Despite pandemic, carbon dioxide level in atmosphere hits record high
By: Brady Dennis and Steven Mufson (The Washington Post)
The pandemic has turned climate politics into a morass of conundrums, contradictions, mixed messages, faulty assumptions, and deliberate obfuscation. The political imperative is to control public opinion and establish a political consensus ahead of the COP26 summit in Glasgow this coming November. Facts be damned. We're being Fauci'd on climate change.
We know qualitatively, if not quantitatively, that the pandemic caused a drastic reduction in consumption of fossil fuels and associated carbon emissions. The pandemic caused a global economic slowdown that was much more severe than the Great Recession. Yet the impact on climate change was negligible according to the quasi-science presented for obviously political purposes. According to the politically motivated science, living like cavemen won't stop climate change. The political message is that fossil fuels are causing climate change but the pandemic showed that reducing use of fossil fuels didn't accomplish much. We must buy, buy, buy technological innovations. Yes, the only way to stop climate change is to spend astronomical amounts of money.
Carbon dioxide accounts for 80 pct of greenhouse gases being emitted. The other 20 pct of greenhouse gas emissions are a mix of methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases, and other man-made gases that are far more potent than carbon dioxide. As much as half of global warming can be attributed to gases other than carbon dioxide because of their much higher greenhouse warming potential.
Electricity generation and transportation are responsible for half of carbon dioxide emissions. Since carbon dioxide emissions, by an admittedly rough estimate, account for half of global warming and fossil fuels used for electricity and transport account for half of carbon dioxide emissions, then fossil fuels are responsible for one fourth of global warming. Spending astronomical amounts of public money on alternative energy and electric vehicles won't stop global warming or climate change. But that spending will assuredly allow a small portion of the human population to become fabulously wealthy.
The COP26 summit in Glasgow will be a meeting of political leaders floating political arguments to justify political expenditures of vast amounts of public money. So called climate experts are priming the pump for spend astronomical amounts of money by influencing public opinion. Just keep in mind that these climate experts are using confusion, faulty assumptions, and obfuscation to address climate change in the same manner that Anthony Fauci addressed the pandemic.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Economies worldwide nearly ground to a halt over the 15 months of the coronavirus pandemic, leading to a startling drop in global greenhouse gas emissions.
But the idle airplanes, boarded-up stores and quiet highways barely made a dent in the steady accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which scientists from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday had reached the highest levels since accurate measurements began 63 years ago.
The new figures serve as a sober reminder that even as President Biden and other world leaders make unprecedented promises about curtailing greenhouse gas emissions, turning the tide of climate change will take even more massive efforts over a much longer period of time.
The report of a climb in atmospheric carbon dioxide was also published on the eve of a meeting of the Group of Seven industrialized countries, where climate change is expected to be at center stage. The G-7 meeting is intended to prod major emitting countries toward more ambitious actions ahead of a major international climate conference in Glasgow in November.
“Fossil fuel burning is really at the heart of this. If we don’t tackle fossil fuel burning, the problem is not going to go away,” Ralph Keeling, a geochemist at Scripps , said in an interview, adding that the world ultimately will have to make emissions cuts that are “much larger and sustained” than anything that happened during the pandemic.
Scientists from Scripps and the NOAA said on Monday that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide peaked in May, reaching a monthly average of nearly 419 parts per million.
That represents an increase from the May 2020 mean of 417 parts per million, and it marks the highest level since measurements began 63 years ago at the NOAA observatory in Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Twice in 2021, daily levels recorded at the observatory have exceeded 420 parts per million, researchers said.
“While 2020 saw a historic drop in emissions, the fact that at certain points more than half the world’s population was under lockdown, and emissions ONLY fell 6 percent, should be a sobering reminder of how staggeringly hard it will be to get to net zero and how much more work we have to do,” Jason Bordoff, founding director of Columbia University’s global energy center, said in an email.
“Shutting down economic activity is not a viable or desirable way to reduce emissions, and as economies open back up, it’s not surprising emissions are rising because we still have not put in place the changes needed for the overall system of how we produce and consume energy.”
