Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc

[JimD]

I didn't want to skew Bruce's Carbon Cycle thread and could not find a topic for which emissions was the main item so I started another one.

A new report is out on carbon emissions for 2012.  It is interesting to note the positive spin being put on by the BBC when they state

Global emissions of carbon dioxide may be showing the first signs of a "permanent slowdown" in the rate of increase.

When the report itself states that

Actual global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) reached a new record of 34.5 billion tonnes in 2012. Yet, the increase in global CO2 emissions in that year slowed down to 1.1% (or 1.4%, not accounting the extra day in the leap year), which was less than half the average annual increase of 2.9% over the last decade. This development signals a shift towards less fossil-fuel-intensive activities, more use of renewable energy and increased energy saving...

...Three countries/regions remain responsible for 55% of total global CO2 emissions. Of these three, China (29% share) increased its CO2 emissions by 3%, which is low compared with annual increases of about 10% over the last decade. Although China's CO2 emissions per capita are comparable to those in the EU and almost half of the US emissions per capita, its CO2 emissions per USD in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are almost double those in the EU and the United States and similar to those in the Russian Federation. In the United States (16% share) CO2 emissions decreased by 4%, mainly because of a further shift from coal to gas in the power sector. The European Union (11% share) saw its emissions decrease by 1.6%, mainly due to a decrease in energy consumption ( oil and gas) and a decrease in road freight transport.

One data point being justification for announcing a permanent slowdown in the rate of increase.  I guess.

A good sign and what prompted the positive spin was the fact that the increase was only 1.4% and was about 1/2 the rate of GDP increase.  This increase being a significantly lower rate then the GDP increase is being attributed primarily to the increase in hydro power in China (3 Gorges?) and increased use of natural gas in the US.  Unless China is building a lot of hydro power 2012 might be a one off anomaly and the increased use of natural gas in the US being sustainable is questionable.  It will be interesting to compare 2012 to 2013 this time next year.

I draw your attention to the following data however.

1990 Global Mt emissions CO2 equivalent was 38258 Mt
2010 Global Mt emissions CO2 equivalent was 50101 Mt

2012 is not calculated yet but will be approx. 52000 Mt

We could be doing better I think.


http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770

[domen_]

We could be doing better, but it's good news nonetheless. We'll see what happens in 2013.

[deep octopus]

I'm not very sanguine about United States' figures, since it appears much of the emissions decline is due to switching from coal to natural gas. Obviously, on face value, it's good that carbon dioxide emissions are dropping, but it looks like we're robbing Peter to pay Paul as we risk serious harm to aquifers and natural lands from frackmania. More "progress." That said, there is a continued, strong momentum for renewables that still looks quite robust.

[GeoffBeacon]

Jim

It's sad to have to criticise the BBC but I haven't been happy with their climate reporting for a long time. I even registered http://tweetstothebeeb.com which points to my BrusselsBlog, where I recorded the tweets.

I can't follow some of it myself now but you can gauge my annoyance.

You too?

P.S. If you do a video relevant to the Committee on Climate Change do look at my latest posts on my http://BrusselsBlog.co.uk  Can you make it clearer? My stuff there is a bit convoluted.

[ritter]

Another article confirming we're heading in the wrong direction with our emissions.

Greenhouse Gases Have Soared to Record Levels: WMO

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/greenhouse-gases-have-soared-to-record-levels-wmo-16705

[JimD]

Geoff

Thanks for asking but I am not qualified to straighten out layman like confusion on statistics.  In general even scientifically oriented folks struggle with understanding such themselves and almost no one seems to be really good at explaining it to others.  Tamino seems to be the expert most committed to trying.  Maybe you could ask one of the local math professors there in the UK to help you.

[Jim]

Hmm... a decline in CO² rate-of-increase? The current levels seem to have gone a bit wild 
Both The Keeling Curve and Trends in Carbon Dioxide show a quite sudden rise in CO² levels, as measured from Mauna Loa.
I've graphed the recent levels from The Keeling Curve site:-

[JimD]

Jim

The number quoted above was for yearly total CO2 emissions.  Your chart is showing ppm levels of CO2 and your spike in them is over a period of a couple of days.

Both are interesting conversations but they are not about the same kind of data.

