How does a country’s energy mix affect its CO2 emissions? Here are the CO2 emissions per capita and per unit GDP for the industrialised economies, compared against their energy mix. Low energy consumption works well, a low-carbon energy mix works well, the two together are a winning combination. Switzerland comes out best on emissions intensity.
|
Nesjavellir, the largest geothermal power plant in Iceland. It produces 120 MW of electrical power. |
As part of my effort to help with the “you can never find the actual numbers” problem in energy discussions, I’ve brought together the carbon emissions numbers for the main industrialised nations, and I’ve compared them with the energy mix for each for these economies.
In Table 1 below, I’ve listed the CO2 emissions per capita for each country, and I’ve also listed the emissions per unit GDP, a ratio sometimes called the “emissions intensity”. I’ve separated the energy mix into fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables. The energy mix covers total energy use – that is, it’s not for electricity alone. To tie together the energy mix and emissions numbers, the power consumption per capita also needs to be known, so I’ve pulled in those data too. I’ve tried to get the most authoritative information available – the data are from the UN Statistics Division, the IMF, the International Energy Agency and the US Energy Information Administration.
Table 1 shows the energy mix and carbon emissions data for the so-called “developed regions” as defined by the UN Statistics Division [1]. I’ve highlighted some of the stand-out numbers, both highest and lowest, and I’ll discuss these below.
| Country | Energy Mix | Power/ Capita |
CO2/GDP | CO2/Capita | |||
| fossil | nuclear | renew- ables |
other | kW/capita |
tonnes CO2/ US$10000 |
tonnes CO2/ capita |
|
| Luxembourg | 92% | 0% | 2% | 6% | 13.9 | 3.4 | 26.5 |
| United States [6] | 86% | 8% | 6% | 0% | 10.5 | 5.2 | 20.4 |
| Australia [7] | 97% | 0% | 3% | 0% | 7.9 | 5.1 | 19.0 |
| Canada [8] | 67% | 7% | 25% | 0% | 11.2 | 6.4 | 18.5 |
| Estonia | 87% | 0% | 10% | 3% | 5.0 | 16.3 | 14.3 |
| Finland | 59% | 16% | 23% | 2% | 8.9 | 3.5 | 13.2 |
| Czech Republic | 79% | 15% | 3% | 3% | 5.9 | 10.8 | 12.5 |
| Belgium | 75% | 22% | 2% | 1% | 7.2 | 2.8 | 12.2 |
| Ireland | 97% | 0% | 2% | 1% | 4.9 | 2.3 | 11.1 |
| Netherlands | 94% | 1% | 3% | 2% | 6.7 | 2.4 | 11.1 |
| Germany | 84% | 12% | 4% | 0% | 5.5 | 2.9 | 10.7 |
| Denmark | 85% | 0% | 14% | 1% | 4.8 | 2.2 | 10.2 |
| Japan [9] | 83% | 12% | 5% | 0% | 5.5 | 2.7 | 10.1 |
| Greece | 94% | 0% | 5% | 1% | 3.7 | 3.7 | 10.0 |
| Norway [10] | 37% | 0% | 60% | 0% | 9.2 | 3.4 | 9.6 |
| Austria | 77% | 0% | 21% | 2% | 5.5 | 2.4 | 9.4 |
| United Kingdom | 89% | 9% | 2% | 0% | 5.2 | 2.7 | 9.4 |
| Italy | 90% | 0% | 7% | 3% | 4.2 | 2.6 | 8.5 |
| New Zealand [11] | 71% | 0% | 29% | 0% | 5.5 | 3.2 | 8.4 |
| Poland | 95% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 3.2 | 12.2 | 8.3 |
| Spain | 82% | 12% | 6% | 0% | 4.4 | 3.2 | 8.3 |
| Slovenia | 69% | 19% | 11% | 1% | 4.9 | 5.0 | 8.2 |
| Slovakia | 72% | 23% | 4% | 1% | 4.6 | 8.6 | 7.9 |
| Iceland [12] | 28% | 0% | 73% | 0% | 16.3 | 1.7 | 7.8 |
| France | 52% | 40% | 6% | 2% | 5.8 | 1.9 | 6.9 |
| Bulgaria | 71% | 22% | 5% | 2% | 3.4 | 17.5 | 6.8 |
| Portugal | 83% | 0% | 15% | 2% | 3.4 | 3.3 | 6.3 |
| Sweden | 37% | 37% | 26% | 0% | 7.7 | 1.5 | 6.2 |
| Switzerland [13] | 63% | 24% | 13% | 0% | 4.8 | 1.1 | 6.1 |
| Hungary | 81% | 12% | 4% | 3% | 3.7 | 5.6 | 5.9 |
| Romania | 84% | 4% | 12% | 0% | 2.3 | 12.0 | 5.4 |
| Lithuania | 50% | 37% | 7% | 6% | 3.3 | 5.9 | 3.9 |
| Latvia | 60% | 0% | 36% | 4% | 2.7 | 5.2 | 3.2 |
