Global carbon emissions reach record 10 billion tons -- threatening 2 degree target

Dec 04, 2011

Global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have increased by 49 per cent in the last two decades, according to the latest figures by an international team, including researchers at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia (UEA).

Published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, the new analysis by the Global Carbon Project shows fossil fuel emissions increased by 5.9 per cent in 2010 and by 49 per cent since 1990 – the reference year for the Kyoto protocol.

On average, have risen by 3.1 per cent each year between 2000 and 2010 – three times the rate of increase during the 1990s. They are projected to continue to increase by 3.1 per cent in 2011.

Total emissions - which combine fossil fuel combustion, cement production, deforestation and other land use emissions - reached 10 billion tonnes of carbon1 in 2010 for the first time. Half of the emissions remained in the atmosphere, where CO2 concentration reached 389.6 parts per million. The remaining emissions were taken up by the ocean and land reservoirs, in approximately equal proportions.

Rebounding from the global financial crisis of 2008-09 when emissions temporarily decreased, last year's high growth was caused by both emerging and developed economies. Rich countries continued to outsource part of their emissions to emerging economies through international trade.

Contributions to global emissions growth in 2010 were largest from China, the United States, India, the Russian Federation and the European Union. Emissions from the trade of goods and services produced in emerging economies but consumed in the West increased from 2.5 per cent of the share of rich countries in 1990 to 16 per cent in 2010.

In the UK, fossil fuel CO2 emissions grew 3.8 per cent in 2010 but were 14 per cent below their 1990 levels. However, emissions from the trade of goods and services grew from 5 per cent of the emissions produced locally in 1990 to 46 per cent in 2010 - overcompensating the reductions in local emissions. Emissions in the UK were 20 per cent above their 1990 levels when emissions from trade are taken into account.

"Global CO2 emissions since 2000 are tracking the high end of the projections used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which far exceed two degrees warming by 2100," said co-author Prof Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and professor at the University of East Anglia. "Yet governments have pledged to keep warming below two degrees to avoid the most dangerous aspects of such as widespread water stress and sea level rise, and increases in extreme climatic events.

"Taking action to reverse current trends is urgent."

Lead author Dr Glen Peters, of the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway, said: "Many saw the global financial crisis as an opportunity to move the global economy away from persistent and high emissions growth, but the return to emissions growth in 2010 suggests the opportunity was not exploited."

Co-author Dr Pep Canadell, executive director of the Project, added: "The global financial crisis has helped developed countries meet their production emission commitments as promised in the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Accord, but its impact has been short-lived and pre-existing challenges remain."

Explore further: US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

More information: 'Rapid growth in CO2 emissions after the 2008-2009 global financial crisis', Nature Climate Change, December 4 2011

Related Stories

Global CO2 emissions back on the rise in 2010: study

Nov 21, 2010

Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – the main contributor to global warming – show no sign of abating and may reach record levels in 2010, according to a study led by the University of Exeter (UK).

Fossil fuel CO2 emissions up by 29 percent since 2000

Nov 17, 2009

The strongest evidence yet that the rise in atmospheric CO2 emissions continues to outstrip the ability of the world's natural 'sinks' to absorb carbon is published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience. ...

Emissions rising faster this decade than last

Oct 02, 2008

The latest figures on the global carbon budget to be released in Washington and Paris indicate a four-fold increase in growth rate of human-generated carbon dioxide emissions since 2000.

Emissions rising faster this decade than last

Sep 26, 2008

The latest figures on the global carbon budget to be released in Washington and Paris today indicate a four-fold increase in growth rate of human-generated carbon dioxide emissions since 2000.

Recommended for you

US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

Apr 18, 2014

The United States announced Friday a fresh delay on a final decision regarding a controversial Canada to US oil pipeline, saying more time was needed to carry out a review.

New research on Earth's carbon budget

Apr 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

User comments : 46

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nanobanano
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2011
However, emissions from the trade of goods and services grew from 5 per cent of the emissions produced locally in 1990 to 46 per cent in 2010 - overcompensating the reductions in local emissions. Emissions in the UK were 20 per cent above their 1990 levels when emissions from trade are taken into account.


