Warning: What I’m about to say will sound heartless, like I “don’t get” the human side of our ever-growing climate mess, and it will leave me open to misinterpretation, willful or otherwise. I’m going to say it anyway because I’m convinced that a lot of people who read everything they can about climate change or peak oil or whatever facet of sustainability they care to obsess over still don’t truly understand the urgency of our situation.
This line of thought was prompted by something someone said in a comment on a post I made here yesterday (What really happened at Copenhagen), quoted in its entirety:
The only way to get everyone to agree to anything is if Europe/U.S. agrees to allow India and China to cap their carbon output at the same levels as U.S./Europe. . on a PER CAPITA BASIS.
I’ve heard this argument and minor variations on it more times than I can count. While I applaud the obvious appeal to fairness and an enlightened world view, the bottom line is that the numbers don’t come close to supporting it…
Worldwide CO2 emissions in 1990, the baseline year used for all those “80% reduction by 2050″ guidelines we endlessly quote to each other, were 21.5 billion tons, and current emissions are about 30 billion tons.
Per capita emissions, now: China: 4.6 tons/person, India 1.2, the US: 20, (and from a separate source) the EU: 9.0.
Populations in 2025: China: 1.47 billion, India: 1.35 billion, the US: 0.35 billion.
The trajectory of per capita emissions growth for China will bring it to roughly EU levels by 2025 (see the link above for the per capita emissions figure). India’s emissions are growing much slower than China’s, so I will assume they reach 2 tons/person in 2025. I’ll also make the laughably generous assumption that the US will get its emissions down to the EU’s level by 2025.
What does all this give us?
The 2025 target, using a linear reduction from 2010 to 2050 requires us to be at or below roughly 20 billion tons.[1]
Using the above figures, China’s total emissions in 2025 will be 13.2 billion tons (1.47 billion people * 9 tons/person), India’s will be 2.7 billion tons (1.35 billion * 2), and the US’ will be 3.15 billion tons (0.35 billion * 9). Total for these three countries: 19.05 billion tons. I suspect that the EU, Japan, Africa, Canada, Mexico, Russia, et al. will add up to quite a bit more than the 1 billion tons needed to put us way behind schedule. And all those emissions above that level will have to be accounted for later on, thanks to the long atmospheric lifetime of CO2.
Notice that if China’s emissions rise to 9 tons/person, which is where they’re headed, at 13.2 billion tons they’d be more than triple the worldwide limit (4 billion tons) for 2050.
Plus, this talk of 2050 targets ignores the “area under the curve” aspect of the problem. If China’s emissions grow as assumed, then they will have to peak and drop precipitously to keep the total level of CO2 in the atmosphere below a catastrophic level. It’s not just a matter of getting down to some magic level by 2050, but the path we take to get there. High emissions for another, say, 20 years will make it all but impossible to avoid using up our CO2 emissions allotment.
Lest you think you can find a ray of sunshine in all this gloom and doom, do I really have to remind anyone here what the chances are of the US and other high emitters making the kind of cuts that will be needed even if China and India reduce their emissions from this point forward?
The argument for not asking China and India to shun exploiting cheap fossil fuels as they develop, the way the US, the EU, and others did, truly is compelling, even if “only” for social justice reasons. But far more compelling is the unforgiving math of our situation. The high emitters have to reduce their emissions very quickly, and the developing nations have to avoid higher emissions levels, even temporarily. As the climatologist Ken Caldeira says, “The right target for both mugging little old ladies and carbon dioxide emissions is zero.”
I detest this situation as much as does anyone reading this site. But that doesn’t mean that you or I or anyone else should ignore the underlying facts. If anything, I’m convinced that the bigger and more urgent a problem is the more important it is for everyone involved (which is, basically, everyone) to understand the situation, especially the inconvenient math.
[1] 2025 is 37.5% of the way from 2010 to 2050. Since we have to drop emissions from the current level of 30 billion tons/year to only 4 (20% of the 1990 level), that means we need to realize 37.5% of that 26 billion tons/year reduction, or 9.75 billion tons/year. From our starting point, that gives us a level of 20.25 billion tons in 2025, coincidentally enough.
I really don’t see how a logical being can look at numbers like these and not think that we are going to end up with massive geoengineering / air capture / adaptation. “Overshoot, adapt and recover,” as they say. Or as Lem put it, as the technosphere erodes the biosphere, the task of a civilization is to take steps to preserve or replace the functions of the biosphere — or else perish.
Lou, I think you know this is all academic. We are very likely, imho we are, going to blow through 3C+ now whatever we do. This effectively means its very likely that human civilization is toast. I think Lovelock is right on the button. But to move forward we have to take all steps necessary. No outcome is written in stone and we strive for the best result.
So, if we are going to be “fair”, and I can see the rationale, we are going to have to reduce our (US) emissions to something less than 15 % of what they are now? (U. S. then 3.15 GT / 20 GT now =15.75% reduced for population growth of some amount)
Good calculations, Lou. And, it puts things in a far more meaningful perspective. I will assume that my own carbon budget is high to others, and that my home uses more than 15% of my total, in spite of efficiencies – insulation, CFL’s, newer appliances, care with the thermostat. (I guess I will just have to give up breathing.) I will say that this reduction is not going to happen, for me or anyone else. It is plausible to think that if we take draconian measures, starting right now, we can devise a plan which will gain a lot of reductions, but not to 15% of what we now use.
Lou – I’m pretty sure the “80% by 2050″ number is for the developed nations. The world-wide goal is more like “50% by 2050″. Now whether that’s a reasonable goal likely to keep us within a 2-degree temperature increase, or reasonable from the side of equity between nations as you put it is quite another matter.
hmmmm very nice