|
|||||||||||||||||
November 18, 2005Spinning Greenhouse Gas Emissions DataPosted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change In a press release issued today, the United Nations tries to put a positive spin on data that tells a far different story. The release states: "Developed countries, taken as a group, have achieved sizable reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but further efforts are needed to sustain these reductions in gases blamed for global warming and cut them further, a United Nations climate body warned today. The acting head of the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Richard Kinley, 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. " The release should have said that all of the so-called "reductions" are the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union which led to a one-time accounting quirk based only on the date used as the baseline for measuring reductions (1990). The press release spins off into fantasy land when it states, ""National efforts to implement the Climate Change Convention and to prepare for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol have already resulted in emission reductions," [Kinley] said of the pact that requires 35 industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent by the year 2012. Compared to 1990 levels, their GHG emissions were down 5.9 per cent in 2003." Let's take a look at the data in the report. Russia's decrease in emissions alone accounts for more that the alleged decrease of all 35 countries taken as a group. In other words, if we look at 34 countries rather than 35 (i.e., the 35 minus Russia) there is in fact a net increase in emissions. Perhaps the press release should have said, "Russia Reduces GHG Emissions, Other 34 Taken as a Group See Increases." It gets worse if you include states formerly part of the Soviet Union. If we also remove Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine then the remaining 29 states see an increase in greenhouse gas emissions of 4.7%. There are other one-time accounting issues. If we also remove Germany, which as a result of reunification saw the dramatic reduction of GHGs from the former East Germany, and the United Kingdom which saw its economy transition due to changes in its economy due to policies put in place under Margaret Thatcher, then the remaining 27 countries see an increase in GHGs of 8.2%. If we also take the United States out of the mix (in 24th place out of 35 countries), then the remaining 26 countries, which still include a number of eastern European countries affected by the end of the cold war, still see an increase in GHG emissions of 1.5%. The real story here is not the success of the Kyoto Protocol, but quite the opposite. Emissions "reductions" that have occurred have been the result of one-time events that have nothing to do with climate policy, most notably the economic effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union, but also changing economic policies in the United Kingdom. And even taking the United States out of the mix, the remaining countries have still seen emissions increase. There may indeed be a signal of the Kyoto Protocol in this data, but I sure can't see it. The UN is misleading us all by suggesting otherwise. Posted on November 18, 2005 08:33 AMTrackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsPost a commentURLs starting with http:// will be automatically linked in comments. No HTML will be processed. A spam filter will review your post before publishing. Some words or URLs are banned, e.g. poker. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||