Carbon dioxide emissions reach record high

May 29, 2012 By Neela Banerjee

Emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide reached an all-time high last year, further reducing the chances that the world could avoid a dangerous rise in global average temperature by 2020, according to the International Energy Agency, the energy analysis group for the world's most industrialized states.

Global emissions of carbon-dioxide, or CO2, from fossil-fuel combustion hit a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes in 2011, according to the IEA's preliminary estimates, an increase of 1 Gt, or 3.2 percent from 2010.

The burning of coal accounted for 45 percent of total energy-related CO2 emissions in 2011, followed by oil (35 percent) and natural gas (20 percent).

According to the vast majority of climatologists, the rapid rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because of industrialization over the last 150 years has led to an increase in global by about 1 degree Celsius.

Scientists and the IEA contend that countries need to keep the global average temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in order to avoid profound damage to , from water and food scarcity to to greater incidence and severity of disease.

Last year's jump in sets the world even more firmly on the path to hurtle past a 2 degree Celsius increase. "The new data provide further evidence that the door to a 2C trajectory is about to close," said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol.

China is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, followed by the United States, the European Union and India. Although China's emissions rose significantly because of its coal consumption, the increase would have been more substantial had the country not taken steps over the last decade to improve energy efficiency and deploy cleaner power sources, Birol said.

in the United States fell by 1.7 percent, or 92 megatonnes, in 2011, as more power companies switched to natural gas from coal and a mild winter reduced heating demand. Emissions in the United States have now fallen by 7.7 percent since 2006, according to the IEA, which called it "the largest reduction of all countries or regions."

The drop in U.S. emissions is a result of lower gasoline use and the move to gas from coal in the power sector.

Explore further: Yale journal explores advances in sustainable manufacturing

4.2 /5 (14 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Carbon emissions at record high: report

May 30, 2011

Carbon emissions are at their highest ever levels, stoking fears of a global temperature rise over the "dangerous" two degrees Celsius threshold, according to data cited by the Guardian newspaper.

EU carbon emissions 'plummeted in 2009'

May 31, 2011

Greenhouse-gas emissions by the 27 members of the European Union fell by 7.1 percent in 2009 over 2008, driven by economic recession but also a switch to renewable energy, the European Environment Agency (EAA) ...

China to surpass U.S. emissions levels

Nov 07, 2006

The International Energy Agency says China will surpass the United States in carbon dioxide emissions by 2009, about a decade ahead of previous predictions.

World has five years to avoid severe warming: IEA

Nov 09, 2011

The world has just five years to avoid being trapped in a scenario of perilous climate change and extreme weather events, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned on Wednesday.

Global emissions to leap 39 percent by 2030: US

May 27, 2009

Global carbon dioxide emissions are set to rise 39 percent by 2030 as energy consumption surges in the developing world, notably in Asian giants China and India, the United States warned on Wednesday.

Carbon emissions fall with global downturn: report

Sep 21, 2009

Greenhouse gas emissions have fallen thanks to the global downturn, handing the world a chance to move away from high-carbon growth, a report said Monday, citing an International Energy Agency study.

Recommended for you

User comments : 35

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mtc123
2.6 / 5 (18) May 29, 2012
Always remember the NUMBER ONE RULE OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS.
FEAR = REVENUE.
deatopmg
2.1 / 5 (19) May 29, 2012
@mtc123; & POWER
axemaster
3.4 / 5 (17) May 29, 2012
Yeah, it's funny how much money environmental groups don't have. Meanwhile the oil/gas industry has been running commercials on TV practically continuously over the past year or two, talking about how wonderful they are. Especially those "we love the environment" commercials from BP, those are really f****** offensive.

That plus the so-called climategate releases, both of which were blatently timed to hit just before major climate conferences, pretty much shows that the industry will do anything, no matter how illegal, in order to protect their cash.

Funny little note - the climategate releases didn't actually contain any evidence of wrongdoing by scientists - look it up. The only reason they didn't fabricate evidence of wrongdoing was because there were other copies held by the university the emails were stolen from.
Lurker2358
3 / 5 (11) May 29, 2012
The drop in U.S. emissions is a result of lower gasoline use and the move to gas from coal in the power sector.


The drop is actually due to the downturn in the economy which has been ongoing since several years before "economists" even acknowledged a problem. The housing Bubble, which is a big part of what caused the 2008 collapse, actually peaked in 2005 or 2006, at least in terms of prices. It took a few years of people fudging on their mortgages, and some technologies putting large labor sectors as obsolete before the complete collapse happened. People in the tax industry knew something was wrong financially in 2006 and definitely by 2007. The government and big named economists and media didn't catch on till a year or two later.

Over all, the drop in U.S. CO2 is caused by the on-going depression, which is being masked by the misleading unemployment numbers, which do not represent the people who have simply given up trying to get a job.

