Although it may come as a surprise, research shows a larger carbon footprint doesn’t lead to happiness. While the United States ranks near the top of both per capita and aggregate carbon emissions, it’s not in the top 10 when it comes to happiness. In fact, many nations ranked happier than the U.S. also tread much more lightly on the planet. Read on to find out where the U.S.’s carbon emissions come from and which countries are doing it right.
Though the U.S. doesn’t have the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world, it’s pretty close to the top at roughly 20.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide on average per person. It should be noted that the recession is currently reducing this figure, and that it is the national average, meaning some states have much lower emissions: New York and California for example. Others, such as Wyoming and Louisiana (due to the types of industry there more than anything else) have much higher emissions.
In terms of the Human Development Index, the U.S. does pretty well (15th in the world). Life expectancy is a healthy 78 years and 99% of people are literate.
The U.S. not only uses a lot of energy–2.3 million thousand tonnes of oil equivalent, a weird term, but that’s what the IEA uses–but also generates most of its electricity from coal (48%=bad) and natural gas (20%=less bad but not good); and uses a disproportionate amount of energy in the transport sector when compared to other nations.
Breaking down U.S. energy use by sector, the U.S. uses 41% of all its energy for transportation (nearly all oil), 18% by industry (mostly natural gas), 16% in residential used (mostly electricity and slightly less natural gas). The rest goes to commercial and public service use, a whole array of unspecified use, and a mere 1% in agriculture, fishing and forestry.
Compare that to Denmark and at least part of the reason why U.S. per capita emissions are so high becomes clear. The way the nation’s civic infrastructure has been constructed (large spaces, low density development and next to no public transportation) directly leads to a higher percentage of energy needed for transport.
1. Denmark: Lower Emissions, Higher Happiness
Denmark is widely hailed as an increasingly green place. It certainly generates a lot of electricity from wind power, has great public transit, and, apart from the weather, is a great place to bike or walk around. It has identical life expectancy and literacy figures to the U.S. and ranks higher than the U.S. in terms of human development. So how are the carbon emissions of the average Dane less half those of the average American at 9.8 tonnes of CO2 per person?
Transport still is the number one consumer of energy in Denmark, and like the U.S., most of it comes from oil. Yet the Danes use only 34% of their total energy on transport–statistically more in line with the rest of the world, by the way. Following that is residential usage at 28% (with heat coming from biomass and natural gas being most of that); industry is the third place sector at 18%. Commercial usage is identical and agricultural usage more than the United States.
In terms of electricity usage, more coal is used in Denmark than the U.S. (54%), but 22% comes from wind power and biomass. Combined with the fact that Denmark uses energy much more efficiently per capita, you can start to see how Danes can have higher human development, standards of living and, well, happiness.
2. Switzerland: Low Carbon Electricity is the Key
Up in the mountains of Switzerland, they really know how to keep the per capita emissions down–5.5 tonnes per person, lower than even the best states and cities in the U.S.–while still having an amazingly high standard of living. In this case, it all comes down to generating energy from mostly low or no-carbon sources.
Transport in Switzerland still makes up the largest single part of overall energy usage at 34%. Most of that still comes from oil, but 4% does come from electricity so that’s a start in the right direction. Residential comes after that at 29% (with oil as half of that usage and a quarter electricity); industrial use is 19% (but nearly half of that is electricity).
3. New Zealand: Low Carbon Electricity Makes Up For Transport Emissions
New Zealand is an interesting case. Like the U.S., transportation energy usage comprises a disproportionate amount of overall demand (44%) and virtually all of that is from oil. But per capita carbon emissions are relatively low, at 7.8 tonnes per person. In terms of human development, New Zealand is a highly developed country (20th in the world), with higher life expectancy than most nations (80 years). So what’s their secret?
It’s all in the electricity: 65% of it comes from low carbon sources (mostly hydro, but not insignificant amounts of geothermal, plus some wind and biomass). And then consider that electricity makes up four-tenths of industrial usage and three-quarters of residential usage, and the bigger picture starts taking shape.
Greening transportation would really take a bite out of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. Switching a significant amount of transportation to low carbon fuel sources could make a huge difference, considering so much energy goes into that sector.
4. Colombia: Green Electricity, Warmer Climate Help Out
Colombia is the oddball in this group, in that its per capita carbon emissions are seriously low: 1.2 tonnes of CO2 per person. Columbia is considered to have a medium level of human development: Life expectancy is still over 72 years and there is 92% literacy. It also happens to be, at least as surveyed, a very happy nation. A small increase in energy usage could probably help increase the human development stat, while still keeping per capita emissions down.
A couple of energy factors contribute to this low number: Very little heating is recorded for Colombia, so the warmer climate comes into play. It also happens to have very green energy, with about 80% coming from hydropower.
Other than that, it uses energy slightly less efficiently than Denmark or Switzerland, but much better than the U.S. The way overall energy usage is divided between end-use sectors is much in line with Europe: 32% for transport (mostly oil, but 7% natural gas and biofuels); 29% goes to industry (mostly combustible renewables, natural gas and electricity); 20% residential (other than about 20% natural gas, coming from green-ish sources).
The per capita Gross Domestic Product of Colombia may be low per person, but it’s still doing something right: Literacy, life expectancy and happiness are high; per capita emissions are ecologically sustainable. In terms of human development, there are more “developed” places, but there are plenty of places that are worse off, at least statistically.
– from treehugger. 15 Apr 2009.