Reducing CO2 Emissions Must Be a Worldwide Effort

An analysis of the data below quickly shows that any effort to reduce CO2 emissions that is not a worldwide effort will fail. Let’s explore the data in the graphs and charts below (Thanks to the Our World in Data team for providing the data and allowing its open use).

The above graph of CO2 emissions since 1750 shows the progression of emissions. Significant growth began in 1850 with North America and Europe producing the most emissions. The growth accelerated significantly after 1950 with North America and Europe leading the way until about 2000 when Asia joined the party and quickly took the lead. Of note is that the Kyoto agreement from 1997 and the Paris Accord of 2015 do not seem to have slowed CO2 emissions, especially in Asia. Both were to be worldwide agreements.

The chart below shows the breakdown of CO2 emissions in 2017 by region. You can get the same information through 2021 from the above graph but the chart below is a picture that is easier to see. Since 2017 China and India as well as the rest of Asia continue to grow making up 58% of the totals in 2021. North America and Europe numbers have gone down now making up 16.4% and 14.2% respectively.

The goal of the Paris Accord and the IPPC to stay below 1.5C would require by most estimates that we reduce CO2 emissions by 1.8% each year for the next several decades. With Asia emissions growing rather than reducing by upwards of 3 to 5% annually this seems to be an impossible task. If Asia and other emerging economies such as Africa continue to grow at 5% per year North America and Europe could eliminate all their CO2 emissions and no overall reduction will have been made. Hence the need for a commitment and worldwide plan.

For historical data purposes, the chart below shows the total CO2 emissions since they have been recorded. While North America (primarily the US) is responsible for 29% of the emissions it is noteworthy that Asia also represents 29% and Europe has the most emissions at 33%. This is important as the UN has called for those that have emitted the most to help the rest of the world pay to clean up emissions. They have designated most of Asia as emerging economies that will need help from the established economies based on emissions created to date. As you can see this could cause some serious political concerns if North America and Europe were asked to help clean up an Asian problem that has quickly surpassed anything they have created.

Given this data the world has a daunting task ahead of itself. It would be very difficult even without all the politics involved but looks near impossible with world politics today. How do we fight wars all over the world and at the same time bring all the necessary governments together to fight climate change? The only possible answer would be to establish a strong world organization that all are committed to follow. What we have currently is the UN which is way too weak to get the job done. So far, the UN’s attempts have created a lot of awareness and data from scientists all over the world. Unfortunately, it has relied totally on promises that have not been met. Europe, outside of Russia and Ukraine, is the most committed region. The US has no master plan and even with serious political divisions has still reduced emissions. China and India both say they will start reducing emissions by 2025 and at the same time have invested in new coal plants for the next 10 years.

Coal, which is the largest CO2 emitted (40%), is a worldwide problem that could undermine all efforts to reduce emissions. North America and Europe are well on the way to eliminating coal while the rest of the world is expanding coal at a rapid rate. This is because coal is the least expensive way for an emerging economy to generate new power. Coal generates 62% of China’s power, 72% of India’s, and over 80% in much of Africa. All these regions continue to build coal plants while the UN has targeted coal to be only 4% of all emissions by 2030 and 0% by 2040. Again, a worldwide problem not solvable by just North America and Europe. How does the world get this to change? Add in Cement where the growth since 2000 has also been in China, India, and Africa (emerging economies) and you have 55% of the growth in CO2 emissions since 2000 coming from these three areas with China representing 88% of that number.

From all the above it is obvious that unless China, India, and Africa in the long run commit to changes the world can not meet any of the objectives set out to reduce CO2 and other emissions. As China aligns itself with Russia, Iran, and others politically and the US and Europe rail against China politically it becomes very difficult to see how this will happen. In the UN’s case these same differences play out making it hard to believe that the UN can get China to change course.

For all this pessimism there might still be a way to correct this course in the long run, primarily through innovation and the corresponding economics. Taking politics out, most if not all investments in energy come down to costs. What is the investment required and what is the cost to deliver the energy after the investment is made? Coal today and in the past has been the easiest and cheapest way to generate electricity (discounting any costs of climate and health). Innovations in solar power generation, storage, and transport could change that dynamic potentially making it the preferred alternative for growing economies and stable economies. Countries could invest despite political differences. The same could be true with electric cars. Today we are hitting the limits of how many electric cars people are willing to buy based on their cost and the lack of infrastructure for re-charging. Car manufacturers and buyers will not buy these cars no matter what the government mandates if they are not affordable and don’t meet their transportation needs. Maybe the UN (world) should spend more time and effort on reducing the costs of these emerging technologies to make them a desirable economic choice and not just mandates that require high-cost solutions in the trillions of dollars. There is no shortage of ideas, just a shortage of funding at the early stages of these ideas and a plan to move them forward.