From the European Commission Joint Research Centre
Steep increase in global CO2 emissions despite reductions by industrialized countries
Global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main cause of global warming – increased by 45 % between 1990 and 2010, and reached an all-time high of 33 billion tonnes in 2010. Increased energy efficiency, nuclear energy and the growing contribution of renewable energy are not compensating for the globally increasing demand for power and transport, which is strongest in developing countries.
This increase took place despite emission reductions in industrialised countries during the same period. Even though different countries show widely variable emission trends, industrialised countries are likely to meet the collective Kyoto target of a 5.2 % reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 as a group, partly thanks to large emission reductions from economies in transition in the early nineties and more recent reductions due to the 2008-2009 recession. These figures were published today in the report “Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions,” prepared by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
The report, which is based on recent results from the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) and latest statistics for energy use and other activities, shows large national differences between industrialised countries. Over the period 1990-2010, in the EU-27 and Russia CO2 emissions decreased by 7% and 28% respectively, while the USA’s emissions increased by 5% and the Japanese emissions remained more or less constant. The industrialised countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol (so called ‘ratifying Annex 1 countries’) and the USA, in 1990 caused about two-thirds of global CO2 emissions. Their share of global emissions has now fallen to less than half the global total.
Continued growth in the developing countries and emerging economies and economic recovery by the industrialised countries are the main reasons for a record breaking 5.8% increase in global CO2 emissions between 2009 and 2010. Most major economies contributed to this increase, led by China, USA, India and EU-27 with increases of 10%, 4%, 9% and 3% respectively. The increase is significant even when compared to 2008, when global CO2 emissions were at their highest before the global financial crisis. It can be noted that in EU-27, CO2 emissions remain lower in absolute terms than they were before the crisis (4.0 billion tonnes in 2010 as compared to 4.2 billion tonnes in 2007).
At present, the USA emits 16.9 tonnes CO2 per capita per year, over twice as much as the EU-27 with 8.1 tonnes. By comparison, Chinese per capita CO2 emissions of 6.8 tonnes are still below the EU-27 average, but now equal those of Italy. It should be noted that the average figures for China and EU-27 hide significant regional differences.
Long term global growth in CO2 emissions continues to be driven by power generation and road transport, both in industrial and developing countries. Globally, they account for about 40% and 15% respectively of the current total and both have consistent long-term annual growth rates of between 2.5% and 5%.
Throughout the Kyoto Protocol period, industrialised countries have made efforts to change their energy sources mix. Between 1990 and 2010 they reduced their dependence on coal (from 25% to 20% of total energy production) and oil (from 38% to 36.5%), and shifted towards natural gas (which increased from 23% to 27 %), nuclear energy (from 8% to 9%) and renewable energy (from 6.5% to 8%). In addition they made progress in energy savings, for example by insulation of buildings, more energy-efficient end-use devices and higher fuel efficiencies.
The report shows that the current efforts to change the mix of energy sources cannot yet compensate for the ever increasing global demand for power and transport. This needs to be considered in future years in all efforts to mitigate the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions, as desired by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Bali Action Plan and the Cancún agreements.
The full report can be downloaded from: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php or http://www.pbl.nl/en
About the Joint Research Centre (JRC):
The Joint Research Centre (JRC) is the European Commission’s in-house science service. Its mission is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of European Union policies.
The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) project uses the latest scientific information and data from international statistics on energy production and consumption, industrial manufacturing, agricultural production, waste treatment/disposal and the burning of biomass in order to model emissions for all countries of the world in a comparable and consistent manner. EDGAR is also unique in its provision of historical emission data for 20 years prior to 1990, the reference year for the Kyoto protocol.
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency:
PBL is the national institute for strategic policy analysis in the field of environment, nature and spatial planning in The Netherlands and contributes to improving the quality of political and administrative decision-making by conducting outlook studies, analyses and evaluations in which an integrated approach is considered paramount. Policy relevance is the prime concern in PBL studies, for which independent and sound research is conducted.
The Kyoto Protocol: Annex I Parties:
The industrialised countries listed in this annex to the Convention committed to return their greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. They have also accepted emissions targets for the period 2008-12. They include the 24 original OECD members, the European Union, and 14 countries with economies in transition.
Non-Annex I Parties:
Refers to countries that have ratified or acceded to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that are not included in Annex I of the Convention.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
>> LazyTeenager says:
September 21, 2011 at 4:20 pm <<
So the guy who generates 20 tons of CO2 in the process of building something useful is unfair compared to the guy who only generates 10 tons of CO2 doing nothing productive?
