Expecting a rush of perambulatory politicians banging on my front door, I wanted to look up a couple of statistics to wave in their faces as I barrack them for their stupidity (taking their support for Net Zero as implied, until they either terminate the interview by running away screaming or make claims to opposing their party’s position).

It occurred to me that I should share these numbers, so that you, dear Cliscep reader, will have them to hand should a politician knock on your door. Naturally, we may assume that our prospective candidates are immune to data. But we can try.

The data on GHG emissions come from EDGAR via Wiki and are therefore a resource whose provenance is easy to check. They are territorial emissions, and include divers minor GHG as well as the core unit of CO₂. The GDP figures are from the World Bank (2015$).

What Guilt Sits on the UK’s Shoulders?

The first figure shows global GHG emissions in 2022. According to EDGAR, this quantity was 53,786,039 kt CO_2eq for the year. This figure is represented by the black circle. The other circles show, to scale, the emissions of three other selected countries. The figures are as follows:

China: 15,684,627 kt CO_2eq. 29.16% of global total.

USA: 6,017,443 kt CO_2eq. 11.19% of global total.

UK: 426,562 kt CO_2eq. 0.79% of global total.

But Jit, I hear you cry, this is not a fair comparison! Those other countries are much larger than the UK, so of course they have higher emissions! All right, dammit. Stand by.

What guilt sits on the shoulders of the people of the UK?

This figure shows per capita GHG emissions as t CO_2eq in 2022. The figures for the select countries are:

China: 10.95 t CO_2eq/cap.

USA: 17.90 t CO_2eq/cap.

UK: 6.27 t CO_2eq/cap.

I have shown the top 21 GHG emitting countries here, in descending order. (The UK now ranks 21^st.) The red line shows the global average per capita emissions, which the UK is now comfortably below. A single average person in the USA has almost the footprint of three Brits.

How have things changed in the past 30 years?

Which countries can demonstrate some sort of effort to rein in their “excesses”? This figure shows 2022’s per capita GHG emissions for each of the 21 countries as a percentage of their 1990 emissions. The red line shows 100% = no change since 1990. We may note here that no countries have made such an effort to cut their emissions as has the UK. (Yes, this is unfair on developing countries.)

The figures are:

China: 385% of 1990 per capita emissions.

USA: 97.6% of 1990 per capita emissions.

UK: 54.3% of 1990 per capita emissions.

(In case you were wondering, Germany’s figure is 63.5%.)

Now, remember, these are territorial emissions. Of course, as countries develop, they may follow a sequence along the lines of:

Swords ’n’ sandals -> Boiler suits ’n’ hard hats -> laptops ’n’ lattes.

This is reflected by a weaker than you might think relationship between GDP and GHG emissions: there are some – ahem – legacy countries like the UK, which maintain a high per capita GDP despite having made serious dents in their GHG emissions. However, I would argue that this is a misleading picture. Consider as an analogy a café, whose workers are of the laptops ’n’ lattes class; the café has a high GDP, but low GHG emissions. But someone has to build the laptops, and someone has to build the lattes – I mean, produce the coffee. The laptop builders and coffee producers cannot join the laptops ’n’ lattes class without the system falling over. The UK has moved away from a GHG-intensive economy, but it is not possible for the world to do so. If we all become laptop-latte class, there will be no laptops, no coffee, and no café.

The final figure shows the GHG intensity of the economies of the same 21 countries, in $ per t CO_2eq. Remember, the stated aim of the UK is to reach $∞/t CO_2eq. The only way this can work is if we mine nothing, grow nothing, and build nothing.

Wait a minute. Am I not using the admitted success of the UK’s “decarbonisation” policies (yuk) to argue for their impossibility? Look how far we’ve come, but we’ll never make it the last 54.3% of the way? Well, remember the point about the territorial emissions. Our “success” has been permitted by someone else’s (China’s) “failure.” It’s quite obvious that if the UK was a closed system, we would have failed by now. [Just as if we were a closed food system, two thirds of us would starve.]

I would argue that the figures here show that:

1. The UK’s absolute contribution to GHG emissions is negligible [within the territorial parameters].
2. We are now below the global average for per-capita emissions [ditto].
3. Other countries that are fond of lecturing us on our responsibilities have far more to answer for than we do, both in absolute and relative terms [yes, this is tu quoque].
4. Following on, there is no argument for unilateral Net Zero other than a bizarre moral one. If instead we chose a multilateral version of the policy, where all countries move together, then we would be far out in front of all the major economies. In this comfortable position, we could wait for them to catch us up, or at least show willing, before we had to make any further cuts.

Who are you going to vote for, Jit? I am in an uncomfortable position. I do not know who I will vote for, but I will not vote for any candidate who does not repudiate Net Zero. That is my promise to myself.

No to Net Zero.

No to National Suicide.