Who dunnit? How to attribute CO2 emissions between nations

In my last blog, I referred to the relative simplicity of calculating an (approximate) carbon footprint.  Of course there's a lot of mystique around it (and an increasing number of relatively well-paid experts), but the fundamentals are not exactly rocket science.  Maybe some of the solutions should be kept equally simple and not made overly complex.  So if we can calculate our footprint here and now, perhaps we can also travel back in time and find out how much we have been responsible for historically?  This is not just a matter of academic interest, as developing nations contend that those that have been industrialised for longer periods have been greater contributors to the problem, and so should bear more of the burden in reducing future emissions and mitigating damage caused by past emissions.

There have been a number of attempts to do just this, and work out the share of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions attributable to each country.  It's far from being an exact science, as there are inevitably gaps in data and some pretty broad assumptions need to be made, but it's still - in my view - a worthwhile exercise.

The latest estimates can be found in Environmental Research Letters, an open access academic journal published by IOPscience.  As with personal or corporate footprinting, the key decisions are around boundaries and scope.  The boundaries are quite simple - nation states - but have a time factor as well: in this case going back to 1800 as being roughly the start of the industrial revolution, when coal began to display wood (and to a lesser extent wind or water power) as the main source of energy.  Pre-1800 use of coal was globally so low as to be lost in the rounding errors of carbon calculations.

This choice is however controversial, as early industrialised nations, such as the UK, were using fossil fuels in complete ignorance of any potential risks to the climate. It contrasts sharply with (say) the Sandbag Report on Sovereign Emissions (direct link to PDF report) which starts measurement at 1990, when the first IPCC report was published assessing the dangers of climate change.  Prior to that, most governments and citizens were unaware of the real risks from using fossil fuels (although the science had been understood for a while).

The Environmental Research Letters Report differs from most other estimates in a second important respect; as well as looking at emissions of the main greenhouse gases, it takes into account land use change and the effect of aerosols (not the ones used for deodorant, but a form of air pollution arising from sulphates emitted in burning fuels such as coal and that have a generally cooling effect on the climate.  These factors are quite significant and lead to some surprising countries having a net global cooling effect - including Chile and Kazakhstan.

The Report also converts cumulative tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (that snappy measuring units that geeks like myself love, but is hardly user friendly) into a contribution towards global temperature rises.  As you would expect, the top three contributors are the usual suspects: the USA, China and Russia, but Brazil slips in at number 4 and the European nations are headed by Germany, the UK and France at 6, 7 and 8.  On this metric, the USA is responsible for 0.151°C of global climate change, with China less than half that at 0.063°C.  Britain's 0.032°C  is actually double that of France, just one position below it in the league table.  And of the positive nations, Chile and Kazakhstan's reduction is less than 0.005°C:

Of course this is quite largely about population so the Environmental Research Letters Report goes one better, and relates to changes per billion inhabitants.  (It could do it per person, but that would give teeny numbers.)  This can be seen graphically below and has a surprising (to me) nation heading the table - the UK:

On this measure, red is bad (major contributor to global temperature change).  The UK has 0.54°C temperature rise per billion inhabitants, the USA 0.51°C, with Canada, Russia and Germany filling out the top five places.  China and India are near the bottom with around 0.04°C.  It should be added, that the report's authors only consider the top 20 emitters in this table, so although India is listed 20th on a per capita basis, it would be a lot lower if other countries were included.  It's also likely that the UK would lose its top spot in this "naughty league" to a smaller energy intensive user, such as Luxembourg or even Qatar or United Arab Emirates, which although they have only become large users of energy in relatively recent periods, are among the very largest users today.

So is this a fair measure?  I'm inclined to say "no", for several reasons.  Firstly, it's a little unfair to blame us for actions taken in complete scientific ignorance - I might not start the clock as late as Sandbag's 1990 baseline (as I personally was well aware of the likely problem in the late 1980s, and indeed so was Mrs Thatcher).  Maybe we should look at a weighted emissions, with 1800-1980 ones less culpable than more recent ones.  Secondly, the method looks only at direct origins of emissions, and ignores the fact that many of China's emissions (for example) may be attributed to Western demand for cheap goods, sometimes manufactured to less environmentally exacting standards.  Thirdly, there is always a problem of blaming children for the sins of their fathers; we should be judged on our current efforts to minimise emissions more than on what has gone before.  And at a national level, should recent immigrants be penalised for what long-standing residents have done?  (Even someone as apparently English as I am can point to a great-grandfather who immigrated from Ireland around a century ago, although at the time Ireland was part of the UK, too...)

But, even if it's not quite fair, it is still a useful exercise to help us think about long term responsibility.  And this doesn't just mean looking backwards at what our parents did, but also the responsibility that we have to future generations not to trash the world that they will be inheriting.

Total won't drill in the Arctic...because a spill may damage its image!

In an interview with the Financial Times, the French energy company Total is reported as saying

Energy companies should not drill for crude in Arctic waters, marking the first time an oil major has publicly spoken out against offshore oil exploration in the region. Christophe de Margerie, Total’s chief executive, told the Financial Times the risk of an oil spill in such an environmentally sensitive area was simply too high. “Oil on Greenland would be a disaster,” he said in an interview. “A leak would do too much damage to the image of the company”.

Call me a cynic, but I am not impressed by this apparent volte-face. Mr de Margerie does not seem to be concerned about the environmental damage per se, but about what it might do to the image of Total. Don't worry about the polar bears or the near pristine environment, just think about poor old Total...

