Being honest on per capita emissions

Julian Kenny

Tuesday, December 1st 2009

In 1965 Tom Lehrer, the noted Harvard mathematician/entertainer in one of his witty
songs entitled ’Who’s Next’ about nuclear proliferation, in his usual spoken preamble to
the actual song, made the observation that if people can’t communicate the least they
should do is shut up. He was of course being his irreverent self, but communication of
ideas frequently becomes problematical on account of illogical thinking compounded by
imprecise use of language.

We hear repeated from on high that global warming/climate change does not respond to
per capita emissions, only absolute emissions (total would be a better word). Now I am
sure that this conclusion does not originate with Mr Manning or any of his Ministers as
they are extremely busy people who have to sort through and digest the many briefs that
they get on diverse subjects, briefs prepared by technical people, some of whom may be
scientists.

We must know, of course, what they mean. The world’s total carbon dioxide emissions
are estimated to be about 29 billion tonnes while the world’s population is estimated to
be about 6.5 billion. The world’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions rate is therefore
about 4.5 tonnes. So if you take the statements made by the Prime Minister and the
Minister of the Environment at face value you would have to agree that global
warming/climate change also does not respond to a per capita rate of emissions of 4.5
tonnes. Assuming the reality of the global warming/climate change phenomenon the
statements must therefore be totally illogical, at least in the English language.

However, had they stated that the ’country per capita’ emissions instead of simply per
capita, it would have made more sense. But there is still the equity or fairness argument
in the light of the fact that the problem is supposedly on account of industrialisation of
the developed countries of Europe and North America over the past two centuries.

Living as we do in a Third World country and on two small islands, it is inevitable that
the political processes insofar as scientific matters are concerned will not be particularly
well served. The principal agencies that support the role of science in government,
barring those scientists and engineers with party affiliations who may be at either UWI
or UTT, will obviously be the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) and the
Ministry of the Environment, plus some other government-funded organisations. The
official policy regarding the environment, as required by the EM Act, was originally
drafted by the EMA, passing though its Board, the Ministry, Cabinet and both Houses
of Parliament. It was recently revised and approved presumably through the same
process.

Now the EMA does not exactly have a creditable record of communication with the
Government, Parliament and citizenry. The first State of the Environment Report
required by the EM Act written by Canadian consultants was a disaster of gross errors
and misinformation.

Steps were taken by the EMA to chart a new path in reporting using unpaid local
consultants and since then its reports have maintained sound quality. But its other
communications have slipped over the years with its National Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan leaving us with some choice but understandable nuggets such as reporting
that the Guanapo Gorge is in the Aripo Valley. We also had that remarkable statement,
which I see repeated recently, that the sea levels are rising faster in south Trinidad than
in north Trinidad, giving actual measurements.

Its Revised National Environmental Policy however stands with its myriad grammatical
and technical errors. It should therefore not surprise anyone that politicians often
mangle the substance of their many briefs. In this particular case had the Prime Minister
and the Minister of the Environment been properly briefed the T&T position might have
been stated quite differently.

An enlightened national statement might have read: ’Trinidad and Tobago is a small
country that has been heavily dependent on extracting a wasting resource and as a
consequence has over the past century made a significant, for its size, contribution to
greenhouse gas emissions. Trinidad’s industrialisation has made it a heavily polluted
island as reflected in its 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index of 36.3 and its 2008
Environmental Performance Index of 70.4, ranking respectively 22 out of 23 countries
and 23 out of 26 countries in the western hemisphere.

’We recognise that our per capita carbon dioxide emissions of 26 tonnes are about five
times that of the world per capita figure. We recognise, also, that if there is to be equity
amongst nations we must join the rest of the world in reducing our emissions but make
the reservation, and the plea to the world, that we are allowed to continue our pollution
of the atmosphere on the understanding that we as a matter of national policy will
impose a development programme that progressively reduces our per capita emissions.’
CO2 emissions: per country or per capita?
Some people ask why Breathing Earth focuses on the CO2 emissions per country, rather
than per capita. After all, wouldn't the per capita rates give a better indication of who is
being most wasteful? For example, the citizens of Australia, Kuwait and Luxembourg are
among the world's worst polluters, yet their CO2 emissions aren't very prominent on
Breathing Earth because of those countries' relatively low populations.