Never quite understood how it can be "cheaper" to make something on the other side of the world and ship it back.

In some cases, we ship cloth to a foreign country so they can cut and sew to make jeans, and then ship it back here.

The cost of transportation is not cheap.

I once calculated the fuel cost of a supertransport ship to be around 7 million dollars per round trip, which is around 150 times more than the wages and salary of the entire crew combined.

This is sick, considering the largest, most modern super transports have engines that are around 50% efficient, bordering on or in some cases exceeding previous theoretical limits...
Nanobanano
3 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2011
Put a star by "50% efficient", because that probably assumes the engine itself, not the efficiency of the whole system, as it's an on-board engine and has to push it's own weight and the weight of all those multiplied tons of fuel...at the end of the day, even the best ICE engine in an on-board propulsion system is pretty bad.

In order to cut back on this insane amount of fuel use and pollution, our cargo ships may need to be converted to nuclear power.

Even if we need to put a squad or a platoon of soldiers on board to prevent pirates or terrorists from stealing the material or technology, it will probably still be cheaper than diesel at some point, and less pollution over all...

Of course, there's wind power, but the problem with wind in modern shipping is each ship only gets to make about half to 1/3rd as many round trips, and crew cost is doubled or tripled per round trip...
Telekinetic
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2011
We're dumber than the dinosaurs, who perished through no fault of their own. We humans, on the other hand, with our sophisticated civilization and technological advancements, will choke ourselves to extinction unless we change direction. If the movement toward alternative energy gets derailed by corporate and/or government corruption, we'll pass the tipping point, if we haven't already.
Nanobanano
2.7 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2011
Based on the trends in the Southern Ocean and the Arctic Circle in the past few decades, 2C by 2100 is probably a severe under-estimate.

The air temps in the arctic circle in some locations have risen a lot more than that already in the past few decades.

Currently, the water temps in the Southern Ocean are already rising by 0.2C per decade, but the trend is going to be exponential, after all, once you melt all the arctic sea ice and a chunk of Greenland, the Heat of Fusion buffer will be gone, as will a significant chunk of the albedo buffer. Temps will rise that much faster.

Presumably, there will probably be a VEI 6 eruption sometime in the next 90 years, but the last VEI 6 only deflected the Keeling Curve downward by about one or two year's worth of net gains...hardly significant compared to a century...

Looks like we are on the verge of destroying ourselves and saving God the trouble...
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (18) Dec 04, 2011
Every day, the sky keeps falling. Yet we are not running out of sky, no one has been injured by a piece of sky and we can't find a single piece of fallen sky.

Whenever doomsday arrives and the world does not end, the doomsday preachers just move the date and preach louder.
Nanobanano
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2011
Every day, the sky keeps falling. Yet we are not running out of sky, no one has been injured by a piece of sky and we can't find a single piece of fallen sky.


Actually, people find pieces of the sky all the time. They're called meteoroids.

Whenever doomsday arrives and the world does not end, the doomsday preachers just move the date and preach louder.


Ah, perhaps.

There's quite a bit of difference between false prophets as compared to extrapolation of data and trends. I hope you are intellectually honest enough to see that.

wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1995]

neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/piomas-september-2011-volume-record-lower-still.html

Ya think that exponential downward trend in ice volume for every month of the year might be a TAD worth being concerned about? September 2015, June 2021 meltdowns...
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (44) Dec 04, 2011
Floor 39, and all is fine.
Floor 38, and all is fine.
Floor 37, and all is fine.
...
..
.

"Every day, the sky keeps falling. Yet we are not running out of sky, no one has been injured by a piece of sky and we can't find a single piece of fallen sky." - DogTurd
StarGazer2011
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2011
So emissions have risen by 49% in the last 20 years, but there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15?
Even if correlation implied causation (which it doesnt) surely the complete failure of correlation should be causing some people to rethink their position on CAGW? Unless its a religous thing...
Shakescene21
3 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2011
"Rich countries continued to outsource part of their emissions to emerging economies through international trade."

