Environment & Energy

progree

(11,389 posts) Fri Jul 26, 2024, 03:35 PM Jul 26

World CO2 emissions may be peaking - I'm sure I'll catch a lot of flak for posting this

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2024, 03:32 AM - Edit history (10)

but I thought I should share it anyway, FWIW.

A Major Milestone: Global Climate Pollution May Have Just Peaked (CO2 emissions -Progree), WhoWhatWhy (originally published by Yale Climate Connections -Progree), 7/25/24

According to the Carbon Monitor Project, the total global climate pollution released between February and May 2024 declined slightly from the amount released during the same period in 2023. Many experts believe that the clean energy transition has reached the point where emissions will stabilize and then begin to decline. The critical milestone of peak climate pollution might be happening right now.

...

This story by Dana Nuccitelli was originally published by Yale Climate Connections and is part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.

Much more at : https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/a-major-milestone-global-climate-pollution-may-have-just-peaked/ar-BB1qCvOt

(there's a lot on China and its slowed economy)

I don't know anything about Yale Climate Connections, other than it is connected to Yale University by more than just sharing the same name, FWIW.
https://www.google.com/search?q=yale+climate+connections&oq=yale+climate

I know zero about the Carbon Monitor Project, "WhoWhatWhy" and Dana Nuccitelli

The atmosphere is like a slightly leaky bathtub. For millennia, the water level has remained constant, as the dripping faucet's flow rate has matched the drain leakage rate. But since the beginning of industrial times, the faucet drip rate has increased and increased, while the drain leakage rate goes up much more slowly (a function of water pressure which in turn is a function of water level). So the water level keeps rising.

If what the article says might be true, we're near or at the point where the drip rate is no longer increasing. But the drip rate, perhaps constant, perhaps declining slightly, is still higher than the drain leakage rate, so the water level will keep going up.

So too with the atmospheric CO2 levels. Turning the "faucet" back a few percent or a quarter is not going to stop the CO2 level from rising. It needs to be turned back to about almost where it was in pre-industrial times in order for the CO2 level to eventually stabilize.

(This was an issue during the Covid shutdowns where emissions did decrease for a while, but CO2 levels in the atmosphere kept rising, and people wondered how can that be)

But then who the fuck cares about any of this. All that matters is that the GDP growth went up more than expected, and Fox News hosts are flustered about that. 83% Fossil-fueled growth, I might add

Edited to add - I did briefly look at the Carbon Monitor Project (https://carbonmonitor.org/). It appears that it is strictly about CO2 emisssions, not all greenhouse gas emissions. I modified my parethetical comment in the article title above from " (greenhouse gas emissions -Progree) " to " (CO2 emissions -Progree) " to reflect my new understanding.

Click on the Variation button. It shows "January 1st -> May 31st, 2024 vs. January 1st -> May 30th 2023" Then hover the mouse over WLD (which is World). It says "All sectors" have increased +1.6%".

I can't find anything about the OP's excerpt's statement "total global climate pollution released between February and May 2024 declined slightly from the amount released during the same period in 2023", but if I download the data I might see that.

EDITED TO ADD 7/28 1240 PM ET: muriel_volestrangler (see #8) downloaded the data and found the above quote to be dubious at best. I did some work and found the above statement is true only if interpreted as between the end of February and the beginning of May! In plain English, it's true only in the 2-month period March 1 thru April 30.
. . . I'll be checking the 0.1% increase from 2022 to 2023 statement below hopefully today. /END EDIT 7/28 1240p

The top of the page says "Global CO2 emissions for 2023 increased by only 0.1% relative to 2022 (following increases of 5.4% and 1.9% in 2021 and 2022, respectively), reaching 35.8 Gt CO2. Check our comment on Nature Reviews: Earth & Environment"

Again, this is CO2 emissions, not all ghg emissions. I worry about methane emissions and secondary emissions of both CO2 and methane from e.g. permafrost melting that I don't think are included. I don't think secondary emissions are included in most reports on ghg emissions /END EDIT

