From the University of East Anglia home of Climatgate and Phil Jones. Fortunately, we already covered this at WUWT graphically as shown below:
This graph and subsequent story shows just how well the Kyoto protocol has succeeded, which is to say, it didn’t. Meanwhile, blabbing climate activists at Doha try to salvage some new agreement as if that will work either.
UEA research shows record high for global carbon emissions
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are set to rise again in 2012, reaching a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes – according to new figures from the Global Carbon Project, co-led by researchers from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia (UEA).
The 2.6 per cent rise projected for 2012 means global emissions from burning fossil fuel are 58 per cent above 1990 levels, the baseline year for the Kyoto Protocol.
This latest analysis by the Global Carbon Project is published today in the journal Nature Climate Change with full data released simultaneously by the journal Earth System Science Data Discussions.
It shows the biggest contributors to global emissions in 2011 were China (28 per cent), the United States (16 per cent), the European Union (11 per cent), and India (7 per cent).
Emissions in China and India grew by 9.9 and 7.5 per cent in 2011, while those of the United States and the European Union decreased by 1.8 and 2.8 per cent.
Emissions per person in China of 6.6 tonnes of CO2 were nearly as high as those of the European Union (7.3), but still below the 17.2 tonnes of carbon used in the United States. Emissions in India were lower at 1.8 tonnes of carbon per person.
Prof Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and professor at UEA, led the publication of the data. She said: “These latest figures come amidst climate talks in Doha. But with emissions continuing to grow, it’s as if no-one is listening to the entire scientific community.”
The 2012 rise further opens the gap between real-world emissions and those required to keep global warming below the international target of two degrees.
“I am worried that the risks of dangerous climate change are too high on our current emissions trajectory. We need a radical plan,” added Prof Corinne Le Quéré.
The analysis published in Nature Climate Change shows significant emission reductions are needed by 2020 to keep two degrees as a feasible goal.
It shows previous energy transitions in Belgium, Denmark, France, Sweden, and the UK have led to emission reductions as high as 5 per cent each year over decade-long periods, even without climate policy.
Lead author Dr Glen Peters, of the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway, said: “Scaling up similar energy transitions across more countries can kick-start global mitigation with low costs. To deepen and sustain these energy transitions in a broad range of countries requires aggressive policy drivers.”
Co-author Dr Charlie Wilson, of the Tyndall Centre at UEA, added: “Public policies and institutions have a central role to play in supporting the widespread deployment of low carbon and efficient energy-using technologies, and in supporting innovation efforts”.
Emissions from deforestation and other land-use change added 10 per cent to the emissions from burning fossil fuels. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reached 391 parts per million (ppm) at the end of 2011.
These results lends further urgency to recent reports that current emissions pathways are already dangerously high and could lead to serious impacts and high costs on society. These other analyses come from the International Energy Agency, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Bank, the European Environment Agency, and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
The December edition of Nature Climate Change contains three more research papers from Tyndall Centre authors: ‘Equity and state representations in climate negotiations’ by Heike Schroeder of UEA; ‘Changing Social Contracts in Climate Change Adaptation’ with Irene Lorenzoni and Tara Quinn of UEA; and ‘Proportionate adaptation’ by Jim Hall at Oxford University and colleagues from the Tyndall Centres at Southampton University, Cardiff and UEA.
‘The mitigation challenge to stay below two degrees’ by G.P. Peters, R.M. Andrew, T. Boden, J.G. Canadell, P. Ciais, C. Le Quéré, G. Marland, M.R. Raupach, C. Wilson is published online by Nature Climate Change. http://bit.ly/Qpt3ub (online from Dec 2, 2012, 1800 GMT).
Full details of the methods and data used are presented in: ‘The Global Carbon Budget 1959’ by C. Le Quéré, R. J. Andres, T. Boden, T. Conway, R. A. Houghton, J. I. House, G. Marland, G. P. Peters, G. van der Werf, A. Ahlström, R. M. Andrew, L. Bopp, J. G. Canadell, P. Ciais, S. C. Doney, C. Enright, P. Friedlingstein, C. Huntingford, A. K. Jain, C. Jourdain, E. Kato, R. Keeling, K. Klein Goldewijk, S. Levis, P. Levy, M. Lomas, B. Poulter, M. Raupach, J. Schwinger, S. Sitch, B. D. Stocker, N. Viovy, S. Zaehle and N. Zeng, Earth System Science Data Discussions. http://bit.ly/UY8GTQ (online from Dec 2, 2012! , 1800 GMT).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
polistra:
Exactly. Not only was China a direct beneficiary, but so were the carbon credit exchanges. Unfortunately, it also revealed an inconvenient truth. Carbon emissions are not an imminent threat. Neither is global warming, AGCC, climate change, nor any other marketable event.
