Greenhouse Gases and Economic Development: An Empirical Approach to Defining Goals

CRS Report for Congress
Greenhouse Gases and Economic Development:
An Empirical Approach to Defining Goals
February 4, 2005
John E. Blodgett
Deputy Assistant Director
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Larry Parker
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Greenhouse Gases and Economic Development:
An Empirical Approach to Defining Goals
Summary
This analysis identifies those nations that have combined the highest per capita
GDPs with the lowest intensities of greenhouse gas emissions. Taking those nations
as exemplars, it then examines possible outcomes from pursuing competing goals —
economic growth and development versus constraining greenhouse gases — that are
confounding efforts, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, to address global climate change.
Eight nations — Austria, France, Italy, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden,
and Switzerland — combine high per capita GDP (among the top-20 nations) with
the lowest intensity of greenhouse gas emissions of all nations (between 107 and 70
tons per million $ GDP). Taking the lower level of their per capita GDP ($23,500)
and an intensity of 100, this analysis examines the greenhouse gas emission
implications of a world achieving those levels of economic activity and greenhouse
gas intensity.
The relationship of population, economic growth, and emissions is defined by:
(population) x (per capita GDP) x (intensity) = emissions
This relationship can be applied globally, to individual nations, or to groups of
nations. One can calculate the implications of different population levels, different
economic development levels, different emissions targets, etc. Obviously if
population rises, emissions will rise unless per capita GDP and/or intensity decrease
enough to offset the rise; likewise, if per capita GDP rises, emissions will rise unless
intensity (and/or population) decrease enough to offset it.
With the formula, one could test numerous variations; this analysis focuses on
the one empirically-based set, a global per capita GDP of $23,500, an intensity of

100, and the 2000 world population of 6 billion. With those assumptions,


greenhouse gas emissions would be 14.1 billion tons per year, about 55% more than
the 9.1 billion tons actually emitted in 2000.
Whether global greenhouse gas emissions of 14.1 billion tons per year (or more
as population increases) would pose a threat of global warming sufficient to justify
impeding that economic development and/or stimulating even more aggressive action
to improve greenhouse gas intensity awaits growing scientific understanding and the
decisions of world leaders — and the manifestation of events.
For some, the finding that one can construct an empirically based approach that
achieves a standard of living for 6 billion people equal to several European nations
while not increasing global greenhouse gas emissions by more than about 55% will
be optimistic. For others, the emissions level may appear unacceptable — implying
either constraints on economic growth or even more aggressive improvements in
intensity. For still others, any worry about greenhouse gas emissions is misdirected.
This report will not be updated.



Contents
In troduction ..................................................1
Background ..................................................1
Analytical Approach...........................................3
Identifying Benchmark Countries.............................3
Defining the Relationship of the Goals.........................5
Defining an Economic Benchmark................................5
Defining a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Benchmark....................7
Per Capita Emissions.......................................7
Greenhouse Gas Intensity...................................8
Merging Goals: Results.........................................9
Global Parity Scenario......................................9
Parity with “Grandfathering” Scenario........................11
Implications of Analysis.......................................13
Outcomes and Sensitivity to Alternative Values.................14
Transitional Implications...................................17
Policy Implications: Importance of Greenhouse Gas Intensity......17
Concluding Discussion........................................18
List of Tables
Table 1. Greenhouse Gas Intensity of 20 Highest Per Capita GDP
Nations (2000)................................................4
Table 2. Nations Categorized by a Parity Per Capita GDP of $23,500
in the Year 2000...............................................6
Table 3. Shares of GDP and Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Parity-Defined
Category (2000)...............................................7
Table 4. Per Capita Greenhouse Emissions for Selected Nations.............8
Table 5. Total Actual GDP and Parity GDP at $23,500 Per Capita (2000).....10
Table 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in a World of Parity GDP and
Intensity = 100 (Selected Nations)................................12
Table 7. Global GDP and Emissions under Various Scenarios..............16
Table 8. Average Annual Change in Carbon Intensity, by Decade,
for Top-20 Emitting Countries (1960-2000)........................21
Appendix A. “Above-Parity GDP” Nations — 2000 Per Capita GDPs
Greater Than $25,850.........................................22
Appendix B. “Parity GDP” Nations — 2000 Per Capita GDPs
$23,500 ± 10%($25,850 - $21,150)...............................23
Appendix C. “Below-Parity GDP” Nations — 2000 Per Capita GDPs
Smaller Than $21,150.........................................24



Greenhouse Gases and
Economic Development:
An Empirical Approach to Defining Goals
Introduction
Long-term international efforts to address future global climate change have had
to struggle with significant country and region-specific differences in possible policy
responses related to differing economic, technical, and political circumstances.
Foremost among these regional differences is the divide between developed and less-
developed nations in terms of contributions to current and future annual greenhouse
gas emissions and the related possible global climate change.
How to treat in a fair way the implications of significantly different material
standards of living between developed and developing countries is a key conflict
arising in international negotiations to slow the growth of, or even to reduce, future
global greenhouse gas emissions. The conflict arises because any pressure to reduce
emissions comes up against the increases in emissions likely to result from economic
development and rising standards of living in developing economies — which
contain a large share of the world’s population.
This report explores what future world economic growth and development
means for proposals to constrain total annual global greenhouse gas emissions. This
analytical exercise uses international data for the three country-specific variables that
will determine future annual greenhouse gas emissions: population, per capita gross
domestic product (GDP), and greenhouse gas emissions per million dollars of GDP
(intensity).
The analysis presents scenarios showing what levels of greenhouse gas
emissions would be if the world population was at a benchmark per capita GDP
comparable to several European nations that currently have the lowest greenhouse
gas emissions per million dollars of GDP among all developed nations. The paper
analyzes a benchmark based on the interactions of economic activity, population, and
greenhouse gas-emitting activities exemplified by the selected nations, but does not
deal with the time involved to transition to the higher level of development. The
empirically-derived benchmark is an analytical construct designed to illustrate the
dynamics involved in designing global greenhouse gas emissions goals; the report
does not present a set of projections or predictions.
Background
The current international approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions, as
contained in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, is to limit emissions of designated, developed



