20.82 - 19.18 - 10.06

[kristopher]

Tons per capita of CO2e emissions in 2008
Australia 20.82 - United States 19.18 - Germany 10.06

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

[TheWraith]

1. Firing up those seventeen new coal plants should help Germany catch up.

Meanwhile France, which is smart enough not to give up their nuclear reactors to the coal industry, is down at 6.48.

[kristopher]

2. Thank you for sharing nuclear industry mythology

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x306357#306357

The entire article is well worth reading.

How Germany plans to succeed in a nuclear free, low-carbon economy
Germany plans to meet ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets while it phases out nuclear power

WRI, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 July 2011 16.31 BST

<snip>

...(The) phase-in story is vital to understand, especially taking into account that Germany plans to meet ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets while it phases out nuclear power. So, how will this work?

A bit of history

The coalition that governed Germany from 1998 to 2005, led by the Social Democrats and the Greens, put in place a series of policies to scale up renewables and phase out nuclear energy. Just last year the new and current government coalition (a more conservative mix) decided on a new energy concept that consisted of two main elements.

1. Agreement to phase out nuclear energy, but on a slower timeframe. To do so they decided to extend the lifetimes of the 17 German nuclear power plants by eight to twelve years.
2. Agreement to an ambitious set of short and long-term energy and climate policy goals including:
* a 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 coupled with a longer term 80 to 95% target by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels),
* a massive expansion of renewable energy in all sectors, e.g. an increase of renewable power in power generation from 17% in 2010 to 35% in 2020 and 80% in 2050
* a target to reduce energy consumption from buildings by 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
* A target to reduce energy consumption from transportation by 10% in 2020 and 25% in 2050.

After the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, however, there was a decision to go back to the original phase-out schedule of 2000, while keeping in place the climate and energy targets the government had set the year before. This approach was backed by a large majority, with eighty-five percent of parliamentarians voting for both a more rapid phase-out and a number of measures (see below) on the phase-in of clean energy....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/29/nuclearpower-energy

[SpoonFed]

4. By your metric...

how smart are Americans? Should they be listened to, at all?

[FBaggins]

8. China's is lower than any of those...

... Does that mean we should listen to them?

[SpoonFed]

13. No no no...

China does nothing right, never and under no circumstances.
USA! USA! USA! USA!
:sarcasm:

[FBaggins]

14. So you admit that the OP was nonsense?

Thanks!

[SpoonFed]

3. self delete

.

[GliderGuider]

5. A few more countries, and a look at carbon intensity of GDP

 Country      tCO2/cap	GDP/cap	GDP/tCO2
----------------------------------------
 Tanzania	0.1	$1,382	$13,820
 Ethiopia	0.1	$1,009	$10,090
 Switzerland	5.4	$46,424	$8,597
 Singapore	7.0	$56,797	$8,114
 France 	6.1	$33,820	$5,544
 Bangladesh	0.3	$1,486	$4,953
 Germany	9.6	$37,622	$3,919
 Hungary	5.5	$20,315	$3,694
 Japan  	9.5	$34,013	$3,580
 Mexico 	4.4	$15,224	$3,460
 United States 17.5	$47,084	$2,691
 Egypt  	2.3	$ 6,031	$2,622
 India  	1.4	$ 3,586	$2,561
 Indonesia	1.8	$ 4,429	$2,461
 Canada        16.4	$38,841	$2,368
 Australia     18.9	$39,231	$2,076
 Russia        12.1	$19,840	$1,640
 China  	5.3	$ 7,536	$1,422
 Saudi Arabia  17.2	$23,395	$1,360
 Kazakhstan    15.3	$12,050	  $788

Kazakhstan is an ecological disaster zone, while Tanzania is a standout. Who would have guessed?
The interesting cases for me are Switzerland (lots of hydro, electric public transit and a non-industrial economy work wonders) and China (you can tell it's an inefficient, low-income manufacturing economy).
Is China making Switzerland look good by providing their manufacturing base?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Actually, Switzerland has a fairly industrial economy

OECD figures for proportion of economy from industry, 2007:
Switzerland 27.6%
USA 21.8%
not quite as much as Germany - 30.2%, but not small.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/824276856832

[GliderGuider]

7. Interesting, thanks. It seems like they get 50% of their energy from hydro and nukes

And 40% from oil, according the the BP Statistical Review. Interesting mix.

[kristopher]

9. Kick

[FBaggins]

10. Can you compare Germany's progress in that area to the US?

Say... for the decade from 1998-2008?

What movement would you predict for the two in 2011?

And, while you're at it, can you answer the question in #8? You're posting and kicking this stat - presumably to try to make a point. It's obvious why you would want to dodge the question forced by France. Shall we expect a more mature response re: China?

[kristopher]

11. The point is obvious

Pronuclear propaganda persists in the form of baseless and unsubstantiated criticism of Germany when there are targets far more worthy of concern, such as the US and Australia. The Germans are very clearly taking care of business when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. They are, in fact, ahead of the goals set by their long term planning and there is no indication that the move away from nuclear will alter the trajectory of their carbon emissions reductions.

As for France, the commitment to nuclear had nothing to do with CO2 emissions, it was all about nuclear weapons, energy security, and - in later years - profit. The people of France overwhelmingly dislike nuclear power, do not trust nuclear power and want to replace nuclear power with renewables. Unfortunately, they face an even more entrenched energy corporate power structure there than we do with the coal industry here, and the chance that public policy will actually reflect the will of the people anytime soon on the issue is slim.

Nuclear power is a very poor choice to meet global energy needs and carbon reduction goals.

[FBaggins]

12. Yep.

That is... if the "point" is to evade the question.

But as predicted, that's hardly a surprise. Now is it? :)