[JimD]

This seemed to be the most relevant thread.

Australia drops its commitment to reducing carbon emissions.

(theguardian.com) – Tony Abbott has confirmed that his government has abandoned its longstanding policy to reduce Australia's emissions by between 5% and 25% of 2000 levels by 2020 – a crucial and internationally scrutinised goal that had retained bipartisan support since 2009, throughout Australia's tumultuous political debate over climate policy....

Being an American I am the pot calling the kettle black.  But we can expect a number of places to take this tactic politically as the claim that "Why should we do it if others are not?" will always resonate.  Since Australia is the continent that will be hit hardest by climate change it would seem that it would be in their best interest to act unilaterally and be an example to others.  Not to mention their extremely high per capita historical carbon emissions should carry some extra responsibilities.  But I am the pot and we here in the US should be making a different statement then we are currently making as well.

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2013/11/australia-prime-minister-abandons.html   

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2013/11/australia-prime-minister-abandons.html

[Shared Humanity]

Hmm... a decline in CO² rate-of-increase? The current levels seem to have gone a bit wild 
Both The Keeling Curve and Trends in Carbon Dioxide show a quite sudden rise in CO² levels, as measured from Mauna Loa.
I've graphed the recent levels from The Keeling Curve site:-

You are confusing emissions of carbon with levels of CO2. All systems have both flows and stocks. All growth systems with either growing or level flows will result in an exponential growth in stocks. (Think of the effect of compounding interest rates on wealth.)
So long as carbon emissions grow, we will have exponential growth rates in the levels of CO2.

[ggelsrinc]

Well, I'm an American and why do I sometimes feel like I'm on my 25th bomber mission over Nazi Germany? I know I'm going to catch flak ahead, but my course and mission has already been determined. Why do they retire people after 25 missions? It's because the odds of surviving 25 missions aren't that good. Who was monitoring carbon emissions during those ashes to ashes days?

America to me is the fine group of people from all over the world who came here to live. We had ties to other nations during WWII, but weren't involved until attacked. The war ended with the destruction of Europe and Japan that needed to be rebuilt and that destruction wasn't on our soil. In time, new operations were built in the modern standard, while America supplied the world when it couldn't supply itself.

The history of my country and other places like Canada and Australia involves people figuring out how to travel long distances and producing a product. Often that product was shipped to Europe, so it wasn't just Americans consuming it. Perhaps we should put that into the equation and figure out who the pig is! Americans are wasteful, but American industry involves more than feeding Americans.

I'm one of the few environmentalists who doesn't support a carbon tax or anything similar to it. I want cheap, non-carbon energy for my world and I believe it's possible. I don't want someone somewhere suffering because I can have a little bit more; I'm not that heartless. Their wellbeing is my wellbeing in my eyes. If a carbon tax or anything similar becomes law, I say give the money to the poor who can't afford to waste carbon and aren't the problem.

Lordy, lordy, I'm over forty, ha hmm.   

[JimD]

Another one bites the dust

Japan Ditches Pledge To Lower Emissions In Midst Of U.N. Climate Talks

With the 19th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change underway, Japan, the world’s fifth-largest greenhouse gas emitter and third-biggest economy, made unwelcome headlines by announcing that its slashing its 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reductions target from 25 percent to just 3.8 percent based on 2005 figures. ....

...Japan’s new target, announced by Minister of the Environment Nobuteru Ishihara in Tokyo, represents a 3.1 percent increase from 1990 if that year is used as a baseline. In contrast, the country’s previous commitment, set in 2009, sought to reduce emissions 25 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels...

Well that didn't take long.  Playing catch-up with Australia.  Who's next?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/15/2948341/japan-ditches-emissions-target/

[wili]

"Who's next?"

Looks like Canada is:

Canada reveals climate stance

Canada has dropped any remaining pretences of supporting global action on climate change by urging other countries to follow Australia's example in gutting its climate plan.

In a formal statement, the Canadian government said it "applauds" the move by Australia this week to repeal a carbon tax on the country's 300 biggest polluters.