The curve fits.
Moebius
3.2 / 5 (14) May 30, 2012
...further reducing the chances that the world could avoid a dangerous rise in global average temperature by 2020...


How was it reduced, the chances were zero. There are too many stupid people. Freedom breeds and nurtures stupidity. We need to stop telling stupid people their opinions matter. Most or the people voicing opinions here barely have a HS education and probably didn't learn much getting it. Yet they think their opinions matter. Stupid people are taught to look down on smart people like there was something wrong with being smart. Point is, most of the climate change deniers are not smart and yet they act like their opinions are informed and should be listened to. And they are because the dumb masses generally elect people as dumb as they are to run things.
PPihkala
1.8 / 5 (6) May 30, 2012
Sorry for low rates, I was trying to give 5/5, but obviously need more practice with this tablet at it.
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (13) May 30, 2012
The big money has always followed the fear mongershttp://joannenova...-market/
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (9) May 30, 2012
The doubling period for 3.2 percent is 23 years.

This means that if this growth continues, as much CO2 will enter the atmosphere over the next 23 years than through all of human history until now.

http://www.bloomb...r_fo.jpg

At this point Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from around 280 ppmv to 380 ppmv. In 24 years then (2036) CO2 levels can be expected to be 480 ppmv or 71% higher than the historical norm.

Maintaining the 3.2 percent growth rate for another 24 years (2070) would put atmospheric CO2 levels to 680 ppmv or 142 percent above historical norms.

By 2094, CO2 levels would be 1080 ppmv or almost 4 times it's pre-industrial level.

This rate of increase is considered in the high growth A2 emissions scenario considered by the IPCC and is projected to produce a warming of 3.5'C by 2100, with another 3.5'C to manifest in the decades to follow provided CO2 emissions were to be reduced to zero at 2100 - vastly higher temps. to follow if continued.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) May 30, 2012
If emissions were to continue to increase at 3.2 precent for another two doubling periods, the result would be the extinction of most of the biosphere in now equatorial and mid latitudes, with tropical temperatures manifest at the poles during the summer months.

Only small pockets of humans would remain to record the weather.

Howhot
3.4 / 5 (10) May 31, 2012
Good call VD. In the scientific community, there is no debate. Actions need to be taken by all nations to reduce CO2 emissions immediately.
gregor1
1.8 / 5 (15) May 31, 2012
The CO2 level has risen by ten percent in the last ten years and the temperature has remained stable or even declined. Perhaps there is no need to freak out afterall. Co2 is plant food so higher Co 2 means faster growing forests and food crops. Maybe this is a way to increase biomass/biodiversity and feed the world?
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (14) May 31, 2012
Here's a link to back this up.
http://www.nal-js...tion.pdf
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (15) May 31, 2012
Correlation is not causality. For instance, you mentioned glaciers melting? http://wattsupwit...eenland/
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (12) May 31, 2012
Opps got my threads mixed up and posted off topic. I guess that makes me one of those stupid people that Moebius apparently wants to forgo freedom for. It sure must be lonely being smarter than everyone else.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (12) May 31, 2012
Another back up link
http://c3headline...0c-popup
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (10) May 31, 2012
The CO2 level has risen by ten percent in the last ten years and the temperature has remained stable or even declined. Perhaps there is no need to freak out afterall. Co2 is plant food so higher Co 2 means faster growing forests and food crops. Maybe this is a way to increase biomass/biodiversity and feed the world?


This is inaccurate. A Plants ability to photosynthesize has an optimum temperature range, past the upper limit photosynthesis ceases. In the worst case scenario crops die, in the best case yields drop dramatically. The temperature has remained stable in that 2000-2009 is the warmest decade on record....saying this like it is a good thing is like claiming that stabilizing a cigarette smoking habit at a pack a day is a good thing.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (10) May 31, 2012
GregorTard is of course lying again. The trend over the last 10 years is about 0.2'C per decade, as shown here...

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

"The CO2 level has risen by ten percent in the last ten years and the temperature has remained stable or even declined." - GregorTard

Of course, this 0.2'C per decade doesn't have much statistical significance since it is only over a 10 year period and over periods that short, weather noise predominates the climate signal.

What is GregorTard's motivation for lying?
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) May 31, 2012
It is difficult to figure out what GregorTard's link is trying to convey. Two vertical bars sloppily painted red in parts and incorrectly labeled.

Whatever... It is best not to dwell on misinformation presented in such an uneducated manner.

"Another back up link" - GregorTard

Graphics for the 15 year trend are easily enough to generate...

Here is a proper one....

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

Note that the above graphic shows a 15 year warming trend of about 1.1'C, which corresponds to a warming of 6.5'C by the end of the century.

A very rapid rate of warming.

How GregorTard interprets this as "cooling" is not fathomable by any rational mind.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2012
The word "freedom" seems to crop up regularly in the warming denial comments of Quack Tards.

Their argument is essentially "I believe steps to halt global warming will reduce my freedom, so I will insist that the world is cooling."

