A stunning new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) finds the growth rate of CO2 emissions has tripled in recent years:
CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate increasing from 1.1%/year for 1990-1999 to >3%/year for 2000-2004. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s.
That’s right. CO2 emissions are rising faster than in the most pessimistic U.N. scenario. So much for all those ostriches and Global Warming Delayers who say that economic growth is the key to solving global warming or that the U.N. scenarios are too extreme.
The study finds “Global emissions growth since 2000 was driven by a cessation or reversal of earlier declining trends in the energy intensity of gross domestic product (energy/GDP) and the carbon intensity of energy (emissions/energy), coupled with continuing increases in population and per-capita GDP.” Sadly, “No region is decarbonizing its energy supply.” In short, coal remains king.
The study also makes an important point about equity in global climate negotiations:
Together, the developing and least-developed economies (forming 80% of the world’s population) accounted for 73% of global emissions growth in 2004 but only 41% of global emissions and only 23% of global cumulative emissions since the mid-18th century.
Cumulative emissions are what have driven the sharp rise in CO2 concentrations. So even as China is poised to become the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide on annual basis, it will be many decades before the poorer countries surpass the richer countries total emissions since the dawn of the industrial age. That’s a key reason the rich countries agreed to go first in reducing emissions at Kyoto — that and the fact that the rich countries got rich by polluting and have an obligation to spend some of that money reducing pollution and helping poorer countries adopt cleaner technologies.
Finally, the study makes a point that has been a recurring theme on Climate Progress:
… the fraction of total anthropogenic [human-made] CO2 emissions remaining in the atmosphere … has increased slowly with time … implying a slight weakening of sinks relative to emissions.
The carbon sinks — the oceans, forests, soils, and tundra — are saturating, even as the carbon sources — the burning of fossil fuels plus deforestation — are growing.
Kudos to PNAs editors for making this an open access article.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
Did this study look at the possibility of feedbacks such as melting tundra adding to the CO2 concentrations?
This study, which you can access, deals with soaring human emissions of CO2, not concentrations. The quote I give about the weakening of sinks is incidental to the main point.
Thanks I did go back and read the report after posting the question.
One of the final comments in the submission: “the fraction of total anthropogenic [human-made] CO2 emissions remaining in the atmosphere … has increased slowly with time … implying a slight weakening of sinks relative to emissions.” states that human originating CO2 emissions are growing only “slowly with time”?
If the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has been as infinitesimal as it apparently has for many millenia (currently totalling even with increases, less than an eighth of an inch on the total length of an atmospheric football field), and it is increasing slowly…how in God’s name can you blame it for alleged climate change variations that have been with us for ever?
“The carbon sinks — the oceans, forests, soils, and tundra — are saturating, even as the carbon sources — the burning of fossil fuels plus deforestation — are growing.”
There is no reason nor evidence to support this.
As CO2 concentration increases, the gas diffusion law states that ocean CO2 capacity increases. Further, the biosphere is a more productive absorber due to “CO2 fertilization” effect. The sinks will pull more CO2 as CO2 concentrations rise.
The trendlines of CO2 concentrations are not accelerating, so that even if man is outputting more CO2, the levels are not rising any faster.
Thus, the carbon sinks are *not* saturating.
Sorry Patrick M, but your arguments do not convince me.
Reminds me of Bjorn Lomborg mentioning the impact of Sun activity on earth’s climate to “prove” that Climate Change is only due to Sun activity and not man-made.
The phenomena and laws of physics you mention are certainly part of what is actually happening, but in staying in qualitative terms you don’t mention the quantitative extent of their impact, nor seem to consider the possibility of other phenomena also playing a role.
If thousands of IPCC researchers had to go through 20 years of extensive, peer reviewed, research to grasp the complexity of the many interrelated phenomena taking place in climate change science, I personnally doubt that the two phenomena you mention have enough scientific validity to back your conclusion.
Cheers,
Jean-Pierre