Is the U.S. becoming more GHG efficient?

Tuesday, (tax day--coincidence?) the U.S. EPA released its Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emission: 1990-2006.  I haven't worked my way through the whole thing and I'm not sure I will (can you blame me?) but the graph to the right is my favorite so far.  The U.S. is becoming more greenhouse gas efficient.  That is, there is a distinct and unambiguous downward trend in greenhouse gas emissions per dollar GDP generated since 1990. 

A few notes:

• Total greenhouse gas emisions seem to have leveled off since 2000 (and even took a slight dip in 2006--1%)
• Emissions per capita are fairly constant--if not falling slightly. 
• We know, we know, GDP ignores most environmental damages. 

Comments

[Matthew]

I would imagine that a large part of that decrease is due to the fact that during that time, the contribution of goods-producing industries to GDP fell from 23.7% of GDP to 19.5% of GDP.

[Charles Young]

Compared with France, US generates more than 3 times as much per capita and more than twice as much per (purchasing-power-adjusted) $. Other European countries and Japan are less efficient than France (because of France's large nuclear-power base), but closer to France than to the USA. Of major industrial countries, only China (slightly) and Russia (considerably) seem to be less efficient than the US in terms of carbon per $ of GDP.

[Jim Casey]

Along the same lines as comment 1 from Matthew - consumption does not necessarily lead to increasing emissions and C is a huge component of GDP - the production of most of the things we consume takes place in China - the country that just became the world's leader in CO2 emissions. But is China supposed to blame for those emissions or should the consumer be charged with that offense? This is an issue that will confuse the heck out of W and keep us from being able to negotiate any international climate treaty where the developing world is ön board."

[John Wilson]

Fortunately, top scientists will publish startling new findings that show the climate sensitivity is inversely proportionate to the US GDP.

If we keep growing and keep reducing emissions per GDP, this previously-unknown effect will result in the climate becoming less and less sensitive to global warming pollution! If we can achieve approximately 3.2% annual growth in GDP, we'll restore the arctic ice cap and create pleasant year-round weather in St. Louis.

It is my understanding that these results will be presented first on RealClimate.org but I thought I'd break the news here in the comments section of Env-Econ!

[Don]

Problem is, the atmosphere does not factor GDP into its heat generation functions. Total GHG emissions are the key to environmental effects.

[John Thacker]

Of major industrial countries, only China (slightly) and Russia (considerably) seem to be less efficient than the US in terms of carbon per $ of GDP.

I'm sorry, this is quite inaccurate. Here are the statistics on carbon per $ of GDP. You can click on the column to sort by carbon per $ of GDP. Countries which are less efficient that the US include India, Canada and South Korea, with Australia tied with the US (the adjacent country in fact). I think that all of those could be considered "major industrial countries" if Russia and China are. There's other countries that are at least somewhat wealthy and industrialized, like Thailand, South Africa, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, Poland, the Philippines, the Slovak Republic, Mexico, Israel, and others that all are less efficient than the US. Among wealthy countries, there absolutely is a relationship between population density and GHG efficiency. The US compares similarly to Canada and Australia.

But is China supposed to blame for those emissions or should the consumer be charged with that offense? This is an issue that will confuse the heck out of W and keep us from being able to negotiate any international climate treaty where the developing world is on board.

Confuse the heck out of W? It already confused the heck out of Gore and the US Senate back when the Kyoto Protocol was signed. You may notice that, despite W not being President and Gore negotiating the protocol, we were unable to bring the developing world on board. This is possibly the reason (and definitely the excuse) why it was not ratified. W had nothing to do with that.

[joshua corning]

Among wealthy countries, there absolutely is a relationship between population density and GHG efficiency.

So we have an empty space of low pop land between New York and Los Angles!?!? And this mean we are less carbon/GDP efficient then the most densely populated parts of the planet?!?! Who would have ever thought of that?

[joshua corning]

By the way water vapor is a GHG...is it included in that graph? or does the graph only include gases that Al gore does not like?

[john]

John is right about the efficiency of growth, but this will depend upon the industrial structure. Although, it is a little unfair to poor performers as they are supplying the US and Europe with high carbon intensity goods