Updated global emissions data: a closer look

Lots of buzz at the moment about data recently published by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The website for the report may be found here. The scope of the study includes carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from: coal, liquid fuels, gas fuels, cement production and gas flaring. Data are provided for 67 individual countries. Others are considered in aggregate regional sums.

Most media reports focus in two points:

1. The data exceeds the worst case scenario of the IPCC 2007 report and
2. Emissions in China, the USA and India have increased the most.

But the data reveal much more than this. I confess that playing with MS Excel spreadsheets is a guilty pleasure. So when the authors made the data available, I could not resist adding a little more info and exploring a bit deeper.

First, total emissions by country (in million metric tones CO2 during 2010). The greatest emissions were produced by:

1. China (2,248)
2. USA (1,498)
3. India (564)
4. Russia (461)
5. Japan (310)
6. Germany (208)
7. Iran (157)
8. South Korea (154)
9. Canada (141)
10. Saudi Arabia (135)

17. Australia (100)

WORLD TOTAL: 9,139 million metric tones CO2

Next, a list of countries whose emissions increased the most in absolute terms from 2009 to 2010 (in million metric tones CO2).

1. China (212)
2. USA (60)
3. India (49)
4. Russia (25)
5. Japan (20)
6. South Korea (13)
7. Brazil (12)
8. Indonesia (9.5)
9. Saudi Arabia (9.1)
10. Germany (7.9)

WORLD TOTAL (2009-2010 increase): 512.4 million metric tones CO2

Conversely, those who reduced their emissions the most in absolute terms from 2009 to 2010 are (in million metric tones CO2):

1. Australia (-9.9)
2. Spain (-4.1)
3. Romania (-0.93)
4. Azerbaijan (-0.694)
5. Slovakia (-0.686)
6. Greece (-0.605)
7. Bulgaria (-0.586)
8. Switzerland (-0.434)
9. New Zealand (-0.418)
10. Hong Kong - China (-0.292)

Expressed in percentage terms, the list of worst performers are: (greatest percent increase in emissions)

1. Finland (13.5%)
2. Brazil (11.642%)
3. Peru (11.641%)
4. China (10.42%)
5. Turkmenistan (9.93%)
6. India (9.43%)
7. Kazakhstan (9.32%)
8. South Korea (9.19%)
9. Lithuania (8.15%)
10. Kuwait (7.86%)

WORLD TOTAL (2009-2010 increase): 5.94% of 2009 emissions

And the best, again in terms of percent decrease from 2009 to 2010, are:

1. Australia (-9.04%)
2. Slovakia (-7.38%)
3. Azerbaijan (-5.97%)
4. Spain (-5.17%)
5. New Zealand (-4.99%)
6. Bulgaria (-4.94%)
7. Romania (-4.16%)
8. Switzerland (-3.92%)
9. Hong Kong - China (-2.69%)
10. Greece (-2.38%)

Realizing that total, global, absolute emissions are all that really matter; when trying to identify the best opportunities to reduce emissions, it is not entirely fair to consider nations on equal terms. The consideration of per capita emission (or emissions per person) and emissions per unit GDP (a measure of a national economy's carbon efficiency) adds a degree of justice to a broader review. In this case, the lists of worst and best performers become:

Largest per-capita emissions in 2010 (in metric tones CO2 per person).

1. Qatar (12.03)
2. Trinidad and Tobago (10.32)
3. Kuwait (8.14)
4. UAE (5.32)
5. Saudi Arabia (4.96)
6. USA (4.79)
7. Australia (4.42)
8. Canada (4.10)
9. Kazakhstan (3.95)
10. Russia (3.22)

19. Germany (2.54)

22. Japan (2.43)

26. UK (2.16)

27. Denmark (2.14)

WORLD AVERAGE: 1.31 metric tones CO2 per person

As an exercise, if global emissions were reduced by 80% tomorrow, this value would become 0.26 metric tones CO2 per person on average. As you read the list below, note that only 3 countries of 67 listed currently meet that goal.

Lowest per-capita emitters include (in metric tones CO2)

1. Bangladesh (0.10)
2. Pakistan (0.26)
3. Philippines (0.26)
4. Peru (0.43)
5. Colombia (0.44)
6. India (0.47)
7. Vietnam (0.51)
8. Indonesia (0.55)
9. Ecuador (0.55)
10. Brazil (0.60)

22. Switzerland (1.35)

24. Sweden (1.38)

27. France (1.50)

33. China (1.68)

Considering GDP, or the carbon efficiency of a country's economy, the worst performers (in metric tones CO2 per million US $ of GDP)

1. Uzbekistan (828)
2. Turkmenistan (672)
3. Trinidad and Tobago (667)
4. Ukraine (553)
5. Kazakhstan (458)
6. Iran (439)
7. Vietnam (432)
8. China (382)
9. India (346)
10. South Africa (339)

11. Russia (311)

WORLD AVERAGE: 145 metric tones CO2 per million US $ of GDP

Similar to the above exercise, if global emissions were reduced by 80% tomorrow (and GDP maintained at its current level), this value would become 29 metric tones CO2 per million US $ of GDP on average. As you read the list below, note that only 2 countries of 67 listed currently meet that goal - and both currently satisfy a considerable share of their energy demand using a combination nuclear and renewable (mostly hydro) generation technologies. Both supplied 38% of their 2010 electricity demand by nuclear generation.