nations (listed in an Annex I) relative to a baseline of 1990. For the UNFCCC, the
target was for Annex I nations voluntarily to return emissions to 1990 levels; there
was no penalty for failure. For the Kyoto Protocol, which amends the UNFCCC, the
target is for Annex I nations to hold 2008-2012 emissions to a specified percentage
of the 1990 baseline; sanctions for failure have not yet been defined.
This approach has a two-fold logic: (1) the Annex I nations, having achieved
development and having contributed the most to cumulative greenhouse gas
emissions, are generally considered rich enough to make investments in controlling
greenhouse gases; and (2) the Annex II nations, undergoing development, are
exempted from greenhouse gas emission limits so as not to constrain their
opportunities to expand activities that may be essential to their economic growth.
The success of this approach is problematic. Except for the former Soviet bloc
countries, the UNFCCC voluntary targets generally were not achieved.1 Likewise,
many signatories to the Kyoto Protocol are anticipated not to meet their targets; and
further, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States, has
refused to join. Finally, this approach, even if valid as a first step, could have little
long-term effect on cumulative emissions, since it lacks long-term limits for any
nation; and leaving developing nations free to develop without greenhouse gas limits
likely means that their emissions will, at some time in the future, exceed any
diminution of emissions from developed nations.
To illustrate, if one were to assume that in 2000 all nations equaled the United
States in per capita economic activity, then the global GDP would have been about
$204 trillion; at the U.S. greenhouse gas intensity2 of 195, then global emissions
would have been nearly 40 billion tons of carbon equivalents per year, compared to
actual emissions of about 9.1 billion tons in 2000.
So, are the twin objectives of holding down greenhouse gas emissions and of
fostering economic growth compatible? Can one visualize a world in which all
peoples achieve a comfortable standard of living without greenhouse gas emissions
causing unacceptable global warming?
Two alternative views of the situation avoid the conflict analyzed in this report.
First, the apparent conflict in objectives can be mooted if one concludes that
greenhouse gases do not cause global warming. For those who hold this position,
growth can proceed without concern for emissions. Second, the apparent conflict
might also be mooted if one concludes that economic activity can be delinked from
fossil fuel energy use within an acceptable time period. For those who believe that
many opportunities exist to save energy at little or no cost with appropriate technical
fixes, the conflict can be avoided — at least for some time — and economic
development can proceed without increasing emissions rates (and other societal
benefits can also be achieved, such as reduced air pollution).


1 Following the breakup of the former Soviet Union, various Eastern European and former
Soviet republics’ economies contracted in the 1990s, such that their emissions declined
between 1990 and 2000.
2 Emissions (tons) divided by economic activity (GDP); see discussion below.

Analytical Approach
Identifying Benchmark Countries. Given concerns about greenhouse gas
emissions and the risk of global warming on the one hand, and the desire for and
impetus of economic growth on the other, the challenge of finding a way to merge
the objectives persists. The approach of this report is to identify nations that have
best combined economic growth and low greenhouse gas emissions. Their
accomplishment becomes a benchmark for examining implications for greenhouse
gas emissions if all nations equaled their achievements in balancing economic
activity and greenhouse gas emissions.
This study compares a hypothetical world of economic activity and greenhouse
gas emissions based on the benchmarks to the actual situation in 2000. The report
does not explore whether all nations could in fact achieve the benchmarks, nor deal
with technological or other changes that might be relevant.
Table 1 presents data3 on per capita national GDP,4 per capita emissions,5 and6
intensity for the 20 highest GDP nations. Intensities range from 70 (Switzerland)
to 277 (Australia). Eight of the top-20 per capita GDP nations achieve greenhouse
intensities below 110. No other developed nation in the data bank achieves an
intensity of 110 or lower.7 These eight thus become the focus for defining a
benchmark conjoining economic growth and emission goals.


3 The analysis in this report is based on the Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT)
created by the World Resources Institute. The database uses a variety of data sources to
provide information on greenhouse gas emissions and other relevant indicators. Full
documentation, along with caveats, is provided on the WRI website at [http://cait.wri.org/].
The database includes 186 nations with a 2000 population of 6.032 billion. This
compares to 191 members of the United Nations, and to a 2000 world population count of

6.080 billion by the U.S. Census Bureau, [http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html].


See also CRS Report RL32721, Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Conflicting Situations,
Conflicting Perspectives, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett; and Kevin Baumert and
Jonathon Pershing, Climate Data: Insights and Observations (World Resources Institute:
Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, December 2004).
4 CAIT uses international $ of purchasing power parity (PPP).
5 The six greenhouse gases measured are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane,
perfluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Emissions data are typically
given in millions of metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE). Absolute figures are
emissions per year (globally, 9,125.9 MMTCE or 9.1 billion tons). In the text, unless
otherwise explicitly stated, “tons” of emissions means “metric tons of carbon equivalents.”
6 Unless otherwise noted, throughout this analysis intensity is defined as (metric) tons of
total greenhouse gases in carbon equivalents (CE) divided by GDP; in CAIT, intensity is
defined as (metric) tons of carbon from energy use and cement manufacture divided by
GDP.
7 A number of the world’s very poorest nations have very low emissions and intensities.

Table 1. Greenhouse Gas Intensity of 20 Highest Per Capita
GDP Nations (2000)
Per Capita
Per Capita GDPEmissionsIntensity
($ PPP)(Tons)(Tons/million$GDP)
Switzerland $ 27,780 1.9 70
Sweden $ 23,650 2.0 83
France $ 23,490 2.3 99
Austria $ 26,420 2.6 99
Iceland $ 28,910 2.7 99
It aly $ 24,280 2.5 104
Norway $ 29,200 3.1 105
Luxembourg $ 53,410 5.7 107
J a pan $ 25,280 2.9 114
Denmark $ 28,680 3.4 120
Germany $ 25,100 3.3 128
United Kingdom$23,5803.2130
Netherlands $ 26,910 3.7 139
Finland $ 24,160 3.6 150
Ir eland $ 30,380 4.8 156
Belgium $ 25,220 4.0 159
Singapore $ 23,700 4.4 184
United States$33,9606.6195
Canada $ 26,840 6.3 236
Australia $ 24,550 6.8 277
Source: World Resource Institute; CAIT; CRS calculations.



