From an outfit called “Future Earth” and the “We’ll always have Paris” department.
Global carbon dioxide emissions projected to rise after three stable years
By the end of 2017, global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and industry are projected to rise by about 2% compared with the preceding year, with an uncertainty range between 0.8% and 3%. The news follows three years of emissions staying relatively flat.
That’s the conclusion of the 2017 Global Carbon Budget, published 13 November by the Global Carbon Project (GCP) in the journals Nature Climate Change, Environmental Research Letters and Earth System Science Data Discussions.
The announcement comes as nations meet in Bonn, Germany, for the annual United Nations climate negotiations (COP23).
Lead researcher Prof Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, said: “Global carbon dioxide emissions appear to be going up strongly once again after a three-year stable period. This is very disappointing.”
“With global carbon dioxide emissions from all human activities estimated at 41 billion tonnes for 2017, time is running out on our ability to keep warming well below 2 ºC let alone 1.5 ºC.”
“This year we have seen how climate change can amplify the impacts of hurricanes with stronger downpours of rain, higher sea levels and warmer ocean conditions favouring more powerful storms. This is a window into the future. We need to reach a peak in global emissions in the next few years and drive emissions down rapidly afterwards to address climate change and limit its impacts.”
China’s emissions account for 28% of global emissions. Budget co-author Glen Peters, research director at CICERO in Oslo, who led one of the studies, said: “The return to growth in global emissions in 2017 is largely due to a return to growth in Chinese emissions, projected to grow by 3.5% in 2017 after two years with declining emissions. The use of coal, the main fuel source in China, may rise by 3% due to stronger growth in industrial production and lower hydro-power generation due to less rainfall.”
CREDIT Future Earth/Global Carbon Project
“Several factors point to a continued rise in 2018,” said Robert Jackson, a co-author of the report, co-chair of GCP and a professor in Earth system science at Stanford University. “That’s a real concern.”
“The global economy is picking up slowly. As GDP rises, we produce more goods, which, by design, produces more emissions.”
Yet the team said that despite the growth in 2017, it is too early to say whether this is a one-off event on the way to a global peak in emissions, or the beginning of a new period with upward pressure on global emissions growth.
In the long term, emissions are unlikely to return to the persistent high growth rates seen during the 2000s of over 3% per year. It is more likely that emissions will plateau or have slight positive growth, broadly in line with national emission pledges submitted to the Paris Agreement.
The 2017 carbon budget at a glance
- Global carbon dioxide emissions from all human activities (fossil fuels, industry and land-use change) will reach around 41 billion tonnes carbon dioxide in 2017.
- Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry will reach around 37 billion tonnes carbon dioxide in 2017.
- In 2017, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry are projected to grow by 2% (0.8% to 3%). This follows three years of nearly no growth (2014-2016) (GDP to rise 3.6% according to figures from the International Monetary Fund).
- Chinese emissions are projected to rise 3.5% (+0.7 to +5.4%) in 2017 (GDP up about 6.8%).
- U.S. emissions are projected to decline 0.4% (-2.7% to +1.9%) in 2017, lower than the decline of 1.2% per year averaged over the previous decade, with an unexpected rise in coal consumption (GDP up about 2.2% in 2017).
- Indian emissions are projected to grow 2% (+0.2% to +3.8%) in 2017, compared to 6% per year averaged over the previous decade, due to significant government interventions in the economy (GDP up 6.7%).
- European emissions are tentatively expected to decline by 0.2% (-2% to +1.6%) in 2017, lower than the decline of 2.2% per year averaged over the previous decade (GDP up about 2.3%).
- The remaining countries’ emissions, representing about 40% of the global total, are expected to increase around 2.3% (+0.5% to +4%) in 2017.
Renewable energy has increased rapidly at 14% per year over the last five years – albeit from a low base.
The Global Carbon Budget is produced by 76 scientists from 57 research institutions in 15 countries working under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project (GCP). The budget, now in its 12th year, provides an in-depth look at the amount of fossil fuels that nations around the world burn and where it ends up.
GCP is sponsored by Future Earth and the World Climate Research Programme.
Future Earth’s executive director Amy Luers said, “This year’s carbon budget news is a step back for humankind.”
“We must reverse this trend and start to accelerate toward a safe and prosperous world for all. This means prioritising providing access to clean reliable energy to the hundreds of millions of people across the world without access to what many of us take for granted every day – electricity. Fortunately, now it is not only possible, but in most cases makes simple financial sense, to meet these electricity needs with renewable energy sources.”
Emissions decreasing in 22 countries
There was also some good news in the report: In the last decade (2007-2016), emissions in 22 countries (representing 20% of global emissions) decreased even as their economies grew. Technologies like wind and solar power have expanded across the globe by about 14% annually in recent years, according to the report.