Consumers who want to buy pollution-intensive imports should have to pay a stiff tariff, to offset the cost advantage that factories in developing countries get from pollution. The pollution from international shipping should also be factored into the tariff.
Doom1974
5 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2011
EU, US, UK found a way to "reduce" their emissions. Let China make goods for them!! Duh. we live in a finite closed system. It doesn't matter who emits. Everybody is affected.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (43) Dec 04, 2011
"It doesn't matter who emits. Everybody is affected." - Doom1974

But in Conservative Economics A B does not equal B A.

Nanobanano
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2011
So emissions have risen by 49% in the last 20 years, but there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15?


Is everyone a damn liar?

Didn't they just report that the 13 HOTTEST years on record all occured within the past 15 years?

It's probably still on the first screen on this sub-section.

neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/piomas-september-2011-volume-record-lower-still.html

There's a statistic for ya.

You know how much extra heat it takes to melt an extra 400km^3 of ice? That's 400 trillion liters of water.
deepsand
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2011
You'll have to make allowance for the fact that StarGazer has his telescope turned backwards.
hagger
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2011
telekinetic..there is no tipping point..the earth bio mass produces a 1000 times more carbon than we do..and one volcano in two years produced the entire CO2 production of the whole of human history...the people who put out these reports are paid for by the government,its in their interest to tax you, i do not read the media, i read the sound evidence put forward by those who are not paid by these governments..there are more papers disproving climate change than prove it...use the inter net wisely...and do your own research..its out there..
rubberman
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
The problem Hagger, is that those papers don't have a shred of observational evidence to support them. Just crackpots who spew out a number like you just did regarding the biomass without the follow up info regarding how much carbon is ABSORBED by it. If what you just said were true and there was no carbon absorbtion, human life would not exist on this planet......
People shouldn't be allowed computer access if they haven't had their meds yet....
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2011
LOL. . . .so far, in all the threads on climate change, I haven't seen even ONE solution put forth to end the pollution problem, only blaming "rich" nations, the fossil fuel industries, greedy corporations, and Capitalism. Not once have I read anyone advise that people should limit their use of fuel-guzzling vehicles of all types - cars, mass transportation, airplanes, and limit their use of electricity with TV sets, kitchen range, refrigerators, furnace - anything that uses electricity. No one as yet has prompted readers to walk or ride a bicycle or ride a horse.
The PROBLEM is with the PEOPLE themselves who are USING the fossil fuels in their daily lives. They HAVE TO buy gasoline; they HAVE TO heat their homes and use electricity. All these things are part of living, but we are ALL polluting the Earth BECAUSE IT'S A NECESSITY.
I would like to see some SOLUTIONS for a change instead of statistics and climate models that are useless while people polluting still continues.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2011
People are not FORCED to buy and use gasoline; electric companies are not FORCING them to buy and use electricity. The energy is available for those who want it and/or need it, but no one is putting a gun to anyone's head and telling them they MUST buy gasoline and electricity. And in other countries where their main source of fuel is trees, when they cut down trees, why aren't they planting MORE trees. And why are businesses like Monsanto mixing up toxic brews to kill ALL insects and not just one type. And that one type just might be food for the beneficial insects but the bug killer don't know that. The Republic of Congo is planting more trees and I commend them for that. But the surrounding countries are turning into deserts because of laziness and stupidity.
It is the people who can push back climate change if they really care to cut back on energy use. Thermal energy is available from the Earth
Nerdyguy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
We're dumber than the dinosaurs, who perished through no fault of their own. We humans, on the other hand, with our sophisticated civilization and technological advancements, will choke ourselves to extinction unless we change direction. If the movement toward alternative energy gets derailed by corporate and/or government corruption, we'll pass the tipping point, if we haven't already.


