In an excellent post, Andrew Revkin of the New York Times dot Earth blog poses the question – “Where would carbon dioxide emissions be if everyone on Earth was using fossil fuels at the same pace, per capita, as the United States is now?”
Using some simple math, Revkin presents some not so surprising facts:
It’s simple multiplication. Right now, the sum of global emissions of carbon dioxide by 6.6 billion very-unequal humans is about 29 billion tons a year. (An excellent database is here on historic and current emissions, from energy and cement making.)
If everyone was emitting at the British level, it’d be 66 billion tons a year. Okay, let’s try the United States. That would be 132 billion tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere each year, if everyone on Earth had an equal carbon footing.
We spent a couple of minutes with Excel and a global emissions database to put some of these figures into a global perspective:
Revkin sums up this situation perfectly:
So clearly something has to give, presuming the countries of the world are serious about accepting the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which they all did, ostensibly, last year).
In doing so, Revkin asks the question that after much discussion remains unanswered: what’s going to give?
Further reading:
Andrew Revkin – dot Earth, Millennium Development Goals Indicators, Trends Compendium of Data on Global Climate Change, and a shameless plug for TalkClimateChange
The point you haven’t made clear here is a very simple one: we are not all emitting the same as each other, and we never will, no matter what targets are forced upon us from above.
Some math exists in all natural systems that shows why this is the case. It’s called “complex network theory”.
Considering our current awareness of the problem, nothing needs to “give”. We will naturally increase our energy efficiency, and technology and science will answer many questions.
(If you don’t believe that, feel free to continue panicking over something you can do nothing about!)
“we are not all emitting the same as each other, and we never will, no matter what targets are forced upon us from above. ”
Correct, but we are moving closer together. If everyone in China wants two cars in the garage, a dishwasher and a flat-screen TV then the numbers are quickly going to look different.
“Considering our current awareness of the problem, nothing needs to “give”. We will naturally increase our energy efficiency, and technology and science will answer many questions. ”
I’m not sure that our energy efficiency is going to increase naturally. I think it will, but it will be a painful process. Actually I just blogged something on that topic: http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2008/02/28/did-you-know-that-it-was-energy-saving-day-today/
Yes, that was a great post, and I blogged about it as well.
If not resolved peacefully, this simple question will be answered by wars. The maths are quite simple. Something’s got to give. Either less people, or less carbon emissions per people.
The answer unfortunately can only come between nations at the highest level. I place great hope in the next president of the United States.
http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com
War-time style rationing sounds awful
I’m not going to begrudge anyone a fridge! Maybe they can connect it to this thing…
http://ecolocalizer.com/2007/12/19/the-wind-of-change-comes-with-maglev-wind-turbines/
http://northwardho.blogspot.com
Excellent post and charts! Wow, show those to Mr Revkin! Really shows what’s happening.
What has to give? Our entire way of life must change, less cars, less air travel, no coal plants, a complete revamp of life on earth…..but this won’t happen in all likelihood….so we must then start talking about ADAPTATION to a changing world. See my ideas here:
http://northwardho.blogspot.com
Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.
See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz
It’s Dr Coles again, with his fossil fuel industry backed guff. He makes his money because of climate change – that’s what he says — well it turns out that’s cause he’s a professional paid climate denialist.
Try these links — a couple of radio interviews I just did
US NASA scientist James hansen, transcript and podcast
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/James-Hansen-no-more-coal-carbon-stabilisation-below-350ppm
US Naval Oceanographer — does the US need submarines or an aircraft carrier to defend it’s interests in the arctic come summer 2013 — This is the question you have to ask with Wieslaw Maslowski’s prediction of no summer ice.
http://podcast.beyondzeroemissions.org/07dec07-wieslaw-maslowski-beyondzero.mp3
and today we interviewed Ken Caldiera of the Carnegie institute
http://podcast.beyondzeroemissions.org/08feb29-ken-caldeira-carnegie-institute-washington-beyondzero.mp3
So Dr Coles, find a different sugar daddy other than the fossil fuel industry.
Matt
Climate Campaigner
Beyond Zero Emissions
http://beyondzeroemissions.org
Mark – You’ve made an interesting point here (with the help of Andy Revkin. Who, by the way, Danny, makes the occasional appearance around the GO network.
What strikes me about the current round of climate change talks (along with Kyoto) is that US negotiators do not want to give China, India and other developing countries a “free ride” and that they have to be held to the same standards we do. The question that raises for me is, didn’t we get a ‘free ride’ for the last 150-175 years to put as much carbon in the air as possible. Now that we know the dangers of it, we can do something about it, and therefore we should.
All of this hemming and hawing about not going along without China and India is a political ploy that ignores the historical development of the situation we are in now. Yes, there are many more Chinese than Americans, but few Americans know that the CAFE standards we passed last year allowed us to catch up to China in terms of a mandated auto fuel efficiency.
“It’s Dr Coles again, with his fossil fuel industry backed guff”
It’s climate campaigner again, with his “it’s right because Hansen says it is” guff.
Not that you have any vested interests yourself, Mr Wright?
The effect of CO2 on AGW/AGCC is measured in millionths of a degree, 10s of millionths if you ignore convection.
The probable effect of O2 (Oxygen) on AGW/AGCC is thousandths of a degree, if you ignore convection.
The probable effects of di-hydrogen-monoxide (H2O) and Ozone O3 are much higher. All of these combine to help protect us from the wide swings in temperature associated with day and night.
There are so many real environmental problems that need to be addressed.
Why is so much attention being paid to none issue (AGW/AGCC)?
Why are our freedoms being threatened on its behalf?
Is it really just a bunch of government paid scientists using fear to get grants, IPCC politicos padding there support numbers to maintain credibility, and politicians with agendas that happen to coincide?
Are there really that many ignorant people in the world?
Is there a deeper conspiracy at work?
I think that a whole bunch of folks, who have not eaten enough protein, turned off their brains for a while.
So, if your one of them: eat something and WAKE UP!
For a moment…forget CO2, forget the global warming….
And try to remember the disparity and unequel distribution of resources, particularly food.
It’s not just about CO2 emission, its also about resource consumption…both of which are directly related…the more we consume….the more we emit.
In fact what Andrew Revkin says today…was said more than 50 years ago…by the leader of the non-violence movement (and one of the first moden environmentalist) Mahatama Gandhi.
Some 70 years back..Mahatma Gandhi had pointed the unsustainability, at the global level, of the Western model of economic development in his journal “Young India.”
He had written, ‘God forbid, that India should ever take to industrialization after the manner of the West. The economic imperialism of a single tiny island kingdom (England) is today keeping the world in chains. If an entire nation of 300 million took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare like locusts’.