This is the sort of political image of CO2 emissions that you usually see presented. The Big Bad USA and Australia get most of the blame for CO2 emissions.
Image above from myclimatechange.net. Note that the artist could not have picked a worse image to portray the message since CO2 is heavier than air and in the real world, none of those balloons would float. Most people learn this in grade school. Even so, lighter than air CO2 balloons seem to be a recurring theme in warmland.
I ran across this interesting tidbit on CO2 emissions per capita which I found interesting. While many warmist organizations concentrate on pushing lifestyle changes related to CO2 emissions, we usually see that framed in reference to total CO2 emissions per country. When you look at the per capita values, an entirely different picture emerges.
LIST OF COUNTRIES RANKED BY 2006 TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL-FUEL
DATA : Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R. J. Andres. 2008. Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions.
In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview.html
(UNIT : Tons of CO2 per capita)
COUNTRY TONS OF CO2 PER CAPITA
Qatar 49.26
Kuwait 34.22
United-Arab-Emirates 32.94
Bahrain 28.62
Luxembourg 23.89
USA 18.95
Australia 17.93
Canada 16.65
Oman 16.03
Saudi-Arabia 16.03
Estonia 13.02
Finland 12.62
Kazakhstan 12.62
Singapore 12.51
Taiwan 11.93
Czech-Republic 11.16
Russia 10.94
Ireland 10.32
Netherlands 10.28
Japan 10.24
Belgium 10.17
Greenland 9.99
Israel 9.99
Denmark 9.91
South-Korea 9.8
Germany 9.77
Nor-ssb 9.59
United-Kingdom 9.04
South-Africa 8.74
Austria 8.67
Greece 8.63
Norway 8.6
Libya 8.27
Spain 7.97
Italy 7.72
New-Zealand 7.28
Iceland 7.24
Bosnia 7.13
Belarus 7.06
Malaysia 7.02
Slovakia 6.91
Ukraine 6.8
Iran 6.62
Venezuela 6.33
Bulgaria 6.22
France 6.18
Hungary 5.7
Portugal 5.67
Sweden 5.59
Switzerland 5.56
Croatia 5.3
Macedonia 5.3
China 4.64
Romania 4.53
Argentina 4.42
Uzbekistan 4.28
Lithuania 4.17
Thailand 4.17
Azerbaijan 4.13
Mexico 4.13
Lebanon 3.76
Jordan 3.69
Turkey 3.69
Chile 3.66
Mongolia 3.66
Syria 3.66
North-Korea 3.58
Latvia 3.25
Iraq 3.22
Botswana 2.78
Belize 2.67
Cuba 2.63
Egypt 2.26
Tunisia 2.26
Moldova 2.19
Uruguay 2.04
Brazil 1.86
Indonesia 1.5
Morocco 1.5
Namibia 1.39
Peru 1.39
Armenia 1.35
Columbia 1.35
India 1.35
Georgia 1.24
Vietnam 1.24
Bolivia 1.17
Kyrgyzstan 1.06
Yemen 1.02
Honduras 0.98
Guatemala 0.91
Pakistan 0.91
Angola 0.87
Swaziland 0.87
Western-Sahara 0.87
Zimbabwe 0.84
Palestine 0.76
Polen 0.76
Phillippines 0.76
Nigeria 0.69
Paraguay 0.65
Bhutan 0.58
Sri-Lanka 0.58
Congo 0.4
Ghana 0.4
Senegal 0.4
Benin 0.36
Kenya 0.32
Bangladesh 0.29
Cambodia 0.29
Sudan 0.29
Laos 0.25
Liberia 0.21
Zambia 0.21
Cameroon 0.18
Madagascar 0.14
Tanganyika 0.14
Tanzania 0.14
Eritrea 0.1
Mozambique 0.1
Nepal 0.1
Burkina-Faso 0.07
Ethiopia 0.07
Faroe-Islands 0.07
Rwanda 0.07
Burundi 0.03
Chad 0.03
Mali 0.03
(DATA : Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R. J. Andres. 2008. Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions.
In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview.html)
bradley13, Your list illustrates that if we are serious about reducing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels then we need to start with the profligate energy consumers first. Russia and the Gulf states are notorious for their wasteful use of fossil fuels. China is also wasteful in energy consumption in comparison to developed countries.
Interestingly, a couple of days ago Obama presented a proposal for countries to remove fuel subsidies and make fuel pricing transparent. An eminently sensible suggestion if your real objective is to reduce CO2 emissions. Since it would reduce profligate use of energy, and hence the world’s CO2 emissions, far more effectively than Cap and Trade.
Almost everyone including the UN hated the proposal.
