From the inconvenient data department and the IEA comes this press release.
Despite widespread expectations of another increase, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions stopped growing in 2019, according to IEA data released today.
After two years of growth, global emissions were unchanged at 33 gigatonnes in 2019 even as the world economy expanded by 2.9%. This was primarily due to declining emissions from electricity generation in advanced economies, thanks to the expanding role of renewable sources (mainly wind and solar), fuel switching from coal to natural gas, and higher nuclear power generation. Other factors included milder weather in several countries, and slower economic growth in some emerging markets.
“We now need to work hard to make sure that 2019 is remembered as a definitive peak in global emissions, not just another pause in growth,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director. “We have the energy technologies to do this, and we have to make use of them all. The IEA is building a grand coalition focused on reducing emissions – encompassing governments, companies, investors and everyone with a genuine commitment to tackling our climate challenge.”
A significant decrease in emissions in advanced economies in 2019 offset continued growth elsewhere. The United States recorded the largest emissions decline on a country basis, with a fall of 140 million tonnes, or 2.9%. US emissions are now down by almost 1 gigatonne from their peak in 2000. Emissions in the European Union fell by 160 million tonnes, or 5%, in 2019 driven by reductions in the power sector. Natural gas produced more electricity than coal for the first time ever, meanwhile wind-powered electricity nearly caught up with coal-fired electricity. Japan’s emissions fell by 45 million tonnes, or around 4%, the fastest pace of decline since 2009, as output from recently restarted nuclear reactors increased. Emissions in the rest of the world grew by close to 400 million tonnes in 2019, with almost 80% of the increase coming from countries in Asia where coal-fired power generation continued to rise.
Across advanced economies, emissions from the power sector declined to levels last seen in the late 1980s, when electricity demand was one-third lower than today. Coal-fired power generation in advanced economies declined by nearly 15% as a result of growth in renewables, coal-to-gas switching, a rise in nuclear power and weaker electricity demand.
“This welcome halt in emissions growth is grounds for optimism that we can tackle the climate challenge this decade,” said Dr Birol. “It is evidence that clean energy transitions are underway – and it’s also a signal that we have the opportunity to meaningfully move the needle on emissions through more ambitious policies and investments.”
To support these objectives, the IEA will publish a World Energy Outlook Special Report in June that will map out how to cut global energy-related carbon emissions by one-third by 2030 and put the world on track for longer-term climate goals.
The Agency will also hold an IEA Clean Energy Transitions Summit in Paris on 9 July, bringing together key government ministers, CEOs, investors and other major stakeholders from around the world with the aim of accelerating the pace of change through ambitious and real-world solutions.
Dr Birol will discuss these results and initiatives tomorrow at a special IEA Speaker Series event at IEA Headquarters in Paris with energy and climate ministers from Poland, which hosted COP24 in Katowice; Spain, which hosted COP25 in Madrid; and the United Kingdom, which will host COP26 in Glasgow this year. More details on the IEA event, including how to watch a live webcast, are available here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jean Meeus, February 13, 2020 at 7:28 pm, asked, “So, what importance to reduce those 3-4 % to zero?”
The paper cited in Phil’s previous post February 13, 2020 at 6:01 pm raises the question, “If the Mona Loa ppm does not track with anthropogenic emissions, is the increase in CO2 an effect of global warming and not the cause?”
According to climate skeptic Jo Nova, the answer would seem to be the former: The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed.
However, residing close to the equator, the advent of the Himalayan glacier increased earth’s albedo, resulting in permanent ice sheet formation in the Southwest Pacific Ocean (waters near Antarctica). The reduction of both temperature and CO2 occurred to the point where surviving vegetation limited further decline in CO2 concentration. The role of terrestrial plants in limiting atmospheric CO2 decline over the past 24 million years, Nature 460, 85-88 (2 July 2009) doi:10.1038/nature08133 Letter, concludes that grasslands are the result of the CO2 suffocation of trees. Plate tectonics were responsible for the uplift of the Himalayas. CO2 levels dropped to 200-250 ppm from 1000-1500 ppm as forests starved for CO2, gave way to prairies. See http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature08133
(Article cites weathering during the uplift of the Himalyas as the cause of CO2 depletion, though, a reduction in ocean temperature would have resulted in the absorption of CO2 at the ocean surface as the partial pressure of CO2 fell. More CO2 can be dissolved into ever colder liquid water.)
