Comments on: Spinning Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data

By: Ian Castles

Ian Castles — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:25:19 +0000

Eli, the question of whether EMISSIONS of CO2 per unit of output have decreased in the former Soviet Union countries is answered in my posting above (24 November at 8.46 a.m.). The short answer is that there was a large decrease between 1990 and 2003 (30 per cent), but that this was no greater than the decreases that occurred in the US and Australia over the same period. This probably means that “energy efficiency” increased substantially in all of these countries. But energy efficiency remains much lower in the former Soviet Union and Warsaw bloc countries than in the West.

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:32:32 +0000

A characteristic of industry in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw bloc was that it was very energy inefficient. It appears to me that a more useful question here is whether the energy efficiency per unit output has increased in these countries. It certainly has in Eastern Germany

By: Ian Castles

Ian Castles — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:54:21 +0000

Thanks Roger. I don’t want to go on about this as t’ve been critical of the whole conception anyway. However, in reluctant fairness to the EU, the deal that they negotiated at Kyoto was for a goal for the 15 countries as a whole (the so-called “bubble”). So it’s really not relevant, even in the terms in which you are commenting on performance against promise, to set Ireland’s increase against decreases in 5 other countries.

By: Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr. — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:50:57 +0000

Ian- Thanks very much for this thoughtful comment. By “success” I was specifically referring to success with respect to the goal of reducing overall emissions as specifically defined in the goals of the Kyoto Protocol. Ireland is certainly an economic success story according to criteria other than these, I would agree.

You are correct that reductions in emissions per unit GDP tell a different story than total emissions, but that is not what was referred to in the UN press release, nor is it the focus of the Kyoto Protocol. Thanks again.

By: Ian Castles

Ian Castles — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:46:20 +0000

The statement that “Russia’s decrease in emissions alone is more than the ‘alleged’ decrease of all 35 countries taken as a group” is correct. However, the statements that “all of the ‘so-called’ reductions are the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union”, and that the “Emissions ‘reductions’ that have occurred have been the result of … the economic effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union” are factually incorrect.

The net reduction in GDP in Russia between 1990 and 2003 was 23 per cent, while the reduction in emissions PER UNIT OF GDP was 25 per cent. For the 5 Former Soviet Annex I states, the reduction in GDP was 22 per cent and the reduction in emissions PER UNIT OF GDP was 30 per cent. Thus only a part of the reductions in emissions can be attributed to economic collapse.

The reductions in GHG emissions per unit of output in the former Soviet Unions states between 1990 and 2003 were not “one-off”: in fact, they were much the same as those achieved during the same period in the US (29 per cent) and Australia (28 per cent). They were, however, greater than those achieved in New Zealand (21 per cent), the European Union excluding Germany and UK (16 per cent) and Canada (15 per cent).

Contrary to the implication of Roger’s rhetorical question, Ireland is indeed a success story. Between 1990 and 2003 its GDP increased by a multiple of 2.4 while its GHG emissions increased by only 11.5 per cent in total and declined in per capita terms. By 2003, emissions per unit of GDP in Ireland had dropped to less than one-half of the 1990 level. This huge reduction is of course mainly a reflection of structural changes in the country’s economy.

More generally, the Kyoto principle of targeting absolute GHG emissions is logically unsound. It rewards countries for having sluggish economies and highly restrictive immigration policies.

By: Tom Rees

Tom Rees — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:46:39 +0000

Well that statement may well be correct – relevant to, but not necessarily proven by the data that are the subject of the press release. There are other, similar statements: “GHG projections indicate the possibility of emission growth by 2010″. I think they’re reasonable statements to make, as background to the report conclusions.

I think that, taken as a whole, they project a reaslistic assessment. I think that there is a Kyoto signal, when you bear in mind GHG growth in non-Kyoto countries. But that’s my subjective judgement. What I was objecting to was your objective statement, as referenced in my first post, which seems to me to be untrue.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:13:56 +0000

Tom- Thanks for the further comments. The UN official stated, “National efforts to implement the Climate Change Convention and to prepare for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol have already resulted in emission reductions,” speaking of 35 countries taken as a whole. This is a clear statement of cause and effect. It is a little bit like saying that a weight loss program was successful for a recent amputee! I don’t see any evidence from the report that indicates that the Kyoto Protocol had any effect on emissions, either for the 35 countries as a whole or for individual countries. That may in fact be the case, but further information would be needed to make this case. Thanks.

By: Tom Rees

Tom Rees — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:14:51 +0000

Roger, I didn’t say it was a success story. What I said was that what you wanted them to say was factually wrong! There have been real reductions, and a minor part of these reductions have been acheived by major, non-EIT economies. You can’t dismiss the UK’s reductions simply because they’re a result of policy change! (not that you are, I know, but you give that impression). And you can’t dismiss reductions by others simply on the grounds that they are small. The press release acknowledges that they are small.

John. probably the key difference is whether you think they’re trumpeting a success story. The facts are that some countries (including some non-EIT countries) have reduced GHG emissions, but that others are not. The press release doesn’t sound triumphalist to me:

“emphasized that a large part of the reductions was achieved in the early 1990s in countries of Eastern and Central Europe undergoing transition to a market economy … Mr. Kinley warned, “What we see is that the emissions from developed countries as a group have been stable in recent years and not decreased as they did in the early 1990s. Moreover, GHG projections indicate the possibility of emission growth by 2010.”

By: John Fleck

John Fleck — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:54:17 +0000

I have to agree with Roger here. The press release left me with a rather different impression than the underlying report when I went and read it. For Kinley to claim that it was “National efforts to implement the Climate Change Convention and to prepare for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol” that are responsible for the reductions rather than the sort of inexorable geopolitical and economic forces mentioned by Roger above is, I agree, quite misleading.

By: Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr. — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:31:41 +0000

Tom- Thanks for your comment. The reductions that you mention in France, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland and Luxembourg (I discussed UK and Germany in the post) are exceeded by the increases in Ireland alone. This is a success story? And please don’t conflate my analysis of UN data with a position on the UN itself. I think it is a critically important institution.