[moki]

But that's okay, Canada is fine because they signed on to Kyoto...

from: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

.....

Canada 'among worst polluters'

Tuesday, October 18, 2005; Posted: 1:14 p.m. EDT (17:14 GMT)

The study, conducted at Simon Fraser University and released by the David Suzuki Foundation, rates Canada 28th among 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

It puts Canada dead last among the 30 countries in nuclear waste and carbon monoxide production, and 29th in per capita water consumption.

European countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and Germany ranked at the top of the environmental list, while Canada, Belgium and the United States were at the bottom.

Suzuki, a geneticist and one of Canada's most respected environmentalists, said North Americans take their natural resources for granted while most European countries have dealt with environmental crises for years. He said environmental issues need to take a prominent place in the next federal election, likely early next year.

The study was conducted by an independent team of multidisciplinary researchers at Simon Fraser University, under the direction of Dr. Thomas Gunton.

"Our research found Canada's environmental performance to be surprisingly low," said Gunton. "Canada lags behind in almost every performance indicator."

Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are two times higher, and major smog-causing air pollutants are two-to-three times higher than the average for other industrialized countries, according to the report by the international environment watchdog group.

"The ability of other high-income countries, such as Sweden, to achieve much lower levels of pollution shows it can be done," Gunton said in a news release. "There's no excuse -- all it requires is a strong commitment from government."

The study found Canada has shown no improvement over the last decade. Canada's rank today is the same as it was in 1992: 28th out of 30.

"The Canada we see in this report does not reflect the one we hold in our hearts," said Suzuki. "Canadians expect more and they expect better," Suzuki said. "We should be outraged that we are among the worst in the industrialized world."

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by moki

But that's okay, Canada is fine because they signed on to Kyoto...

European countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and Germany ranked at the top of the environmental list, while Canada, Belgium and the United States were at the bottom.

United States were at the bottom.
United States were at the bottom.
United States were at the bottom.

It's a frikkin' Canadian study moki!

We always tend to be hard on ourselves.

That said, Canada's total pollution is half of Rhode Island.

Unless you didn't notice it's per capita.

[Athens]

Study leaves out a few key things, our population for the most part is spread out making heavy use of Cars, worst because the country is really spread out we have a heavy use of trucks and trains and heating in teh winter time, much of the country is a deep freeze which uses more gas. When it comes to garbage, I cant defend that... we waste to much.

[smacintush]

excuses excuses

[Athens]

Originally Posted by smacintush

excuses excuses

Same reasons for the central and northern US states. Neither of our countries are setup to be compact, with real good public transportation. We are both Car dependent which is why we both score so low on air pollution. And North America has a much larger industry base then the countries that score near the top. Industry creates pollution

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Athens

Same reasons for the central and northern US states. Neither of our countries are setup to be compact, with real good public transportation. We are both Car dependent which is why we both score so low on air pollution. And North America has a much larger industry base then the countries that score near the top. Industry creates pollution

You are right of course.

I forgot to add the in my first post.

I personally think it is only right that the well developed countries like the US and Canada are heavy polluters. There are literally billions of people that can't afford to pollute. SOMEONE has to do their part for them, it's only fair.

[placebo1969]

I don't have time now, but BC has been dumping raw sewage into the Sound up there and it comes across to Washington.

Here we go. Pissing contest #25354 of Canada VS. US.

[Jim Paradise]

placebo1969, you're right that this will probably degenerate into a pissing contest.

Whenever people talk about American or Canadian pollution, I've always been willing to point out that we have a bad track record and could be doing so much more than what we are. I don't think Kyoto is going to improve it much, but in Ontario a move away from coal-based power plants to the reuse of two of the reactors at the Bruce nuclear power plant along with a push in alternatives such as wind and solar power are going to help make a small difference. However, our national party needs an overhaul on its environmental strategy.

[placebo1969]

Here's a couple of links:
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...ewage+victoria

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connel...02_joel14.html

http://www.sierralegal.org/media_art...a05_08_07.html

[Monique]

I was wondering how long it would take for some Canadians on this board to blame someone else for their own problems.

I live in Calgary and the States under us are Idaho and Montana they are not big polluters; but the smog in Calgary is getting worst; why because there are no inspection for cars when they come here and the emmission from old junk cars are horrible and the pollution coming from the oil industry is getting out of hand.