Best performers or lowest CO2 emission per unit GDP (in metric tones CO2 per million US $ GDP) are:

1. Switzerland (20)
2. Sweden (29)
3. Norway (33)
4. Denmark (38)
5. France (39)
6. Singapore (44)
7. Austria (46)
8. Hong Kong - China (47)
9. Spain (53)
10. Italy (54)

12. Brazil (55)

14. Japan (57)

16. UK (60)

17. Germany (63)

22. Australia (81)

29. USA (103)

So what's to be concluded? Can any clarity be derived from this toil?

First, if the data for Australia are correct, that effort should be commended and continued. Did industry begin to move based on a suspected carbon tax? Not too likely being 2010 data. Is this the result of initiatives of the former government? Maybe. In any case, I'll be watching this space.

Next, it's obvious to see why emission reduction negotiations can be so ineffective. Any country can point to one of the given lists to show why someone else should be working harder to reduce 'their' emissions. How can one navigate the rhetoric and achieve some type of consensus? For example, if you rank each country in the categories I've mentioned above [total emissions, 2009 to 2010 total increase, 2009 to 2010 percent increase, emissions per capita and emissions per unit GDP] and assign one point for the worst performer, two points for second worst etc. to 67 points for best performer in each of those categories, then the best opportunities for emission reductions would appear to be:

1. China (49)
2. Russia (49)
3. Saudi Arabia (49)
4. Kazakhstan (53)
5. South Korea (62)
6. USA (76)
7. India (83)
8. Iran (95)
9. Taiwan (97)
10. Japan (102)

16. Germany (116)

19. Canada (121)

22. Finland (128)

25. UK (135)

28. Brazil (138)

And the best performers as evaluated this way (maximum possible points = 335):

1. Switzerland (294)
2. Hong Kong - China (281)
3. New Zealand (276)
4. Slovakia (272)
5. Azerbaijan (257)

26. Australia (204)

But is it just to consider all criteria equally? For example, how will the list be impacted if greater weight, say twice as much, is placed on those countries with the most alarming trajectories. In this case, I'll double the points for total increase in emissions as well as greatest percentage increase. Now the list of opportunities becomes:

1. China
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Russia
4. Kazakhstan
5. South Korea
6. India
7. USA
8. Japan
9. Indonesia
10. Taiwan

13. Brazil

15. Finland

16. Germany

25. United Kingdom

26. Canada

The five best:

1. Switzerland
2. Slovakia
3. Hong Kong - China
4. New Zealand
5. Azerbaijan

14. Australia

Similarly, if we reset the equation, but double the weight of per-capita emissions (individual responsibility), the list shifts to:

1. Saudi Arabia
2. Russia
3. Kazakhstan
4. South Korea
5. USA
6. China
7. Kuwait
8. Taiwan
9. UAE
10. Iran

12. Japan

15. Canada

16. Germany

17. Finland

20. India

23. United Kingdom

29. Brazil

The best here:

1. Switzerland
2. Hong Kong - China
3. Bangladesh
4. Slovakia
5. New Zealand

33. Australia

Finally, if we reset the formula once more and double the weight of emissions per unit GDP (or economic carbon efficiency), that list is:

1. China
2. Russia
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Kazakhstan
5. South Korea
6. India
7. Iran
8. Turkmenistan
9. USA
10. Taiwan

22. Japan

23. Canada

24. Germany

27. Finland

30. United Kingdom

34. Brazil

and the five best performers:

1. Switzerland
2. Hong Kong - China
3. New Zealand
4. Slovakia
5. Spain

24. Australia

These quick and dirty sensitivity analyses show certain countries appearing on each worst ten list - even when the weight of specific criteria are doubled. These include China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, South Korea, the USA and Taiwan. India and Iran appear on all but one and Japan comes up on two of the four.

Switzerland is rock solid atop the best performers. Already at its carbon efficiency target, it need only work to reduce its per capita emissions by about 80% before declaring absolute victory. Hong Kong, New Zealand and 52% nuclear reliant Slovakia also appear on all top five performers list. Yet none have achieved the necessary per capita or per unit GDP goals.

There's only one clear conclusion, everyone's got some amount of work to complete. And lest we forget, increasing global population will only further challenge our collective responsibility.