The relative population trends of the EU-15 and the United States seems to be a source of some confusion, if comments to my recent post on the European Union’s effort to meet its Kyoto targets are any indication (see “15 EU countries on track to meet Kyoto targets” and “Are Europe’s greenhouse gas cuts real?“).
One commenter writes “EU population is flat/declining. US population is growing.” Even our friend Roger Pielke, Jr. responds to my statement that “immigration now keeps their population rising almost as fast as United States,” with “You’ll want to recheck your assertion on the comparison of EU vs. US population growth.”
Here is the best comparison graph I could find online (the y-axis appears to be annual percentage growth rate):
Population growth rate
As can be seen, the annual population growth rates of the EU-15 and U.S. have been creeping towards each other and are getting surprisingly close. How is that possible?
I confess that for many years I also thought that EU population growth was flat whereas ours was growing some 1% a year, suggesting our climate targets should be quite different than theirs. But a little online investigation reveals that has more to do with confusion between the EU-15 and Europe and with too many popular media stories about the declining fertility rates in Europe. Like this country, much of the EU’s population growth comes from immigration.
You can find a very good explication of the issue in this piece from the Netherlands, “Migration motor behind EU population growth,” which was the link I used above in the statement that Pielke questioned.
[Note to self and other bloggers: Most people simply don't click on the links. That is not good or bad. It just is. Blog accordingly.]
According to Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, population growth in the EU is mainly the result of foreign migration and, to a lesser extent, of natural growth.
Net migration in 2005 for the EU as a whole was estimated by Eurostat at 1.69 million. Natural population growth, defined as births minus deaths, was 327 thousand in 2005. Thus, total population growth in 2005 in the EU amounted to approximately 2.02 million. Altogether, 462 million people were living in the EU on 1 January 2006.
Please note that this is the EU as a whole — NOT the EU-15. Virtually all of the EU’s growth comes from the EU-15. In 2005, the EU-15 population was 389 million (see here for another good article sorting all this out).
Population growth EU-15
EU-15: growth due to migration
Population developments in the 15 countries constituting the European Union until 1 May 2004 (EU-15) are quite different from those in the new EU member states. Since the late 1980s, the population increase in the EU-15 is mainly the result of foreign migration. In the early 1990s, the net migration increase was mainly caused by the massive arrival of refugees.
Around the turn of the century, when economy was booming, net migration in the EU-15 rose sharply, but after 2001, when the EU economy began to slump, the increase continued for a while. This was partly the effect of legalisation of former illegal aliens and the ensuing revision of population figures.
New member states: declining populations
The role of migration in population developments is far less prominent in the ten new EU member states than in the former EU-15. In the new member states, particularly those in Eastern Europe, the growth of the population is largely determined by births and deaths.
Expected growth until 2025
Eurostat expects the population in the EU to increase in the long run and reach 470 million in 2025. This increase will be entirely due to foreign migration (positive net migration 15 million in 2025). Until 2025, deaths will outnumber births by 5 million. Eurostat anticipates a reduction of the EU population after 2025 to 450 million in 2050.
Hope that clears things up.
The bottom line is that I don’t think the United States can hide behind the claim that its population is growing, while the EU-15′s isn’t, as an excuse for a much weaker climate target.
In fact, America needs to adopt a stronger greenhouse gas target (in terms of percentage reduction) than the EU-15, not weaker, for three reasons:
- In sharp contrast to Europe, the United States has a long history of promoting cheap energy and inefficiency, which has made America the Saudi Arabia of wasted energy.
- The very size and geographic diversity of this country gives us an astonishing resource base for wind power and solar power and biofuels that is far greater than that of Europe.
- We have dawdled for a decade and our emissions have risen steadily while the EU-15 has acted to actually reduce their emissions.
It is time for Americans to stop nitpicking what the Europeans are doing to meet their emissions reductions commitments under Kyoto. As someone said a long, long time ago :
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Joe-
Rather than going on about population trends, why not just look to the per capita emissions data, as I did here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/post-kyoto-per-capita-emissions-in-the-eu-15-and-us-4662
There is a lot to learn from the EU experience, but we’ll miss those lessons if we fail to take a look at what the data actual says.
Off topic….
