Thursday, December 20, 2007
Carbon dioxide emissions: The first pounds are always the easiest to lose
Glenn Reynolds links to a couple of items that argue that the United States is doing a better job of reducing greenhouse gases than the Kyoto signatories. That is a tempting thought for those of us, including me, who believe that Kyoto-style massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will do more damage than good. Unfortunately, the argument implied in Glenn's post -- that recent American gains are evidence of the superiority of the American regulatory approach to greenhouse gas reductions -- is not particularly persuasive.
First, look at the claims of Randall Hoven at American Thinker:
One would think that countries that committed to the Kyoto treaty are doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. One would also think that the United States, the only country that does not even intend to ratify, keeps on emitting carbon dioxide at growth levels much higher than those who signed.
And one would be wrong.
The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.
Hoven goes on to argue that world opinion is, essentially, a crock:
World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results.
Glenn also links to this article from ScienceDaily, which shows that the United States economy is growing more efficient with regard to greenhouse gases, meaning that our GDP is growing faster than emissions:
The economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), grew by 3.3 percent and energy demand fell by 0.9 percent indicating that energy intensity (energy use per unit of GDP) fell by 4.2 percent. Carbon dioxide intensity (CO2 emission per unit of GDP) fell by 4.5 percent.
The problem, of course, is that the United States is starting from a position of extreme profligacy compared to virtually every other rich country in the world. On a per capita basis, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than every other "real" country in the world. We ranked 10th in 2004, behind five oil sheikhdoms, three Carribean resorts, and Luxembourg. Our carbon dioxide emissions per capita were more than double the United Kingdom and Germany, and more than triple France and Italy. They were even 25% worse than low-density, meat-grilling Australia. Among wealthy countries of at least some consequence, only Canada comes close. We emit five times the carbon dioxide per capita of China.
So perhaps we generate a lot of national income per ton of carbon dioxide? Er, no. Again, virtually all of the economically productive countries in the world other than the oil and gas exporters produce less carbon dioxide per unit of GDP than the United States. (By this measure, China is horrendously inefficient, but there is probably some truth to the argument that rich countries have been indirectly "dumping" CO2 emissions on China by shifting their least efficient manufacturing there.)
When Randall Hoven argues that "[w]orld and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions," he is ignoring the unavoidable and widely understood fact that the United States, on a per capita and per unit of GDP basis, ranks near the bottom of countries that matter.
The United States has, indeed, gotten some quick greenhouse gas reductions without new regulation. But why? Because we are extraordinarily profligate in this regard compared to our counterparts, so it is still very easy for us to make marginal reductions. If you are immensely fat, it is easier to lose ten pounds or 3% of your body weight than it is if you are already lean and fit. If you are obese you can cut your donut consumption in half and walk around the block every day and lose a few quick pounds. But you're still immensely fat. Similarly, Americans have an extremely high rate of return on conservation, so small changes in behavior can generate superficially big gains. I suspect that virtually all of improvement trumpeted in the linked articles is the result of higher oil prices -- people are doing some easy things to reduce consumption -- and, perhaps, some old-fashioned consciousness raising. But we are still immensely fat.
Regular readers know that when it comes to climate change I am a "consequences skeptic," meaning that I believe that human activity is affecting the global climate but I do not believe that the world faces impending doom or that all the consequences of climate change will be bad. Yes, it may suck if you live in the Maldives, but Americans may come out ahead, which is perhaps reason enough for we patriots to oppose Kyoto-style regulation. Let us not, however, deceive ourselves that the hidden hand of laissez-faire is a superior means for massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. It is not. We would have to destroy trillions in economic wealth to get as "efficient" as, say, France in the time period demanded by the activists.
6 Comments:
By 
Unknown, at
Thu Dec 20, 09:24:00 AM:
but there is probably some truth to the argument that rich countries have been indirectly "dumping" CO2 emissions on China by shifting their least efficient manufacturing there
Further, as long as that avenue is open such dumping becomes a way for a country to satisfy its treaty obligations by the problem to China (where the problem becomes intractable). The companies involved aren't unduly discommoded—they continue to work with Chinese “partners”. It's the workers in the developed countries who are harmed.
By Unknown, at
Thu Dec 20, 09:27:00 AM:
BTW while Randall's statistics are true, they're misleading. China was a signatory to Kyoto. The Chinese just weren't required to do anything and combining China's stats with everybody else's skews everything.
By antithaca, at
Thu Dec 20, 09:47:00 AM:
here's the thing (for me, FWIW)...some smart people say, rhetoric matters when you can connect it to deeds.
Ahem.
By 
, at
Thu Dec 20, 01:50:00 PM:
The law of diminishing returns. This is what is going on here. A lot of chemical companies are going "green" because of world-wide business connections, and the requirement of their international customers (re: Europe) that they show results with CO2 reductions. And it CAN make good business sense, if this also comes with increased efficiency in energy usage.