"Canada applauds the decision by prime minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia's carbon tax. The Australian prime minister's decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message," the formal statement from Paul Calandra, parliamentary secretary to Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, said.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/13/canada-climate-australia-carbon-tax

[ggelsrinc]

The intelligent people who wanted a carbon tax wanted the money given to the people not wasting energy, which are the poor. My strategy is to make energy so cheap we get the monkey off our backs. We can convert to that method in about ten years and start retiring those dinosaur industries, including our nukes to a new generation of processes generating energy that doesn't pollute our atmosphere with CO2 or anything. We just have to be determined to do it.

We can start now or wait until the next shoe falls.

What about the good folks over in Denmark and Norway? How do you want to make your stand?

[wili]

"make energy so cheap we get the monkey off our backs"

Don't you mean "so cheap, we don't have to meter it"

Oops, that ones already been used before.

Never mind. 

Really, if you still think the great goal is to increase human access to energy (so we can do even more of all the wonderful things we've been doing to the living planet with all the vast amounts of energy we've been granted so far), perhaps you haven't been paying quite enough attention.

[ggelsrinc]

"make energy so cheap we get the monkey off our backs"

Don't you mean "so cheap, we don't have to meter it"

Oops, that ones already been used before.

Never mind. 

Really, if you still think the great goal is to increase human access to energy (so we can do even more of all the wonderful things we've been doing to the living planet with all the vast amounts of energy we've been granted so far), perhaps you haven't been paying quite enough attention.

Go play with the kids, wili! Are you claiming the only way to make energy is to make CO2?

[wili]

I play with my kid every day!

You missed my point entirely.

No matter what its source, CO2-producing or not, providing humans (aka the kudzu monkey) with vast new sources of energy is not likely to end well either for the rest of the living planet or, ultimately, for the humans themselves.

As Einstein pointed out long ago, and it has become only more so, human technical capabilities have far outstripped human collective wisdom to know how to (and when not to) use the same.

Recall that we were well along the path of trashing ecosystems even before AGW really go going.

[JimD]

Wili rightly points to the fact that cheap energy has always facilitated many of the worst traits of human behavior, chief among them triggering rapid growth in the population.  Even at todays high energy prices and in the face of climate change our growth rate is sufficient to add 2 billion more people by 2050.

Human actions, even in the absence of climate change considerations, are still putting us way beyond the carrying capacity of the earth, we are slowly killing off the oceans, eliminating a wide range of critical resources, losing top soils at a high rate, poisoning the air and land with thousands of hazardous chemicals, exterminating species, etc, etc. 

Wili is talking about the fact that cheap energy will not save us and is more likely to make things worse (think of its impact on consumption).  Only a change in basic human behaviors will save us. And there is not much prospect of that.

[JimD]

Here is another interesting article on potential emissions.

Brazil intends to increase the acreage of palm oil plantations by a very large amount. Perhaps as much as 50 million acres (yes 50 million).  These plantations will have an impact on carbon emissions.

...We found that converting 22.5 million hectares of land can produce approximately 29 billion gallons (110 billion liters) of biodiesel a year....

...This direct land use emission alone can be higher than the carbon intensity of diesel that it intends to displace for lowering greenhouse gas emissions...

Note that the direct land use can result in emissions greater than standard crude oil production.  To get the total emissions one would have to add in the indirect uses resulting from the creation  of the palm oil plantations.

Depending on the mix of land used, forest, range, soiled land, wetland, etc, a wide range of carbon emissions are possible.  Strict enforcement of land use will be essential to keep carbon emissions low.  A kind of enforcement that has always proved unworkable in Brazil.  Adding to the damage from such types of farming is the fact that when this land is converted to oil production it, of necessity, forces the poor farmers further into the forests to find places to grow food crops.  Plus there is the vast road and processing infrastructure required for processing the oil as processing plans must be nearby as the palm harvest must be processed quickly after harvest.  Unfortunately the best land in terms of profits to convert to palm oil plantations is forest. 

The article is pretty interesting and worth a look.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/044031/article   

[Shared Humanity]

"make energy so cheap we get the monkey off our backs"

Don't you mean "so cheap, we don't have to meter it"

Oops, that ones already been used before.

Never mind. 

Really, if you still think the great goal is to increase human access to energy (so we can do even more of all the wonderful things we've been doing to the living planet with all the vast amounts of energy we've been granted so far), perhaps you haven't been paying quite enough attention.

