Major Worldwide Growth in CO2 Emissions
In
the U.S., the public is bombarded with messages about climate change.
One may get the impression that if we only stop the next pipeline and
slow down the growth of Canada’s oil sands, we are one step closer to
victory. But this is really akin to fighting a small local skirmish
while a war rages on the other side of the globe. But the skirmish does
not change the outcome of the war. I am going to take up this theme in a
follow-up column, but for now let’s examine what’s going on in the
world.
First, here is the global carbon dioxide emissions picture:
The graph shows that the growth rate in emissions over the past
decade is faster than that of previous decades — indicating carbon
dioxide emissions have accelerated in recent years. Prior to 2002, the
incremental annual increase had never reached 1 billion new metric tons
of carbon dioxide. Since 2002, 1 billion incremental tons have been
added three times: In 2003, 2004, and 2010.
In fact, 2010′s
addition of 1.58 billion new tons globally is the largest annual
increase on record. The incremental increase over the past decade was at
least 0.87 billion new tons on 4 other occasions. Only once during the
decade — in 2009 in response to recession — was there a measured
year-to-year decrease.
Breakdown by Region
One
reason I think climate change advocacy has been so ineffective is that
most advocates are misinformed about the present mixture of global
carbon emissions. The next figure tells the tale:
This figure closely resembles the coal graph from World Energy Consumption Facts, Figures, and Shockers
because in fact global coal consumption is the largest contributor to
rising carbon dioxide emissions. Asia Pacific is the source of 45% of
global carbon dioxide emissions, and is on a growth trajectory to reach
50% by the end of the decade. In the U.S., coal consumption is on the
decline because new supplies of natural gas are displacing coal in power
plants. The change has been so dramatic that since 2006, the U.S. is the world leader in reducing carbon dioxide emissions:
US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions. This development has arisen from lower oil use in the transport sector … and a substantial shift from coal to gas in the power sector.
One bit of irony
here is that some environmental groups are seeking to stop fracking
altogether, or have otherwise fought against the expansion of natural
gas. However, if they were successful this would in the short-term
absolutely mean a return to coal and an increase in carbon dioxide
emissions. (Wind and solar will make large contributions long-term, but
in the short term can’t displace idled coal plants). So emissions in the
U.S. have declined despite misguided environmental obstructionism.
The next graphic shows the picture in the rest of the world:
While each region’s total is far less than Asia Pacific’s 15 billion
tons of emissions in 2011, the trends are the same. Developing countries
are increasing their emissions as they increase standards of living.
One
question that often comes up concerns the historical U.S. contribution
to the atmospheric carbon dioxide inventory. Developing countries will
point to historical U.S. emissions and argue that these emissions
enabled U.S. development. They don’t believe it is in any way fair to
restrict their development since developed countries have already
emitted huge quantities of carbon dioxide.
There is truth to this
argument. From 1965 through 2011, U.S. cumulative emissions of carbon
dioxide were 255 billion metric tons. That is enough carbon dioxide to
raise the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the past 46
years by 18 parts per million (PPM) from just the U.S. contribution.
(See Footnote for calculation).
As a region, Asia Pacific has
added even more cumulative carbon dioxide than that since 1965 at 287
billion metric tons. EU countries added another 203 billion tons. But as
far as countries go, the U.S. has by far the highest cumulative
emissions since 1965. China is in 2nd place at 133 billion tons, but no
other country even breaks the 100 billion ton barrier.
Globally,
cumulative emissions since 1965 are 1.0 trillion tons, which should have
increased (according to the calculation in the footnote) atmospheric
carbon dioxide by 73 ppm. And if we cross-check the data from the Mauna Loa Observatory, we see that atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 320 ppm in 1965 and is just above 390 ppm in 2012.
Per Capita Emissions
The U.S. also has much higher per capita emissions than developing countries and EU countries. In 2008, the U.S. had the 12th highest
per capita carbon dioxide emissions, but due to decreases in recent
years are probably further down the list of countries now. Based on the
newly-released BP data, here is how the U.S. compares to other regions
of the world:
We can see that despite the decline in carbon dioxide emissions in
the U.S., we are still far above the EU and the developing world.
Therein lies a problem. While we can acknowledge our historical
emissions, and recognize that we still emit a lot of carbon dioxide per
person, how exactly does this help the developing world? One answer I
sometimes hear is “We have to provide the blueprint.” It is one thing to
imagine that developing countries could develop without increasing
their use of fossil fuels, but the reality is that even the developed
regions have not shown that it can be done. We are so accustomed to our
way of life and the high carbon emissions that it entails that we can’t
begin to imagine how to show a country that emits 1/10th of what we do
how to improve their standard of living without increasing their
emissions.
Developing countries seek the same modern
conveniences—dishwashers, televisions, computers, and cars—enjoyed by
the developed world and which are currently powered mostly by fossil
fuels. We can imagine that they can improve their standard of living
without increasing their fossil fuel consumption, but what do we have to
point to in order to show that it can be done? Even Iceland — which
many believe to be a country that is largely running on renewable energy
— has carbon dioxide emissions in line with the rest of the EU, and far
above those of the developing world.
Conclusion
It
is a quandary, and I not only see no easy answer — I see no viable
answer period that doesn’t involve shutting down development in
developing countries. This is why I am extremely skeptical that carbon
emissions will be reined in. I might feel differently if there was not
such a wide gap between the developed world and the developing world,
but I believe over time that gap will close as the developing world’s
emissions continue to increase. Given that overall emissions from the
developing world are already much higher than those of the developed
world, small increases in the standard of living have the potential to
hugely increase global carbon dioxide emissions.
Footnote: According to this analysis,
the average amount of CO2 emissions that causes an atmospheric increase
of 1 ppm is 14.138 billion metric tons of CO2. The U.S. contribution of
255 billion tons over the past 36 years would then contribute
255/14.138 = 18.1.
By
No comments:
Post a Comment