Edited to add 1205 AM ET 7/27 Some still seem to be having difficulty with this. Looking at what's quoted 2 paragraphs above, CO2 emissions increased 5.4% from 2020 to 2021, 1.9% from 2021 to 2022, and 0.1% from 2022 to 2023. Doing the math and working backwards, that means we've gone from emissions of 33.300 Gt CO2 in 2020 to 35.097 Gt in 2021 to 35.764 Gt in 2022 to 35.8 Gt in 2023. If emissions have indeed peaked, it means CO2 emissions in 2024 will also be 35.8 GT (or less), ditto for 2025, 2026, and so on.

As before, the land, flora, and oceans don't have the ability to absorb anywhere near that amount of CO2 per year, so atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to climb and climb. And climb. And as before, this is CO2, not all GHG, and very likely doesn't include any secondary emissions of any kind

And I changed my OP title from "World greenhouse gas emissision may be peaking" to "World CO2 emissions may be peaking" /END EDIT

EDITED TO ADD 7/28 1240 PM ET and 1010 PM ET - see above where I placed it in context - the slight decline that Carbonmonitor.org finds between Feb and May 2024 compared to the same months in 2023 applies only to the period March 1 - April 30.

The deceptive wording that was used (calling it "climate pollution" when it is only CO2, not all GHG) -- and saying the slight decline "from February to May" (when it's really only end of February to beginning of May -- i.e. March 1 thru April 30) -- is on Yale Climate Connections, not on the CarbonMonitor.org.

Anyway, from January 1 thru May 31, 2024 over the same period in 2023, CO2 emissions are 1.6% higher per CarbonMonitor.org [that includes an extra day in 2024, leap day, without it, it is 1.0% higher].

If everything CarbonMonitor.org says is true, and I haven't caught them in an error or misleading statement yet, and if 2024 continues to be an adjusted 1.0% higher than 2023 through year end, then it looks like we'll have: 2021: +5.4%, 2022: +1.9%, 2023: +0.1%, and 2024: +1.0%, with 2024 over 2023 adjusted down by subtracting out the extra leap day. So it's a little premature to call this a peaking or a peaking in progress.

And the carbon monitor is counting just primary CO2 emissions, as AFAIK (I skimmed through carbonmonitor.org's Methods link, 34 pages). Secondary emissions are not included AFAIK, nor are other ghg emissions (primary and secondary) like methane AFAIK.

I'll be at least checking out the "2023: +0.1%" claim, but it might take a couple days to get at it/End Edit 7/28

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

World CO2 emissions may be peaking - I'm sure I'll catch a lot of flak for posting this (Original Post) progree Jul 26 OP

Even if we cut GG emissions to zero we have baked in a huge amount of warming. Voltaire2 Jul 26 #1

This is not remotely believable, but even if it were... NNadir Jul 26 #2

We are still adding CO2 at the highest rate in history. mackdaddy Jul 26 #3

Thanks for this n/t Lulu KC Jul 26 #4

Oh geez, I clicked on Download Data at the Carbon Monitor and got 25,543 rows of data progree Jul 27 #5

I've downloaded and sorted them; the 1.6%/year global increase is there, but it includes Feb 29th muriel_volestrangler Jul 28 #8

Their statement is true (a slight decline) only for March 1 thru April 30 progree Jul 28 #9

Yeah, no . . . . hatrack Jul 27 #6

I'm not getting the tie-in to WORLD CO2 emissions, which is the subject of the OP progree Jul 27 #7

Voltaire2

(14,346 posts)

1. Even if we cut GG emissions to zero we have baked in a huge amount of warming.

Reply to progree (Original post)

Fri Jul 26, 2024, 03:50 PM

Jul 26

So it's great that GG emissions 'might have peaked', but that peak is massively unsustainable and needs to be driven down to as close to zero as is possible, and even then billions of people and billions more of other species are going to suffer on the altar of perpetual growth.

