News & Analysis
Global CO2 emissions up 3% in 2011
Anne-Francoise Pele
7/26/2012 10:34 AM EDT
PARIS – After a 1-percent decline in 2009 and an unprecedented 5-percent surge in 2010, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased by 3 percent in 2011, to 34 billion tons, according to the annual report 'Trends in global CO2 emissions" by the European Commission's Joint Research Center (JRC) and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL).
The 3-percent increase in global CO2 emissions in 2011 is above the past decade's average annual increase of 2.7 percent, outlined JRC in its latest report. The top emitters contributing to the 34 billion tones of CO2 emitted globally in 2011 are: China (29 percent), the United States (16 percent), the European Union (11 percent), India (6 percent), the Russian Federation (5 percent) and Japan (4 percent).
In Europe, CO2 emissions decreased by 3 percent, to 3.8 billion tones, and in the United States by 2 percent, to 5.4 billion tones, in 2011.
Click on image to enlarge.
In Japan, CO2 emissions also declined by 2 percent, to 1.2 billion tones, in 2011, whereas CO2 emissions increased, for example, by 8 percent in Australia, by 2 percent in Canada, and by 3 percent in Russia, JRC noted.
In China, the world’s most populous country, CO2 emissions jumped 9 percent, to 9.7 billion tones. This increase, the report specified, is in line with the increase in thermal power generation of 14.7 percent (mostly in coal-fired power stations), in steel production of 7.3 percent (also a large coal user) and in cement production of 10.8 percent reported by the National Bureau of Statistics of China.
In India, the report indicated that CO2 emissions continued to increase in 2011 by 6 percent, to 2.0 billion tones. India is the fourth largest CO2 emitting country, following the EU27, and well ahead of Russia, which is the fifth largest.
Although emissions in China and other developing countries have grown very rapidly, in recent years, the picture is different for CO2 emissions per capita and per unit of GDP. Since 1990, in China, CO2 emissions per capita increased from 2.2 to 7.2 tones, while they decreased in Europe from 9.2 to 7.5 tones per capita and in the United States from 19.7 to 17.3 tones per capita.
In 2011, the report specified that China’s average per capita CO2 emissions increased by 9 percent, to 7.2 tones. Taking into account an uncertainty margin of 10 percent, this equals the European Union’s 2011 per capita emissions of 7.5 tones.
Click on image to enlarge.
An estimated cumulative global total of 420 billion tones of CO2 were emitted between 2000 and 2011 due to human activities, including deforestation, the report noted.
This is being mitigated by the expansion of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind energy and biofuels. Although still very small, the global share of these renewables quadrupled from 1992 to 2011. According to JRC, this potentially represents about 0.8 billion tones of avoided CO2 emissions in 2011 that would have been globally emitted from fossil fuel power generation and road transport. This is close to Germany's total CO2 emissions in 2011.
The 3-percent increase in global CO2 emissions in 2011 is above the past decade's average annual increase of 2.7 percent, outlined JRC in its latest report. The top emitters contributing to the 34 billion tones of CO2 emitted globally in 2011 are: China (29 percent), the United States (16 percent), the European Union (11 percent), India (6 percent), the Russian Federation (5 percent) and Japan (4 percent).
In Europe, CO2 emissions decreased by 3 percent, to 3.8 billion tones, and in the United States by 2 percent, to 5.4 billion tones, in 2011.
Click on image to enlarge.
CO2 emissions per country from fossil fuel use and cement production
Source: JRC
In Japan, CO2 emissions also declined by 2 percent, to 1.2 billion tones, in 2011, whereas CO2 emissions increased, for example, by 8 percent in Australia, by 2 percent in Canada, and by 3 percent in Russia, JRC noted.
In China, the world’s most populous country, CO2 emissions jumped 9 percent, to 9.7 billion tones. This increase, the report specified, is in line with the increase in thermal power generation of 14.7 percent (mostly in coal-fired power stations), in steel production of 7.3 percent (also a large coal user) and in cement production of 10.8 percent reported by the National Bureau of Statistics of China.
In India, the report indicated that CO2 emissions continued to increase in 2011 by 6 percent, to 2.0 billion tones. India is the fourth largest CO2 emitting country, following the EU27, and well ahead of Russia, which is the fifth largest.
Although emissions in China and other developing countries have grown very rapidly, in recent years, the picture is different for CO2 emissions per capita and per unit of GDP. Since 1990, in China, CO2 emissions per capita increased from 2.2 to 7.2 tones, while they decreased in Europe from 9.2 to 7.5 tones per capita and in the United States from 19.7 to 17.3 tones per capita.
In 2011, the report specified that China’s average per capita CO2 emissions increased by 9 percent, to 7.2 tones. Taking into account an uncertainty margin of 10 percent, this equals the European Union’s 2011 per capita emissions of 7.5 tones.
Click on image to enlarge.
