The soundbites from the widely acclaimed success of COP 27, especially around the creation of a loss and damage fund (see UNCC Introduction to loss and damage), made me look once more at the realities of global CO2 emissions to see which countries are actually generating the most CO2, which are improving their performance, and which are suffering most. Sadly, this only made me appreciate yet again that the over-simplifications that occur during so many UN gatherings such as COP appear to be more about political correctness and claiming success than they do about developing real solutions to some of the most difficult challenges facing the world.
The UN Climate Press Release on 20 November summarised the outcomes relating to the fund as follows: “Governments took the ground-breaking decision to establish new funding arrangements, as well as a dedicated fund, to assist developing countries in responding to loss and damage… Parties also agreed on the institutional arrangements to operationalize the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage, to catalyze technical assistance to developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change”.
Unfortunately, it is not quite as easy as it might seem to validate the claim underlying this that it is the rich countries who do most of the pollution and should therefore compensate the poor countries where the most harmful damages from CO2 occur (see, for example, ThePrint, India; UN News, noting that “Developing countries made strong and repeated appeals for the establishment of a loss and damage fund, to compensate the countries that are the most vulnerable to climate disasters, yet who have contributed little to the climate crisis”; and BBC News, “A historic deal has been struck at the UN’s COP27 summit that will see rich nations pay poorer countries for the damage and economic losses caused by climate change”). How should it be decided, for example, which countries should be donors to this fund, and which should be beneficiaries from it? Pakistan, which led much of the discussion around the need for richer countries to fund the poorer ones, was actually the 27th largest global emitter of CO2 in 2019; China was the largest contributor, and India the 3rd largest.
The Table below, drawing on World Bank data (2022), gives the various rankings of the top 30 countries in terms of CO2 emissions per capita in 2019, and CO2 total emissions in 1990 and 2019, as well as the change in ranking of the latter two columns.
|Rank||Country||CO2 metric tons per capita 2019||Country||CO2 total emissions kt 1990||Country||CO2 total emissions kt 2019||Change in rank 1990-2019|
|4||United Arab Emirates||19.330||Japan||1090530||Russian Federation||1703589.97||-1|
|7||Luxembourg||15.306||India||563580||Iran, Islamic Rep.||630010.01||+12|
|8||Saudi Arabia||15.285||United Kingdom||561770||Indonesia||619840.027||+16|
|11||United States||14.673||France||356240||Saudi Arabia||523780.029||+11|
|13||Trinidad and Tobago||12.323||Mexico||269580||South Africa||439640.015||+3|
|15||Korea, Rep.||11.799||Korea, Rep.||247680||Turkiye||396839.996||+11|
|16||Russian Federation||11.797||South Africa||247660||Australia||386529.999||-2|
|19||Japan||8.541||Iran, Islamic Rep.||198470||Italy||317239.99||-8|
|24||Malaysia||7.927||Indonesia||148530||Egypt, Arab Rep.||249369.995||+10|
|28||China||7.606||Uzbekistan||117770||United Arab Emirates||188860.001||+16|
|29||Iran, Islamic Rep.||7.598||Belgium||109310||Ukraine||174729.996||-22|
|30||South Africa||7.508||Venezuela, RB||101630||Iraq||174559.998||+9|
Many important observations can be made from these figures, and I highlight just a few below:
Per capita emissions
- The highest per capita emitters are generally those in countries with recently developed hydrocarbon-based economies, such as Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and Brunei Darussalam, and generally not in the old rich industrial economies of Europe.
- Surprisingly, quite a few European countries such as the UK, Denmark and Spain (ranked 52nd-54th) actually lie well outside the top 30 highest emitters
- The twelve lowest per capita emitters for which data are available (not shown here) are all African countries.
- There are many fewer countries above the world average, at 4.47 metric tons per capita (which would rank 61st) and many more ranked beneath it, implying that the highest emitters are much higher than the lowest are low: Qatar at 32.47, has 28 metric tons per person more than the average; yet, 55 countries have emissions per capita of <1 metric ton.
- 60% of total CO2 emission are generated by people living in five countries (China, 31.18%, the United States 14.03%, India 7.15%, the Russian Federation 7.15%, and Japan 3.15%). Eleven further countries, all producing more than 350,000 kt CO2 annually account for a further 16.68% of emissions. More than three-quarters of emissions in 2019 were therefore from people in just 16 countries.
- Those countries with the lowest total emissions are nearly all small island states (SIDS; not shown in the Table), but note that these were not necessarily the lowest per capita emitters.
- The changes in total emissions since 1990 are also very interesting. The highest increases within the top 30 were Indonesia (+16) and Iran (+12), although much higher risers came into the top 30 from below, including Vietnam (+59), Malaysia (+23), UAE (+16) and Pakistan (+15).