Go play with the kids, wili! Are you claiming the only way to make energy is to make CO2?

wili did not say this. wili is suggesting that cheap energy and more growth will not solve our problems. AGW and most of the frightening problems facing civilization are caused by incessant growth; pollution of all sorts, top soil erosion, famine, war and disease to name a few. We simply cannot grow ourselves out of a  problem that is caused by growth.

[wili]

Thanks, Jim and Susan. Glad to hear it was not just my failure to communicate clearly that was the problem here (although it wouldn't have been the first time).

Jim, any idea how much of those palm plantations are to make palm oil for alternative fuels? That would be a great irony indeed, and has been part of the history of this travesty world wide. With the phasing out of hydrogenated oil, though, palm oil seems to be the main replacement, so these could be all to serve that new market.

Lots of mangrove forests have also been removed from around islands of southeast Asia to make way for  palm tree plantations. This has added greatly to deaths from surges both from the Ache tsunami and from Haiyan recently. Also, about ten years ago, peat fires raged all year in Indonesia (iirc) where land had been cleared for palmtree plantations. Lovelock claimed that this one source accounted for 40% of all greenhouse gasses emitted that year. I think that plantation was supposed to be for European biofuel projects, but I could be mistaken there.

[ggelsrinc]

I don't buy the anti-human philosophy. Some people think people are the problem and I think people are the solution. I haven't noticed anyone thinking people are the problem disappearing from Earth, or is it just all those other people who are the problem? It sounds rather selfish to me.

[wili]

In other words, you are saying you have faith that humans (and specifically human global industrial eternal-growth-based society) will act as it has not acted before and use nearly all of any future energy source to: restore ecosystems; re-establish balance in the carbon, nitrogen and other wildly disrupted cycles; and in general do everything it can to minimize its impact on the planet and on the future.

That is a wonderful faith to have.

But it doesn't have much to do with evidence or science.

Also, to say that my (and Jim's and Susan's and many other's) position is anti-human is like saying that someone expressing concern that a live chainsaw not be put in the hands of a hyperactive six year old is anti-child.

[ggelsrinc]

In other words, you are saying you have faith that humans (and specifically human global industrial eternal-growth-based society) will act as it has not acted before and use nearly all of any future energy source to: restore ecosystems; re-establish balance in the carbon, nitrogen and other wildly disrupted cycles; and in general do everything it can to minimize its impact on the planet and on the future.

That is a wonderful faith to have.

But it doesn't have much to do with evidence or science.

I only have faith in God and humanity. It's up to humanity to make their choices and I'll bet they'll eventually figure out the smart way.

I detest any concept someone else living on Earth doesn't deserve as much as I do, or they are my problem. The problem starts here.   

Also, to say that my (and Jim's and Susan's and many other's) position is anti-human is like saying that someone expressing concern that a live chainsaw not be put in the hands of a hyperactive six year old is anti-child.

[wili]

"I only have faith in God and humanity. It's up to humanity to make their choices and I'll bet they'll eventually figure out the smart way.

I detest any concept someone else living on Earth doesn't deserve as much as I do, or they are my problem. The problem starts here. "

Presumably those are intended to be your contributions. Well, heavens bless you child.

(Meanwhile, spend some time learning to use the quote function properly, would you?)

[JimD]

Jim, any idea how much of those palm plantations are to make palm oil for alternative fuels? That would be a great irony indeed, and has been part of the history of this travesty world wide. With the phasing out of hydrogenated oil, though, palm oil seems to be the main replacement, so these could be all to serve that new market.

It is mostly for bio-fuels.  Brazil has a mandate for the production of bio-fuel just like we do.  Theirs is to replace diesel.  All the big players are lining up.

[ggelsrinc]

"I only have faith in God and humanity. It's up to humanity to make their choices and I'll bet they'll eventually figure out the smart way.

I detest any concept someone else living on Earth doesn't deserve as much as I do, or they are my problem. The problem starts here. "

Presumably those are intended to be your contributions. Well, heavens bless you child.

(Meanwhile, spend some time learning to use the quote function properly, would you?)

heavens, would?

(I must have been too busy concentrating on my singular/plural, past/present/future tense.)

