Some numbers that you may find interesting, graphed by Ed Hoskins from France.
Here’s more:
Another way of looking at the same data:
Comparison 1
Comparison 2
Growth of CO2 emissions
China is the biggest emitter now.
The data supporting this was all published by BP up from 1965 till 2011:
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037130&contentId=7068669
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It might be helpful to learn what RU, JP, CN, ZA, etc mean. I can guess at some of them, but others are unclear.
Ok, fine. How does this compare with natural c02?
I find it interesting that Australia is lumped in with the EU and NZ.
Although China burn it a significant amount of the CO2 from China comes from coal that originates in Australia.
Funny how we pay a carbon tax on amounts that are too insignificant to include seperately but we export to China huge amounts carbon tax free.
What a joke – we have a tax to reduce our emissions while we can’shovel the stuff to China quick enough.
I always said our Government was either dumb or a Fraud – or both !
And all of this is still completely dwarfed by natural sources of CO2
GlynnMhor says:
November 23, 2012 at 3:02 pm
It might be helpful to learn what RU, JP, CN, ZA, etc mean. I can guess at some of them, but others are unclear.
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/help/helpctry.htm
Funny how Australia is considered so insignificant it doesn’t deserve its own catagory.
Most of China’s CO2 from coal is sourced from Australia.
We pay a carbon tax for the small amount we burn and the Greenies are happy.
Our Government makes us pay while actively escalating tax free exports to China and encouraging plans to double that trade !
Now that sounds like a sensible environmental policy shaped by committed environmentalists.
Here’s why; for the last few years and planned several years in the future China’s building the equivalent of the entire UK’s generating capacity in coal-fired plant – every year. 1.25GW a week – that’s 2 large power stations worth every 7 days.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2937g46.jpg
From: https://selectra.co.uk/sites/selectra.co.uk/files/pdf/coal-firedpowerplants.pdf
It’s quite depressing really to see how totally irrelevant our co2 emissions are here in the uk yet no govt has been more enthusiastically trying to reduce them at great cost to industry and the public than ours.
Tonyb
So basically China likes plants better than the rest of us?
Go here for a list of country codes.
Chinese co2 per head is not far off that of the EU now, so I wonder if we might start to see a reduction in that impressive rate of co2 emissions growth.
The huge increase in CO2 by China, coincides very well with the period of zero warming. 😉
J Martin; China’s per capita CO2 passed the EU earlier this year.
So here in the UK (as part of Europe), our emmissions have been essentially flat since the early 1970s, yet they’ve announced today that we’ll be paying something like 7.5 billion on our energy bills to finance new green generation.
Over £100 per household extra, when we’re already suffering,to reverse a non-existant trend in our emissions for the past 40 years.
Vive La revolution!
This one reflects the demise of the USSR?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/image_thumb5.png?w=644&h=468
Now lets see Greenpeace, WWF et al protesting in Cina and India, climbing up smoke stacks and trying to shu down coal fired power stations and block coal deliveries. They won’t because they are a bunch of chancer cowards who are happy to get a cheap photo opportunity so long as it in the safe comfortable West, they are as hypocritical as Gore…
As far as I am aware, CN is China.
Which makes those graphs a little suspect since it seemingly treats CN and China as different.
Hey, China has a huge coal mining industry of its own. It is not just Australian coal that they burn.
Plotting CO2 per head of population is really unreasonable.
CO2 output is directly related to economic output, so CO2 should be plotted against per capita GDP.
It looks significantly different if you do so.
It also makes it really clear that what they want is reduced economic output – back to the stone-age for the peasants. Of course, the special people will continue to live in increasing luxury.
I think the RU JP CN category is mis-labelled. CN seems to be Canada, not China, and RU seems to be former Soviet Union, not Russia.
Humor me on this one …. Assume that we accept that CO2 is causing horrible AGW and this will result in major destruction of our Earth. Because there’s no difference between CO2 from China, EU, USA, … we would have to admit that ALL increased CO2 adds to the problem. Yet, the UN seems to hold a double standard here on CO2. EU, USA, New Zealand, and Australia are expected to cut emissions, but China is given a free pass to increase emissions beyond the cuts. The chart showing “Growth of CO2 emissions” shows that CO2 output is still increasing. A logical mind would see that the problem is getting worse.
This suggests that controlling total CO2 emissions is NOT the main objective of the UN with so called “climate change”.
I always wonder how these charts of CO2 emissions correlates with atmospheric CO2 concentrations, like from the mauna loa record.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
BP’s numbers are rough guesses, at best. I suspect a lot of the numbers are backfit produce a clean line and match other records, like the CO2 concentration record.
There’s something wrong with the “RU JP CN” label. CN is the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China, and they clearly have their own data series in these charts. Perhaps a klutzy abbreviation of Canada?
Please remember that co2 is a trace gas and man has increased it by a trace amount. Co2 is a greenhouse gas that has already done most of the warming that it can by itself. The rest falls on the AGW theory of positive feedback which has gone AWOL in the last 15 odd years.
From a geologic perspective the Earth is co2 impoverished. We have had 10 x higher levels in the past. No need to panic. The IPCC states that evidence for runaway warming is not supported in the climate literature.
I should have said:
The IPCC states that claims for runaway warming is not supported in the climate literature.