Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health. There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all. IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report, 2023
Last post I talked about climate apathy, today I'll pick back up working through some different data sets about emissions - by country, per capita (per person) and the influence of wealth, to see a different perspective on how Australians impact climate change. Ultimately, we want to know, will what I do really make a difference? But first, let's start with, can Australia make a difference?
In the next post in this series, I'll wrap a shortlist of 'how to save 1 tonne of CO2e' to compare different aspects of our personal carbon footprints. When we see these comparison lists, we can see areas where our choices have the most impact.
By Population and per capita (average per person)
Yes, China is the big winner of the worst prize with the number one spot for Country with the most emissions. At 11.47 billion tonnes p.a. of CO2 emissions, they're now emitting more than double the US, who take out silver🥈.
Whilst population is certainly a big factor in the China and the US's emissions, its important to note its not as one dimensional as this. We can see this with India, at more than four times the population of the US but only half of their emissions. That's just current state, and as we'll see in a bit, industrialization and wealth are huge factors in the number of emissions being made by a country / economy (which intuitively makes sense).
It's possible that India's carbon emissions could surpass those of the US by 2030. The International Energy Agency thinks India will become the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide before that time, overtaking both China and the United States.
Why? Well, India's population is expected to grow a lot over the next decade, which means there will be a lot more demand for energy, especially in transportation and electricity. The country has experienced rapid economic growth and rising levels of prosperity, leading to the emergence of a new generation of educated and ambitious young people looking for opportunities to build their careers and their lives. As the middle class grows, it creates new opportunities for businesses in India and companies then increasingly cater to the needs and wants of the middle class - leading to a boom in the retail sector and a rise in consumer spending, which is further driving economic growth in India. This can lead to growing impact on the environment and growing emissions for all the reasons we'll see further down about the impact of industry and income on emissions.
Right now, India still relies heavily on coal for generating electricity, but they do have big plans to expand their use of renewable energy. Whether they can successfully make the transition to a more environmentally friendly economy depends on a few things, like how quickly technology changes, what kinds of policies the government puts in place, and how easy it is to get financing for clean energy projects. It's worth noting that India has committed to some pretty ambitious climate targets as part of the Paris Agreement, like reducing the carbon intensity of their economy and increasing the amount of renewable energy they use.
2021 data, unless noted | Total CO2 emissions* (Billion tonnes) | Per capita CO2 emissions (tonnes) | % of World's population (as at 2020) | Estimated population growth rate (2012-2021) | Projected population growth rate (2021-2030) |
China | 11.47 (1st, 30.9%) | 8.05 (36th) | 18.47% (1st, 1.44 Billion) | 0.51% | 0.17% |
US | 5.01 (2nd, 13.5%) | 14.86 (12th) | 4.25% (3rd, 331 Million) | 0.73% | 0.44% |
India | 2.71 (3rd, 7.3%) | 1.93 (135th) | 17.7% (2nd, 1.38 Billion) | 1.17% | 0.97% |
Australia | 0.39 (16th, 1.1%) | 15.09 (10th) | 0.33% (55th, 25.5 Million) | 1.44% | 0.73% |
Now lets flip the maths and look at per capita (per person) average emissions instead of the total, then a different group of countries hit the top 10. Unsurprisingly, it's a lot of oil producing countries who have relatively low population density, like Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia. And then Australia makes the top 10 emitting countries per capita list. Intuitively it makes sense that if you are a big producer of the world's fossil fuels this will have an impact on your per capita emissions.
Overall, Australia is the 16th biggest emitting country but only 55th in terms of population. We are really punching above our weight when it comes to emissions.
It must be the fault of industry?
More populous countries with some of the highest per capita emissions – and therefore high total emissions – are the United States, Australia, and Canada... This is more than 3 times higher than the global average, which in 2017 was 4.8 tonnes per person. [1]
It would be very easy to blame our mining and resources sector for Australia's high emissions and abdicate from individual responsibility. Don't jump there yet - let me bring to life a different perspective in the charts below.
These charts show how wealthier, industrialized nations, with good living conditions on average, emit far more than their share of emissions.
North Americans, for example, make up 5% of the population but contribute 18% of total emissions. Those Oceania numbers say a similar story for the region including Australians. Oceania contributes double the amount of emissions for its population.