Proving, if proof were needed, that the objective isn’t the reduction of CO2 emissions.
ralph (10:09:58) :
Actually ton = Imperial/American (Not sure if they are different as with gallons)
Tonne = metric ton (1000kg)
As for anything else.
Socialism is a philosophy of envy. Its effect are invariably to drag everyone down to the same level rather than attempt to raise everyones level.
There are of course exceptions. (Some people [pigs] are more equal than others).
DaveE.
Roger Knights (13:08:03) :
That’s exactly right. I’ve mentioned several times that France is registered as a high carbon polluter by the politburo in Brussels because of this carbon equivalence, despite their use of nuclear power.
DaveE.
Yes metric tonne is 1000 kg, Imperial or long ton 2240 lbs, so almost the same, and the US short ton is 2000 lbs.
Kindest regards.
Kiaora MikeE! We in Oz will make a deal with you. How about you can be ahead of us on whatever CO2 scale you like… and you give us the Bledisloe Cup? Deal? Send it to the ARU tomorrow and we’ll adjust the figures on the graphs accordingly 😉 Cheers!
This article seems to be based on the premise that the Greenhouse Effect is directly proportional to the amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere.
For me, it seems more reasonable to assume that there would be law of diminishing effect, once the atmosphere contains enough of this gas to block all radiation from earth’s surface to outer space at CO2 characteristic absorption wavelengths. David Archibald has presented data suggesting that our current CO2 concentration may be more than 300% beyond that point.
It is my understanding that carbon-dioxide only blocks transmission a few narrow wavelength bands as a result of molecular resonances. Each band is the result of a particular mode or method that the bonded oxygen and carbon atoms have to move or jiggle with respect to one another.
CO2 is lighter than air — here’s proof:
Jim (11:13:34)
Jim that is a spectacular website for graphical display of statistical information!
See: http://www.gapminder.org/
I wonder why they dont also relate it to the area of the planet that is the responsibility of the country in question–given that most,if not all of the A-C02 woud have been absorbed into the biomass of that country, including the territorial waters thereof-particularly if the country is big.
Oh no— we couldnt do that– because the Europeans would come out looking like crap–shocking even– and the arabian states even worse.
Where is the IPCC based again?
Where did all this nonsense start from?
No lets all pick on the anglo sphere where the industrial revolution started from, and most of the benefits of modern life that these cretins enjoy originated.
Philip_B (12:59:37) :
Perhaps I should have added footnotes because you simply did not get the point of the example which was why using per Capita is useless… Nothing Changed Except the per Capita number! That was the point.
“The alternative to using national average per capita is to measure each persons emissions individually, or measure the average of selected sub-national populations.” — No it is not. Again is meanless without context of what you are getting for your emissions in real economic and social terms.
“You then go on to list factors which you claim need to be taken into account and every single example you give is one that specifically should not be taken into account if the objective is to reduce CO2 emisssions, which presumably it is.” — Well like climate models your presumptions are false so hence your post started on the wrong foot and ended in the wrong result, to be clear I was only looking to provide a correctly weighted accounting of emissions versus several economic and social factors so that having a huge population does not give you a pass on emission accounting.
I think you believe me to be an AGWer because I used the term pollution, which was used as a generality because all environmental studies are based on the same per capita flawed logic and was not as a statement of CO2 is pollution.
So just for the record I have been speaking out against AGW on an economic and scientific basis for nearly a decade and my alias Climate Heretic has been mine proudly for all that time, perhaps a visit to my site would help.
I think you better re-read my comment and rethink yours.
a jones (15:48:03) :
I’m guessing that means a US hundredweight, (Can’t remember the abbreviation but think it’s cwt,) is 100lbs
But is a US lb the same as an imperial lb?
DaveE
From my experience in the Middle East, there are three classes of people.
1: The local Arabs – they are all rich and drive SUV’s, all week and at the weekends in the desert. (Some also drive that other well known CO2 producer, the camel.) They don’t seem to particularly care about environmentalism. Especially when you see the amount of rubbish they leave lying around the desert during weekend trips in their SUV’s. (I worked in Sharjah recently in the desert. I used to go for a walk every day through the sand dunes and started to pick up all the plastic and glass bottles, food wrappers, oil cans, etc. etc. I gave up as there was simply too much of it.)
2: The professional expat – they are all trying to get as rich as possible and enjoying their tax free expat lifestyles. Some drive SUV’s, especially in the desert at the weekends. They usually take their rubbish home with them
3: The expat Indians, Bangladeshis and Phillipino labourers. They are treated as the lowest of the low and are too busy working and too poor to care about environmentalism. They don’t drive SUV’s – they get old diesel smoke belching buses everywhere. They don’t go to the desert at the weekends – they’re too busy working.
Another reason that Greenpeace haven’t taken hold in the Middle East is that there are no Universities full of rich middle class white folks.