The increasing CO2 concentration alone was not particularly surprising to scientists, who have watched the figure rise steadily over time. What was telling was the fact that the drop in emissions during the pandemic did little to slow down the increase.
“It’s significant in that it shows we are still fully on the wrong track,” Pieter Tans, a senior scientist with NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory, said in an interview. “The rate of increase has been the highest in the past decade, and we’re still on it.”
Tans noted that humans continue to add about 40 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution to the atmosphere each year, and that avoiding catastrophic changes to the climate will require reducing that number to zero as quickly as possible.
“The emissions of CO2 continue to be incredibly high,” said Corinne Le Quéré, research professor of climate change science at the University of East Anglia in Britain. “The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will stop rising when the emissions approach zero.”
Doing that translates into daunting targets. In November 2019, a United Nations Environment Program report warned that unless global greenhouse gas emissions fell by 7.6 percent each year between 2020 and 2030, the world would miss the opportunity to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), above preindustrial levels — a key goal of the Paris agreement.
Last year, a report by the same group said that to meet that goal, countries would need to increase their current emissions-cutting pledges fivefold — an aspiration that would require rapid and profound changes in how societies travel, produce electricity and eat.
Carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, traps heat from the planet’s surface that would otherwise escape into space. Much of the carbon dioxide breaks down after about 100 years, but the current global rate of emissions is enough to offset that rate and further increase the atmospheric concentration of the gas, causing the planet to warm steadily.
The highest monthly mean levels of carbon dioxide typically occur each May, just before plants in the Northern Hemisphere start to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere during the growing season. In the northern fall, winter and early spring, plants and soil give off CO2, causing levels to rise.
Even as international borders closed and global economic activity took a massive hit throughout much of 2020, researchers have found that human-caused emissions rebounded fairly quickly after decreasing sharply early in the pandemic.
In 2020, primary energy demand decreased nearly 4 percent, and global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions fell by 5.8 percent, according to the International Energy Agency — the largest annual percentage decline since World War II.
In absolute terms, the decline in emissions of almost 2 billion tons of CO2 is “without precedent in human history,” the IEA said. “Broadly speaking, this is the equivalent of removing all of the European Union’s emissions from the global total.” The agency said that demand for fossil fuels was hardest hit in 2020 — especially oil, which plunged 8.6 percent, and coal, which dropped by 4 percent.
But in the broader sense, the pandemic could prove to be little more than a blip in the world’s efforts to combat climate change.
Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions during 2020 dropped to about the same level of global emissions that prevailed in 2012 — not nearly low enough to change the world’s current trajectory. That reality offers the latest evidence of the stubbornness of human-related emissions and the difficulty the world faces in making the kind of far-reaching, long-lasting cuts necessary to slow Earth’s warming and avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change.
Already, the IEA has said it expects global carbon emissions to surge this year as parts of the world rebound from the coronavirus pandemic. The group projected in April that emissions are on track to reach the second-largest annual rise on record.
Global energy demand is already set to surpass 2019 levels, alongside continued growth in alternative energies, the Paris-based organization found.
As levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide continue to surge, leaders around the world face mounting pressure to commit to more aggressive, more urgent plans to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. Some countries have begun to outline more ambitious targets ahead of a key U.N. climate conference in the fall. Among them is the United States, which under President Biden has vowed to cut its overall emissions in half by the end of the decade.
Still, analyses by the United Nations and other organizations have found that a grim gap remains between the world’s current path and the significant shifts needed keep Earth’s warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels — a central goal of the Paris agreement. In short, the existing promises aren’t enough, and most countries have not lived up to the promises they have made.
Keeling said he is optimistic that major changes lie ahead as renewable energy and other technologies take root and multiply. But they won’t happen overnight. “I do expect we will see significant changes in the years ahead. The political will has shifted,” he said. “What we need to do is see a sustained move toward moving away from fossil fuels.”