If you want better air, water and earth I suggest that you pass laws and make sure that they are obeyed and the fines are more than a token; that they actually hurt. It is only when those big oil companies have to pay huge amounts will they change their habits; same goes for drivers.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

It's a frikkin' Canadian study moki!

We always tend to be hard on ourselves.

That said, Canada's total pollution is half of Rhode Island.

Unless you didn't notice it's per capita.

Even if Canada DID have the highest per-capita pollution levels, the polite thing to do would be to let another country have the honor.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by moki

But that's okay, Canada is fine because they signed on to Kyoto...

from: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

.....

Canada 'among worst polluters'
(...)

It puts Canada dead last among the 30 countries in nuclear waste and carbon monoxide production, and 29th in per capita water consumption.

(...)

I guess you are just being sarcastic, unless you are truly shocked?

The Kyoto accord is one of the worst, least efficient accords ther have been. That is clear. Please do not mix up the issues here; the Kyoto accord is one thing, Canada's pollution is another problem, and if we look at pollution per capita, let's have you find a link about total pollution produced from those countries.

Then we'll have an interesting thread. Right now, all you have is a provocation, as usual.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I guess you are just being sarcastic, unless you are truly shocked?

The Kyoto accord is one of the worst, least efficient accords ther have been. That is clear. Please do not mix up the issues here; the Kyoto accord is one thing, Canada's pollution is another problem, and if we look at pollution per capita, let's have you find a link about total pollution produced from those countries.

Then we'll have an interesting thread. Right now, all you have is a provocation, as usual.

Let me help here ok?

From the CIA factbook

air pollution resulting in acid rain in both the US and Canada; the US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels; water pollution from runoff of pesticides and fertilizers; limited natural fresh water resources in much of the western part of the country require careful management; desertification

Here is some more:

Map & Graph: Environment: Pollution - Carbon Dioxide from fossil fuels 2000
View this stat: Per capita Per $ GDP Show map full screen

Definition: Includes carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption of petroleum, natural gas, and coal, and the flaring of natural gas.


Country Description Amount
1. Thailand 45
2. Turkey 55
3. Netherlands 64
4. Taiwan 69
5. Indonesia 69
6. Saudi Arabia 75
7. Spain 81
8. Poland 81
9. Iran 81
10. Brazil 95
11. Australia 97
12. Mexico 103
13. Ukraine 104
14. South Africa 106
15. France 109
16. Korea, South 115
17. Italy 117
18. United Kingdom 148
19. Canada 158
20. Germany 220
21. India 253
22. Japan 314
23. Russia 451
24. China 775
25. United States 1,571
Total 5,356
Weighted Average 463.18582325

OMG! The same here per capita!

Map & Graph: Environment: Pollution - Carbon Dioxide per capita
Scroll down for more information Show map full screen

Definition: Tons of Carbon Dioxide produced per capita in 1998 or latest available year. Carbon dioxide from energy use only. Excludes international marine bunkers.


Country Description Amount
1. United States 20
2. Luxembourg 17
3. Australia 17
4. Canada 16
5. Belgium 12
6. Finland 12
7. Czech Republic 12
8. Netherlands 11
9. Denmark 11
10. Germany 10
11. Ireland 10
12. Japan 9
13. United Kingdom 9
14. New Zealand 8
15. Poland 8
16. Iceland 8
17. Austria 8
18. Norway 8
19. Greece 8
20. Korea, South 8
21. Italy 7
22. Hungary 6
23. Switzerland 6
24. France 6
25. Sweden 6

I suggest that next time, instead of a frigging newspaper article, you look at some more science.

Man, you make fantastic software, but your prejudice is quite out there...

Canada's pollutionis high, way too high to my taste. It is explanable, but certainly perfectible. But please, if you are really trying to provoke canadians in a stupid argumentation like this one, you have to get up earlier than that...

[moki]

Like it or not, the USA is the engine that currently powers the global economy. Engines need fuel to run, and they give off some smoke... that's just reality. But the USA has also produced an incredible array of modern technologies and conveniences in the last century, and the world is better off for it.

Canada would be positively devastated if trade with the USA were curtailed... and there's no reason to think it would be any time soon.

But getting back on point, Canada agreed to reduce emissions to -- I believe -- 8% less than 1990 levels. Currently Canada is 6.2% above 1990 levels, so you have your work cut out for you. It remains to be seen whether it can realistically be achieved without damaging the economy in Canada. Other nations are in similar circumstance, such as Japan, and a number of countries in Europe... and even Norway.