Interesting technology…can it save the earth!
Solar Refrigeration: A Hot Idea for Cooling
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=solar-refrigeration
Shouldn’t we all start introducing more public holidays (on a global basis, of course) to help reduce energy consumption?
Hey, we could swap the working week for a working weekend! How much energy would that curtail?
First off, Roger, what would be most useful is if you didn’t revert to your “everybody else who talks about this is politicizing the subject” position by writing on your blog “Rather than looking dispassionately at the EU as a forward-think policy laboratory, Joe instead chooses to attack the US and make the issue partisan.”
Partisan? Please identify anywhere in the three posts I have done on this subject were I have been partisan? This line of attack is as tiresome as a robo-call.
Second, it would have been vastly more useful to your readers had you plotted the data given the absolute numbers, not the percentages. The latter in particular would have made clear just how wasteful the United States is, with over twice the per capita carbon dioxide emissions of Europe as a whole.
Third, given the enormous and growing trade deficit between United States and China, I personally wouldn’t publish the specific graph that you put together. The only study I have seen on the subject suggests that if the United States had manufactured all of the things that China made up for us, our absolute annual emissions growth rate in the past decade would have been about 50% higher.
Finally, starting in 1997 and ending in 2005 is not terribly useful. I’m not sure why you don’t want to give Europeans credit for things that happened from 1990 to 1997 — many European countries were certainly trying to slow emissions growth before they signed Kyoto. Second, I understand that you don’t have EIA data past 2005, but obviously if your point is that Europeans shouldn’t be judged on efforts that started before Kyoto was ratified, then the starting point should be when Kyoto entered into force, which was February 2005.
The analysis and the projections from the report that I have written about suggests that much of what the EU-15 will do in terms of emissions reductions will occur from 2005 to 2010.
So I can’t say there is a great deal to learn from your particular plot, except that you increasingly seem to be an apologist for U.S. inaction.
“…I don’t think the United States can hide behind the claim that its population is growing,”
I don’t view it that way. I think every nation has a responsibility to control their population. What is actually happening at the moment is that the global population is expanding in response to the artificial increase in carrying capacity made possible by uncontrolled use of fossil fuels. Porous borders then ensure a flow of people from poor countries with high fetrility rates to rich countries with lower fertility rates.
All well and good while we are on the “up slope”, but we are digging ourselves into a massive hole. As fossil fuels deplete and the environment degrades (not just through climate change) the human race is left high and dry with a population of 9 billion + which it hasn’t a hope of feeding. This trend is already obvious in the poorer parts of the world.
Population is the key parameter. Unfortunately it is rarely discussed as controlling it seems to offend people of all political persuasions. The innocuous sounding 1% growth in the US equates to a doubling of population every 70 years, an horrendous rate of growth.
Joe-
Despite your efforts to change the subject, I’ll stick to the topic.
As you surely well know, Kyoto was about emissions reductions from a 1990 baseline as expressed in percentages from that baseline. I’ve updated my post over at Prometheus based on a reader request to show reductions as a percentage of total emissions from 1997 to 2005. The US would be 7th out of 16. You are correct that I chose 1997 since that is the year Kyoto was introduced. You are free to choose other starting dates if you think that is important.
There are a number of issues for accounting carbon emissions outside of Kyoto scoring, and trade is one of them, but so too is air travel and shipping, and others as well. With a few important exceptions, most of these will not make the EU numbers look better. You also neglect the effects of the dash for gas in the UK and the German reunification, which together account for much of the post-1990 reductions in Europe, as has been well documented.
Roger-
Your robo-comments remained tedious. I did not try to change the subject — you did when you refuse to concede your mistake on population trends. And you continue to change the subject by ignoring virtually all of my critiques of your “analysis.” The logical assumption is that you agree with them.
Kyoto went into force in 2005. The fact that a number of European countries that ratified Kyoto had not begun significant reduction before then can hardly be considered a shock. So your graph, which ends in 2005, reveals nothing except that little happens over a random 8-year period of time. 1997 is an utterly arbitrary starting date, since the entire negotiation process began almost 10 years earlier. All the parties to the negotiation knew for a long time that 1990 would be the base year.
