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.
Jean Parisot says:
August 3, 2014 at 8:06 am
I’d think security and political issues play large roles as well, along with our own ignorance of nature’s limits.
We have a few hundred years of detailed records about a body over 4 billion years old, and even where we do have recent, detailed accounts of nature’s fury – such as was the case at Fukushima – we go ahead and ignore them with the by-now-familiar litany of rationalizations, justifications, and – let’s face it folks – denial about what Mother Nature can dish out. That’s why a little study in Geology goes a long way.
Joe Public says:
August 3, 2014 at 8:28 am
No it doesn’t; the photo is cropped to exclude China.
Interesting information – thanks.
————————————-
It seems CO2 has the property of fungibility.
When I buy work boots made in China the accounting of the CO2 should show up in the column for USA, not China or any other where components (leather, rubber, brass) are sourced. Does a USA made boot have leather processed in the USA or elsewhere? What nation is responsible for growing the hide, from which the leather is made?
The developed world should declare success.
Since the end of the “Peace Action” in Korea the developed world has responded with money and talent to the call to help the developing world. Sixty years ago missionaries and others (your mother?) visited every congregation and community center in the US to ask for contributions to both feed and improve the societies – remember “eat your food, people in Africa and Asia are starving”? They still are – and the eco/green/UN types seem to want to keep it that way. Get them out of the way and declare success.
In terms of the per person data, more needs to be attributed to demographics – the word destiny comes to mind.
Peter Taylor says:
August 3, 2014 at 7:33 am
///////////
The substantial issue with nuclear waste is not from generation, but rather from military applications. Even if nuclear was not used for power generation, we would have almost the same problem of what to do with nuclear waste since the vast majority of nuclear is used not commercially but rather militarily.
Whilst disaster scenarios are something to consider, I personally would sooner see an expansion of nuclear over an expansion of wind. Of course, nuclear should be built in remote areas, and not in areas prone to earthquakes or tsunamis, but with that caveat, I envisage that we will be able to successfully contain any mishap such that the disaster scenario is an extremely remote risk.
Presently in the UK, the last 5 to 10 years have seen betweenn 25,000 to 40,000 premature winter deaths caused by harsh winter conditions, poor, old and damp housing and unaffordable energy prices. That is a lot of deaths and is a known and substantial risk inherent in the energy policy being pursued by the UK government. This number is likely to increase with the ever growing reliance being placed on wind with its vagrancies, particularly in cold winter conditions when a blocking high may be sitting over the UK and Northern Europe with the result that there is little wind and hence windfarms are generating all but no power in these conditions..
In all matters there is a balance to be struck. On the one hand known risks that we can see happening today, or remote theoretical risks that are unlikely ever to come to pass. I am not sure that I would be rushing for nuclear, at this stage, given that there is now shale, and it may well be more sensible, to first exploit the shale reserves for all they are worth, and continue research into nuclear with perhaps a long term goal of going fussion. There appears to be enough shale for at least 50 years of energy production (and probably more) and by that time, we are likely to see significant advances in other forms of energy production.
Nuclear power generation has big problems that the advocates ignore. They cover their eyes and ears when one brings up past disasters, or problems of waste disposal, or the foibles of for-profit nuclear power generation. What was done at Three Mile island was criminal, Chernobyl was faulty training (which also contributed to the near disaster at ThreeMile Island) and miscalculation in the Fukushima disaster. The advocates of nuclear power pretend that such things cannot happen.
I heard that thorium reactors are the way to go if nuclear is the energy of the future. Anyone know about thorium as nuclear fuel? Pros and cons?
This is a certainly a good post.
However, my frustration with not understanding why water vapor continues to be so disproportionately of little interest and mention pleads for explanation.
Googling the topic reveals how poorly this AGW trigger has been covered. Or in the case of alarmists how the AGW catalyst, water vapor, has been obscured, ignored and suppressed.
Their hair on fire movement essentially never touts how CO2 is increasing water vapor as predicted.
Unless I am all wet, this layperson finds the neglect of water vapor by skeptics to be a huge error.
Perhaps someone can dry me off?
Here is an article about thorium reactors. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600656-thorium-element-named-after-norse-god-thunder-may-soon-contribute
Steve, the greatest contributor to the increased CO2 is the warmer oceans since the little ice age. As the globe warmed, more CO2 was released from the oceans. The increase in CO2 is due to natural variation in the climate, in this case a warmer climate.
Mpainter, would you ban the use of all chemicals because of the Seveso and Bhopal disasters?
Mpainter, far more people are killed by trains than by nuclear accidents, would you ban trains?
