Canada and the World’s top CO2 Emission Contributors to Climate Change

This graph is called the Keeling curve and measures the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere. Concentrations are a combination of CO2 emissions and natural CO2  that the earth creates.

Reference:

http://rowdy.mscd.edu/~kschuene/mtr1600/summer/Keeling.xlsx   

This graph shows the "Total Fossil Fuel Emissions" produced by the world's top developed countries and shows why they are the largest contributors to CO2 emissions on a global scale.

Reference:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_coun.html> 

1. 
   

The emission sources show a dramatic increase right around the latter part of the Industrial Revolution, or 1920-30's.  This matches the U.S. trend that shows when an economy and population grows by use of oil, so does the carbon emission output. This is the direct result of taking the carbon stored in the oil and releasing it right back into our troposphere by burning fossil fuels (Keeling curve).  This really is a global trend because like the movie "Crude - the incredible journey of oil" showed that we can now measure in the ice, the carbon "footprint" dating back hundreds of thousands of years.  This carbon emission output in Canada is just more evidence that verifies that the planet, as a whole, started to increase its carbon dioxide concentration during the Industrial Revolution (discovery of oil) to record amounts that the earth has never experienced since its inception!  I don't know if this increase in carbon can be considered "unusual" because the entire world has such a pervasive increase that it seems to be the norm now, unfortunately…

2. 
   

Canada began emitting significant amounts of  CO2  around the same time that all of the developing countries started to increase - the Industrial Revolution and discovery of oil.  This increase by the developing countries, such as Canada, China, Russia, and the U.S. was so dramatic that a treaty was formed named the

The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Retrieved from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol> ).  This treaty does not have much power in enforcing its limitations but it is supposed to be a treaty that " sets binding obligations on industrialized countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The UNFCCC is an environmental treaty with the goal of preventing "dangerous" anthropogenic (i.e., human-induced) interference of the climate system.[10] There are 192 parties to the convention, including 191 states (all UN members, except Andorra, Canada, South Sudan and the United States) and the European Union.[11] The United States signed but did not ratify the Protocol and Canada withdrew from it in 2011.[2] The Protocol was adopted by Parties to the UNFCCC in 1997, and entered into force in 2005.[6]"

Retrieved from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol>

Canada withdrew from the treaty in 2011.  The reason for their withdrawal, according to Peter Kent - Environment Minister to Canada was because the worlds largest emitters are not involved so it is null and void, and would cost Canada billions of dollars to meet it's requirements.  In this link, Kent shows that they will withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol because the "world's largest CO2 emitters, the U.S. (#1) and China (#2) are not apart of the treaty and therefore, cannot work" ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-withdrawal-kyoto-protocol) .  It seems that the Bush administration refused to join because China wouldn't join, and China wouldn't join because the U.S. refused to join, so it created a stalemate.  It was also said in the above article, that even if the countries involved did not meet the conditions there are no circumstances that the countries would suffer from in the treaty.  These treaties that only happened recently seem to be purely for publicity and have no impact on reducing the CO2  levels on our planet. 

1. Compare your most recent per capita (per person) value to that of the United States citizen, which is 4.9 metric tons of carbon.  (Take your value and divide it by 4.9 to figure out your percentage of emissions compared to the US emissions.)  Is your value higher or lower than the US value?  Why?

According to the CDIAC, the " Per capita CO2 emissions from Canada stand at 4.46 metric tons of carbon per person placing Canada among the highest of the major fossil-fuel CO2-emitting nations."  So if I take 4.46 per person and divide it by 4.9, it would equal 0.9102 (but I am not sure what that means and if it is higher). However the CDIAC said that Canada is the highest major fossil-fuel nations.  This is conflicting with other information I saw, but the CDIAC site seem to be the most up to date.

The reason why is stated by the CDIAC as being a result of  "The post-1980 drop was comparable to that observed in the United States, and the pattern from 1980 to 1987 was erratic but essentially at a constant level. After 1987, annual fossil-fuel CO2 releases increased irregularly peaking in 2005 at 153 million metric tons of carbon. The 2008 estimate, approximately 148 million metric tons of carbon, represents a 3.3% decline from the 2005 peak value. In 2008, liquid fuels contributed 46.7% of total fossil-fuel CO2 emissions, natural gas contributed 32.4%, and coal contributed 18.8%." (Pasted from <http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_can.html> )

2. Visit http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2008.cap and find your country’s rank based on per capita CO2 emissions.  What is the rank?  What is the rank of the United States? (C.) How do you, as the blog author, feel about your country’s rank?

According to the site above Canada is ranked #15 and the United States is ranked #`12, stating the U.S. has 4.9 metrics of carbon and Canada has 4.46, which is less.  As the author, I feel good that my country has a less metric output of carbon per person than the U.S., but as a citizen of the U.S. this does not feel good at all, but unfortunately this is not a shock.

 "12    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                               4.90
  13    SAUDI ARABIA                                           4.69
  14    OMAN                                                   4.48
  15    CANADA                                                 4.46"

Retrieved from <http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2008.cap>

                                                                ** Sidebar**

This website is amazing! It is called http://www.breathingearth.net/ and if you click on your country you can see the amount of CO2 being emitted in real time, as well as the actual growth and decline of the human population; statistically in real time.  It is quite daunting information!  As I am writing this 870 people were born in the world and 389 have died, these number consistently change by the second. This also is a contributing factor to the  CO2 emissions produced by each country.

