91av

THE colder a country is, the more fuel its people burn to keep warm. It
sounds obvious, but this and other simple facts have not made their way into the
Kyoto Protocol, the initiative that aims to curtail the world’s greenhouse gas
emissions and reduce global warming.

Eric Neumayer from the London School of Economics set out to determine if
everyone should have the same rights when it comes to emitting carbon dioxide.
He looked at 160 countries and calculated how their emissions between 1960 and
1989 depended on factors like the winter cold, summer heat, the availability of
fossil fuels or renewable energy, and the distance that goods have to be
transported.

He found these geographical factors have a surprisingly large effect,
accounting for 7 per cent of the variation in emissions between countries. That
may seem insignificant compared to the 76 per cent of variation accounted for by
a nation’s income. But it can have a big effect in countries with extreme
climates. If all countries had the same income level, for example, the former
Soviet Union would produce up to six times as much CO₂ per capita as
Ethiopia.

That means politicians should account for geography when calculating emission
reductions, argues Neumayer. For instance, the US could use its large size and
temperature extremes to justify fewer reductions. Even a tiny change in their
CO₂ allocation could make a big difference to the cost of a reductions
programme.

But the CO₂ emissions targets in the Kyoto Protocol were set more
for political than scientific reasons, says Tom Drennen, an economist from
Hobart and William Smith Colleges in New York, who was present during the
negotiations. “Decisions get made at the last minute and they don’t always make
sense,” he says. He has never heard a country make a claim for higher emissions
based on their cold climate or size, though several did point out their use of
renewable energy.