Report City of Victoria cheats on first emissions count in Jan/Feb 2020 Posted January 10, 2020 Reader Ken Waldie has pointed out that Stantec's report actually found industrial GHG emissions were "Not Occurring" and that the IPPU emissions it found were from "Product Use" only. Ken notes, "The number reported for IPPU is from consumer use of products that emit SF6 and NF3 (refrigerants, aerosols etc.), which the report notes the City has 'little influence' over. Moreover, these emissions are only crudely estimated in the Stantec report. That's no reason to exclude them of course, and at the very least the City's report should have explained their calculations. I have no doubt that this was a deliberate effort to deceive the public. But this error raises doubts about the accuracy of other elements of your report so it might be worth correcting." I had completely missed this line in Stantec's report. There are various "industrial processes" occurring around Rock Bay and Selkirk Waters that produce emissions, including two asphalt plants, the concrete batch plants and other industrial operations. I presumed that Stantec had included those in its report under "Industrial Processes." Based on Ken Waldie's expert information (he is a former senior policy advisor for Canada's GHG Offset Systems agency), I have removed from the story this paragraph: "Why would the City eliminate the Industrial Processes and Product Use category? A significant IPPU emission source in Victoria are the concrete batch plants around Rock Bay, which supply much of the concrete used in construction of buildings in the Downtown core and in the city’s neighbourhoods. The City has no intention of restricting such growth, of course, because new construction increases the City’s tax base. So it got around that pesky problem by deleting the category."