Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The Kyoto Protocol is the quixotic attempt by some countries around the world to reduce each participating country’s CO2 emissions to their emission levels in 1990. Since CO2 emissions are a measure of the energy used, that seemed foolish to me, but hey, I was born yesterday. I figured nobody would be that dumb, and although the leaders might agree to such a goofy plan, people would find ways around the restrictions.
There are two very different groups of countries who have signed up to Kyoto to reduce emissions. One group is called the “Economies In Transition” (EIT) group. These are the Eastern European countries who were going from communism to capitalism. They are composed of Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine. They’ve done well at reducing to 1990 levels, since their 1990 emissions were all high, and have declined since after the fall of the Soviet Empire. They’ve reduced their emissions, but no thanks to Kyoto. Indeed, some signed on just so they could sell their carbon credits, because their countries were already below the 1990 levels by the time they ratified … and they did very well at the scam, too. Russia made big bucks from selling credits to the rest of the fools …
The other group, called the “non-EIT” group, is composed of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. This is the group of interest, as they are the group which is like the US—established democracies with generally mature industrialized economies.
I took this issue up because of the recent release of the newest CO2 emission figures for 2009-2010. These gave me the opportunity to investigate the question in the title—what difference has Kyoto made? How much has Kyoto affected the emissions of the countries involved? Carbon saved is carbon earned … Figure 1 shows the emissions of the US, and the emissions of the Kyoto non-EIT nations, from 1990 to 2010.
Figure 1. Annual Emissions of Carbon. Units are billions of metric tonnes of carbon (C, not CO2). “Kyoto Countries” is the total of all of the non-EIT countries, as listed above. Data Source Up to 2008 and 2008-2010 Photo Source
Hmmmm.
Other than the post-2007 drop due to the 2008 global financial crisis and ensuing world-wide depression, what can we see in this data?
Well, the most obvious thing I see is what’s not there. Looking at the pre- and post-ratification behavior of the Kyoto countries, I don’t see any change in the emissions due to ratification. The trend 1990-1999 is no different from the trend 1999-2007.
Curiously, it looks like the US on the other hand slowed down the growth in emissions over the period. Before ratification the US emissions were rising faster than the EU emissions. After 1998, they have changed pretty much in lock-step. This can be tested by fitting a 2nd order polynomial to the 1990-2007 data for both the US and Kyoto countries, as shown in Figure 2:
Figure 2. Same as Figure 1, with 2nd order polynomial trend lines fitted to the data up to 2007.
So to at least a first approximation, I’d have to say that the total amount of CO2 saved by the Kyoto Protocol to date is … well … not to put too fine a point on it, the CO2 saved by Kyoto seems to be approximately zero. There’s been no change in the rate of rise of the emissions by the Kyoto countries. No difference. Zip. Nicht. Zilch. The US reduced its rate of emission growth over the period more than the Kyoto countries did.
In any case, not to worry, the deus ex machina was waiting in the wings all along . What the Kyoto Protocol was incapable of achieving, the 2008 global economic meltdown had no problem doing. Figure 1 shows the total emissions of the Kyoto countries are now well below the 1990 benchmark … so I suppose the unfortunate citizens in the those countries are celebrating their great success, and hoping that the economic depression continues, no?
No?
w.
PS—It is obvious from this data that economic depression causes a reduction in CO2 emissions.
What has not been so obvious to the Kyoto folks is that the converse is true—forcibly reducing CO2 emissions comes at a cost to the economy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
On a per capita base, Kyoto would even more look like a failure.
The US population increased, mainly due to immigration, by about 62 million (!), European population did not change a lot.
I always enjoy your posts Willis. They are a breath of fresh air compared to the drivel that we get in the MSM.
If only you weren’t a damn sceptic, I could use it (and all the other great stuff on this blog – thanks Anthony!) to explain to the converted what is wrong with their religion.
Thank you and keep up the good work
Typo above fig.2? should it be 1990-2007 instead of 1900-2007?
[Thanks, fixed. -w]
A little-known fact is that the Montreal Protocol, designed to protect the ozone layer, has as a side effect been much more efficient than Kyoto in reducing greenhouse gases.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7371/full/479005b.html
So, would it appear that the destruction of the developed economies is on schedule ?
After all saving the world is worth any cost.
Personally, I doubt the planet gives a damn one way or the other. I, on the other hand, prefer prosperity.
It’s going to be a long cold winter. pg
Anyone got a follow up of Professor Murry Salby see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Professor+Murry+Salby
Co2 is following temps- no delay. HHmm.