One thing I *do* like about Kyoto is that it turns emissions into a commodity that can be bought, sold, and traded. Putting the free market to work on a problem that needs to be tackled.

[moki]

Interesting sidenote: believe it or not, the violent crime rate is higher in Canada (and many other countries) than in the USA as well. Just not something you'd typically expect.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by moki

Like it or not, the USA is the engine that currently powers the global economy. Engines need fuel to run, and they give off some smoke... that's just reality. But the USA has also produced an incredible array of modern technologies and conveniences in the last century, and the world is better off for it.

Canada would be positively devastated if trade with the USA were curtailed... and there's no reason to think it would be any time soon.

Glad you further prove my point.

But getting back on point,

Canada agreed to reduce emissions to -- I believe -- 8% less than 1990 levels. Currently Canada is 6.2% above 1990 levels, so you have your work cut out for you. It remains to be seen whether it can realistically be achieved without damaging the economy in Canada. Other nations are in similar circumstance, such as Japan, and a number of countries in Europe... and even Norway.

One thing I *do* like about Kyoto is that it turns emissions into a commodity that can be bought, sold, and traded. Putting the free market to work on a problem that needs to be tackled.

Thank goodness the U.S. will save the world again!

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by moki

Interesting sidenote: believe it or not, the violent crime rate is higher in Canada (and many other countries) than in the USA as well. Just not something you'd typically expect.

Thank God, we can blame it on the Kyoto agreement...

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by moki

Interesting sidenote: believe it or not, the violent crime rate is higher in Canada (and many other countries) than in the USA as well. Just not something you'd typically expect.

Thers's a few Americans here on this forum that have Canadian zenophobia, you among them. What's Canada ever done too you?

Oh, I forgot...they told you to stick it when it came too Iraq.

ps...

What's a good way to reduce Industrial pollution?

Why close down factories of course. United States has been doing this faster the last 15 to 20 years faster than you can say Wal-Mart. Wal-Marts, no matter how much they try have a hard time spouting industrial pollution.

Could be a good reason the U.S. is doing such a good job.

Oh, Canada has the U.S. by the testes with its' oil and natural gas too.

Be afraid...be very afraid!

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

That said, Canada's total pollution is half of Rhode Island.

Unless you didn't notice it's per capita.

Gold.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

I don't have time now, but BC has been dumping raw sewage into the Sound up there and it comes across to Washington.

Here we go. Pissing contest #25354 of Canada VS. US.

That would be Victoria, not all of BC and the new treatment plant is supose to be finished by 2008. Cant defend Victoria for that but dont blame all of BC, otherwise I will have to point out all the air pollution that comes from the Sumas Power plant that fills parts of the Fraiser Valley up with extra air pollution.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Monique

I was wondering how long it would take for some Canadians on this board to blame someone else for their own problems.

I live in Calgary and the States under us are Idaho and Montana they are not big polluters; but the smog in Calgary is getting worst; why because there are no inspection for cars when they come here and the emmission from old junk cars are horrible and the pollution coming from the oil industry is getting out of hand.

If you want better air, water and earth I suggest that you pass laws and make sure that they are obeyed and the fines are more than a token; that they actually hurt. It is only when those big oil companies have to pay huge amounts will they change their habits; same goes for drivers.

Im not blaming any one, all I was saying is we are a very car dependent society and much of Canada is also very dependent on gas and wood burning for heat as they get deep frozen in the Winter. There is no excuse for our material waste, North America is just a very wasteful society, Americans and Canadians and that’s probably because we can afford to waste. We are always buying the next latest greatest thing. Half of the Air Pollution in lower Ontario is American air pollution that drifts up, Ontario and the Upper US states are equal to blame for the pollution of the great lakes. Untreated sewage from Victoria which is physically closer to Seattle then Vancouver pollutes there waters. Point is both sites are equal in blame on pollution. What I was trying to point out is Canada's per populus air pollution is worst then the US because of climate/location conditions which half the US doesn’t have as a issue. If you take energy and pollution states state by state, province by province you will see the lower States are really low, the upper states are really high and combined it evens out to be a lower average. This shouldn’t need to become a pissing game when all of North America is guilty, no more or less then the other.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by moki

Interesting sidenote: believe it or not, the violent crime rate is higher in Canada (and many other countries) than in the USA as well. Just not something you'd typically expect.