Extinction, really? Don't you think that might be a little overly dramatic? Perhaps it would be more reasonable to suggest that a lot of us might die and that conditions wouldn't be pleasant for most of the rest?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2011
Boiling water requires energy > boiling water produces steam > steam turns a turbine > turbine produces electricity. . .quite a simple process in reality. In one of the other threads, some guy used a series of hamsters in treadmill cages that were hooked up to a battery. The hamsters provided the energy to charge the battery. Another simple process
But PEOPLE require so much more than what a hamster can provide, so it's not really the energy companies, Capitalism, political systems or any other thing that is to blame. It's just the human race and their requirements. Take away their modern conveniences and comforts and what do you have left? Maybe more bicycle paths?
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2011
Take away their modern conveniences and comforts and what do you have left?


A lot of dead people.
Telekinetic
3 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2011
We're dumber than the dinosaurs, who perished through no fault of their own. We humans, on the other hand, with our sophisticated civilization and technological advancements, will choke ourselves to extinction unless we change direction. If the movement toward alternative energy gets derailed by corporate and/or government corruption, we'll pass the tipping point, if we haven't already.


Extinction, really? Don't you think that might be a little overly dramatic? Perhaps it would be more reasonable to suggest that a lot of us might die and that conditions wouldn't be pleasant for most of the rest?

Do you have any idea how tenuous our existence is should a nuclear war begin? When you speak of conditions not being pleasant for the survivors in an atmosphere just barely able to support life, how unpleasant should it be for infants and children just beginning their lives. Think for a moment, how short-sighted and selfish a statement like you've made really is.
XQZME
2 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2011
This NCDC graph shows U.S. temperatures have declined since 1998.
http://www.friend...p?id=453

This graph of NASA AMSR-E data shows arctic sea ice is rapidly increasing.
http://www.ijis.i...tent.htm

The U. OF CO and others report that sea level is dropping.
http://wattsupwit...wntrend/

The strength of correlation of temperature changes to solar intensity from 1895 to 2007 is 0.85; to oceanic oscillations from 1895 to 2007, 0.57; to CO2 from 1897 to 2007, 0.43, but to CO2 from 1987 to 2007, only 0.02. Since peaking in 1998, temperatures have declined while CO2 has increased, conflicting with all climate models.
http://wattsupwit...han-co2/
XQZME
2 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2011
Several studies show CO2 increases after warming, not before.
http://www.co2sci...tory.php

The IPCC, EPA, NOAA, NASA, DOE, CDIAC, etc. have ascertained the Global Warming Potentials of various atmospheric components. 95% of Global Warming is from water vapor; 5% is from 5 green house gasses (GHG); only 0.28% of GW is from man-made GHG. Only 0.117% of Global Warming is from man-made CO2. Therefore 99.72% of GW is natural.
http://www.geocra...ata.html

IAW the University of Copenhagen research arctic sea ice is twice the extent of 5,000 years ago.
http://www.scienc...1706.htm
deepsand
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 06, 2011
XQZME = SOCK PUPPET for those in denial.
deepsand
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 07, 2011
Your "1," dogbert, isn't going to transform a puppet into a critical thinker.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 07, 2011
Your calling someone a SOCK PUPPET because you don't agree with them is not critical thinking nor is it a reasonable argument.

If you don't agree with someone, rather than calling names, why not try paying attention to what was said, and if you disagree, show why you disagree?
deepsand
5 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2011
Your calling someone a SOCK PUPPET because you don't agree with them

Assumes facts not in evidence.

If you don't agree with someone, rather than calling names,

There is a distinction with a difference between "name calling" and a characterization based on behavioral traits.

... why not try paying attention to what was said, and if you disagree, show why you disagree?

Only within reason. When another engages in sophistry, he forfeits the expectation of substantive rebuttal.

Sufficient time has passed so that those in denial can no longer expect to be treated as simply being ignorant of the facts, but as the intellectually dishonest policy mongers that they are.

dogbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2011
So you have no supportable position and must refuse to offer rebuttal because you have no way to support your position. This was apparent from the point where you resorted to name calling instead of arguing. I just wanted you to explicitly refuse to even attempt to support your position.
deepsand
5 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2011
That, dogbert, is itself a display of sophistry.

