
Britain’s CO2 Emissions Have Fallen to Levels Last Seen in 1890 (2018) - apsec112
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/britains-co2-emissions-have-fallen-to-levels-last-seen-in-1890
======
shoo
This analysis neglects the impact of moving heavy industry offshore -- Britain
still benefits from the consumption of industrial products, historically some
industrial products consumed domestically may have been manufactured in
Britain where CO2 emissions from manufacturing would be counted as British
emissions. Now the same products are manufactured in China, perhaps with lower
environmental regulation. Both countries share a single atmosphere & so in
terms of global warming it is irrelevant in which country the emissions occur.
If outsourcing manufacturing without reducing emissions makes British
emissions look lower by some metric then that metric is not very useful for
thinking about progress in dealing with climate change.

The economist podcast [1] touched on this topic recently during an interview
with Prof Dieter Helm [2] who has a series of lectures & a new book about
this.

[1] For the podcast, check out the last 9 minutes of
[https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2020/09/08/tech-wreck-
the...](https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2020/09/08/tech-wreck-the-
stockmarket-hits-rough-water)

[2] [http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/](http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/)

~~~
perfunctory
Moving industry offshore not only simply moved emissions around, it made
things worse by adding aviation and shipping.

And to make things even worse, emissions from aviation and shipping are not
attributed to any specific country. Talk about creative accounting.

~~~
perfunctory
Also I believe this analysis neglects capital investments. Say British pension
fund invests in coal plant in India.

~~~
Reason077
UK's biggest pension fund begins fossil fuels divestment:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/29/national...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/29/national-
employment-savings-trust-uks-biggest-pension-fund-divests-from-fossil-fuels)

~~~
M2Ys4U
However: the UK government is also directly financing, through UK Export
Finance (UKEF), a whole lot of fossil fuel developments, though.[0]

UKEF has ploughed more than £6 billion into fossil fuel companies in the last
10 years, which will produce 69 million tons of CO2 per year, or 1/6th of the
UK's current output.[1]

[0] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-
environment-51216084](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51216084)

[1] [https://environmentjournal.online/articles/uk-government-
has...](https://environmentjournal.online/articles/uk-government-has-
invested-60bn-into-overseas-fossil-fuel-projects/)

~~~
Reason077
I believe there has recently been a ban on UK government funds financing any
coal mining or coal power plant projects. But yes, it's certainly a scandal
that this went on for so long, and the ban has yet to be extended to other
forms of fossil fuel.

------
frereubu
For those understandably cynical about this, and suggesting that it’s solely
to do with offshoring emissions to China etc, this BBC economics podcast goes
into the detail - a lot of it is actually a real and significant drop caused
by the rapid phasing out of coal-fired power stations, which was relatively
easy. The next drops are going to be much harder. And, as others have pointed
out, it’s still not nearly enough.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0802553](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0802553)

~~~
konjin
The only reason why coal fired plants could be phased out is that the base
load from industry is gone.

For example the UK last month produced 515,000 tons of steel. In the 1890s it
produced 420,000 tons per month.

The title might as well be "UK De-Industrialization Complete".

[1]
[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmbi...](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmbis/546/54604.htm)

[2] [https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/steel-
production](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/steel-production)

~~~
tialaramex
> The only reason why coal fired plants could be phased out is that the base
> load from industry is gone.

Nope. The whole _point_ of electricity is that you don't need to care. When a
gas plant comes on line - producing cheaper and cleaner power - it doesn't
change anything about the actual electricity used in industry or how they use
it.

If Britain needed 50GW of baseline power for a North covered in manufacturing
plants in 2020, it would buy more _gas power plants_ and maybe wind farms -
not coal because coal is too expensive.

~~~
konjin
Gas is cheap because there isn't demand for it, energy generation has one of
the most inelastic supply curves under a decade of any industry.

If the UK was still producing steel at the level it was in 1960 it would
require up to 10% of the total current electricity production to meed the
demand of the sector [1] [2]. That's just one industry.

The UK's electricity demand has fallen over 20% since the peak in 2000 [3].

The other reason why coal is no longer a good deal for the UK is that Thatcher
wanted to crush organized labour in the mines, managed to do it and then found
that trying to import coal from Australia was a losing proposition.

Had British industry not been stabbed in the back by the Tories we'd be
looking at new plants which would be a mix on coal and gas and maybe if the
greens could have been kept at bay nuclear, but old plants will still be open
because they could make money.

[1]
[http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/martelaro1/](http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/martelaro1/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom)

[3] [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-primary-energy-
use-i...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-primary-energy-use-
in-2018-was-the-lowest-in-half-a-century/uk-electricity-generation-by-source-
terwatt-hours-1996-2018-shares-of-uk-electricity-generation-percentage-2)

------
borg_
It blows my mind how much higher US/Canada's per-capita CO2 emission is
compared to European industrialized countries as well as China [1].

While we lament how much of this is due to offshoring industries to China,
it's also a good sign that carbon-importing countries seem to have been
trending down over the past 10 years while carbon-exporting country (China) is
leveling off in its emission. My naive read would be that we learned to make
more efficient use of carbon while off-shoring is happening.

