Skip to content

Who’s Reducing CO2 Emissions–And Who’s Not?

April 15, 2012

By Paul Homewood

 

image

 

 

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC) produce statistics on each nation’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Unfortunately they still have not data for 2011, and only provisional numbers for 2010. Nevertheless, let’s take a look at changes between 2008 and 2010. (Please note, these are figures for Carbon, not CO2 – multiply by 3.667 for CO2)

 

CARBON EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUELS – MILLION TONNES

Country 2008 2010 Increase % Change v 2008
USA 1547 1498 -49 -3
Rest of N America 279 268 -11 -4
S America 321 330 10 3
UK 143 134 -9 -6
Rest of Europe 1762 1690 -72 -4
Middle East 449 490 41 9
Africa 311 326 15 5
China 1918 2248 330 17
India 475 564 89 19
Rest of Asia/Pacific 1076 1097 21 2
TOTAL WORLD 8748 9139 391 4
(Please note there are a few countries not categorised, hence the total does not add up!)
It is fair to say that much of the decrease in Europe and the US has been caused by the economic recession. It would also be fair to point out that, in Europe at least, a continuation of the current economic and environmental policies will lead to several more years of stagnation.
In the UK, the Climate Change Act commits us to reducing CO2 to 20% of 1990 levels by 2050. The level in 1990 was 155 million tonnes, so the target is 31 million tonnes, or a reduction of 112 million. It is nice to know that China and India together took about 6 months to wipe this saving out.
I wonder why Weepy Bill, Homer Hansen and the rest of their cronies don’t go and demonstrate in Tiananmen Square?
References
CDIAC data is available here.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/prelim_2009_2010_estimates.html
11 Comments
  1. April 15, 2012 5:54 pm

    CO2, CO2 whatcha gonna do.. 😀 Recent volcanic erruptions lay waste on Al Gore’s bullshit church of climatology 😉

  2. Brian H permalink
    April 16, 2012 2:52 am

    The only real interesting thing about the UK target is how soon it hits the wall and has to be recinded. People are not going to go back to 17th C. levels of energy consumption, and given the net ~0% contribution of the Greenscam renewables, that’s the only way to get there.

    • April 16, 2012 1:48 pm

      As you say, it’s all pie in the sky. But that won’t stop the loons wrecking the economy trying.

  3. Sleepalot permalink
    April 21, 2012 3:04 am

    80% of 155 = 124

    • Brian H permalink
      April 21, 2012 7:17 am

      Yea, the reduction wanted is 124, not 112. The Brits had better get fracking!
      >:)

    • April 21, 2012 8:37 am

      Sorry chaps! I meant the reduction from the 2008 figure is 112.

      • Brian H permalink
        April 22, 2012 7:55 am

        OK, 143-31=112. Gotcha.

  4. Sleepalot permalink
    April 24, 2012 9:29 am

    I don’t understand.
    If the target is 80% of 1990 levels (80% of 155) then the target is 124 and the reduction is 10

    if the aim is to make an 80% reduction from 1990 levels then (20% of 155) the target is 31 and the reduction 112.

    • April 28, 2012 5:13 pm

      Yes, the new target is to reduce TO 31, i.e. we need to reduce the 2008 figure from 143 to 31, a reduction of 112.

  5. Sleepalot permalink
    May 3, 2012 11:22 am

    So it’s not “to 80% of 1990 levels”, it’s “by 80% from 1990 levels”.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: