CO2 emissions 'increased at slower rate in 2012'

Oct 31, 2013
Exhaust rises from cooling towers at the Neurath lignite coal-fired power station at Grevenbroich near Aachen, southern Germany on September 11, 2012

The world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increased at a slower rate in 2012—1.1 percent compared to a 2.9 percent annual increase over the past decade, a report said Thursday.

This was despite a global of 3.5 percent and was partly the result of a shift to in China and shale gas in the United States, according to an analysis by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

"This development signals a shift towards less fossil fuel-intensive activities, more use of renewable energy and increased energy saving," said a statement.

The output still represented a new record 34.5 billion tonnes.

CO2 is the greenhouse gas chiefly responsible for man-made global warming—which the UN has said must be limited to 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 deg Fahrenheit) above pre-Industrial Revolution levels.

Scientists have said this is possible only if CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2050 do not exceed 1.0 to 1.5 trillion tonnes—yet an estimated 466 billion tonnes have been emitted since 2000, according to data cited in the report.

In May this year, the concentration of climate-altering (CO2) in the atmosphere exceeded 400 particles per million for the first time since humans have walked the Earth.

The report said China's CO2 emissions increased by 3.0 percent last year to 9.9 billion tonnes from 2011—a low rate compared to annual increases of about 10 percent over the past decade.

In the United States, emissions decreased by four percent to 5.2 billion tonnes, mainly due to a shift from coal to shale gas in the power sector. It was the lowest emissions level in the United States since 1993.

The European Union saw its emissions drop by 1.6 percent as the economic downturn continued to dampen energy consumption and road freight transport.

China was responsible for 29 percent of emissions in 2012, the United States 15, the European Union 11 percent, India six percent, Russia five percent and Japan four percent.

Fossil-fuel burning accounted for 90 percent of total CO2 and power generation was the biggest contributing sector.

The use of nuclear energy has decreased in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident, but hydropower output increased by 4.3 percent from 2011 to 2012, said the report.

Explore further: Brazil energy, farm incentives fuel CO2 emissions

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

China produces as much CO2 per person as Europe: report

Jul 18, 2012

China's carbon dioxide (CO2) levels soared in 2011, putting its per capita emissions on a par for the first time with those of Europe, while global levels of the greenhouse gas hit another all-time high, a ...

EU emitted 3.3% less greenhouse gas in 2011

May 29, 2013

Europe emitted 3.3 percent less Earth-warming greenhouse gases in 2011—the lowest level since 1990, a European Environment Agency (EEA) report said Wednesday.

New global CO2 emissions record in 2011

Nov 13, 2012

Global carbon dioxide missions hit a new record last year at 34 billion tonnes, with China still topping the list of greenhouse gas producers, a German-based private institute said Tuesday.

Recommended for you

Halliburton pays $1.1 bn for Gulf of Mexico BP spill

4 hours ago

Oil services company Halliburton said Tuesday it would pay a $1.1 billion settlement over its role in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil rig blowout that led to the United States' most disastrous oil spill.

Underwater grass comeback bodes well for Chesapeake Bay

5 hours ago

The Susquehanna Flats, a large bed of underwater grasses near the mouth of the Susquehanna River, virtually disappeared from the upper Chesapeake Bay after Tropical Storm Agnes more than 40 years ago. However, ...

Clean air halves health costs in Chinese city

7 hours ago

Air pollution regulations over the last decade in Taiyuan, China, have substantially improved the health of people living there, accounting for a greater than 50% reduction in costs associated with loss of life and disability ...

User comments : 30

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 31, 2013


"The polar bears are drowning" - Al Gore - democrat, says he invented the Internet.

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson - smartest man never to win the Nobel

Who ya gonna believe?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (17) Nov 02, 2013
The Element of air CO2:

Is not water supreme to Carbon Dioxide in threefold ways?
Is not water twelve and twelve times twelve more prevalent than Carbon Dioxide?
Is not water twelve times twelve more powerful than Carbon Dioxide?
Does not water have four powerful ways of conveying its greenhouse power like unto the other Elements via the scripture of thermodynamics?

Where was CO2 when Water's holy Polar Ice was melting in the 80's-2000's? Why does the false prophet Al Gore say its increase only now dramatically increasing? Beware false prophets!

They would turn you away from the true power of Water.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2013
CO2 emissions 'increased at slower rate in 2012'


Yeah! It's still increasing 393.91 ppm. But it looks to be a slower increase thanks to Al-Gore!

http://co2now.org/

Thanks to Nobel Laureate, VP, Al-Gore for publicizing and bring the issue out of science journals and conferences and into the mainstream public discourse with his books and Academy award winning movie; "An Inconvenient Truth" (It's on Netflix BTW). His warnings to the planet about global warming and the Co2 Hockey Stick, put people forces to work the reduce CO2 emissions! It's worked apparently.

runrig
4 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2013


"The polar bears are drowning" - Al Gore - democrat, says he invented the Internet.