All countries need to do much more but SOME really need to wake up and do
their part!

[1] [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-
capita?t...](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-
capita?tab=chart&year=latest&country=GBR~CHN~USA~CAN~FRA)

~~~
tialaramex
US energy use is very high for a number of reasons and energy use will tend to
drive CO2 emissions. If you just use electricity (we'll get to that) you can
maybe make an order of magnitude difference and _maybe_ if you work very hard,
which we need to, two orders of magnitude but that's all you can hope for.
That's from 1kg/kWh which is roughly where coal power is, to 100g/kWh and then
(very hard) to 10g/kWh with power sources that produce CO2 mainly during
construction then amortized over their lifetime.

So if you start out using many times more energy than other countries per
capita, you'll struggle to equal them on CO2 emissions even if that's a core
policy goal.

The low population density in much of the US drives increased energy usage. I
will walk to the nearby grocery store in a few minutes to buy my week's
groceries, many Americans will drive, perhaps as much as an hour, to buy their
groceries, it's not as though eating is optional. And this low density also
forces bad energy source choices (e.g. using wood fires to keep warm seems
pretty reasonable when there is no mains electricity out where you live even
though of course it's very inefficient)

But to be fair consumerism does not help. Americans have been somewhat
resistant to energy efficiency technologies that took off elsewhere,
consumption is a sign of wealth and success and so efficiency is in that sense
"bad". The entire city of Las Vegas is clearly a terrible idea from an energy
efficiency point of view, why would you build a city in a desert?

~~~
borg_
Thanks for providing this perspective!

I think it would be super interesting to look at CO2 emission per capita
broken down by states (i.e. perhaps states along the coasts would show a very
different picture than less populated states).

309 people per mi2 (France) vs 421 for the NY state.

~~~
cagenut
even better, by zipcode:
[https://coolclimate.org/maps](https://coolclimate.org/maps)

its astonishing how the difference between "live in a city" and "live in the
suburbs outside a city" is more than 3:1

~~~
bzbarsky
Without controlling for income, it's hard to draw good conclusions here.
Looking at the area I am familiar with (Boston and its inner suburbs), CO2
emissions seem to correlate pretty well with income for areas which are a
similar distance from downtown Boston and similarly dense/built-up.

Of course there's the open question of whether something like Brookline or
even more so Cambridge or Somerville count as "suburbs outside a city".

~~~
ed312
Also from the area, I get the sense that the Boston area is generally
increasing in carbon efficiency (at least pre covid). There simply isn't space
to build more/bigger highways into Boston, the only feasible way to expand
capacity is increasing density and more transit/biking.

------
disown
Because they shipped their industrial base overseas where they have much lax
environmental regulations than in britain. Unless britain's quality of life
sunk to 1890 level, their real contribution is far higher than 1890. After all
britain's consumption has increased significantly ( on a per capita basis )
and their population has risen significantly since 1890.

So an honest article would say britain's CO2 emissions has risen significantly
since 1890. But it's probably just paid PR study with an agenda like almost
all of climate related news is.

Another PR on the frontpage.

"Google says its carbon footprint is now zero"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24468892](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24468892)

It's like how parts of europe "recycled" most of their plastic/trash... by
shipping it to china.

[https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-recycling-china-
trash...](https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-recycling-china-trash-ban-
forces-europe-to-confront-its-waste-problem/)

Just paid PR nonsense.

And I can't wait for PR about how great norway is.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production)

The top 5 oil producer on a per capita basis.

------
ehmish
Good data visualisation of co2 emissions over the last 200 years:

[https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-
kingdom?countr...](https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-
kingdom?country=~GBR)

~~~
totetsu
What's going on in New Caledonia? 19.85 tons? Oh it's a per capita measure..
and a coal plant to power mining operations
[https://newcaledoniatoday.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/new-
caled...](https://newcaledoniatoday.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/new-caledonia-to-
become-the-second-greatest-source-of-co2-emissions/)

------
LatteLazy
(2017 emissions)

(emissions were actually lower in 1928ish)

(emissions are still much too high and global emissions Co tinue to rise)

~~~
Zenst
Whilst Co2 emission maybe lowering, it is the other polluting emission that
have seen increasing weight placed upon Co2 emission over other forms of
emission is a little concerning that they will get overshadowed.

[https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/reports?section_id=7](https://uk-
air.defra.gov.uk/library/reports?section_id=7) A good source for
atmospheric(air quality) data.

------
marcus_holmes
Once again, there is some actual, irrefutably good, news greeted by cynicism.

This is, after all, the goal we're trying to achieve - reduction in CO2
emissions - isn't it?. It's good news that at least one advanced economy has
done this.

Can we just take a moment to celebrate some good news, please, folks?

------
JoachimS
About a third of the per capita emissions in the United States.

------
downvoteme1
I think the world should also start noting methane emissions . That gas is 400
times more potent than CO2 in trapping heat and is escaping rapidly from
fracking sites everywhere . The United States is leading the pack in methane
emissions but I think no central agency is tracking that.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
There is effectively no fracking in the UK.

