I just looked at US EIA website and noted that they have now posted 2008 data for all nations. I have attached the whole dataset. These new numbers differ, slightly, from numbers from my own analysis that I distributed a few months ago.

As I mentioned in a prior message:

• While estimates for total GHGs and GHGs from energy consumption by nation exist, all pre-1980 numbers are highly unreliable. So I only go back to 1980.

• I have compared national rankings for 1990 – 2007 total GHGs to national rankings for 1990 – 2007 GHGs for energy consumption and concluded that national rankings are unlikely to change, much, if we had access to reliable national estimates for GHGs from industrial processes, solvents, F-gases and waste going back to 1980. There is a high correlation between energy consumption-related GHGs and these other undocumented GHG sources. I am comfortable using the rankings that derive from the US EIA-published estimates of energy consumption-related GHGs as proxies for national rankings for all GHGs, excluding land use, land use change and forestry. (LULUCF)

• If we could include LULUCF—good data is really not available—Canada and most large developing nations will rate higher rankings than they do in the attached spreadsheet.

In the attached spreadsheet Column AF shows you how nations ranked by total GHGs from energy consumption in 2008. Column AJ shows you rankings from largest contributor of GHGs to the atmosphere between 1980 and 1990. Column AN shows you national rankings from largest contributor to growth in annual global GHG discharges between 1990 and 2008.

So South Africa was the 14th largest national GHG emitter in 2008, ranked number 13 on the basis of total GHGs discharged to the atmosphere between 1980 and 2008, and ranked number 14 in terms of total GHG increase between 1990 and 2008.

Canada’s rankings are 8, 9 and 19, respectively. China’s are 1, 2 and 1. The US’s are 2, 1, and 3. Russia’s are 3, 3, and 180—due to the fall of the wall. To get the estimates for Russia pre-1992, I deducted the estimates from the new eastern European and Asia economies from the historical GHG estimates for the USSR.

Consultants, environmentalists and reporters who wish to present current global GHG discharges and concentrations as a largely developed nation responsibility tend to group all EU27 member states together as one "nation" to achieve this impression.

The picture is quite different when we look at actual national GHG levels. Germany and the UK are the only EU27 member states among the top 15 national GHG emitters. This explains why the US negotiators have initiated side-negotiations with the UK and Germany and are currently ignoring the interests of the rest of Europe.

You might note that while the Germany’s GHGs from energy consumption fell 167 MM TCO2e between 1990 and 2007 due to the shut-down of old, out-dated plants that had been subsidized by the Soviet government, the GHG quota surplus awarded to Germany under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was 190 MM TCO2e/year over 1995 actual reported levels.

Reductions in reported Russian GHGs from energy consumption are reported to be 103 MM TCO2e below 1990 levels in 2008, while the Kyoto Protocol awarded Russia a quota surplus of just over 800 MM TCO2e/year over actual reported 1995 levels.

The Ukraine’s GHGs from energy consumption fell 185 MM TCO2e between 1990 and 2008, but the Kyoto Protocol awarded the Ukraine a 350 MMTCO2e national GHG quota surplus relative to 1995 levels.

So when you are considering Annex I nation’s claims of progress relative to 1990, you need to make sure you know whether they are comparing current GHGs to their actual 1990 levels or to the Kyoto First Commitment quota allocations. For the Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Germany and a few others, the difference between 2008 actual emissions and the Kyoto quota allocations is significantly larger than the difference in actual reported emissions.

The rankings in the attached sheet use data that are reasonable proxies from which to build a comparison of changes in actual emission discharges, but do not serve well to compare national performance relative to Kyoto First Commitment Period commitment.

The differences between actual 1990 and 1995 emissions and Kyoto First Commitment GHG quota assignments explain why it is so important to the EU27 and Russia that any final Copenhagen Accord be an extension of the Kyoto Protocol and also explain why it should be essential to Canadian negotiators that there be no link between Kyoto quota allocations and the Copenhagen agreement or mechanisms for measuring performance under the Copenhagen agreement.

100% of the UK’s reported 33 MM TCO2e reduction derives from: (1) the flight to gas (the UK pre-1995 subsidies for coal production and coal conversion to electricity amounted to over US$125,000 per coal sector employer per year, so the UK decision to remove subsidies resulted in significant reductions in overall UK energy costs and taxes); (2) hoof and mouth disease followed by mad cow disease, which resulted in a 60% reduction in UK beef and pork production and processing and related reductions in food industry energy demand, and (3)UK’s share of North Sea oil and gas reserves peaking in 1994 and declining since then. BP’s reported UK oil and gas output, for example, has declined over 35% over the last 10 years.

If you want to build similar rankings on the basis of GHGs per capita, you can use population estimates that also appear at the US EIA website, which simply republishes official EIA and OECD data. Go here to get the numbers. When you look at GHGs per capita, Canada does not rank as high as we do in the attached spreadsheet, because Canada has had high population growth, relative to other developed nations, since 1980 and 1990.