Steve Oregon at 9:22am:
The alarmists have their daemon in CO2. One demon is enough and they seem to do pretty well with it. Why would you want to make water a problem?
Hans Erren: Apples and oranges. Would you ban passing gas because you cut one in class?
Gary Meyers says:
August 3, 2014 at 9:17 am
I heard it was angel farts. According to a recent poll, 77% of Americans believe in angels, so we may be able to tap those heavenly emissions, real soon now.
But until then, it’s probably a good idea to continue pouring money down the Thorium pit, because you heard it was the way to go, but more importantly because, you know, we don’t have anything else.
The conclusion to draw here is that developed, wealthy economies are stable, not increasing emissions and not increasing populations rapidly.
Poorer nations are always looking to develop and have more children to ensure that some survive.
So preventing nations from becoming wealthy and developed leads to more problems and a larger increase in population. I don’t think there’s an overpopulation problem but it’s part of the globalists’ ethos, and the contradiction between the stated problem and their methods exposes their true motives for reducing population particularly in the third world. Nazi-esque reasons rather than environmental equilibrium reasons.
Steve Oregon, I think water vapor is a self-limiting issue. The water vapor concentration can only get so high before it rains back out. Even if the water vapor warms the air so that the air can hold more moisture, it clearly can’t do this indefinitely — well, not until the ambient temperature reaches 100C/212F. And it would take an impressive amount of energy to raise all the oceans to the boiling point.
Hans Erren:
No, but I would ban nuclear power. Some idiot advocates here generation of nuclear power in the home.
Very good research, Ed. I would classify classify Taiwan, South Korea, and Hong Kong as ‘developed’ and the former Soviet Union as ‘developing’. This is based upon their per capita GDP from the CIA World Fact Book:
USA #14 $52,800
Hong Kong #15 52,700
Taiwan #28 39,600
South Korea #42 33,200
Russia #77 18,100 (And the other countries of the former soviet union are no better. Moldova is #177 at $3,800)
Latitude says:
August 3, 2014 at 7:58 am
the economies of the developed world are that bad…………
###
That was my reaction also 🙁
Practical fusion is just around the corner. http://www.generalfusion.com
If not General Fusion, then one of several others who are on the cusp of success. Probably fusion power would have been here by now if tokamak hadn’t been a black hole for funding for so many years- similar to the “scientists” sucking up the global warming gravy train and producing nothing but hot air.
mpainter, care to cite total deaths or mitigation dollars spent regarding nuclear power generation accidents as compared to anything else? your comments are not making much sense.
how do they get the actual #’s? is there someone standing outside of every facility that emits CO2 with a CO2 discharge detector?
I think that you understand me very well.
Marcos:
At August 3, 2014 at 10:21 am you ask
Good question.
Each country knows its uses of fossil fuels (i.e. oil,coal and gas) and its production of cement. These are obtained both for taxation purposes and also to control imports and exports. Hence, the CO2 generated from fossil fuel usage and cement manufacture can be calculated.
Richard
Steve P says:
Gary Meyers says:
August 3, 2014 at 9:17 am
I heard that thorium reactors are the way to go…
I heard it was angel farts. According to a recent poll, 77% of Americans believe in angels, so we may be able to tap those heavenly emissions, real soon now.
But until then, it’s probably a good idea to continue pouring money down the Thorium pit, because you heard it was the way to go, but more importantly because, you know, we don’t have anything else.
Steve, I did not advocate thorium reactors, I merely brought it up as a point for discussion. Angel farts, really?
mellyrn says:August 3, 2014 at 9:57 am
“Steve Oregon, I think water vapor is a self-limiting issue. The water vapor concentration can only get so high before it rains back out”.etc.
Yes I get that.
My frustration and query is over the lax treatment of the central AGW role of water vapor.
Now I am also wondering why I need to elaborate here of all places.
Again if I am all wet I’d gladly accept any drying off.
It’s my understanding that the catalyst of the AGW theory and climate models is the reliance upon the trace greenhouse gas CO2 triggering a sufficient increase in atmospheric H2O as to cause the predicted catastrophic warming which CO2 alone cannot produce.
By everything I have read the atmospheric water column has not and is not cooperating.
From my layperson perspective that appears to be what should be an an iron clad end to the CO2 hysteria.
Increased CO2 is simply not doing what the team supposed it was doing. At all.
Steve P,
Here is one for you to chew on for a while. Why not build a huge geothermal network to tap all of the geothermal energy of Yellow Stone? This is just another point for discussion. I am not advocating anything but discussion.