Tans also holds out hope that the world will be able to put itself on a better path. The science of how to do that exists, he said, but what remains unclear is whether societies can muster the kind of action that has yet to materialize.
“The goals so far are themselves insufficient, even after having been beefed up,” he said. “We’re running out of time. The longer we wait, the harder it gets.”
Tags
Who is online
76 visitors
We're being Fauci'd on climate change. The problem is too large and too serious to buy into the political bullshit spewed by so-called science experts.
So what's your solution? To do nothing?
Precisely. Do nothing. Or, at least, do less.
Conservation would reduce consumption and would directly reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases. Contrary to what the scientific experts are saying, the pandemic really did show us that reducing consumption can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The odd thing about conservation is that it would require spending less money. Obviously the scientific experts are worried that spending less on consumption would adversely affect their political agenda.
Conservation is great. But that alone is not enough. Taking steps to reduce waste and pollution is also necessary.
So, it would be equivalent to:
If a person already has lung cancer, the solution would be to stop smoking but take any treatment for the cancer?
Stopping smoking is a great thing to do, but will not effect the cancer that has already taken hold.
How is it possible to produce waste and pollution from something that is not consumed? Conservation IS a step to reduce waste and pollution.
What do we lose by reducing consumption?
What the science experts are advocating, using your simile of smoking, is to switch from tobacco to vaping. Vaping is the technological replacement for tobacco. The science experts are not telling people to stop smoking; they're advocating a technological replacement for tobacco, using your simile of smoking.
The science experts are telling us that replacing tobacco with a technological alternative will allow the cancer to cure itself.
That's pretty much the agenda for the COP26 summit in Glasgow. Replace tobacco with a technological alternative but keep 'em smoking.
Were you paying attention? I already acknowledged reducing consumption is a necessary step. But there is still the existing pollution to deal with. Not to mention taking steps to minimize pollution when we do consume something. It's a multi faceted approach instead of focusing on 1 thing only.
You are making an argument based upon a predisposed presumption that avoids differentiating between essential consumption and nonessential consumption.
How much of human greenhouse emissions are the result of nonessential activities? Conservation addresses waste and pollution from nonessential activities. Reducing waste and pollution caused by nonessential activities won't make those activities more essential.
What do we lose by avoiding nonessential activities? Profits. Jobs. Taxes. Nonessential activities is really about the money.
Now you're trying to change my 1 simple sentence of comparison, so you can better refute your own version of what I said? That's a bit dishonest of you, isn't it? Changing my argument because you can't argue it?
No, I haven't changed your 1 simple sentence or your argument. I only compared your 1 simple sentence to advocated means of addrssing climate change.
You argued that if someone has lung cancer the solution is to stop the activity of smoking; which has nothing to do with treating cancer. But the climate change argument is to switch away from fossil fuels toward alternative energy sources while continuing to engage in the activity that requires energy. Applying your simile of smoking, the climate change argument is to switch away from tobacco toward alternatives while continuing to smoke.
The science experts are telling people to stop using tobacco; they aren't telling people to stop smoking.
No, that is not my argument. I am not differentiating between "essential" or non-essential consumption. You'll have define those parameters. Not that it makes much difference. Almost all consumption will yield pollution of some kind. So reducing overall consumption is good, but not enough. New technologies and methods can help improve the efficiency of what's consumed to help minimize resulting pollution.
My 1 sentence was reflective of YOUR advocated means of addressing climate change, not the scientific community. Remember? YOUR solution was:
Precisely. Stop smoking. Or, at least, smoke less. That is my advocated means, using your simile of smoking.
Climate activists are not advocating that we stop smoking. Climate activists are advocating that we switch to technological alternatives so we stop using tobacco. Climate activists are telling us that switching to technological alternatives will allow us to continue smoking.
See? I have not changed your 1 simple sentence or your argument. I am pointing out that your comment is not what climate activism is advocating.
Not smoking won't cost as much as switching to an alternative to continue smoking. Not smoking will avoid generating waste and pollution; an alternative changes the type of waste and pollution.
And ignore the cancer that is already growing in your lungs. Yes exactly, that was how you would address it.
