University of Alberta
Renewable Resources 480
Results
Our graphical analysis of our most valuable insights on the effects of greenhouse gas emission policies in Canada and globally.
No Emission Policies Reach their Targets in Canada, but Sector Specific Methods are Close
When comparing the three policies in Canada, no policies reach their target (Figure 7, 8, and 9). However, after the implementation of the section based policy, Turning the Corner, emissions from the electricity sector in Canada began to decline (Figure 10). Turning the corner also targeted Industry and manufacturing efforts, which declined as well, but to a lesser extent. These are the only two sectors that experience any visible decrease from 1990-2020. The effects of the general national policy, NAPCC, seemed to have no effect (Figure 9), and Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol before the target date because they could not reach emissions (Figure 7) (Comte 2011). This shows that of the three policies we analysed, sector-focused efforts like switching to greener technology was most effective in reducing emissions. However, despite all of these efforts, Canada is still not experiencing major declines in the amount of emissions released. To further decrease emissions, new policies should focus on targeting other large emitting sectors, such as transportation and oil and gas, which are the highest and fasted increasing emission sectors (Figure 10).
Figure 7. The total greenhouse gas emissions for Canada displayed in megatons of CO2 equivalent, compared to the targets of the Kyoto protocol. The range of the target period (2008-2012) is displayed in red. The date Kyoto was enacted in Canada is displayed as a dashed vertical line, while the emission goal is displayed as a dotted horizontal line.
Figure 8. The total greenhouse gas emissions for Canada displayed in megatons of CO2 equivalent, compared to the targets of Turning the Corner. The date of the target period for this legislation is displayed as a purple line. The date Turning the Corner was enacted in Canada is displayed as a dashed vertical line, while the emission goal is displayed as a dotted horizontal line.
Figure 9. The total greenhouse gas emissions for Canada displayed in megatons of CO2 equivalent, compared to the targets of the National Action program on Climate Change (NAPCC). The date of the target period for this legislation is displayed as a blue line. The date it was enacted in Canada is displayed as a dashed vertical line, while the emission goal is displayed as a dotted horizontal line.
Figure 10. The total greenhouse gas emissions for Canada displayed in megatons of CO2 equivalent by sector. This is compared to the enactment and reduction target date of the Turning the Corner policy.
Observed Influence, but no Strong Causal Factor, of GDP and Population
Population and Emissions
Despite populations continuing to rise over time, the amount of emissions indexed per person is actually decreasing (Figure 11). Population in Canada is increasing linearly, while the greenhouse gas emission rate is not. Emission rates indexed by population appear to decrease, while overall emission rates are remaining around the same rate. This means that the rate of greenhouse gas emissions is not entirely dictated by the rate of population growth. It is not only an increase in the population that is preventing emission reduction policies from meeting their goals.
Figure 11. The comparison of three graphs displaying the Canada greenhouse gas emissions over time, the Canadian population estimates over time, and the Canada greenhouse gas emissions indexed by population. Emissions are displayed in megatons of CO2 equivalent, while population is indicated by millions of people. As emissions slow down over time, population continues to increase. The amount of emissions per person begins to decrease slowly after 2000.
GDP and Emissions
Due to the matching timeline of dips in emissions and GDP, we can conclude these emission decreases were influenced heavily by the economic crashes (Figure 12). These economic crashes reduce production, which in turn would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However, GDP increases at a linear rate over time, while the amount of emissions seem to level out past 2000. This means that GDP influences the amount of emissions, but is not the controlling factor of greenhouse gas release.
Figure 12. Canada's gross domestic product over time compared to greenhouse gas emissions. The GDP is increasing linearly at a fairly consistent rate. Dips in this graph can be attributed to economic busts. These dips correlate with dips on greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, there was no GDP data available for 2020, so we were unable to examine the economic crash from the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.
Committing to the Kyoto Protocol did not Dictate Emission Trends
We graphed the emissions of all countries by four separate categories based on Annex type and signatory status (Figure 13). The Non-Annex I countries that signed had the highest increase in emissions, while there was little variability among the other three categories. It is important to note that each category contains drastically different numbers of countries with varying population sizes. For example, there was only one Non-Annex I country that did not sign, so their emission release appears very close to zero on this scale.
Despite these biases, the rapid increase in Non-Annex countries that signed Kyoto Protocol is still meaningful when compared to the other three categories, which display little change. Interestingly, the Annex I countries that signed and the ones that did not demonstrated similar fluctuations in emission release. Annex I countries that did not sign had lower emissions because it includes fewer countries.
Figure 13. The total amount of emissions in Megatons of CO2 divided by Annex type and whether or not the countries signed. The number of countries in each category is as follows; 2 Annex I countries that did not sign, 40 Annex I countries that signed, 1 Non-Annex I country that did not sign, 148 Non-Annex I countries that signed.
To more closely compare the emission trends among these different groups, we graphed each category on different scales. Observing each group individually, it becomes clear that Annex I countries that signed, Annex I countries that did not sign, and Non-Annex I countries that did not sign are all decreasing in CO2 release. This strengthens the conclusion that commitment status does not determine the trend of emissions release, since both types of Annex I countries display similar patterns.
Figure 14. The total amount of emissions in Megatons of CO2 divided by Annex type and whether or not the countries signed. Each graph is on a different x-axis scale to be able to see the changes in emissions more clearly. The number of countries in each category is as follows; 2 Annex I countries that did not sign, 40 Annex I countries that signed, 1 Non-Annex I country that did not sign, 148 Non-Annex I countries that signed.
To demonstrate general trends at a country specific level, we compared the top 5 emitters in 2005 (the year that Kyoto was ratified) from each category. Since there were only three non-signatory nations, we combined them into a single group. In order to compare these countries on a standardized scale, the emissions were calculated per capita. It is important to note that the population increased for all of these countries, although the population for non-Annex I countries increased at a much higher rate. This explains why some Non-Annex I countries appear to be decreasing their emissions.
​
Overall, there are no noticeable consistent trends among these selected countries in their respected categories.
Figure 15. The total amount of emissions in Megatons of CO2 divided by Annex type and whether or not the countries signed. The number of countries in each category is as follows; 2 Annex I countries that did not sign, 40 Annex I countries that signed, 1 Non-Annex I country that did not sign, 148 Non-Annex I countries that signed.
Kyoto Overall Unimpactful on Total Global Emissions
To actually reduce the negative impacts of climate change, there has to be a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This was the purpose of the Kyoto Protocol; to create international action against climate change. Unfortunately, the overall emissions did not decrease during the target period for this policy (Figure 16). Annex I countries generally decreased their emissions, whether they signed or not. However, Non-Annex I countries increased their emissions enough that any reduction in Annex I emissions were cancelled out. Non-Annex I countries release more emissions because they are still developing, and do not have the resources to use greener technology (Avenyo and Tregenna 2022). Also, many countries outsource their production to developing countries that have less strict environmental policies in order to maintain production while decreasing their emissions (Malik and Lan 2016). Outsourcing is difficult to quantify, and may have had an impact on much of the reduction in emissions seen in Annex I countries above.
Overall, the Kyoto Protocol was not successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and much more work needs to be done to combat the arising danger of climate change.
Figure 16. Total global CO2 emissions displayed in billons of tons over time, compared to the target period of the Kyoto Protocol, in which there was no reduction of emissions.