Ed suggested this would be a good addition to the new WUWT CO2 reference page, and I agree, but thought it should get front page attention first. It is a condensed version of an essay published earlier this year. – Anthony
Guest essay by Ed Hoskins
The following calculations and graphics are based on information on national CO2 emission levels worldwide published by BP[1]in June 2014 for the period from 1965 up until 2013. The data is well corroborated by previous similar datasets published by the CDIAC, Guardian [2] and Google up until 2009 [3]. These notes and figures provide a short commentary on that CO2 emissions history.
The contrast between the developed and developing worlds is stark in terms of their history of CO2 emissions and the likely prognosis for their future CO2 output.
Since 1980 CO2 emissions from the developed world have shown virtually no increase, whereas the developing world has had a fourfold increase since 1980: that increase is accelerating.
Similarly the CO2 output per head is declining in the developed world whereas it is accelerating the developing world.
These notes divide the world nations into seven logical groups with distinct attitudes to CO2 control:
developed
§ United States of America, attempting CO2 emissions control under Obama’s EPA.
§ The European Union, (including the UK), currently believers in action to combat Global Warming.
§ Japan, the former Soviet Union, Canada and Australia are developed nations, rejecting controls on CO2 emissions.
developing
§ South Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan: more advanced developing nations, still developing rapidly, (KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW).
§ China and Hong Kong: developing very rapidly.
§ India: developing rapidly from a low base.
§ Rest of World (~160 Nations): developing rapidly from a low base.
In summary the current CO2 emission and emissions per head position in 2013 was as follows:
These graphs of total CO2 emission history show that up until 2013:
§ There is stabilisation or reduction of emissions from developed economies since 1980.
§ The USA, simply by exploiting shale gas for electricity generation, has already reduced its CO2 emissions by some 9.5% since 2005[4]. That alone has already had more CO2 emission reduction effect than the entire Kyoto protocol[5] [6].
§ CO2 emissions from the developed economies rejecting action on CO2 have hardly grown since 2005.
§ The European Union (27) has reduced its CO2 emissions by ~14% since 2005.
§ CO2 emissions from the developing world as a whole overtook the developed world in 2007 and are now a third larger than the developed world’s CO2 emissions.
§ there has been a very rapid escalation of Chinese CO2 emissions since the year 2000[7].
§ China overtook the USA CO2 emissions in 2006, and Chinese emissions are now ~62% greater than the USA, the escalation in Chinese CO2 emissions continues. Chinese emissions have grown by +75% since 2005 and China continues to build coal fired powerstations to supply the bulk of its electricity as demand grows.
§ India has accelerating emissions[8], growing from a low base by +63% since 2005. India too is building coal fired powerstations to increase the supply of electricity as 25% of its population still has no access to electric power.
§ there is inexorable emissions growth from the Rest of the World economies, from a low base, they have grown by +30% since 2005.
So any CO2 emissions reduction achieved by the Developed Nations will be entirely negated by the increases in CO2 emissions from Developing Nations.
Probably more significant than the total CO2 emissions output is the comparison of the emissions/head for the various nation groups.
§ The EU(27) even with active legal measures have maintained a fairly level CO2 emission rate but have managed to reduce their CO2 emissions/head by ~16% since 2005. Much of the recent downward trend is largely attributed to their declining economies.
§ The USA has already reduced its CO2 emissions/head by ~22% since in 2005, mainly arising from the use of shale gas for electricity generation. And now Mr Putin is actively involved in backing anti-fracking campaigns in Europe so as to protect his large Gasprom market and to have an energy stranglehold on the West, as he has demonstrated recently in the Ukraine[9].
§ Russia, Japan, Canada and Australia have only grown their emissions/head by ~1% since 2005.
§ China’s CO2 emissions/head have increased ~11 fold since 1965. China overtook the world-wide average in 2003 and surpassed the rapidly developing nations in 2006. China’s emissions / head at 7.0 tonnes / head are now approaching the level of the EU(27) nations.
§ India’s CO2 emissions have grown by 4.7 times over the period and are now showing recent modest acceleration. That increasing rate is likely to grow substantially with increased use of coal for electricity generation[10].
§ The eight rapidly developing nations have shown consistent growth from a low base in 1965 at 5.6 times. They exceeded the world average CO2 emissions level in 1997.
§ The Rest of the World (~160 Nations), 36% of world population, have grown CO2 emissions consistently but only by 2.6 times since 1965, this group will be the likely origin of major future emissions growth as they strive for better standards of living.
§ Overall average world-wide emissions/head have remained relatively steady but with early growth in the decade from 1965. It amounts to 1.6 times since 1965.
When the participating nations particularly EU(27) are compared with Chinese CO2 emissions/head, an interesting picture arises:
§ Chinese CO2 emissions at 7.01mt/head for its 1.3 billion population are already ~43% greater than the worldwide average. Those emissions are still growing fast.
§ At 5.5mt/head, France, with ~80% nuclear electricity generation, has the lowest CO2 emission rates in the developed world and is at only ~12% above the world-wide average.