I don’t “neglect the effects of the dash for gas in the UK.” Fuel switching is a core climate reduction strategy. Somehow you think it doesn’t count.
Nor do I “neglect” German reunification. Shutting down dirty, inefficient production and replacing it with cleaner, more efficient, more productive capacity is another core climate reduction strategy.
I suppose if you subtract out all the things that happen to reduce emissions that you don’t think should count — and then refuse to do any analysis that would include factors that should count, like the outsourcing of manufacturing emissions to China, you can come up with any conclusion you want.
But ending your “analysis” the same year that Kyoto went into effect seems particularly absurd.
Mind you, if we started having more holidays and time off, then the population would start to rise!
Rather than joust, let’s identify the principle impediment to rapid deployment of CO2 free energy. The initial cost vs time of payback is so negative, consumer initiated price pressure is absent in the market.
I have started a people’s association to provide 21st Century energy to schools, libraries, museums and community centers. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to join in. It is a fantastic idea, yet entirely possible to transform the world one watt at a time.
Just wait until the lights go out!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27102275/
Joe / Roger
I think squabbling over miniscule (and mostly mythical) reductions is a pointless distraction. The only way to view CO2 is globally, and the global picture is absolutely clear:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html
In our totally interconnected world it is impossible to assign emissions on a per-nation basis in any meaningful way. With manufacturing outsourced, fuel imported, flights and sea travel excluded, etc. the statistics are meaningless. Until the world finds a way to act in unison NOT as individual countries I can guarantee there will be no progress on emissions.
Joe- Are you censoring my comments here? If so, I’ll be happy to refrain from commenting in the future . . .
Here is what I submitted but did not appear:
Joe-
The discussion is about the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, not about any and all emissions reductions. Implementation of Kyoto should be judged according to the goals of Kyoto. If you think that there will be different results by using a different start/finish date, then by all means show them. I don’t think the analysis changes one bit, but I’m happy to hear why you think it would. If you don’t want to show this info, I can put up the data with a 1990 baseline on our blog this afternoon after class.
If you think that Margaret Thatcher’s energy policies or German reunification are related to efforts to meet the objectives of Kyoto or even remotely related to climate policy, then we are indeed far apart in our views.
Also – on your subject change — If you want to call the EU population growth rate that is half of that of the US “almost the same” fine. I’m not interested in another excusion inot semantics with you, been there, done that! ;-)
[Roger: Censoring? Chill out, dude. If you read my blog than you'd know that in the switch over to a new system, comments seem to be going into my spam folder where I have to physically pull them out. Whether you post here are not is of little concern to me. Typically, your first post has some value, but then it kind of descends into pointless back and forth. I can't imagine why you would say the discussion is "about the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, not about any and all emissions reductions." My original post was, but then you started putting up emissions numbers on the U.S., which is not implementing the Kyoto protocol. So you began a discussion about any and all emissions reductions.
Again, there are many reasons why US emissions growth has been relatively slow since 1997. One is the outsourcing of our manufacturing to China. Another is the emergence of the Internet economy as a major engine of US growth, which I and others have written about at length. It is absurd to identify and then dismiss reasons why the UK and Germany cut emissions while refusing to do so for the United States.
Probably the single most important number that your data set identified is the per capita carbon dioxide emissions. Ours are over double Europe's.
I think this discussion has passed its fruitful point, as evidenced by your final sentence. I had written, "immigration now keeps their population rising almost as fast as United States.” I think the figure makes clear that statement is correct. Now of their population is rising almost as fast as ours.]
Thanks Joe for freeing my comment.
I have updated my post at Prometheus with figures to include data starting in 1990. Please have a look if you are interested. In response to a reader’s comments I also summarized the aggregate EU CO2 data as follows:
If you want the totals, the are easily calculated from the EIA data:
1. US emissions increased by 19% 1990-2005
2. EU-15 emissions increased by 8% 1990-2005
(remember that Kyoto accounting does not include all emissions)
3. EU 15 minus UK and Germany saw emissions increase by 24% 1990-2005
4. UK and Germany saw their emissions decrease by 10% 1990-2005
So it is fair to conclude that the primary difference between the US and EU-15 over the period 1990-2005 was not Kyoto, or even climate policies, but German reunification and UK domestic energy policies.