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson - smartest man never to win the Nobel

Who ya gonna believe?


Neither - the scientific evidence does it all for me.
We should NOT believe anyone. This is not a personality cult.
To make it into one entirely misses the point and makes convenient "good" guys and "bad" guys.
If you cant comprehend the science the logical thing to do is follow the consensus, given that there are always contrarian types in any walk of life - there will be in climate science too.

Like I said on here somewhere recently - of 100 doctors giving you a prognosis would it be sensible to go with the 3 against the 97. Putting aside all prejudices of course.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 03, 2013
CO2 emissions 'increased at slower rate in 2012'
Really? Hmm... me thinks me smell a lie...

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2013
""The polar bears are drowning" - Al Gore - democrat, says he invented the Internet." - ShooTard

Sorry, Gore never said either of these two things.

However, it is very true that Gore is responsible for creating the internet as it is today.

""The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson" - ShooTard

Dyson is 92 and has age related cognitive decline, forgetting that the results of his own analysis back in the 70's produced the same results as the IPCC.

Poor ShooTard. We constantly keep reminding him of these facts, and he constantly keeps repeating the same stupidity.

VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2013
ftp://ftp.cmdl.no..._mlo.txt

The data does not match the claim made by this article.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2013
CO2 emissions 'increased at slower rate in 2012'
Really? Hmm... me thinks me smell a lie...

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

ftp://ftp.cmdl.no..._mlo.txt

The data does not match the claim made by this article.
Amazing! I didn't think Vendi-chatterbotbot's operator had it in him to be honest with the data.

Let's try the same thing with the temperature ...look, no global warming in more than a 13 years:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Agree? Disagree?

The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 04, 2013
@Uba-
The Earth is a buffered system, if it responded linearly to every effect thrown at it by cosmos, nature and man, well, for example, it'd be 90 during the day and 33 at night.

That is why the "warming" in "Global Warming" has been so perverse since the beginning. Add heat to the Earth system, add greenhouse gasses, and the Earth doesn't respond much temperature-wise.

Things change, things come to equilibrium. Ice melts, depths and currents change.

CO2 is another red herring. Water vapor is 12x more prevalent in the driest of deserts and the absorption frequency overwhelms and overlaps CO2 absorption bands.

You'll notice no one ever denies this, even the emo-psuedo-scientists that blog here.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2013
CO2 is another red herring. Water vapor is 12x more prevalent in the driest of deserts and the absorption frequency overwhelms and overlaps CO2 absorption bands.
You'll notice no one ever denies this, even the emo-psuedo-scientists that blog here.


The major contribution zones to warming due the GHE are the polar regions where WV is in low concentration and so the 12-16micron band comes into play as CO2's presence is of much greater importance.

Also absorption bands are broadened out and only really overlap at higher pressure in the lower troposphere. Higher up at lower pressure there are many discrete absorption zones with windows between – and here there is little WV to saturate those windows. This is where the AGW GHE works at greatest effect away from the colder drier poles

http://scienceofd...path.png
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (17) Nov 04, 2013
The major contribution zones to warming due the GHE are the polar regions where WV is in low concentration and so the 12-16micron band comes into play as CO2's presence is of much greater importance.
Sure, which totally explains why the poles are suddenly so darn cold (not!)

"2013 saw substantially more (Arctic) ice at summer's end ...in the Antarctic, sea ice reached the highest extent recorded in the satellite record."

"September 2013 (Arctic) ice extent was 1.72 million square kilometers (664,000 square miles) higher than the previous record low for the month"

"This summer saw air temperatures at the 925 hPa level that were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than last summer."

"It was also a cool summer compared to recent years over much of the Arctic Ocean, and even cooler than the 1981 to 2010 average in some regions, particularly north of Greenland."

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

Howhot
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 04, 2013
CO2 is another red herring. Water vapor is 12x more prevalent in the driest of deserts and the absorption frequency overwhelms and overlaps CO2 absorption bands.
That is horse spit. Water vapor terrestrially will be 12x more prevalent anywhere. In the upper atmosphere, things will be very much the reverse.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (17) Nov 04, 2013
The major contribution zones to warming due the GHE are the polar regions where WV is in low concentration and so the 12-16micron band comes into play as CO2's presence is of much greater importance.

