Carbon Emissions in UK 49% Higher Than Acknowledged: New Report Claims
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY 
on 08. 1.08
photo montage created from photos by (L-to-R): David Reece, Storm Crypt, and Kaustav Bhattacharya.
Two new reports, yet to be published but reported on by the BBC, show that contrary to previously published figures carbon emissions in the UK have not only not fallen since the early 1990s, they have actually increased dramatically.
One report by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) says that emissions have risen by 18% between 1992 and 2004, while a report by the Stockholm Environment Institute says that greenhouse gas emissions are in fact 49% higher than currently reported.
Aviation, Shipping, Globalized Production Not Included Previously
The cause of the discrepancy? The emissions sources which are included in the calculation: Currently emissions from aviation, shipping and imported consumer goods are not attributed to the country of consumption, under Kyoto protocol accounting.
So, if you move manufacturing of goods overseas to say, China, the greenhouse gas emissions get transferred to that nation and you can look like you’ve made economic changes that are environmentally positive. In fact however, global emissions have not declined at all, just where they get recorded and who gets painted as the climate change bad guy gets shifted elsewhere.
Stockholm Environment Institute Calculates Shipping Emissions
SEI says calculating emission from shipping—despite long multi-country supply chains—is easier than might be suspected. They say there's a 5% error potential in their calculations.
According to SEI, without incorporation shipping into greenhouse gas emissions, UK emissions in 2004 were 657 million tonnes: Including imports and exports into that calculation increases overall emissions to 979 million tonnes.
Furthermore, between 1992-2004 emissions not including shipping showed a decreased 13%. However, in the same time period emissions including consumer-based GHG emissions increased 13%.
Global Causes and Effects of Climate Change, We’re All to Blame ...
I think what this discrepancy shows, more importantly than any politically juggling of the numbers by government, is that assessing climate change needs to be done on a global level. Overall carbon emissions are too high and need to be addressed by all nations jointly.
It’s perhaps the ultimate tragedy of the commons example: Climate change may be caused more by the actions of some nations than others, but the suffering will fall most heavily on people least able to do anything about it.
The developed world needs to stop basing decisions on China, India and other developing nations reducing their carbon emissions first, as well as acting virtuously that their emissions are dropping simply because manufacturing has been moved overseas. We need to collectively acknowledge our globally codependent behavior in causing climate change, as well as over-consumption of natural resources.
... But Developed World Needs to Acknowledge It’s Greater Per Capita Impact
We also need to acknowledge that the emissions of one person in the developed world, based simply on our levels of natural resource consumption and how our societies are structured from an energy-use standpoint, is far greater than a person living in a developing country. By one estimate, a baby born in Britain will, over the course of their lifetime, will create 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions than a baby born in Ethiopia.
While we’re at it, why not get rid of the developed country v. developing country rhetoric? It implies that how we consume resources in the US, the UK, the EU, Australia, Japan is something to strive for, when in fact it’s something entirely ecological unsustainable if applied to the planet as a whole.
via :: BBC News
Climate Change
14 Ways People Will React to Climate Change: How Accurate Were Our 2005 Predictions?
Climate Change Will Cost U.S. States Billions of Dollars
Global Fisheries Hit by Climate Change and Overfishing
Brits Break Silence on Population-Climate Change Links
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by Half in Three Steps
- Green Glossary: Carbon Sink
- Eat a Vegetarian Diet, Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by a Ton
- Trust Stella McCartney: Meat-Free Mondays are Hip, not Hippie!
- Quickly Calculate The Carbon of Your Flights
- Why Do Some States Have Significantly Lower Carbon Emissions Than Others?
One thing I was wondering, especially as you say the new calculation is 'including imports and exports'. Does it deduct consumer goods manufactured in the UK but used somewhere else? If you are adding the manufacturing of consumer goods made elsewhere but used there, makes sense that you'd also deduct consumer goods used elsewhere but made there.
As I suspected, all Labour have done is destroy UK manufacturing together with all the skilled workers that go with it (plus the ability to control pollution directly), tax the hell out of consumers in the name of "green" all the while just shifting the burden to China who not only create more carbon dioxide pollution but also have non existant environmental standards that create a huge amount of other pollutants such as lead/mercury etc etc.
Time for the Labour spin doctors to be thrown out of number 10.
Sarah, those would come under exports so yes, they are indeed deduced but the UK, like all other developed nations, imports far more than it exports.
I am glad somebody has gone through and done these kinds of calculations...they are sorely needed. I have been making this basic point for years: You are responsible for what you consume, not the person who produced it on your behalf.
Much of the "improvement" that developed countries have seen in emissions are nothing more than a reflection of their off-loading the dirtiest work into nations like China. I am glad Britain has acknowledge this, but it is true for all developed nations. It is also a large part of the statistics that say "New Yorkers have half the emissions of the average American" and what not. Just has Britain has dumped its dirty-work on China, NYC has dumped its dirty-work outside, too. NYC does not grow its own food, mine and refine its metals and concrete, harvest its own timber, etc. When a NYC fat-cat banker eats his steak, the emissions almost all get credited to Iowa corn farmers and Texas ranchers, which is obviously absurd.
Bravo to the folks who did this study. Do many more and show how bad it is around the world!