Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 80/20 rule
Many people know of the 80/20 rule. It is used in many situations. One of them is an adage about how you can fix 80% of the problem easily, and the last 20% with much more difficulty.
This got me thinking about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are 150 countries at Copenhagen, and in theory all of them have to agree. But in reality the countries that are the biggest emitters really matter – the ones who make up 80% of emissions. Without them, no agreement will work. While if they do agree, what the rest of the world wants or does not want is of little moment. That is not to say that you do not want as many parties as possible agreeing, but those who make up 80% are the key ones.
So who are they. Well based on CO2 emissions, you only need 20 countries to make up 80% of emissions. They are:
The top six make up 60%, and the top 20, 80%.
December 18th, 2009 at 6:17 am
That’s the best representation of the issue so far.
China and India may be labelled ‘developing’ countries, Tuvalu also is dragged along under the same label. So when Tuvalu attempts to emerge from the rising sea by raising the quota, there is no way China and India would agree. It just makes it convenient for US now with the help of NZ to destabilise any agreements.
December 18th, 2009 at 6:36 am
Sounds like a good idea, get a message passed on to Tim so he can get them to put it into effect.
I like the 80/20 rule, I think it applies about 80% of the time. It is common for people to make absolute statements but things rarely work that way. Of course it isn’t always 80/20 but that’s a good starting point approximation.
I am 80% sure we must be stuffing something up that could affect the climate, but only 20% sure there is enough collective will to do anything effective about it via trading schemes. But it has already created a much greater awareness of the benefits of more sustainable practices – I think 80% of companies will move in this direction, even if they are mainly motivated by marketing and image.
So no matter how much the trading and/or tax schemes cost (it’s only money) there’s an 80% chance we will respect our environment more, but I fear there is only a 20% chance of making enough of a difference as the population could increase by another 80%.
December 18th, 2009 at 6:36 am
That’s if there is a problem at all. An “if” I simply cannot see or believe in.
December 18th, 2009 at 6:50 am
And when the world’s temperatures rise by 1 degree; due entirely to the activity of the sun; more CO2 will be produced; to feed the worlds plants; which will be growing twenty percent faster; supported by 20% more rain; and producing 20% more food (at no extra cost); and thus naturally occurring climate change will feed the world’s starving millions.
That’s actually what the real science of observation tells us.
December 18th, 2009 at 7:00 am
“supported by 20% more rain;” – but only in 20% of places, and other places will have an 80% drop in rainfall (the real science tells us it will go up in some places and down in others).
Anyway, a 20% food increase won’t be anywhere near enough. That might help the current starving, but the world population is predicted to increase by about 20% in the next 20 years.
December 18th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Food production is not the issue, and never has been. There is plenty of food in the world.
Its a financial and distribution issue.
December 18th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Looks like you forgot to mention New Zealand in the top twenty. Why else has National crippled the New Zealand economy with the ETS scam? Perhap for a non-appearance of John Key on a BBC world debate?
December 18th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Yes
In one way thats why Africa demanding billions as THEIR climate debt from the developed world at Copenhagen is such a laugh.
No matter that the world has given them billions $$$ already and what did they do with it?
Squirreled it away in Swiss bank accounts and squandered it.
So regime change is the only option if we don’t want to throw good money after bad, we’ve got enough people at home who need just as much support and they should come first.
Then when we do give aid it must be on an accountable basis or no aid.
That means accountable to the average Kiwi taxpayer visually and timely too, not some govt dept or member of an oligarchy either.
As for Climate debt.
Bullshit.
Only Gore and his mates at the UN are up for that as they intend to make millions handling it.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:15 am
I’d have thought for this to be an example of the Pareto principle, the law of the vital few, the total of the populations of the countries you list David producing 80% of emissions would need to be around 20% the world population.
China 19.62%, India 17.25%, USA 4.53% these three amount to at least 41.4% of the world population.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:19 am
People and production can move. African countries are going to industrialize anyway as Chinese become wealthier and won’t keep working for low wages. They’ll try to get compensation in exchange for emissions limits and then violate those limits and keep the money. I wouldn’t even blame them for doing so.
This sort of thing would be bad for NZ as well. We’re probably screwed anyway if we slap punitive taxes on beef and dairy production, but we’re certainly screwed if we do it and countries like Argentina get to do nothing.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:23 am
“I like the 80/20 rule, I think it applies about 80% of the time”
Priceless.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:29 am
The 80/20 rule only applies to real problems not phantom ones.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:33 am
A useful table would be good if a per capita figure was also included. The table represents countries 65.6% of human population.
When you look at this per capita the offending nations are the USA, Australia, Canada and Saudi Arabia. US emissions per person are 4 times that of China, 14.5 times that of India. How does NZ compare on a per capita basis?
India’s emissions per person are the lowest on the list.
[DPF: Emissions per capita are useful to know, but they don't change the fact that if the big 20 don't reduce, then the other 130 countries can have fuck all effect]
December 18th, 2009 at 8:37 am
PeteGeorge you really are a Luddite, aren’t you?
It’s easy to get a further 30 to 50% production by using chemical fertilisers, herbicides, insecticides, genetically modified cultivars and all those things you tree huggers hate. That’s ON TOP OF the 20% or so extra production provided by the sun’s activity.
I see you are NOT disputing the incovenient truth that (a) CO2 is NOT a poison but rather a basic feed stock for our food chain and (b) when the temperature rises plants become more productive.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Inky – so should the high-ratio countries breed more in seeking parity, or should we cull the populations of the low-ratio countries? Good luck to you finding a workable solution for either scenario.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:45 am
getstaffed
Maybe each individual human has some responsibility for the level of pollution around him/her.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:50 am
I’d prefer to minimise the chemical add-ons Adolf, although they may be a solution to one problem, something is causing a dramatic drop in fertility in males (just one example of possible downsides).