The paper Early Palaeogene temperature evolution of the southwest Pacific Ocean about 34 Myr ago concludes,
“…This observation raises questions concerning the precise role of decreasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations in cooling the Eocene poles, as in theory they should have cooled tropical regions as well…It has been suggested that the general warmth that characterized early Palaeogene climates was forced by high atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations….However, the presence of substantial Middle Eocene continental ice (Antarctica) is still equivocal given the general warmth and overall absence of conclusive physical evidence.” See http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature08399
We are actually at the end point of a Cenozoic Era cooling trend. See https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html, especially http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Our peak CO2 level has been about 300ppm, at the end of the Eocene, for example, so ~100ppm is added.
The increase is probably due a combination of land-use changes, such as fewer forests and peat bogs, as well as anthropogenic sources. While photosynthesis is not considered efficient, it’s a simple matter of measurement. Question should be, “How effective are forests at absorbing sunlight without producing blackbody radiation?” and not “How much energy in useble carbohydrates do trees produce?”
Another question is, “How much sunlight is reflected back to space due to forest mists?” and so on.
CO2 is well mixed with air all the way up to the stratosphere, so that the Orbiting Carbon Observatory measures columns of ordinary air, not CO2. See Carbon dioxide variations in the stratosphere over Japan, Scandinavia and Antarctica, esp. Fig 2.
We’ve already enough CO2 such that the sun is blocked completely with respect to the CO2 absorption bands except in a just a few arid regions such as the Atacama. No signature of greenhouse gas detectable. See What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?
Decline in thermospheric temperature due to the recent depth of the solar minimums, not greenhouse gasses, as previously supposed. See Causes of low thermospheric density during the 2007–2009 solar minimum.
Oh, I see that 126ka would place the 300ppm at the end of the Ionian Stage, not the Eocene:
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/vostok-ice-cores-150000%20med.jpg
Anyway, its the stage that ended with the previous interglacial period.
As far as I know these emissions are from electricity production. Electricity is only 10% of my total energy consumption. 10% is Electricity, 40% is for heating my home and 50% is for my car.
About 5 % is from you.
Thank you, Nicholas! I will go explore the data swamp! Ain’t science fascinating?
I think Loydo just admitted the the sun drives climate!! That’s making progress out of Progressives!
Child: Father, is that like making lemonade out of lemons?
Father: Yes, child, but Progressives are drier and often lack any humor or irony. A bitter brew at best!
” meanwhile wind-powered electricity nearly caught up with coal-fired electricity.” Can anyone elaborate on this strange statement? All the data I’ve seen indicates that world wide wind energy is still a small fraction of coal powered electricity.
I think it must mean for the EU only.
That may be plausible.
Some of the northern countries have a lot of hydro they sell to neighbors.
Several countries use substantial amount of nuclear.
And they could be using name plate rating rather than power generated.
For the world as a whole wind and solar together are a tiny fraction of the total.
Hydro outweighs them both combined.
And the wind and solar have been incredibly expensive and gallingly destructive to ecology, wildlife, and quality of life of anyone unfortunate enough to live under the turbines.
Impossible. My computer model says this is impossible, therefor it isn’t.
If all those new plants that have been greening the earth have been absorbing CO2 at an accelerating rate but the human contribution to CO2 stops accelerating, we could potentially see a leveling off or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level. Now, would Mauna Loa report a flat lining or decline in the CO2 level, or would they fake it and show a phony incremental increase instead? Could they get away with it, and for how long? If it did happen the Greens would be totally lost, their identities are so tied up in man made disaster they wouldn’t know what to do with themselves. It would be the end of their religion.
No, the airborne fraction of CO2 has only decreased from about 0.6 in 1960 to 0.52 in 2020. See the link previously supplied by DMA:
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/ )
There’s no way atmospheric CO2 level would level off or decline without an almost total elimination of anthropogenic emissions.
How much of the decline is due to LED lighting I wonder.
This was primarily due to declining emissions from electricity generation in advanced economies, thanks to the expanding role of renewable sources (mainly wind and solar), –> This was primarily due to declining emissions from electricity generation in advanced economies, thanks to advanced flue gas Purification,