******** thats all I have to say on that.

[Monique]

Let's just say I am wasteful and a polluter and I will try to do better. Not the US is evil and I should continue with my lifestyle. As for one I should confess I could to better in recycling but I do not know maybe sometimes I am too lazy or could be that Calgary makes it so hard for people who walk and take transit to find a place for recycling. The funniest thing about those huge bins is that people come with their cars to empty their plastic or paper garbage then they let their cars run during the time they empty their trunks.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by Athens

That would be Victoria, not all of BC and the new treatment plant is supose to be finished by 2008. Cant defend Victoria for that but dont blame all of BC, otherwise I will have to point out all the air pollution that comes from the Sumas Power plant that fills parts of the Fraiser Valley up with extra air pollution.

Yes, I should have noted it was Victoria. At the time I wrote that, I wasn't sure where the raw sewage was coming from.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

28th is the worst?

[olePigeon]

My question is, why can't we take a lesson from the top countries?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

My question is, why can't we take a lesson from the top countries?

Because we like our cars and we like our products. Both our economies are based on waste, its a continues cycle of buying goods, and throwing out goods. There is a reason why the US and Canadian economies are the strongest in the world. Would you rather see 13% unemployment rate? Its just a sad fact that the life styles we enjoy are the most wasteful ones. I only pointed out that Canada's air pollution is higher then the American per capita because of the greater need in Winter for heating oil and because of how spread out we are we generally drive more, and when it comes to shipping goods, per person we have much more distances for trucks and trains to cover. This shouldn’t be a USA VS Canada thread, it should be a North America VS rest Europe because Canada and the US are the same for pollution. You will find more environmental protection in Canada, but when it comes to solid waste, air pollution and water pollution there is no difference between the two countries.

Let's just say I am wasteful and a polluter and I will try to do better. Not the US is evil and I should continue with my lifestyle. As for one I should confess I could to better in recycling but I do not know maybe sometimes I am too lazy or could be that Calgary makes it so hard for people who walk and take transit to find a place for recycling. The funniest thing about those huge bins is that people come with their cars to empty their plastic or paper garbage then they let their cars run during the time they empty their trunks.

Myself I am too, more being lazy but I have been trying to be better for a better part of 6 months now. I use only ethanol blended gas, and I recycle. On your point of a running car, a car running idle for 2 minutes causes less pollution then a car that is turned off then started again, more then 2 minutes then its the other way around.

One of the biggest things we can do for pollution is slow down, if all cars respected the speed limits they would not all get to the same point at the same time causing gridlock, allowing the cars to run optimal, polluting less. Cars in gridlock running 40kp/h and slower or worst idling produce the most pollution and for 2 reasons, first the car is on the road longer being stuck in traffic, second its not running at its peek which is 60-80kph which means its on the road longer and running not at peek a real double whammy for pollution. Everyone reducing speed to the limits would make for much less air pollution. I’ve switched to energy efficient lights a few years ago, and even though the bulbs cost more, im still on my original ones and the amount of power they save, in the end they have paid for themselves twice over now.

And Monique most Canadian and American cities are poorly setup for people with out cars. Its not a Calgary or Canadian thing, its a North America thing.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

28th is the worst?

You must not have read the thread title: "Canada among worst polluters'" I added the bolding for emphasis.

Considering that there are 191 member countries of the UN and Canada is 28th (or so you say) on the list of polluters, then you are among the top 15% worst polluters.

I think the thread title is accurate.

[Yose]

In one of Toronto's freebie papers this month was a chart that outlined carbon monoxide levels throughout the city. I think there was less than 10% of the city that ranked in the "not dangerous" region of that chart; The chart was measuring carbon monoxide parts per billion (if I remember correctly).

Canada has suffered from the same situation that put most of those countries on that list - progress. However, it's my opinion that of the North American countries that made it to the top 30 , those in Canada have a mindset more atuned to the problem and we'll see extremely positive changes towards dealing with our waste/energy.

Well, at least I hope so.

[DBursey]

A large percentage of Canada's total emission problem stems from the nature of processing Alberta bitumen into usable petroleum. As well, industrial areas of central & eastern Canada produces coal-fired electricity with associated pollutants (though not in volumes or in as low grade a fuel product as many northeastern States). Industry in southern Ontario emits lots of pollutants into the atmosphere. Flooding of vast areas of northern Quebec for hydro-electric power has turned on a slow release of gases from rotting submerged vegetation that hardly counts against our kyoto commitment. The list goes on.

