
Global CO2 Emissions in 2019 - simonebrunozzi
https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019
======
gmuslera
Is not a CO2 reduction, but that to the excess of CO2 that is already in the
atmosphere, we worsened the situation as much as previous 2 years, not more.
There is little to celebrate or feel relieved about it, we are still bleeding,
but at least the cut stopped getting wider.

The other "good" news is that we lowered the increase caused by carbon and
replaced it with new emissions from oil and gas that may have other side
effects.

I'm a bit negative about this, even for an article that seem to have possitive
news, maybe next year report will give us brigther news because there was less
activity because the coronavirus.

~~~
kiliantics
Yes, any news that is not about massive reductions in total CO2 emissions (not
just from energy sector) should be considered extremely bad news. Because
that's what it is. Our collective apathy and resignation to continued
destruction needs to stop. We need to be mad as hell and not take it anymore.

~~~
Waterfall
Why? More usable land in Canada and Russia. Is that all there is?

~~~
cmrdporcupine
I hope you're joking. Pretty much all the potentially usable land in Canada is
already in use, regardless of climate change. The issue with Canadian
agricultural lands isn't climate it's soil quality. Almost everything else
isn't going to be arable because it's thin soils over granite bedrock
(Canadian shield). If you go really far north there's areas in permafrost but
that's a) arid and b) would be poor fertility anyways. Likely to desertify if
it actually got that warm.

~~~
Waterfall
It isn't about just fertility, it can have other uses, and its also possible
to make it more fertile (although it is a poor choice as farmland). Las Vegas
for example is very inhospitable, as was the ancient Persepolis.

------
moultano
One unfortunate side effect of this is that methane leaks are growing due to
the switch from coal to natural gas, and we don't know how much. The impact of
that natural gas may make this switch net negative in terms of its climate
impact, and we just don't know.
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/12/climate/texas...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/12/climate/texas-
methane-super-emitters.html)

~~~
Aunche
Natural gas is releases half as much CO2 as coal, and methane is roughly 28x
worse as a greenhouse gas and other natural gases sink. Natural gas would be
better than coal as long as if we aren't leaking 1/28th of our natural gas.
That would be an awful lot of wasted money, so I'm inclined to believe that
natural gas is still better than coal.

~~~
ljf
Here in the UK we waste about 20 percent of all the treated water through
leaks ([https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/11/water-
co...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/11/water-companies-
losing-vast-amounts-through-leakage-raising-drought-fears))

Looks like somewhere around 3 percent of gas is lost through the system - is
this leaks or other issues the article asks:
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-
natural-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-natural-gas-
leaks/)

That is only when gas has reached the supplier. Don't forget gas is also lost
when drilling and also lost in huge amounts when drilling for oil. Gut feel,
from the limited research I've done I would guess losses as far above the
1/28th sadly.

~~~
Aunche
It looks like most of the leaks described in the second article are related to
the gas utilities rather than gas used to generate electricity. I'd like to
imagine that it's a lot cost effective and easier to make sure a big pipe that
goes to a power plant is not leaking rather than a thousand small pipes that
go to homes. It's an eye opening finding either way though.

------
godelski
Flattening the rates is a really good sign. The issue is that we're using more
an more energy each year (especially in the industrialized countries). This
has been super linear growth in the past, due to lots of reinforcing feedback,
and so flattening this is a major undertaking.

There's still a long way to go and a lot to do, but this itself has been a
hard task and is one of the important milestones. It is a small victory, but a
victory nonetheless.

------
cagenut
One of the ways I avoid the endless tone-debate is put numbers in context with
other numbers.

Here is a graph of a range of different models the IPCC used in their Special
Report on 1.5C in 2018:
[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3a.png)

So if you line up the graph in the OP on the left side of your screen/minds-
eye and the graph from the IPCC on the right side, you get a feel for the
dramatic swing in the second derivative that is necessary going forward.

Note that these models assume we develop massive negative emissions technology
in the mid and late century. That is to say, those are already assumed, so you
cant use "we'll just develop negative emissions technology" as a counterpoint
to the necessary amount of change in the immediate term.

If you are at all skeptical of that technological development, then take a few
hundred gigatons off the budget.