Adam says:
December 2, 2012 at 10:12 pm
What do the WUWT regulars think are the limits of CO2 concentration which would be acceptable? I mean, is there a level at which it will have a detrimental effect and if so then what is that level?
Adam, when some activist says the west is guilty for “polluting” the globe with CO2 since about 150 years, the activist conveniently for his ideology forgets to say that the increase of CO2 from 280 ppm to 390 ppm (current level) is “guilty” for the existence of about 1/3 of the current biosphere.
“The uptake of carbon by vegetation and soil, that is the terrestrial productivity during the ice age, was only about 40 petagrams of carbon per year and thus much smaller: roughly one third of present-day terrestrial productivity and roughly half of pre-industrial productivity.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/carbon-on-the-uptake/#comment-803505
So without this increase 1/3 of the biosphere would dissapear and 2-3 billion of people would die of famine.
And the activists keep talking of guilt and pollution.
Maybe something like 750 ppm would be a good target.
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/html/PlantPPM2.jpg
Not sure if we would ever be able to achieve this.
If we would be seriously talking of reducing CO2 then nuclear is the immediate and secure solution. Nuclear can be further improved, nuclear waste re-used, nuclear spill cleaned -up.
In the moment when uranium could be extracted from ocean, nuclear spill could be also cleaned-up effectively. Maybe thorium would be a more secure and better way.
Green-energy = wasting resources for unicorn dreams.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/britain%27s-mad-biomass-dash.aspx
At current technology energy storage is the issue – pumping reservoirs do have a 66% efficiency and reached for 0,1% capacity, wind is delivering energy in average about 20% of time variable with the cube of wind speed. Solar is as variable as wind and not complementary. Both need backup. Bio-ethanol consumes real diesel for worst quality ethanol. Waste+waste+waste+polluting landscape+destroying habitat+raising grid instability+reducing food production. Did I forgot anything?
So yes, we could do studies what would 500 or 750 or even 1000 ppm mean, if any is reacheable, if there are any consequences, good or bad + invest for science, for real research + have honest debates.
Actually not sure we can ever achieve 500 ppm, wonder how a jungle with 500-600 ppm CO2 would look like?
“Carbon emissions are ‘too high’ to curb climate change”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20556703
“It is increasingly unlikely that global warming will be kept below an increase of 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels, a study suggests.”
There digging a big hole for themselves.
This pie chart looks like it was created by a political junk scientist. Not only does the perspective visually distort the data, but the scrambling of the emitters by ranking is an odd touch. The combination suggests to the casual observer that Japan is the 2nd highest emitter, in front of US & EU.
[note: There are more graphs in the link – mod]
What does the chart look like if you examine carbon dioxide emissions per capita?
@jakediamond
if you type in emissions per capita by nations into Google you will find the information you want, though its hard to believe some of the numbers are accurate.
You can draw your own conclusions from this, but a careful examination reveals that China now has only slightly smaller emissions per capita than Europe (as a whole), whilst countries like Australia and The US lead the pack – naughty Australians, perhaps we should stop supplying the world with the commodities they demand. Not sure why the US is so big, its hard to believe that it’s just a profligate lifestyle – the UK by comparison is less than half and Canada is similar to the US, which would suggest that population density has a lot to do with it.
I posted my question as an exercise for the WUWTites. It’s amusing and instructive to see how deep the denial is here. For example, the statement “perhaps we should stop supplying the world with the commodities they demand” conveniently ignores the FACT that the United States exports less than the EU, China and Germany yet produces more carbon dioxide per capita. (Australia doesn’t make the top 20 in terms of exports.) Your comment also overlooks the FACT that the United States is a net importer.
By the way, your speculation about “population density” is pure nonsense. Examining the carbon dioxide emissions per capita for countries with similar population densities easily shows that your theory is contradicted by the data.
Does it export less commodities? (E.g., coal and timber.)
The comparison should be to developed countries with temperate climates in order to make it apples-to-apples.
Our car owners probably drive twice the miles per year that Europeans do, because we’re more spread out and commute further to work, being more suburbanized. (A semi-famous saying goes, “The difference between an American and a European is that to an American, 100 miles is a short distance and 100 years is a long time.”)
Other contributors to our higher energy use are our suburbanized population and its large houses, which ups our heating and air conditioning costs. We also have more extreme winters and summers (the “continental” weather pattern) than Western Europe, which is closer on average to the moderating effect of sea breezes from the west, which also ups our heating and cooling energy consumption.
Roger –
The United States emits more than twice as much carbon dioxide per capita as the EU. Your speculative explanation doesn’t account for the magnitude of this difference.
In the last 50 years C02 levels have increased about 100PPM. Man is only responsible for about 3% of that or 3PPM, so what is all the excitement about?
“It’s as if no one is listening to the scientific community.”
It’s the sub-community you misidentify as the whole thing which is being (rightfully) disregarded by all with skin in the game. And it will only get worse from here on in. Emigrate now, avoid the rush.