Download the report here.

Download our full data here.

Bottom Line: Canada’s 315 large industrial facilities (required to report GHG emissions by the Federal Government) reduced overall emissions by 2.4 per cent from 2005 to 2006. That’s good news but may not hold going forward as the biggest decreases resulted from substituting coal for hydro, demand reduction for electricity, or regular maintenance, while the biggest increases came from the expanding tar sands, which is predicted to mushroom in the coming years. The best hope for continued future deceases will require decoupling the tar sands growth from emissions growth, making more efficient use of electricity and generating a greater portion of electricity from non-coal sources.

In the tar sands, three things will influence whether emissions bust a hole in any Canadian GHG reduction plan:

• Burn or bury: There are vast heaps of coke, the grit at the bottom of the barrel, stockpiled by major tar sands producers. The Alberta Government is considering whether to give the green light for companies to burn the coke to generate electricity or force them to bury it. The low-carbon path requires that companies are forced to bury the coke and that low-carbon energy is used instead to steam the oil out, such as hydro from northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

• Capture or release: The greenhouse gas emissions generated by the tar sands are set to increase because of increased production and the more GHG-intensive in situ steam operations coming on line. The low carbon path requires that companies and government put together the infrastructure and incentives to make burying the carbon economical.

• Pay or free-load: As long as carbon is free to emit it is an uphill battle getting companies to conserve on their emissions. A low carbon path requires a meaningful price on carbon emissions.