Stark Graph of CO2 Emissions per capita by Country

By Jim Harris on 3 December 2007 - 12:07pm

In honour of the Bali negotiations, I thought I'd find a powerful visual graphic to represent how much CO2 different countries produce per capita. The data is from 2002 -- so with tar sands development having scaled up since then, Canada's current emissions will be even higher. You can download this graph as a PDF at the bottom of this blog.

Note that two of the four current leaders – Canada and US – are saying 'We're not going to do anything until China agrees not to increase its’ emissions.' Australia’s government, by contrast, just committed to ratifying Kyoto in Bali yesterday and is working to play an essential and constructive role in working to urgently solve this global crisis.

The only other graph that I'd like to see is cumulative emissions per capita by country since 1800. This would show that developed nations have emitted 80%+ of the CO2 emissions above natural levels over the last two centuries; and developing nations less than 20%. In other words, it's been developed nations that have got us into the mess we're in.

In North America 5% of the world's population consumes 33% of the world's resources. If every other person on the planet consumed on a per person basis as much as we do, we'd need another three planet to provide for that consumption.

Looking at cumulative historical emissions since industrialization, North America has been the largest CO2 polluter in the world's history per capita and in absolute terms, and developing nations the least responsible.

Harper and Bush's negotiating position is therefore akin to saying, 'We won't stop destroying the planet until those who are least responsible commit to not industrialize just as developing nations have for centuries.'

The countries which are most responsible for the destruction of the planet should be leading by example, taking immediate responsibility, and being the most aggressive in addressing the crisis we face.

Source: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_carbon_di...

Attachment	Size
national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capita.pdf	157.22 KB

Jim Harris's blog
Login to post comments

Comments

Multiple by pop

Submitted by Eugene Parks on 4 December 2007 - 3:01pm.

An excellent chart; I think to make another point one can multiple the per capita by actual pop of each country to reveal the absolute base, which shows that countries like India and China (combined) are less than what what the G8 produces.

If you have the above in raw data form, forward to me and I will redo the graph to show.

Walkswithcoffee

Cheers, Coffee (aka Walkswithcoffee)

I think the numbers

Submitted by Eugene Parks on 4 December 2007 - 3:36pm.

I think the numbers show:

"Greenhouse gas emissions from the G8 (including Canada) are greater than the combined absolute emissions from the rest of the world. Eight countries out of the 194 in the world produce more total climate changing affects than the rest of the world combined (including China and India)."

Walkswithcoffee

Cheers, Coffee (aka Walkswithcoffee)

Developing nations or developed nations

Submitted by Brian Timlick on 4 December 2007 - 9:07pm.

I noticed that you have cited both developing nations and developing nations but not developed nations in your comments about who is to blame for the mess. I believe you intended to say, and you can correct me, that the developed nations have contributed 80% of the mess and the developing nations only 20%. Was that the intentions?

Brian Timlick, nominated candidate, Charleswood-St.James-Assinibioa

Brian Timlick, nominated candidate, Charleswood-St.James-Assiniboia

Thanks Brian!

Submitted by Jim Harris on 5 December 2007 - 6:30am.

I made the corrections to the blog. Thank you for catching that.

Jim

developed nations the main source

Submitted by Eugene Parks on 4 December 2007 - 10:43pm.

Stephen Harper has stated that climate treaties are useless unless the developing world comes on board. More plainly, Harper conservatives claim that the primary sources of climate altering greenhouse gas emissions are from the developing world - not from the developed industrialized world.

In truth, greenhouse gas emissions from the G8 (including Canada) are greater than the combined absolute emissions from the rest of the world. Eight countries, out of 194 in the world, produce more total climate changing effects than the rest of the world combined (including China and India). Canada is number 8 in the world in total absolute emissions, hardly an insignificant contributor. See reference below.

Contrary to the false statements from Prime Minister Harper, the most significant source of greenhouse emissions is the developed world. The entire world must begin to work on the climate change problem but the principle source being the developed world with the resources to act immediately, Harper's all or nothing position is just plain wrong.