CO2 emissions per capita from fossil fuel use and cement production
An estimated cumulative global total of 420 billion tones of CO2 were emitted between 2000 and 2011 due to human activities, including deforestation, the report noted.
This is being mitigated by the expansion of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind energy and biofuels. Although still very small, the global share of these renewables quadrupled from 1992 to 2011. According to JRC, this potentially represents about 0.8 billion tones of avoided CO2 emissions in 2011 that would have been globally emitted from fossil fuel power generation and road transport. This is close to Germany's total CO2 emissions in 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
anne-francoise.pele
7/26/2012 10:58 AM EDT
To access the full report, titled "TRENDS IN GLOBAL CO2 EMISSIONS - 2012" by European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), click here: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CO2REPORT2012.pdf
Sign in to Reply
goafrit
7/27/2012 10:52 AM EDT
There is need for hard conversations in this world. I mean, these are issues that Romney and Obama should focus on and not the trivial. I am troubled that my generation is causing this havoc to the ecosystem. See these NASA photos
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
Sign in to Reply
GoGoGeek
7/26/2012 1:19 PM EDT
Projecting CO2 emissions for China for the future is scary.
Sign in to Reply
microe
7/26/2012 4:16 PM EDT
Don't forget big part of that China CO2 was from "made in China" which were consumed by the world
Sign in to Reply
AlPothoof
7/26/2012 7:20 PM EDT
If that is true, it is probably mostly indirectly so: according to an article I read this morning, China is bring a new coal-fired power plant on-line every week. They are already the largest C02 emitter in the world and output is expected to increase 70% by 2020.
Sign in to Reply
wilber_xbox
7/26/2012 1:22 PM EDT
This report is confusing to me. Is this estimate of the total CO2 emission (industrial or otherwise) or the surplus CO2 emission to the environment? The total CO2 emission represents the industrial activity but the surplus CO2 to the environment can tell about what the countries are doing to counter CO2 emission.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
7/26/2012 5:41 PM EDT
I'm pretty sure that number is the total output of CO2, because it compares with those numbers in the past. But in terms of "countering CO2 emissions," are you talking about planting more tress? Or sequestration of CO2?
I don't think the latter is being done, other than in words at meetings and symposiums.
In short, man-made CO2 is creeping up to over 3 percent of the total CO2 emissions into the ecosystem now. Would be nice to see more reforestation efforts, worldwide.
Sign in to Reply
Sanjib.Acharya
7/26/2012 2:14 PM EDT
Recently I heard and then read a story about how Tokyo Gas Company along with Chiba University in Japan is using CO2 generated from the production of hydrogen for greenhouse cultivation of tomatoes. CO2 is a byproduct in the production of hydrogen, used for fuel cell vehicles, buses running from nearby Haneda Airport to main areas of Tokyo. Earlier Tokyo Gas was releasing the CO2 into the environment. But now Tokyo Gas ships about 320 kilograms of the liquid CO2 every month to Chiba University's botanical plant in Kashiwa for cultivating tomatoes in greenhouses. With higher concentration levels of CO2, tomato harvests have increased. The tomatoes thus produced are getting popular in the local malls.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
7/26/2012 7:36 PM EDT
Yes, pumping CO2 into greenhouses, to encourage faster plant growth, is a well known practice.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
It's good to see this done efficiently, instead of by burning more fuel for the job.
However, this is what people should be wondering. If plant growth in greenhouses can use more CO2 than what is available in the ambient atmosphere, then why are we being told that the additional 3.1 percent of CO2 created by humans is too much for the environment to absorb? Why doesn't it instead encourage more plant growth, and compensate?
That link I listed above does show that there is a point at which additional CO2 no longer helps, in greehouses. However, we seem not to be close to that yet?
Or is it that the prevalent global vegetation is quite different from the mix of plants in your typical greehouse? Or is it that deforestation is too severe for the additional plants to grow at all?
Anyway, the good news is that the way you reduce CO2 emissions is simply to increase the efficiency of fuel-burning machines. So that's a good goal, no matter whether it does anything to global warming at all.
Sign in to Reply
Ogemaniac
7/27/2012 3:27 AM EDT
Rising CO2 levels in nature will encourage some plant growth, but CO2 is rarely the limiting factor in the wild. Water stress due to high heat, droughts, and floods will harm plant growth more than extra CO2 will help it.
There are a number of technical papers on the matter and it is discussed in the IPCC and other major climate reports. The balance between CO2 "fertilization" and water stress with respect to crops yields is difficult to predict but appears to be a solid negative.
CO2 fertilization also appears to favor "weeds" and invasives over more specialized native plants.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
7/27/2012 3:37 PM EDT
IMO, these points are the only ones that matter. Most of the rhetoric around human-caused global warming is just so much generic, vague, "I'm so virtuous because I'm wringing my hands while reciting the standard formulas" drivel.