These data do not make easy reading for policy makers, campaigners and the UN system as a whole, all of whom like to have simple answers and short soundbites. The world is unfortunately too complex and messy for these. As the world’s popultion passes 8 billion (2.8 times what it was when I was born), population growth is the dominant factor in determining total country-based emissions, but economic growth (following the US-led carbon-based capitalist mode of production) has also played a significant part. The big risers in total emissions are countries with large populations and/or with high economic growth rates over the last 30 years. Neither of these should be surprising. Poor countries, with low economic growth and relatively small populations are never likely to be amongst the largest consumers of energy. Overall, the biggest factor determining total CO2 emissions over the last century, and especially in the last 50 years, has been human population growth (see my recent post on “climate change”). Moreover, there has for long been an intricate and complex relationships between humans and carbon: the carbon cycle and the production of oxygen are essential for human life, and our economic systems have also been driven by carbon as a fuelfor centuries. These complexities make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to argue that we need to create two groups of countries: one being the recipients of funding (from a loss and damage financial facility), and the other being contributors to it. Instead, we need to work collaboratively together to transform the underying factors causing environmental change, of which CO2 emissions are actually only but a small part.
That is not, though, to say that there should not be much greater global effort to work together to resolve the environmental problems caused by our centuries old carbon-based economy (as well as those caused by so-called renewable energy). It is also completely separate from moral arguments suggesting that there should be a shift in wealth distribution from the rich to the poor. However, these should not be conflated into over-simplistic statements and assertions about responsibililty for climate change, such as those being promoted by UN agencies and mainstream media at the end of COP 27. It is also to reassert that we need to work together with renewed vigour collaboratively across sectors and disciplines to understand better the complex interactions that humans have with the environments in which we live, and then to make wise decisions how to implement them in the interests of all the world’s peoples and not just those of the rich and privileged parts of the world.
The above draft was written on 21 November 2022 (and has been revised slightly subsequently)
In response to the above, Olof Hesselmark kindly asked why I had not added further details also about the spatial distribution of CO2 emissions – something that as a geographer I care greatly about! I responded that I hadn’t wanted to complicate matters further, but also that I guess it was because I am aware in my own mind of these spatial distributions, and the country names (and sizes) are in-built into my consciousness! However, they do add an important additional element of complexity to the discussion, and I am delighted that he has agreed for me to add his slightly cropped map of CO2 emissions per sq km below:
I’m not entirely sure which projection this is, but my preference for such maps is Eckert IV, or other equal area projections such as Gall-Peters or Mollweide that place less visual emphasis on the apparent size of countries in high latitudes. This map nevertheless highlights the varying densities of emissions, with China, Europe and the USA being high, and Africa and Latin America being low. It should also be emphasised that there are enormous differences within countries, as well as between them, with urban-industrial environments generally being much higher in their CO2 emissions than sparsely settled rural ones.
A different perspective once again is thus from the Smithsonian Magazine‘s 2009s map below (carbon emissions from 1997-2010), which does indeed show how a very few areas contribute the largest amount of CO2 emissions.
Update 22 November 2022
3 responses to “COP 27, loss and damage, and the reality of Carbon emissions”
Excellent blog, as always!
However, the current status of the “changed climate” is undoubtedly not a result of current emissions. The dangerous levels of pollution started long before, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution! Therefore, don’t you think there should also be a new measure of “total emissions” over, say, a century? Because it must have taken at least that long to bring us to the present-day situation.
Hi Parvez. Thanks very much for this. If you look at the curve, to be sure it did start to go up in the Industrial Revolution, but the vast increases have only been relatively recent. I haven’t done a combined calculation, but demographic growth within a carbon-led economy seems to be of most importance to current levels – have a look at the graphs at https://unwin.wordpress.com/2022/11/10/climate-change-and-digital-technologies-redressing-the-balance-of-power-part-1/. Remarkably, it seems that it has only been since about 1900 that levels of emissions have gone beyond earlier figures in the 15th century. I don’t want to generalise too much without doing some quite complex calculations, but a large number of people emitting a relatively small amount of CO2 can produce more than a few emitting a lot. That’s partly what the Table of figures shows. I was trying to suggest overall (a) that the dominant rhetoric (esp at COP27) is not as simple as it would claim to be; (b) demographic growth is a significant driver (world pop has grown 2.8 times in my lifetime!); (c) this is especially so in a global economy dominated by carbon; and (d) we all need to work together much more than we do if we are to change things. I stand by these comments. You might also like to see Olof’s useful additional maps of emissions per unit of area, which adds another dimension of complexity to the picture! This shows very clearly that African states as a whole have very low emissions (which was a point I made in my text!). Am hoping to return to Pakistan early next year, and it wouild be good to catch up there again Hoping all’s well with you and yoiur family.
Very Insightful Blog !