Twelve years after Kyoto we might actually be ready to start thinking about possibly getting serious about reducing carbon emissions -- don't want to be rash about it, mind. The Waxman Markey House Bill aims to reduce carbon emissons 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050. Sens. Boxer and Kerry recently announced a Senate Bill looking to reduce carbon emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
So where are we now? What are the levels we're trying to come down from? What has been the trend in recent years?
Kyoto is referenced to 1990, and the longer trend is useful to know, so I'll start there. All data taken from the EIA and CIA World Factbook. Check out the links -- this post barely skims the surface of the information available.
Caveats: Data shown below are in (metric) tons of CO2. Divide by 3.67 to get tons of carbon. Data extend to 2006, which are the most recent data available from the EIA. This was on the threshold of the Great Crash, so 2007-2008 will likely show declines.
These are only direct emissions of CO2. They do not include other greenhouse gases such as methane or N2O, and they do not include effects from land use changes such as agriculture (only the fossil term is included), mining, or deforestation.
Big Picture
The top figure shows global emissions since 1990 with contributions from the major emitters also shown. Global emissions have risen from 21.7 billion tons to nearly 29.2 billion tons -- an increase of 35% in 17 years. This rise is driven largely by the rise of China, and, to a lesser extent, India. China leads the world in carbon emissions, accounting for a little over 20% of global emissions, having recently taken the lead from the US, also at a bit over 20% of global emissions. The EU as a bloc is in third.
Some notable things: Chinese emissions have risen ~3x since 1990, most of that since 2001. US emissions have risen much more slowly, while EU emissions have actually declined slightly.
The lower figure breaks out the major players here. Behind China and the US, a long way behind, the third largest single emitter is Russia. The early drop in Russian emissions is a consequence of significant economic slowdown since the fall of the Soviet Union, but emissions have been rising again since about 1998. Russia, of course, is a major producer of oil and gas.
India recently took over the 4th position from Japan and is rising rapidly. India is still a long way behind either China or the US.
Germany (primarily) and France are the engines that drive the EU. France in particular shows what can be done with a commitment to a low carbon economy.
All told, China, the US, and the EU+UK make up ~60% of all global emissions. Add in Russia, India and Japan, and you're up to 75%. These are the major players.
Raw numbers
Let's look at this in a little more detail, first by geographic breakdown.
The US is not shown as we dwarf everyone here (extend the vertical axis 10x to get the US on scale). These are 5 of the next largest economies in the Americas. Note that all of them show increasing emissions. Canadian emissions are rising quickly for a developed (Annex I) nation, in part due to tar sand development. Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Venezuela are all important oil producers. But all of them are tiny emitters compared to the US. In fact, the US accounts for 73% of ALL emissions from North, Central, and South America, or nearly 3 times as much as the rest of the hemisphere combined.
Here are some of the major emitters in Asia, excepting China, who dwarf everyone in their hemisphere (extend vertical axis 4x to get China on scale). The major players (after China) are Japan and increasingly India, whose emissions have doubled since 1990, though combined they do not add up to half of China's (China accounts for 54% of Asia's emissions). As production goes to even lower cost countries such as Vietnam and to a degree Thailand, their emission rates increase, although they are still quite low compared to industrialized nations such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia. The effects of the 1997 East Asian crisis are felt in CO2 emissions, particularly in South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, and Japan.
Europe is the odd one out: this is the region where climate emissions are taken most seriously, and the major drivers are either decreasing emissions (Germany since the late 1990s and the UK) or are very low for the level of economic activity to start with (France). A couple of notes: Russia's emissions in 1992 are just off the chart: 2.055 Gtons CO2. There are no data prior to that as it was the Soviet Union. Germany's data prior to 1991 are the sum of East and West Germany: the decline in the early 1990's came largely from the shutdown of inefficient E. German plants. Spanish emissions are climbing rapidly, at least by European standards, and for such a small country the Dutch have unusually high emissions.
Russia is the odd one out (ie, an emissions trend more like those of the rest of the world), behind in development, behind in efficiency, and a major exporter of oil and natural gas.
The Middle East and Africa are dominated by developing economies (only Israel really qualifies as developed) and it is characteristic of those economies to show rapid rises in emissions ('ZA' here is South Africa, not Zaire; 'KSA' is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). This is also a region where resource extraction plays a major role in many economies, such as oil and gas. In the big picture, this region contributes relatively little to the global situation, at least if you don't account for oil and gas used by the developed nations. However, their emissions are climbing quickly: those from Iran, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia are already at French or South Korean levels and rising.
Per capita consumption
The total numbers are useful, but clearly they could use some context. India and Brazil are both developing economies with significant human resources, but one has five times the population of the other. Things look a little different from a per capita perspective.