[wili]

?? I'm using those words in their common English meanings and forms.

would...
4. expressing a polite request.
"would you pour the wine, please?"

https://www.google.com/search?q=would&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

heaven
1. The sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament. Often used in the plural.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heavens

Or did you mean something else? In any case, totally off topic.

[Shared Humanity]

I did not believe we had a chance to hold warming to 2C by 2100 but we are not even trying.

<I>Wednesday's study, by Climate Analytics, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Ecofys, said Japan's decision last week to ease its 2020 greenhouse gas emissions goals made it harder to reach the global 2C goal.

Japan said its original emissions goal of a 25 percent cut below 1990 levels was out of reach after its nuclear power industry was shuttered by the 2011 Fukushima disaster. The new goal is for a maximum 3 percent rise.</I>

We need the equivalent of a global "Marshall Plan" to survive. The market simply cannot react quickly enough to build the power generation needed to wean ourselves off of FF. I see no evidence of the political courage to  initiate such a plan. All we really need to do now is write the apologies to our grandchildren.

[ggelsrinc]

?? I'm using those words in their common English meanings and forms.

would...
4. expressing a polite request.
"would you pour the wine, please?"

https://www.google.com/search?q=would&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

heaven
1. The sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament. Often used in the plural.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heavens

Or did you mean something else? In any case, totally off topic.

Do you mean off topic like your post?

[Laurent]

Everything you want to know about carbon (nearly?)
http://carbonatlas.org/

[TeaPotty]

ggelsrinc,

Can u please stop inserting that big ego of yours into every post? 


Thanx <3

[wili]

+10

Meanwhile:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-u.n.-official-issue-blunt-warnings-to-coal-industry-16755

Scientists, U.N. Official Warn of ‘Unabated’ Coal Use

As U.N. climate talks continue in Warsaw, Poland, scientists and a top U.N. climate official issued a stark warning to the coal industry on Monday: close existing, inefficient plants and implement technology to capture and store emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases at all new power plants, or risk accelerating global warming to potentially catastrophic levels.

...The statement said that the largest portion of the remaining carbon budget should be allocated to economic sectors that have “no readily available alternatives,” such as liquid fossil fuels used to power aircraft, ships, and trucks, rather than electricity generation, for which lower carbon sources are already on the market.

Another warning not likely to be heard. The problem is that corporations, while legally human, can't think collectively about the long term future very well. They can only think about the next quarter's profits. So it will likely only be legislation or cheaper market values for alternatives (or some combination of the two) that will move them toward doing the 'right thing' here.

[wili]

http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/11/carbon-emissions-on-tragic-trajectory/

[size=150]Carbon Emissions on Tragic Trajectory[/size]

Global emissions continue to be within the highest scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), she said.

“This is a five-degree C trajectory. It’s absolutely tragic for humanity to be on this pathway,” Le Quéré said.

This year’s 36 billion tonnes of CO2 will raise the planet’s temperature about 0.04 degrees C for thousands of years. Every tonne emitted adds more warming, she said. (If one tonne of CO2 was a second, 36 billion seconds equals about 1,200 years.)

[wili]

Sudden Shutoff of Carbon Emissions Would Not Stop Global Warming, Study Says

...even if global carbon dioxide emissions came to a sudden halt, the residual CO2 in the atmosphere would continue to contribute to global warming for centuries.

 … Frolicher’s study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, suggests that the 2 °C rise may be achieved with a lot less CO2 in the atmosphere.”If our results are correct, the total carbon emissions required to stay below 2 degrees of warming would have to be three-quarters of previous estimates, only 750 billion tons instead of 1,000 billion tons of carbon,” Frolicher said.

    The reason for this disparity in figures is that previous models did not take into account the gradual reduction in the ocean’s ability to absorb heat from the atmosphere, particularly at the poles.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5063/20131125/sudden-shutoff-carbon-emissions-stop-global-warming-study.htm

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories

(Thanks to hank at RC for these links.)

[silkman]

In the UK, David Cameron entered Downing St with a commitment to lead the "greenest Government ever" but now he's quoted as "wanting to get rid of the green crap".

