« BrightSource Energy / Luz II Dedicate Solar Energy Development Center | Main | Neste Oil to Build $1B NExBTL Renewable Diesel Plant in Rotterdam »
Dutch Agency Says China Contributed Two-Thirds of 2007’s Increase in CO2 Emissions; US the Top Emitter per Person
13 June 2008
![]() |
| CO2 emissions by region. Click to enlarge. Data: PBL |
In 2007, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel use and cement production increased by 3.1%, following a 3.5% increase in 2006. An analysis by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, PBL) estimates that with a national increase of 8% in 2007, China’s CO2 emissions accounted for two-thirds of the 2007 global increase.
Smaller contributions were made by India, the US and the Russian Federation, in contrast to the European Union (EU-15), where a relatively warm winter and high fuel prices led to a 2% decrease in CO2 emissions. The increase in emissions in 2007 of about 800 million metric tons of CO2 was mainly due to a 4.5% increase in global coal consumption, to which China contributed more than 70%.
PBL now estimates that China’s CO2 emissions are about 14% higher than those from the USA, putting it at the top of the list of CO2 emitting countries with about a quarter share in global CO2 emissions (24%), followed by the USA (21%), the EU-15 (12%), India (8%) and the Russian Federation (6%). Together, these represent 71% of the total of global CO2 emissions.
Since population size and level of economic development differ considerably between countries, ranking by emissions per person shows a very different order. The top 5 in metric tons of CO2 per person are: USA (19.4), Russia (11.8), EU-15 (8.6), China (5.1 ) and India (1.8).
Of all industrial processes, the cement clinker production process is the largest source of CO2, apart from fossil fuel use. It contributes around 5% to the total of global CO2 emissions from fuel use and industrial activities.
With a production increase of 10% in 2007, China now has a share in global cement production of about 51%.
Cement manufacturing is responsible for almost 20% of the total of China’s CO2 emissions, including those from fuel combustion for heating the kilns. After the earthquake which recently hit the Sichuan province, it may be expected that the rebuilding of houses and roads for over 5 million people will cause the cement demand to soar even further, PBL said.
High oil prices of recent years have had their impact on oil consumption, causing that of the OECD countries to fall by 0.9% in 2007. In Europe, a relatively warm winter and high fuel prices have had a mitigating effect on CO2 emissions, which decreased by about 2% last year. In 2006, CO2 emissions from the EU-15 remained constant, which was confirmed in a recent report by the EEA, which compiled data from the 15 original Member States.
In the USA, relatively cold winter and warm summer temperatures in 2007, combined with a decline in non-fossil-fuelled electricity generation, resulted in increases in CO2 emissions from space heating and cooling. Overall, in the USA in 2007, CO2 emissions increased by 1.8%, compared to 2006.
Methodology, data and uncertainties. PBL compiled the estimated using the most recent data on fossil fuel consumption from the BP Review of Energy 2007 (BP, 2008) and cement production data through 2007, published by the US Geological Survey (USGS). The CO2 estimates for 2006 and 2007 were compiled by PBL, using the detailed national CO2 emission estimates for energy use through 2005, compiled by the International Energy Agency (IEA, 2007), estimates for flaring and venting through 2004, compiled by CDIAC, supplemented with data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), national submissions to the UN Climate Secretariat (UNFCCC) and data from the Global Gas Flaring Reduction partnership (GGFR) for 2004/2005 and own estimates for CO2 emissions from cement clinker production.
The estimates of CO2 emissions do not include CO2 emissions from deforestation/logging and are calculated using default CO2 emission factors, recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CO2 emissions from underground coal fires in China and elsewhere and the peat fires and peat emissions from dehydration in Indonesia are not included, either.
The magnitude of these sources is very uncertain; according to recent research, annual CO2 emissions from coal fires are estimated at 150-450 megaton CO2 in China and 400-5,000 megaton CO2 from peat in Indonesia. Though significant, being highly uncertain, CO2 emissions from the decay of organic materials of plants and trees, which remain after forest burning and logging, are also not included.
The energy data annually published by BP, appears to be reasonably accurate, according to PBL. Based on older BP energy data, the increase in 2005 in global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion was estimated at 3.3%, globally. With presently available and more detailed statistics of the International Energy Agency (IEA) for 2005, the increase is now estimated at 3.2%. At country level, differences can be larger, in particular for countries with a large share in international marine fuel consumption and with a large share in non-combustion fuel use. Moreover, energy statistics for fast changing economies, such as China, are less accurate than those for the traditional, industrialized countries within the OECD.
Other recent analyses of CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel use and cement production have suggested that the uncertainty of CO2 emission estimates could be about 2 to 3% for the USA and as high as 15 to 20% for China. However, the estimate for China is based on revisions of energy data for the transition period in the late 1990s, which may not be applicable to more recent energy statistics. Based on subsequent revisions of emission estimates made by the IEA, PBL estimates the uncertainty in the preliminary estimates for China—caused by uncertainty in the energy data—at about 10%.
Resources
June 13, 2008 in China, Climate Change, Emissions | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: HarveyD | June 18, 2008 at 07:55 AM
Methodology, data and uncertainties.
The title alone should make any thinking person wonder.
Quite apart from that, I have never seen any 'methodology, measurements etc, etc.' regarding natural elimination or reduction of CO2.
I may have missed that article from the PBL, or in the NYT.
As for the Bush bashers - if lightening were to hit you between now and doomsday, it's probably Bush's fault too, right? Get a life!
Posted by: hansb | June 18, 2008 at 08:01 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00e5535131158833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dutch Agency Says China Contributed Two-Thirds of 2007’s Increase in CO2 Emissions; US the Top Emitter per Person:

Twitter headlines

Jer:
I'm not sure that living standards do (or have to) correspond to GHG emissions. However, lifestyles may correspond to energy waste + GHG emissions in many cases.
One may have very high living standards while creating very little GHG. It is often a question of choice of vehicle; residence place, type and size; type of HVAC; type of lights; natural fibre clothing; clean electricity; use of electrified public transportation etc etc.
In the last 15 years, after 3 house changes, we managed to reduce our all electric home energy consumption for 75+ KWh/day to 25 KWh/day with no reduction in comfort level. After getting rid of our V-8 large Chrysler and Buick, for a mid-size Toyota, we reduced our gas consumption from (60 x 2 = 120) liters/week to about (40 x 1 = 40) liters/week.
We also stop smoking and are healthier. Our carbon/GHG foot print has been reduced considerably, much below the 24-ton/capital for the country we live it.
There are no logical reasons why our current (24-ton each) national per capital GHG could not be reduced to about 8-tons/per capita or to the EU level. Better built and equipped homes, more efficient and/or electrified vehicles, clean electricity and more electrified public transports could do it. It has nothing to do with living standards.