Defining the Relationship of the Goals. For this analysis, the
relationships of population, economic activity, and emissions are expressed by the
following formula:
()( )()Populati on p ercapit aGDP In t ens ity Emissi on s××=
[Equation 1]
GDP data are presented on a per capita basis to provide comparability across nations
or categories of nations.
The implication for the two goals of economic growth and of constrained
emissions is clear: if economies grow and population is stable or rises, emissions
will rise unless intensity decreases enough to offset the rise. Thus intensity becomes
a focus of analysis. Factors affecting intensity include amounts of and technologies
involved in fossil fuel use (combustion of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, the
dominant greenhouse gas); agricultural practices (livestock release methane and
nitrogen fertilizers release nitrous oxide, both also greenhouse gases); and the
production, use, and release of certain chemicals (including hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride). (In addition, certain land use practices
affect greenhouse gases — e.g., forest growth can sequester carbon and deforestation
can release it.)8
Defining an Economic Benchmark
As shown by Table 1, eight nations combined a greenhouse gas intensity of less
than 110 tons per million dollars GDP with per capita GDPs of $23,490 or better.
While six of the eight are relatively small (in terms of both geography and total
GDP), the other two, Italy and France, are among the top 15 nations in terms of both
size of total economy and amount of greenhouse gases emitted. This shows that
substantial economies can rank low in greenhouse gas intensity and that such
efficiency is not restricted to only small countries/economies. From the perspective
of global economic development, a benchmark of a per capita GDP of $23,500 — at
the low end of the eight, falling between France and Sweden — could be taken as a
reasonable starting point for analysis.
With $23,500 as the parity GDP benchmark, the world’s nations can be
categorized into three groups: a “Parity Income Group” defined as nations with per
capita GDPs of $23,500 plus or minus 10% ($21,150 - $25,850), an “Above-Parity
GDP” group with GDPs greater than $25,850, and a “Below-Parity GDP” group with
GDPs lower than $21,150 (see Table 2). Appendices A, B, and C provide additional
data on these nations.
This parity benchmark of $23,500 is more than triple the actual world per capita
GDP of $7,333 in 2000, and is more than 5.5 times the “Below-Parity GDP” nations’
per capita GDP of $4,120 in 2000.


8 Land use effects on greenhouse gases are not accounted for in this analysis; the data tend
to be highly uncertain. Including it would not substantively affect most countries’ intensity
(but Brazil and Indonesia would be; see CRS Report RL32721, cited in footnote 3.)

Table 2. Nations Categorized by a Parity Per Capita GDP of
$23,500 in the Year 2000
“Parity-GDP” Nations,
“Above-Parity GDP”2000 per capita GDP“Below-Parity GDP”
Nations, 2000 per capita$23,500 ± 10% ($25,850 -Nations, 2000 per capita
GDP > $25,850$21,150)GDP < $21,150
AustriaAustraliaAll other nations, e.g.,
Canada Belgium Ar gentina
Denmark Finland Br a zi l
Iceland Fr ance Chi n a
Ir eland Ge r ma n y India
Luxembourg It a l y Indonesia
Netherlands J a pan Ir a n
NorwaySingaporeKorea (South)
Switzerland Sweden Mexico
United StatesUnited Arab EmiratesPakistan
United KingdomPoland
Russian Federation
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Source: World Resource Institute; CAIT; CRS calculations.
Table 3 presents the shares of world population, GDP, and greenhouse gas
emissions by each of the three parity-defined groups of nations. It also shows
average per capita emissions and intensity for the three groups; for details on
individual nations, see Appendices A, B, and C. Obviously, most of the world’s
population (87%) lives in “Below-Parity GDP” nations, sharing about half the GDP
(49%) and emitting over half (60%) of the greenhouse gases. The “Below-Parity
GDP” nations tend to be low per capita emitters, but relatively high intensity
emitters. The “Above-Parity GDP” and “Parity-GDP” nations include just 13% of
the world’s population but account for about half the GDP (51%) and produce 40%
of the emissions; and, with some significant exceptions, have relatively high per
capita emissions. Also, while the “Above-Parity GDP” and “Parity-GDP” nations
include low intensity emitters, these categories also include some quite high intensity
emitters.
It should be noted that the United States dominates the figures in the “Above-
Parity GDP” category (see Appendix A). Of that category, the United States
accounts for 79% of the population, 82% of the GDP and 85% of the emissions.



Table 3. Shares of GDP and Greenhouse Gas Emissions by
Parity-Defined Category (2000)
Share of
GlobalIntensity
Share ofShare ofGreenhousePer Capita(Tons/
Global Global Ga s Emissions million$
Population GDP Emissions (T ons) GDP)
“Above-
Parity 6.0% 26.8% 24.5% 6.2 190
GDP”
Nations
“Parity-
GDP” 7.2% 24.2% 14.8% 3.1 126
Nations
“Below-
Parity 86.8% 49.0% 60.8% 1.1 257
GDP”
Nations
Source: World Resource Institute; CAIT; CRS calculations.
Defining a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Benchmark
The UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol define the emissions goal in terms of specific
nations’ emissions compared to an historic baseline. Per capita emissions and
greenhouse gas intensity (emissions per unit of economic activity) have also been
discussed as metrics for defining emissions goals.9 In this analysis, we look at
empirical benchmarks to define what appear to be currently feasible targets. In 2000,
Sweden and France combined intensities below 100 with per capita GDPs near
$23,500; they achieved per capita rates of emissions of 2.0 and 2.3 tons, respectively
(see Table 1). If these per capita rates were combined with the parity GDP as a
global target, what would the emissions implications be?
Per Capita Emissions. If annual per capita emissions ranged from 2.0 to 2.310
tons then the 2000 global population of 6 billion would have emitted 12 to 13.8
billion tons of greenhouse gases, or about a third more than actually were emitted.
However, the distribution of emissions would be dramatically different: the United
States’ emissions would be about 70% less than actually emitted in 2000, while
China’s emissions would be about 80% greater, making it the world’s largest emitter.
Appendices A and B indicate that all “Above-Parity GDP” and “Parity” nations


9 For an overview of different approaches, see Daniel Bodansky, International Climate
Efforts beyond 2012: A Survey of Approaches, (Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
December 2004).
10 Throughout this report we round the 2000 population to 6.0 billion, since it is being used
in conjunction with emissions data that are rounded because of estimates and uncertainties.
Rounding may result in minor discrepancies in figures and in totalling.