Nope. You have to compare CO2 to GDP, not population.
This is assuming you actually buy into the 'CO2 == bad' dogma.
Of course, if your goal is to redistribute wealth …
Owen says:
September 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm
@James Baldwin Sexton
“I thought most of the argument here was that the majority of OBSERVED warming was natural variability with only a minor component man made (thus AGW). …………”
=============================================================
As a recent disgruntled, yet retired scientist recently intimated, the temps have been remarkably stable. Yes, most changes should be attributed to natural variation. But, as John Whitman points out, (September 21, 2011 at 5:38 pm) “Human beings will, from very primative human forms until today, change the environment of Earth and significantly so.”
It is what we do, we are continually battling the elements to make things better for humanity. When I stated we “acknowledge AGW” I wasn’t referring to CO2 emissions, rather, I was referring to our alteration of the landscape. The temps probably have changed a bit because of our land use and our tendency to gather together. (UHI) Fortunately, our world is a self-correcting, equilibrium seeking, mechanism. I believe most here would recognize UHI as a reality. Others, too, would believe our land use can effect local temps.
Of course, this is only my opinion.
James
Under the following scenario emissions reduction (base year 2010):
Assumptions: 1 – Emission calculated in ppm per country. 2 – current anthropogenic emissions in ppm estimated per IPCC at 105. 3 – scario valid fro 50 years and than reverts to 0% growth for all.
Growth Scenario
US – (-10%) PPM at 2010 levels 19
EU – (-10%) PPM at 2010 levels 14.75
China – (+2%)PPM at 2010 level 20.25
India – (+3%) PPM at 2010 level 6.00
Rest – (+3%) PPM at 2010 level 40.00
Total PPM of the world emissions 105.00
in 2030 PPM under scenario will be approximately 130 ie is a 30% increase from 2010
US – PPM at 2010 levels 2.3
EU – PPM at 2010 levels 1.8
China -PPM at 2010 level 44.20
India – PPM at 2010 level 11.00
Rest – PPM at 2010 level 71.2
in 2050 PPM under scenario will be approximately 228 ie is a over 100% increase from 2010
US – PPM at 2010 levels 0
EU – PPM at 2010 levels 0
China -PPM at 2010 level 80
India – PPM at 2010 level 20
Rest – PPM at 2010 level 128
So, US and EU are all dead that is economically (i have thrown is the idiots from Australia, NZ and Canada in as well for good measure). We will fence you in and occasionally drop medicines for humanatarian reasons.
I never imagined that white folks will commit mass suicide. What a sad end to the the land of visionaries.
James Sexton says (at 6:08pm) – “As a recent………….. ”
James,
I lived- was raised- in a subdivision built post WWII (starting about 1958 per my folks) outside of Cleveland, Ohio. All the streets in the subdivision (about 20 streets- each about 3/4mile in length) were paved with concrete. Sometime around 1980-1985 all the streets were repaved with asphalt. This rather small change in road construction, repaving with asphalt, has likely had more impact on the temperature in Northern, Ohio, then any other man made change to the climate. In fact, if one wanted to you could do a novel thing- and run a few experiments to determine exactly how much this change has effected temperatures.
oldseadog says:
September 21, 2011 at 12:16 pm
“CO2 – the main cause of global warming….”.
Proof, please.
Not to mention, what global warming?
—
It could be worse, oldseadog. The Associated Press loves to use the term “heat trapping gas” as its colorful label for CO2 (of course, I thought water vapor was also a heat trapping…ohh never mind…).
Headline correction: Kyoto success – CO2 emissions still going up.
CO2 is plant food, after all.
Green Energy = Green Poverty
Scarface says:
September 21, 2011 at 3:00 pm
CO2-levels follow warming, as we know fo a while.
Even when the world cools the coming years, CO2-levels may keep rising for another 800 years.
(Source: Vostok Ice Cores)
What was happening 800 years ago? Medieval Warm Period. For all we know, the CO2 released for the last century is because of that. It might go up for another 100 years. And there was a cooling that followed (LIA). Just imagine, perhaps around 2111 they’ll be complaining about falling CO2 while the Sun is in a slump like today. Yep, the Next Ice Age Hoax. Fortunately, I won’t be around to see it (unless medical nanotech makes us immortal before I reach room temperature).