Decisions in government are taken on a political timescale. in the UK every government in recent times has tinkered with education and healthcare because they think they can make a difference in five years. The more difficult, longer term issues always get pushed onto the back burner.

So how do we give a problem that most folk expect to impact them decades down the road more immediacy?

We need communication tools that graphically illustrate to need for action now and communicate the ever increasing impact of delay.

In that context I real like this simple website created by the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford. It's not very sophisticated and based on a simple but transparent spreadsheet and is counting down to the release of the trillionth tonne of anthropomorphic carbon.

http://trillionthtonne.org

I personally find it mesmeric, in particular the way in which the Trillion Tonne cliff edge marches towards us day by day. Project this or something like it on a screen at all Climate Change negotiations and at least the delegates would be aware of the fact the every day lost makes things that little bit worse.

And if, like me, you like meters, have a look at this site which I find is a great stimulant of debate on many topics.

http://www.worldometers.info

[ccgwebmaster]

So how do we give a problem that most folk expect to impact them decades down the road more immediacy?

We need communication tools that graphically illustrate to need for action now and communicate the ever increasing impact of delay.

Maybe not very likely - but I think rounding them up and forcefully exporting them to the Philippines or similar would be a good start.

[crandles]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31872460

Global CO2 emissions 'stalled' in 2014

[JimD]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31872460

Global CO2 emissions 'stalled' in 2014

As I pointed out in the other place you posted this your conclusion about this and what the headlines said are different.


The EIA is ONLY talking about part of the emissions and not the total.  They are referring to emissions from the energy sector only as the report says this..

...global emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy sector stalled in 2014...

So it appears that the EIA press release is only talking about part of the emissions and not all of the other emissions related to industry, agriculture, nature (induced by climate change), and other human activity.

Total emissions are reported to be above 40 Gtonnes with a yearly rise of over 2%.

[jai mitchell]

China has been overproducing now for about 1 decade in a desperate economic expansion bid.  They have produced apartment and hotel complexes that stand completely empty throughout their country.  Steel is piling up in stockyards and they continue to produce more and more.  Their expansion has been financed by debt accumulation and the majority of these loans are completely insolvent. 

They need to maintain a 7% annual growth rate to prevent social unrest.  Now they have reached an apex in production, global consumption is stalling and pollution effects have been having a terrible human impact.

We have reached peak fossil fuels.  Now we will find out just how much the Chinese aerosols have contributed to the negative PDO and the warming 'hiatus', and, of course, the recent arctic sea summer sea ice 'recovery'.

[anthropocene]

Even if the IEA report is for energy sector only - I still take it with a large pinch of salt.  Presumably the CO2 emission is calculated by taking the amount of fossil fuel burned and multiplying by a fixed amount of CO2 emission for each fossil fuel type. Please correct me if I'm wrong.  The main shift we are seeing is from coal to (fracked) gas. So C02 is replaced with CH4 emissions - which are most likely massively under-estimated (I've seen reports of anywhere between 2 and 7 times under reported). So once again the fossil fuel industry manages to externalise a cost out of being accounted for.  Sigh. The proof of the pudding will be in future CO2 (and CH4) atmospheric concentrations. But of course if sources like the IEA are saying that CO2 emissions are levelling off or even falling but CO2 still increases I can already hear the voices shouting: "Look, look, we reduce human CO2 emissions but the CO2 still goes up - so we didn't cause the problem in the first place!"  Double sigh.

[AbruptSLR]

Even if the IEA report is for energy sector only - I still take it with a large pinch of salt.  Presumably the CO2 emission is calculated by taking the amount of fossil fuel burned and multiplying by a fixed amount of CO2 emission for each fossil fuel type. Please correct me if I'm wrong.  The main shift we are seeing is from coal to (fracked) gas. So C02 is replaced with CH4 emissions - which are most likely massively under-estimated (I've seen reports of anywhere between 2 and 7 times under reported). So once again the fossil fuel industry manages to externalise a cost out of being accounted for.  Sigh. The proof of the pudding will be in future CO2 (and CH4) atmospheric concentrations. But of course if sources like the IEA are saying that CO2 emissions are levelling off or even falling but CO2 still increases I can already hear the voices shouting: "Look, look, we reduce human CO2 emissions but the CO2 still goes up - so we didn't cause the problem in the first place!"  Double sigh.