The fact of the matter, however, is that what is most important is how many c02
emissions there are from the perspective of Planet Earth. Although some countries
are clearly much worse polluters than others, the problem is ultimately a global one that
humans of various nationalities have caused, and that humans of various nationalities
must work together to solve.

One thing must surely be obvious though: The problem is largely a Western one. It is the
Western countries who are leading the way in CO2 emissions, and when non-Western
countries have high CO2 emission rates themselves, it's usually because they are adopting
Western habits. Since we, the West, have been a leading cause of the CO2 emissions
problem, surely it is we who must step up and be the leaders in the solution.

PM Manning rejects per capita emissions measurements

Prime Minister Patrick Manning has “categorically rejected” the per capita breakdown of
greenhouse emissions. Mr. Manning made the comment at a news conference, one day
before the start of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2009. The
conference was hosted by the Prime Minister along with Commonwealth Secretary
General, H.E. Kamalesh Sharma, at the International Financial Centre in Port of Spain.
Manning added that while Trinidad and Tobago had a responsibility to reduce its own
emissions and would do so on a voluntary basis, the per capita argument is “a convenient
argument for countries with large populations.”

“When the earth responds to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it
does not do so on a per capita basis. It responds on the basis of absolute emissions. The
population of China is 1000 times the size of the population of Trinidad and Tobago and
when we look at the question of absolute emissions, China is the largest emitter in the
world, followed by the United States. Therefore the per capita argument is one that we
consider unsustainable,” the Prime Minister said. Manning also commented on
CHOGM’s intention to formulate a position on climate change for the United Nations
Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. He said the CHOGM discussion is
one where its diverse members will seek out a way to add value to the climate change
debate.

“CHOGM is a session designed to discuss and to see how we can add value to a process
that has been ongoing for some time, and which in the eyes of some is threatening not to
have a successful and amicable conclusion. A political statement out of CHOGM is not a
statement that one can take lightly; it comes with the weight of so many countries and
people,” Manning added. When asked about the attendance of non-Commonwealth
members; Denmark Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, UN Secretary General Ban
Kai Moon and French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy to the CHOGM, Prime Minister
Manning admitted that he had invited Rasmussen and Sarkozy after discussion with the
UN Secretary General and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He also indicated that their
presence was tied into the Commonwealth’s concerns about the direction of the imminent
climate change meeting. He noted “We thought that we could add value and add weight
to the voice of the Commonwealth if other non-Commonwealth agencies and countries
are associated with us.

Manning deflecting attention with pollution stance'

Phoolo Danny-Maharaj South Bureau

Saturday, November 28th 2009

Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s rejection of claims that Trinidad and Tobago is one
of the world’s largest polluters on a per-capita basis is an attempt to deflect international
attention and carry on with his plans to build even more polluting plants.

This is the view of University of the West Indies lecturers physicist Dr Peter Vine and
environmental activist Dr Wayne Kublalsingh, who said Manning’s stance on the issue
was personal and not shared by citizens.

During a news conference on Thursday, the eve of the Commonwealth Heads of

Government (CHOGM) meeting, Manning dismissed claims that this country was
among the world’s top ten offenders in carbon emissions on a per-capita basis. He said
when the earth responds to concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it does
not do so on a per-capita basis, but on the basis of absolute emissions.

Dr Vine said Manning was speaking for himself, ’not for his Cabinet and definitely not
the country’, when he made those remarks. He said the country would pay heavily for
those emissions.

Dr Kublalsingh said the measurements of the emissions were usually done in three
ways-per capita, volume and per hectare-but Manning chose to look at it another way so
he could escape easily ’and introduce 1.9 million tonnes of carbon emission in Claxton
 Bay and La Brea’.

There are stalled plans to build an aluminium smelter in La Brea and a proposal to build
a steel plant in Claxton Bay.

Dr Vine said Trinidad and Tobago was in the top five for carbon emissions.

Dr Kublalsingh wrote to Manning yesterday, stating, ’It is not cool to embark on high
capital and energy intensive work without conducting diligence studies, or do high
consumption health and ecological projects without cost benefit analysis.’

