Anybody who has watched the march of jobs overseas already knows this, but it is nice to see science has finally caught up with what we already knew years ago. Look for more of this if a Cap and Trade bill passes in the U.S.. Senator Kerry says it has a “short fuse”. I don’t think it means what he thinks it does. – Anthony
Carbon emissions ‘outsourced’ to developing countries
Palo Alto, CA— A new study by scientists at the Carnegie Institution finds that over a third of carbon dioxide emissions associated with consumption of goods and services in many developed countries are actually emitted outside their borders. Some countries, such as Switzerland, “outsource” over half of their carbon dioxide emissions, primarily to developing countries. The study finds that, per person, about 2.5 tons of carbon dioxide are consumed in the U.S. but produced somewhere else. For Europeans, the figure can exceed four tons per person. Most of these emissions are outsourced to developing countries, especially China.
“Instead of looking at carbon dioxide emissions only in terms of what is released inside our borders, we also looked at the amount of carbon dioxide released during the production of the things that we consume,” says co-author Ken Caldeira, a researcher in the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology.
Caldeira and lead author Steven Davis, also at Carnegie, used published trade data from 2004 to create a global model of the flow of products across 57 industry sectors and 113 countries or regions. By allocating carbon emissions to particular products and sources, the researchers were able to calculate the net emissions “imported” or “exported” by specific countries.
“Just like the electricity that you use in your home probably causes CO2 emissions at a coal-burning power plant somewhere else, we found that the products imported by the developed countries of western Europe, Japan, and the United States cause substantial emissions in other countries, especially China,” says Davis. “On the flip side, nearly a quarter of the emissions produced in China are ultimately exported.”
Over a third of the carbon dioxide emissions linked to good and services consumed in many European countries actually occurred elsewhere, the researchers found. In Switzerland and several other small countries, outsourced emissions exceeded the amount of carbon dioxide emitted within national borders.
The United States is both a major importer and a major exporter of emissions embodied in trade. The net result is that the U.S. outsources about 11% of total consumption-based emissions, primarily to the developing world.
The researchers point out that regional climate policy needs to take into account emissions embodied in trade, not just domestic emissions.
“Our analysis of the carbon dioxide emissions associated with consumption in each country just states the facts,” says Caldeira. “This could be taken into consideration when developing emissions targets for these countries, but that’s a decision for policy-makers. One implication of emissions outsourcing is that a lot of the consumer products that we think of as being relatively carbon-free may in fact be associated with significant carbon dioxide emissions.”
“Where CO2 emissions occur doesn’t matter to the climate system,” adds Davis. “Effective policy must have global scope. To the extent that constraints on developing countries’ emissions are the major impediment to effective international climate policy, allocating responsibility for some portion of these emissions to final consumers elsewhere may represent an opportunity for compromise.”
The report is published online in the March 1, 2010 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I now look at the Carbon scam as a mechanism to hasten the west’s inevitable demise.
I laugh when I hear Britain described as a ‘Rich’ country,for instance.
Britain’s standard of living can only be maintained with cheap imports of goods and food(mainly from China)Paid for with borrowed money, mainly from China.
That situation can not go on forever, whatever the weather (Pardon the pun).
When these cheap imports have Carbon Credits (Taxes) added, they ain’t so cheap anymore.
We all may soon have to get used to a standard of living only our Grandparents would recognize.
Out of curiosity, why doesn’t this also take into account the ‘export’ of fossil fuels as well. Aren’t the countries that ship oil to the US ‘exporting’ CO2 emissions as well?
I’ve always believed that the countries that look down their noses at the US for producing so much ‘greenhouse gas’ are hypocritical in the extreme as they are happily pumping ‘greenhouse’ gas based product (oil/gas) out of their ground and shipping it to the US. If they REALLY wanted to do something about ‘greenhouse gas’ issues they’d leave that stuff in the ground. But then States like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia (and to some extent Canada) would lose most of the revenue their shaky economies depend on to function.
Mike Haseler (03:14:00) :
There is turbine technology being surpressed that is 18 times more powerful and could replace 18 wind or hydro electric turbines.
Markets don’t want this technology and have ignored it’s existance because it would permenantly lower electricity prices. Who get the taxes on electricity?
What manufacturer would sacrifice the sale of 18 turbines and accompaning equipment for one?
In Canada, we are rich in resources which is our only salvation. Free trade came in and the industries moved to the U.S. and Mexico.
Then the companies in the U.S. moved to India or China for manufacturing.
So where are the “new” companies going to come from? What are they going to produce competitively?
With so much debt and unemployment the Cities, States and government have to lay off huge amounts of people which is going to increase the problem.