2. Using the “Total Fossil Fuel Emissions by Country” graph that you created,
1. Discuss how your country compares to other countries on the graph.  Any surprising results?  Any historic events that can account for them? 

Canada seems to be dramatically lower in Fossil fuel emissions than the U.S. and China, particularly during the beginning years of 1900 up until the early 2000's.  That is surprisingly different than the CO2 Emissions from Canada graph retrieved from <http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/can.html> , because it stated that Canada was amonst the nations with the highest CO2 emissions.

2. Which country was the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in 2008 (the most recent data available)?

China definitely surpassed every other country in 2008.  Most likely due to their lack of regulation on fossil fuel emissions.

3. If the US has 312,000,000 people and China has 1,338,000,000 people, on a per capita basis, who is more at fault for emitting CO2, an American or a Chinese citizen? 

I think the fault should be more directed towards the governments and their lack of regulation towards CO2 emissions, mainly because the citizens, generally, will do what the governments tell them to do. If there are no limits then it is inevitable for the number to increase, regardless of the population.

4. Now, let’s consider a country’s cumulative contribution to climate change, which can be seen visually by viewing the area under the curve for each country.  .  Record this value for each country here.  Remember, these are in thousand metric tons carbon.  Cumulatively, which country is responsible for the most CO2 emissions? 

Canada = 7,110,992

U.S. = 9,395,610

China = 31,793,584

India = 9,182,205

Kenya = 80,124

Italy = 5,431,571

By looking at the numbers above, China dwarfs every other country with a total of 31,793,584 thousand metric tons of carbon!!

5. Take China’s total CO2 emissions number that you just calculated and divide it by the number for the U.S.  (China/US=?)  Now do the same for India.  State your results in a meaningful way to compare the countries.

(China)31793584 divided by  ( U.S.)9395610 = 3.3839 

(China) 31793584 divided by  (India) 9182205 = 3.4625

Since the total of metric tons of carbon are similar in the U.S. and India, it seems the outcome is the same.  I have to be honest here thought, I am not really sure what that outcome or the results mean though…?

6. Let’s note that carbon emissions are different than carbon dioxide concentrations!  Compare your first graph, the Keeling Curve, to this graph, the global emissions of carbon: Note the different years on both graphs.  Are the two graphs similar in shape?  Discuss how emissions are different than concentrations.  (Think back to the carbon cycle lecture in class). 
    

Comparing the Keeling curve graph to the Global emissions of Carbon graph, shows many similarities and a couple differences.  I noticed that the concentration levels are measured in ppm's and the emission levels are measured in metric tons of carbon.  The years are different, the Keeling curve dates back to 1950 and the Global Emissions graph dates back to 1750.  The long term trend is extremely similar. It shows how during the beginning of the 1900's the amount of emission's added by mankind is global and the concentration as a result increased dramatically as well.  I found this great article below from www.skepticalscience.com that explained the difference of concentration and emissions in an easy to understand format:

What the science says...

When CO2 emissions are compared directly to CO2 levels, there is a strong correlation in the long term trends. This is independently confirmed by carbon isotopes which find the falling ratio of C13/C12 correlates well with fossil fuel emissions.

To directly compare CO2 emissions to atmospheric CO2 levels, both sets of data can be converted to gigatonnes of CO2. The CO2 emissions data is typically expressed in gigatonnes carbon (GtC). One gigatonne is equal to one billion tonnes. This means they've only included the carbon element of the carbon dioxide molecule. The atomic mass of carbon is 12, while the atomic mass of CO2 is 44. Therefore, to convert from gigatonnes carbon to gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, you simply multiply 44 over 12. In other words, 1 gigatonne of carbon equals 3.67 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are expressed in parts per million by volume (ppm). To convert from ppm to gigatonne of carbon, the conversion tables of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center advise that 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon. Using our 44 over 12 rule, this means 1ppm = 7.81 Gigatonnes ofCarbon Dioxide. Thus the two time series can both be plotted together expressed as gigatonnes of carbon dioxide:

It isn't too much of a stretch to imagine the amount of CO2 we put into the atmospheremight have a causality link with the amount of CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, further confirmation comes by analysing the types of CO2 found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with thetrend in global emissions" (Retrieved  from <http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm> )

I understood that to mean that concentrations are a combination of both CO2 emissions and natural CO2 the earth produces naturally.  The CO2 emissions that mankind emits into the air are measured differently, but on a global scale, and in the long term; it is no doubt increasing as a result.  However, the concentration does not change if the emissions change, it is still there. That is kind of daunting  it shows , well maybe just for humans. The only ones  stand to be affected are the ones causing it - humans, accept the animals will have to suffer as well. However, in terms of the earth, it will just turn this excess amount of CO2 right back into oil, humans included. Then it will convert back to it's normal cycle just like it did after every ice age and after the dinosaurs were extinct.

-Ryan

                                                                         References:

Retrieved from http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm> )

Retrieved from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/can.html

Retrieved from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2008.cap

Retrieved from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_coun.html>

Retrieved from http://rowdy.mscd.edu/~kschuene/mtr1600/summer/Keeling.xlsx