would emit less under the scenario, except for Switzerland, France, and Sweden.
Appendix C indicates that some “Below-Parity GDP” nations would emit less (e.g.,
South Korea, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine), while others would emit
substantially more. Table 4 lists large emitters (>100 million tons) that emit more
than under the scenario of 2.0 - 2.3 tons per capita (left column) and those that emit
less (right column).
Table 4. Per Capita Greenhouse Emissions for Selected Nations
Nations, >2.3 TonsNations, 2.0 - 2.3Nations, <2.0 Tons
Carbon EquivalentsTons CarbonCarbon Equivalents
per capita and > 100Equivalents perper capita and > 100
Million Tons Total(tons)capita (tons)Million Tons Total(tons)
Australia 6.8France* 2.3Iran1.9
United States 6.6Slovakia 2.3Mexico1.4
Canada 6.3Suriname 2.3Brazil1.3
Russian Federation 3.6Hungary 2.2China1.1
Germany 3.2Argentina 2.1Indonesia0.7
United Kingdom 3.1Uruguay 2.1India0.5
S. Korea 3.1Malaysia 2.0
Ukraine 2.9Sweden 2.0
Japan 2.9Uzbekistan 2.0
Poland 2.7
S. Africa 2.6
Spain 2.6*Only France emits >100
Million Tons TotalItaly 2.5
Source: World Resource Institute; CAIT; CRS calculations.
Greenhouse Gas Intensity. The eight benchmark nations exhibited a range
of intensities from 70 to 107 (see Table 1). The nation closest to the parity per capita
GDP had an intensity of 99 (France), a level also shared by Austria and Iceland. An
intensity of 100 would seem a reasonable (and convenient) starting point for analysis.
If each nation achieved a greenhouse gas intensity of 100 tons per million
dollars GDP, then at the world’s 2000 level of economic activity ($44 trillion),
greenhouse gas emissions that year would have been about 4.4 billion tons, or a little
less than half actual emissions. As can be seen from Appendices A, B, and C,
achieving an intensity of 100 would be a substantial challenge for the vast majority
of nations, including nations in each income category.
An analysis of how these few nations have combined high GDP and relatively
low intensity of greenhouse gas emissions is beyond the scope of this paper. A few
observations may be indicative, however. Over 90% of the gross electricity
production of four (France, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland) comes from11
greenhouse gas-free hydropower and nuclear facilities. For Iceland, over half (56%)


11 International Energy Agency, Electricity Information 2002 (OECD/IEA, 2002).

of its total primary energy supply is geothermal.12 All eight nations rank among the
highest in the world on transportation fuel prices.13
Merging Goals: Results
Two scenarios are used to express the results of this analysis. The first, called
the Global Parity Scenario, assumes the benchmark parity GDP of $23,500, the
benchmark greenhouse gas intensity of 100, and the 2000 world population of 6
billion. The second, called the Parity with Grandfathering Scenario, makes the same
assumptions as the Global Parity Scenario, but maintains (grandfathers) higher-than-
parity GDPs (and the associated emissions) for those nations whose 2000 per capita
GDPs exceeded the benchmark of $23,500. The results are presented below.
Global Parity Scenario. Combining the values of intensity equaling 100 and
a $23,500 parity GDP will result in higher emissions: with the higher GDPs of
developing nations, emissions will be higher. Thus, if in 2000 the 6 billion
inhabitants of the planet each shared per capita GDP of $23,500 (a decline for 19
developed nations (listed in Table 5), a substantial increase for much of the rest of
the world), then the global economy would have been about $141 trillion and at an
intensity of 100 annual greenhouse gas emissions would have been about 14.1 billion
tons.14 This compares to actual 2000 world GDP of $44 trillion and emissions of 9.1
billion tons.
Under this scenario of universal parity of GDP and an intensity of 100, the
nations with (by far) the largest changes in emissions are the United States, for whom
emissions are 1.22 billion tons less (-64%), India, for whom emissions are 1.88
billion tons more (+372%), and China, for whom emissions are 1.61 billion tons
more (+118%). (See the first two numeric columns in Table 6.)


12 Ibid.
13 See “Diesel & Gasoline Prices in 165 Countries, Global Country Ranking” in
[http://www.zietlow.com/docs/Fuel-Prices-2003.pdf] , at pages 58 and 59.
14 Setting per capita income at $23,500 and carbon intensity at 100 gives per capita
emissions of 2.35. At intensity = 100, per capita emissions of 2.0 or 2.3 represent per capita
incomes of $20,000 and $23,000, respectively.

Table 5. Total Actual GDP and Parity GDP at $23,500 Per Capita
(2000)
Amount of
Total
Exceeding
PopulationTotal GDPParity GDPParity
(thousands)(million $)(million $)(million $)
United States286,303$9,680,850$6,728,121$2,952,730
J a pan 126,870 $ 3,207,344 $ 2,981,445 $ 225,899
Germany 82,210 $ 2,063,536 $ 1,931,935 $ 131,601
Canada 30,770 $ 825,745 $ 723,095 $ 102,650
Netherlands 15,919 $ 428,356 $ 374,097 $ 54,260
It aly 57,690 $ 1,400,835 $ 1,355,715 $ 45,120
Switzerland 7,180 $ 199,471 $ 168,730 $ 30,741
Denmark 5,340 $ 153,134 $ 125,490 $ 27,644
Ir eland 3,794 $ 115,249 $ 89,159 $ 26,090
Norway 4,491 $ 131,149 $ 105,539 $ 25,611
Austria 8,110 $ 214,240 $ 190,585 $ 23,655
Australia 19,182 $ 470,916 $ 450,777 $ 20,139
Belgium 10,252 $ 258,606 $ 240,922 $ 17,684
Luxembourg 438 $ 23,391 $ 10,293 $ 13,098
United Kingdom58,720$1,384,896$1,379,920$4,976
Finland 5,172 $ 124,961 $ 121,542 $ 3,419
Iceland 280 $ 8,095 $ 6,580 $ 1,515
Sweden 8,869 $ 209,740 $ 208,422 $ 1,319
Singapore 4,018 $ 95,246 $ 94,423 $ 823
T otal 735,608 $ 20,995,760 $ 17,286,788 $ 3,708,972
Source: World Resource Institute; CAIT; CRS calculations.



Parity with “Grandfathering” Scenario. However, it seems highly
unlikely that nations with per capita GDPs in 2000 above $23,500 would find a
scenario that decreased their GDP levels very appealing. An alternative scenario to
strict parity is one that grandfathers any GDP above parity.
Grandfathering changes Equation 1 by an additive factor; it is not a multiplier:
()( )()Population percapitaGDP I ntens itywp××+
( ) [( ) ( )] ( )Population percapitaGDP percapitaGDP Intensitynnpnp ×− ×=>
Emissions
[Equation 2]
in which w is world, n is nation(s), p is parity, and n>p is nations of greater-than-parity
GDP; in this exercise, intensity = 100 throughout
Combining the assumptions of —
!maintaining GDPs above the parity level at their 2000 level,
!all other nations’ economies rising to per capita GDPs of $23,500,
and
!a greenhouse gas intensity of 100 for all nations,
then emissions would be approximately 14.5 billion tons. This is nearly 60% higher
than actual 2000 emissions. (The last column of Table 5 shows grandfathered
GDPs.)
Of the 14.5 billion tons, about 370 million tons would result from the
grandfathered nations’ extra economic activity. Thus, in this scenario, maintaining
GDPs higher than $23,500 adds less than 3% to emissions compared to the scenario
with all nations having the parity GDP and an intensity of 100. (Note that
“grandfathering” above-parity GDPs means that the world per capita GDP ($24,167)
is higher than the parity level. This scenario could be called a minimum per capita
GDP standard of living of $23,500.)
Of that grandfathered 370 million tons, the United States would emit about 295
million tons, or 80%. However, because the scenario assumes an intensity of 100
(rather than the actual U.S. intensity of 195), the total emissions under the scenario
are still 942 million tons less than the United States’ 2000 actual emissions of 1,892
million tons.
However, even assuming GDPs above $23,500 are maintained, the emissions
could be kept at a base level — say, the 14.1 billion tons at parity — by constructing
a scenario in which those nations with higher-than-parity GDPs had greenhouse gas
intensities below 100. In this variation, all nations with per capita GDPs of $23,500
would be at an intensity of 100, while those with higher GDPs would have lower
intensities such that the calculations of equation 1 produced global greenhouse gas
emissions at 14.1 billion tons. This scenario, offsetting the emissions attributable to
the amount of GDP grandfathered would particularly affect the United States, which
accounts for 80% of the grandfathered GDP.



