Filed under : Scitizen >> Earth & Environment >> Climate Change >> No sign of break in the link between emissions and higher GDP
No sign of break in the link between emissions and higher GDP
10 Jul, 2009 03:29 pm
Enlarge text
Reduce text sizeAn important recent paper looked at the links between economic prosperity and carbon footprint.[1] It compared the average emissions per head in 73 different countries at all different stages in development. Unsurprisingly, it showed that richer countries have much higher greenhouse gas outputs. The interesting and somewhat depressing finding is that a country with 10% higher GDP per head than another will generally have emissions about 8% higher. The correlation is strong - very few countries diverge much from the norm for their level of income.
 |
For a long time policy makers had a sense that economic growth was only partly coupled to greenhouse gas emissions. It was optimistically assumed that as countries grew their use of energy tended to increase much less than their GNP. The theory was that growth was fastest in service activities that don't use much energy. Energy-intensive economic activity, such as manufacturing and construction, would decline in importance. This was the consensus view, and probably still is in many policy-making clusters.
This important paper shows that this cheery hypothesis is, at best, only partly true:
a) Richer countries do have larger service sectors. A 10% higher GNP per head country has a 12% larger service sector.
b) The importance of manufacturing, both of domestically manufactured and imported goods, increases as well. A country with a 10% higher GNP per head will typically have 11% larger expenditure on manufactured goods.
c) What the paper calls 'mobility' (travel in cars, air, public transport) also increases faster than GNP.
d) The only really important beneficial change is that the emissions from food production tend to decline as a share of total emissions among richer economies.
Typically a country with per capita expenditure of $4,000 per year will have service-sector emissions of about 1 tonne per head rising to 4 tonnes in a very rich $50,000 expenditure country, a four times increase. But the emissions from manufactured products are nine times higher in the richer country and 'mobility' emissions are eight times greater. The unfortunate truth is that rich country emissions are more dominated by manufacturing, traded goods, and mobility, not less.
The analysis in the paper also includes an estimate of the impact of imported goods. In the UK our emissions are very substantially disguised by the invisible GHGs created by the factories in China that make our plastic goods, our electronics, and our furniture. The analysis shows that imported goods (after deducting the emissions produced by exports) add about 11% to UK emissions, almost the highest figure in the world. We have made little measurable progress in 'decarbonising' emissions.
This leads on to the second important point from this paper, and one which I think the authors under-emphasise. If you know a country's GDP per head, you can estimate its emissions reasonably accurately. Across the main categories - building, mobility, clothing, etc. - the plots of emissions versus expenditure per capita show smooth curves. (Of course this visual impression is encouraged by log/log plotting.) Cold countries have higher emissions from domestic buildings than would be predicted from the equations, but the reason is obvious. They need more heat. But in the case of mobility, there is a very tight distribution and few countries diverge far from the curve.
What this says is that there is almost a mechanical relationship between GDP and emissions. No country has found a way of delinking greenhouse gases and growth. If GDP goes up by 10%, emissions are almost certainly going to rise about 8%.
The work in this very thought-provoking paper compares different countries at the same time. Other studies have examined the same country at different times. The third way of looking at the issue is to plot the emissions of people at differing income levels in one country at one particular time. (All these techniques are trying to get a grip on the issue of how much emissions will rise as an economy grows.)
Eighteen months ago, I looked at the UK's national household expenditure database to assess how carbon footprints change with higher household expenditure. The database groups households into deciles (ten per cent groups) ranked by the money spent. It breaks it down into matters like gas and electricity, petrol and transport spending. I had to estimate, for example, how much petrol was bought by a typical weekly expenditure of £10 and this makes the numbers only of indicative accuracy.
A table from this work is given below:
 |
This table only covers some of the main sources of emissions for which we are directly responsible but it shows the approximate connection between emissions and income. Money spent on gas and electricity does not rise rapidly with greater prosperity. Poorer households are much smaller than the average, often being composed of just one pensioner, but the cost of heating a building does not rise much with the number of people in the house. Second, many poorer people live in badly insulated properties that inflate energy bills. Expenditure on meat also isn't much higher in richer households. But mobility expenditure rises far faster than income. In sum, as average per-person expenditure rises from the median household to the top 10%, the most obvious sources of greenhouse gases increase by about 67%, while expenditure goes up by 125%, or about twice as much.
This analysis provides further support for the view that increasing prosperity seems to involve major increases in greenhouse gases inside countries, across different countries at different stages of development, and in one country over time. The many people who say that increasing prosperity makes it easier to find solutions to the need to reduce climate-changing emissions should acknowledge that economic growth also introduces a strong upward and apparently unavoidable tendency for higher GHG outputs.
Footnotes
[1] Edgar G. Hertwich and Glen P. Peters, ‘Carbon Footprint of Nations: A Global, Trade-Linked Analysis’, Environmental Science and Technology (2009) http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es803496a (doi:10.1021/es803496a).
[2] The Hertwich and Peters study is a cross-sectional study at one point in time. Rich countries have much higher emissions than poor countries. This does not necessarily mean that when a poor country becomes a rich country through economic growth its emissions will increase. It just makes it very likely.