Well its obvious that CO2 was not reduced overall compared to the previous baseline…
But possibly CO2 was reduced compared to what might have been emitted if Kyoto was not in effect.
I do agree that the difference is probably trivial and until China and India (and the rest of the 3rd world) raise the standard of living for the majority of their citizens it really doesn’t matter what the 1st world does…
Does this chart have another line? The one for “everybody else” (you show U.S, and the “Kyoto Countries”). Is there a way to show the “developing countries” as a separate line?
This is very important point. My take is that there’s no CO2GW, there’s not even significant anthropogenic influence on atmospheric CO2 (it’s quasi-condensable). But, even if we all agree and sign whatever protocols, NO reduction in CO2 emissions will be acheived. It’s just empty talk and bureaucratic verbiage. It might even increase CO2 emissions. It will definitely increase pollution, corruption and buraucracy.
Well, there are all sorts of ways of looking at the data.
In 1990, the Kyoto countries combined emitted ~40 million tonnes C less than the US.
17 years later, the US was emitting ~140 million tonnes C more than the combined Kyoto countries.
Trend changes would be difficult to estimate without a good number of years pre-1990. The Kyoto country trend may have been much higher previously.
Willis, are those polynomial fits statistically significant?
We are in the midst of a global financial crisis that has forced the Kyoto countries to ‘reach’ their pre-1990 target (combined). Amazingly the world hasn’t fallen apart. I thought that would have been the result of such a downturn in CO2 emissions. Is it only a matter of time?
I like the point about the abrupt collapse of the economy and drop in carbon emissions. But let’s extend the hypothetical a bit further. Imagine if the target was met with much less abruptness – that there had been a steady decline to the 1990 levels (because Kyoto countries put some effort into it) rather than a GFC drop-off. The world’s economies could have absorbed that with much more ease than the GFC.
The point is to avoid the steep spikes, innit?
barry says:
November 9, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Thanks, barry. I don’t know if the fits are significant. I use them to indicate which way things are turning. We do not really have enough data to determine the fate of Kyoto, so we have to use what we can to analyze it as best as we can.
The most significant thing to me is that there is little to no change after the Kyoto Protocol was ratified. The trend before and after ratification is unchanged.
That sounds like the story about boiling the frog … I don’t understand why you would want the world’s economy to “absorb” any kind of a shock, whether it can absorb it with “much more ease” or not.
w.
Well as far as I know the standard of living in the USA was flat over the same period, so why is the USA managing to out burn the combined other Kyoto countries by an increasingly large margin? Especially considering it has shipped a good chunk of it’s industrial capacity off to China.
This observation would appear to contradict the notion that standard-of-living is directly proportional to energy consumption.
Oh and the claim that CO2 reductions are damaging the economy is made without any evidence whatsoever. It’s especially hard to claim this if you are also claiming there has been no significant CO2 reductions.
And just to preempt a potentially nonsensical claim and logical fallacy : evidence that a downturn in the economy causes reductions in energy consumption is not evidence of the converse.
barry says:
“Amazingly the world hasn’t fallen apart. ”
Really? Maybe you should look at the current events… the EU is about to break up, Israel is likely being nukes all its neighbors soon since they are going to invade it, the US is falling apart and as a result as ALWAYS happens during these down turns global war is going to kick off… but hey other then that things are going great.
So it’s only a matter of time, temp? Ok, we’ll watch this space.
Israel’s jitteriness is not a result of the GFC. Rather, it is a result of neighbouring countries’ civil action against dictatorships. Ironies abound in that arena, but it’s off-topic.
A little-known fact is that the Montreal Protocol, designed to protect the ozone layer, has as a side effect been much more efficient than Kyoto in reducing greenhouse gases.
It might have been, but we know almost nothing about the actual behaviour of CFCs and HFCs in the atmosphere. So, the actual effects could be completely different to the theoretical projections, if the atmospheric residence times of HFCs are wrong, for example.
And of course ozone is the 4th most important greenhouse gas after H2O, CO2 and CH4.
The Montreal protocol could well have contributed to global warming . We simply don’t know.
As you conclude, W., the only way to cut CO2 is to choke development, and cutting CO2 chokes development. Perfect reciprocity.
Just the other day there was a documentary or report on UK TV which looked into renewables. They said because the US changed their use of crop/corn to fuel production to such an extent, other countries stepped in to fill the food gap. As a result, in 2009 alone, developping (?) countries had chopped down so much rain forest to grow food to make up for the US gap, that the burning of the forests released more CO2 (in 2009) than the world’s entire emissions from cars!