Blaming and shaming poorer countries for a problem that is not principally their fault does not get the climate change job done. Less shaming of others and more accountability should be Mr. Harpers first steps.

References:

Canada is number 8 on the absolute emissions list:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-envi...

GHG Total Emissions (Latest Year)
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/?2274

See UN report for all per capita: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_carbon_di... . Multiply the per capita numbers by population and sum G8 numbers versus the absolute sum of rest of the worlds emissions.

Cheers,

Walkswithcoffee

Cheers, Coffee (aka Walkswithcoffee)

Excellent blog

Submitted by Brian Timlick on 5 December 2007 - 8:34am.

Thanks Jim. I thought the blog was excellent and intended to use it, including the graft but did notice that and felt that the developing nations have been abused enough by Canada already LOL. Now that is has been corrected, I will use it in my campaign. Great stuff.

Brian Timlick, nominated candidate, Charleswood-St.James-Assiniboia

CO2 Excellent Data - Illustrates Where Canada Really Stands

Submitted by Stephen Brotherston on 6 December 2007 - 2:28pm.

Stephen Brotherston, BASc., MBA, CBV(retired)

The economic context provided by this graph should help sell the Green case to Canadians. Most of us know where Canada is located on the planet. In part Canadians believe we use more carbon than many countries on the list because, at this time, many of the alternatives to burning carbon to maintain our ability to live here are still under development. Compared to the warmer climates found in the US, Australia, and Saudi Arabia, Canada's CO2 numbers look remarkably good. Compared with Norway or Sweden, we no longer appear to be doing such a good job. The question we should be asking ourselves is why and what can we learn from countries with similar standards of living in similar climates.

Canadians are becoming well aware of the impact of CO2, this type of information gives us clues about where to look for possible answers to Canada's carbon use reduction questions. And, this graph helps to minimize the argument that Canada's carbon use reductions targets can't be achieved.

Stephen Brotherston, BASc., MBA, CBV(retired)

Direct emissions only part of the story

Submitted by Donald Fletcher on 7 December 2007 - 12:07am.

Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
When we evaluate emissions in a country, we should do a bit of reassigning emissions created to provide other countries with products which, were theyu to produce them themselves would have caused their emissions to be higher.

Now In that context we should be assessing ourselves extra emissions based on imported products or energy that cause emissions elsewhere, and assessing our customers carbon emissions costs for things we export to them.
A very significant part of China's emissions are in benefit of export goods, and aw we buy and use those we should credit China for those emission and debitg ourselves.
If we produce emissions producing fuel for the USA, we should claim credit for those emissions from the USA.

We have an interchange of electrical energy that is partly Green energy, going south, and mostly coal energy coming north. That means that we should be attributed the emissions for the coal burned in the USA , but they get to use our Green energy with no carbon charge of consequence. Somehow that does not look entirely right,does it?

Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)

All Hail the Swedes

Submitted by Mike Sherrard on 7 December 2007 - 12:33am.

Here is an informative graph that relates local economic gain to global pain. Note that all the bad boys are fossil energy exporters (and Donald Fletcher's blog entry has merit in this regard). That includes Canada, which rates worse than the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_kg_p...

Keep in mind though that cold countries like Canada also have an energy handicap (like Stephen Brotherston mentioned). All the top consumers of energy are rich cold countries at the top of the world. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_ele_con_perc...

For some catharsis, we rate better regarding waste generation among the rich. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_was_gen-envi...

Some thought about all of these graphs (including the original UNEP one Jim Harris submitted) should make us want to take a closer look at Sweden. Most Swedes live higher up the globe than us and spend more hours in the dark in the winter. They have a low population density like us, which is a transportation energy handicap. Yet, they are the lowest producers CO2/capita among the rich countries (other than the rich tropical city state of Hong Kong) and we are the highest (with Australia). We produce almost 3 times more GHG than they do. In fact, they rate much better than a lot of 3rd world nations on the basis of CO2 related to economic output. We should take a close look at how they are pulling off being rich without being hogs that muddy the waters for everyone else.