Talking of trying to reduce GDP, I found a lovely little fun game to scare our kids on the ABC site:
http://www.carbonclimate.info/2009/03/planet-slayer-horror-for-kiddies.html
Basically after putting all my data in, even after flying around the world TWICE in one year (no apologies, either) I was not a real CO2 hog. After putting in my spending for the year of AU$100k, I was a MASSIVE hog.
Lesson? Spending money is BAAAADDDDD!!!!
This is a lesson our kids should be learning? To be actually scared into not spending money? Where does our economy go then? Oh yes…. south…..
Canada has no balloons.
correct. In both the Imperial system and US system there are twenty hundredweight to the ton. In both systems the pound is the same weight.
So in the Imperial system the hundredweight [cwt] is 112 pounds or 4 quarters of 28 lbs each or 8 stone of 14 lbs each.
As aforesaid at 2240 pounds the Imperial ton is very close to the metric tonne of 1000 kg with a kilogram being a little more than 2.2 pounds.
In the US system the hundredweight, often called a Cental where either Metric or Imperial units are more commonly used, is 100 pounds.
The US short ton is chiefly used in the US and Canada, where the Cental is still called a hundredweight and the same abbreviation, cwt, is used.
Likewise the Imperial pint is 20 fluid ounces but the US pint only 16 fluid ounces, but the fluid ounce is the same in both systems.
Confusing ain’t it?
Kindest Regards
a jones (18:39:33),
Thank you for that sterling [Oops! Forgot about guineas, shillings…] example of why the UK and the US are #1 in the world. No one else can understand us.
We’re Number One!
We’re Number One!…
Because it doesn’t flow with my favourite metric – The Hockey Stick ____/ (apologies for ascii art) and it also turns out that Greenland(ers) are about 10% more “polluting” than the green, efficient and, of course, pleasant UK. Suck on that Greenpeace.
These figures demonstrate the futility of cap and trade and trans-national wealth redistribution. The first act of a person in a poor country, on receiving a handout, would be to spend monry on activities that produce more GHG. It is very hard to spend more money without increasing GHG unless you do suspicious things like build nuclear plants.
It’s the same inside a country. If there is a carbon tax within the USA, the money will go to someone who will want to use more energy and so increase GHG emissions. The whole concept is a circular churn with the government making unearned profits on the side through transaction costs and penalties.
Is the atmosphere homogenous at all altitudes? What is the % of CO2 and CFCs at sea level versus troposhere or stratosphere?
Lastly, is there a difference in the effect of CO2 emissions at sea level from cars versus C02 emissions in the stratosphere from airplanes?
Inquiring minds want to know.
So, due to lack of proofreading for a simple graphic, we don’t know which they mean, tons or tonnes. The result would be different.
Geoff Sherington (20:58:02) :
“These figures demonstrate the futility of cap and trade and trans-national wealth redistribution.”
This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch about the highwayman Dennis Moore, a straight-up parody of Robin Hood. By the end of the skit Moore, played by John Cleese, has stolen and transfered all of the wealth from the (formerly) rich household to the (no longer) poor family. Unfortunately the newly the rich are not appreciative and are demanding more and better, but the source of the loot is now destitute.
In classic Python style, Cleese pauses in thought along the empty road and muses out loud, “This redistribution of the wealth is trickier than I thought.”
Fascinating. Almost a direct line from rich to poor, from productive to primitive.
oakgeo (22:51:08) :
Re Robin Hood. Here in Australia we are mutteringthat the Government is proposing Robin Hood economics with a variation. They take from the rich, then keep it.
I love the Python sketch, saw it long ago.
Can someone answer two simple questions for me.
1. What is wrong with the metric of dividing the total emissions of a country by its surface area including territorial waters,and coming up with a ranking of who is doing the most harm. ?
2. Isnt it the case, that if it is the western countries are ones that are going to be penalised the most for lowering total emmissions (and subsidise all the others), why isnt that paying for these industrial developments twice. But the new users eg china and india, are only paying once.
Isnt this in effect rewarding China and India for being backwards for so long.?
I suspect that the protestors have the following problems about Qatar:
1. It’s too damn HOT!
2. Women might be singled out for punishment as most female greenies would rail at dress with modest decorum.
3. A quiet word to all the Governments back home about the price of oil might lead to hounding back home of the protestors on the MI5 scale of things, which isn’t very nice, is it?
4. Why increase your carbon footprint to get there when you can switch the lights off in your own country by cycling to Kingsnorth?
5. Berating the Australians about their mining and the Canadians about their aluminium may reduce their desire to send troops to Afghanistan.
6. LNG supplies from Qatar to Milford Haven might go missing.
7. The Qataris won’t invest in a bankrupt English football team if we go after their green credentials.
IMHO.