All that matters is that the GDP growth went up more than expected, and Fox News hosts are flustered about that.

I shudder every time we celebrate economic expansion. Unfortunately if we don't the fucking fascists are going to take over and, among other abominations. will quickly undo any progress on sustainability.

NNadir

(34,011 posts)

2. This is not remotely believable, but even if it were...

Reply to progree (Original post)

Fri Jul 26, 2024, 04:12 PM

Jul 26

...the word "peak" is one of the most abused words in any conversation involving energy. The abuse of this word, or the avoidance of its significance, is a big part of the reason that people accept this dishonest marketing of solar and wind energy as if they had something to do with preventing the use of dangerous fossil fuels, although the numbers clearly demonstrate the opposite. Were emissions to fall to what they were in 2014 or 2004 or 1994 they would still be extremely dangerous. They were at dangerous levels then and they are even more dangerous now.

mackdaddy

(1,559 posts)

3. We are still adding CO2 at the highest rate in history.

Reply to progree (Original post)

Fri Jul 26, 2024, 08:44 PM

Jul 26

What they are saying is that where we were also making even higher record rates of addition each year, that the speed at which we are adding the CO2 has now leveled off.

Not that we are not still blasting massive amounts of CO2 way beyond any balance point. Just the amount added is at the same rate.

Lulu KC

(3,002 posts)

4. Thanks for this n/t

Reply to progree (Original post)

Fri Jul 26, 2024, 10:11 PM

Jul 26

progree

(11,389 posts)

5. Oh geez, I clicked on Download Data at the Carbon Monitor and got 25,543 rows of data

Reply to progree (Original post)

Sat Jul 27, 2024, 12:48 AM

Jul 27

for 3 years worth . carbonmonitor.org

Here is what it looks like for ONE DAY - 84 rows not including the header
country date sector MtCO2 per day
Brazil 01/01/2023 Domestic Aviation 0.0200738
Brazil 01/01/2023 Ground Transport 0.23143
Brazil 01/01/2023 Industry 0.238468
Brazil 01/01/2023 International Aviation 0.0138432
Brazil 01/01/2023 Power 0.0853684
Brazil 01/01/2023 Residential 0.0984519
China 01/01/2023 Domestic Aviation 0.0867145
China 01/01/2023 Ground Transport 2.16809
China 01/01/2023 Industry 12.8764
China 01/01/2023 International Aviation 0.0168365
China 01/01/2023 Power 16.9097
China 01/01/2023 Residential 3.68142
blah blah blah blah for a gazillion rows
WORLD 01/01/2023 Domestic Aviation 0.697971
WORLD 01/01/2023 Ground Transport 14.0947
WORLD 01/01/2023 Industry 28.123
WORLD 01/01/2023 International Aviation 1.3214
WORLD 01/01/2023 Power 36.7724
WORLD 01/01/2023 Residential 15.2654

They don't even bother adding the sectors up.

Anyway, I'll have to brush up on Excel database operations, which I haven't used in at least a decade, and then not very much.

Presumably, for a year of data, I could extract all records with WORLD in column A. And then simply sum up all 6*365=2190 rows of that to get a year total of WORLD, all sectors combined. (Yes, I know about =SUM(range) in Excel). Probably not difficult to do the database extraction part either, maybe later.

There's also a DSUM function in Excel that will sum up all records with a field or fields matching criteria. So I probably won't have to bother with extracting WORLD first.

muriel_volestrangler

(102,047 posts)

8. I've downloaded and sorted them; the 1.6%/year global increase is there, but it includes Feb 29th

Reply to progree (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 28, 2024, 07:04 AM

Jul 28

The totals for 'WORLD' for Jan 1st to May 31st 2023 are 14991; for Jan 1st to May 31st 2024 including Feb 29th are 15235. But that's 151 days in 2023, and 152 in 2024. So per day, that works out at a 0.96% increase from 2023 to 2024.