What warming?
funny how the MSM have not picked up this story at all. no Revkin, Black, Monbiot, no anybody. this is it:
Steep Increase in Global CO2 Emissions – MarineLink – 13 hours ago
Global CO2 emissions rise to all-time high – PublicServiceEurope.com
CO2 emissions rising sharply despite cutbacks among industrialised … earthtimes.org
Developing countries driving CO2 increase UPI.com
the MSM does, however, have the following, despite “transport” being cited in the above report as being responsible for so much of the CO2 emissions:
AFP: GM bets on fast-growing China auto market
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jHmu-uTrWFtzHKu6a40eOTzYLHzw?docId=CNG.f2cfdb1d05ca721d3423a62eb79ab563.281
WSJ: Ford Sees Asia Pacific, Africa Comprising 33% of Sales By 2020
“We see tremendous growth potential in Asia Pacific and Africa region in this decade with India emerging as the third largest automotive market in the world by the end of the decade” he said, adding the company expects 60%-70% of its growth in this decade to come from this region.
“Right now, about one out of every six Ford customer is from the Asia Pacific region, but by 2020 it will go up to one out of three,” he added….
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904106704576582193344608536.html
never mind. CAGW was never about reducing CO2 emissions.
Rosco says:
September 21, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Here in Australia we have the “world’s best practice” example of AGW lunacy.
This will completely negate by several times any benefit Australia makes by cutting emissions and purchasing “credits” offshore. Already our coal exports amount to more than domestic consumption. I am confused – if emissions need to come down lets stop digging it up.
On the contrary, those that are exporting the coal hope to make a pile of $$ in return for exporting the CO2 rather than burning it in Oz, where it might create something dangerous like jobs to pay the Co2 taxes.
Smokey says:
September 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG3
When I see the likes of Edenhofer, Hansen, Gore, Mann getting rid of their cars and sending their wives out on the bus shopping and to pick the kids up after school I’ll take notice. Until then it is just so much hot air.
These folks are not talking about redistributing THEIR money. They are talking about redistributing YOUR money. Their money will come from skimming the cream off your money.
When the high priests talk about human sacrifice, you can be sure the last person they are talking about being sacrificed is the high priest. You are second on their list, right after the person they told you was the sacrifice.
Question for the people who actually read all these comments as I do-
Why doesn’t the Mauna Loa CO2 record reflect the 2009 decrease in global CO2 emissions?
If atmospheric CO2 ppm is driven by human emissions, then shouldn’t we see a flattening of the smoothed curve sometime around 2009?
Another way of asking the question, does anyone know if it has been shown that
2011 year end atmospheric CO2 ppm – 2010 year end atmospheric CO2 = human emissions(from burning fossil fuels and cement production) + small fudge factor
Has this been measured? Thanks in advance!
Matt
From the JRC report (pg6):
“After a 1% decline in 2009, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increased by more than 5% in 2010, which is unprecedented in the last two decades…”
Mauna Loa record:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
All according to plan, no doubt. They will now use Kyoto’s (intended) failure to justify more draconian measures, while also pocketing the billions of dollars that countries have foolishly paid over the years for exceeding their limits. It’s a win-win for them.
There is a major flaw in the premise over the measurement of CO2 emissions. Assessment of emissions should be based on consumption of goods not production. The main reason western Europe has had any success in limiting emissions (apart from economic stagnation) has been by effectively exporting them, by transferring high-emission industry to China and other developing countries. China should not be held responsible for emissions involving goods for export; those emissions should be sheeted home to the countries purchasing those goods.
Matt says: September 21, 2011 at 8:58 pm
“Why doesn’t the Mauna Loa CO2 record reflect the 2009 decrease in global CO2 emissions? ……If atmospheric CO2 ppm is driven by human emissions, then shouldn’t we see a flattening of the smoothed curve sometime around 2009?”
The global CO2 emission curve shows an annual (or monthly) amount, and hence is the “rate of emission”.
In the Mauna Loa graph, the emission rate is reflected as the “slope of the curve”.
Therefore, a year-to-year variation of CO2 emission causes a change in the Mauna Loa slope, which is always positive when smoothed, and would not flatten nor exhibit a negative trend.
This is my understanding. Anyone correct me where I go wrong.
Oddly enough, from “World Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels”, the US has an six year averaged, annual CO2 growth rate of about 0.4% yr (in 2006). That would rank it at about 150 (out of 186) and well below the World average of 3.4% yr.