Your deliberate misrepresentation of my statements is so very sophomoric as to be laughable.

You'll need to find another willing to play your silly games.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 08, 2011
deepsand,

Your deliberate misrepresentation of my statements is so very sophomoric as to be laughable.


How did I misrepresent your statement:
XQZME = SOCK PUPPET for those in denial.


XQZME made some detailed statements in two posts which also contained a total of seven links in support of his statements. Your response?
XQZME = SOCK PUPPET for those in denial.


How can anyone misrepresent name calling with no content whatsoever?
deepsand
5 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2011
Did you miss the part about being under no obligation to rebut that which has been well and often rebutted?

The puppets continue to mindlessly re-ask that which has been asked and answered countless times.

dogbert
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2011
deepsand,

I did not miss anything. You have nothing meaningful to say but you enjoy being patronizing and name calling.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Dec 09, 2011
Poor DogTurd. Here is the trend in the UAH dataset since the turn of the century.

http://www.woodfo...00/trend

Where is that cooling trend that you have claimed?

Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Dec 09, 2011
As to friends of science... Why were they threatened with a lawsuit for claiming that their propaganda video's were endorsed by the University of Alberta when in fact they were not?

And why does the graphic on their website show a cooling trend for since 2000 when in fact the data plotted above is from the same data set they claimed to have used?

Why all the dishonesty from the tar sands funded propaganda organization "friends of science"?

Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Dec 09, 2011
Of course you are lying.

Here is the real data
http://www.woodfo...00/trend

"This NCDC graph shows U.S. temperatures have declined since 1998." - xqxme

Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Dec 09, 2011
Of course, you are lying and even your own link proves you to be a liar.

http://wattsupwit...ust1.png

"The U. OF CO and others report that sea level is dropping." - xqzme

Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Dec 09, 2011
And once again your own link proves you to be a liar.

http://wattsupwit...pg?w=640

"... temperatures have declined while CO2 has increased" - Xqzme
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Dec 09, 2011
The link supporting your claim is bogus and goes nowhere.

"Several studies show CO2 increases after warming, not before. " - xqzme

CO2 does not produce changes in the earth's orbit or obliquity. Where those changes have caused climate change, CO2 was by definition not the leading factor in that change.

http://www.youtub...9SNzxJJA
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Dec 09, 2011
Xqzme. You have been caught telling 5 lies in a row.

Can you explain your motivation for posting those lies?
deepsand
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 10, 2011
dogbert said
I did not miss anything.

Which leaves only the case that you chose to ignore it.

dogbert
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 10, 2011
deepsand,

Since you said nothing of substance, I could neither miss it nor ignore it.
deepsand
5 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2011
But, I am supposed to rebut that which lacks substance?

:rolleyes:

You are a hypocritical sophist.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2011
deepsand,

Let me try to say this in small words. Perhaps you can understand.

You chided me for voting you a "1" when you made the statement:
XQZME = SOCK PUPPET for those in denial.


The above condescending and patronizing statement constitutes all that you have said about XQZME's comments which contained two statements and seven links.

You keep calling me a hypocritical sophist for pointing out that you attack by calling names and have no arguments whatsoever to support any position.

You have nothing to say and your response to everything seems to be name calling.

You are childish. I'll not continue to waste any time responding to your drivel.
deepsand
5 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2011
How clever of you to illustrate the behavior that you deny engaging in by way of your tripe.
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2011
Hey you guys. Cheer up and stop fighting. Apparently the Glaciers in greenland have stopped shrinking
http://www.scienc...8.1.full
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Dec 11, 2011

Extreme Melting On Greenland Ice Sheet - Oct 25, 2011

...

In fact, melting in 2011 was the third most extensive since 1979, lagging behind only 2010 and 2007. The "mass balance," or amount of snow gained minus the snow and ice that melted away, ended up tying last year's record values.

http://www.scienc...3128.htm

"Apparently the Glaciers in greenland have stopped shrinking." - GregorTard

Apparently Gregor is a liar.

More news stories

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.