Mike Sherrard, P. Eng.

Excellent points Mike

Submitted by Jim Harris on 7 December 2007 - 2:24am.

The argument that Canada is in the North are always thrown up as to why we've got one of the highest per capita CO2 emissions.

But as you so correctly point out that flawed logic is easily defeated.

It's energy inefficiency that's our problem. Amory Lovins' Rock Mountain Institute is at 7,100 feet altitude in the mountains of Colorado -- yet requires no -- I repeat no -- energy input to heat the buildings in winter or cool them in Spring. Why? Because they have been designed intelligently.

In other words we can substitute dessign for energy. When buildings are designed with energy efficiency in mind -- they can ultimately reduce energy use of a building to zero!!!

Most people don't realize it but in most countries 40% of energy use (read CO2 emissions) come from buildings -- heating and cooling. So how we design our buildings, our cities has a huge impact on energy efficiency and meeting our Kyoto objectives.

Thank you Mike again for your post!

Jim

Think you meant 9,100 feet...

Submitted by Brian Smallshaw on 7 December 2007 - 8:51pm.

Good points Jim, but I think you meant 9,100 feet for the altitude of Amory Lovins' Rocky Mountain Institute headquarters; 19,000 feet is higher than the summit of every mountain in North America south of the Yukon and Alaska!

Brian Smallshaw
Saanich-Gulf Islands

Brian Smallshaw Saanich-Gulf Islands

Thanks Brian! I've corrected it to 7,100 feet above sea level!

Submitted by Jim Harris on 8 December 2007 - 1:55pm.

Hey Brian

Thanks for the sharp eye!

Jim

Renewables

Submitted by Dean Carnduff on 7 December 2007 - 8:11pm.

Taken From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Energy_politics

As of 2005, the use of renewables amounted to 26% of the energy supply in Sweden. The two largest categories of renewables are hydropower and biomass, the latter mainly used to produce heat for district heating and central heating and industry processes. The total usage of biomass energy is currently 112 TWh per year.[57]
In 2006, out of a total electricity production of 139 TWh, electricity from hydropower accounted for 61 TWh and 44% of the country's production of electricity with nuclear power delivering 65 TWh (47%). At the same time, the use of biofuels, peat etc. produced 13 TWh (9%) of electricity, while wind power produced 1 TWh (1%). Sweden was a net importer of electricity by a margin of 6 TWh.[58]

Paraphrased from:
http://environment.about.com/od/renewableenergy/a/...

In 1970, 77 percent of Sweden’s energy came from oil.
In 2003,32 percent oil. Renewable sources supply 26 percent of Sweden’s energy needs. One third of Sweden's energy comes from nuclear power.

Sweden’s forests provides a steady supply of biomass. Sweden promotes the use of alternate fuels for everything from home heating to transportation. Many neighborhoods in Sweden use a central furnace that consumes biological fuels to provide hot water for all of the nearby homes. Thousands of homeowners have replaced oil furnaces with boilers that use wood-based pellets. According to the Swedish Petroleum Institute, heating oil sales have fallen by 85 percent in recent years, and today only 8 percent of Swedish homes are heated by oil.

Sweden strongly encourages use of renewable fuels. Tax incentives are used to get drivers to fill their tanks with ethanol-based fuel for about a third less money than gasoline, even though ethanol costs 40% more.

What I could find on Canadian electricity generation:
We are close to 60% Hydro and 15% Nuclear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electricity_pro...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generatio...

Sweden vs. Canada

Submitted by David Januczkowski on 11 December 2007 - 5:45am.

Seems like a pretty simple solution to me:

Canada's new energy profile equation = 60% hydro-15%nuclear+25%biomass+20%wind+10%other green renewables = 100%.