Bio-fuel production should be a criminal offence 😛
Personally I don’t give a toss what the world does. I’m a bigger cynic than most people posting here.
The boiling frog analogy applies both ways in the political debate on climate change. IMO it’s equally useless. But my point was about avoiding shocks, not absorbing them.
If the mainstream view is ‘alarmist’, then the ‘skeptics’ have economic Armageddon as their scare tactic. As pretty much all economic studies on mitigation/adaption, cost/benefit conclude that mitigation will be less costly, less of a financial shock than adaptation, and that the hit to GDP is a small percentage GDP, I consider the financial bogeyman as articulated by the skeptics to be even more alarmist than the other. At least the warmista have science to refer to. Economic Armageddon is based on pretty much no serious review whatsoever.
But I’m always looking… is there some authoritative study concluding differently to the majority of economic studies on this topic? And not articles written in a couple of days by journos and bloggers. You know what I’m talking about. Something as well investigated as the Stern Report, the Garnaut Report, MIT’s analysis and the like.
LazyTeenager says:
November 9, 2011 at 11:30 pm
“Oh and the claim that CO2 reductions are damaging the economy is made without any evidence whatsoever. It’s especially hard to claim this if you are also claiming there has been no significant CO2 reductions.”
Now who could possibly argue with logic like that ?/sarc
So we can all assume that the billions upon billions of dollars wasted on government policy to try and halt CO2 induced AGW was, and still is billions upon billions of dollars that had no other use whatsoever? Here’s an idea, perhaps the E.U could potentially use that wasted billions right now./sarc
Solution to CC and Power Crisis
Please give me either just one and only one scientific reason/ theory that justifies CC is due to gases OR STOP ACCUSING GASES for CC. Just accusation is not science. CC by gases is impossible. Man has disturbed the ‘rain cycle’ causing the ‘climate change.’ No gas can be ‘green house gas.’
I have also explained that applying the property / theory of standing still water column to the running water condition is the blunder being done in the ‘Hydropower Engineering’ and, its correction can give us unlimited hydropower.
Please visit devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com for solutions to ‘CC and power Crisis.’
Summary is attached for your convenience.
Challenger,
Dr. Dev
Email: dev.dangol@yahoo.co.uk
“Already sent to the addressees, green peace and many others throughout the world”
Looks like we were ALL wrong about solar activity including me, Hathway and DA, so much for predicting solar. I think noone has a clue really.
http://www.solarham.com/
The whole circus is about to be eaten by an E-CAT
Thje kyoto Protocol has done a lot of things other than reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from non-EIT countries and the US. It has shifted the industrial powerhouse from those countries to the developing countries such as china, brazil, india, and south east asia. Aside from shifting the industrial base, it has also shifted the financial and economic power to those countries. Who would think the unthinkable in the 1980s, the French president will publicly raise the issue of asking china to save the eu from financial mess. The French proposal was very unpopular but lets wait until reality sinks in especially if the EU financial crisis spreads to Italy and Spain.
LazyTeenager says:
November 9, 2011 at 11:30 pm
“Well as far as I know the standard of living in the USA was flat over the same period, so why is the USA managing to out burn the combined other Kyoto countries by an increasingly large margin? Especially considering it has shipped a good chunk of it’s industrial capacity off to China.
This observation would appear to contradict the notion that standard-of-living is directly proportional to energy consumption.”
The data does not confirm your observation. GDP of OECD countries in constant 2000 USD, PPP:
http://qmarks.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/gdp-per-capita-in-oecd-countries/
In the U.S. per capita CO2 emissions peaked in the early Seventies and have been flat to declining ever since, as evidenced by the fact that, although the population grew 25% between 1990 and 2010 carbon emissions were up only 10%. Due to this fortuitous circumstance we are spared the burden of having to eliminate 60+ million of our fellow citizens to achieve 1990 levels. We shouldn’t have to mix up more than 35 million glasses of Jonestown Kool-Aid to get the job done. Of course the right to be first in line for their refreshing beverage should be reserved for the members of the U.S. delegation to Durban and I’m sure many members of the CAGW blogosphere will be eager to demonstrate their dedication to the cause. The entertainment and news businesses are apt to have some hard times due to a sharp decline in available talent, but there has always been an excess of volunteers to fill those slots so the recovery should be brief