Starting again with the Americas, we see that Canada has joined us at some 20 tons per person per year. The slight dropoff in 2006 appears to be driven largely by increasing energy prices that would peak in 2008. US emissions have been pretty flat since 1990, while the economy has been growing, quite strongly at times. The increase in total emissions comes from an increase in population. We've been getting ever more efficient, but it's been a Red Queen's Race for us so far (against that, some of that has been achieved by outsourcing manufacturing). Other notables: Venezuela has high per capita emissions -- it is an oil producer, but so are Mexico and Brazil. Brazil's is particularly low for their level of economic activity (they do have serious deforestation issues, however, and serious economic inequality).
"VN" here is Vietnam, "SKR" South Korea. Where in gross numbers the region is dominated by China, in per capita terms the booby prize goes to Australia. Emissions from coal dependent Australia are rising quickly, especially for a developed economy, and rival the US and Canada. Emissions are increasing across the board, even (if slowly) from Japan. The rise of Chinese and Indian emissions is quite rapid, although that still leaves China at 1/4 of our emissions and India at 1/15th from a per capita perspective. The increases from other nations, especially South Korea, are also troubling.
Cheers and jeers here. Cheers to Denmark and Sweden (not shown, similar trend, though lower in magnitude) for stemming and turning around their emissions trend. Also to the UK and Germany for reducing their level of emissions -- very slightly, not nearly as much as their Kyoto targets, but at least in the right direction; and to France for their low carbon economy. Poland (not shown) is also improving, though the signal is noisy, and they appear to benefit from modernization and investment by Western European nations. Jeers to Holland -- I know they have the two big ports, but come on people, get it together. Also, the trend in Spain (similar trends in Norway, Finland, Ireland, Greece, Slovenia, etc) is not good.
Mixed bag here. Nigeria's numbers are decreasing, but their gross numbers are up so that appears to be driven by a growing population without a commensurate increase in economic activity, a trend that is shared by a number of sub-Saharan nations. Most nations not in Nigeria's situation show increasing trends, some not so fast (Israel, Egypt, eg), some quite fast (Iran, eg). Kuwait is typical of a small nation flush with cash: Bahrain and the UAE are similar, Qatar even more extreme (about 60 tons/person). This is not limited to the Middle East: Luxembourg per capita emissions are not quite as high as Kuwait, but still 30% higher than that of the US, and even Qatar is half that of the US Virgin Islands or Gibraltar. For large economies, however, it is the US, Canada, and Australia leading in per capita emissions.
Economic activity
Economic activity is also important: Egypt and Germany have similar populations but the GDP in one is far larger than in the other. Developed nations tend to be larger but more efficient users of carbon.
These are 2006 data in 2008 dollars (I also seem to have switched notation: "RSA" here is South Africa). It's not a perfect indicator, but you get a pretty good idea of which countries are developed and which are not. China's economy is the second largest in the world, behind the US, but from a per capita perspective they are 8 times smaller, and India smaller still. Of course, less than 1% of our workforce is in agriculture vs 43% for China and 60% for India. This is why they claim to be developing economies, at least, when it suits them.
These are also effectively mean numbers, and direct comparisons are tricky. E.g., the GINI index of inequality for Brazil (56.7)is significantly higher than ours (45), which is significantly higher than, say, Japan's (38), which is significantly higher than Denmark's (24). Median numbers would be interesting to have.
This shows how much a nation makes per ton of CO2 emitted. The standouts here are Europe and Japan. These are fully industrialized countries that generate 50% more economic activity per ton of carbon than we do. France is the real standout, making 2.5 times as much as we do per ton of carbon, a result of heavy electrification by nuclear power. Denmark (again, Sweden is similar) invested heavily in efficiency (and also in introducing alternate energy sources, such as wind) and it shows.
Editorial: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
There is a lot of Bad here, and a whole lot of Ugly. Almost universally CO2 emissions are going up, in some places quite rapidly. The EU gets real credit for holding the line on emissions, but even they have not met their own targets. Recent estimates indicate that Annex I nations will need to reduce emissions 25-40% by 2020 (that's only 11 years out) if we are to limit global temperature increases to no more than 2 oC. That's a lot more aggressive than current pledges of 10-20%.
But there's Good here as well, especially for the two largest emitters. For a developed nation, we are ridiculously inefficient with CO2. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit here. If we can reach Japanese levels of efficiency, that's an improvement by 1/3rd with no decrease in GDP. If we can match Danish levels, that's a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions. If we can match the French, that's 60%. It can be done.