~~~
bjoli
I read somewhere that we need a Corona recession every year until 2030 to be
on track for the 1.5c goal. I knew it wasn't going to happen before I read
that, but that put it a bit in perspective.

------
LatteLazy
It's terrifying how many people here are mistaking this for progress or
improvement. We are not going to win this guys.

~~~
godelski
I think you are misunderstanding peoples' interpretations. Hope and joy does
not imply a delusion that we've succeeded. People are happy we've won a
battle, not that we've won the war. People need hope and high morals to
continue this fight. We can't win with everyone feeling hopeless and turning
to apathy. This data shows that efforts to stop climate change are working. We
can build off that momentum and continue pushing because now we can stand on
data that shows the fight has been worth it and we do in fact have the power.
This is contrary to the hopeless battle that many think it is. Because if it
is hopeless, why not just give up.

------
ericvanular
Great to see progress, even if it is incremental and not where we need to be
yet. We're really seeing the death knell in coal these days, with the power
sector leading the way.

(ps. check out [https://collective.energy](https://collective.energy) for more
dialogue around climate action)

------
kisamoto
Disclaimer: Self-plug but I do feel it may be relevant to people here who wish
to take responsibility for their greenhouse gas footprint.

If you're looking at CO₂ emissions and want to do something about your own
footprint please consider removing your own emissions.

Reductions are great and all (definitely part of the necessary solution)
however they do not address the existing excess of CO₂ in the atmosphere

I started "Carbon Removed"[0] for the exact purpose to bring carbon removal to
everyone and make it easy for us all to compensate the damage we have done to
the environment. We support carbon removal methods so you can turn your
emissions into trees and stone.

If you're more interested in removal methods I suggest researching:

    
    
        * tree planting - cheap and easy but slow to see results
        * direct air capture and storage - new, innovative technology that can permanently remove CO₂ through mineralisation but is expensive at this stage. Search "climeworks" 
        * enhanced weathering - "olivine stones" and "project vesta" are good steps here that can slowly and naturally capture CO₂
        * blue carbon - naturally removing carbon dioxide through ocean ecosystems
        * biochar - "carbonise" organic material and use it as a soil supplement (as well as a carbon sink)
    

Personally I have been exceptionally happy to see the transition from "carbon
credits" (which, IMHO provide dubious value and are hard to quantify) to net-
zero emissions - the thought leading concept of today. Steps taken by
Stripe[1] and Microsoft[2] to become "net zero" or even "carbon negative" help
normalise this transition.

tl;dr: We can all reduce our footprints but we need to do more and remove the
existing excess CO₂ in the atmosphere to get back to "normal".

0\. [https://carbonremoved.com](https://carbonremoved.com)

1\. [https://stripe.com/blog/negative-emissions-
commitment](https://stripe.com/blog/negative-emissions-commitment)

2\. [https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-
will-b...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-be-
carbon-negative-by-2030/)

~~~
Waterfall
Trees do air capture and storage, they slowly and naturally capture CO2, and
you can even turn them into "biochar". Blue carbon would just acidify oceans,
a much worst case.

The kind of person that is pro carbon credit would prefer it even if carbon
had no effects on the weather.

------
Waterfall
Is CO2 emissions a large issue in global warming? When I was a little kid, I
was wondering why having a greenhouse effect was bad for plants since we put
them in greenhouses. I've been convinced by years that people smarter than me
thought it was bad and I wasn't smart enough to understand. Freeman Dyson
changed my mind when I saw his interviews, detailing how CO2 has gone up a lot
but it hasn't greatly increased the temperature, how it's good for vegetation
growth and diversity, and how the climate models are just fluid dynamics and
they don't show the full picture. I've heard of a lot of FUD on it but what he
says makes sense to me. I don't see a reason to worry about it when there are
bigger issues, ocean acidification is a much larger world worry. None of the
lower carbon emission agreements are binding either, which shows how seriously
they take it. Elites simply want to use it as a control for slowing developing
countries under the guise of "saving the world".