The majority of Australian's fall into the high and upper middle-income categories (when measured on this global scale), though of course we have to acknowledge this is not true of every Australian.
Again, you might ask - how does this contribute to high per capita CO2e emissions for countries like Australia and the US?
1. High energy consumption: Australia has one of the highest rates of energy consumption per capita in the world, due in part to our high standard of living and large land area. The average Australian household consumed almost double the OECD average according to 2019/20 data.
OECD stands for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. It is an intergovernmental economic organization consisting of 38 member countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and many countries in Europe.
2. Heavy use of cars: Australians also rely heavily on cars for transportation, and have one of the highest rates of car ownership per capita in the world. According to the ABS in 2020, there were 787 vehicles per 1,000 people (similar to US figures of 838 vehicles per 1,000 people). Compare this to China at 176 vehicles or India at 22 vehicles per 1,000 and we can see a big difference. Factors such as fuel efficiency and distance traveled also play a role in emissions generated per vehicle. Australia has also been very slow on the uptake of electric vehicles, with an estimated total of only 0.12% of EVs in the total fleet as at 2021, compared to 85% in progressive places like Norway, eek.
3. Energy-intensive industries: Australia's economy is heavily reliant on energy-intensive industries such as mining, manufacturing, and agriculture, which require large amounts of energy to operate. According to the Australian Government's Department of Industry, Science, Energy, and Resources, in 2019-20, the mining industry accounted for 19% of Australia's total energy consumption, and the manufacturing industry accounted for 24%.
4. Dependence on fossil fuels: The US is the world's largest producer of natural gas, and both Australia and the US make the top 5 countries in terms of mining production globally.
We are still hugely reliant on these fossil fuels that we extract from the ground for our electricity generation. According to the International Energy Agency, in 2020, coal accounted for 67% of Australia's electricity generation, and natural gas accounted for 19%.
So yes, these industries certainly play out in our total emissions, but think about what they are powering!
Taken together, these factors contribute to Australia's high per capita greenhouse gas emissions.
What do we conclude from all that jumble of statistics?
It's more than just population, or industries, it's also higher income (let me call it industrialized wealth) societies - like the US but also Australians - that are generating much more than our fair share of carbon emissions and it's up to us to change that.
We started this dive into the stats to understand one thing - does reducing my emissions, as a household, here in Australia, actually make a difference?
While Australia's total emissions may be lower than some other countries, its high per capita emissions make it an important player in the global effort to address climate change.
These high per capita emissions are due in part to our heavy reliance on coal for electricity generation and the large amounts of energy required to power our mining and resource industries - and households! - and also the fossil-fueled high use of cars and trucks travelling long distances.
As individuals we certainly can have an impact on supporting the reduction of fossil-fuel based electricity generation, on how much energy we consume in our households (and workplaces), in the way we get around and the use of fossil-fueled vehicles. We haven't even counted things like global aviation & shipping, from our travels and from the goods we buy from overseas, or agriculture and the foods we eat.
To REALLY answer this question and allay those concerns that actions we take will not add up to 'making a difference', I have to take you into one more dive into data - this time on emissions carved up by 'sector', which industries they are generated in, and also what expectations are already baked into our Australian emissions reduction roadmap that, in fact, RELIES on household making different choices, to achieve netzero. See you next post!
A note on the numbers -
There may be gaps in many of the globally quoted numbers of CO2 or CO2 equivalent emissions per Country. We need to be aware that measurement is not a perfect science, and in many cases numbers are self-reported. There are even industries excluded entirely from reporting - the US Department of Defense emissions for examples.
Likewise, most countries only count emissions 'in borders' i.e., so quoted numbers exclude global transportation (aviation and shipping), which is about 1 billion tonnes (more than Australia's total Country emissions, though we are contributors and drivers of global travel). There are also exclusions in some reporting for land use changes that cause emissions - another close to 4 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum.
So why do we bother quoting numbers if there are so many exclusions, assumptions and challenges in calculating them? Well, it's all about order of magnitude, knowing relatively how big one problem is over another, or alternatively knowing where our decisions on making investment or lifestyle changes will have the 'biggest bang for buck'. Thats what we will explore next post, where are your bang for buck changes?
Comments