Originally published on Carbon Commentary
Add to Facebook
Add to Yahoo ! MyWeb
Add to Furl
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Digg
Add to Google Bookmarks
Add to Newsvine
Although apparently brief, the suspension of the Copenhagen climate conference after a walkout by the Group of 77 developing countries confirms that the talks are as much about money as about healing the world's climate. It's not just that the G77 wants the Kyoto limits on the emissions of developed countries enforced, while leaving their own emissions uncapped; it also wants the developed world to kick in sizable sums--much bigger than the 2.4 billion Euros per year offered by the EU--to cover the improvements in energy efficiency and renewable energy that would enable them to tackle the growth of their own emissions. There's a solid argument there, though it is not the guilt-based logic of "carbon debt" that I explored a few weeks ago.
In spite of the recent weeks of roller coaster-like expectations for a positive outcome from the COP15 climate conference that got underway Monday, the sense of urgency is keenly felt here at the Bella Center, home of the climate negotiations and exhibitions for dozens of NGO's and observer organizations.
Forget 80% by 2050 and 17% by 2020. Time to stop fixating on 450 ppm vs 350 ppm. As UN climate talks kick off today in Copenhagen, Denmark, there's only one number really worth the world's attention: $10.5 trillion. That's the additional investment required between now and 2030 to put the world's energy system on a lower-carbon path, according to the world energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency.
I'll discuss the willingness of developing countries to undertake significant emissions reductions on their own that tangibly reduce the growth of their emissions in the near-term (e.g., to 2020) and lay the foundation for even deeper cuts in the medium-term.
Have you heard that we're getting new neighbors? Demographers expect that the number of people living on earth - now about 6.8 billion - will grow to between 8 and 11 billion by 2050. Whether population tops out at the high or the low end of those projections will have a huge impact on climate change. So population control is again claiming a place on the environmental agenda.
Last Thursday, an editorial in the Wall St. Journal referred to a paper in the latest issue of Science entitled, "Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error", which concludes that the manner in which the greenhouse gas impacts of biofuels are currently assessed fails to account for significant emissions that occur outside the envelope normally drawn around an ethanol or biodiesel plant and the farms that supply it with feedstock. And if that omission weren't glaring enough, I ran across another instance in which regulators appear to be turning a blind eye to the full impact of another popular option for addressing climate change, electric vehicles.
The two-week global warming negotiations in Bangkok, Thailand are just wrapping up. There are five key elements to the Copenhagen Agreement.
Even "moderate" cuts in greenhouse gas emissions may be sufficient to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change, says new MIT study. But only if those moderate cuts start now, not in 2020, where many emissions targets take initial aim. Without swift action, even more aggressive cuts may not be enough to stop extreme climate disruption.
I feel like an idiot for not seeing this one coming from either China or India. It's so painfully obvious, in hindsight, that I have to wonder how anyone who follows energy and environmental issues closely could have failed to predict it. What am I babbling about? China is now saying that the endlessly discussed target of keeping global warming below 2°C is not such a big deal.
Yvo de Boer closes Bonn talks with stark warning that the current pace of the Copenhagen negotiations remains far too slow.
A recent survey found that there was a significant interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that investment decisions were made without close attention in the emissions trading scheme market. Rather, investment decisions were guided by expectations about the long term development of overall energy costs.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported late last week that research by Australian National University scientist Andrew Macintosh indicates that, based on most industrialized nations' stated mid-term commitments, limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius simply "won't work."
Researchers working on a joint World Agroforestry Centre-United Nations Environment Programme project suggest that integrating agroforestry in farming systems on a massive scale would create a vital reservoir for carbon storage. No less than a billion hectares of developing country farmland is suitable for conversion to carbon agroforestry projects, according to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates.
Proposals to reduce global warming through giant engineering projects or so-called geoengineering abound. Almost all are in the idea stage. But even if they were ready to deploy today, they would be dangerous for the planet, counterproductive for our energy future and unfair to the public.
Yesterday the International Energy Agency (IEA) released their much anticipated (and previously leaked) World Energy Outlook 2008.
-
25/02/10
Sacks gardening in urban and rural areas
-
25/01/10
Good News for Himalayan Glaciers, Bad News for the IPCC
-
11/01/10
Microalgae Producing Energy Through Emissions
-
31/12/09
Ecosystem Shift Accelerating From Changing Climate New Research Says
-
28/12/09
Google, Jane Goodall, forests and the cloud
| [1] | Comment by Duncan - 10 Jul, 2009 05:19 pm Not sure I understand the results. France, which mostly gets its electricity from nuclear, is shown with about the same per capita footprint as Germany, which mostly uses coal and natural gas. How can that be? |
Alert Moderator
| |
| [2] | Comment by Adrian - 30 Jul, 2009 11:41 am Well the per capita carbon footprint is about 15% lower for France. Also remember that a lot of the carbon footprint comes from using liquid fossil fuels so the lower carbon footprint of electricity generation doesn't affect these usages. |
|
Alert Moderator
| |
Read more