We've changed the environment with buildings, cities, America used to have
skies blackened by passenger pigeons so you could shoot a shotgun randomly at
the sky and kill a bunch, turtles used to roam freely until the great
depression caused everyone to eat them. Mao told everyone to kill the birds
until their crops were devastated by insects and they had to import them back.
This is not doomsday. The fossils we use for fuel used to live in a much more
diverse and warm climate.

~~~
ben_w
Roughly one third of the CO2 you breathe wasn’t in the atmosphere before the
industrial revolution. Atmospheric CO2 is absorbed into the oceans, acidifying
it.

Even though you are correct that we put plants into greenhouses and it is good
for them, most of the stuff we care about isn’t plants. As one example, enough
CO2 will noticeably harm your intellect, and there is enough unburned carbon
in the world to make us all dull-minded.

Changing the global average temperature by “1 degree” may not sound like much,
but it’s enough to bleach corals and shift agriculture patterns. Even 4.5
degrees Celsius may not seem like much, but it is the difference between an
ice age and a warm period, and we’re already in a warm period.

The ice age had ~200 ppm CO2, the preindustrial level was ~280, today is ~420
ppm.

~~~
Waterfall
The answer to that problem was already solved then: plant a billion trees or
something to that degree and there will be no excess carbon.

>As one example, enough CO2 will noticeably harm your intellect, and there is
enough unburned carbon in the world to make us all dull-minded.

Has IQ been going down due to that? Is that theoretical? Seems like improper
breathing is a larger issue, and people in cities with worst local air have
higher IQs than those in rural areas. Seems at best a non factor.

~~~
ben_w
> The answer to that problem was already solved then: plant a billion trees or
> something to that degree and there will be no excess carbon.

I’m glad we agree there is a problem. Although a mere “billion” trees is well
short of the scale of the solution.

Solving CO2 with carbon offsetting is part of the general model of “carbon
credits“ and “carbon trading”, which can only work with a government-and-
trade-agreement-mandated minimum carbon price.

That’s fine by me. Anything is, so long as it works and works “soon-ish”
rather than “eventually”.

I am optimistic about the technology, I am pessimistic about the politics.

> Has IQ been going down due to that? Is that theoretical?

It is directly measurable in situations where CO2 is higher than wilderness
levels. The study I’ve seen had three specific tested CO2 concentrations,
which were roughly comparable to various modern-life scenarios such as city
center offices or wearing full-face motorcycle helmets.

> Seems like improper breathing is a larger issue, and people in cities with
> worst local air have higher IQs than those in rural areas. Seems at best a
> non factor.

The CO2 level inside cities are indeed higher. As are the CO2 level inside
sealed offices inside a city. These higher levels have a demonstrable,
repeatably testable, negative impact on reasoning skills.

I have seen no prior claim of correlation between location and IQ, however I
have seen a claim that city dwellers walk faster which turned out to be
because cities attract young, skilled, ambitious people. Therefore, you would
need to show causation not just correlation — especially as there are repeated
demonstrations that CO2 impairs cognitive function, and that’s hardly the only
pollutant one should expect to be more common in a city.

Note that burning all the known carbon fuel reserves would raise CO2 levels in
the wilderness to _higher_ levels than currently found in city center offices
whose windows have been closed all week.

Also note that resource consumption has historically been exponential, so this
is a larger problem going forward than you might expect looking backwards.