Good points. Per the first attached plot of atmospheric methane concentrations at Mauna Loa from 2000 to January 2015, atmospheric methane concentrations are currently accelerating (of which fracking is contributing some portion). 

Edit:  The second attached plot make the same point (with less signal noise) using methane data collected at the South Pole.

[deep octopus]

I would certainly appreciate seeing this report in greater detail as well, considering the multi-faceted nature of global emissions (for instance, the dubious tracking of deforestation contributions to emissions.) Much as this stands as good news on the surface, it would be remiss if it oversimplified its calculations and its following conclusions, stealing away from our perspective of the larger picture.

[Csnavywx]

China has been overproducing now for about 1 decade in a desperate economic expansion bid.  They have produced apartment and hotel complexes that stand completely empty throughout their country.  Steel is piling up in stockyards and they continue to produce more and more.  Their expansion has been financed by debt accumulation and the majority of these loans are completely insolvent. 

They need to maintain a 7% annual growth rate to prevent social unrest.  Now they have reached an apex in production, global consumption is stalling and pollution effects have been having a terrible human impact.

We have reached peak fossil fuels.  Now we will find out just how much the Chinese aerosols have contributed to the negative PDO and the warming 'hiatus', and, of course, the recent arctic sea summer sea ice 'recovery'.

That's certainly part of it.

How I see it. Feel free to correct if there's a weakness in the argument:

 The other is a concerted effort to close down small mines in the last 1-2 years (nearly 2000 of them) and consolidate production to large operations and place generation capacity next to where mining operations are. This helps curb the air pollution problem. China has invested a huge sum into UHV transmission to help accomplish this. I suspect they will continue to use an "all-of-the-above" strategy to bring additional electric capacity online, so I would expect an increase in renewables (mainly due to these UHVs allowing significant flexibility in where they're installed), coal-fired capacity and gas-fired capacity. Coal production and consumption will continue to take a hit until the mine and eastern plant closures are done and new production capacity is brought online further west. They also seem bent on alleviating a geostrategic weakness of oil imports through a narrow sea lane by leveraging their considerable coal reserves to convert coal to liquids. Incidentally, the newly installed UHV lines will free up rail capacity formerly used by coal trains and allow it to be used by liquids transport.


Under this scenario, I would suspect another flat year or two before we see upward creep in CO2 emissions resume. This will likely last until renewables are cheaper (with cap factor measured in) and can start taking a significant bite out of the pie. The biggest complication to this will be how far China takes the coal-to-liquids program and how aggressive other Southeast Asian countries are with their coal consumption. This year will also likely be complicated by low oil and gas prices causing an increase in their use.

[jai mitchell]

Very good!

Yes they are definitely talking about relocating, even moving industries to Africa and relocating workers!

The coal consumption today in China is about 50% electric generation and 23% cement production, other industry is shown below with future projections. 

However, this graphic is from a year ago and is incorrect as china coal consumption actually declined this year.



In any event, as the effects of CO2 emitted in the last decade start to impact the warming regimes, at the same time the continual growth of Chinese aerosols (SO2) will be suspended and likely decline, possibly significantly)  No matter how you slice it, the result is the same, a radical increase in radiative forcing and a regime change from the global warming "pause" to rapid, scary intensification.

[AbruptSLR]

As this thread is entitled: "Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc." , I think that it is good to calibrate what we are talking about every so often, so I e-mailed MIT and asked them for their latest estimate of the current global atmospheric GHG concentrations in terms of CO2-equivalent, CO2-eq, and they responded that: "The latest forecasted CO2_eq for April 1, 2015 is 485.48ppm".

For methodology & background see the following linked sites:

http://agage.mit.edu/
http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/1975

So as jai keeps reminding us, as China makes a big push to clean-up their air pollution problem (note that currently anthropogenic aerosols account for about a negative 55 ppm of CO2-eq) the  effective GHG concentration could jump from the current approximate value of 430 ppm CO2-eq to say 475 ppm CO2-eq, as early as 2020 (when COP21 kicks-in). 

I think that few policymakers understand the seriousness of the rapidly approaching climate consequences.

