Chevrolet to Produce 10,000 Volts in 2011 and 30,000 in 2012; 50-State Availability 12-18 Months After Launch
Land Rover Unveils New Compact Range Rover Evoque; Sub-130g/km CO2

China and India Nullify Global Reduction in CO2 Emissions in 2009

Despite the continued economic crisis, global emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, have remained constant in 2009 as strong increases in CO2 emissions from fast-growing developing countries such as China and India, have completely nullified CO2 emission reductions in the industrialized world.

Pblco2
CO2 emissions from fuel combustion and cement manufacturing by region. Source: PBL. Click to enlarge.

This according to calculations in the report “No growth in total global CO2 emissions in 2009”, published by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). The PBL based its calculations on recent data from a number of sources: data on energy use from oil company British Petroleum (BP); on cement production from the US Geological Survey (USGS); and on the latest version of the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), which is a joint project of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL).

The PBL calculated that emissions from fossil-fuel combustion (including those from gas flares—the burning of waste gas from oil drilling and other industrial processes, such as the production of cement and ammonia) in the industrial countries have decreased by 7%. In China and India, these emissions increased by 9% and 6%, respectively, despite a doubling of wind and solar energy in China, for the fifth year in a row.

Overall, this has meant that in 2009, CO2 emissions worldwide have remained constant, for the first time since 1992. In earlier projections, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted an emission decrease for 2009 of 2.6%, which would have been the largest decrease in forty years.

For industrialized countries, their reductions help them to meet their international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Last year, their combined emission level was 10% below 1990 levels, and therefore well below the Kyoto target level. Together, the industrialized countries—except for the United States, which has not ratified the protocol—are on course to achieve a combined average decrease in CO2 emissions of 5.2%, between 2008 and 2012, compared with 1990 levels.

However, this decrease is also related to the financial crisis. A large part of production capacity has been suspended, but could be re-employed as soon as the economy improves. Therefore, it is likely that a recovering economy would cause emission levels in industrialized countries to go up. Nevertheless, the economic downturn has meant that these countries can meet their reduction obligations with more ease. Another consequence of this downturn is that some industrialized countries may need to purchase less emission rights from reduction projects in developing countries, which, in turn, means that there will be less funds available for emission reductions in those developing countries.

Although there have been strong increases in emissions in countries such as China and India, their average CO2 emissions per inhabitant, in 2009, were still below those in industrial countries. In India the emissions were 1.4 tonnes per person and in China this was 6 tonnes, compared with 10 tonnes per person in the Netherlands and 17 tonnes in the United States.

Resources

Comments

The Goracle

.

"...strong increases in CO2 emissions from fast-growing developing countries such as China and India, have completely nullified CO2 emission reductions in the industrialized world."


LOL!!! Better step up the continued process of destroying the U.S. economy so that we can make up for countries who value work, and jobs.

It's too bad that there is NO PROOF that CO2 emissions are related to Global Warming® (since rebranded Climate Change®, since rebranded CO2 Pollution®) and/or global cooling.

.


HarveyD

No surprise here. Pollution goes with the transfer of manufacturing facilities, the increased number of vehicles etc in those two countries with above average growth rate. Brazil and Russia will be next. EU and USA have relatively lower (pollution) with reduced growth rates.

It seems that manufacturing growth rate = pollution

The Goracle

.

Please, all of you "green" hypocrites: Stop polluting. You are spewing CO2 pollution every time you exhale. Stop it. Now!!!


Lol!!! CO2 is as much a pollutant as H2O.

Praise be to Algore! (aka crazed poodle now further destroying Mother Earth by living in separate residences from his estranged wife - emitting even MORE CO2 "pollution.")

You all are too funny!

.

ai_vin

You know what's really funny Goracle?

Somebody who posts like you calling someone else a "crazed poodle."

Sanity Chk

Goracle: If you don't understand the science, then leave that to the millions who do and stop being part of the problem.

I've said this before and it bears repeating:

Our collective smartness is the product of our individual smartness. At the moment, it doesn't look too good because as a whole, we are educated in neither critical thinking skills, nor in science and the scientific method.

As such, it takes little depth of argument to sway popular opinion. So the cry-baby, ranting loud-mouths on Fox Nooz and blab radio have a field day herding the minds of their loyal followers with their propaganda.

Exacerbating the problem is that the solution to Climate Change requires people to change their habits and possessions to reduce their carbon footprint. This is inconvenient and tends to make people vulnerable to the influence of anyone who denies it is happening.

Propaganda is always driven by the agenda of those funding it, including pseudo science with results that are determined at the onset. Real science never is. So how do you know what to believe? Will it be science, or shameless manipulation by self-serving propagandists? How do you tell them apart?

Except for the purpose of invention or product development, good science is never funded by corporations. Science funded by universities and government institutions is generally, but not always, unbiased. The more studies published on a given subject, by scientists around the world, in multiple disciplines (e.g. climate, geology, oceanography), that reach similar conclusions, the more you can rely on the results.

By this measure, anthropogenic climate change is undeniable and the need for immediate and dramatic action to prevent catastrophic consequences is imperative.

The reality of unchecked climate change is all glaciers and polar ice melting, ocean levels rising 100-300 meters, global scale droughts, flooding, massive storms, starvation, disease, ocean life dying, war, . . . you get the picture - and it's no exaggeration.

