++++++++++++++
Table of annual carbon emissions
and per capita emissions for Taiwan
(metric tons of carbon).
All emission estimates are expressed in thousand metric tons of carbon.
Per capita emission estimates are expressed in metric tons of carbon.
| YEAR | Carbon emissions | Per capita emissions |
| 1896 | 1 | N/A |
| 1897 | 14 | N/A |
| 1898 | 31 | N/A |
| 1899 | 22 | N/A |
| 1900 | 30 | N/A |
| 1901 | 48 | N/A |
| 1902 | 70 | N/A |
| 1903 | 59 | N/A |
| 1904 | 60 | N/A |
| 1905 | 69 | N/A |
| 1906 | 75 | N/A |
| 1907 | 98 | N/A |
| 1908 | 112 | N/A |
| 1909 | 133 | N/A |
| 1910 | 168 | N/A |
| 1911 | 185 | N/A |
| 1912 | 202 | N/A |
| 1913 | 233 | N/A |
| 1914 | 251 | N/A |
| 1915 | 277 | N/A |
| 1916 | 378 | N/A |
| 1917 | 491 | N/A |
| 1918 | 585 | N/A |
| 1919 | 794 | N/A |
| 1920 | 831 | N/A |
| 1921 | 752 | N/A |
| 1922 | 975 | N/A |
| 1923 | 1046 | N/A |
| 1924 | 1090 | N/A |
| 1925 | 1225 | N/A |
| 1926 | 1297 | N/A |
| 1927 | 1345 | N/A |
| 1928 | 1147 | N/A |
| 1929 | 1144 | N/A |
| 1930 | 1158 | N/A |
| 1931 | 1030 | N/A |
| 1932 | 981 | N/A |
| 1933 | 1145 | N/A |
| 1934 | 1139 | N/A |
| 1935 | 1191 | N/A |
| 1936 | 1292 | N/A |
| 1937 | 1433 | N/A |
| 1938 | 1610 | N/A |
| 1939 | 1960 | N/A |
| 1940 | 2120 | N/A |
| 1941 | 2166 | N/A |
| 1942 | 1752 | N/A |
| 1943 | 1754 | N/A |
| 1944 | 1264 | N/A |
| 1945 | 597 | N/A |
| 1946 | 781 | N/A |
| 1947 | 988 | N/A |
| 1948 | 1239 | N/A |
| 1949 | 1221 | N/A |
| 1950 | 1033 | 0.14 |
| 1951 | 1340 | 0.17 |
| 1952 | 1745 | 0.22 |
| 1953 | 1768 | 0.21 |
| 1954 | 1771 | 0.21 |
| 1955 | 1966 | 0.22 |
| 1956 | 2099 | 0.23 |
| 1957 | 2235 | 0.23 |
| 1958 | 2614 | 0.26 |
| 1959 | 3001 | 0.29 |
| 1960 | 3242 | 0.31 |
| 1961 | 3421 | 0.31 |
| 1962 | 3869 | 0.34 |
| 1963 | 4126 | 0.35 |
| 1964 | 4618 | 0.38 |
| 1965 | 4874 | 0.39 |
| 1966 | 5315 | 0.42 |
| 1967 | 6000 | 0.46 |
| 1968 | 6593 | 0.48 |
| 1969 | 7180 | 0.51 |
| 1970 | 7848 | 0.54 |
| 1971 | 8596 | 0.58 |
| 1972 | 9797 | 0.65 |
| 1973 | 10991 | 0.71 |
| 1974 | 10736 | 0.68 |
| 1975 | 11868 | 0.74 |
| 1976 | 15323 | 0.94 |
| 1977 | 16697 | 1 |
| 1978 | 19400 | 1.14 |
| 1979 | 20695 | 1.2 |
| 1980 | 22813 | 1.3 |
| 1981 | 20504 | 1.14 |
| 1982 | 20594 | 1.12 |
| 1983 | 22712 | 1.21 |
| 1984 | 23183 | 1.23 |
| 1985 | 23148 | 1.21 |
| 1986 | 25770 | 1.33 |
| 1987 | 26822 | 1.37 |
| 1988 | 30893 | 1.56 |
| 1989 | 33634 | 1.67 |
| 1990 | 34345 | 1.69 |
| 1991 | 37384 | 1.82 |
| 1992 | 40275 | 1.95 |
| 1993 | 43665 | 2.09 |
| 1994 | 45698 | 2.17 |
| 1995 | 48626 | 2.28 |
| 1996 | 50967 | 2.38 |
| 1997 | 54798 | 2.54 |
| 1998 | 57809 | 2.65 |
| 1999 | 56082 | 2.55 |
| 2000 | 59373 | 2.68 |
| 2001 | 61892 | 2.77 |
| 2002 | 63890 | 2.85 |
| 2003 | 66635 | 2.95 |
| 2004 | 70339 | 3.1 |
| 2005 | 72452 | 3.19 |
| 2006 | 74372 | 3.26 |
| 2007 | 77405 | 0 |
| 2008 | 75066 | 0 |
All data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Data excludes emissions from land use and agriculture (including deforestation).
