Economic Decline Not Enough to Reduce Planet-Warming Emissions
Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Want to add more newsletters?
Delivered Daily
Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the latest discoveries, groundbreaking research and fascinating breakthroughs that impact you and the wider world direct to your inbox.
Once a week
Life's Little Mysteries
Feed your curiosity with an exclusive mystery every week, solved with science and delivered direct to your inbox before it's seen anywhere else.
Once a week
How It Works
Sign up to our free science & technology newsletter for your weekly fix of fascinating articles, quick quizzes, amazing images, and more
Delivered daily
Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
Once a month
Watch This Space
Sign up to our monthly entertainment newsletter to keep up with all our coverage of the latest sci-fi and space movies, tv shows, games and books.
Once a week
Night Sky This Week
Discover this week's must-see night sky events, moon phases, and stunning astrophotos. Sign up for our skywatching newsletter and explore the universe with us!
Join the club
Get full access to premium articles, exclusive features and a growing list of member rewards.
Nations hoping to curb global warming face a quandary: Economic growth means more planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions.
On the flip side, economic decline means a drop in greenhouse gas emissions as consumers tighten their belts, factories slow down and less money is spent.
A new analysis of data from 1960 to 2008 indicates during economic decline carbon dioxide emissions decline at about half the rate at which they grow when an economy is booming.
"In a sense, economic decline only undoes a little more than half of the carbon dioxide emissions that economic growth adds,” said Richard York, a professor of sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon who conducted this study.
This result indicates that a country's history — not just its current economic state — influences the amount of carbon dioxide it is pumping out.
For example, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, economic collapse put some post-Soviet nations on par with some sub-Saharan African nations. While these post-Soviet nations did see their emissions drop, they did not fall as low as emissions in poor nations, like some sub-Saharan countries that had never industrialized, York said. [8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World]
York has a theory why economic decline does not reverse the gains in carbon dioxide that accompany economic development. Countries in decline, such as the post-Soviet nations, still have the infrastructure and durable goods — including roads, factories, cars and energy-intensive homes — that come with economic development. People use these things less, but they still contribute emissions.
Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.
This difference in emissions' change during decline versus growth may help explain why emissions do not appear to have declined as much as expected as a result of the global fiscal crisis that began in 2007; however, not all economic and environmental data for this period is in yet, he said.
York identified the asymmetry by looking at changes in gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced by a country, for more than 150 nations from 1960 to 2008.
He separated out the positive change, or economic growth, from the negative change, or decline, for all of the countries, and looked to see how that compared with the changes in carbon dioxide at the same time.
York's work was published online in the journal Nature Climate Change today (Oct. 7).
Follow LiveScienceon Twitter@livescience. We're also on Facebook & Google+.

