- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
SAN FRANCISCO — One all-too-familiar side effect of international trade is the outsourcing of jobs, or their movement from developed nations (where production costs are relatively high) to regions where a variety of costs are relatively low.
But the geographic separation of production and consumption also has a less recognized, or at least a less frequently discussed, effect — the "outsourcing" of greenhouse gas emissions, says Steven J. Davis, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford, Calif.
Recently, Davis and his Carnegie colleague Ken Caldeira analyzed economic data for 113 countries (or groups of countries such as the Middle East) and for 57 economic sectors. In their study, the researchers estimated the amount of each country’s or region’s homegrown carbon dioxide emissions (such as those associated with construction and agriculture) as well as the amount that could be attributed to transportable items such as wood, food and finished goods.
For the year 2004, the last year for which detailed economic data are available, about 23 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide were associated with the production of goods or services that crossed national or regional borders, Davis and Caldeira reported December 14 during the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
Production of the goods and services consumed in the United States, the world’s largest consumer nation, generated a total of about 6.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, the researchers estimate. But about 699 million tons, or just under 11 percent, of those greenhouse gas emissions were associated with goods imported to the United States from elsewhere. In Japan, almost 18 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions associated with goods consumed there were produced outside that nation. In some nations of Western Europe, between one-fifth and one-half of the CO2 emissions are outsourced, Davis notes.
At the other extreme, there's China: About 22.5 percent of the CO2 emissions generated there are associated with goods and services that are exported and consumed elsewhere. In fact, more than three-quarters of those emissions were associated with goods or services consumed in the United States, the European Union, or Japan.
For developing countries such as Afghanistan, Bhutan or the nations in Central America and Africa, most of the outsourced emissions are associated with imported food, says Davis. But for developed nations, the outsourced emissions often are associated with electronics or other consumer goods.
Allocating the responsibility for carbon dioxide emissions to the final consumer of goods, rather than to the producer of those goods, is one way to attribute the burden of mitigating the climate-warming effects of those emissions, Davis and Caldeira say. Using such a formula would shift mitigation costs to the primary beneficiaries of those emissions — countries that also have the greatest ability to pay, the researchers note.
Found in: Climate Change and Earth Science

-
MORE FROM THE AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION MEETING:
Seismology in your backyard (and on your Twitter feed)
[Go to]
Earth’s magnetic field … updated
[Go to]
- New data suggest a lighter Higgs
- Two is the magic number
- Researchers create global map of tree height
- Hole from on high
- Taming time travel



What the ego geocentric believers always miss is a subtle study from Denmark. Two geophysicists (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991) found a 95% correlation with sunspot peak frequency, cooling, and heating. When the peaks are farther apart, all the planets cool and when the peaks are closer, all the planets warm. It is such a strong correlation that the editor of Science magazine said, “now the ball on anthropogenic global warming is in the other court”. published in Science in 1991, it is such a strong correlation that AGW was held at bay for four or five years and came back with “Correlation is not causation.” George Monbiot of the Guardian debunked the study by reversing the effect, and citing the conclusion as false. He could be just in error or worse, intellectually fraudulent. That column has been deleted from the Guardian archives. Variation in heat output, however, is a red herring, only varying in the fourth significant figure and probably has nothing to do with it.
The sunspots are simply a proxy for the sun’s magnetic shield that shields earth too. In a sunspot minimum, the shields are down and cosmic radiation (iron nuclei mostly) bombard the earth and seed the clouds. Experiment supports solar causation. Successful cloud formation has since been subject to experimentation by the successor scientists at the Danish National Space Centre.
The Danes now have international support and an experiment scheduled for the Hadron Collider soon. I cannot wait to see if there is more support for the sun in global warming. It is a variable star. It is not the heat, it is the humidity… precipitation in the form of ice and snow and changes in reflectivity are huge as is the cooling effect of evaporation. I have just exceeded my safe zone of knowledge on the subject. Speculation for me is that the centre of gravity of the solar system (Sun-Jupiter centre of mass) has a pronounced wobble and controls the magnetic behaviour of the sun.
Toronto, where I live, is particularly sensitive to the magnetic (sunspot) cycle because the Great Lakes Basin is a huge cloud chamber. The rainiest summers on record were in 2008-9. The previous rainfall record was during the sunspot minimum of 1986, a 22-year cycle low. 22-year cycles are more pronounced than the 11-year cycle for some unknown reason. Every 22 years the magnetic poles of the sun shift. Right now is mysterious because they are horizontal instead of parallel to the rotational pole. Maybe we are stuck mid-flip.
The Medieval church squashed the Galilean proposal for the earth following the sun; now it is the church of the environmental lobby groups. I am choosing my words carefully because we are all environmentalists.
"In their study, the researchers **estimated** the amount of each country’s or region’s homegrown carbon dioxide emissions (such as those associated with construction and agriculture) as well as the amount that could be attributed to transportable items such as wood, food and finished goods."
And we should believe their estimates for what reason? Because we think they're nice people? Because we like the brand of shoes they wear?
Estimates are *meaningless* - they say exactly what the estimator wants them to say.
The whole discussion about whether the climate is warming due to human activity is *rife* with just this kind of pseudo-science.
The fact that you would print this without batting an eye, or pointing out the inherent fallacy, is unutterably sad.
Lin Wicklund
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/PETERLAUT-ANALYSIS-CLIMATE-CHANGE-CPN.pdf
Thomas Wicklund wrote: “Estimates are *meaningless* - they say exactly what the estimator wants them to say.”
Very few things can be measured exactly. If we were to measure your height, weight and temperature we would really be making estimates. To determine how meaningful the estimates referred to in the article are one would need to read the research paper it was based on. In economics it generally understood that estimates are very rough compared to say physics or chemistry. So, there is no fallacy in writing about this work. SN is just reporting news. Whether this work is useful in future policy analysis will depend on many other studies and factors.
ART DAY: You can find some more informed views of the hacked e-mails here:
The Associated Press reviewed the e-mails: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails
An editorial in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
A funny but well researched YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&
@Mike Sullivan: The AP and Nature are apologists for the climatologists at U of East Anglia. Having read some of the hacked emails, I've concluded that at least some of their behavior was more than just unsociable or rude; it was at least unethical (forcing skeptics out of professional societies and encouraging blocking of skeptics' publications) and may have been illegal (if the Freedom of Information act (or its British equivalent) was deliberately violated, as implied in at least one email).
Please login or register to participate.