As Table 6 shows, Switzerland and Sweden already are offsetting their higher-
than-parity GDPs. France, with a per capita GDP just $20 less than parity and an
intensity of 99, effectively defines the parity GDP. Austria, Luxembourg, and
Iceland have such modest “excess” emissions that they are lost in rounding.
Table 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in a World of Parity GDP
and Intensity = 100 (Selected Nations)
Parity Parity Di fference,
Nations, Emissions Emissions +2000 Emissions
(in order of %@ $23,500Grandfath’dversus
change in2000per capitaGDP >$23,500 Parity +
greenhouse gasEmissionsGDPper capitaGrandfath’d
emissions)MMTCE(MMTCE)(MMTCE)(MMTCE) %
India 506 2,387 2,387 1,881 372%
Indonesia 135 485 485 350 259%
China 1,356 2,967 2,967 1,611 119%
Brazil 230 400 400 170 74%
Mexico 139 230 230 91 65%
Switzerland 14 17 20 6 43%
Ir an 120 150 150 30 25%
Sweden 17 21 21 4 24%
France 137 138 138 1 1%
Aus t r i a 2 1 1 9 2 1 0 0%
Luxembourg 2 1 2 0 0%
Iceland11100%
It aly 146 136 140 -6 -4%
Norway 14 11 13 -1 -7 %
Spain 104 95 95 -9 -9%
Poland 102 91 91 -11 -11%
South Africa113101101-12-11%
J a pan 364 298 321 -43 -12%
Denmark 18 12 15 -3 -17%
Ukraine 143 116 116 -27 -19%
Germany 265 193 206 -59 -22%
Korea (South)143110110-33-23%



Parity Parity Di fference,
Nations, Emissions Emissions +2000 Emissions
(in order of %@ $23,500Grandfath’dversus
change in2000per capitaGDP >$23,500 Parity +
greenhouse gasEmissionsGDPper capitaGrandfath’d
emissions)MMTCE(MMTCE)(MMTCE)(MMTCE) %
United Kingdom181138138-43-24%
Netherlands 603743-17-28%
Ir e l a n d 1 8 9 1 2 -6 -3 3 %
Russian Fed. 520342342-178-34%
Belgium 41 24 26 -15 -37%
Finland 19 12 12 -7 -37%
Singapore 18 9 10 -8 -44%
United States1,892672968-924-49%
Canada 195 72 83 -112 -57%
Australia 130 45 47 -83 -64%
Source: World Resource Institute; CAIT; CRS calculations.
Implications of Analysis
The relationships of population, economic growth, and emissions as defined by
Equation 1,
()( )()Populat i o n p ercapit a GDP Intensi t y Emis si ons××=
have been used to evaluate diverse assumptions about each factor. This analytical
construct could be applied globally, to individual nations, or to groups of nations.
One can calculate the implications of different population levels, different economic
development levels, different emissions goals, etc.
For analytic purposes, this report has treated the variables of equation 1 as an
illustrative tool, not a prediction of future growth or distribution. The analysis has
compared scenarios to the 2000 situation. In reality, economic development is and
will be a continuing process, with nations exhibiting differing growth rates depending
on starting points, resource endowments, institutional structures, and so on. Any
attempt to translate the results and insights of this exercise into an enforceable
agreement would extend beyond the issue of appropriate emission targets (in
whatever form) to issues of implementation strategy and compliance timetables.
Those considerations are beyond the scope of this paper.
However, the implications of differing growth rates could be analyzed by
incorporating growth rates into equation 1. This would allow evaluation of policies
that affect the rates of growth for the variables.



Incorporating growth, equation 1 becomes:
()( )()()Popula ti on e percapitaGDP e Intensity e Emi ssion s ekt kt kt k tpgie××=
[Equation 3]
in which kp = population growth rate, kg = per capita growth rate, ki = intensity growth rate,
and ke = emissions growth rate; t = time, and e = a constant 2.71828 [the base of natural
logarithms]
The exponents of multiplicands are added, so
(kp + kg + ki) = ke [Equation 3a]
If the sum of the three growth rate variables on the left is positive, emissions are
rising; if the sum is negative, emissions are declining.
Obviously, if any one of the three variables on the left increases more than the
sum of the other two decreases, emissions rise. Since population is rising globally
and national and international efforts are fostering the development of “Below-Parity
GDP” nations, intensity is the variable of focus for constraining emissions.
Outcomes and Sensitivity to Alternative Values.One could test
numerous assumptions; this analysis has focused on one set, a parity GDP of $23,500
(with and without grandfathering), an intensity of 100, and the 2000 world
population. Table 7 summarizes the results, and for illustrative purposes, includes
further variations as described below.
Equation 1 shows that even at a global intensity of 100 — which would in 2000
be considered a “best performance standard” — greenhouse gas emissions will be
rising in the future as economic activity increases.
!At a population of 6 billion, achieving a parity GDP of $23,500 and
an intensity of 100, global greenhouse gas emissions would be 14.1
billion tons (+55%).15
!With the same assumptions plus grandfathering above-parity 2000
GDPs, emissions would be 14.5 billion tons (+59%).


15 This is grandfathering only the amount of GDP above parity in 2000 for the population
at that time. In fact, “Above-Parity GDP” nations’ GDPs will presumably continue to grow
over time, and thus the amount that could be grandfathered will grow. This analysis ignores
that growth in order to avoid having to project growth. As a result, if future above-parity
growth is grandfathered, the analysis understates emissions growth. (However, it should
be remembered that grandfathering is an add on to emissions, not a multiplier; and in the
scenario of parity GDPs with global intensity at 100, grandfathering above-parity GDPs in

2000 increased emissions less than 3%.)