Stopping smoking or switching to an alternative won't cure cancer. Curing cancer requires an intervention that is separate from smoking.
Switching to solar panels and wind turbines won't remove the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted and persist in the atmosphere. Reducing energy consumption won't remove greenhouse gases that have already been emitted and persist in the atmosphere. That will require an intervention that is separate from energy use.
The argument made by climate activists is that switching to solar panels and wind turbines allows us to continue to use energy for whatever we want without making the problem worse. (That is a debatable argument since carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas causing global warming.) But reducing energy consumption achieves the same objective without spending money on solar panels and wind turbines, without generating waste and pollution, and provides faster results because there isn't a need to install anything. Yes, reducing energy consumption means we can't continue to use energy for whatever we want; we need to make choices.
Reducing energy consumption is cheaper, cleaner, and faster than the alternatives of solar panels and wind turbines. What we give up with energy reductions would be nonessential activities. You are correct that neither approach will remove the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted and persist in the atmosphere.
The earth has amazing powers to regenerate and clean itself. Winds and flowing waters could do the trick, if we stop poisoning her...
That has been a central theme of conservation, hasn't it? Conservation works to protect nature's ability to regenerate and cleanse itself.
Just like climate change!! By Jove I think you've got it...
Except humans have so damaged the Earth at this point, it is clearly unable to repair itself enough to offset the damage done. The consistent rate of increase in greenhouse gasses and temperature is a symptom of that. So conservation alone is just a salve on the wound. But not enough to repair it.
Of course I understand it. That's why I had to explain your comment to you.
Solar panels and wind turbines won't repair the damage that has been done. The technological alternatives are not superior to conservation as a means to repair damage.
In fact, deploying the technological alternatives will cause a different type of damage because waste and pollution will still be generated. Reducing energy consumption would not generate waste or pollution.
Alternative sources are not meant to repair the damage. They are meant to mitigate it and conserve on primary energy sources, which do cause pollution. Since you're so big on conservation, you should be advocating any means that help or promote conservation of resources.
So now your belief is that your prior belief of : "Do nothing. Or, at least, do less.", is incorrect and you feel that doing something is now necessary for the cure. BRAVO!!!!
But the advocacy is to replace a damaging activity with a damaging activity without regard for nature's capacity to regenerate and cleanse itself. Reducing use of one resource by expanding exploitation of other resources is not conservation.
Replacing gas cars with electric cars still means there are millions of cars. Are millions of cars essential, regardless of how they are powered? Manufacturing a car, gas or electric, requires exploiting resources. Manufacturing a car, gas or electric, generates waste, pollution, and greenhouse gases.
Climate activism is greenwashing nonessential uses of energy and resources. That's not conservation.
What are you advocating? Doing more? Humans should engage in more activities that require more resources and generate more waste and pollution?
You cannot refute that the idea of 'doing nothing or, at least, doing less' requires less resources and generates less waste and pollution. You cannot refute that the idea of 'doing nothing or, at least, doing less' has a smaller environmental footprint.
And your solution is to do....what, exactly?
So who is this "we" you mention? How do "Winds and flowing waters" clean the atmosphere?
First acknowledge the problem rather than dismiss it or shrug it off as a "do nothing" approach. The solution itself will require a collective societal approach to reduce waste and emissions and increase our collective resourcefulness. This also includes better education and not denying established science on climate change. Newer, better, or more effective technologies should be developed, promoted, and deployed to steer away from current or more polluting technologies and resources. That's just for starters.
I have to wonder if you know what you're talking about. Replacing gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles means fewer polluting vehicles and lowered pollution levels, even if the total number of vehicles remain the same. You to understand that, right?
Not all resources are the same. Solar & wind are renewable and clean resources, unlike fossil fuel sources, which are neither. Alternative and cleaner fuels and technologies means an overall, long term reduction in pollution and emissions, especially comparatively to current fuels and technologies. There is a gradual and overall improvement. And despite all your complaining about "climate activism," you've offered almost nothing to solve the problem. "Do nothing" is not a solution. It's just a continuation of the problem.