He stated that Manning and those at the top floor of the International Financial Centre
must tell the nation the costs factored in for the smelter.

Those factors, he said, included the loss of three dams, 1,000 acres of forest, beekeeping
industries, farms and orchards, the loss of oil wells and well capping, infrastructural
costs, the costs of loans for the smelters, power plant and port; relocation loans for at
least three communities; the cost of gas subsidies to the power plant for the supply of
electricity to smelter, the costs of salaries to Alutrint for four and a half years, legal
costs, the costs of rod mill, cable and wire plants; technical services, engineering, soil
testing and consultancies, Environmental Impact Assessments costs and administrative
costs.

Carbon emissions per person, by country

Looking at a country's total carbon emissions alone doesn't tell the full story of the
country's contribution to global warming

Roll over the lines to get the data.

Looking at a country's total carbon emissions doesn't tell the full story of a country's
contribution to global warming.

China, for example, is the world "leader" in total emissions (6018m metric tonnes of
carbon dioxide) since it overtook the US (5903) in 2007. But all that really tells you is
that China is a fast-developing country with a lot of people.
A more useful measurement is carbon emissions per capita (person). Under that
measurement, the average American is responsible for 19.8 tonnes per person, and the
average Chinese citizen clocks in at 4.6 tonnes.

Examining CO2 per capita around the world also shows us the gulf between the
developed world's responsibility for climate change and that of the developing world.
While Australia is on 20.6 tonnes per person (partly because of its reliance on CO2-
intensive coal) and the UK is half that at 9.7 (explained in part by relatively CO2-light
gas power stations), India is on a mere 1.2. Poorer African nations such as Kenya are on
an order magnitude less again – the average Kenyan has a footprint of just 0.3 tonnes (a
figure that's likely to drop even lower with the country's surge in wind power).

These differences – along with countries' historical contributions to global warming – are
a crucial part of climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December. Even the former UK
deputy prime minister John Prescott recently said that per capita emissions are the fairest
way of thrashing out a deal in Copenhagen. Guardian readers believe it's fairer too.

World carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption

and flaring of fossil fuels, 1980-2006
(Million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide)
Emissions per % change
Country 1992 2000 2006
capita since 1996
China 2475.26 2966.52 6017.69 4.58 105%
United States 5079.53 5860.38 5902.75 19.78 7%
Russia 2056.55 1582.37 1704.36 12 5%
India 664.96 1012.34 1293.17 1.16 55%
Japan 1078.48 1203.71 1246.76 9.78 10%
Germany 896.37 856.92 857.6 10.4 -4%
Canada 485.09 565.22 614.33 18.81 18%
United Kingdom 579.82 561.23 585.71 9.66 -1%
South Korea 294.53 445.81 514.53 10.53 27%
Iran 234.79 320.69 471.48 7.25 79%
Italy 415.62 448.43 468.19 8.05 10%
South Africa 323.55 391.67 443.58 10.04 24%
Mexico 313.55 383.44 435.6 4.05 31%
Saudi Arabia 235.46 290.54 424.08 15.7 70%
France 382.89 402.27 417.75 6.6 7%
Australia 271.58 359.8 417.06 20.58 37%
Brazil 237.8 344.91 377.24 2.01 23%
Spain 254.21 326.92 372.62 9.22 52%
Ukraine 535.94 326.83 328.72 7.05 -10%
Poland 330.33 295 303.42 7.87 -13%
Taiwan 132.27 252.15 300.38 13.19 52%
Indonesia 173.45 273.93 280.36 1.21 18%
 World carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption
and flaring of fossil fuels, 1980-2006
(Million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide)
Emissions per % change
Country 1992 2000 2006
capita since 1996
Netherlands 213.2 251.73 260.45 15.79 14%
Thailand 100.72 161.86 245.04 3.79 44%
Turkey 138.1 202.38 235.7 3.35 39%
Kazakhstan 265.09 143.45 213.5 14.02 50%
Malaysia 72.93 112.14 163.53 6.7 61%
Argentina 109.94 138.42 162.19 4.06 25%
Venezuela 111.72 134.46 151.97 5.93 14%
Egypt 93.83 119.32 151.62 1.92 40%
United Arab Emirates 102.05 115.72 149.52 35.05 44%
Belgium 124.8 148.57 147.58 14.22 3%
Singapore 68.11 107.64 141.1 31.41 43%
Pakistan 70.27 109.11 125.59 0.78 32%
Uzbekistan 95.95 106.35 120.84 4.43 17%
Czech Republic -- 113.45 116.3 11.36 -13%
Greece 79.5 101.27 107.07 10.02 24%
Nigeria 94.09 80.75 101.07 0.77 -1%
Iraq 57.69 73.58 98.95 3.69 29%
Romania 129.94 93.33 98.64 4.42 -22%
Algeria 82.08 83.65 93.16 2.83 10%
Vietnam 18.46 48.49 91.62 1.09 132%
Hong Kong 45.4 55.93 84.86 12.23 74%
North Korea 106.71 70.17 77.61 3.36 7%
Austria 57.06 64.74 76.39 9.32 17%
Kuwait 23.51 59.5 74.79 30.92 52%
Philippines 46.16 71.17 72.39 0.81 20%
Israel 41.99 60.68 67.33 9.8 35%
Belarus 91.63 60.07 65.2 6.68 8%
Chile 31.63 55.28 64.8 4.01 42%
Colombia 53.82 57.83 62.04 1.42 9%
Portugal 47.73 63.76 61.71 5.82 27%
Denmark 61.63 54.72 59.13 10.85 -19%
Hungary 62.74 55.86 58.65 5.88 -1%
Finland 49.63 50.32 58.31 11.15 9%
Sweden 59.08 60.78 57.37 6.36 -15%
Qatar 25.59 34.7 54.17 61.19 75%
Libya 36.56 41.89 53.51 9.07 28%
Former Serbia and
45.32 42.96 52.15 4.81 5%
Montenegro
Syria 35.38 50.99 51.08 2.71 21%
 World carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption
and flaring of fossil fuels, 1980-2006
(Million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide)
Emissions per % change
Country 1992 2000 2006
capita since 1996
Turkmenistan 20.47 23.94 50.28 10.03 176%
Bulgaria 57.64 49.11 48.94 6.63 -9%
Trinidad and Tobago 17.4 27.51 47.23 44.32 95%
Ireland 27.59 40.75 46.86 11.54 47%
Switzerland 45.77 45.45 45.56 6.06 1%
Norway 35.7 41.28 45.15 9.79 13%
Bangladesh 16.51 29.38 42.74 0.29 88%
Puerto Rico 23.35 27.72 41.43 10.55 71%
Azerbaijan 60.14 43.76 39.82 4.94 2%