One can also explore the implications of other values for the variables. Table
7 includes some illustrative variations. For example, if one thought that population
were going to increase to a level of 9 billion, then:
!At a population of 9 billion, the parity per capita GDP of $23,500
plus grandfathering,16 and an intensity of 100, emissions would be

21.5 billion tons (+136%).


Or, if one thought that a parity level of $23,500 were too high, one could
calculate the implications of a lower level, say an average per capita GDP of $15,000
(slightly more than double the 2000 world average per capita GDP):
!At the 2000 population of 6 billion, an intensity of 100, an average
per capita GDP of $15,000 (and ignoring grandfathering), emissions
would be 9 billion tons, slightly lower than the 2000 level.
!But at a population of 9 billion, an intensity of 100, and an average
per capita GDP of $15,000 (and ignoring grandfathering), emissions
would be 13.5 billion tons.
Or, if one thought that a global average intensity of 100 were too aggressive an
improvement, one could substitute a higher value, say 150:
! At the population of 6 billion, an intensity of 150, an average per
capita GDP of $23,500 (and ignoring grandfathering), emissions
would rise to 21.2 billion tons.
!And at a population of 9 billion, an intensity of 150, an average per
capita GDP of $23,500 (and ignoring grandfathering), emissions
would be 31.7 billion tons.
Finally, one could set a value for total emissions, and solve equation 1 for
another of the variables. For example, suppose one “capped” emissions at 150% of
current emissions, for a total of 13.7 billion tons. Then —
!At the population of 6 billion and a parity per capita GDP of
$23,500, ignoring grandfathering and holding emissions at 13.7
billion tons (50% above 2000 emissions) intensity would be 96.
!And at a population of 9 billion and a parity per capita GDP of
$23,500, ignoring grandfathering and holding emissions at 13.7
billion tons (50% above 2000 emissions) intensity would be 65 —
a level below the developed world’s 2000 intensity leader —
Switzerland at 70.
These scenarios are only illustrative. Readers may wish to assign their own
values to the variables to explore the implications of their own assumptions.


16 The United Nations has projected a population of 8.9 billion for 2050, down from a
previous forecast of 9.3 billion. See U.N. Population Division, World Population Prospects:
The 2002 Revision Highlights (ESA/P/W. 180, 26 February 2003), at [http://www.un.org/
esa/population/unpop.htm] .

Table 7. Global GDP and Emissions under Various Scenarios
Intensity
Per Capita Per Capita(tons/Emissions
PopulationGDPTotal GDPEmissionsmillion$(billion
Scenario(billions)(million $)(trillion $)(tons)GDP)tons/year)
Actual, 20006.032$7,333$441.52079.1
Parity 6 $ 23,500 $ 141 2.35 100 14.1
Parity w/6$24,167$1452.410014.5
grandfather
Ditto +
population 9 $ 23,889 $ 215 2.4 100 21.5
@ 9 billion
Per capita
GDP @6$15,000$901.51009.0
$15,000
Ditto +
population 9 $ 15,000 $ 135 1.5 100 13.5
@ 9 billion
Intensity @
150 + parity6$23,500$1413.515021.2
GDP
Ditto +
population 9 $ 23,500 $ 211.5 3.5 150 31.7
@ 9 billion
Parity GDP
+ emissions6$23,500$1412.39713.7
@ 150% of
2000 actual
Ditto +
population 9 $ 23,500 $ 211.5 1.5 65 13.7
@ 9 billion
Source: World Resource Institute; CAIT; CRS calculations.
Note: Rounding may cause minor discrepancies.
(Note in Table 7 that average global per capita GDP rises above the parity level
when nations with higher per capita GDP are grandfathered.)



Transitional Implications. One of the problems with the UNFCCC and
Kyoto Protocol is that they do not resolve emissions implications of the transitional17
situation. While the complexity of an implementation strategy is beyond the scope
of the paper, the analysis does suggest one method for understanding the challenges
involved in moving to a world of economic growth for “Below-Parity GDP” nations
within the context of constrained greenhouse gas emissions.
Those few countries that have achieved parity GDPs with the lowest intensity
may be considered a benchmark for defining “excess” emissions. This can be
combined with the current interest in economic mechanisms for achieving efficient
constraints on the growth of greenhouse gases. As shown by the last column of
Table 6, this metric provides a calculation of “shortfall” or “excess” of current
emissions compared to the emissions that result from the $23,500 parity income
times the 100 intensity goal.
The implications of this scenario for selected nations are shown in the far right
hand column of Table 6. A “plus” means that the scenario results in higher
emissions than actual emissions in 2000; a “minus” means that the scenario results
in lower emissions than actual 2000 emissions. The growth implication is that a
“plus” nation could increase its emissions by the plus amount as its GDP grows and
still be within the scenario. The implication of a “minus” nation is the opposite —
that under the scenario emissions would be less by the minus amount.
This gives rise to various possibilities: One would be to tax excess emissions,
and the monies raised could be used, for example, to further economic development
or to finance efforts at reducing intensity. Another possibility would be to create
“allowances” out of the shortfalls, which could be “sold” to countries with excessive
emissions, transferring monies to those “shortfall” nations while providing offsets to
“excess” emitters.
Also, a global “trading” scheme or a global “excess emissions” tax deals with
“leakage,” in which greenhouse gas-intensive economic activities may be shifted
from “controlled” to “uncontrolled” nations.
Policy Implications: Importance of Greenhouse Gas Intensity. The
metrics of total emissions, per capita emissions, and intensity interrelate: per capita
GDP times intensity [divided by one million] equals per capita emissions; population
times per capita emissions equals total emissions. But in considering tradeoffs
between economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions, intensity is a more useful
metric than per capita emissions. Multiplying population times per capita emissions
to get total emissions would say nothing about per capita (or national) GDP.
Intensity, on the other hand, directly relates economic activity to total emissions
(emissions divided by GDP equals intensity); using per capita GDP permits both
comparisons among nations and incorporation of population into the calculation.
The Bush Administration has focused its greenhouse gas policies on intensity
rather than emissions per se. So far, this policy relies on voluntary actions. It


