Dear Edd: Thanks for posting the data! This shows one reason why I support zero population growth for the United States. For example, without ZPG, the U.S. will likely reach a population of 400,000,000 by the year 2050. Assuming we still produce 5.26 tons of CO2/person, the annual emissions from the US will be 2,104 million tons/year or about a 50% increase. If we do not accept the ethic of ZPG and decide to keep emissions at the 1994 level, we in the U.S. will either need to adopt a less extravagant lifestyle (more like that of the UK, France or Japan) or greatly increase the percentage of energy obtained from plantation grown wood, nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric. Currently, only 20% of the energy production in the US comes from these sources (biomass accounts for only 4%). I believe in Sweden about 20% of the energy production comes from wood (perhaps Kjell has a better figure). At 10:19 AM 5/13/97 +0000, you wrote: >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 > > David South School of Forestry Auburn University, AL 36849-5418 dsouth@forestry.auburn.edu 334-844-1022 334-844-1084 (FAX) As always, views expressed here are my own (and I am not speaking on the behalf of others). I use only 100% post-consumer paper in my home printer. (discarded used office paper printed on one side) http://www.forestry.auburn.edu/coops/sfnmc/sfnmc.html ========================================================================= The world population is expected to double by the year 2100. Therefore the annual demand for wood for energy (etc.) will increase and might double (to more than 7 billion m3/yr). To provide plantation wood for people in the future, support the planting of trees on pastureland. Set a goal of converting 8 million ha of pastureland/yr for the next 55 years. This would increase tree plantations to about 5% of the world's landbase. ========================================================================= Support Zero Population Growth for the United States http://www.igc.apc.org/zpg/index.html
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0