to meet in an effort to reduce overall global emissions by about five per cent from 1990 levels. 

- Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe via the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Dec 7 2007