17 See CRS Report RL32721, cited at footnote 3, p. 10.

focuses on the decline in intensity, and suggests that this “path” will lead to an
intensity decline of 17% over a decade ending in 2012.18 (Total emissions are
nonetheless projected to rise.) No ultimate intensity goal is set, nor is the rate of
intensity decline tied to rates of growth in population or economic activity.
Finally, if climate change concerns were ever to lead nations to set an upper
bound (“cap”) on greenhouse gas emissions, this analysis brings out the implications
for economic growth and intensity of that “cap.” When emissions are “capped,” the
rate of growth of emissions is 0; so equation 3a becomes:
(kp + kg + ki) = 0
With a cap, then, if any of the three left-hand variables is positive, at least one of the
others must be negative. Currently, world population is growing, although a few
individual countries have negative population growth rates. Growth in GDP is a goal
both globally and for individual nations. On a year by year basis, various nations’
GDPs and even world GDP may contract, but globally and for individual nations,
over time, GDP has been growing. When population and economic activity are
growing, then, a cap on emissions globally or for an individual nation implies a
decline in intensity at a rate equal to the sum of the rates of growth of population and
of per capita GDP.
Concluding Discussion
This analysis assumes a minimum standard of living of $23,500 per capita GDP
(in 2000 $ purchasing power parity) based on benchmark countries. The analysis
identifies the differing actual starting points of individual nations in terms of GDP,
population, and greenhouse gas intensity, but not other factors such as their resource
endowments, where the capital for development would come from, etc., which mean
that economic development occurs unevenly and dynamically over time.
In looking at the interaction of the countervailing forces of economic growth and
constrained greenhouse gas emissions, these other factors will be important.
Moreover, differing rates of economic growth among nations and the continuing
economic growth among “Above-Parity GDP” nations makes any degree of
achieving parity GDPs and constraining emissions more complicated and raises the
issue of maintaining above-parity GDPs. Without grandfathering, parity implies
some transfer of wealth from richer to poorer nations (through emissions trading or
other mechanisms), while accepting grandfathering implies higher emissions — or
even further improvements in intensity.
(A world of a minimum $23,500 per capita GDP and constrained emissions is
an analytic construct: it is not a prediction. It is conceivable that a goal of a


18 Papers outlining the Administration’s climate change initiative are available on the White
House website: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html].
(Note: the Administration’s intensity figures include land use and are not directly
comparable to the intensities used in this paper.)

comfortable standard of living for everyone (however defined) will prove as difficult
to achieve as the related goal of adequate nutrition for every person.)
Over time, diverse forces and human choices will be affecting global economic
activity and emissions of greenhouse gases. Some of these forces and choices will
have the effect of increasing emissions, others will have the opposite effect.
!Population growth, currently about 1.2% per year,19 means that
economic activity must grow just to keep per capita GDP constant.
If world population were to level off at, say, 9 billion (a 50%
increase over 2000), then at annual per capita greenhouse emissions
of 2 to 2.3 tons, total emissions would be 18 to 20.7 billion tons, or
double those of 2000.
!Economic growth must exceed population growth if per capita
GDPs are to grow. But growth per se may not meet the
distributional requirements to address poverty, i.e., economic
betterment of those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
!Greenhouse gas (carbon) intensity improved in many countries
and globally between 1950 and 2000 (see Table 8). While those
improvements were, overall, smaller than the rate of economic
growth, the examples of a few nations, such as France and Sweden,
suggest that high-intensity nations could improve.
!Public Policy initiatives at global and national levels are addressing
all three forces. On population, for example, U.N. programs
regarding health, children, and family planning all impact
population; individual nations also have programs affecting
population, some explicitly to encourage childbearing, others the
opposite. On economic development, the United Nations has
underway a set of programs to improve the standards of living of the
world’s poorest,20 including a goal to halve the number of persons
living on less than one dollar per day by 2015; and many nations
have or contribute to foreign aid programs to foster economic
growth. On greenhouse gas emissions, initiatives include actions
under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, together with national
programs to improve energy efficiency, to encourage energy
conservation, to develop carbon sinks, and otherwise to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gas emissions.
With international policies and programs to alleviate poverty and foster
development, together with increasing population, this analysis indicates that the crux
of any goal of constraining greenhouse gas emissions is the level of intensity. This
in turn implies substantial decoupling of energy use and economic activity —
although not to an impossible level. The analyzed level of 100 has been achieved by
nations that rank in the top-20 for both per capita GDP and total annual greenhouse
gas emissions.


19 U.N. Population Division, World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision Highlights
(ESA/P/W. 180, 26 February 2003), at [http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm] .
20 See U.N. Millennium Development Goals, at [http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/] .

Greenhouse gas intensity has been improving globally, and in many nations.
For 1990 to 2000, the global carbon intensity declined about 13%; for various
nations, see Table 8. But over the same decade, world population grew 13.7% and
per capita GDP grew 30%, so emissions rose.21
A goal of all nations equaling or bettering an intensity of 100 would represent
a very substantial challenge for most nations. Some studies have suggested that22
improving intensity could be achieved at low cost — even in some cases at a profit.
But the assumption that many “no regrets” opportunities23 exist to reduce carbon
emissions has not been borne out so far in practice, as evidenced by the failure of
most countries to meet the UNFCCC goal (and likely problems in meeting the Kyoto
Protocol limits).
From a policy perspective, if constraining greenhouse gases were determined
to be an appropriate action for all nations, the question would be the relationships of,
and the relative efforts to be devoted to, international and domestic policies and
programs that affect population; economic growth and development; and intensity.
At present, the first two are clearly demanding proportionately more attention and
resources than intensity is.
The purpose of this analysis has been to give some tangible sense of a possible
outcome from pursuing competing goals — economic growth and development
versus constraining greenhouse gases — that are confounding efforts, such as the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the
Kyoto Protocol, to address global climate change. For some, the finding that one can
construct an empirically based approach that achieves a standard of living for the
existing population equal to that of several European nations while not increasing
global greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60% will be optimistic. However, this
calculation ignores population growth, and assumes a level of intensity that may
appear daunting to many. For others, the emissions may appear unacceptable despite
the improvement in intensity — which could imply even more aggressive
improvements in intensity and/or constraints on economic growth. For still others,
worry about greenhouse gas emissions is misdirected.


21 Kevin Baumert and Jonathon Pershing, Climate Data: Insights and Observations (World
Resources Institute: Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, December
2004), 7-8. Note that carbon intensity includes only emissions of carbon dioxide from
energy use and cement manufacture.
22 E.g., Interlaboratory Working Group, Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, ORNL/CON-
476 (November 2000). See CRS Report 98-738 ENR Global Climate Change: Three Policy
Perspectives, pp. 5-10.
23 The phrase was used by the George H. W. Bush Administration: C. Boyden Gray and
David B. Rivkin, Jr., “A ‘No Regrets’ Environmental Policy,” Foreign Policy, summer

1991, pp. 47-65. See also CRS Report RL30024 Global Climate Change Policy: Cost,


Competitiveness, and Comprehensiveness, pp. 8-10.