Jackson said that he’s “cautiously optimistic” that the transition from fossil fuel burning to renewable energy will continue in the United States – even as the Trump administration rolls back policies aimed at tackling the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
“The federal government can slow the development of renewables and low-carbon technologies, but it can’t stop it,” Jackson said. “That transition is being driven by the low cost of new renewable infrastructure, and it’s being driven by new consumer preferences.”
However, in 101 countries (representing 50% of global emissions) emissions increased in the presence of growing GDP.
Persistent uncertainties
Persistent uncertainties exist in scientists’ ability to estimate recent changes in emissions, particularly when there are unexpected changes as in the last few years.
“When there are unexpected changes in carbon dioxide emissions or atmospheric concentrations, there are questions raised about our ability to independently verify reported emissions,” Peters said.
Even though researchers may start to detect a change in emission trends early, it may take as much as 10 years to confidently and independently verify a sustained change in emissions using measurements of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.
“The Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement will occur every five years, and this puts immense pressure on the scientific community to develop methods and perform measurements that can truly verify changes in emissions within this five-yearly cycle,” Le Quéré said.
###
NOTES
This media release is part of the Global Carbon Budget 2017, the annual update by the Global Carbon Project. It is based on the analyses published here:
Le Quéré et al. (2017) Global Carbon Budget 2017. Earth System Science Data Discussions. https://doi.org/10.5194/essdd-2017-123
Peters et al. (2017) Towards real time verification of CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0013-9
Jackson et al. (2017) Warning signs for stabilizing global CO2 emissions, Environmental Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9662
DATA & MULTIMEDIA
A full media package, including full papers, infographics and a video is available here: https://stockholmuniversity.box.com/s/th0jrm1koopkvt4zpzh2wawvv06s0nek
Data and figures: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget
Data interface for exploring data: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org
So much for the Paris accord….Trump was right to pull the USA out of it, no effect -at great cost.
Again it’s odd the connection between CO2 levels and emissions is clearly not that strong — an emissions trend that fluctuates wildly from accelerating to flat cannot dominate a smoothly accelerating concentrations trend, there’s no just way that math works without some fantastic coincidences. Despite some claims to the contrary the math is pretty simple — the difference in concentrations between 2017 and 2016 was larger than that between 2012 and 2011 even though emissions were the about the same in 2011 and 2016, and there’s nowhere in this system for lags to hide.
Either these emissions numbers are way off (very possible) or human emissions aren’t dominating the trend in the concentrations.
Yep, they’re not. I’ve been beating this drum ’til my arms are ready to fall off. I’ve never seen something more obvious, but people still just can’t get it through their heads how puny our emissions are in the grand scheme of things.
Bart, hopefully you’re aching arms (and tattered drum) will get some justice that they are rightly due very soon. With la nina/solar min/downward amo at hand we may see the long awaited extended cooling that should lay this baby to rest. It should be obvious to all already, but soon there will be no d’nying…
(speaking of d’nying, i’m surprised that you know who isn’t here ‘cotton bombing’ this latest carbon thread already)…
If we take this report at face value, we find that China’s CO2 emissions are larger than the USA and Europe combined, and China’s emissions are increasing by 3.5% in 2017, while the USA emissions decrease by -0.4% and Europe’s emissions by -0.2%.
So why aren’t all the do-gooders at the UN putting pressure on China to reduce their emissions, instead of bashing President Trump for pulling out of an “accord” that costs the USA billions of dollars in transfers to other countries, and imposes no restrictions on China?
Probably because China has about 20% of the world’s population and nuclear weapons, and will do as they please, regardless of what the UN or anyone else says.
And there was much rejoicing among the gardeners on the WUWT site 🙂
More CO2 emissions.. “YIPPEEEEEE” says the world’s plant life. 🙂
In the Iain Dale radio slot on LBC London this evening, he chose (or was offered) a spokesman (sexist?) from E3G – https://www.e3g.org/. Mr Dale noted that the increase was largely due to China. No probs said the “expert”. China is actively reducing its reliance on coal so the problem won’t persist. Perhaps due to lack of time, he wasn’t asked about the hundreds of SE Asian power stations under construction, nor about the buoyancy of the Australian coal market. LBC has a range of presenters, from James O’Brien to Nigel Farage (that’s really a big range), so there’s not a natural alarmist bias.
And I thought it was Trump making America great again that would cause it. GDP up, CO2 up.
Dr. Plimer has demonstrated that the CO2 in the atmosphere is largely caused by outgassing of CO2 from the oceans.
did he?
the fact is, human emission are well known (you just have to add up fossil fuel consumption), at ~10ppm/year, while the increase is only ~5 (so some sinks eat up ~5).
So if ocean outgas, on top of that, this rules out ocean as a sink (too bad, he was our major candidate), and you have to find some other sink that account for 5+ anything ocean outgassed.
And the winner is… ?