Fund new infrastructure through the Canada Pension Plan and zero interest green infrastructure loans (repayable over 25 years) through the social credit available via the Bank of Canada.

Voila! Peace, prosperity and happiness.

Sweden vs. Canada Continued

Submitted by Dean Carnduff on 12 December 2007 - 3:19pm.

What I was drawing out of those articles was not so much their electricity generation, but that they have exchanged oil for renewables (If you look close it mentions electricity and energy, not all energy is electricity). Sweden is the greenest of the industrialized nations and it is doing it without wind and solar. We have a higher ratio of forest area to people in Canada and we are the number 2 producer of Canola in the world (Canola is the best crop to make bio-diesel with). This represents another good avenue of attack on CO2 emissions in the short term that can make a huge difference while infrastructure and lifestyles changes are going to take longer to change.

Who is Responsible for Emissions?

Submitted by Stephen Brotherston on 7 December 2007 - 12:54am.

Stephen Brotherston, BASc., MBA, CBV(retired)

As the world struggles to deal with reducing CO2, the questions posed by Mr. Fletcher above will start to have real significance.

Who is responsible for emissions? The Country that produces the emissions or the Country that uses the goods produced? By assessing emissions to the user, Canada could argue the emissions from tar sands production belong to the US - a method that might raise some concerns?

Another concern could be who is responsible for the emissions from shipping goods from China to North America or Europe. Shouldn't locally produced goods derive some benefit from their minimal transportation emissions impact?

Once Countries actually start to attempt to comply with emissions targets, these questions and others will start to surface. The risk in trying to transfer the ownership of emissions produced to facilitate exports to another Country is the Country producing the goods will have no incentive to minimize the impact of producing and shipping those goods.

As well, once Canada starts implementing emissions standards and CO2 taxes, imported goods from juristrictions that do not have CO2 limits will have a significant advantage over domesticly produced goods - a real possibility with our major trading partner, the USA. Will we look to implement CO2 import duties to protect our domestic economy - to reflect the real cost of production of imported goods? Will we charge a CO2 tax on imported goods to reflect the impact of transportation emissions? Will other Countries start to charge Canada CO2 taxes on our exports?

Stephen Brotherston, BASc., MBA, CBV(retired)

Best vs Worst of top 10 global CO2 emitters: Germany vs. Canada

Submitted by Jim Harris on 11 December 2007 - 1:15am.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,5... Half way down the page click on Interactive Graphic on the left side of the page.

The last tab (on the far right) Ranking -- shows Canada as #53 out of 56 in terms of being the worst for emissions.

Canada #53 out of 56 in terms of worst CO2 emitter in the World. By contrast Germany is one of the world's top 10 emitters also, but it is ranked #2 in a in terms of making a constructive difference.

Thanks to James O'Grady for pointing this site out to me.

Quoting the article associated with this great interactive graphic:

"The weighted system explains how Germany can place so well despite being the world's sixth-largest producer of carbon dioxide. The nation moved from fourth to second on this year's ranking thanks to projections of reduced future emissions and a strong governmental commitment to climate change policy. Earlier this week [the week of Dec 7] the cabinet of Chancellor Angela Merkel approved a €3.3 billion ($US4.8 Billion) policy package that aims to cut emissions in Germany by 40 percent by 2020 and to increase the nation's reliance on renewable energy sources."

original document

Submitted by Daryl Vernon on 11 December 2007 - 7:59am.

see my http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/3386 from yesterday
for link to originating document from germanwatch

So what are we doing about it?

Submitted by Paul Edward Renaud on 22 November 2008 - 12:04pm.

Knowing something and doing something are two different things. we all know our track record as a nation stinks as illustrated in the following chart published by the UNEP:

We need to keep pictures like these two front and center in the eyes of as many people as we can.

The last elections clearly show that politicians follow popular opinion, they do not lead it. If we expect to create change, we must start at the grass roots and build the basis for it. Obama 101.