Table 8. Average Annual Change in Carbon Intensity,
by Decade, for Top-20 Emitting Countries (1960-2000)
1960-70 1970-80 1980-90 1990-2000 1960-2000
average average average average average
annual annual annual annual annual
growth (%)growth (%)growth (%)growth (%)growth (%)
Australia 0.0 0.0 -0.9 -1.2 -0.5
Brazil 0.2 0.4 -1.0 1.6 0.3
Canada na -1.6 -2.8 -0.8 na
China -3.6 0.9 -3.9 -6.1 -3.2
France -0.6 -2.2 -4.9 -2.2 -2.5
Germany na na -3.2 -3.3 na
India 1.2 1.4 1.4 -0.4 0.9
Indonesia 0.4 0.7 0.3 2.7 1.0
Ir an na na 2.5 0.6 na
It aly 4.8 -1.1 -1.6 0.9 0.3
J a pan 0.3 -2.1 -2.7 -0.2 -1.2
Mexico -1.3 2.2 0.2 -1.2 0.0
Poland na na na -5.1 na
Russ. Fed.na-1.4-1.20.3na
S. Africa-1.90.51.8-0.20.0
S. Korea6.72.0-1.80.21.7
Spain 0.5 2.1 -2.0 0.4 0.2
Ukraine na na na 2.5 na
U.K . -1.5 -2.8 -2.8 -2.6 -2.4
U.S. 0.2 -2.0 -2.9 -1.6 -1.6
Source: World Resources Institute, CAIT.
na = not available
Note: Intensity based on carbon emissions from energy use and cement manufacture.



Appendix A. “Above-Parity GDP” Nations — 2000 Per Capita GDPs Greater Than $25,850
“Above-Parity GDP”PopulationPer Capita GDPEmissions Per CapitaIntensity
Nations: 2000 perin 2000GDP(Millions in 2000Emissions(Tons/million$
capita GDP > $25,850(thousands)(2000 $ PPP)2000 $ PPP)(MMTCE)(Tons)GDP)
Austria 8,110 $ 26,420 $ 214,240 21.3 2.6 99
Canada 30,770 $ 26,840 $ 825,745 194.7 6.3 236
Denmark 5,340 $ 28,680 $ 153,134 18.3 3.4 120
Iceland 280 $ 28,910 $ 8,095 0.8 2.7 99
Ir eland 3,794 $ 30,380 $ 115,249 18.0 4.8 156
Luxembourg 438 $ 53,410 $ 23,391 2.5 5.7 107
iki/CRS-RL32762
g/wNetherlands 15,919 $ 26,910 $ 428,356 59.5 3.7 139
s.or
leakNorway 4,491 $ 29,200 $ 131,149 13.8 3.1 105
://wikiSwitzerland 7,180 $ 27,780 $ 199,471 13.9 1.9 70
httpUnited States286,303$33,960$9,680,8501,891.86.6195
Total, “Above-Parity
GDP” nations362,625$32,490$11,781,6802,234.66.2190
Source: World Resource Institute; CAIT; CRS calculations.



Appendix B. “Parity GDP” Nations — 2000 Per Capita GDPs $23,500 ± 10%
($25,850 - $21,150)
“Parity” Nations:
2000 per capita
GDP $23,500 ±PopulationPer CapitaGDPEmissionsPer CapitaIntensity

10% ($25,850 -in 2000GDP(Millions in 2000Emissions(Tons/million$


$21,150)(thousands)(2000 $ PPP)2000 $ PPP)(MMTCE)(Tons)GDP)
Australia 19,182 $ 24,550 $ 470,916 130.4 6.8 277
Belgium 10,252 $ 25,220 $ 258,606 41.2 4.0 159
Finland 5,172 $ 24,160 $ 124,961 18.7 3.6 150
France 58,893 $ 23,490 $ 1,383,340 137.2 2.3 99
iki/CRS-RL32762Germany 82,210 $ 25,100 $ 2,063,536 265.2 3.2 129
g/wIt aly 57,690 $ 24,280 $ 1,400,835 145.9 2.5 104
s.or
leakJ a pan 126,870 $ 25,280 $ 3,207,344 364.1 2.9 114
://wikiSingapore 4,018 $ 23,700 $ 95,246 17.5 4.4 184
http
Sweden 8,869 $ 23,650 $ 209,740 17.4 2.0 83
United Arab2,905$22,800$54,00029.410.1544
Emirates
United Kingdom58,720$23,580$1,384,896180.63.1130
Total, “Parity”
nations 436,781 $ 24,502 $ 10,653,420 1347.6 3.1 126
Source: World Resource Institute; CAIT; CRS calculations.



Appendix C. “Below-Parity GDP” Nations — 2000 Per Capita GDPs Smaller Than $21,150
“Below-Parity GDP”PopulationPer CapitaGDPEmissionsPer CapitaIntensity
nations, 2000 per capitain 2000GDP(Millions in 2000Emissions(Tons/million
GDP < $21,150(thousands)(2000 $ PPP)2000 $ PPP)(MMTCE)(Tons)$GDP)
Arge ntina 37,032 $ 11,880 $ 439,897 79.1 2.1 180
Brazil 170,100 $ 7,250 $ 1,233,633 229.5 1.3 186
China 1,262,460 $ 3,740 $ 4,724,163 1,355.6 1.1 287
India 1,015,923 $ 2,730 $ 2,772,730 506.0 0.5 182
Indonesia 206,265 $ 2,970 $ 613,299 135.0 0.7 220
Ir an 63,664 $ 5,720 $ 364,399 119.7 1.9 328
iki/CRS-RL32762Korea (South)47,008$14,720$691,772143.43.1207
g/w
s.orMexico 97,966 $ 8,570 $ 839,150 139.4 1.4 166
leakPaki stan 138,080 $ 1,870 $ 258,024 77.9 0.6 302
://wikiPoland 38,648 $ 9,320 $ 360,114 102.4 2.7 284
http
Russian Federation145,555$6,760$983,864519.93.6528
T hailand 60,728 $ 6,230 $ 378,476 71.3 1.2 188
T urkey 67,420 $ 6,300 $ 411,418 98.9 1.5 240
Ukraine 49,501 $ 3,980 $ 197,005 142.5 2.9 723
Uzbeki stan 24,746 $ 2,360 $ 58,521 49.4 2.0 844
Other 1,811,328 $ 3,996 $ 7,236,999 1774.7 1.0 245
Total, “<Parity GDP” 5,238,424$4,119$21,565,4645,544.71.1257
Source: World Resource Institute; CAIT; CRS calculations.