All flora and fauna = Bio-Mass sequestration.
of course flora (more than fauna) is candidate, but you have to put some real number, and explain why this sink took so long to begin eating extra CO2 which is around for decades. Not so easy.
And, btw, explain why scientists are saying that ocean pH is decreasing. Not that I trust them so much, but “they are wrong” isn’t enough, either.
Flora is just the first stage of carbon sinks. Fauna eat flora and fauna as secondary sinks. The Earth is becoming greener as a first stage sink and advances in farming adds to that. Population increase of humans and all livestock and longevity increase outweigh the mmortality rates, hunting and fishing is regulated more and increased wildlife populations.
The Polar Ice has been increasing and cold water sequesters more CO2 where Hot water releases it.
They are getting jump noe
Le quere points the finger
really funny
The man-made emissions have leveled off over three years, but the measured atmospheric concentration just keeps on rising as before. If man-made emissions were a real problem there would have been an immediate leveling off of the atmospheric concentration. You would think that they would notice a conflict of logic here and examine their theory….but No. The need for money is too great.
nonsense.
the man-made emissions didn’t stop, so they keep contributing the same as before to the level rise.
In case that it may help here with this particular blog post and comments .
Let start from the point that I have tried to show and put for some time forward, when it comes to the human CO2 emissions and the actual observed concentration trend.
First there is some thing about human emissions and the actual human CO2 signature in the CO2 atmospheric concentration.
This allows to a degree that it it could be considered and used as a tracer in the attempt of estimating and calculating the way the natural CO2 flux and the supposed impact of our CO2 emission in that flux and the CO2 concentration.
As the numbers stand, especially the ones that no body can influence much, the impact of our emissions into the CO2 concentrations is non existent, making the claim of AGWers a proper mathematical impossibility, so clear and so bad that further up increase of human CO2 makes it even more obvious.
It is actually the second “travesty”, the mission power of the CO2 human emissions into the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Let me put the point made in another easier and simple way to understand.
“If the impact of human CO2 emissions in the CO2 concentration trend is zero, higher the human CO2 emissions, quicker and more obvious and easier this will become to realized.”
Even a 12 year old can understand this argument, regardless of it being unacceptable or wrong
They simply trying to extend time with their hocus-pocus in this one by trying to reduce the human CO2 emissions or the acceleration of such emissions over time.
The second “travesty” at this point……..
If some thing truly missing they can not be able to amplify it, same as with the first “travesty”, the missing heat, or warming, or better put, the missing hot spot.
These guys always too obsessed with their amplifications and truly stubborn with their hocus-pocus.
Whatever way you chose to take this…..think this first….the AGWers them self are reducing the amount of this “dirty” thing that supposes to subject all of us at this point in time to the greatest guilt of humanity since ever before and also since ever after…….without any actual “external” forcing involved…… strange isn’t it!
But in the end, time will tell anyhow…..
cheers
“It is actually the second “travesty”, the mission power of the CO2 human emissions into the atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
In case this creates some confusion, let me correct it to as it was meant :
“It is actually the second “travesty”, the missing power of the CO2 human emissions into the atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
thanks.
“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.” – Niels Bohr
I’m relieved carbon dioxide is going up again. This is the only way we are going to falsify this stuff. Let CO2 continue upwards and see what happens with temperatures – we’ve seen that even the team has worries and keeps bending them upwards. We are on a possible cusp of a big cooling and it it is like the 30 year drop that had the worriers predicting a new ice age caused by humans, of course. This will end the discussion by most but the “sick” group who will fall back into unkempt, bearded doomsters carrying sandwich boards with “The End is Nigh” among the happy population. More Climate Blues sufferers are in such a future.
We do not need to worry about climate. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. The AGW conjecture is dependent upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system including the Earth. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction.
We do need to worry about climate. More heating would be fine, but LIA-like cooling, or even some new serious ice age, could onset any time for the very same those happened (reasons we currently know pretty nothing, unfortunately), wrecking food supplies, skyrocketing energy demand, pushing people out from area turning again to ice, etc. so we need to prepare for some disaster. We obviously could use the resources currently used in vain global warming fight.
you’re welcome to do my worrying for me, too, cuz i actually have better things to do. 🙂
Paqyfelyc in many ways uou are correct. We are observing a cooling happening from the solar minimum as the polar ice increases. Over year’s that can become a a problem that will catch people off guard. Especially when they are looking at reducing CO2 and Global Warming. Several large or a single massive volcanic event could cause rapid cooling… In that rapid that is still measured in many years. Societies don’t change as fast to handle such a problem. And as you imply the food supply could be effected rather fast. Sending panic through those unprepared. But that is Alarmism in itself. It has as much chance of occurring as a giant meteor with mass extinction event. At least Global Warming has advantages like are being seen with Global Greening and Global Fauna increases. I for one like that better than the future cooling that is happening.