Has any industrialized country reduced its carbon output over the past decade?

The best stats I could get my hands on. Double check the chart, I may have missed a few.

According to my reference, the following 41 countries reduced their carbon emissions from 1997 to 2007:

Afghanistan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burundi, Colombia, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, French Guiana, Gabon, Germany, Greenland, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Japan, Korea (North), Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malta, Martinique, Mauritania, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, Niger, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Saint Helena, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Zimbabwe.

Of those 41 countries, the following 14 are considered industrialized by UNICEF, due to low child mortality rates:

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom.

Keep in mind that reduction in CO2 emissions could result from a number of factors, including economic recession and population decline.

The global recession did it for most. The recession reduced more carbon

output in one year, than what renewable energy usage could achieve over

a much longer period of time. And how much was the rate of global

photosynthesis reduced in the mean time ?

Global photosynthesis Die away faster than what any clever human

boiled statistics can imagine. Available AREA is one of the most

pertinent variables that determine the rate of global photosynthesis.

We need four very clear and strong negative growth rates in :

Natural Gas usage ; (where is this renewable energy statistics?)

Crude Oil - Liquid Petroleum Fuel burning ; (where is this renewable

energy statistics ?)

Coal burning ;

Peat burning. (Large areas burning 24/7 out of control)

The peat is part of the biomass suppose to be banked for future

fossil fuel. Also the fossil fuel natural production cycle was affected

badly by reduced phosynthesis and by such peat fires and also by

hundreds of added coal deposits on fire.

And we do not have that much time before we exceed the point of

no return.

You have to be careful how you view those statistics, Eric. Denmark, for example, has made all of it's CO2 reduction goals, but they did it by shutting down all their heavy industry. They essentially offshored all the emissions associated with the production of the durable goods and chemicals they use.

Similarly, California has reduced it's emissions, but the reasons are primarily due to the severe economic downturn in the state and the fact that they buy a lot of their electricity from Arizona. So Arizona gets charged for the emissions from the natural gas fired power plant, but California actually uses the power.

If you want to know how much real progress we have made globally, look at increased use of renewable energy and gains in energy efficiency. These are real gains, the rest is a shell game.

great thought! purely look how effectual that's been to fling a lot of money at a paperwork right this moment and interior the previous. somebody reported something approximately how we could consistently make specific the money is being spent because it grow to be meant. whilst the f*ck has that EVER got here approximately with a paperwork or governmental business enterprise earlier? Corrupt human beings gets their claws on that money purely as they consistently have. To think of in any different case is naive at suited. We purely won't be able to hold returned the tide of climate replace, no be counted if the temperature is going up or down. human beings uniting as an entire? It ain't gonna happen, that's totally opposite to what makes us what we are. look, i've got self assurance that AGW is possibly genuine. I have no hopes of humanity uniting for a hassle-loose reason. Siberia (best woodland on the earth) would be logged till that's a wilderness - that's a pipe dream to think of that folk living from hand to mouth will sacrifice their destitute life for a good greater bleak one. China, however pledging to minimize that's projected Co2 output, will proceed to pump ever greater Co2 into the ambience each and each year than it did the twelve months earlier, as will India... and so on. human beings will proceed to reproduce and exponentially improve the Co2/human effect on the earth. that's what that's. greater suited confirm a thank you to evolve to the inevitable because of the fact we won't be able to hold returned the tides of fact. As they say, "choose in one hand, crap in the different and notice which one fills up."

From what I understand, the cleanest two nations are France and Switzerland where there is plenty of hydro power or in France's case they have used nuclear power for over 30 years. As for the past decade, no, no Nation has really reduced its carbon output over the past decade that I know of. A lot of Europe and North America we have seen minimal increase over the past decade but not a true decrease if you ignore the drop due to global recession.

Most definitely not due to the ever increasing numbers of people being born to this world who adds extra pressure on the ecology, natural resources and the environment.

We humans cannot get away from polluting the air, sea, land and underground.

All the initiatives so far amounts to nothing more than a drop in the bucket.

The co2 level is continuing to rise and there is nothing we humans can do about it unless we reduce our world's population with birth reduction and birthrate check measures.

The environment will keep on being destroyed as natural resources are used up at an alarming rate than what nature can replenish whilst dangerous toxic molecules and gases fill the atmosphere causing all kinds of health related problems for all faunal and floral lifeforms

http://www.circleforhumanity.net/

Over the past 30 years, the great state of California has, at least, been flat on carbon output per capita while GDP per capita has risen. This shows that it is not impossible to reduce carbon output while maintaining GDP, even if it has yet to be accomplished.

Why the germans have installed so much expensive solar energy stuff in such a cloudy, high latitude place boggles the mind -- but maybe it makes them feel good. (The world would be a better place if they donated all those solar cells to Africa where they might be put to good use)

Not that i've seen that's proveable.

Too many times all we normal people get are "estimates".

I recall looking into some designs lately for more "greener" living and all I could find was a vague estimate of 1.5 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt of power. Anyone else see a problem with this ?

Obviously this didn't take into account how electrical energy is produced. All it would take is a plant to change the way they produce energy or supplement the energy they produce, so 1.5 pounds means nothing unless you know for a fact where the electrical energy is produced and how its produced. Seeing that countries are going more green, some making more advances than others, You can't use vague references of the past as an example with certainty.

Which is why its more important for companies to go green rather than lumping the burden onto the citizens since production of power automatically makes everyone 'green' rather than citizens of countries burdening themselves with the added cost of living for something they can only minimally effect.

Yes, I've shown a few here:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=en_...

The USA has decreased a bit in terms of per capita emissions over the past decade. So have France, UK, Germany, and Switzerland, among others. Most of these are small reductions, but reductions nonetheless. As you note, it's difficult to tell what's due to actual efforts, and what's due to economic recessions.

The problem in the USA is that while our emissions have declined slightly, they're still twice as high as Germany and the UK, and three times as high as France. We're starting from a much higher point, so we need a much steeper decline.

Yes in fact U,S, emissions have been slightly down and stabilized in the last 3 years.

"Recession, Cleaner Fuels Drive Down U.S. CO2 Emissions"

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/05/07/recession-...

Also global CO2 emissions was actually down 1.3% in 2009

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67C1IU201008...

However China's emissions have taken the lead and there's good reason to think they will soar.

I don't remember the link now but the EIA says the US has gotten more efficient and our electricity usage is down 5% and it wasn't just due to the recession.

"Renewables account for 11.14% of US Electricity use"

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/artic...

"EIA projects that U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels, which fell by 7.0 percent in 2009, will increase by 3.9 percent in 2010. In 2011, projected CO2 emissions remain relatively flat as the increase in emissions from growth in petroleum consumption is offset by a decline in emissions from natural gas and coal because of reduced summer electricity use based on a projected milder summer."

From this EIA page: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html

Another statistic that should not go unnoticed. As of the end of 2009 our renewable energy consumption was 8% and nuclear 9%. Thats 17% of our energy usage was clean.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_...