In 2001 it was 0.8% yr (126th) and in 1996 it was 1.8% (36th)
Who need Kyoto, we are already pretty good at trashing our economy.
http://www.eia.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls
EU27: -7%
USA: +5%
These numbers need to be taken in context of:
1. Massive EU27 reduction due to collapse of the Soviet block after 1990
2. Massive population increase in the US due to immigration.
Considering both, the US was significantly more effective in reducing CO2 per capita without Kyoto than the EU27 with Kyoto.
Where did this idiot map come from and what is this idiocy of CO2 per person? This is pure junk. Fact – Canada is NOT its people, Canada is it entire land mass, period. Canadians live within Canada. How difficult is that to remember? Here we have Canada redder than China and the US – how mental is this? Canada has a total population of 38 million living inside the second largest land mass on planet earth – 9,984,670 sq kilometers. Canada as a whole only generates 0.02% of the entire world’s CO2 – go figure this map in the upper right hand corner. FACT – Canada uses approximate 2 million sq kilometers for its citizens which leaves approximately 7 million untouched wilderness of pure greenery, wetlands, etc.,
Fact – Canada contributes more CO2 sucking greenery to the planet than any other nation on planet earth, period. We suck up more CO2 than we will ever use in this lifetime and a thousand lifetimes from now. I can see more trees from my backyard than the all the trees in all the Arabs lands combined, period! I am outraged at this propaganda – the real mark of a nation is its land – that’s why the Israelis and Palestinians are at war. Land! There are 7 billion on this rock and China, India, The Muslim world hold almost 4 billion of that number and when combined with the third world that figure reaches closer to 5 billion.
7 Billion now and will double within 50 years. If we think 7 billion now use resources and a third are starving now or living on the edge today you ain’t seen anything yet. Just two bad years of food growth and we’ll see starvation on a monstrous scale unlike ever witnessed before in human history. And yes, cold nation do use more energy – Duh? ON the other hand us cold nations feed the world and provide almost every other modern innovation mankind has ever produced. And while I’m at it one more point that needs to be made and made over and over again – North America, the US and Canada are the two greenest nations on the face of the earth bar none!
Just recently I bought an HD-DVD player for may daughter, a scientific calculator and a tracker ball mouse, and just last week a pair of sports shoes with special heel padding (to ease the arthritis in my leg joints). All satisfactory buys and all made in China. Nuff said!
LazyTeenager says:
September 21, 2011 at 4:12 pm
“Plants are green because their absorption band is optimal to collect energy from the sun. ”
If it were optimal they would be black.
I don’t care what mass of CO2 we push into the atmosphere the important measure is the proportion that we put in compared to natural producers.
But all that verbalese from the Eu does not get round the fact that their energy policies are 100% wrong being based on a theory that violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Whatever the reason for the increase in Co2, it’s still a desperately sad statistic in many ways. It reflects a rise in non-environmental industry which has the possibility of blighting the lives of many, it demonstrates that governments are hypocritical about how seriously they take the idea of carbon emissions and is symptomatic of the way many countries continue to pollute their environment. While my own country is not entirely innocent, it has made progress and the joy at seeing trout and salmon return to local rivers which once held nothing but coal slurry and sewage can never be expressed, only felt.
I wonder if the CO2 reduction attempts matter all that much. We have the theory and supporting data that the planet warms up at times for various and little understood reasons; which has then been followed by increases in CO2. Data shows CO2 lags behind the warming and might continue to rise even after the warming has abated.
What if CO2 is going to continue to rise during our short life spans regardless of what the alarmist do? What if CO2 hits 500 ppm and we all still live? What if those cute and cuddly polar bears don’t mind more CO2?
I once was afraid that the alarmists would get their draconian programs installed and then the climate would cool (as a natural cycle) and then they would claim that was due to their anti-capitalist measures. Now it looks like warming abatement came without their measures and it looks like CO2 will continue to rise showing the populaces that it will not kill you.
LazyTeenager says:
Plants are green because their absorption band is optimal to collect energy from the sun.
===============
Ha ha ha. Wow.
Plants are green because all the other colours are absorbed by the leaf and the green colour is reflected (i.e. not absorbed) by the leave, and that is why it looks green.
Wil,
Excellent rant. I agree with everything you wrote. CO2 ‘per capita’ is just alarmist propaganda. What would actually matter [if CO2 mattered] is CO2 emissions by country. But the UN always twists things to blame the West for the world’s problems – while standing in line to take their cut of the wealth transfers.
Thieving bastards.