~~~
Waterfall
Have you listened to Freeman Dyson talk about this matter? I call it a problem
mainly because it's dealt with as an issue. Why is a billion trees short? What
is it short of? The kind of person who likes carbon taxes would prefer their
use even if carbon dioxide had no effect on the environment. It again is a
control for small developing countries to be overburdened, while the developed
counties can happily use their advanced energy creation while the poor remain
poor and in stasis. Freeman mentions that global warming is not the same evil
as poverty, hunger and disease which are greater problems. Another posted
mentioned using fancy expensive contraptions to capture carbon. We have trees
that do everything naturally without the need of silicon valley or other tech
companies to make advanced expensive methods to capture carbon when the
natural means does everything we need. Because of the issues with the energy
grid, they've been giving away LEDs and other energy saving devices to help us
use less energy. I'd say that electronics use has gone up but electricity for
them hasn't since we use smartphones a lot more. Air conditioners are still
the worst offender for overuse of energy.

~~~
ben_w
Most of those points are irrelevant.

The main relevant question is “why is a billion trees not enough?”, to which
the answer is: as a rough guide, undoing emissions from 1850-2020 would
require more than the total biomass of the entire planet.

It is also important to note that, even if it was physically possible to solve
this problem in this way, you can tell it isn’t economical to do so, because
if it was we’d already have _fully_ (not partially) replaced fossil fuels with
biofuels.

~~~
Waterfall
How are they irrelevant? The reason there are countries that developed and
became first world countries is precisely because they used fossil fuels.
Preventing other countries from doing the same for the sake of protecting the
environment (which by the way is never in stasis) is simply condemning people
to poverty, disease, basically to cripple poor nations. It seems very
nationalistic under the guise of protecting the environment.

>undoing emissions from 1850-2020 would require more than the total biomass of
the entire planet.

So we created more carbon than existed? Are you familiar with the fact that
matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed? Carbon existed before as
animals and other biomass, and you are saying now that the total biomass of
the planet is not enough and we generated CO2 from thin air?

>It is also important to note that, even if it was physically possible to
solve this problem in this way, you can tell it isn’t economical to do so,
because if it was we’d already have fully (not partially) replaced fossil
fuels with biofuels.

The dearman engine is zero emissions refrigeration truck, and runs on
nitrogen. It is not being adopted into more developed countries despite being
better, because of legacy vehicles. There are many reasons why biofuel hasn't
taken off in the US but in many other countries it has.

So making more expensive technology for carbon capture is more economical? The
problem they solved then was not fuel recycling, it was carbon capture. You
can look it up (I'm on mobile) and state the issues with it. Even at the cost
of $50 a tree, its 50 billion to stop worrying about carbon emissions.

~~~
ben_w
> How are they irrelevant?

To be blunt, you come across as having as shallow a grasp of this topic as I
have of general relativity. I like learning about GR, but if I ask real
physicists questions about it, the responses are, at best, “what are you even
talking about?”

> The reason there are countries that developed and became first world
> countries is precisely because they used fossil fuels.

Better, cheaper, alternatives exist now. PV + battery is cheaper than new coal
plants even in northern Europe, and almost everywhere has better solar than
northern Europe.

> So we created more carbon than existed? Are you familiar with the fact that
> matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed? Carbon existed before as
> animals and other biomass, and you are saying now that the total biomass of
> the planet is not enough and we generated CO2 from thin air?

They are called “fossil fuels” for a reason. We dug up fossilised remains
which were not part of the biosphere.

> The dearman engine is zero emissions refrigeration truck, and runs on
> nitrogen. It is not being adopted into more developed countries despite
> being better, because of legacy vehicles.

It’s a heat engine, and heat engine efficiency depends on the difference
between the hot side and the cold side. You maximise efficiency by running as
hot as possible, not as cold as possible. Hydrogen and batteries are both
better.

> So making more expensive technology for carbon capture is more economical?

You’re the one suggesting carbon capture (that’s what planting trees _is_ );
I’m saying don’t emit carbon in the first place.

> Even at the cost of $50 a tree, its 50 billion to stop worrying about carbon
> emissions.

Except that as I already told you, a billion trees isn’t enough. A billion
trees is about three months of emissions, even assuming you prevent the trees
rotting or burning at the end of their lives. If you just turn them into wood,
that only delays the problem by a few centuries at best.