It isn't a rational argument. It is simply a childishly delusional form of "You can't make me".

But we can make you. And we will.

"I guess that makes me one of those stupid people that Moebius apparently wants to forgo freedom for" - GregorTard

Reality is relentless.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2012
The Author of GregorTard's anti-warming nonsense link...

Deep oil corruption.

"76 Years Old
Mr. Steward has extensive experience in the oil and gas exploration and production industry, having served in various senior management roles with The Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, a publicly traded oil and gas exploration and production company, including President, Chief Operating Officer and, from 1989 until its acquisition by Burlington Resources, Inc. in 1997, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Steward subsequently served as Vice Chairman of Burlington Resources, a publicly traded oil and gas exploration, production and development company, until his retirement in 2000."

"Here's a link to back this up." - GregorTard
mtc123
2.2 / 5 (10) May 31, 2012
Vendicar_Decarian = HATE

mtc123
2.2 / 5 (11) May 31, 2012
"I bring order to chaos. The only good Libertarian is a dead Libertarian." -Vendicar_Decarian

Wow! Put on that brown shirt and goose step around the town!

Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) May 31, 2012
Better Cremated than Conservative.
johnny 123
1.3 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2012
mtc123 I have a soft spot for Vendicar. It was his belligerence that led me to take a deeper look at the climate issue just to see what he was afraid of. Evidence trumps belligerence every time. You'll note his ad hominim attack on Mr Stewart above to draw attention from the hardcrut data.
Rubberman does a classic cherry pick, with his last ten years being the hottest ever recorded which says nothing about the trend which is dead flat while co2 has risen and is to be expected as we come out of Lia.
Sinister1811
2.7 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2012
Always remember the NUMBER ONE RULE OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS.
FEAR = REVENUE.


mtc123 = BROKEN CAPSLOCK KEY.
Sinister1811
2.8 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2012
Yeah, it's funny how much money environmental groups don't have.


Exactly. You would think that the oil/coal/gas companies would have more money than the environmentalists at the end of the day. Hmm.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 01, 2012
... a classic cherry pick, with his last ten years being the hottest ever recorded which says nothing about the trend which is dead flat while co2 has risen ...


That is just ignorant. You could go to

http://climate.gov

And just look at all of the pretty graphs that dispute that. You need to go talk to your preacher or tea party representative to be reassured that you really are that gullible.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2012
Account created May 31, 2012 11:01 PM

"mtc123 I have a soft spot for Vendicar" - Sockpuppet Johnny

Account created for this single post.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2012
Yes. I confess. I had a death threat so I changed my name but thought better of it though I'd already posted and couldn't delete.
How hot. Your link won't open so I can't comment. Remember that the hypothesis was " that atmospheric CO2 levels are the main driver of global temperature"
there has been no warming for 15 years while CO2 levels have skyrocketed so the hypothesis seems falsified to me.http://thegwpf.or...ars.html
gregor1
2 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2012
Yeah, it's funny how much money environmental groups don't have.


Exactly. You would think that the oil/coal/gas companies would have more money than the environmentalists at the end of the day. Hmm.

There are far more people making money out of CAGW than environmentalists.
http://joannenova...=Feed%3A JoNova %28JoNova%29
And the Greenies are hardly the little guyhttp://www.spiege...712.html
Physics prof
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2012
With articles like this I have only one question to ask: when is this site changing its name to junk_science.org?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2012
LIAR.

Over the last 15 years global average temperature anomalies have risen from 0.39'c to 0.51'C or .12'C

This corresponds to a century rate of change of .8'C

"there has been no warming for 15 years" - GregorTard

http://www.woodfo...97/trend
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2012
Yet another new account created to post the following message.

"With articles like this I have only one question to ask: when is this site changing its name to junk_science.org?" - PhysicsSockPuppet

The popularization of Junk Science is what the denialist site, JunkScience.com is all about.

gregor1
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2012
VD your link shows the conveniently adjusted data from activist Phil Jones
http://wattsupwit...again-2/
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
gregor1 one made an ambit claim with:
The CO2 level has risen by ten percent in the last ten years and the temperature has remained stable or even declined. Perhaps there is no need to freak out afterall. Co2 is plant food so higher Co 2 means faster growing forests and food crops. Maybe this is a way to increase biomass/biodiversity and feed the world?
Not necessarily.

More CO2 in atmosphere means many plants shift their equilibrium as they have spare food etc to protect more of what they have.
Eg Cassava, a tuber in Africa and Clover in Europe - crops for cattle.

Both tend to produce more hydro-cyanic acid (poison), in Africa there are already many suffering from paralysis from the HCN produced by Cassava, we have yet to see how the HCN produced by Clover with extra CO2 affects cattle production.

Nature isn't simple, it is subject to all sorts of complex interactions, just moving one input one way or another can have consequences that are not linear and often not expected..!