| World Mean [14] | 87% | 6% | 6% | 1% | 2.4 | 5.6 | 4.0 |
|
Data are sorted by descending order of CO2 emissions per capita; Units of CO2/GDP are metric tons of CO2 per US$10,000 of GDP; Units of CO2/Capita are metric tons of CO2 per capita per annum; Units of Power/Capita are kilowatts per capita. Power refers to Total Primary Energy Supply; There are small rounding errors in some of the percentages; Data are for 2004 except where noted; Data are for “developed regions” as defined by the UN Statistics Division; CO2/capita data are from ref [1]; CO2/GDP data are calculated from refs [2] and [3]; Power/Capita data are from ref [4]; Energy mix data for EU nations are from ref [5]; Remaining energy mix data are from refs [6] to [14], and are noted in the table. |
|||||||
What do these numbers show?
Four developed countries have emissions intensities below 2 tonnes-CO2 per US$10,000 of GDP. They are France, Iceland, Sweden and Switzerland. These are working models of low-emissions, high-income industrialised economies. How do they do it?
Iceland has the highest per capita energy consumption of any country (it’s the cold winters), so one might expect it to have high carbon emissions, yet it is among the very lowest carbon emitters – how? It’s thanks to its very large geothermal and hydroelectric resources, sufficient for its small population. Iceland’s energy mix has the highest fraction of renewables of any country (geothermal 56.0%, hydroelectric 16.6%) [12], giving it the lowest emissions intensity of any “developed region” nation that doesn’t use nuclear power.
France has the highest nuclear fraction at 40% – about 80% of its electricity is nuclear-fuelled – and Sweden is close behind with 37% nuclear energy. Sweden’s mix of hydroelectric and nuclear power, and France’s heavy use of nuclear power, give both of them very low emissions by population and by GDP.
The best performer of all by emissions intensity is Switzerland.
|
|
Emosson Dam, Valais, Switzerland. A hydroelectric dam generating 140 MW of electrical power. |
Switzerland has by far the lowest CO2 emissions per unit GDP of any developed nation, and the third lowest emissions/GDP ratio of any nation at all (only Chad and Cambodia have lower emissions intensities). This isn’t just down to its very high GDP; Switzerland also has the lowest per capita CO2 emissions of the western economies (four eastern European nations have lower per capita emissions).
How does Switzerland do it? It is a very wealthy nation, which certainly explains one side of the emissions-to-GDP ratio, but that doesn’t explain the emissions per capita ratio, which is also among the very lowest. Its electricity generation is almost entirely hydroelectric and nuclear. These are the two low-carbon energy sources available in quantity. Coal use is confined to two specific industries, foundries and cement factories [15]. These are the factors that combine to deliver Switzerland’s very low emissions figures.
At the other extreme, the U.S. stands out as a poor performer in every respect. It’s not just that its per capita emissions are the second highest of all (after Luxembourg), it also performs poorly on the economic measure of emissions intensity. Also noteworthy are Australia and Ireland, two economies almost entirely reliant on fossil fuels. Ireland has high per capita emissions despite low energy use, while Australia combines a high-carbon energy mix with high energy use to end up with the third highest per capita emissions of all. Given its low population density and natural advantages, it’s an extraordinary position to be in.