CITATION: Tom Boden, Gregg Marland, Robert J. Andres. Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2006. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Oak Ridge, Tennessee. April 29, 2009. doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.
20 comments:
Somehow I think it's not all that bad of a trade considering we have longer lives, better educational opportunities and we aren't stabbing each other on sight. Then there are the small blessings of no cholera, Malaria, dysentary, Dengue fever and parasites. If only we could give back Taiwanese and Thai(except for the kickboxing fights) TV programming. I would say that it is a fair trade.
I know you're big on these carbon emissions and climate forecasts, but you're just never going to be able to sell me on subsistence farming life of serfdom while a techno-elite gets to choose how I live, what medical care I may receive, what I can read/say or where I may go.
I'm also not a big fan of Tsai, maybe she pulls a Zuma and surprises me but in the end she was and is a bureaucrat and follows those ways and thinking. That's even before we get to the relative powerlessness of the presidency and whether the DPP has the legislature to work with.
subsistence farming life of serfdom while a techno-elite gets to choose how I live, what medical care I may receive, what I can read/say or where I may go.
Yes, because those are the only two choices, burn the earth to death or engage in subsistence farming in an authoritarian state. Clearly no other political arrangements are possible.
*sigh*
Michael
Look how long it took to meet Japanese era levels of industrial production.
Just out of idle curiosity, have you ever seen the 10-10 video? It's a serious question.
To control carbon emissions you have to make a lot of hard painful choices that don't sell well politically. Normally they are moved in gradually as a solution to something else for certain stakeholders. Most people also resent other people telling them how to live as they fly around on private jets and have huge homes.
Considering the outright fraud and hypocrisy in the green movement, it would be similar to me trying to sell you on converting to Christianity, something you come across as seeing fraudulent and full of hypocrisy.
You keep your filthy mitts off of my religion and I'll keep mine off of yours. ;-)
A more thoughtful man then might remind you of how the Euros thought they could thread the needle between communism and capitalism(the 3rd way), seems Spain is rioting this week, it was Greece last week and the UK the week before that.
I forgot about all those awful diseases. Malaria,... How easy it is for me take things for granted, not counting my blessings but only looking at unsolved problems.
I like this set of data. It showed that in 1945 there's a big drop in carbon emissions. Corresponding to the time KMT / mainlanders' exodus to Taiwan. Must be the chaos of that time that disrupted the industrial productions.
Like Michael, I'm very worried and concerned about CO2 emissions trend. Okami, suppose we drop the scenario of subsistence farming/serfdom out of the equation for a moment, does this trend worry you? Do you see a way to address this trend?
Is there any viable non-fossil fuel technology viable *TODAY*. Let's say we can make big infrastructure changes; Taiwan is not so large and is not as resistant to change as a place like the US, so I don't think it's a bad assumption. Nuclear? Anything else?
I am SO GODDAMN SICK of this Fox News blubber. Either you consume like a pig or you go back to the caves. Either you are a shiny capitalist, or a bad bad commie. Get real dude.
The 10-10 video? It's stupid. So? Knowing this changes the physics and chemistry of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere how?
Wind technology seemed like it was viable, but the maintenance costs are astronomical. That's why the windmills in Hsinchu don't spin--when they break, Taipower refuses to fix them because they are way too expensive to keep fixing!
Some of the issue appears to be due to just really bad design in the majority of wind power turbines where the gearbox is exposed to torsion that will wear it out quickly over time: Wind Turbine Gearbox Reliability
Not sure why they were ever designed the wrong way in the first place, but a horizon of 7 years before problems appear seem to be a good reason for why manufacturers just ignored the issue.
