While we are watching the 21st episode of the Clowns on Parade series (COP21), we should remind the leading participants of a couple of facts that even a clown apprentice can understand. The US, Western Europe, Canada, and Australia (the only countries in the world that engage in the climate masochism) release less than one-third of the anthropogenic CO2, an even smaller part of other “greenhouse gases” (a misleading name), and almost no black soot. This fact is not in dispute, but the alarmists usually reply that these countries are “historically responsible” for the most CO2 emissions.
Well, this claim is incorrect, too, and not only because CO2 release is beneficial because of its large fertilization effect and small and slow warming effect. When the sinks are properly taken into account, only 33% of the surplus CO2 in the atmosphere is attributable to the US and other Western countries. The rest is attributable to China and the rest of the world, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Surplus CO2 attribution by country or group of countries, 2012.
| Country or group of countries | Surplus CO2 attribution |
| USA | 20% |
| Western Europe | 10% |
| Canada + Australia | 3% |
| China | 15% |
| Rest of the World | 51% |
The clowns are only the delegations of the western countries, and those who spend their own money and time on worries over CO2. Many other national delegations who are visiting COP21 in Paris are simply there to protect their nations from this progressive madness. On the other hand, a majority of NGOs and activists going there are simply profiteers and haters.
UNEP, Greenpeace, WWF, UNFCCC, IPCC, and their collaborators are foisting upon the world an international conflict literally over hot air. “Climate change” is not a threat, the climatism is the threat.
The CO2 attribution analysis (revised on 12/13/2015) uses IPCC data and methodology.
I agree with you.
Regarding your question, the analysis uses official data, which attributes emissions to the manufacturing country.
Also, the analysis is not really “mine”. I just ran simple formulas on well known data, obtained obvious and well known results, and published them.
Your analysis is spot on in that the attribution of most of the “anthropogenic CO2” in the atmosphere is the “fault of the Developed countries is total BS. As an Agricultural Scientist I can only applaud those in India, China, Brazil, South Africa etc who are building large numbers of coal fired power stations, not just because of the link between lack of energy and poverty but the need for atmospheric CO2 to increase to 1200 ppm if we are to feed even the present population in what the science tells me is a World that is entering a new “Little Ice Age” when crop production moves 170 km South for every one degree centigrade drop in temperature . In fact it does not even need that as crop respond to heat units and precipitation and in a cooling World we can expect both to reduce in Northern latitudes faster than some mythical Global temperature.
I worked in Africa in agricultural research in the 1960’s and we were able to improve corn yields 30 fold, but only through the use of fossil fuels – tractors, fertilizers, pesticides and optimum harvesting and storage, limitations on all of which currently limit the potential production of food: whereas there has been a steady increase in yields per hectare in developed and developing countries due to such use, and as you say increased atmospheric CO2, in the country where I worked the average yields are still under half the potential we demonstrated and taking into account the increase that should have occurred due to better varieties etc less than one third. Even if the Developed countries were to give the money demanded at COP it would not make a difference as it would disappear into the pockets of the “elites – there and in the Donar countries. The Chinese have the best solution – rent large areas of land in Africa and send their own countrymen to produce the food. This is for their own use in China but it demonstrates to the local populations what can be done and can perhaps have an impact on the local political situation.
One question I have for you is “does your analysis take into account the production of CO2 “for export?”. By that I mean when, as in the EU, we export the production of power intensive industries like aluminium and steel to China, India etc and then import the finished product for use in EU industry and ditto other goods, like clothes and shoes that used to be produced in the EU: these goods are now produced at three to four times lower efficiency in terms of power use and CO2 output!Likewise in the days before industry came to the Developing countries on a large scale railways etc were produced in Europe and exported to those countries, especially India, Brazil and other S American countries, ditto shipping and other heavy industry products like trucks, buses etc.