References
- Millennium Development Goals Indicators, United Nations Statistics Division, Carbon dioxide emissions per capita, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2007)
- Millennium Development Goals Indicators, United Nations Statistics Division, Carbon dioxide emissions, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (2007)
- Gross Domestic Product, World Economic Outlook Database, International Monetary Fund (2007)
- Key World Energy Statistics 2007, pp.48–56, International Energy Agency (2007) (figures for 2005) (WebCite cache)
- Fact sheets by country: Energy Mix, Energy for a Changing World, European Commission Directorate-General for Energy and Transport
- U.S. Energy Consumption by Energy Source, Energy Information Administration (2007)
- Australia: Profile, Energy Information Administration (2007)
- Canada: Profile, Energy Information Administration (2007)
- Japan: Profile, Energy Information Administration (2006)
- Norway: Profile, Energy Information Administration (2006)
- Energy Policies of IEA Countries: New Zealand 2006 Review, page 44, International Energy Agency (2006) (figures for 2000) (WebCite cache)
- Share of Total Primary Energy Supply in 2005: Iceland, International Energy Agency, Energy Statistics (2007) (figures for 2005) (WebCite cache)
- Statistique globale suisse de l’énergie 2004, page 14, figure 6, Office fédéral de l’énergie OFEN (2005). (in French and German)
- Primary Energy Consumption by Source, Energy Information Administration (2007) (figures for 2005) (WebCite cache)
- Fossil Fuels: Coal, Swiss Federal Office of Energy SFOE (2006)
17 responses so far ↓
swissjourno // February 28, 2008 at 10:59 pm
The results for Switzerland look impressive on paper. The fact remains that CO2 levels are still too high, even for the Swiss who are considering taxing emissions. Researchers at Zurich’s federal institute of technology also say that the only way of stopping global warming from progressing too fast is to cut per capita emissions to one ton worldwide. (http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/science_technology/Experts_call_for_sharp_cut_to_CO2_emissions.html?siteSect=511&sid=8780782&cKey=1204109327000&ty=st)
lightbucket // February 28, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Good point. Global average CO2 emissions are 3.97 tons per capita per annum (WRI).
A 70% – 85% reduction in CO2 emissions will most probably be required to keep temperature rises under 2 deg C.
i.e. a target of 0.6 -1.2 tons per capita is required.
Callieip // March 24, 2008 at 5:07 am
well done, brother
Mike Ashby // July 9, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Lightbucket,
This is really useful stuff. I teach students about energy, materials and the environment — I’d been hunting for data of this sort. Now a question: the other thing I’m looking for is the carbon intensity of electricity production by country (just as you have here, but for the production of electricty alone). It sounds like an easy thing to find but I have, thus far, failed to find it. Can you advise?
Mike
lightbucket // July 11, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Hi Mike,
That’s a good question, the ExternE national reports have a lot of this information for several EU countries, but in a fairly dispersed form.
Patrick // July 30, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Brilliant ! I got a slightly reduced, similar compilation after a lot of data mining… Guess what, we’re almost in agreement. So that’s fine.
I’m also looking for a number, which seems to elude every search I’ve ever done (on official data sites, not on “green” or on other oriented sites).
In the United States, the fraction of CO2 exhaust from electricity production is 39-40%. That number can be found on the EIA site. But worldwide, what is it ? I’ve seen presentations that go from 25% to 40%, but I never found any official source.
lightbucket // July 31, 2008 at 10:09 am
Hello Patrick,
I’m afraid I can’t answer offhand.
There are several questions about CO2 from electricity by country (and whole world) coming in.
I’ve listed CO2 by electricity generating technology here, and CO2 from total energy by country in this post, but CO2 from electricity by country is the missing link in these listings. That looks like one to go after.
Bob Eagle // October 2, 2008 at 11:55 am
With the greatest respect, this investigation is irrelevant.
If one regresses man-made emissions per country against per capita emissions (using 2006 figures), there is only a 38% correlation.
By regressing man-made emissions against GDP, the figure increases to around 76%.
It is only when man-made emissions are regressed against PPP GDP, that a meaningful figure is reached (96% correlation).
On reflection, this makes sense, because it implies that man-made emissions are produced by economic activity, in whatever form.
All this talk about per capita emissions is a political sop to developing nations, which desire to catch up to developed nations without taking the necessary preventative measures. Anyone who has experienced the smog in China (to take the example of one obvious country) knows the fallacy of that argument. Beijing had to close more than 70% of its factories to bring its smog levels to below international standards, during the recent Olympics.
What this site should be examining, then, is man-made emissions per PPP GDP. Then it would be examining man-made emissions on a meaningful basis. 96% is far more satisfying than 38%.
(As an example, man-made emissions per unit of area of each country also produces a correlation of 38%, but nobody I know is suggesting that that means anything at all.)