This isn't about Canada vs the US. This should be a wake-up call to Canadians vis a vis our performance in meeting Kyoto commitments, which themselves should be regarded as a set of minimally-obtainable objectives.

[DBursey]

Interesting sidenote: believe it or not, the violent crime rate is higher in Canada (and many other countries) than in the USA as well. Just not something you'd typically expect.

Do you have a source for this? It's not what I'd expect either. I'll be checking up on that one.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

We should start a thread of each country between 1-27 instead of starting at #28 for some strange reason.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by DBursey

Flooding of vast areas of northern Quebec for hydro-electric power has turned on a slow release of gases from rotting submerged vegetation that hardly counts against our kyoto commitment.

To be clear on that very specific chapter, having lived in that area for close to 20 years, the issue is more about the contamination of the fauna from the released mercury, which has it happens, came from both Southern industries (great Lakes, etc.) and USSR (through arctic winds). This is a hypothese, for I am not certain they were ever able to prove that. There is also the issue of CO2 released from the natural decay of the vegetation.

Now, that submerged vegetation dates from phase I of the Great River (La Grande) project. The following phases, upon agreement with environmentalists, scientists, governments and the Cree, saw the removal of not only the trees, but also the 3 to 6 inches of topsoil that would have been submerged.

Canada has a lot to do to improve and the challenge is great. Initiatives are ongoing to decrease the foorprint from our existence and some of those initiatives are working, others need to be discarded.

[DBursey]

There is also the issue of CO2 released from the natural decay of the vegetation.

That's what I was referring to. Rotting, decaying. An interesting side-note: In deep flooded valleys in British Columbia where the oxygen content of the water is low, old growth trees have been preserved to be 'harvested' many decades later from their watery storage.

The following phases, upon agreement with environmentalists, scientists, governments and the Cree, saw the removal of not only the trees, but also the 3 to 6 inches of topsoil that would have been submerged.

I didn't 'know that. Sounds like a worthwhile mitigation effort.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You must not have read the thread title: "Canada among worst polluters'" I added the bolding for emphasis.

Considering that there are 191 member countries of the UN and Canada is 28th (or so you say) on the list of polluters, then you are among the top 15% worst polluters.

I think the thread title is accurate.

What about Mexico?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by DBursey

That's what I was referring to. Rotting, decaying. An interesting side-note: In deep flooded valleys in British Columbia where the oxygen content of the water is low, old growth trees have been preserved to be 'harvested' many decades later from their watery storage.



I didn't 'know that. Sounds like a worthwhile mitigation effort.

Very much worth it. I was there, at the front row. Fantastic job done there, with lots of discoveries: prehistorical Cree settlements, and old sepultures. Found one myself.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by DBursey

That's what I was referring to. Rotting, decaying. An interesting side-note: In deep flooded valleys in British Columbia where the oxygen content of the water is low, old growth trees have been preserved to be 'harvested' many decades later from their watery storage.

Here is another one for your interest.

Trees in the area mentionned (Norther Quebec) are totally worthless.

They grow at a very slow rate: a 50 year tree will be about 6-7 inches of circumference, and will never be taller than 20 feet, except in wind protected area. There are barely any leafy trees, except in highly protected areas, and usually by a river. Those are very rare even then. That is why nobody bothered with them when they filled the basin (one of the largest in the world).

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You must not have read the thread title: "Canada among worst polluters'" I added the bolding for emphasis.

Considering that there are 191 member countries of the UN and Canada is 28th (or so you say) on the list of polluters, then you are among the top 15% worst polluters.

I think the thread title is accurate.

That's because you were left behind. You are one of the worst polluters in the forum.

[Kerrigan]

So Canada basically pollutes just as much as America, and it has a higher violent crime rate?

This is not something that you would expect aftering hearing preachy denunciations of the US from certain Canadian members here. I thought Canada was supposed to be vastly superior to their southern neighbors in all social matters. Apparently not.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

So Canada basically pollutes just as much as America, and it has a higher violent crime rate?

This is not something that you would expect aftering hearing preachy denunciations of the US from certain Canadian members here. I thought Canada was supposed to be vastly superior to their southern neighbors in all social matters. Apparently not.

You are a true right wing American. Totally ignorant and believes what he wants to hear and easily lead.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

What about Mexico?

I don't know, this thread is about Canada and it's poor pollution records.