Still not sure where Yale CC got the "declined slightly" for the "February to May" period (inclusive - ie Feb 1st to May 31st? or something else? Excluding the January figures doesn't make much difference).

progree

(11,389 posts)

9. Their statement is true (a slight decline) only for March 1 thru April 30

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 28, 2024, 12:25 PM

Jul 28

Last edited Sun Jul 28, 2024, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Excerpt from the article (see OP)

"total global climate pollution released between February and May 2024 declined slightly from the amount released during the same period in 2023"

The amount of CO2 MT difference between 2023 and 2024 (February 29 not included) is:

Jan +49.03 (meaning Jan 2024 had 49.03 more CO2 MT than Jan 2023)
Feb +28.88 (excludes Feb 29, 2024)
Mar -20.21
Apr - 4.59
May +81.78

So only March and April were negative. There's no way to "expand the range" and still have a negative total for the range. .

The OP statement is correct if it is interpreted as (and using a minimal words change):

"total global climate pollution released between THE END OF February and THE BEGINNING OF May 2024 declined slightly from the amount released during the same period in 2023"

That's a pretty absurd stretch of the original statement, but oh well.

I'll fix the OP after posting this.

So far, the only mistakes or questionable writing comes from Yale Climate Connections,

(#1#) Saying "global climate pollution" declined when it is only CO2, not all greenhouse gasses

(#2#) The misleading statement "total global climate pollution released between February and May 2024 declined slightly from the amount released during the same period in 2023" is true (based on CarbonMonitor.org data) only with the most stretched interpretation of that period. Its actually true only for the period March 1 - April 30 (and only for CO2).

I haven't found any errors in any carbonmonitor.org's statements yet.

Thanks for taking the time and catching this.

=================================================================

: I've downloaded and sorted them; the 1.6%/year global increase is there, but it includes Feb 29th. The totals for 'WORLD' for Jan 1st to May 31st 2023 are 14991; for Jan 1st to May 31st 2024 including Feb 29th are 15235. But that's 151 days in 2023, and 152 in 2024. So per day, that works out at a 0.96% increase from 2023 to 2024.

In the OP I wrote this about carbonmonitor.org

Click on the Variation button. It shows "January 1st -> May 31st, 2024 vs. January 1st -> May 30th 2023" Then hover the mouse over WLD (which is World). It says "All sectors" have increased +1.6%.

I get the same numbers as you (14991 and 15235), and it came to a 1.6% same as you and carbonmonitor.org say (includes Feb 29). So at least on this one everyone is on the same page.

=================================================================

The top of the carbonmonitor.org page says "Global CO2 emissions for 2023 increased by only 0.1% relative to 2022 (following increases of 5.4% and 1.9% in 2021 and 2022, respectively)"

I'll be looking at the 0.1% part of the statement. I'll have to download again, it turns out what I saved from last time around was Jan 1 - May 31, 2023 followed by Jan 1 - May 31, 2024. I thought I had saved 3 years worth. Not.

=================================================================

I used the DSUM function in what I did. I did check carefully for smaller sets of data to make sure the sums it came up matched highlighting the relevant data and looking at the status line for the sum.

The big difficulty was, that the dates are text strings like 31/05/2024 for the last day of May 2024 for example. Database criteria fields like
< =5/31/2024 and variations of that like < =31/05/2024 don't understand it. (I put a space between the < and the = because DU software doesn't like those 2 characerters together). And I couldn't figure out how to make "31/05/2024" be seen as dates by Excel, not easily. So I added a column of dates using this formula on each row, where column B has the original troublesome dates, and using row 200 as an example.:

=DATEVALUE(MID(B200,4,2)&"/"&LEFT(B200,2)&RIGHT(B200,5))

It changes "31/05/2024" into "05/31/2024", and then applies the Datevalue function to it to make it a date rather than a text string, and then I formatted it with the *m/dd/yyyy" format for human readability.