Assuming it's true that plant growth cannot be increased by increased CO2 levels, because of, say, water stress or other causes, then one would have to conclude that the ecosystem, viewed as a control system, which it is, is operating right at the sharp edge. To the extent that a mere 3 percent change in CO2 emitted cannot be accommodated.
If I were to design a control system that is so close to the margin, I'd probably have been fired years ago.
But nevertheless, I'll say again, whether or not increased efficiency of machines reduces global warming, it does preserve natural resources. And that alone is a really valid goal.
Sign in to Reply
nosubject
7/26/2012 4:18 PM EDT
The per capital emission is an indication of how the economy goes. You entered the developed world when g.e. 6 tons/capital, otherwise, still developing.
The exception could be France, where more than 70% of electricity if from nuclear.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
7/26/2012 5:30 PM EDT
These findings are entirely to be expected.
In developed countries, the population of cars, air conditioned homes, and power plants, is more or less stable. So what you see is a reduction of CO2, resulting from all the fuel economy improvement initiatives.
In developing countries, not only can they often not afford the latest in fuel efficient technologies, but their populations are far from any point of equilibirum, in terms of cars or other energy-sucking amentities owned by the public.
Add to this that the population of just two countries, China and India, both so far very short on cars and other luxuries, account for 1 of every 3 people on the planet, and indeed the outlook is scary.
Sign in to Reply
elctrnx_lyf
7/26/2012 10:56 PM EDT
I think industries and governments should take this report seriously and do their best to reduce the emissions for the better future of next generations.
Sign in to Reply
goafrit
7/27/2012 10:50 AM EDT
I will simply say governments as no industry will self-police itself. Look at the polar bear. Look at the arctics, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
We are destroying this planet.
Sign in to Reply
goafrit
7/27/2012 10:48 AM EDT
I am totally confused in being a global citizen. How can we have higher emission with all the efforts to curb it? That seems very ironic.
Sign in to Reply
nosubject
7/27/2012 11:22 AM EDT
That is easy to be explained in economical view. The assumption is everybody has the rights to pursue happiness, especially the material happiness. It makes us very wasteful. For example, the thermal stats are ridiculously set to 70F in summers and 80F in winters. Use more than two more papers in the restroom to dry hands. Drive a big SUV when not necessary. Drive more than 10miles to work... etc. How to curb it? I think the only way to save the world is to make these luxury wasteful living styles not affordable. But it is unrealistic, because no politician can win the election if they tell the truth and provide the solution.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
7/27/2012 3:27 PM EDT
It's not all that surprising, and it goes way beyond JUST the wasteful habits of some slovenly self-indulgent people with obscenely wasteful habits.
In the two most enormous countries in the world, China and India, there is a tremendous pent-up demand for luxuries that most people in the developed countries have had for a long time, and have taken for granted. So it almost doesn't matter what smaller developed countries do, at this point. I mean, the overall impact of 2.6 billion people buying up luxuries will dwarf most conservation efforts.
A two percent decrease in CO2 emissions in a tiny country will have little impact on a 70 percent increase in a huge country. And it's going to be difficult to increase the car population of countries like China or India by, say, 5 times or more, without incurring a lot more CO2 emissions.
Sign in to Reply
nosubject
7/27/2012 3:39 PM EDT
Agree with you. The role model is already set firmly. There are peer pressures to be wasteful. If somebody can be wasteful and enjoy life for several decades and take the wasteful habits for granted without any penalty, why cannot all others followup and do the same thing? The 7billion are all the same human beings on this planet.
Sign in to Reply
chanj
7/29/2012 6:33 PM EDT
Reducing CO2 emission shall be a global effort. There is no reason to pinpoint any countries or individual. The developing countries are apparently emitted more CO2 than any other developed countries. They need to build power plant bring the country up to join the industrialized world. They could start using alternative energy sources if the technologies are mature enough and the cost of them is not a burden to development. Yet, building roads and infrastructure require machines that are fueled by fossil fuel. The growth of CO2 emission of China and India top 2011's chart, and likely 2012's and 2013's. Who knows whether Bazil and other developing countries will catch up.
In addition, if a country is primarily running production, they will demand more energy than any other countries. After translation, they burn more fossil fuel. If the measurement of CO2 emission is by measuring fossil fuel consumption and/ or by CO2 level in the environment, IMO, the report is revealing how much fossil fuel is being consumed by the country (or region). I wonder what if the measurement is done by consumption of goods and services.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
7/29/2012 6:42 PM EDT
"If the measurement of CO2 emission is by measuring fossil fuel consumption and/ or by CO2 level in the environment, IMO, the report is revealing how much fossil fuel is being consumed by the country (or region)."
Any hydrocarbon fuel creates CO2 emissions when it is burned. It does not have to be just fossil fuel. Biofuels are no different.
You cannot escape that the two natural byproducts or "perfect combustion" are going to be H2O and CO2.
To avoid this, you have to avoid the combustion process entirely. By using solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, what have you other type of energy source.
Sign in to Reply