~~~
pjc50
.. yet. The exploration has so far been met with hostility from locals, but
Ineos have been pushing to do it.
[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/28/ineos-
looks...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/28/ineos-looks-to-us-
for-fracking-sites-as-uk-options-wane)

A personal bugbear though, we should be working much harder to reduce or
eliminate flaring: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-
fife-5...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-
fife-51730024)

------
reizorc
Burning trees and other biomass for electricity is not CO2 neutral as much as
the UK gov wants it to be. First it produces more CO2 at the stack than coal
and then you have to actually replant and wait 40 years.

~~~
mikeyjk
Wood fires are also terrible for human health

~~~
KSteffensen
Well, depends on how it's done. A wood burning stove in a regular one family
house, where daddy is more concerned about the cost of the firewood than its
water content is terrible yes.

A power/heating plant with proper monitoring of the combustion and filtering
of the smoke is definitely no worse than a coal burning plant.

~~~
mcjiggerlog
No worse than a coal burning plant is not exactly a high bar for being good
for your health.

~~~
KSteffensen
In the common case, yes, agreed. But again, it depends on how it's done. A lot
can be done to increase efficiency and filter the smoke properly. I'm no
expert but my understanding is that the technology in this area is well-
established. Coal can be burned cleanly, and it's even economic to do so since
more energy is extracted per unit fuel.

The main reason for refurbishing coal plants for other fuels or shutting them
down entirely is that coal is terrible regarding CO2 footprint.

------
x87678r
Here is a quick reminder of what Britain looked like in 1890. It must have had
the highest CO2 emissions per citizen by far.

[https://i1.wp.com/www.cabaltimes.com/wp-
content/Manchester_I...](https://i1.wp.com/www.cabaltimes.com/wp-
content/Manchester_Industrial_Revolution.jpg)

------
tonyedgecombe
Carbon intensity has fallen further this year although no doubt it will bounce
back when the thing is over.

[https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/reports/report-2020-q2/deta...](https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/reports/report-2020-q2/detail/headlines-8?_k=8551xp)

~~~
vixen99
Bounce back up? From where?
[https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/](https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)

~~~
tonyedgecombe
>From where?

From being down by 21% in Q2.

------
willyt
I once read a statistic that the Saturn V rocket had a higher instantaneous
power than the whole of the UK electrical grid. I did a bit of googling to
discover if that was true and I was surprised to discover that the UK used
about 3-4 times more electricity in the 1970's than it does now. Presumably
it's because there is hardly any industries like steel milling or metal
forming and processing now. Most manufacturing is assembly of parts imported
from the EU and the far east.

~~~
philipkglass
The UK consumes more electricity now than in the 1970s.

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/550592/uk-electricity-
co...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/550592/uk-electricity-consumption-
by-final-users/)

Consumption in 1970: 192 TWh

Consumption in 2019: 295 TWh

~~~
willyt
I don't know who statista are but their figures seem to be wrong. However I
also must have misremembered. So it seems we were both wrong: The UK
government says it is similar now (256983 GWh) compared to 1970. (214426 GWh)
having peaked in 2003 (342308 GWh) [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-
data-sets/historic...](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-
sets/historical-electricity-data)

------
bregma
1890, a century after Blake's complaint of the dark satanic mills? Is there a
significance to that date or is someone using a murky and turgid understanding
of history to score some political points?

------
code4tee
A lot of these numbers are misleading. Things like manufacturing have fled the
UK to other countries. This keeps emissions low but the UK still utilizes
goods, just made elsewhere.

More legit numbers would show the total amount of consumption and trace the
emissions back to source, not just look at emissions at source in country.

Also these stats only look at emissions and overlook sequestration, which can
be huge in some countries. For example, the UK has long since lost most of its
forests which means it sequesters a lot less carbon than more forested
countries like the United States.

------
supernova87a
oops, sorry.

~~~
nl
This was from 2018...

------
matthewfelgate
We've outsourced the problem to China.

------
pyetya
How much did people spend on it? What benefits it gives?

------
abraxas
Not hard to do if you outsource your energy production to Russia and others.

~~~
kaesar14
Why is this downvoted? Even if it’s wrong, can we please post sources as to
why it’s wrong?

~~~
p1necone
Verifying every claim you read on the internet is an impossible endeavor. It's
much healthier for discourse if strong claims that aren't "general knowledge"
for lack of a better term are ignored unless supplied alongside reliable
sources or some sort of justification/explanation (and even then, making
ridiculous claims and backing them up with heavily biased sources is a common
tactic too).

This is mostly necessary in politically charged topics (energy generation
(because that relates to climate change) and mentioning Russia specifically
were both red flags to me) because spurious emotive bullshit and deliberate
misinformation are _very_ common.

This particular comment also didn't have enough information to be very useful
- How much energy does the UK import from Russia? In what form? Has that
amount changed recently? Why do you believe this is a bad thing? are all
interesting questions the commenter could answer that would add to the
conversation in a useful way.

~~~
ultramundane8
Sadly, "burden of proof" has never gained traction despite its essential
nature.

I really wish I were intelligent enough to systematize it, but billions of
dollars have so far failed to establish procedures for sound reasoning. Or
maybe just make those procedures commonplace.

