
CO₂ and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions - daddylonglegs
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
======
frankbreetz
It is always interesting to see graphs like this, I am curious how much
something like a new green deal would move the 2100 temperature line. A common
argument against it is that everything depends on China and India. I don't
suspect this is true. The USA is one of the highest per capita emitters, it
doesn't seem right that we would get to live like that while we take away
resources from these other countries who are not as capable of switching over.
At least we should get to a point where we all have equal per capita emitters,
preferably we should be investing in the technology that would allow them to
never have to use carbon-emitting technologies and even potentially profit off
them.

~~~
Glench
I think Otherlab's analyses talk about this a little:

The Green New Deal: The enormous opportunity in shooting for the moon.
[https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-
gnd-b8d...](https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-
gnd-b8ddd569de16) (electrifying everything with clean generation will reduce
energy needs by half even without any changes in lifestyle)

How do we decarbonize? [https://medium.com/otherlab-news/how-do-we-
decarbonize-7fc2f...](https://medium.com/otherlab-news/how-do-we-
decarbonize-7fc2fa84e887) (A fairly balanced take on how realistic various
solutions are, from engineering, policy, and economic perspectives)

~~~
frankbreetz
I'm really a fan of the new green deal, I am afraid that them trying to couple
it with a jobs guarantee and universal healthcare will make it easy for the
Republicans to make it look like a power grab. I am a fan of both a jobs
guarantee and universal healthcare, but those items are not nearly as
important as decarbonizing as quickly as possible.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Seems like if part of the political resistance is people losing jobs in dirty
indstries (and since healthcare and employment are bizarrely conjoined) then
addressing all three together makes perfect sense.

------
jwr
These are fantastic charts.

The problem is that most people will look at them, quickly find "another"
large source of CO2 emissions (be it another country, another industry), point
fingers and say "it's them!" without doing anything else. Which in the long
term (as in, our children and grandchildren will suffer) will destroy our
planet.

~~~
war1025
A thought I had the other day, that sort of fits in the context of what you're
saying, but probably not completely:

It's interesting to step back and consider how the current Climate Change
narrative is similar to the universal theme of "We offended God, so now he is
punishing us."

Not really sure what the implications of that are, but seems like something
that could be harnessed either for good or ill.

------
legitster
It's super depressing to see the acceleration of coal energy in 2000. Despite
the rise of renewables, they haven't even been able to keep up with the rise
of coal!

And the vast majority of it comes from energy production! Electric cars don't
solve the problem if we are switching from high-efficiency gas engines to
coal-fired electric.

~~~
perfunctory
It's even worse. Fossil investments are still growing in 2018
[https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-iea-energy-investment-
idU...](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-iea-energy-investment-
idUKKCN1SJ2F8)

~~~
pjc50
"Molecules of freedom"! [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/doe-
freedom-gas-...](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/doe-freedom-gas-
natural-gas/index.html)

Beyond parody.

------
usrusr
What happened in 1600 that made CO2 levels drop? Natural reforestation after
European germs wiped out agricultural civilizations in the Americas?

~~~
roter
Carbon dioxide and temperature are linked. 1650 was the height of the Little
Ice Age [0]. Lots of interesting theories and research, e.g. [1], for the
specific carbon dioxide drop.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age)

[1]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2769](https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2769)

~~~
usrusr
The link from CO2 to temperature is well discussed. But carbon does not
randomly disappear from the atmosphere, so either the trigger must have been
something on the ground/at sea or there's also a reverse causal link from
temperature to CO2 (so it could be triggered by something sun activity), which
would imply a terribly unstable system. A very interesting topic indeed. Could
variations in the amount of living biomass (which temporarily binds carbon to
be released after death unless buried into isolation) make that much of a dent
in atmospheric carbon concentration? My gut feeling says atmospheric carbon
far outweighs biologically bound (and is in turn dwarfed by geologically
bound, until we have dug it all up), but that's really just a guess.

------
yboris
OurWorldInData is one of my favorite resources now for finding out about the
world ️

------
temp99990
Utterly depressing to see how much damage we can cause in 30-40 years,
basically only since older “millennials” were born.

------
ForHackernews
> 1.5°C consistent: there are a range of emissions pathways that would be
> compatible with limiting average warming to 1.5°C by 2100. However, all
> would require a very urgent and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas
> emissions.

Is this polite data analyst-speak for "We're fucked"?

~~~
rayiner
Seeing as how the 1.5C pathways require global emissions to go zero of
negative within our lifetimes, yes:
[https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/04/Greenhouse-gas-
em...](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/04/Greenhouse-gas-emission-
scenarios-01.png).

~~~
frankbreetz
What I don't understand about this is, that we were flat for about three
years, and then we went up a little bit. This to me signals that we are close
to if not at peak emissions and we should be able to start seeing the downturn
at any time. But the chart you are showing has emissions increasing for the
next 20 years. Am I oversimplifying or being naive?

~~~
rayiner
We are nowhere near peak emissions. There may be dips here and there (e.g. due
to recession). But look what happened to China starting in 2000:
[https://images.app.goo.gl/F4m9zThoK7Yr9jC66](https://images.app.goo.gl/F4m9zThoK7Yr9jC66).
It added more CO2 than the total output of the US. That’s going to happen to
India and Africa over the next few decades as those places develop into middle
class economies.

~~~
vixen99
In other words authorities in China, India and Africa pay lip service to what
one might call the 'Greta Prediction' while their actions show they simply do
not believe it.

------
ralusek
Climate aside, doesn't the increase of CO2 from 280PPM to 400PPM not have a
substantial impact on the respiration of trees and animals? 42% increase of
poison to animals has no meaningful impact?

~~~
village-idiot
I'm not sure about other animals, but 400ppm is a long way away from toxic for
humanity. Poorly ventilated indoor environments can easily hit 1200-1500ppm.
You've got to hit 70,000 to 100,000 ppm before you start running the risk of
coma and death.

Interestingly some studies indicate that 1200ppm and higher might confer some
mild cognitive impairment, even if it's a long way away from fatal. This has
been used glibly to explain the poor decisions made in office rooms, but one
does wonder what happens to humanity if global emissions make us slightly
dumber.

~~~
perfunctory
That's why they are called "poorly ventilated" and you are not supposed to
stay in them 24/7\. Indeed, adverse effects begin before coma and death.