[jai mitchell]

I think that few policymakers understand the seriousness of the rapidly approaching climate consequences.

Indeed SLR, however it should also be noted that the 10-year time lag of full warming potential realization indicates that we are currently operating at a level only a few years after China began to triple the rate of its coal consumption. 

The only thing that has maintained reasonably steady temperatures has been the aerosols, the INCREASE of aerosols and the effect of these aerosols on local regional dimming and global impacts.  If my understanding is correct and surface flows are severely impacted in the western pacific, causing the unusual PDO effect over the last 10 years, then a LACK OF INCREASE of aerosols will likely cause this system to 'flip'.  producing a non-linear 'tipping point' response over the next 4 years.

[jai mitchell]

Recent study shows that all oil and natural gas well seals will fail and begin venting methane to the atmosphere.

http://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/handle/88435/dsp019s1616326

CO2, Methane, and Brine Leakage Through Subsurface Pathways: Exploring Modeling, Measurement, and Policy Options

Subsurface pathways, such as abandoned oil and gas wells and faults, can serve as leakage pathways for CO2, methane, brine, and other fluids. These pathways allow fluids from deep subsurface formations to migrate into shallow groundwater aquifers or to the atmosphere. To estimate leakage rates and the associated pressure effects on adjacent aquifers, analytical models representing fluid flow in the vicinity of leaky faults are developed in Chapter 2. The incorporation of this kind of fault model in larger basin-wide multi-scale models allows sub-grid-scale effects due to leakage through faults to be captured with improved efficiency. The corresponding multi-scale framework that accounts for vertical leakage to the overlying aquifer, and horizontal flows perpendicular and parallel to a fault within a grid block, is presented in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, first-of-a-kind direct measurements of methane fluxes from abandoned oil and gas (AOG) wells in Pennsylvania are reported. These measurements may bridge the current gap between top-down and bottom-up methane emission estimates. The mean methane flux at the 19 wells for which fluxes were measured is 0.27 kg/day/well, while the mean methane flux at the control locations near the measured wells is 4.5x10<super>-6</super> kg/day/location. All measured wells showed positive methane leakage. The presence of ethane, propane, and n-butane, along with the methane isotopic composition, indicate that the methane emitted from the measured wells is predominantly of thermogenic origin. In Chapter 5, the number of AOG wells in Pennsylvania is estimated, based on historical records, and found to be in the range of 280,000 to 970,000. When the mean flux rate from the measured wells is applied to these estimated total number of wells in Pennsylvania, methane emissions are 4 to 13% of currently estimated annual statewide anthropogenic methane emissions. To reduce the uncertainty in methane emission estimates, policies that promote reporting and monitoring of these wells need to be developed and implemented. Finally, to reduce impacts of these emissions, strategies for mitigation in addition to well plugging should be considered.

related article.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/06/14/Oil-Wells-Spout-Methane/

Abandoned Oil Wells Spouting Significant Levels of Methane: Study

In Pennsylvania, Kang found that abandoned wells leak on average about 96 cubic metres a year, but there may be anywhere from 280,000 to 970,000 such wells in the state alone.

About 16 per cent of all wells didn't leak small amounts, but appear to be "super-emitters" or methane gushers. The highest-polluting well seeped 3.2 cubic metres of gas a day, or 1,168 cubic metres of gas a year. That's nearly $300 worth of natural gas annually.

In comparison, according to Enbridge a typical Canadian resident uses 3,064 cubic metres of gas a year to heat their home and water.

About 10 per cent of all wells leak in British Columbia, but no monitoring is done on the rate of leakage from the province's 10,000 inactive or abandoned wells. Some producing hydraulically-fractured shale gas wells have become super-emitters and leak as much as 3,000 cubic metres a year.

[AbruptSLR]

It could be my imagination but the four attached NOAA time series of atmospheric methane concentration readings at Mauna Loa Hawaii, Point Barrow Alaska, Trinidad Head California and America Samoa, respectively, all seem to show an uptick in methane concentrations in the 2014 to 2015 timeframe.  If so this is not a good trend.

[werther]

Evening, SLR,

You're right; this should be of main concern. I posted similarly on 15 January after watching the Mauna Loa and Barrow graphs. No 'burp' yet, but something 's definitely going on...