Okami,
Just went to Google and typed in 10-10 video. I picked out this article from the search result
and read it first:
http://transitionculture.org/2010/10/04/that-1010-video-not-in-my-name/
Then I followed its link and watched the 10:10 video.
Your previous remark about the Godwin's Law for another post was just so right on. I've never heard of Godwin's Law before. Really neat to see it in action immediately from a commenter a few posts later.
This time again it's very educational. Never heard of 10-10 before nor that video. Fortunately I read the article first before I watched the video and that cushioned some of the shock waves. The article states:
----------------------
That 10:10 film… not in my name….
Oh dear, oh dear. I had seen Frannie Armstrong’s newsletters talking about a forthcoming promo film for 10:10 being made by Richard Curtis (Notting Hill, Love Actually etc), but actually got to sit down and watch it last night. I have to say I am shocked, and appalled by this, and I’m on their side! ....
----------------------
Back in college days a bunch of us guys used to read a comic book called Cerebus, where the punch line was typically: "Cerebus is not implying ___, Cerebus is inferring ___." I would go back to read the story leading up to that punchline again, and then see how the context was obfuscated to make punchline so funny.
All I see what Michael has posted is a set of data and cited the source of that data. There's no NO-PRESSURE button or BUY-IT-NOW button. If Michael is implying something, it's lost to a blockhead like me. But I sure can see what you have inferred from that data.
You've already mention quite a bit on this subject. But I'm curious to hear more from you. If possible, without connecting it to EU or some fraudulent green movement groups or ism-s, what is your opinion of the data itself? Can I expect to hear an agreement from you that there's a trend of CO2 emission build-up?
My own inference of the data is the trend of CO2 build-up, and that trend is a threat to social stability. Call it global warming or whatever, it is THE doomsday ghost in my psyche. I've been a worried person for over 30 years.
Thanks EconP, that explains a lot.
Michael
Well the 10-10 video which was funded by the UK govt is the sort of thinking we are looking at. I don't find blowing up schoolchildren for not joining the group funny. Let me explain why that is important.
Argument 1:
To drop carbon emissions we'd need to build lot of nuclear reactors, dam rivers for power and build solar farms and windmills everywhere. At the same time we would have to drive up the price of coal, oil and natural gas to make people use the "green alternatives" which aren't always so green.
Now carbon emissions are going to drop, but only if everyone buys in. None of the BRIC countries are going to buy in because they are either oil exporters or want more cheap energy to help their economies develop. For argument's sake, lets say they do join in, now what happens. Well people do what people do and they cheat. Now that electricity rates have skyrocketed, they'll go and find cheaper forms of power, so lets start talking in BTU's. First cold is a bigger killer than heat, so trees and coal are going to get have a premium value with people burning them for warmth like they have done for the last 10,000 years. Cheap BTUs are good BTUs as far as your average man is concerned. Well now you say we will subsidize certain electricity consumption and then I would say that subsidies corrupt and it's fairly easy to game most subsidy systems. The USSR was said to have around 50% of it's power stolen for illegal factories.
Now think of food, take a look at the stuff you buy and imagine how many watts of power it took to make that food. Even if you cook at home, your still talking a large amount of power per calorie. Food prices and what you eat would necessarily skyrocket forcing you either to cut back on your calorie intake or start farming to increase the number of calories in your families diet. Any subsidy regime would once again be gamed by the select elite. When Rajendra Pachauri flies first class to India from NY for a cricket match and back to NY do you think he gives a damn about carbon emissions? He's actually done that btw.
Anytime you artificially raise the price of something through taxes, fees or regulations you thereby create an incentive for illegal means of production or service. You start capping and enforcing carbon emission reductions with the law and you get prohibition and the war on drugs all over again on a global scale.
Thanks Okami. I'm sure it is much better to do nothing.
Well, what would you do Michael? Laws of economics what they are, what do you expect to happen when the price of energy skyrockets? I'd actually like to hear your ideas rather than your snark.
A quick list:
Because the denialist shit has prevented a slow adaptation over time (remember we've known since 1880 that industrial civilization would warm the earth and at least since the 1960s that it would destroy the biosphere), we are now stuck in a situation where we absolutely must get down to zero carbon by 2020 or it really doesn't matter what we do. China must shortly follow suit, thereafter. This is because at that point a 4C rise in temps becomes a reality, maybe as early as 2060. So my proposals are informed by the knowledge that, as many scientists privately feel, with no action now, there won't be a human race within a century.
