Study shows developed nation's reduction in CO2, outpaced by developing country emissions

April 26, 2011 by Bob Yirka report
The Top 5 emitters from a consumption-based perspective in 2008 plotted as production-based emissions (left) and as consumption-based emissions (right). Image credit: PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006388108

( -- In a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a group of researchers and scientists show that the gains that have been made in stabilizing CO2 emissions in developed or "rich" countries since the signing of the Kyoto agreement, have been neutralized by the increase in CO2 emissions from developing nations as they produce goods for trade, primarily to developed countries. Because of this disparity, many groups are calling for a change to the Kyoto agreement practice of only counting CO2 emissions that are produced in-country, rather than the CO2 footprint of those products that are consumed.

This is not the first time this argument has been heard, environmental groups, politicians and others have been speaking out about the apparent discrepancy for several years; what’s new is that the paper is backed up by a study of international worldwide; in other words, by hard data.

In the paper, lead author Glen Peters, senior research fellow with Cicero (a research group), and his colleagues, describe their findings in a study they conducted whereby 113 countries and 57 economic sectors were examined and analyzed, for the period 1990 to 2008; they found that CO2 emissions from the production of traded goods and services had increased from 4.2 gigatonnes per year to 7.9, or from 20% of global emissions to 26%, resulting in net emission transfers to of 0.4 gigatonnes in 1990, to 1.6 in 2008.

Meanwhile, during this period, developed nations have been able to claim collective reductions of almost 2%. Thus, the authors have shown that as developed countries (other than the U.S. which has neither signed the Kyoto treaty, nor stabilized its CO2 emissions) stabilize emissions created in their own countries, they instead use products produced in other countries that were made using processes that continue to pour CO2 into the atmosphere and who haven’t, for the most part, signed the Kyoto treaty.

Because of this situation, rich nations are able to claim gains, while poor countries are criticized for releasing ever more carbon into the atmosphere, which many see as unfair.

So now that the facts have been presented, there is little left to do but argue about whether developed nations should be held accountable for the carbon emissions that were released in making the products they now consume, or whether those that are the ones actually releasing the carbon should remain solely responsible. As with many political arguments, the whole situation appears to boil down to a matter of simple semantics; because when all is said and done, what really matters is that carbon emissions worldwide be reduced, regardless of who gets the credit.

Explore further: China to surpass U.S. emissions levels

More information: Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Published online before print April 25, 2011, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006388108

Despite the emergence of regional climate policies, growth in global CO2 emissions has remained strong. From 1990 to 2008 CO2 emissions in developed countries (defined as countries with emission-reduction commitments in the Kyoto Protocol, Annex B) have stabilized, but emissions in developing countries (non-Annex B) have doubled. Some studies suggest that the stabilization of emissions in developed countries was partially because of growing imports from developing countries. To quantify the growth in emission transfers via international trade, we developed a trade-linked global database for CO2 emissions covering 113 countries and 57 economic sectors from 1990 to 2008. We find that the emissions from the production of traded goods and services have increased from 4.3 Gt CO2 in 1990 (20% of global emissions) to 7.8 Gt CO2 in 2008 (26%). Most developed countries have increased their consumption-based emissions faster than their territorial emissions, and non–energy-intensive manufacturing had a key role in the emission transfers. The net emission transfers via international trade from developing to developed countries increased from 0.4 Gt CO2 in 1990 to 1.6 Gt CO2 in 2008, which exceeds the Kyoto Protocol emission reductions. Our results indicate that international trade is a significant factor in explaining the change in emissions in many countries, from both a production and consumption perspective. We suggest that countries monitor emission transfers via international trade, in addition to territorial emissions, to ensure progress toward stabilization of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Related Stories

China to surpass U.S. emissions levels

November 7, 2006

The International Energy Agency says China will surpass the United States in carbon dioxide emissions by 2009, about a decade ahead of previous predictions.

Why 'Made in China' should increase our carbon footprint

October 19, 2007

Nearly a quarter of China's carbon emissions are created by goods manufactured and exported to Western consumers, according to research by University of Sussex climate change analysts Dr Tao Wang and Dr Jim Watson.

Pricing can cut CO2 emissions from electric generators

April 28, 2008

Levying a price on carbon dioxide released by electric generators could considerably reduce greenhouse gas emissions — even before the deployment of any environmentally friendly technology — according to scientists in ...

CO2 emissions booming, shifting east, researchers report

September 24, 2008

Despite widespread concern about climate change, annual carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and manufacturing cement have grown 38 percent since 1992, from 6.1 billion tons of carbon to 8.5 billion tons in ...

CO2 emissions continue significant climb

November 24, 2009

The annual rate of increase in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has more than tripled in this decade, compared to the 1990s, reports an international consortium of scientists, who paint a bleak picture of the Earth's ...

Carbon emissions 'outsourced' to developing countries

March 8, 2010

A new study by scientists at the Carnegie Institution finds that over a third of carbon dioxide emissions associated with consumption of goods and services in many developed countries are actually emitted outside their borders. ...

Recommended for you

The sound of a healthy reef

August 26, 2016

A new study from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) will help researchers understand the ways that marine animal larvae use sound as a cue to settle on coral reefs. The study, published on August 23rd in the ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2011
The whole purpose of Kyoto was to transfer jobs and vast quantites of cash from developed to developing nations.

The bonus was all the money stolen by government lobbyists and "climate scientists".
3 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2011
Study shows developed nation's reduction in CO2, outpaced by developing country emissions

This has been a 'duh' since the subject first came up.

In any event, China alone (not to mention India, then all the rest), will undo any possible carbon 'savings' North America can achieve.

It's all Collectivist jibber jabber anyway. The problem being, idiots are attracted to jibber jabber.
not rated yet Apr 26, 2011
I have always looked at Kyoto as useless unless developing nations are not allowed to increase the overall load. Basically the world needs to tally its co2 and say here is the limit. From there it is up to the rich to reduce, and the poor to maintain lower emissions. There also should be a corporate side to the discussion where businesses that make money by producing pollution should shelf a large part of the bill for reducing rich co2 and limiting growth of poor co2.
not rated yet Apr 27, 2011
And today is the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl, the start of the sad story of how the mega industries of burning fossil fuels defeated their greatest threat to supremacy, the atom.

Rewind to the Clinton administration, IFR technology is instead deployed, the unstable "Rube Goldberg machine" light water reactors are on their way to being decommissioned. "Waste" fuel rods in cooling ponds are being taken out and used in fast neutron reactors. America has all the electricity it needs for hybrid-electric, desalinization plants, and a modern low-carbon economy.


And when these obviously dangerous reactor designs are shown to be dangerous, and those that blocked their replacement say "See, they are dangerous," Thanks for nothing!

1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2011
Sanescience, why did France succeed in building a nuclear power infrastructure when others did not?

I suspect the problem in the USA was the green movement combined with their bought and paid for friends in the media, not big industry. The same people who are working so hard pushing the CO2 scam.
not rated yet May 01, 2011
Ooooohhh Not Parrker, back to the conspiracy nutjob theories again....poor, poor Not Clever Parker

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.