Of course it's worse than than that. A Macondo-style spill might kill some wildlife, or pollute a few ice floes, but successful drilling could be even worse for the environment. If there really are billions of barrels of oil locked away under the Arctic Ocean or the Barents Sea, releasing it to the market would add many more millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide. And in turn that could lead to catastrophic climate change that could affect wildlife across the globe, not just around Total's rig.

Am I being too harsh on Total? Probably not, although the other big oil companies are equally culpable. True Shell has suspended drilling for this year due to environmental concerns and it did seem slightly less concerned about its image, but not before it has spent a reported US$4.5 billion: I suspect that they won't abandon the Arctic after making that investment in it.

So is there an alternative? Well, conservation - energy efficiency and investment in better public transport - has to be the starting point for reducing demand, with alternative fuels still worthy of consideration. There have been some interesting developments in algae-based biofuels recently, and I may blog on those in the near future. Or we could look instead at trying to capture solar energy to generate electricity, which can drive land vehicles directly, or through creating hydrogen from electrolysis of water. And here Total may get a small plaudit from me, as they have at least one public hydrogen refuelling station in Berlin, in partnership with Norway's Statoil.

CO2 emissions from cycling

The Environmental Transport Association (ETA) Trust (always an interesting website) reports that the European Cyclists Federation (ECF) have compared the CO2 produced by cycling with other modes of transport.

According to the report cycling is responsible for CO2 emissions of 21g per km. The calculations included emissions associated with production, maintenance and fuel. The figures were based on a heavy 19kg European-style town bike built using 14.6kg of aluminium, 3.7kg of steel and 1.6kg of rubber and the cost of producing the extra calories consumed by a cyclist rather than a motorist. The report calculated that an average car produced 271g and a bus 101g.

It concludes that Europe could reduce its overall emissions by one quarter if its population cycled as regularly as the Danes. In Denmark the average person cycles almost 600 miles each year – far more than the EU average of almost 120 miles per person per year and a total of 46 miles in Britain. ETA comment that this is largely due to better facilities in Denmark, as the climate and generally flat urban areas are similar in both.

Figures like this are always fun, but a little misleading. Although it’s right to consider the embodied emissions in the bike itself, an even more favourable comparison would be to look purely at the marginal emissions for those who already own a bike (and that’s most of us) – mainly tyre wear for a bike (plus a teeny bit of oil, brake blocks and wear & tear on other components).

When I cycle to work (2.5 miles each way, not very flat) I usually reward myself with a bun or a few biscuits, but the calorific value consumed (and net carbon emissions) are lower than the marginal energy that I exert compared to the wet days when I drive. In other words I’m eating into my fat resources on cycling days, and adding to them on other days. So there’s not too many extra CO2 emissions from that. I have attempted to use a more direct carbon conversion from, say, the footprint on some packets of crisps but it’s very hard to know exactly how much energy I use cycling (and I do know I use less energy now that am I fitter than when I first started regularly cycling to the office 6 years ago).

Finally, there’s one thing to avoid – that tempting shower on arrival at the office. If heated by electricity, the emissions from an extra shower are likely to undo all the good work cycling. A 3 minute shower using an average 8.5kW (based on electric ones advertised in the UK) and Defra grid average emissions would use 0.425kWh, equivalent to about 223g of CO2 (see the NEF's Carbon Calculator for an easy converter). Longer showers - baths - only add to the net emissions.

Australia, China and Climate Change

The Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, made ratifying the Kyoto protocol on climate change his first official act after his inauguration last week. Mr Rudd is reported as saying "Australia’s official declaration today that we will become a member of the Kyoto protocol is a significant step forward in our country’s efforts to fight climate change domestically – and with the international community". Mr Rudd will also be one of only six heads of government expected to attend the Bali conference on Climate Change. Some commentators have noted that his signature was largely symbolic, as Australia is one of the few developed countries likely to meet its Kyoto targets due to its shift away from coal. Nonetheless, the environment was one of the two main areas of difference between the incoming Labor Party and the conservative coalition under former PM John Howard and assumed its importance in part due to Mr Howard's perceived intransigence in not signing up to Kyoto, as well as due to the prolonged droughts in much of Australia.


Clearly this ratification is to be welcomed, even though it is 10 years (yesterday!) since the Kyoto protocol was first agreed. The US is now the only major country not to have ratified the treaty, which requires developed countries to cut their CO2 emissions but imposes no targets for developing countries.


We do not have the luxury of another ten years in which to prevaricate, and squabble among ourselves about which countries should do what. And yet, we see this happening in Bali at the moment, with China and the USA involved in some sort of game of chicken, trying to be the last to cross the road towards making meaningful emissions reductions.


While this brinkmanship is going on, emissions are continuing to rise globally, with China - in particular - continuing to build new power stations. The Financial Times estimates that this year around 90GW of new coal fired capacity will be opened in China (although perhaps 15% of this will replace older smaller and often illegal stations. This comes on the back of 102GW opened in China last year - an all-time record.


It would be wrong of us in the West though, to focus too much on China. Certainly, much of the dirty electricity generated is then used in inefficient manufacturing, compounding the problem. The Chinese admit that this additional coal-fired capacity would not be entirely needed if their burgeoning manufacturing industry was more energy efficient. But part of the reason that it is inefficient is due to an escalating demand for inexpensive products by the very countries in the West, such as the UK, that are complaining about its rising emissions. As we go to the shops this Christmas and load our baskets with cheap Chinese goods, we should remember that there is a high carbon cost as well as the low financial cost that we see.


To bring this full circle, China and Australia are both Pacific nations, joined loosely through APEC (the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation). The world is shifting away from Europe and the Americas in the 21st century; let's hope that the new realism about climate change in Australia can spread around the Pacific Rim.