The West lowered their CO2 production by moving all manufacturing to China, so this isn't too surprising. Also, China, like most of the world except for Afrika, has a shrinking population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate).
China needs to start building nuclear power plants and replace all those coal plants.
China is launching thorium-fueled molten-salt reactors starting with a 2-gigawatt prototype in September; they plan on building lots of smaller ones for production. I'm hoping this replaces coal pretty quickly.
China has 1.4 billion people. You would expect them to have about ~20% share of emissions in a perfectly fair world, instead they have 28%. Since 1751, they have emitted 12.5% of all emissions while having an even larger share of the global population.
The US has 315 million people. You would expect them to have 4.5% share of emissions in a fair world. Instead, they have 15%. Since 1751, they have emitted 25% of all emissions.
That doesn’t make the ”CO2 outsourcing” claim untrue. For the 1990-2008 period, the paper[1] cited as the source for the graph in question notes:
> Collectively, the net CO2 emission reduction of ∼2% (0.3 Gt CO2) in Annex B countries from 1990 to 2008 is much smaller than the additional net emission transfer of 1.2 Gt CO2 from non-Annex B to Annex B countries (equivalent to subtracting the net emission transfers in 2008 from 1990 in Fig. 2).
The situation may have improved since then[2], but already in 2008, China’s consumption share of its own emissions was 80%. This figure in itself neither proves or disproves whether developed nations have outsourced their emissions.
I just straight-out don't believe that. Maybe this is by some incredibly narrow definition of CO2 production, whereby if the produce of a factory is first shipped to a harbor by a Chinese company before leaving China, it counts as 'internal'?
This study is a bit old and I’m ignoring their “technology based” method because I don’t think the climate cares if a country would have emitted less if they had equivalent tech[*] , but it shows Chinas consumption based emissions is about 84% of its production based emissions. I.e., 84% of the emissions generated in China were for products/services consumed in China.
To your point, though, the article corroborates the emissions export claim. (The US is shown as a next exporter in emissions, with consumption based emissions ~13% higher than production emissions). Both points can be simultaneously true.
[*]for the sake of this discussion, at least. I can understand the relevance for creating policy though
Most of the world does not have a shrinking population. The birth rates may be below replacement, but populations are still growing as the age structure shifts. Japan has achieved true negative population growth.
Every country in the developed world plus the former Warsaw pact members have negative natural population growth. They're being propped up by immigrants, that's why they're populations are growing. For example France has about 67 million people but the number of natives is estimated to be around 50 million. Which would be about their population in 1971, 50 years ago. Similar story with the UK, Switzerland, the US, etc. In Japan it's just visible because they have negligible immigration plus even lower birth rates.
I've counted. 235 countries and territories. 30 are downright decreasing.
Plus:
> As of 2010, about 48% (3.3 billion people) of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility.[2] Nonetheless most of these countries still have growing populations due to immigration, population momentum and increase of the life expectancy
That was back in 2010 and fertility rates are only going down plus Covid has accelerated this so I'm willing to bet real money 50%+ of the world's population is living in countries with net natural population loss due to low fertility rates.
These things are very localized, look at the world map on that page to see where this growth is concentrated.
It isn't all bad. The aging population will have to be supported by fewer people, which is obviously a problem, and one that can really only be solved by asking the elderly to work to a greater age.
On the flip side, Japan has incredibly dense cities with tiny houses. As the population drops to half its current level there will also be more space for living decently, with bigger houses, more green spaces, etc. It's not at all impossible that in such a situation, women may choose to have more children again.
That's at best a temporary situation though. If births are below replacement rate, at some point the population will also drop. People aren't going to age indefinitely.
The blue countries are below replacement rate, and represent most of the world. Green countries are at replacement rate. The rest is above, and are all in Africa except for Afghanistan and Iraq.
China needs to start building nuclear power plants and replace all those coal plants.