New Zealand 31.27 35.13 38.36 9.38 18%
Slovakia -- 36.56 38.15 7.01 -13%
Oman 13.53 21.79 34.73 11.19 138%
Morocco 22.54 31.25 34.53 1.04 26%
Peru 20.15 26.97 29.93 1.05 16%
Cuba 28.88 32.86 28.64 2.52 -5%
Bahrain 13.57 20.26 26.85 38.44 69%
Ecuador 18.39 20.08 25.46 1.88 29%
Croatia 16.6 20.13 21.43 4.77 23%
Angola 7.5 13.03 21.19 1.77 74%
Tunisia 12.81 19.67 20.98 2.06 36%
Jordan 11.2 15.63 19.89 3.37 40%
Estonia 25.75 16.26 18.61 14.06 -5%
Yemen 12.23 13.18 18.08 0.84 66%
Slovenia 12.7 15.72 17.62 8.77 5%
Dominican Republic 10.35 15.8 17.42 1.89 50%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 18.91 14.13 17.41 3.87 284%
Lithuania 23.28 13.28 15.73 4.39 -1%
Panama 12.24 12.94 14.43 4.52 16%
Lebanon 8.16 16.46 14.32 3.69 8%
Burma 4.62 9.01 12.87 0.27 106%
Virgin Islands, U.S. 8.35 9.85 12.85 118.3 51%
Sri Lanka 5.63 11.33 12.54 0.61 56%
Luxembourg 11.29 9.03 12.47 26.28 37%
Bolivia 6.24 9.26 12.41 1.38 70%
Sudan 5.17 6.51 12.26 0.32 209%
Jamaica 8.52 10.83 12.03 4.36 19%
Guatemala 4.36 9.07 11.23 0.9 78%
Netherlands Antilles 9.55 11.62 10.9 49.13 -4%
Kenya 6.57 8.7 10.79 0.3 44%
 World carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption
and flaring of fossil fuels, 1980-2006
(Million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide)
Emissions per % change
Country 1992 2000 2006
capita since 1996
Armenia 11.14 8.61 10.34 3.48 25%
Zimbabwe 16.71 13.56 10.33 0.84 -31%
Brunei 3.65 3.79 9.89 26.89 185%
Cyprus 6.04 7.53 8.91 11.37 32%
Latvia 12.77 7.35 8.74 3.84 -11%
Mongolia 9.92 6.69 8.45 2.91 -3%
Moldova 20.65 5.89 7.53 1.74 -20%
Honduras 2.74 4.59 7.46 1.02 92%
Tajikistan 7.97 5.95 7.36 1.06 56%
Ghana 3.41 5.32 7.29 0.32 78%
Macedonia 9.3 8.41 7.17 3.5 -27%
Cameroon 3.59 6.83 7.16 0.41 6%
Uruguay 4.52 6.52 6.36 1.85 28%
Cote d'Ivoire (IvoryCoast) 3.86 7.36 6.3 0.36 10%
El Salvador 3.22 5.51 6.28 0.92 43%
Costa Rica 3.64 5.01 5.76 1.41 29%
Senegal 2.92 4.43 5.73 0.47 46%
Congo -Brazzaville 0.85 3.01 5.53 1.49 79%
Ethiopia 3.64 3.46 5.13 0.07 199%
Bahamas, The 2.22 3.5 5 16.48 40%
Mozambique 1.19 1.28 4.98 0.24 365%
Kyrgyzstan 14.07 7.23 4.95 0.95 -30%
Equatorial Guinea 0.12 2.05 4.88 8.37 214%
Albania 4.17 3.26 4.69 1.31 140%
Tanzania 2.58 2.73 4.68 0.12 87%
Georgia 15.51 4.63 4.66 1 -18%
Papua New Guinea 2.58 2.6 4.66 0.82 74%
Nicaragua 2.35 3.7 4.57 0.82 56%
Gibraltar 3.09 7.3 4.47 160.22 38%
Gabon 6.06 5.07 4.34 3.04 -22%
Botswana 3.23 4.41 4.27 2.39 38%
Mauritius 2.14 3.5 4.04 3.22 67%
Paraguay 2.33 3.56 3.76 0.58 39%
Iceland 2.32 3.18 3.44 11.5 25%
Malta 2.38 2.91 3.11 7.78 19%
Mauritania 3.31 3.24 3.03 0.95 -13%
Nepal 1.11 3.11 3 0.11 80%
Reunion 1.4 2.51 2.77 NA 48%
Namibia 1.12 1.81 2.7 1.32 100%
 World carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption
and flaring of fossil fuels, 1980-2006
(Million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide)
Emissions per % change
Country 1992 2000 2006
capita since 1996
Benin 0.77 1.65 2.65 0.34 156%
New Caledonia 1.78 2.01 2.6 11.85 42%
Madagascar 1.07 1.81 2.59 0.14 102%
Zambia 2.99 1.9 2.57 0.23 17%
Togo 0.72 1.4 2.51 0.45 298%
Democratic Republic of
4.35 2.71 2.51 0.04 -35%
the Congo
Martinique 1.47 2.06 2.39 NA 18%
Macau 1.13 1.58 2.28 5.02 54%
Guadeloupe 1.39 1.81 2.11 NA 24%
Suriname 1.44 1.61 2.01 4.31 34%
Djibouti 1.78 1.85 2 4.12 10%
Guam 2.51 2.87 1.89 11.06 -41%
Haiti 0.88 1.52 1.79 0.21 61%