§ China’s CO2 emissions/head exceeded France’s CO2 emissions/head in 2009 and are now 22% higher.
§ China’s emissions per head are now very close to the UK and are rapidly approaching the EU(27) average.
§ The UK at 7.2mt/head is now only ~48% higher than the world-wide average and only about ~3% higher than China. So China is likely to overtake the UK in the near future.
§ Germany, one of the largest CO2 emitters in Europe, has emissions/head ~100% higher than the worldwide average and is still ~49% higher than China. Germany’s emissions/head have increased recently because they are now burning much larger quantities of brown coal to compensate them for the “possibly irrational” closure of their nuclear generating capacity.
This must question the logic of Green attitudes in opposing Nuclear power. Following the Fukushima disaster, the German government position of rapidly eliminating nuclear power in a country with no earthquake risk and no chance of tsunamis should not be tenable.
If CO2 emissions really were a concern to arrest Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming / Man-made Climate Change, these results particularly from France show starkly the very real advantage of using Nuclear power for electricity generation.
The underdeveloped nations are bound to become progressively more industrialised and more intensive users of fossil fuels to power their development and widen their distribution of electricity.
This point is re-emphasised above, by cross comparing the annual growth in emissions from China and India with the full annual emissions from key European countries. Chinese CO2 emissions growth in some years can exceed the total UK and French emissions level and even approach the German level on occasions.
REFERENCES:
[1] http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data
[3] https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en#gid=1
[4] http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/07/a-fracking-revolution-us-now-leads-world-in-co2-emission-reductions-.html
[5]http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2012/09/thanks_to_fracking_u_s_carbon_emissions_are_at_the_lowest_levels_in_20_years_.html
[6] http://www.oilandgasonline.com/doc/u-s-fracking-has-carbon-more-whole-world-s-wind-solar-0001
[7] http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/pressreleases/2011/steep-increase-in-global-co2-emissions-despite-reductions-by-industrialised-countries
[8] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-10/global-warming/29642669_1_kyoto-protocol-second-commitment-period-
[9] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10911942/Russia-in-secret-plot-against-fracking-Nato-chief-says.html
[10] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/India-invokes-right-to-grow-to-tell-rich-nations-of-its-stand-on-future-climate-change-negotiations/articleshow/36724848.cms
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Also interesting: lifetime emissions since 1850 since they are used to claim “climate reparations”.
Great info Ed, well organized. THANKS.
But it took me a while to figure out that “ZA” is South Africa :^). You do spell it out in an early sentence:
Ira
It appears to me that we look as if we are trying to blame China for something bad. So take a backyard pool, cover it tight, fill with air taken from the … air … and capture the CO2 molecules. Then try to find just the anthropogenic CO2 molecules. And then try to find … say … China’s CO2 molecules. An entire reference page plus articles about what is essentially the hair on a gnat’s ass, and the size of a single hair cell on the shortest ass hair.
When will we finally truly do the math? The anthropogenic only portion of atmospheric CO2, let alone China’s portion, does not have the cojones necessary to make one single bit of “weather” do a damn thing different. Take out just the anthropogenic CO2 and rerun the past 30 years of weather. The exact same weather pattern variations would have occurred. Or maybe because of the random nature of weather we would have had it worse. Or it could have been much better. Now do something really ridiculous and take out just China’s portion. I know, the post isn’t meant to paint China as the bad guy. But. Really? Really? All this for something so tiny you can’t find it? Not even in a child’s balloon?
Talk of anthropogenic CO2 is a fad, nothing more. Hell and damnation I wish we were out performing China!!!!!!!
And so we go on. CO2 is NOT a problem, or we would be roasting in Hell by now. IPCC is a political, not scientific effort.
There is an easy solution. Sell all our wind turbines to the developing world. Let them deal with the issues.
Sooo, the developing nations are going to have better-growing plants of the vegetable variety, as well as growing “plants” aka “factories”?
Well, so long as they clean up the genuinely toxic emissions, more power to ’em. Literally.
Ed Hoskins:
I should hope that WUWT does not become a blog where nuclear power generation is advocated as a means to curb anthropogenic CO2.
Two points: 1) you don’t factor in the relocation of heavy energy intensive industry and manufacturing from the EU to China and other ‘developing’ countries – thus rendering the reduction of emissions in the EU completely meaningless (and economic growth, particularly in England, that relies heavily on financing growth in developing countries, lowers emissions per unit of GDP but this is also an illusion).
2) When will you commentators wake up to the ‘possibly irrational’ slur you cast on opponents of nuclear power. Get to think a little more rationally yourself….look at the the latest estimates for a SOLAR tsunami, and then ask you local nuclear operator how long the reactor would remain stable if there were no grid and no diesel supplies for a period of months or even years (check out the US National Academy of Science report and the Congressional hearings on these issues of lost grid and services). Then go back to the 1970s and 1980s when all those irrational but scientific and engineering critics of nuclear power (e.g. American Physical Society and Rasmussen report) pointed out the consequences of land contamination. Maybe these irrational Germans took a look at the way the wind was blowing at Fukushima and calculated the lost land had it been onshore!
