From the “just in time for Paris” and “impending doom canceled” department comes this report from the EUROPEAN COMMISSION JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE:
After a decade of rapid growth in global CO2 emissions, which increased at an average annual rate of 4%, much smaller increases were registered in 2012 (0.8%), 2013 (1.5%) and 2014 (0.5%). In 2014, when the emissions growth was almost at a standstill, the world’s economy continued to grow by 3%. The trend over the last three years thus sends an encouraging signal on the decoupling of CO2 emissions from global economic growth. However, it is still too early to confirm a positive global trend. For instance India, with its emerging economy and large population, increased its emissions by 7.8% and became the fourth largest emitter globally.
The EU continues to show leadership on CO2 emission reductions
In 2014, despite an overall increase of 1.4% in the GDP for the European Union, the EU decreased its CO2 emissions by 5.4% with respect to 2013. This comes after reductions also in the two previous years, although the reductions in 2012 and 2013 were at much lower rates (-0.4% and -1.4 %). The results illustrate the continued decoupling of Europe’s economic growth from CO2 emissions. Total EU CO2 emissions are now 23% below the 1990 level.
The study suggests three main reasons for this drop: 1) a 4.5% emissions reduction from industrial facilities and power plants that are part of the EU Emissions Trading System, 2) a mild winter which resulted in a 10% lower heating demand and 3) a 0.5% reduction in oil consumption for transport.
Significant reductions in national CO2 emissions were recorded for Slovakia (10.6%), the United Kingdom (9.0%), Denmark (8.8%), France (8.4%), Italy (7.7%), Finland (6.9%), Greece (6.3%), Austria (6.0%), Germany (5.6%), the Netherlands (5.3%), Portugal (3.6%) and Poland (3.4%). Of the 28 EU Member States, only Bulgaria and Cyprus increased their emissions, by 6.9% and 0.5%, respectively.
For the first time, the EU’s share of global CO2 emissions fell below 10%. Responsible for 9,6% of the global emissions, the EU is still the third largest emitter globally after China (30%) and the United States (15%).
Global emissions stalled in 2014
Apart from the EU, other countries such as Japan (-2.6%) Russia (-1.5%), and Australia (- 2.1%) also reduced their emissions. In total, only a 0.5% increase in global CO2 emissions was recorded in 2014 with respect to the previous year. The total emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes amounted to 35.7 billion tonnes CO2 in 2014, compared to 35.3 billion tonnes in 2013.
China emissions also slowed down
Although it remains the largest emitter world-wide, China has also managed to slow down its emissions growth. After the surge in CO2 emissions recorded over the past 10 years, China’s emissions increased by only 0.9% in 2014, the same rate as the United States. A big part of the overall curbing of global emissions can therefore be attributed to China’s structural changes in its economy favouring less energy-intensive services, a high value-added manufacturing industry and investments into more low-carbon energy options.
US per capita emissions among highest
The United States still has very high emissions per head of population, with 16.5 tonnes CO2per capita in 2014. This is more than twice as high as those of China (7.5 tonnes CO2 per capita) and the EU (7.1 tonnes CO2 per capita).
###
Background information
These results were published in a report by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC) and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Related links:
Trends in global CO2 emissions:2015 Report
figures you can believe in:
19 Nov: UK Telegraph: Tara Cunningham: Abandon ship: Baltic Dry index hits record low
A leading indicator of world economic growth, the Baltic Dry, has plunged to its lowest ever level
The Baltic Dry Index, which is seen by many as a leading indicator of the state of the world economy, slumped 2.9pc to a record low of 504 today due, at least in part, to China’s economic malaise.
The index measures shipping costs for commodities including iron ore, copper and steel…
It hit a peak level of 11,793 in May 2008 amid a surge in demand for commodities, but has been in steady decline since the financial crisis…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/12005765/Abandon-ship-Baltic-Dry-index-hits-record-low.html
Great news, the west is winning the global egg and spoon race.
If winning is redefined as coming last.
And where all other competitors plan to come first.
And where no other competitors have adopted the use of the egg.
Or the spoon.
This is what will be shown in Paris:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
You can bet your life on it.
It is good to see the US per capita contribution to greening the planet and feeding people is still impressive! I am thankful for that.