Also absorption bands are broadened out and only really overlap at higher pressure in the lower troposphere. Higher up at lower pressure there are many discrete absorption zones with windows between – and here there is little WV to saturate those windows. This is where the AGW GHE works at greatest effect away from the colder drier poles

http://scienceofd...path.png

Yes, great, except there is no heat or radiation at the poles to contribute to the effect, at least compared to where the effect is supposed to be happening. Pressure has an irrelivant contribution, it is the ratio.
But I guess you just posted something psuedo-science to try to refute my statement about no refuting. Beneath you man.
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 04, 2013
And why "Science of Doom," instead of just a plain "google" of absorption frequencies? It is truely distressing the legnths people (not you) will go to deceive.
The water band overlap, at its weakest, is about 6%. That x 12, is overwhelming. Where CO2 has no absorption, over most of the IR, water's is of course, completely overwhelming.
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2013
except there is no heat or radiation at the poles to contribute to the effect, at least compared to where the effect is supposed to be happening. Pressure has an irrelivant contribution, it is the ratio.
…. you just posted something psuedo-science ... Beneath you man.


Why would you think that because the Arctic is cold a GHE would be less? It is in absolute terms (J/s) but it is the relative effect that impacts. Whether the temperature rises from –20C to –19C as a result of extra CO2 over the Arctic or whether from +20 to +21C anyplace else - that deltaT is still a change in the average global temp. It's an insulating effect and works at any temp even though different energy fluxes are at play.
Given calm radiative conditions over snow/ice then terrestrial IR will pour out to space. Now place a cloud there (WV/Ice) that escape will all but stop. (I've seen it many times professionally). Now given that CO2 has a GHE then more molecules in Arctic air will slow IR escape.
cont
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2013
Cont
As frigid Arctic air has very much less (absolute) humidity the absorption window is not already closed. Hence CO2 is very important. It has an enhanced GHE there.
Now pressure - It's GE is that at low pressures the absorption bands of a GHG are not broadened and merged together -THEREFORE there are discrete windows available for IR to escape. CO2 occupies those windows in the H2O spectra and to boot there is very little H2O there.
More CO2 in the higher Trop increases the path length of outgoing IR and slows its escape to space. Because the TOA is the point at which the escape finally takes place with no restriction then it must cool relative to the atmosphere below (going out faster than arriving from below). This is what satellites show. The GHE. It happens. Get over it.

BTW: Just because you do not, or will not understand GHG science does not make it "pseudo-science" and neither does your hand-waving dismissal of it have any weight in a sane world.
Beneath you man.
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 05, 2013
@runrig,
OK, you have convinced me you are sincere in your beliefs.
So why are they wrong?
The most important reason is that so little of the Sun's energy is falling on the poles. The second is that the band-gap of CO2 absorption is so narrow, and radiation is easily re-radiated at thhe poles in other frequencies, it is not a barrier. Then you consider how long the poles are without radiation.
As far as windows, the do not change with pressure. They do not merge together. It's a quantum effect. Whatever your sourrces, you are being deceived.

@Howhot
CO2 concentration decreases exponentially (Canonical distribution) with height. In the troposphere there's not going to much difference. I thought you were a modeller.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2013
The most important reason is that so little of the Sun's energy is falling on the poles.


It does not matter if the Arctic atmosphere has not been directly heated by the sun. (it is minimal anyway over a snow/ice surface). Warm air is advecting there from the south. And air, possessing temperature will loose it's heat to space. Air would still cool less regardless, due to there being a higher concentration of CO2.

The second is that the band-gap of CO2 absorption is so narrow, and radiation is easily re-radiated at the poles in other frequencies, it is not a barrier.


Correct – it is not a barrier. The GHE is NOT that. It is merely an increase in path-length for outgoing IR. Therefore the wavelength of max intensity for the Arctic range of temps is restricted most regardless of the lesser intensity wavelengths less restricted path. There being less H2O available. You cant get away from Plancks' Law.

cont
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2013
cont

As far as windows, the do not change with pressure. They do not merge together. It's a quantum effect. Whatever your sources, you are being deceived.


"Whatever my sources"! Look my friend, you don't get to re-write radiative physics with a wave of the hand. Please provide a link to a paper that shows there is no merging of discrete absorption bands as the pressure of that gas increases. You won't find one as the physics exists…

http://scienceofd...path.png

Unfortunately this paper is behind a pay wall

In addition SW exits to space efficiently over dry desert areas....

http://www.eoeart.../152458/
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2013
CO2 concentration decreases exponentially (Canonical distribution) with height. In the troposphere there's not going to much difference


You have some strange ideas.

The gas mixes like any other pollutant in the atmosphere, carried by convection, winds and jet-streams.

