University of East Anglia
The COVID-19 global lockdown has had an “extreme” effect on daily carbon emissions, but it is unlikely to last – according to a new analysis by an international team of scientists.
The study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows that daily emissions decreased by 17% – or 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide – globally during the peak of the confinement measures in early April compared to mean daily levels in 2019, dropping to levels last observed in 2006.
Emissions from surface transport, such as car journeys, account for almost half (43%) of the decrease in global emissions during peak confinement on April 7. Emissions from industry and from power together account for a further 43% of the decrease in daily global emissions.
Aviation is the economic sector most impacted by the lockdown, but it only accounts for 3% of global emissions, or 10% of the decrease in emissions during the pandemic.
The increase in the use of residential buildings from people working at home only marginally offset the drop in emissions from other sectors.
In individual countries, emissions decreased by 26% on average at the peak of their confinement.
The analysis also shows that social responses alone, without increases in wellbeing and/or supporting infrastructure, will not drive the deep and sustained reductions needed to reach net zero emissions.
Prof Corinne Le Quéré of the University of East Anglia, in the UK, led the analysis. She said: “Population confinement has led to drastic changes in energy use and CO2 emissions. These extreme decreases are likely to be temporary though, as they do not reflect structural changes in the economic, transport, or energy systems.
“The extent to which world leaders consider climate change when planning their economic responses post COVID-19 will influence the global CO2 emissions paths for decades to come.
“Opportunities exist to make real, durable, changes and be more resilient to future crises, by implementing economic stimulus packages that also help meet climate targets, especially for mobility, which accounts for half the decrease in emissions during confinement.
“For example in cities and suburbs, supporting walking and cycling, and the uptake of electric bikes, is far cheaper and better for wellbeing and air quality than building roads, and it preserves social distancing.”
The team analysed government policies on confinement for 69 countries responsible for 97% of global CO2 emissions. At the peak of the confinement, regions responsible for 89% of global CO2 emissions were under some level of restriction. Data on activities indicative of how much each economic sector was affected by the pandemic was then used to estimate the change in fossil CO2 emissions for each day and country from January to April 2020.
The estimated total change in emissions from the pandemic amounts to 1048 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (MtCO2) until the end of April. Of this, the changes are largest in China where the confinement started, with a decrease of 242 MtCO2, then in the US (207 MtCO2), Europe (123 MtCO2), and India (98 MtCO2). The total change in the UK for January-April 2020 is an estimated 18 MtCO2.
The impact of confinement on 2020 annual emissions is projected to be around 4% to 7% compared to 2019, depending on the duration of the lockdown and the extent of the recovery. If pre-pandemic conditions of mobility and economic activity return by mid-June, the decline would be around 4%. If some restrictions remain worldwide until the end of the year, it would be around 7%.
This annual drop is comparable to the amount of annual emission reductions needed year-on-year across decades to achieve the climate objectives of UN Paris Agreement.
Prof Rob Jackson of Stanford University and Chair of the Global Carbon Project who co-authored the analysis, added: “The drop in emissions is substantial but illustrates the challenge of reaching our Paris climate commitments. We need systemic change through green energy and electric cars, not temporary reductions from enforced behavior.”
The authors warn that the rush for economic stimulus packages must not make future emissions higher by delaying New Green Deals or weakening emissions standards.
###
‘Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement’, Corinne Le Quéré, Robert B. Jackson, Matthew W. Jones, Adam J. P. Smith, Sam Abernethy, Robbie M. Andrew, Anthony J. De-Gol, David R. Willis, Yuli Shan, Josep G. Canadell, Pierre Friedlingstein, Felix Creutzig, Glen P. Peters, is published in Nature Climate Change on May 19.
The research received support from the Royal Society, the European Commission projects 4C, VERIFY and CHE, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Australian National Environmental Science Program.
If you look at the year on year trends there is a downturn at this time of year every previous year too.
If 2% a year increase in man made CO2 is enough to visibly take the graph from 400 to 415 ppm in the 2014 – 2019 period, a 17% drop in spring 2020 will definitely show up.
What the heck is going on? Something is not right here. Is the natural CO2 process so big that man made CO2 is not detectable, and that almost all CO2 increase is due to natural processes?
According to the esteemed Scissors, John Finn and Loydo, only the small rise in anthropogenic CO2 is detectable. A large drop is undetectable as it is just noise. They must have missed the mathematical logic class when they were in school.
Thank you. They appear to be unable to see that point.
Play Nice
See my challenge to Scissor at the top of the comments.
Henry’s law, applied to the oceans (71% of the Earth’s surface) and the sea surface temperatures dictate the atmospheric / oceanic CO2 equilibrium.
Humans are a minor player.
Should we stop emitting CO2, the oceans would compensate in a snap, emitting more CO2 so as to tend towards atmospheric / oceanic CO2 equilibrium. The CO2 concentration deviation would be almost unnoticeable.
Same thing if we increase our CO2 emissions :
1) some would be absorbed by the vegetal biomass,
2) another by oceans so as to tend towards atmospheric / oceanic CO2 equilibrium.
Is that a problem ?
1) More vegetation, a greener planet is good for all the being on Earth.
2) There is 50 times more dissolved (ionic) CO2 in the oceans than in the atmosphere and the excess (if any) precipitates (for example, reacting with calcium and forming CaCO3) :
CO2 (gaz) + H2O ⇋ H2CO3 (soluble)
H2CO3 + H2O ⇋ HCO3– + H3O+
Ca2+ + 2 HCO3– → CaCO3 (insoluble) + H2CO3.
Other chemical reactions are at stake in the oceans that maintain the ionic CO2 concentration whatever the oceans absorb from our emissions (CaCO3 precipitation is not the only one).
Oceans’ volume is 1,3 billions km^3 … therefore, there is nothing we can do to change those equilibriums, and thus, we can’t neither influence the atmospheric CO2 concentration in a measurable way.
In conclusion, by emitting CO2, Humans contribute to a greener planet and to the carbon cycle as does any being on Earth since billions years.
So, is that a problem ? No, it isn’t. It’s rather a blessing :
– Mother Nature is definitively Human-proof !
And sea surface is driven by incoming visible light.
Yep, makes sense.
The Keeling Curve has been rising steeply and fairly evenly since 1958, supposedly because human emissions have upset the balance of natural CO2 fluxes. However human CO2 emissions in the late 1950s were only about a quarter of what they were last year.
Based on the numbers in this article, continuation of the year to date (end April) 1048 MtCO2 reduction to the end of the year would be a reduction of about 3 GtCO2, around 8% on last year’s emissions and about 30% on 1958 emissions. If such a reduction is too insignificant to show up on the Keeling Curve how many more years of such reductions, roughly what the UN IPCC wants every year to achieve Net Zero, would it take to see any difference?
Or could it be that the establishment theory is wrong and that the change in atmospheric CO2 is in lockstep with SST temperature in both the short-term and the longer-term, perhaps going back to the Little Ice Age recovery, see https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/plot/hadsst3gl/offset:0.45/scale:0.22/from:1958?
Also, almost zero ozone reductions. (recall, those of you with knowledge of science, that ozone results from an interaction of sunlight with nitrogen oxides in vehicle exhausts. Also, ozone causes lung damage, especially in children or the physically active).
No ozone reductions is due to the net increase in truck mileage.
Hmmm
I’m not a climate scientist but I can read stuff. Human emissions down 17%?
Mauna Loa Daily readings
May. 20, 2020 417.06 ppm
May. 20, 2019 414.73 ppm
1 Year Change 2.33 ppm (0.56%)