Please try not to derail it simply because it makes your country not look as squeaky clean you'd like everyone to think it is.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

That's because you were left behind. You are one of the worst polluters in the forum.

"Left behind"? You sure left me behind there. I have no idea what you are trying to insult me with here. But your stalker side is really starting to show.

Look who's talking bub.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

So Canada basically pollutes just as much as America, and it has a higher violent crime rate?

This is not something that you would expect aftering hearing preachy denunciations of the US from certain Canadian members here. I thought Canada was supposed to be vastly superior to their southern neighbors in all social matters. Apparently not.

Canada does NOT have a higher violent crime rate, that is utter bul-lshi-t.

[Athens]

Comparing the Canadian and United States violent and property crime rates in the paper “A Comparison of Violent and Firearm Crime Rates in the Canadian Prairie Provinces and Four U.S. Border States, 1961-2003” is complicated by differences in the crime definitions. In Table 8, Statistics Canada defines assault much more widely than the U.S. FBI measure of aggravated assault. Statistics Canada includes simple assault, i.e., pushing, slapping, punching and threatening resulting in no more than minor injury, as well as more serious assaults. The U.S. FBI definition of aggravated assault is compared to Canadian definitions on page 21 of the paper. Note that:

U.S. aggravated assault = Canadian aggravated assault + assault with a weapon + attempted murder


Roughly about one fifth of Canadian assaults are aggravated assaults under the U.S. definition, or four fifths of the assaults in Table 8 would not be counted in the
U.S. definition. Assaults account for about three quarters of the Canadian measure of violent crime. By the U.S. definitions, the Canadian violent crime rate is far too high. If the Canadian assault rate of 746 in Table 8 is replaced by the aggravated assault for Canada of 152.9 (U.S. definition) on page 21, the Canadian violent crime rate of 963 would drop to 369.9.
A second difficulty is that the U.S. crime of forcible rape is defined as forced intercourse. This is much more narrow than the Canadian measure of sexual assault. Statistics Canada recommends that these two measures should not be compared.
An additional difficulty is that in Table 6, the U.S. FBI measures of total rates are the sum of the items, e.g.:

violent crime = murder and nonnegligent manslaughter + forcible rape + robbery + aggravated assault


By contrast in Table 8, the Statistics Canada definition of violent crimes is the sum of the displayed items plus a few other things such as abductions, and other sexual offences. These latter small items, that are not detailed, make up about 5% of the total.
In the attached table, comparable violent and property crime rates are computed by adding together the three listed items. This procedure makes the Canadian total figures slightly smaller than in Table 8 because some minor items are excluded. Secondly, the aggravated assault figures (U.S. definition) from page 21 have been substituted for the original wide Canadian definition of assault. This pulls the Canadian violent crime rate down quite an amount because the large number of simple assaults swamp the data. Canadian sexual assault and U.S. forcible rape data have been excluded. Prairie Province and Border State averages have been weighted by population. Compared to the simple averages, this tends to lower the Canadian figures because Alberta has the lowest crime rates but 60% of the population, but raises the U.S. figures by reducing the influence of low-crime North Dakota and increasing that of Minnesota.
A possible rewrite of the two sentences you proposed is:

Comparing average crime rates for 2003 in the three prairie provinces and in the four bordering states as presented in the report for those crimes that are similarly defined and measured in both countries, we found that, in total, both violent and property crime rates were
two thirds higher in the Canadian prairie provinces than in the
four border states.

Average crime rates were higher in the Canadian Prairies for all crimes with comparable definitions and statistics in the U.S.A.: Homicide – 1.1x higher; Aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and attempted murder – 1.5 x higher; Robbery – 2.1x higher; Breaking and Entering – 2.3x higher; and Motor Vehicle Theft – 3.2x higher.

The full article, with is doc format with chart is here http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publi...2005_04_20.doc

[Nicko]

Regardless of crimerate, at least Canada doesn't execute its citizens, or occupies foreign countries, or pushes a backward, ignorant, dogmatic view of religion onto others

eh?

EDIT: actually its not only religion, which a fanatic few with lots of money are pushing. It is more of a world view they have adopted that is increasingly out of touch with...well, the rest of the world. This is just my opinion ofcourse.

Yea Canada could do better on pollution levels. I lived in the northwest territories for a few years wher the only source of heating is from OIL. That is some nasty stuff escpecially when it is -40C outside, the cold air pushes all the smoke and fumes to ground and creates a kind of toxic cloud. Its nasty stuff. Chalk it up to canada being such a large and somewhat harsh climate of extremes. We need AC in the summer in some parts and in others we need lots of heating. Add to that we have alot of roads.

