Emitters vs. Consumers–Climate Metrics That Matter

Here is a chart showing the top 10 emitters of CO2:


And here is a list of the top 10 energy consumers with their 2012 consumption figures given in Quadrillion BTUs:

China 105.8824
United States 95.05785
Russia 31.52227
India 23.91632
Japan 20.30638
Germany 13.46572
Canada 13.35355
Brazil 12.09546
Korea, South 11.51972
France 10.69425


Notice who is consuming a lot of energy without a lot of emissions? France, with their nuclear fleet is obvious. They consumed 10 quads of energy and don’t even make it into the top 10 of emitters. Canada, with its large hydropower capabilities is also easy to understand.

Germany, perhaps because of its Energiewiende initiative, also consumes a lot without emitting.

I have no explanation for South Korea–they consume even more energy than France but rely on imported fossil fuels for 97% of their energy. What gives? They use a lot of liquefied natural gas and get 13% of their primary energy from nuclear, but we need to find out why they are out-performing other countries with similar profiles.

If we are going to address CO2 emissions, rather than asking countries to come up with an ’emissions plan’, or INDCs as they’re called, we should be carefully studying the different performance levels of country economies. We should identify best practices and set benchmarks that will allow countries to actually plan for the future.

Oh, well. I suppose a party in Paris is a lot more fun.


3 responses to “Emitters vs. Consumers–Climate Metrics That Matter

  1. Interesting, but raises some thought how accurate are the numbers? Could the Korean metrics correlate to the Koreans high up in the climatocracy? Why not show the bio and geo sources of CO2? The biggest take away for me is that the climate obsessed have few if any practical ideas.

  2. One idea skeptics have been pushing for many years that supports the scenario you have outlined in this essay is that of developing clean coal . Coal has been extremely beneficial everywhere it has been used. The international community could develop clean coal with reduced carbon soot. Highly efficient high temperature burning would require less coal per quad and produce less CO2 per quad as well.. Likewise developing a safe and standardized nuke power plant leap frogs away from coal, and generates zero CO2. These could be developed and would help people all over the world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s