"The researchers say the flow of air in this belt over South America's high Andes Mountains lifts carbon dioxide from major sources on Earth's surface, such as the respiration of plants, as well as forest fires and facilities used for synthetic fuel production and power generation. A portion of this lifted carbon dioxide is then carried into the mid-troposphere, where it becomes trapped in the mid-latitude jet stream and transported rapidly around the world. "The troposphere is like international waters," Chahine said. "What's produced in one place will travel elsewhere."
From…
http://phys.org/n...794.html
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 06, 2013
Of course the atmosphere thins exponentially vs height, at least for the troposphere, and the amount of constituents, inc., CO2 as well. CO2 is trivial long before that ends, trivial period.
As far as broadening with pressure: I think we both agree I don't have the obligation to teach you quantum mechanics, and I can't provide documents disproving basic physics.

However, intuitively, I think everyone knows that on Earth as it is on the Sun, or any other place there is emission/absorption, band gaps do not change: This is what makes identification of extra-terrestrial elements possible-it is a nuclear effect, but...
If you are talking about "fingerprint" structure of CO2, it will have no bearing on the argument: CO2 peaks will not merge, and water...

http://upload.wik...sion.png

Completely trumps in abundance (12x in the driest desert) and absorption, as can be plainly seen.
As for "path length," it exacerbates CO2 triviality.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2013
Of course the atmosphere thins exponentially vs height, at least for the troposphere, and the amount of constituents, inc., CO2 as well. CO2 is trivial long before that ends, trivial period.
As far as broadening with pressure: I think we both agree I don't have the obligation to teach you quantum mechanics, and I can't provide documents disproving basic physics.


Thinning is not the same as "not being mixed". There are as likely to be the same proportion of CO2 molecules present in the Mid-trop at least as there are in the lower. Because of the turbulent stirring of the atmosphere.

You don't have to bring quantum mechanics in to the argument it's not relevant, and you actually don't need to teach it me either. It just basic observational science. Science done/observed in a lab.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2013

Completely trumps in abundance (12x in the driest desert) and absorption, as can be plainly seen.
As for "path length," it exacerbates CO2 triviality.


More hand-waving. I disagree and so does consensus science

"Highest values of longwave loss occurs where surface temperatures are high and cloud cover is minimal, such as the subtropical deserts of the Northern and Southern Hemisphere."

Fig 15/16 at …http://www.eoeart.../152458/

Why do you have no idea how dry the whole Trop can be under subsidence conditions?
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 06, 2013
No it does not, however much you may say it does. Even with complete an unquestioning agreement with the website you cite, just by measuring the width and height of absorption, which is terribly "unfair" to water, you are still left with water being >>6x better. Now you factor in concentration in the driest desert... how about in the most normal of above the oceans?
When you factor in high wave length means less energy, etc., etc., etc. it gets no better for CO2, the better you make the model, the less CO2 is relevant.
That's my armwaving. It's a great site, however-thank you. Just remember, the variability in the Earth's atmosphere for water 12x [CO2] to 100% humidity. That's why CO2 looks so competitive near the bottom.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (17) Nov 06, 2013
@runrig
It would of course take a alchemist to realize the supremacy of the Elements, particulary the Holy Element, Water's avatar, water vapor. Note the 12 times power I forsaw in the beginning of this work.

The lesser Air Elements, runrig, are of course well mixed, CO2, N2, O2 et&al, are all well mixed and proportioned. So as on Earth as it is near Heaven (5 miles up).

I am afraid the scripture of Quantum Mechanics are required.

I was unaware of your own pressure variation scripture, however, you should note that the variations required are not of this Earth. (1 Atm and 1/10 ATM.) Very interesting.

Screw cheese, behold the power of Water!
Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2013
That's my armwaving. It's a great site, however-thank you. Just remember, the variability in the Earth's atmosphere for water 12x [CO2] to 100% humidity. That's why CO2 looks so competitive near the bottom.


Yeah, my arm-waving too. I think the point that needs to be clear, is the H2O vapor in the atmosphere is perfectly linear to temperature. So as global average temperatures increase, so will water vapor which is 12x [CO2]. You can see how that can get out of control quickly. Global average temperatures seem to be influenced by CO2 not water vapor. Similarly, Methane tends to be locked up in the permafrost of the Arctic circle, and as CO2 influences global temperatures, this also gets released.

Its a giant heat trapping feed-back system that will bake the planet into sweltering lifeless dirt pile.
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (18) Nov 06, 2013
@Hothot
Beautifully and wonderfully expressed.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2013
Thanks @Water. Thats rare in these comment sections.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2013
Here, I found this video quite moving; and certainly water oriented.

http://www.youtub...Qst2sLDI
Water_Prophet
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2013
@Howhot
Better than flowers, thanks.