Much the same can be said for China. At this point, they have the skills and the resources. China derives a much larger fraction of its GDP from industry (as opposed to agriculture or services) than we do, 48.6% vs 19.2% (CIA numbers), so perhaps Germany, which derives 30% from industry, is a somewhat better comparison. 30% is very high for an Annex I nation, Germany is the leading exporter of high-value finished goods, and still they are not only much more efficient at producing value per ton CO2, they managed to reduce CO2 emissions (though not by much). There is a lot of low-hanging fruit in China as well. So too for India.
It will be much harder for Japan and Europe, and it will require a serious investment towards still greater efficiency and away from coal and oil. The French made that investment decades ago in nuclear energy, and they have very low emissions for a developed economy. While today investment in wind or solar or other renewable would clearly be preferable and may (or possibly may not) make more sense for a particular nation, the point is that with sufficient foresight and investment, moving away from carbon not only can be done but has been done. And there is still room for significant improvement. For instance, France is investing in support infrastructure for EVs, including widespread charge points in places like office parking lots and condominiums, conversion of a significant fraction of government fleet vehicles to EVs, as well as grunt work like a common European charge standard. Germany is working on a more distributed and integrated energy infrastructure. Japan is investing heavily in efficiency, Denmark is looking to have renewable energy provide 20% of their energy consumption by 2011. This is not only a matter of climate change for them; it helps ensure a competitive position in a future carbon constrained economy.
Each nation is different, of course, and each faces circumstances others do not. Denmark is very small, the US huge. Most of Europe and Japan have electrified rail, we have car-based infrastructure. On the other hand, our economy is significantly more biased to financial services than those countries (excepting the UK), which is less energy intensive than manufacturing. And other nations have their own issues as well: Japan is carrying a massive debt load from their own experiments in asset bubbles and overleveraging of the 90's, Germany swallowed a huge deadweight in East Germany (there remain East/West issues to this day), China and India have easily the biggest challenges of all: trying to bring hundreds of millions out of poverty without bankrupting natural resources. Everyone has an excuse not to do anything. None of the wealthier nations (including non-Annex I) has a good excuse.
Costs and Opportunity Costs
None of this will be easy, none of this will happen quickly, and none of this will be cheap. But here's the thing: Business As Usual Externalized As Usual won't be cheap either. Water shortages from drought and reduced snowpack in the West, increased risk of flooding on the Gulf Coast and large estuaries (Sacramento Delta, eg), reduced productivity in the oceans, etc all have real costs (for more on this see here). We in the US will pay much less than, say, South Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands, even as we remain among the largest emitters. As this is a direct consequence of fossil fuel burning, our dependence on fossil fuels also has a price. It's possible or even likely that speculation played a part in the steep runup of gasoline prices last summer; it is also not necessary to have speculation to see that kind of behavior in a product priced at the margin.
We also have to consider long term opportunity costs. Our energy and transportation infrastructure were developed with the last 50 years in mind. If we do not make a serious investment with the next 50 years in mind we will be at a real disadvantage relative to those who do, especially those who already have a head start on us -- Europe, Japan, and (if they follow up on their intentions) maybe even China.
Consider two examples: Kuwait today, and South Korea 50 years ago. Kuwait's comparative advantage is in oil production, and they have become immensely wealthy doing the textbook thing in maximizing that. But you know and I know and even the Kuwaitis know that they're about to ride that horse over the cliff. Oil will not last forever, and they have not made the necessary investment to make a transition to a successful post-oil economy. A proper accounting of opportunity cost must keep the long term as well as the short in mind.
Fifty years ago South Korea was still recovering from the Korean War, which had ended 8 years earlier. Their GDP per capita was less than half of Ghana's. USAID considered them next to hopeless, calling them a "bottomless pit". Instead of maximizing their comparative advantage, which lay in fish products and tungsten ore, this poor and backwards nation undertook a massive investment in education and high tech (to the derision of many) and today they are world leaders in things unimaginable back then -- cell phones, memory chips, flat screen televisions. Today their per capita GDP is over 18 times that of Ghana. (See Ha-Joon Chang's Bad Samaritans for more on this and much more besides. Current GDP numbers from the CIA World Factbook.) That took years of scrimping and saving and a whole lot of money. But what would have been the cost not to have done it? Among the developed economies, the US is the backwards nation in energy efficiency and climate emissions (OK, we have Australia and Canada for company). "It can't be done" is demonstrably wrong. "It costs too much" is demonstrably wrong. Where do we go from here?
Some 70 years ago Joseph Schumpeter spelled out the concept of creative destruction as a driving force of capitalism. New ideas and technologies, new ways of doing things drive out the old. So the car replaced the horse and carriage, the telephone the telegraph, the airplane the steamship, etc. We need to take this to a much deeper level. Today we are facing a climate crisis, an energy crisis, and an economic crisis with a dysfunctional economic system heavily skewed towards finance and an aging and increasingly obsolete infrastructure. Sounds like the perfect time for some serious structural creative destruction.