I believe it was a CBC article last fall that mentioned it, talking about the massive rise in acres burned from previous years. But I can’t directly give you a link at this time unfortunately, am on mobile and can’t find it either.
I believe it was a CBC article last fall that mentioned it, talking about the massive rise in acres burned from previous years. But I can’t directly give you a link at this time unfortunately, am on mobile and can’t find it either.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I’d be really surprised if you could because it’s a made-up number.
evranch@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
Not made up, but estimated. Rather than find the exact article, here are the numbers after all was said and done:
canada.ca/…/sources-sinks-executive-summary-2023.…
…copernicus.eu/copernicus-canada-produced-23-glob…
470 / 670 = 72%
To be fair this is not 72% of total emissions including wildfire smoke, but wildfires emitted 72% as much as the Canadian economy did.
So yes, it’s not 80% of total emissions - but it’s still a massive amount. Putting out these fires would have had nearly the same effect as shutting down our entire country and letting them burn.
Or you could say letting them burn nearly doubled our emissions, and in the hand-wavey world of emissions accounting you would be pretty close.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 9 months ago
evranch@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
Man it’s been like 6 months since I read it, give me a break lol. “80% of Canada’s emissions” is correct, it can just be read either way, and I remembered it the wrong way (as % of combined, not % of emissions)