This is worth a look and fits the subject matter at hand with respect to statistics and the presentation of such.
Happy Turkeyday to those in the US !
Obama called Putin and asked him what he was having for Thanksgiving.
Putin replied, “Turkey”.
I think what we are really seeing is a decoupling of finance and value.
Need a cartoon of a climate scientist working indoors on a computer screen that shows a planet on fire. In the background a window with snow covering most of it.
And (not parallel, just inspired by your nice allegory),
here is an allegory for how that scientist would deal with a real fire (i.e., the economy going down in flames due to CO2 envirostalinism/profiteering):
IT Guy — “Fire!”
{esp. from 1:54 on}
(youtube)
Classic show!
“The United States still has very high emissions per head of population, with 16.5 tonnes CO2per capita in 2014. This is more than twice as high as those of China (7.5 tonnes CO2 per capita) and the EU (7.1 tonnes CO2 per capita).” China has 4 times as many people as the US but I suppose the thrust of the per capita idea is how sinfully successful our economic/social system is compared to others not how much supposed damage we are doing to the environment. If we would just diminish or standard of living, all would be well in the eyes of our leaders. Not them, of course, just we great unwashed masses here in the US, our pharisees and scribes know what is best for us.
Jim,
I gather that you and I should have a life nasty, brutish and short, mostly lived in caves that are cool in summer – but cold and wet in winter.
Whilst the glitterati of the various ‘worlds’ have mansions, caviar and eternal sunshine.
[Not sure where their servants, vassals & serfs come from . . .].
Auto
And Happy Thanksgiving to our Siblings Yank!
Enjoy.
Auto
Thank you, Auto! #(:)) Had fun eating lots of good food, today!
Hope I’m not too late to say: Bon voyage and BE SAFE in Paris. We need you (seriously — I’ve read your astute comments for over 2 years, now, and you would leave a noticeable gap at WUWT if you …. AAAAA! No! You are coming back safe and sound!)
Leave the short-sleeves at home, though. You’ll get much more respect (and you deserve it) and be much more admired by the ladies if you wear long sleeves. What? Oh. Going there to demonstrate how to make cotton candy, hm. Short sleeves it is!
To depress atmospheric carbon dioxide levels further, fossil fuel burning plants can be tweaked to produce carbon monoxide instead, thereby further appeasing the CAGW lunatics (/sarc. off)
Outgassing from oceans has slowed
Say what?
If this is true, it is bad news for plants which only just survived the last savage down turn in CO2 levels to miserable amounts of 250ppm. This will drive down Worldwide crop production and produce great famines. If true, this event it is very bad news for our descendants.
Switching from coal to natural gas as a percentage of incremental energy use is probably the main factor here. Approximate ratios of carbon to hydrogen are: coal 2 carbon to 1 hydrogen; oil about 1:1; and natural gas 4 to 1 (4 hydrogen to one carbon).
(Coal ratios varies a lot more than oil or natural gas depending on its content of non-combustibles and volatiles.)
In developed countries, the process of decarbonization has been underway for decades without government interference. The real issue is the acceleration of the decarbonization process, including restrictions placed on nuclear and hydro-electric development.
Policies in the West will almost certainly usher in the rise of China as the world’s leading economy and superpower, probably during the lifetime of many people alive today.
It remains to be seen if the American public will allow their political leaders to cede the present position of the US as the world’s preeminent economic and military power.
I think not.
Small correction: the C:H ratio for coal is more like 15:1.
On a mass basis, with a ratio of about 1 4 in total energy content. If they want to reduce the c and increase the H then they must do what Germany is doing: build power plants specifically designed to burn Lignite which has a composition much closer to wood. It is doable….
Maybe this is part of the reason
“Ocean plants defy climate forecasters by adapting to fight global warming” from today’s Times.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4624811.ece Behind paywall
Essentially “Phytoplankton, which are microscopic plants that live close to the sea surface, can adapt quickly to tolerate higher water temperatures.” The article goes on to say “The study, published in the journal Ecology Letters, suggests that the computer models used to predict climate change could be improved by taking into account the ability of natural systems to adapt to rising temperatures. “
We do not know the size of any source, including our own CO2 emissions. Everything is an estimate with a large range of uncertainty.