The next step, of examing the effect of the (percentage, for example) source of emissions by type of generator (fossil, nuclear, hydro, etc) could begin to take us somewhere of substance.
lightbucket // October 2, 2008 at 12:40 pm
>> The next step, of examing the effect of the (percentage, for example) source of emissions by type of generator (fossil, nuclear, hydro, etc) could begin to take us somewhere of substance.
Hello Bob,
You’ll find emissions-by-generating technology covered in my post here: Carbon emissions from electricity generation: the numbers, and I bring out the importance of the generating technology in the post above.
>>If one regresses man-made emissions per country against per capita emissions (using 2006 figures), there is only a 38% correlation.
Comparing a country’s total emissions against its per capita emissions is just a roundabout way of calculating its population. I agree it isn’t a useful thing to do, and I haven’t done that here.
Guy Scott Dalgleish // November 24, 2008 at 10:31 am
Hi guys, i really enjoyed reading your article and it stimulated me in all sorts of ways. Please e-mail me with any current news. Thank you so much, Guy
UK CO2 Emissions and Energy Use. - The Environment Site Forums // January 23, 2009 at 12:58 pm
[...] [...]
Alex Heyworth // March 26, 2009 at 9:46 am
This is an extremely simplistic analysis, to put it mildly. Countries that do well are those whose economies do not produce much in the way of basic materials (ie their economies are largely service sector/high value added manufactures based, like Switzerland). Those that do badly are generally the countries that produce most of the aluminium, steel etc that other countries rely on, for example Canada, the US, Australia. (I don’t know what Luxembourg’s excuse is.)
A far better analysis would be to look at the embedded carbon in whatever is consumed in each country (per capita).
lightbucket // March 27, 2009 at 11:41 am
Hello Alex,
Yes, tracking carbon emissions back to the end-user of the product, rather than the producer, is a very important view of the issue, and one I’m hoping to take a look at. It wasn’t the topic of this particular post, though.
Alex Heyworth // March 28, 2009 at 3:13 am
Fair enough, I was a bit hard on you there. I realise that Kyoto laid down the principle that the responsibility for CO2 lies with the emitter. However, my feeling is that this was largely driven by the EU nations for their own benefit. As were a number of other aspects of Kyoto, such as the benchmark date. IMHO, the producers of raw materials got a raw deal (although Australia managed to wangle quite a few concessions). The amazing thing is that, despite the playing field being tilted in Europe’s favour, their Kyoto targets are still likely to be exceeded. Yet they want to push through far, far tougher targets!
Looking at where the emissions are coming from is a valuable exercise as long as it is not used as an excuse for finger pointing (which I thought was somewhat the flavour of your post). The point that everyone needs to recognise is that reducing CO2 emissions is everybody’s problem, not just that of the nations who are the big emitters. Generally they are big emitters for a number of reasons, NOT simply because they live carbon-profligate lifestyles, even though that is clearly a factor.
If you look at the top of your table, the US, Australia and Canada have several factors in common. They are all very large countries with low average population density. This means that they tend to travel much greater distances both by car and by public transport. It means that the things they consume often travel greater distances. It tends to encourage low land prices outside city centres, which in turn encourages suburban sprawl and longer commuting distances. These things developed in an era when carbon emissions were not an issue, and they cannot be undone overnight.
The other thing these nations have in common is that are very big producers of raw materials (coal, oil, natural gas, iron ore, uranium, alumina etc etc etc). These raw materials are consumed all over the world, yet the carbon emissions associated with their extraction, transport and refinement are sheeted home to the producers.
Ken // September 26, 2009 at 3:03 pm
It would be nice to have this chart updated with information on China and India. Since China has grown to be the number 1 emitter of CO2 and India is rapidly climbing the charts, their inclusion would complete the overall world view, as well as give comparison points between developed and developing nations.
lightbucket // September 28, 2009 at 9:49 am
Hi Ken
Yes, good point, I’ll try to expand it when I’ve got a spare moment.
Rethinking Green with Stewart Brand – An Ecopragmatist « World is Green // October 22, 2009 at 11:41 pm
[...] LightBucket has some fantastic analysis in this regard. Table 1 shows the energy mix and carbon emissions data for the so-called “developed regions” as defined by the UN Statistics Division [1]. I’ve highlighted some of the stand-out numbers, both highest and lowest, and I’ll discuss these below. [...]