This is even more apparent if we use 1997 as the base year (i.e., after the largest German and UK effects occurred). From 1997-2005 both the US and EU-15 saw total emissions increase by 7.0%.
[JR: I confess that I am close to banning you for this utterly nonresponsive comment, which ignores every relevant point I have identified that makes clear your analysis is beyond meaningless. Kyoto went into force in 2005!!! Why would any EU-15 business take serious action prior to then? Yes, countries took actions, but you are wonderfully selective about what you say counts and what doesn't. If you want to willfully ignore the EEA's analysis and projections through 2010, I suppose that is your right, but no serious analyst could possibly draw any conclusions about the impact of Kyoto on data that ends in 2005. It boggles the mind. It should also boggle the mind that you keep identifying supposedly special circumstances that apply to Germany and the UK, but keep ignoring well-identified special circumstances that apply to emissions trends in this country. It should boggle the mind, but it doesn't. Please stop posting such nonsense on my website.]
Joe,
Kyoto targets were relative to a 1990 baseline. Any country that seriously intended to meet them would want to make a start as soon as possible, not leave it to the last minute.
The example shown by the US to the rest of the world is, simply, appalling. Not only is the US the only country in the world that refuses to ratify Kyoto, but the US/Canada block is also responsible for the fastest rate of rise of any of the large developed regions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png
IT would be really nice if the US could adopt ANY sort of emission reduction target. When you have done that we can talk about nitpicking.
[JR: Are you talking to me? Have you been, uhh, reading my posts on this? I think you have me mistaken for Roger Pielke, Jr.]
Well, I suppose I would find today’s exchange amusing if the underlying subject were not so serious.
Joe-
The following statement, coming from a self-professed climate policy expert, should cause anyone to question the pap they receive here:
“Kyoto went into force in 2005!!! Why would any EU-15 business take serious action prior to then?”
With views like that you are correct that there is little use is us having a discussion.
Roger:
This blog is primarily interested in discussions with folks interested in serious action, which is not the kind of action companies take without very strong regulations and/or a serious carbon price in place, nor is it the kind of action I have ever seen you advocate on your blog, so let us agree to disagree.
Joe, Roger censures his own blog and acts in similar ignoring fashion on other blogs about Climate Change…. nothing new. The times I have seen him commenting it always have been this way.
I think Jr learned it from Dad, as I got the similar non-answer from both on a number of occasions. It can’t be maddening, see, because it is sooooo dispassionate and even-handed.
Best,
D
Joe: Your explanation of population trends in the EU-15 is as clear as mud. And you fail to support your argument that the difference in population trends between the EU-15 and the U.S. is not meaningful because you only tell half of the story.
Both Eurostat and Department of Commerce Census Bureau population data show much slower growth rates for the EU-15 compared to the U.S. (including migration). Depending on whose data you use, between 1997 and 2005, population grew about 2 to 3 percent in the EU-15 and about 8 percent in the U.S. (For the period 1990 to 2005, the figures are about 5 percent and 18 percent, respectively.)
Looking ahead, the divergence is even more pronounced. Eurostat projects population in the EU-15 will edge up an anemic 3.7 percent (or only about 0.2 percent annually) between 2005 and 2025 while the Census Bureau projects population in the U.S. will jump 21.7 percent (or nearly 1.0 percent annually) over the same period.
Looking even further ahead, Eurostat expects that by 2050 the EU-15 population will decline to its 2005 level for a net increase of “0” percent between 2005 and 2050. In contrast, the Census Bureau projects that by 2050 the U.S. population will be 50% higher than in 2005—that’s about 145 million more people, roughly equivalent to the current population of Germany and France combined.
These data show a much bigger difference in population trends between the EU-15 and U.S. than you have led your readers to believe exists.
[JR: I have no idea what you are talking about. I have posted the data and the sources. Population projections are notoriously dubious.
The data do NOT show a much bigger difference in population trends between the EU-15 and U.S. than I have led readers to believe. They show precisely what the figure illustrates. There used to be a big divergence, but in recent years, as I said, it has gotten much closer. Eurostat projects that after about 2020, the EU-15 rate will drop sharply and then go negative. Could be. But projections that far in the future are notoriously dubious, and global warming may change all that.]