In this section, you will see Manitoba’s GHG emissions from 1990 to 2015 from various key sectors.
- Manitoba agricultural GHGs
- Manitoba Large Final Emitters (LFE)
- Manitoba stationary combustion
- Manitoba transportation GHGs
- Manitoba waste GHGs
Click a topic to jump to a page with details.
NOTE: All data in this section are in CO2 equivalent kilotonnes per year. (1 kilotonne = 1000 tonnes = 1 million kilograms)
In 2015, Manitoba’s GHG emissions came from these sectors and in these proportions:
- 59% – Fossil fuel burning for the following purposes:
- 39% – Transportation – moving people and goods
- 18% – Stationary combustion – energy used for residential and commercial heating, in electricity generation, in the oil and gas industry, and in the manufacturing and construction industries
- 2% – Fugitive sources – the release of GHGs from the production, processing, transmission, storage, and use of fossil fuels (e.g. flaring)
- 31% – Agriculture – mostly methane (CH4) from livestock and nitrous oxide (N2O) from soils
- 5% – Waste disposal – mostly methane (CH4) from landfills and wastewater
- 4% – Industrial processes
(For data in an Excel spreadsheet click here: Manitoba_GHG_emissions_data_1990-2015 – 363 KB)
(For a printable PDF version click here: Manitoba_GHG_trend_1990-2015 100 KB)
Manitoban’s emissions from the energy (fossil fuel burning) category contributed about 59% of our GHG emissions in 2015. This is a much lower proportion than for Canada as a whole. (1)
The key reason for this is that Manitoba’s electricity is produced from hydro power.
Consequently, we have a higher proportionate GHG contibution from agriculture than any other province.
1990 to 2015 trend and targets
Overall, Manitoba’s GHG emissions in 2015 were 12% higher than in 1990.
Also, in 2015 our emissions were 17.5% above the level we should have been at by 2012 to achieve our Kyoto Protocol target and to comply with Manitoba’s Bill 15, The Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act.
Note the emissions dropped from 2007 to 2011. It is not clear how much of this drop was due to policy and how much is due to trends in economic activity.