Climate change: Nations are fudging the numbers

A palm plantation for palm oil, used to make 

biofuels, processed foods, soaps, cosmetics and other products --

when peat-rich bogs are drained and converted to plantations or farms, 

they release a rapid pulse of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 

as the once-waterlogged plants’ remains degrade after exposure to air

A Washington Post article, Countries’ climate pledges built on flawed data, Post investigation finds, asserts that some nations are in error or outright lying about their emissions. This analysis points to weaknesses in global emissions reporting, which suggests ways to improve on the data being collected. The WaPo writes:

Malaysia’s latest catalogue of its greenhouse gas emissions to the United Nations reads like a report from a parallel universe. The 285-page document suggests that Malaysia’s trees are absorbing carbon four times faster than similar forests in neighboring Indonesia.

The surprising claim has allowed the country to subtract over 243 million tons of carbon dioxide from its 2016 inventory — slashing 73 percent of emissions from its bottom line.

Across the world, many countries underreport their greenhouse gas emissions in their reports to the United Nations, a Washington Post investigation has found. An examination of 196 country reports reveals a giant gap between what nations declare their emissions to be versus the greenhouse gases they are sending into the atmosphere. The gap ranges from at least 8.5 billion to as high as 13.3 billion tons a year of underreported emissions — big enough to move the needle on how much the Earth will warm.

At the low end, the gap is larger than the yearly emissions of the United States. At the high end, it approaches the emissions of China and comprises 23 percent of humanity’s total contribution to the planet’s warming, The Post found.

The analysis found at least 59 percent of the gap stems from how countries account for emissions from land, a unique sector in that it can both help and harm the climate. Land can draw in carbon as plants grow and soils store it away — or it can all go back up into the atmosphere as forests are logged or burn and as peat-rich bogs are drained and start to emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.

Scientific research indicates that countries are undercounting methane of all kinds: in the oil and gas sector, where it leaks from pipelines and other sources; in agriculture, where it wafts upward from the burps and waste of cows and other ruminant animals; and in human waste, where landfills are a major source.

Meanwhile, fluorinated gases, which are exclusively human-made, also are underreported significantly. Known as “F-gases,” they are used in air conditioning, refrigeration and the electricity industry. But The Post found that dozens of countries don’t report these emissions at all — a major shortcoming since some of these potent greenhouse gases are a growing part of the world’s climate problem.

Many problems causing the gap in emissions statistics stem from the U.N. reporting system. Developed countries have one set of standards, while developing countries have another, with wide latitude to decide how and what and when they report. The difference in reporting reflects the reality that the developed nations are historically responsible for most of the greenhouse gases that have built up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, and that they have greater technical capacity to analyze their emissions than poorer nations.

The emission reports are so unwieldy that the United Nations does not have a complete database to track country emissions. Some 45 countries have not reported any new greenhouse gas numbers since 2009.

If the WaPo analysis is correct, global human-related greenhouse gas emissions are being underreported by about 16-23%. That helps experts to better understand the real climate situation and sources of man-made climate change. Analysis like this peels back some of the cover that some or many nations and industries, e.g., the oil, gas and palm oil industries, have been using to understate their greenhouse gas emissions. Sunlight is needed to kill rot. 

The urge to lie about greenhouse gas emissions is strong for all countries. That's why some do not report their emissions. This points to a need for government action and international agreements to deal with climate change. The private sector and free markets will not deal with climate chance seriously unless they are forced to. Despite some contrary political and economic theory, laissez faire capitalism will not solve some major social and environmental problems. Governments can do that, despite the standard government hater attack mantra, “I’m here from the government, and here to help.” 

Sure, government makes mistakes and is not perfect. But when it comes to dealing with environmental and social problems, coordinated government action is much better than unregulated markets running free and wild. Markets like that can kill consumers, wreck environments and/or cause species to go extinct without any moral or other qualms. Profit is the only critical moral imperative.  

Questions: 

1. On balance, are the finding of this analysis mostly good news, mostly bad news or roughly about equally good and bad?

2. Which is better for dealing with climate change, unregulated markets running free and wild in pursuit of its major moral imperative (private sector profit for elites), or intelligent government action in pursuit of its major moral imperative (defense of the public interest, which includes the health of the environment and climate)? Or, as most libertarians and radical right brass knuckles capitalists generally argue, does the public interest not exist, and/or it is not a legitimate government interest?

One kind of palm fruit

Another kind of palm fruit