This is a classic BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious). It’s the reason why any climate treaty is doomed to failure.
@Alan the Brit (02:06:25) :
”They said the IPCC report considered that, based on current trends, summer heat events such as 2003 (which led to 2,000 additional deaths in the UK and more than 35,000 across Europe) were expected to be considered normal by the 2040s and cool by the 2060s.”
I pointed out to them that, if a heatwave in 2003 was evidence of climate change, how come the severe winters 2008/9 and 2009/10 (which will have killed far more) is “only weather”.
Answer came there none.
Attempting to control CO2 emissions WILL FAIL for two very simple reasons. China and India are growing economic tigers who don’t NEED the USA or the EU and the internet has cast massive doubt on AGW which gives China and India lots more leg room.
@ur momisugly Martin Brumby (05:03:45): I’m curious, where in the IPCC reports did it forecast ‘severe winters’ in 2008/9 and 2009/10? (AFAIK, the latest IPCC report was 2007.) And who at the IPCC did you write to?
@ur momisugly Joe
@ur momisugly Mike Haseler
Speaking of wind turbine efficiency…..
Here’s an interesting read
http://nov55.com/wdm.html
“To the extent that constraints on developing countries’ emissions are the major impediment to effective international climate policy, allocating responsibility for some portion of these emissions to final consumers elsewhere may represent an opportunity for compromise.”
Compromise? A policy of “We get the jobs and you pay the bills” is what this whole controversy has always been about. It’s called “transfer of wealth’ and it is the one-world-socialists’ wet dream. Let’s get real and quit dancing around why AGW is such an attractive theory to so many.
The big numbers are in steel. To make a ton of steel one emits about a ton of C02.
China’s coal consumption is roughly evenly divided between steel and electricity.
I think the Chinese and Indian officials know AGW is crap, but they see it as a chance for their businesses to milk us by selling indulgences. If we in the West will oblige, why not?
Absent Obama pulling a successful Mugabe, I don’t see the USA going along with this. People here are not brainwashed the way they are in Europe-yet. Cap and Trade here is a vote loser.
Anthony, have you ever heard of Edwin T. Jaynes? In particular his paper on the Mind Projection Fallacy? Since the entire edifice of AGW/Climate Change argument is founded on Probability you might find this of interest.
” Once one has grasped the idea, one sees the Mind Projection Fallacy everywhere; what we have been taught as deep wisdom, is stripped of its pretensions and seen to be instead a foolish non sequitur. The error occurs in two complementary forms, which we might indicate thus:
(A) (My own imagination) —> (Real property of Nature)
(B) (My own ignorance) —> (Nature is indeterminate)”
“Probability as Logic”: http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/prob.as.logic.pdf
“Doug in Dunedin (01:51:42) :
As for the MSM here, it’s a non event – they are more interested in lagging behind Australia’s economy or the cricket.
Doug.”
Like Aussies, it’s just the crukut or any other sport, Olympics and blah blah blah sport blah blah blah, roads falling apart at home, no worries, winter (non) gold for Aussies.
Yay! Thank you Aussie “sports people”….my tax dollars (Not) well spent!
I posted a comment regarding the “More on sun-climate relations” story on the “Realclimate.org” website. Reading the article, it’s obvious the author is bathing in AGW sanctified water. The gist of my post was that humans are indeed responsible for AGW because it’s 100% humans fault for manipulating, fudging, correcting, not peer reviewing, hiding, faulty coding climate data while refusing to dignify anything that contradicts their AGW viewpoint. My comment was NOT posted. The sites states that “discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.” Really? Are they telling me the very next story called “A mistaken message from IoP” is solely about science? From the story:
”'”The irony of this affair is that the IoP will not disclose who were responsible for the original statement, thus not living up to the standards they set for others.
Furthermore, it’s a paradox that the IoP based the statement on stolen private e-mail exchanges, while putting disclaimers about confidentiality, especially as it asks people to delete any e-mail before they go astray:
This email (and attachments) are confidential and intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender, delete any copies and do not take action in reliance on it…””’
So, it seems Realclimate is angered not by the contents of the Climategate emails but because the emails were supposed to be private. Realclimate says the IoP is not “living up to the standards they set for others” but doesn’t Realclimate realize the dangers of spitting into the wind.
Using the same argument, back in the days when we were a major exporter, we aren’t as responsible for our CO2 emissions.
Steel, Harry? As in Tata Steel, founders of TERI? Next you’ll be telling us that the major cause of melting glaciers is aerosol pollution from the Indian coal industry (as used in steel plants). Pachauri is like Baron Samedi on the front of the train in Live and Let Die.
