Emissions at new record

Three years ago I really thought that greenhouse gas emissions had peaked.  China's determination to reduce air pollution was going to keep her emissions from rising, and her switch from coal to gas, renewables and hydro would be how this was achieved.  Emissions in developed countries have been falling slowly.  So it seemed plausible that, even though it wasn't fast enough, emissions would start to decline.  Well, no.

Blame China—and India.

Global carbon emissions are on the rise, and hit record levels in 2018, after remaining flat in 2016 and experiencing a small gain last year, a new report shows. 

The report by the Global Carbon Project came out just as world leaders gathered in Poland to discuss the next steps for reducing carbon emissions under the Paris Climate Accords. (And the U.S. set up a token booth to promote more efficient burning of fossil fuels.)

The Global Carbon Budget 2018 report showed that emissions of global warming carbon-dioxide increased 2.7 percent to record levels in 2018 as China loosened controls on new coal-fired power plants in response to an economic downturn. CO2 emissions in China rose 4.7 percent this year and account for more than a quarter of such global emissions, the report shows. Still, it says that the increases in China are not likely to be sustained, as they stem from an economic stimulus package designed to spur construction to boost the economy.

India had the second largest gains in greenhouse-gas emissions as it works to bring power to regions that have never had electricity before.

Other nations with the largest greenhouse emissions included the U.S., Russia, Japan, Germany, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Canada. Overall, 15 percent of emissions come from the U.S. and 10 percent of all emissions from the European Union as a whole.

Although the U.S. had the largest decline in coal use, having closed more than 250 coal-fired powerplants since 2010, overall greenhouse emissions from the U.S. still increased as a result of an increase in driving and more demand for cooling and heating, the report says.

[Read more here]

The chart below shows different carbon emission scenarios and their likely impact on the climate.

Source: Green Car Reports

An increase of 1 degree C since the 19th century is already causing havoc, with more storms, more droughts and more floods.   What would 2.3 degrees do (the high forecast for the lowest carbon emissions pathway)?  Or 3.2 degrees, the upper likely outcome of the Paris targets?  (And don't assume, as so many do, that we will "get lucky" and only have the lowest temperature outcomes.  We might get unlucky instead.)

Now the good news is that in the lowest scenario, we don't have to get to zero emissions by 2050, but by 2070--although some negative emissions after 2070 are needed to achieve that.  That's still a 5% cumulative decline per annum, and it would mean an 80% decline by 2050.

Can we achieve a 5% per annum cumulative decline?  I think we could, if we wanted to.  As I argued here, the key now is cheap storage, which may be only a couple of years away.  Already nearly half all coal power stations across the world are loss making, and a third have operating costs which exceed the total cost of new renewables.    By 2025 half new car and light truck sales could be electric.  We could manufacture carbon-neutral jetfuel, and although it would increase airfares by 70%, if introduced over 20 years the annual fare increase would be just 3%.  In any case, if the cost of renewable electricity halves again over the next 10 years, there would be no increase in airfares.

We have favourable winds in our sails because of the startling declines in the costs of wind, solar and storage.  But there are still massive subsidies for fossil fuels, and they must stop.  And a carbon tax, returned to all citizens by means of a "carbon dividend" would make the transition faster, and also help fund negative emissions.