CO2 can be a poison, it depends on where and how much and for what.
Similarly too much oxygen can also be toxic even though it is a basic requirement for our survival.
But as I presume you must know, the claimed problem with CO2 is not it’s toxicity but it’s effect on greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Inky_the_Red is heading in the right direction, I would suggest
In the application of this theory, where is the 20% accounting for 80% of emissions. As I commented at 8:15 – China, India and USA make up at least 40% of the world population, and David’s list of 20 countries comes to much more than that.
Although concentrating where the greatest difference can be made seems smart, this theory as shown in David’s table is about as weird as those surrounding GW itself.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:17 am
If we asume for a moment that man is in total control of the weather through taxation (there’s a scarey thought) and the two biggest players are not going to play ball and anything New Zealand does will have no impact whatsover… why the hell did our politicians just legislate us into bankruptcy?
Is this not a load of arse?
Of course if you believe the entire concept is dodgey as hell then the whole this is just a load of arse anyway.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:32 am
The UN and their mates already have 20% of their foot in the door of global governance.
They’re just looking to get the other 80% in.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Which is why using emissions control as the guiding principle was always such a stoopid idea in the first place. Emissions controls require the-world-to-sing-in-perfect-harmony so are socialist world government and crap.
We should be tackling it through consumption, consumption VAT in our own economy can have immediate effect.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I bet the average taxpaying yank will be overjoyed to hear that mad socialist witch, Hillary, has kindly offered developing countries 100 Billion a year to manage their emissions. Talk about fucking hush money, the US will only lower their emissions by 4%, just watch the circus, all these third world countries will be like a flock of seagulls fighting over a fish head. I see revolution in the US these evil socialist bastards have totally lost the plot, I suspect Hillary is going to get her wings clipped when she jets home. Apparently this hasn’t gone through congress. 100 billion, not to bad for a bankrupted country, gee I bet the taxpayers are overjoyed. I fear the two bobs we sent to the toss fest will do something insane and try to be a world leader, easy to give away money when it’s not yours.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:44 am
This whole argument is laughable. To think that the same politicians and scientist that can’t get trains to run on time, hospitals to have no waiting lists, the poor off the streets, housing for everyone etc are going to be able to somehow halt Global Warming in some meaninful way is quite simple the biggest yet played by the politicians.
Never mind that catastrophic man-made global warming is myth.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Say, now that humankind can control the weather, I am putting in my order for some snow in Auckland for Christmas Day.
A light dusting would be nice, starting Christmas Eve, and culminating with a nice full covering on the 25th itself.
Thanks.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Whale, what you say in your first paragraph would apply even more to the claims of global government.
How can you have a myth about some possibility in the future?
December 18th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Fletch IRD says you owe them $53,547 now.
The snow is on back order though. A cheque will be fine.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:02 am
The Copenhagen conference isn’t a complete loss. At the very least, it could provide an opportune moment for ushering in the first white Christmas in Copenhagen in 14 years.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=a5wStc0K6jhY#
December 18th, 2009 at 10:06 am
The gore effect strikes again.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Controlling emissions ,HAHAHA,governments can’t control their deficits.
Look around you, people can’t even control their waist lines ,the whole bloody thing is hopeless and the only certainty is the taxes we’ll be hit with.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:10 am
And if you look at the global distribution of methane in the upper atmosphere from the satellite data you find that the atmosphere above New ZEaland and Australia has the lowest levels of methane in the world along with the whole southern ocean.
The highest levels are over the tropical rainforests and the rice paddies of South China.
Maybe our part of the world is a massive methane sink!
December 18th, 2009 at 10:16 am
So as NZ does not come close to being in that 80% we could (and bloody should) simply sit back, do nothing, note that NZ is rising faster than the sea, ramp up the barbie and crack a stubbie.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Fantastic idea.
All we have to do, since we are not on the list, is take high emission industries from the countries on the list and bring them here. Cuts their emissions, and gives our economy a great boost. Steel works, power stations, etc. – uses our coal reserves to boost the wealth of NZers too.
Think I’m joking?
That is exactly how it’s already being done – read up about Tata in India and the Redcar steel works closed down in the UK.
Tata made a fortune – closing down the steel works released massive carbon credits for sale to UK power producers who will charge UK consumers to cover the cost. Over $1B transferred from UK consumers to Tata’s already very large pockets.
And the steel is still being produced, but now in India. Overall carbon reductions? What’s that got to do with it.
The Chairman of the UN’s IPCC, of course, has very close links to Tata. They must think westerners are just sooo stupid.
This is all total madness.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:21 am
“Controlling emissions ,HAHAHA,governments can’t control their deficits.”
LOL. Yeah, says it all really.
I wonder how they are going to manage to stop ruminating herbivores from burping.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I see the African countries have scaled down their demands from $US400billion to $US100billion per annum (by 2020).
How generous of them, maybe the dictators are prepared to only have 8 stretch Hummers in their convoys instead of 20.
The better plan is to simply stop all aid to them and not seek their agreement for emissions limits. Without foreign aid I doubt they’d be able to significantly increase their emissions anyway.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:14 am
We’ll give you money when you have free elections.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Maybe our part of the world is a massive methane sink!
And an ozone sink?
I wonder how they are going to manage to stop ruminating herbivores from burping.
teh sciencez!!1