***************************
Lawrie Ayres (03:30:59) :
The egg is well and truly scrambled. I am beginning to wonder how the juggernaut can ever be stopped. I feel confident that the hypothesis of AGW is debunked but the trade in carbon is becoming the reality. The answer is to provide Mr and Mrs Joe Public, not with the science, with the cost they will have to bear because their government sold them a lie. Higher fuel bills, reduced standard of living and fewer jobs.
It has been oft repeated that it’s all about politics so the fight will have to be won in the legislatures of the US, UK, EU and smaller fish like Australia.
***************************
I think you are right about that. The total cost per person for each “carbon control” scenario needs to be calculated and widely advertised.
Vincent (01:14:17)
A couple of years ago the multinational I was working for opened a new software development centre in Beijing.
From the UK perspective, it was rather funny to hear the reactions of the comparatively overpaid developers in India who thought there jobs were to be outsourced!
The thing is, when one realizes that CO2 is NOT the evil pollutant it is hyped up to be, all this carbon talk becomes just so stupid, just hot air and wasted time.
If it weren’t for the incredible amount of my and your money going down rat holes it might even be funny.
Re: Vincent (Mar 11 01:14),
When manufacturing jobs were offshored, they told us we were now a service economy. When service jobs are offshored what kind of economy does that make us then?
Feudal? Slave economy?
Lords over serfs, no middle class. Slaves produce locally and ships bring in the goods from abroad.
Is anybody else here fond of the fantasy world of Cordwainer Smith? Alpha Ralpha Bulevard” etc. The “Instrumentality” controlling the worlds with lords and ladies? Prophetic if this is the way we go.
China gets no oil from the Middle East to sustain it’s economy? How do we in the West pull that off?
Hats off to Australia, India, and Brazil
It won’t be stopped. They are one heatwave in the US/EU/Canada from going on overdrive. They wait patiently.
Scheduling a global warming smack down in the middle of a blizzard in Copenhagen…. they are still kicking themselves.
All of this noise and discussion over something which is good for us and our food supply. CO2 is plant food!
CO2 cannot and does not drive the climate. We have not warmed for 15 years and cooled for the last 8 years. The 17 years from 1978 to 1995 is called an alarming warming trend, but, in the extreme El Nino of 1998, we did not even reach the temperature of 1953 when it was cooling from the 1938 high. But, 15 years of not warming is considered incidental. They cannot honestly and arbitrarily decide one period is climate and the other a weather event.
Beer’s Law, CO2’s absorption spectra, Henry’s Law, CO2’s thermodynamic interction with water vapor (elaborated by Miskolczi and Zagoni), and CO2’s actual 5-6 year half-life in the atmosphere (not the 200-1000 yeras of the IPCC and AGW crowd) all point to the fact that CO2 is a follower and not a leader or cause of climate.
Worry about real pollutants of the air, water, and soil, but leave CO2 alone. We need the enhanced food production it affords as we cool for the next 2-3 decades. Yes, that is COOL, making the cooling period 3 times the length of the terrifying warming.
Plants do not do well below 45 deg F. Cooling is what we should fear. We can always find warm-loving plants, but nothing grows outside if it gets too cold.
Has anyone noticed that, during the holocene, the warm peaks have been getting cooler in a downward trend. The long term looks bleak. We should be celebrating warmth; these are the times when all major civilizations have thrived, not during cold periods.
Of course, emissions controls are all about crippling the world’s economy and huge shifts in power and wealth. It is a political scam that has nothing to do with saving the planet or controlling the climate. They want to control an energy source that we cannot not use.
They built the crisis on junk science and insist loudly that it is solid, proven science, but they are lying, lying, lying. There is not one piece of defendable science behind the AGW hypothesis.
I have spent years investigating all of their claims and, entirely in keeping with Climategate and the reports of bad work by the IPCC, found all of it to be untrue or to be purposely misinterpreted or fabricated data to achieve their political goals.
How can any of their claims about the real world effects be true when it has not been warming during the time period which they are reporting. It simply cannot be.
off track completely, but, if any one is interested, i’ve found a idea on Jupitersdance.com. Anthony: Don’t mean to rustle any of your sheep. They will come back.
‘…….Research shows that large earthquakes occur at low sunspot frequencies. A sample of global earthquakes greater than Magnitude 6 for the period 1973-2005 (USGS) compared to smoothed monthly sunspot figures (SIDC) show that 71% of earthquake energy is released and 59% of earthquake events occur at lower than average sunspot activity…..’ Jupitersdance.com