1. Ideally, shut down all coal plants within the next five years, everywhere on earth; practically, carbon capture must go into immediate practice on plants that linger past that deadline. That absolutely must be done. You realize that means basically converting what we now spend on the military to spending on the environment... installing natural gas, wind and solar power systems, solarizing homes. For what it cost to invade Iraq we could already have converted 2/3 of our coal plants to wind (strictly on a megawatt of coal to 1.5 megawatts of wind); Afghanistan could have finished the remainder. For what we have spent needlessly on the military over the last two decades we could have purchased wind for the whole earth....
2. Termination of all subsidies to fossil fuel production and transportation. Fossil fuel power production should be regarded as a dead technology never to be revived. Massive subsidies for solar and wind power production, sale, installation, and regulation.
3. Upgraded/crash research programs in power transmission, storage batteries, thorium nuclear plants, crops effective in reducing Co2 and CH4, carbon capture and storage, and similar.
4. Re-regulation of the power network to maximize wind transmission capabilities. Our current grid sucks and actually encourages the use of less environmentally sound tech.
5. National ecological programs to convert fallow land to CO2 amelioration, preserve and expand wetlands, and so on.
etc etc etc Again, because we got screwed by a very effective and destructive program of lies from fossil fuel firms over the last thirty years, we are now up against the wall.
Satisfied?
Michael
a techno-elite gets to choose how I live, what medical care I may receive
At least there's some progress from Okami :)
The bold above is all the hallmarks of private and HMO-driven healthcare. If Okami doesn't want that, then it stands to reason he/she supports universal/public health where there is no one telling you that you can't be covered because you have a pre-existing condition or you can't afford it etc.
If Okami is now supporting universal health care it can't be too long until he/she changes his/her tune on climate change.
This is not unrelated, though it appears to be: Why Taiwanese don't stand together on the issue of Taiwan identity, on the independence of Taiwan? Here we have a live example of why: because people are arguing from their own set of premises, instead of addressing the premise of the other party.
Okami is asking, "what do you expect to happen when the price of energy skyrockets?" He is showing that he has already examined many solutions to the problem of CO2 emissions, and these solutions do not hold water for him on the grounds of BUSINESS and ECONOMICS. Until someone has come up with viable economic solutions, he is not "buying." Here I'm inferring that Okami's primary point of reference is "sound business." Therefore, as long as Michael is not addressing this issue from the economics viewpoint, Okami is not likely to agree.
To Okami. I can see your points very well. You obviously know how business works. You are the expert. We don't know much about economics. We are not qualified to mouth how businesses should run. But you can, can't you? So with your business expertise, can you look into the possibility of a "breakthrough" in economics thinking on the issue of CO2 and tell us what that might be? We are not asking for a comprehensive solution, just some starters, just some possibilities that business leaders may agree to look into this. A starting point, then we on our side can have something to go with. The children of the future generations are even more clueless/helpless than we are on this issue. If you agree that the CO2 build-up can be a threat to your own children's well-being, then perhaps you can set aside our differences, let those unrealistic solution proposals sit in the back burners where they belong, and help us think it through?
To Michael, the 5-point quick list you propose seem like a grand governmental solution. I see the need for it, but the logistics and politics and economic consequences ... Well, I'll just say that if you can get Jerome K. or somebody who can influence Tsai to be on board with you, put this vision into DPP's campaign in the next election against KMT, have Tsai beat Ma on these issues, I'll be clapping hands for you and have no objection whatsoever. I don't go much for big solutions. But if and when you win and "the cost of energy skyrockets", I will do my best to lower my standards of living to consume less energy as a way to cope.
I know none of that will happen, Okami. I merely point out that it has to.
Climate Progress has a good write up with many good links of the 4C world.
The 4C world
Note that methane releases aren't modeled in these scenarios.
Michael
And, just today the Aussie climate commission points out that this is the critical decade.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/23/australian-climate-commission-critical-decade/
The reason for that is that temp rises lag carbon dioxide increases, by several decades -- the CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere now will affect us forty years from now.
Might the big drop in 1945 also be because there was no more need for war driven manufacturing?
Post a Comment