Things to look at in comparison with some of our "leaner" European friends:
Per capita steel production
Per capita oil refining (gasoline)
Per capita electricity production, and show sources for electricity.
Coal-fired or nuclear fired??
Per capita miles driven in cars per year. The US is a much larger nation than most of our so-called "greener" friends, and people, rightly or wrongly, rely on the personal automobile to take them. Australia is a large country, but only modest parts of it are actually "settled". Ditto Canada.
So what's the answer for America?
1) More nuclear fired electrical power plants. Replace coal-fired stations with Nuclear fired stations. France generates over 90% of its electricity from nuclear.
2) Get on the stick with electrical cars. Get real effective battery-powered cars, especially for realitvely short "daily" commutes, on the market. People WILL buy them if they are not too ridiculously expensive.
3) Raise CAFE standards. Just passed Congress. But this may be too much, too late
Don't
1) create a lot of subsidized "public transportation" like the ever popular "light rail". This will be a waste of money
2) over-subsidize "biofuels". This needs a kickstart, but at some point, it has to justify itself economically.
3)waste money in "sequestration" of CO2. This is stupid, as it will cost more 'energy' to capture and sequestrate than it did to generate the CO2 in the first place.
-David
By Kinuachdrach, at
Thu Dec 20, 05:47:00 PM:
There are lots of ways to lie (or at least misinform) with statistics. And no shortage of guilty white Americans who want to run to the front of the international congregation and grab the spotlight by shouting, "It was me, Lord! I sinned! Honest!"
Let's look at the evidence of our own eyes. Europe is criss-crossed with fine freeways packed solid with cars at all hours of the day & night. I have found myself crawling along at 5 mph in stop & go traffic at 7 am on a 10-lane wide freeway to the airport at a very ordinary European city.
Have you seen the size of the automobiles manufactured in Germany these days? Or even the top of the line Kia, not sold in the US?
Take off from London Heathrow on one of those rare days when it is not raining and look out of the window -- sunlight sparkling on back-yard swimming pools, in England, for goodness sake.
"Per capita" averages disguise something that the beautiful people don't like to talk about -- especially in Europe. There is a very big low-end tail to the distribution of individual energy consumption in Europe, which helps to keep the average low.
Is this a good thing? Why not ask the Muslim youths trapped in the suburbs of Paris? Their per capita energy use is pretty low (ignoring car burnings).
By , at
Fri Dec 21, 11:31:00 AM:
"Regular readers know that when it comes to climate change I am a-"
Actually, we don't. You radically switched tracks on us about a month ago after you read that article. You went from sane and reasonable to "rapid climate change" and "mass extinctions" in the space of a day. Now you seem to be backing off a bit. All we regular readers know is how you feel about global warming today.
"I believe that human activity is affecting the global climate"
The vanity of Man is unsurpassed in this universe.
"but I do not believe that the world faces impending doom"
Pardon me, but what happened to the "rapid climate change" and "mass extinctions" stuff? Is it that you failed to answer these two questions?
1. If NASA says the earth hasn't warmed in over 10 years, how is that considered "rapid"?
2. Since there's no record of mass extinctions a thousand years ago during the last warming cycle, why are mass extinctions expected this time around?
And, if you've backed off because you can't answer those two questions, then what caused you to believe them in the first place?
The article?
"Yes, it may suck if you live in the Maldives"
Make a little experiment for me when you get a moment, okay? The next time you're in the Maldives, or Bali, of Fiji, or Tahiti, or the Hawaiian Islands, or the Florida Keys (where I am), or, for that matter, Perth Amboy, go all the way down to the waterline. Now look back upshore and figure out how much beachfront property would be lost if the water rose a foot, even a foot and a half, the 'far range' of the recent IPCC report.
I am, at this precise moment, sitting about 20 feet offshore, so I have a pretty good view of the shoreline from here. If the water rose a foot and a half, it looks like we'd lose about 10 feet of shoreline.
Please explain how losing 10 feet of shoreline will engulf an entire island chain.
And that's over two or three hundred years, of course. It's just possible (possible, mind you) that measures could be taken over that 300-year span to counteract the rising waters. Just possible, mind you.
Here's Doc's idea of what Tiger is picturing when he writes a line like "it may suck if you live in the Maldives".
Or New York City.
My title under the picture is:
"The global warming alarmists were right!"
And do you know what area of my picture collection I filed that under? "Science"? "Stranger Than Fiction"? "The Future Unfolds"?
When Graphic Artists Get Bored
I'll say. :)
BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, Googleblogs made another change to your comment box. After changing it a month ago to promote their own Googlebloggers and forcing everybody else to use a "Nickname" (as referred to just "Name"), they also eliminated the box where non-Googlebloggers could put in their own domain name. Don't want the competition, y'see.
Apparently, enough complaints rolled in that they've now added the 'URL' box again. Perhaps someone pointed out to them that trying to squelch outside links was somewhat contrary to very concept of the blogosphere in the first place.
