Slashdot Mirror


Another Study Finds Earth's CO2 Emissions Have Flattened Over The Last Three Years (go.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Associated Press: Worldwide emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide have flattened out in the past three years, a new study showed Monday, raising hopes that the world is nearing a turning point in the fight against climate change. However, the authors of the study cautioned it's unclear whether the slowdown in CO2 emissions, mainly caused by declining coal use in China, is a permanent trend or a temporary blip...

The study, published in the journal Earth System Science Data, says global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry is projected to grow by just 0.2 percent this year. That would mean emissions have leveled off at about 36 billion metric tons in the past three years even though the world economy has expanded, suggesting the historical bonds between economic gains and emissions growth may have been severed. "This could be the turning point we have hoped for," said David Ray, a professor of carbon management at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved with the study. "To tackle climate change those bonds must be broken and here we have the first signs that they are at least starting to loosen."

Last week a study suggested earth's plant life is absorbing a greater percentage of global CO2 emissions -- although reductions in China could also be significant. According to the article, almost 30% of the world's carbon emissions come from China.

12 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Too early to celebrate by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That the rate increase is going down isn't good enough, alas. That means it's still increasing. We need a reversal, with less CO2 pumped out than what is absorbed, and we're nowhere near that yet.

    Still, it's a good first sign, but we're still getting worse, not better.

    1. Re:Too early to celebrate by hughbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agree, but, for example, methane (MOO!) is a more potent greenhouse gas and (another poster has partially said it) we're pumping all kinds of random shit into the air all the time.

      So my feeling is that we need to 'clean up our act' very generally as a philosophy, rather than concentrate only on C02. And yes, cheap solar/wind is turning out to be very important. But we need car-free cities as well.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
  2. cost by dehachel12 · · Score: 5, Informative

    A big factor is of course the cost of solar and wind, which are now already cheaper than coal and oil, even without subsidies.

    1. Re:cost by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is it? It has always been touted as being very,very cheap, but it never was.

      And I am sure the nuclear industry didn't factor in the long-term costs of how to store away the nuclear waste safely, for generations. Or the costs of dismantling a plant. Or of course the costs when something bad happens. 100 billion $ total cost of Fukushima disaster.

  3. Slowing isn't enough - with a graph. by queazocotal · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.climatecentral.org/... contains the graph
    http://assets.climatecentral.o...

    This shows the rise in the CO2 level in the atmosphere over the last 5 years.
    For over a year now, it's been over 400ppm, and the rise in 2015-16, over the same period the year before has been the largest this past year than any time in the last five years.

    1. Re:Slowing isn't enough - with a graph. by locofungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Tamino doesn't see evidence of a slowdown:

      https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
  4. Re:Also too early to spend trillions of dollars by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Informative

    Seriously?

    The problem exists.
    The models aren't failing.
    There is scientific consensus.

    The "good news" here is that the problem isn't worsening as fast as it used to.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  5. Re:Also too early to spend trillions of dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    CO2 does not cause warming. This has been shown to be a hoax.

    If you want to be extremely pedantic, CO2 does not cause warming, the sun does. And no molecule that doesn't undergo a reaction (either chemical or physical) causes any warming. But that's pushing it a bit too much.

    What a chemist will tell you is that CO2 or any molecule with three or more atoms has a scissoring motion that absorbs infrared wavelengths around the heat emissions that you can expect for a black body around the Earth's current temperature. So, rather than these emissions escaping towards outer space and having radiative cooling, you have them being partially absorbed by CO2 and other gases (water, methane, CFC gases and so on) and then emitted once again as the molecule relaxes to a more fundamental state. These emissions then happen in every direction, including back down to Earth, for a further chance at heating the planet. The important part here is the scissoring motion and the three atoms it needs. A diatomic molecule (oxygen, nitrogen, etc) will not cause this because the frequencies at which it absorbs energy are substantially different.

    How you can judge this as being a hoax, it's a mystery to me or anyone else with more than 2 brain cells.

  6. Re:Data from Mauna Loa Hawaii contradicts this rep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're not comparing the same thing (human emissions versus atmospheric levels).

  7. Re:Also too early to spend trillions of dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Probably did not exist?

    Oh except that we found stockpiles of said chemical weapons all over the country, troops were killed when they hit IED's made of chlorine rounds that we missed, and Syria who never had a known stockpile has been able to use Chemical weapons a few times, meaning the suspected export of unknown quantities of Chemical weapons during the run-up to the invasion occurred as feared.

    The only thing we did not find was an active production system but they had six months to dismantle and hide or ship such to Syria.

  8. Re:Also too early to spend trillions of dollars by jabuzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would add that Gaddafi after seeing what happened in Iraqi decided to own up to a whole bunch of WMD that we basically didn't have a clue about and allowed them to be removed. It is highly unlikely this would have happened without the Iraqi invasion.

    The problem with the invasion of Iraqi was not the invasion itself but the utter lack of post invasion planning by Bush and his fellow bunch of morons.

  9. Re:Also too early to spend trillions of dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's fashionable to pretend that it was all based on bloodlust but for those of us who were alive at the time, it seemed like it was the right thing to do. The decision was made with the best information at the time and in retrospect it was a mistake.

    I was alive at the time, and it was a transparently stupid thing to do. It never looked like the right thing to do, and it was obvious before we even went in that it would spiral out of control. The administration sold it on lies and misinformation, and a lot of people bought it.