>I am not sure if the data presented below have been posted in
>this discussion group. It might help in putting into perpective the
>arguments between CO2 and population.
>
>Carbon Emissions (million tons)from Fossil Fuel Burning (1994)
>Country: Total Emissions: Emissions/Person: Emissions/Dollar GNP
>
>1. USA 1,371 5.26 210
>2. China 835 0.71 330
>3. Russia 455 3.08 590
>4. Japan 299 2.39 110
>5. Germany 234 2.89 140
>6. India 222 0.24 160
>7. UK 153 2.62 150
>8. Ukraine 125 2.43 600
>9. Canada 116 3.97 200
>10. Italy 104 1.81 110
>11. France 90 1.56 80
>12. Poland 89 2.31 460
>13. S. Korea 88 1.98 200
>14 Mexico 88 0.96 140
>15 S Africa 85 2.07 680
>16 Kazakstan 81 4.71 1,250
>17 Australia 75 4.19 230
>18 N Korea 67 2.90 960
>19 Iran 62 1.09 270
>20 Brazil 60 0.39 70
>
>The data presented reflect several differences from different
>countries, including energy wastefulness in the former Soviet Union,
>extensive reliance on automobiles in the US, high levels of
>efficiency in Japan, heavy use of coal in China and South Africa, and
>the extensive use of non-carbon-emitting hydropower and biomass
>energy in Brazil.
>
>While the developing countries are taking the blame of population
>overcrowding and economic growth - hence more CO2 emissions, are the
>developed countries not guilty of extravagant lifestyle and failure
>to address the CO2 build up?
>
>Edd L. Tadulan
Is forest management a solution to CO2? If we want to balance the the CO2
emissions from fossile fuels by means of forest plantations there is a need
of area or species with higher efficiency. For instance, Sweden imports
some 10 million tonnes / year of fossile fuels. To balance that the forest
pruduction must increase slightly more (dry weight) and nothing of that is
allowed to be burnt but must be stored. What I know of, this an increase of
som 20% of our forest productivity. Is it possible?
A better solution is, of course, to convert from fossile fuels to biomass.
We must reduce the production of pulp and paper but it is a possibility.
Still Sweden is a lucky country since we have large areas and small
population density but what about e g Germany and the Netherlands,
countries with a high population density?
Certainly is nuclear power a possibility but today nuclear power is only a
tiny fraction of the total energy supply. If the present technolgy is used
the known uranium resources will last only for a short time (a few hundred
years). There is other technology under development but the problems are
not solved yet - ask the French about Super Phoenix - and possibly within a
few ten years that technology is ready. And, of course, the radioactive
waste products are a problem.
Edd has some interesting figures. Do you have any figures on the cost of
energy in the countries? In princip one should expect a high energy
consumption where energy is cheap relative e g energy efficient equipment.
During the last two decades we have had an enourmous energy debate going in
this country. Much has been focused on nuclear power and there has been a
search for alternatives. During the first decade it was discovered that
fossile fuels and nuclear power were the cheapest. During the next decade
the politicians have manipulated our tax systems and there are taxes on
fossile fuels as well as on CO2 releases from fossile fuels (yes, that's
true). The present levels is some 100% (and gasoline 300%). It was then
discovered that nuclear power was to cheap so they added a tax there as
well to ensure the concurrences. Still fossile fuels are cheaper but due to
political reasons, biomass is used more and more and we, the consumers, are
paying the bill. The industry is yelling about the costs and threatens to
leave the country and settle down where energy (and labour) is cheap. I
think this tells us something about politicians.
I have difficulties to see that a market economy which planning horizon is
controlled by the interest rate can contribute with a solution. As long as
there is no business idea to go for an alternate energy supply system,
which is more expensive, the enterprises will efficiently market and sell
the present technology.
Kjell P
========================================================================
Kjell Pernestål
Department of Physics Dep Resource management tel ++ 46 18 18 31 66
Uppsala Univ SLU 46 090 16 65 90
Box 530 fax ++ 46 18 18 35 24
S-751 21 UPPSALA S-901 83 UMEÅ
Sweden Sweden
email; kjell.pernestal@fysik.uu.se
kjell.pernestal@resgeom.slu.se
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0