Everyone needs to do their part to make a positive collective response. To do nothing individually is to bury your head in the sand and hope nothing bad happens. The more people that get involved to better chance we have of averting a catastrophe.

Personally, I'd rather be part of the solution than part of the problem. If not, how could I ever look my children/grandchildren in the eye and say I did what I could to leave them a viable, thriving world?

The Goracle

.

"Will it be science, or shameless manipulation by self-serving propagandists?"

You mean such as the people at the EAU. Well, yes, the whistle blower who leaked the EAU, and other, emails certainly blew the lid off of the government funded "science."

Part of the solution in the 1970's was to detonate nuclear bombs in the Arctic, helping to melt glaciers in order to slow GLOBAL COOLING (science proclaimed, therefore, fact - indisputable fact that is). Part of the solution in the 1970's was to cover the Arctic with black soot in order to help melt it to save us from death and the impending ice age. I'm sorry that you wanted to be part of that "solution" Sanity Chk. It certainly discredits your opinions.

There are many hundreds of PhD's who dispute the government funded climate "research." Taking jobs from people, drastically increasing taxes, and an ever expanding, incompetent, government are not the answers to Earth's always changing climate.

Now lets work on energy independence and security and stop the "we're all gonna die from exhaling" silliness. There is no science that proves that CO2 causes the Earth to warm.

.

Sanity Chk

Goracle: Any grade school child can look at photos of glaciers from all over the globe, taken 50 years ago and again recently, and conclude that they are disappearing. This manifestation of AGW is abundantly obvious. However, here is a video that may help bring you up to speed on climate change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&feature=related

And a video that casts light on the actual content of the hacked, lid-blowing emails.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=player_embedded#

It's well past time to end the slanderous and diversionary rhetoric. Time to wake up and smell the coffee bud!

Get real!

Sanity Chk

Goracle: Were your "hundreds of PhD's" funded by the fossil companies among those who wanted to bomb the Arctic?

The Goracle

.

"Any grade school child can look at photos of glaciers from all over the globe, taken 50 years ago and again recently, and conclude that they are disappearing.

Yes, and they can cry as well. Oh, the HORRORS!!! Shut down all industry NOW!!! What, it has nothing to do with CO2? Oh, well children are crying - SHUT DOWN INDUSTRY NOW!!! Nice "scientific" argument. Thanks!

Sanity Chk, you are showing your extreme ignorance. I have never argued that the climate is not changing. It is said that Ohio was covered by glaciers at one point. Yes even in recently recorded history (pre-SUV) Earth's climate has been changing. The problem is that dishonest (yes, proven ad nauseam), government paid "scientists" want their utopia implemented. They are just like Big Oil but on the opposite side.

With regard to the 1970's and government paid "scientists" claiming that we were all going to die (or similar) due to the impending ice age: No, they were not paid by Big Oil. That was the science du jor, government funded, of course. Please open your eyes, think, and stop mindlessly reciting what your propagandists tell you.

It is well past time for you to end your slanderous and diversionary rhetoric.

.

Reel$$

We are on the way to energy independence which is a campaign that few can argue with. It eschews the climate for the very pragmatic need to transition to domestic sources of energy, traditional and alternatives. The electrification of transport which begins in November on a mass scale (via Volt and Leaf) will lead the way already confirmed by the wildly successful Tesla IPO.

While climate remains an opportunity to teach environmental issues, energy independence is far less controversial and enlists the concerns of both left an right politics. Let's get on with energy independence which by default will address the issues of climate as well.

ai_vin

Oh I do LOVE it when the Goracle posts! His rants are filled with so much nonsense it's easy to just point out his posts as a bad example.

With regard to the 1970's and government paid "scientists" claiming that we were all going to die (or similar) due to the impending ice age:

No my poor deluded friend, the scientists did not say that! Some opined that particulate pollution was countering the warming effect of CO2 but "global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific concensus"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M

you are showing your extreme ignorance
This? From you? Oh I do LOVE it when the Goracle posts. :^D

ai_vin

There are many hundreds of PhD's who dispute the government funded climate "research."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0

The Goracle

.

Oh! I do get somewhat of a thrill when ai_vin posts! ai_vin is so silly, using YouTube - a proclaimed, scientific, reference - to back of his/her silliness. Thank you for that.

No, YouTube does not do justice to the scientists who wanted the government to detonate nuclear bombs in the Arctic in order to stave off the impending ice age that we were QUICKLY heading in to. Yes, "scientists."

Thanks for that ai_vin. Let's all believe what we see on YouTube. LOL!!! Science!

.

Sanity Chk

Gorac: Ok, I'm ready to be delivered from my ignorance. Please tell me the natural cause of our rapidly changing climate. I am dying to hear what you have to say on the subject as long as you can support it with credible research.

Any peer-reviewed scientific articles?

Any credible sources at all?

In return I ask that you take a critical look at the videos and articles I've posted on the subject to date.

Reel$$

Children... Stop your bickering and support the SOLUTION to both your fears: Energy Independence. Easy way is get on board the current pan-political campaign. Hard way is disruptive technology introductions radically alter power balances.

What'll it be kids?

ai_vin

Ah gees grampa, we's is just having some fun getting the troll to do his tricks. Wat's the good of having a pet if'um you can't play with em?

richard schumacher

But he's too ignorant to have any real fun with; he doesn't even know the difference between fossil and non-fossil carbon. It's like poking a crippled retard with a stick.

The comments to this entry are closed.