OK, so I’ve crunched the numbers on the non-agreement made at Copenhagen, using data from the IEA on emissions.
In 2006, CO2 emissions from the world were about 28.4 billion tonnes, of which about 51.5% were from the “developed world”. This compares to about 21 billion tonnes in 1990, when 66% were from developed countries.
So the non-treaty drafted Copenhagen indicates a goal of reducing global emissions to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050, with developed nations cutting 80% by that date. Meeting this goal requires:
- Developed nations must reduce emissions at a rate of just about 4% a year, every year, until 2050.
- Developing nations must reduce emissions at a rate of just about 1.5% a year, every year, until 2050.
Delay in reducing emissions immediately will result in much larger cuts being required later. For instance, if business as usual continues until just 2015, then the cuts would need to be 4.8% and 2.7% a year from then on. It’s like compounding interest. Time is the big factor.
When the developing nations spoke at Copenhagen (through the G77), they spoke of reducing emissions intensity. China, India, others all spoke of reducing the emissions per unit of GDP, not gross reductions. But the math doesn’t support them. Even if the developed world cut emissions by 100%, the developing world will overtake global 1990 emissions by 2050 with only 1% growth in gross emissions. And since we know that China, India and Brazil have emissions rising at rates well above 1%, this seems unlikely.
This is why China killed any agreement at Copenhagen and will do so at Mexico City in 2010. They will refuse to reduce emissions at all, because of the negative impact on their economy. Why? Because reduced economic growth in China will result in political problems.
It is interesting to me that the dream of the socialist left (be they red or green) is being derailed by the largest communist nation – in the name of capitalism!
3 comments
The_Iceman says:
21 December 2009 at 17:53 (UTC -7 )
Solid analysis. Has anyone totalled up with this whole Copenhagen Conference cost taxpayers around the world?
Cynical Bard says:
21 December 2009 at 21:04 (UTC -7 )
We can tote up the emissions all we like, but this really isn’t about emissions. It is about politics and money, nothing else.
Taliesyn says:
22 December 2009 at 8:44 (UTC -7 )
You are right – but the Chinese did the math and figured out that they would end up PAYING into this scheme. Guess what, suddenly it isn’t attractive anymore.