switzerlanden
The CO₂lumnist: Country emissions dynamics - peeling the (carb)onion

The CO₂lumnist: Country emissions dynamics - peeling the (carb)onion

05-08-2021 | Column
Investors rely on data to make decisions on climate strategy, but emissions by countries can be hard to calculate. In the second of a new series of columns taking a more light-hearted look at the issue, Robeco data scientist Thijs Markwat says it’s much like peeling onions – it’s multi-layered (and it can make your eyes water).
  • Thijs Markwat
    Thijs
    Markwat
    Researcher

In my previous role as a quantitative allocation researcher a very well-respected colleague taught me two appealing lessons, which can be applied to a wide range of problems and challenges. These lessons were:

  • By peeling the layers of an onion you can see what it really consists of.
  • You cannot eat an elephant at once, but only one bite at a time.

Both rules are very helpful and important but combining them makes them even more powerful. Today is about the onion and I will peel the layers of country carbon emissions

The carbon emissions of a country can be represented as follows: CO2=POP*GDP/POP*(CO2)/GDP

If you look at that formula you will see that POP (population) and GDP cancel out and an CO2 identity remains. Therefore, when you first look at it, you might question the usefulness of this formula. However, the three terms on the right side are a powerful tool in explaining and predicting country emissions.

The first term is the population and evidently is positively related to carbon emissions. The second term is called affluence and proxies the country’s wealth as GDP per capita. In general, higher economic activity results in higher emissions. The last term is the state of green technologies in a country, which is measured by the emissions per unit GDP. Obviously, the better the technological state the lower the emissions. 

In 2019, the aggregated emissions in the US were around 5100 megatons of CO2, while China emitted around 11,500 megatons. Together they account for almost half of all global emissions. In the figure below I have decomposed the cumulative percentual change since 1990 in CO2 emissions for these two counties.1

Stay informed on Sustainable Investing with monthly mail updates
Stay informed on Sustainable Investing with monthly mail updates
Subscribe

The total emissions of the US in 2019 are only 1% higher than in 1990. The population growth (+29%) and affluence (+49%) are offset by advances in greener technologies (-77%). If we look at China a different picture emerges. There, the carbon emissions have increased by 380%, mainly driven by the country becoming richer (+624%).

Emissions particularly increased between 2000 and 2010, as the rise due to wealth growth was not yet compensated by technological advances. Only since 2010 have the greener technological advances become more effective, slowing down the growth rate of emissions.

Predicting future emissions can be a difficult task. Breaking down emissions in these components might be helpful. The population for instance can be predicted reasonably accurately, the possible availability of certain green technologies can be taken into account, and the wealth growth of some developing countries cannot last forever.

So, by predicting the different components an indication of the future growth of the country emissions can be obtained.

1I used a logarithmic mean divisia index approach to attribute the total change in emissions to the components

Logo

Disclaimer Robeco Switzerland Ltd.

The information contained on these pages is for marketing purposes and solely intended for Qualified Investors in accordance with the Swiss Collective Investment Schemes Act of 23 June 2006 (“CISA”) domiciled in Switzerland, Professional Clients in accordance with Annex II of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (“MiFID II”) domiciled in the European Union und European Economic Area with a license to distribute / promote financial instruments in such capacity or herewith requesting respective information on products and services in their capacity as Professional Clients. 

The Funds are domiciled in Luxembourg and The Netherlands. ACOLIN Fund Services AG, postal address: Affolternstrasse 56, 8050 Zürich, acts as the Swiss representative of the Fund(s). UBS Switzerland AG, Bahnhofstrasse 45, 8001 Zurich, postal address: Europastrasse 2, P.O. Box, CH-8152 Opfikon, acts as the Swiss paying agent. The prospectus, the Key Investor Information Documents (KIIDs), the articles of association, the annual and semi-annual reports of the Fund(s) may be obtained, on simple request and free of charge, at the office of the Swiss representative ACOLIN Fund Services AG. The prospectuses are also available via the website www.robeco.ch. Some funds about which information is shown on these pages may fall outside the scope of the Swiss Collective Investment Schemes Act of 26 June 2006 (“CISA”) and therefore do not (need to) have a license from or registration with the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). 

Some funds about which information is shown on this website may not be available in your domicile country. Please check the registration status in your respective domicile country. To view the RobecoSwitzerland Ltd. products that are registered/available in your country, please go to the respective Fund Selector, which can be found on this website and select your country of domicile. 

Neither information nor any opinion expressed on this website constitutes a solicitation, an offer or a recommendation to buy, sell or dispose of any investment, to engage in any other transaction or to provide any investment advice or service. An investment in a Robeco Switzerland Ltd. product should only be made after reading the related legal documents such as management regulations, prospectuses, annual and semi-annual reports. 

By clicking “I agree” you confirm that you/the company you represent falls under one of the above-mentioned categories of addressees and that you have read, understood and accept the terms of use for this website.

I Disagree