There is nothing ‘irrational’ about deciding not to take these risks and to bear the consequences for electricity production. The Germans can get away with it at 20% of supply – but not the French, at 85%. And by the way….please note that the French system is a state monopoly, backed by jackbooted gendarmes who killed protestors in order to push through the programme. Is that ‘rational’?
I am beginning to think that ‘climate scepticism’ leads to as much wilful blindness as climate alarmism!
Great article, many thanks. Might help me write an essay for uni about the prospects for the next big climate conference. Since the uni people are global warming advocates, it’s very difficult to write anything about “CO2 reduction” and “global warming” when you think it’s a load of bollocks.
All images in this article seem to be saved under an https url, and I don’t see the need… they are images. Plus, it happens that there must be something wrong with the SSL, because my Google Chrome is not loading the images and gives a warning message instead, saying that it is unable to establish a secure connection with wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com.
Would you mind to save and link the images under normal http?
Thanks
@ur momisugly Ira Glickstein, PHD
ZA for South Africa appears to be the standard 2-letter country code.
http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/ctycodes.htm
Enjoy
To mention Hong Kong as implicitly separate from China and developing but included in the emissions total is somewhat misleading. It takes a very large stretch of the imagination to describe HK as developing. It has an advanced post-industrial economy – post industrial that is apart from the government’s compulsive concrete pouring. The great majority of industry long ago migrated across the border. Any CO2 emissions come mostly from population growth and can in no way be compared to the increases in the mainland. The city is, in relative terms a mere gnat’s bite on the backside of China.
The graphs above show clearly that until now China and India are in a completely different league.
Only ignorant people mention them in one breath reg. climate change.
mpainter says:
August 3, 2014 at 7:29 am
Ed Hoskins:
I should hope that WUWT does not become a blog where nuclear power generation is advocated as a means to curb anthropogenic CO2.
It appears to me, when taken in the overall context of WUWT, whenever nuclear power generation is advocated here by the primary topic blog posters, it is primarily because nuclear power generation is a good idea. Mentioning that it also reduces anthropogenic CO2 should add to the appeal by CAGW Alarmists.
WUWT really does not often impose any control on what a “reply” post may advocate.
Just an observation.
Pamela well put. I have found it interesting that all this bs about man’s c02 emissisions always leaves out the ratio between anthropogenic and natural.
Huge anthropogenic tonnage numbers sounds impressive by themselves but where are the natural numbers? Using those numbers would deflate all the man is bad arguments I guess.
the economies of the developed world are that bad…………
Very well put Pamela Gray. I would add that ALL of the data presented in this article is implied to be empirical data, when it is actually questionable estimations. There is absolutely NO way to measure emissions. In addition, we certainly cannot determine the global CO2 level.
Reactor safety isn’t a science issue, it’s an engineering and economic issue.
If the utilities didn’t have to waste so much time fighting legal and political issues based on neo-luddite fears of radiation, maybe older designs would be replaced or updated to safer designs. The reactor systems that I know the details of, all have redundant operational mechanisms to address a grid-down situation.
China is building conventional gen 3 nuclear as well as coal althoughnnot at the rate of one new unit every two weeks or so as at present. The China mix will likely shift increasingly toward nuclear as 2020 approaches. There are two reasons to expect this. First, a number of knowledgable sources (e.g. Caltech’s Rutledge, Utah’s Li, Uppsala’s Aleklett) predict peak Chinese steam coal production by then (China is already past peak for metallurgical coal, and importing from Australia). Second, their R&D efforts on more advanced nuclear (beyond their own version of the AP1000) will have matured, and a reproducible design will have emerged. Those efforts include a Pilot scale molten salt thorium reactor slated to come online next year. And Bill Gates has said TerraPower is negotiating with China to build the first TWR at about 1000MW, since the regulatory environment in the US and the EU is impossible. Either solution would free China from foreign uranium dependency while virtually eliminating rad waste problem. Far better that subsidy dollars wasted on intermittent renewables went into advanced gen 4 nuclear, while shale gas/CCGT substitutes economically for coal (no regulatory involvement) in the interim where that is possible.
ZA = Zuid Afrika dutch derivative of early settlers
Thanks, Ed. Great post.
Lucid presentation Mr Hoskins, appreciated.
Psst: … 18 years of nothing … maybe tail wag dog?
“Since 1980 CO2 emissions from the developed world have shown virtually no increase, whereas the developing world has had a fourfold increase since 1980: that increase is accelerating.” is a disingenuous comparison. 4x very little remains well below the ostentatious consumption of the ‘developed’ world.
This photo sums it up:
http://www.slaverysite.com/Body/earthlights2_dmsp_big%20-%20nasa%20picture%20from%20space%20%202000%20Adjusted%20Cropped.jpg
Well, yes – since 1973.
mpainter says:
August 3, 2014 at 7:29 am
Ed Hoskins:
I should hope that WUWT does not become a blog where nuclear power generation is advocated as a means to curb anthropogenic CO2.
Why not? The whole world going nuclear would be a great idea. And not just central stations. Nuclear home heating/cooling and water heating is very doable.