Biofuels are renewable. And biofuel production would be solar powered. That doesn't mean switching to biofuels would be a good idea.
Hydrogen is renewable. Water is an abundant source of hydrogen and burning hydrogen produces water. Hydrogen as a source of energy is one of the most, if not the most, clean and renewable sources of energy. The problem with hydrogen as a source of energy is the technology required to produce hydrogen. The necessary technology to produce hydrogen is not renewable or clean.
Solar and wind energy are renewable but the advocated means of collecting and exploiting solar and wind energy are not renewable. It's questionable if the advocated means of collecting solar and wind energy are even recyclable. Available evidence suggests that the needed solar and wind technology is not clean.
There are many renewable sources of energy available. Even human and animal power is renewable.
Really? We need to prioritize our energy use and avoid nonessential and unnecessary activities that require energy. We need to apply the lessons learned during the pandemic to prioritize energy use and restrict nonessential activities.
Doing nothing or, at least, doing less will reduce energy consumption. Apparently what is causing heartburn about reducing our energy consumption is that we'd be saving money instead of spending money.
How do you know?
Why not?
As with all technology, it can be improved and refined over time until it is cost efficient and affordable. We see this with technology everyday.
One must compare the long term gains and losses associated with it. It might cause pollution to produce solar panels. But once made and utilized, those same panels can last for 20-30 years without polluting. The same cannot be said for current energy production methods.
What evidence? Cite it!
Are you suggesting we go back to horse and buggy? or have people pedal bikes attached to electric generators?
Yes, really! You mention conservation, which has already been acknowledged. That's accompanied by "do nothing." Your words.
You still haven't defined what constitutes "nonessential" energy use.
I don't think reverting back 200+ years is the answer.
This has been my complaint all along on this. Follow the money, who's making money off of climate change? That is what should be looked at.
Who's making money to keep change going?
That's what I'm saying, follow the money. But too many people want to blindly follow partisan politics. If the great global shutdown caused by Covid didn't make a just as great reduction in greenhouse gases than what else is going on and who's making money off of the fear of climate change?
So either way, someone will make money. Someone got paid to pollute the planet. Now we have to pay someone to clean it up. That's still better than doing nothing and letting things get worse.
Sounds like you don't have a single clue about what to do
Last year at the height of the 'lockdown' I could see the mountains in northern New York from my kitchen window. Today those mountains are locked down behind the return of the haze ... and now to top it off I'm either being "Fauci'd" or Nerm'd ... quel choix.
Like I have said, overpopulation is the main cause
To put things in perspective, the lockdowns caused global CO2 emissions to drop by 2.4 BILLION tonnes for 2020. That's for about 1 year. That's roughly equivalent to removing 500 MILLION cars off the road for a year. That's 17% lower emissions from 2019. Of course, now that restrictions are being eased or lifted, we can expect to see a rise in emissions again.
You know what absorbs CO2 and are still being destroyed by the Earth's citizens?
Trees, vegetation!!!
While yes, wood is necessary for many things still and forestry business still exists. However, if everyone plants more trees and reduce the destruction, that can still contribute to making the earth healthier. Yes, I know it won't be a huge "dent" in the overall scheme, but living in a city environment, I see fewer trees than ever before. I have planted new trees in my yard to replace the ones that were damaged in wind and had to be cut down. I want to try and plant a couple more, but I need something already grown to about 3-5 ft tall in order to keep it alive and well in my yard.
The past few weeks, the company I work for has been talking about bringing everyone back into the office. I'm not loving that for several reasons, but driving nearly 60 miles round trip is one of the biggest reasons. Not only do I LOATHE that drive [and NO I'm not going to move], but it's silly to me considering we've proven that we can perform necessary tasks [above and beyond what was expected] and get shit done without being in the office. There's only ONE TIME since March 12, 2020 that it would have been a bit more convenient for me to be in office. Otherwise... I've found no such need. Quite frankly, everyone in our team has stated similarly.