We are a progressive country...more than others. So we are changing. Alteast we acknowledge as a country that there IS a problem (unlike some)...

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Athens

Comparing the Canadian and United States violent and property crime rates in the paper “A Comparison of Violent and Firearm Crime Rates in the Canadian Prairie Provinces and Four U.S. Border States, 1961-2003” is complicated by differences in the crime definitions. In Table 8, Statistics Canada defines assault much more widely than the U.S. FBI measure of aggravated assault. Statistics Canada includes simple assault, i.e., pushing, slapping, punching and threatening resulting in no more than minor injury, as well as more serious assaults. The U.S. FBI definition of aggravated assault is compared to Canadian definitions on page 21 of the paper. Note that:

U.S. aggravated assault = Canadian aggravated assault + assault with a weapon + attempted murder


Roughly about one fifth of Canadian assaults are aggravated assaults under the U.S. definition, or four fifths of the assaults in Table 8 would not be counted in the
U.S. definition. Assaults account for about three quarters of the Canadian measure of violent crime. By the U.S. definitions, the Canadian violent crime rate is far too high. If the Canadian assault rate of 746 in Table 8 is replaced by the aggravated assault for Canada of 152.9 (U.S. definition) on page 21, the Canadian violent crime rate of 963 would drop to 369.9.
A second difficulty is that the U.S. crime of forcible rape is defined as forced intercourse. This is much more narrow than the Canadian measure of sexual assault. Statistics Canada recommends that these two measures should not be compared.
An additional difficulty is that in Table 6, the U.S. FBI measures of total rates are the sum of the items, e.g.:

violent crime = murder and nonnegligent manslaughter + forcible rape + robbery + aggravated assault


By contrast in Table 8, the Statistics Canada definition of violent crimes is the sum of the displayed items plus a few other things such as abductions, and other sexual offences. These latter small items, that are not detailed, make up about 5% of the total.
In the attached table, comparable violent and property crime rates are computed by adding together the three listed items. This procedure makes the Canadian total figures slightly smaller than in Table 8 because some minor items are excluded. Secondly, the aggravated assault figures (U.S. definition) from page 21 have been substituted for the original wide Canadian definition of assault. This pulls the Canadian violent crime rate down quite an amount because the large number of simple assaults swamp the data. Canadian sexual assault and U.S. forcible rape data have been excluded. Prairie Province and Border State averages have been weighted by population. Compared to the simple averages, this tends to lower the Canadian figures because Alberta has the lowest crime rates but 60% of the population, but raises the U.S. figures by reducing the influence of low-crime North Dakota and increasing that of Minnesota.
A possible rewrite of the two sentences you proposed is:

Comparing average crime rates for 2003 in the three prairie provinces and in the four bordering states as presented in the report for those crimes that are similarly defined and measured in both countries, we found that, in total, both violent and property crime rates were
two thirds higher in the Canadian prairie provinces than in the
four border states.

Average crime rates were higher in the Canadian Prairies for all crimes with comparable definitions and statistics in the U.S.A.: Homicide – 1.1x higher; Aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and attempted murder – 1.5 x higher; Robbery – 2.1x higher; Breaking and Entering – 2.3x higher; and Motor Vehicle Theft – 3.2x higher.

The full article, with is doc format with chart is here http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publi...2005_04_20.doc

I don't understand why you feed the guy who started a thread on Canada's pollution relative to other countries and who trolled his own thread with an incendiary comment in the middle of an argumentation.

[Monique]

What about we are responsible and we will try to do better.

As for violence I often hear gun shots outside my window and saw girls attack another one on the train.

There is 1 to 2 murders a month in Calgary.

Lots of stabbing and spousal abuse.

Stop blaming others.

One of the many things I hate about my country this blame game, no we are perfect because others are worst.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Monique

What about we are responsible and we will try to do better.

As for violence I often hear gun shots outside my window and saw girls attack another one on the train.

There is 1 to 2 murders a month in Calgary.

Lots of stabbing and spousal abuse.

Stop blaming others.

One of the many things I hate about my country this blame game, no we are perfect because others are worst.

not a shock, Alberta is the most Americanize provence in Canada. They like guns, oil, money, greed, capitalism. No shock at all. I would rather see Alberta separate long before Quebec.