Just so you know there is this extra work in case you decide to fiddle with it some more (and don't know any better way).

hatrack

(60,260 posts)

6. Yeah, no . . . .

Reply to progree (Original post)

Sat Jul 27, 2024, 08:48 AM

Jul 27

The United States alone produced more oil in each of the past six years than any other country in history in any one-year period.

That oil will be used (burned), along with everybody's else's oil, and the last 5-10% of the CO2 produced by all this "growth" will not be reabsorbed by the biosphere for another 20,000 years . . .

And even if direct anthropogenic CO2 emissions began dropping around tea-time today, it would do little to nothing to cut the contributions from flaming forests, burping bogs, and slowly declining marine CO2 uptake.

progree

(11,389 posts)

7. I'm not getting the tie-in to WORLD CO2 emissions, which is the subject of the OP

Reply to hatrack (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 27, 2024, 03:25 PM

Jul 27

Last edited Sat Jul 27, 2024, 06:54 PM - Edit history (1)

or World oil production or world fossil fuel production.

The United States alone produced more oil in each of the past six years than any other country in history in any one-year period.

You wrote about it here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3278917

Domestic oil and gas production, turbocharged by the advance of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has rocketed. No country in history has extracted as much oil as the US has in each of the past six years, with a fifth of all oil drilled in 2023 being American flavored. US gas production also tops the global charts, having surged 50% in the past decade.

I get that the U.S. has been the world's number one oil producer for the past 6 years, and these levels are higher than any country's in history. Gotit. I'm not sure why "alone" is italicized or even included.

And gas too as the excerpt says.

I even included a link to it in my comment to yesterday's LBN GDP report.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3278917

=========================================================

Some research I did this morning. It is slow growth, but it is growth.

Global oil production from Statista.com
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-production-in-barrels-per-day/
This morning it wasn't pay-walled. Today it is, sigh

When I Googled [World Oil production by year] and then clicked on the Statista link, it wasn't paywalled

It reached its then-all-time-high of 2019 (95.172 M barrels/day) , then dipped substantially in 2020 with the economic shutdowns), but grew again year by year and exceeded its 2019 peak in 2023 (96.376 M barrels/day, a 1.27% increase over 4 years, a 0.31%/year annualized increase).

I see similar with natural gas
Our world in data: 2018-2023: 38,453 39,640, 38,662, 40,437, 40,486, 40,592 TWH (a 2.40% increase over 2019)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gas-production-by-country?country=QAT~USA~RUS~CAN~GBR~OWID_WRL

And coal:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-coal-production-2000-2025
It doesn't give world totals, so I'd have to add those 7 regions up year by year. It only goes to 2022. 2023 is predicted to be very slightly higher than 2022, and then to decline after that very slowly. I added 2019 up (7,959 MT) and 2023 predicted (8,365 MT), a 5.1% increase in 4 years.

=========================================================

This one here is just the U.S., not the world total, but here it is:

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
The bottom 4 bands are all fossil fuels. So, to see the combined total of fossil fuels, look at the top of the light pink band:.

It is interesting that the total U.S. fossil fuel production in BTUs (top of the light pink band) was essentially flat from 1970 to 2007, and then very sad that it went sharply up from there.

The wind and solar total is just 2.3% (it's less than half of the renewables green band).

=========================================================

EDITED TO ADD 7/27 645p ET - I ran across the sibling graph to the above. The above is U.S. production. This one below is U.S. consumption.

As far as I know, the difference (quite a difference in trend!) is exports

At least on the consumption side, fossil fuel consumption in BTUs (top of the light pink band) has marginally declined from a 2007 peak. Though fossil fuels are still a huge 83% of all consumed energy.

The wind and solar total is just 2.6% (it's less than half of the renewables green band).

Reply to this discussion