Let’s see what Mauna Loa says for atmospheric CO2 levels this century, ie., as from 2000 onwards up to the time when AR6 is being prepared/published. That may provide us with much more insight, especially if there is no step change in temperature coincident with the current 2015/16 El Nino, similar to the step change in temperature that was observed coincident with the Super El Nino of 1997/98.
It is quite possible that much will happen in the course of the next 4 or 5 years, especially if there is no large scale volcano eruption to cloud the issue. We may begin to discover and understand more about natural cycles such as ocean cycles and the sun.
Perhaps one should take the extreme action of looking at some real data to see what this stagnation of Global growth in CO2 emissions has actually achieved ?
The data from the World Data Centre for Green house Gases includes a file for Mace Head, Ireland, that could be a good indicator of the result in the vicinity of Europe. Surprisingly the annual rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration has remained basically stable since the major El Nino event in 1997. But is that not the case for the global temperature? Of course, so could it be that temperature controls the rate of change of CO2 ? Linear regression applied to the annual increment in CO2 concentration vs the coincident 13 month average satellite lower tropospheric temperature across the period June 1991 to December 2014 gave a correlation coefficient of 0.35 with negligible probability that the correlation was zero when using the Tropics – Land component of the University of Alabama, Huntsville data.
This is typical of results from across the Globe, all the way from Alert Station, NW Canada, correlation coefficient 0.42 with negligible probability of zero correlation, down to the South Pole Station, correlation coefficient 0.69 with negligible probability of zero correlation. In 19 locations, there were only 3 that did not give the maximum correlation at the Tropics – Land component and in each of these 3, the Tropics – Land component was not statistically different from those maxima.
Another example is the result from Mt Waliguan, NW China, on the Tibetan plateau which is in the vicinity of major emitters China and India. Here again the annual rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration has remained basically stable since the major El Nino event in 1997 at about 2 ppm per annum. Linear regression applied to the annual increment in CO2 concentration vs the coincident 13 month average satellite lower tropospheric temperature for the period August 1990 to December 2014 gave a correlation coefficient of 0.33 with negligible probability that the correlation was zero when using the Tropics – Land component of the UAH data.
For all of the 19 stations analysed to date, the Ocean component of the temperature did not feature as providing a correlation maxima. This would appear to indicate that CO2 emanating from sea water is not the most dominant cause of the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration with temperature. As the temperature level would appear to control the CO2 rate and the Equatorial Zone is the warmest part of the Globe, it is reasonable that the maximum correlations should arise from the Tropics component. Because it is the Tropics – Land component that gives the greatest regression maxima it is possible that the profusion of life forms in the Tropics is the major source of the rate of increase in CO2 concentration. Obviously, as the correlation coefficient is not close to 1.0, there are other factors involved.
Unfortunately for those who believe in the superiority of mankind, it would seem that we do not control the World’s climate. It may be that billions of microbes may be doing that instead. But then, as we are each a bagful of microbes, perhaps they are in control. Bad luck IPCC !
Is it possible that co2 levels have fallen because volcanic activity has reduced?
I have no idea,but I’m sure someone out there who will know!!
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
We may have to put off the end of the world for a bit. Al Gore, climate cultists hardest hit.
If you believe the RCP8.5 scenario, or at least the ClimateInteractive version, the per capita emissions will
?w=780&h=548
– take off in the OECD countries, despite have stalled decades ago
– continue growing in China and Russia, even though both are virtually fully industrialized
– rapidly slow down in India, despite it currently booming
– in Africa will stagnate and never develop
The whole effect is to grossly exaggerate the impact of policy in the USA and the EU, whilst virtually eliminating the impact of India and other poor, but growing economies (Bangladesh, Vietnam etc.)
Compare with the trends above, using virtually the same measure of emissions from fossil fuels.
“China has also managed to slow down its emissions growth”
Best euphemism for “is falling into a recession” ever
So many indicators are peaking or have already peaked. The global markets and macroeconomic levels of activity may be prefiguring the inevitable decline in global market activity that will commence upon or prior to the great inflection in global population. The great inflection according to most unbiased studies is now set to occur sometime between the present and 35 years from now.