Slashdot Mirror
Global Carbon Emissions Jump To All-Time High in 2018 (theguardian.com)
Global carbon emissions will jump to a record high in 2018, according to a report, dashing hopes a plateau of recent years would be maintained. It means emissions are heading in the opposite direction to the deep cuts urgently needed, say scientists, to fight climate change. From a report: The rise is due to the growing number of cars on the roads and a renaissance of coal use and means the world remains on the track to catastrophic global warming. However, the report's authors said the emissions trend can still be turned around by 2020, if cuts are made in transport, industry and farming emissions. The research by the Global Carbon Project was launched at the UN climate summit in Katowice, Poland, where almost 200 nations are working to turn the vision of tackling climate change agreed in Paris in 2015
into action. The report estimates CO2 emissions will rise by 2.7% in 2018, sharply up on the plateau from 2014-16 and 1.6% rise in 2017.
Almost all countries are contributing to the rise, with emissions in China up 4.7%, in the US by 2.5% and in India by 6.3% in 2018. The EU's emissions are near flat, but this follows a decade of strong falls. "The global rise in carbon emissions is worrying, because to deal with climate change they have to turn around and go to zero eventually," said Prof Corinne Le Quere, at the University of East Anglia,who led the research published in the journal Nature. "We are not seeing action in the way we really need to. This needs to change quickly."
Almost all countries are contributing to the rise, with emissions in China up 4.7%, in the US by 2.5% and in India by 6.3% in 2018. The EU's emissions are near flat, but this follows a decade of strong falls. "The global rise in carbon emissions is worrying, because to deal with climate change they have to turn around and go to zero eventually," said Prof Corinne Le Quere, at the University of East Anglia,who led the research published in the journal Nature. "We are not seeing action in the way we really need to. This needs to change quickly."
I can understand under-developed countries like China and India, which are still in their growing years, but the USA 2.5%? There we have the real environmental criminals.
You have all the nuclear, solar, and wind, and policies, and programs, and abilities to stear the environmental situation, but you just keep burning gas and blowing fumes like nothing.
Global stupidity seems a constant factor on this planet. In some social groups denial of reality is most prominent, because reality challenges their believe and there behavior.
Everybody blames the next guy.
We are all responsible.
aaaaaaa
You ARE a hoax.
aaaaaaa
Yeah. It's this newfangled religion called "Science"
Who believes this kind of nonsense ?
aaaaaaa
I find the /s tag to be offensive, but I guess some people need it.
...stuff that doesn't work, like emitting less CO2. We can't. We continue to show it, over and over.
Instead, put efforts toward something like this:
https://www.technologyreview.c...
Make that work, put our money in that, build 'em maybe $750 million worth a year all over the globe, and in 100 years we'll be where we need to be maybe. Certainly the world together could afford $750 million a year?
Trying to limit CO2 just makes the prices of everything go up, which punts a bunch more people into poverty, where they die. That is, poverty is deadly. Smoking will take maybe 7 years off your life, but poverty can take 10. Don't do things that make things expensive for the poor, or make middle class people into poor class people. Do something like this and then just the rich and otherwise well-to-do can finance it and leave the poor and middle-classers the hell out of it.
Also, that definitely wouldn't explain Exxon's internal science team predicting a 2C warming by 2060 back in 1982?
Do you think those involved in that internal study thought that would help them keep their jobs at Exxon?
Don't you think you could make a lot more money by saying the opposite? I mean, who do you think offers the fatter paychecks, the government (you know, the one that got its environment budget de facto axed) or multinational oil and gas corporations trying to avoid legislation that would cost them a LOT more than any climate scientist claiming that anything they do is a-ok with the environment?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As a side note, is there still room on the spare planet you apparently have available?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
More like big oil knowing the facts too they just don't want to admit to it in public.
Like the tobacco companies.
War isn't an act of nature.
Why you gotta be hating on Taco Tuesday like that?
If you look at their data (download the PDF - it has the overview graphs), it's what you expect: CO2 emissions from fossil fuels in the West are declining. China, following massive rises, has plateaued at a high level - on a per capita basis, the same as the EU (shocking, given the number of Chinese living essentially pre-industrial lives).
On a per capita basis, the US is still far higher than anyone else. However, this has been declining at an impressive pace, and there is no obvious basis for the claim that US consumption will increase in 2018. In fact, that would be a huge trend reversal, and (imho) is likely a politically motivated claim.
Meanwhile, emissions from India and other Asian countries are increasing rapidly. In fact, they are driving *all* of the global increase, plus compensating for declining emissions everywhere else.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I liked the joke.
-- Cheers!
I people paid the real costs of flying, a lot of problems would be solved. Amsterdam, London and the like would have a LOT less tourists messing up the cities, Uber and Airbnb would go bust and the local would finally get some room to breathe in their own city. Tourists are fine but the maximum number has been crossed a long time ago. Oh, and we also would have an enormous amount less CO2 in the air. Only winners here!
-- Cheers!
What is the poverty level and is it a real thing? It's only related to the other people around you. Someone making $15,000 a year is probably below the poverty level but they live better than kings of old.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Effectively, we are dealing now with the birthrates of the 1970ies and 1980ies, and we can't change them retroactively except by killing people born after 1970.
So ... you want the US to become like Europe?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
[Global emissions or temperatures] are at the highest level [in a long period of time]! We have only [small number] years to change our lifestyles before it's too late! One needs to go no further than to see [weather event which may or may not be related to climate change depending on whether it helps the argument] to know we're right. Sea level has also changed [five inches or less] in the past [small number] years.
The effort to fight [climate change or global warming, depending on audience] is hindered by greed and propaganda in [capitalist countries] from [far-right zealots]. "Their greed will destroy the world." says [quotable scientist].
One thing is certain: There is only one planet and even if [impending disasters] do not come to pass, we're still responsible for maintaining it.
Were 1000x Higher than this when Dinosaurs walked the Earth...
... about this but the data on this problem is pretty clear: If we don't get a handle on this problem and make it snappy, humanity and the ecosystem as we know it is pretty much screwed.
Just saying.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
The standard of living must fall in the US. I know people lose their fucking minds about this fact ("Freedom!"), but it's a fact. 10 billion people cannot live on the planet, all driving giant gas burning cars and eating everything wrapped in plastic. They can't.
I don't respond to AC's.
You're a fucking idiot. We can easily emit less CO2. We choose not to. We are very quickly killing our own environment. Being poor won't matter after we're dead.
I don't respond to AC's.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The statement is that carbon emissions are higher across the globe. It's posited that its due to more cars on the road. However, I suspect that the metrics of newly added cars has not sky-rocketed. And many electric cars have been added. While some use of coal has returned. A lot of renewable energy has been added as well.
But surely, there wasn't a big trend across the globe. So what is not being said equates to one of two things...
a) We have been in a global recession and economic decline, and this was the first year to see a global shift into recovery
b) or there were multiple large natural phenomena which have contributed. (e.g. U.S. wildfires from mismanaged forestry, volcanoes, etc)
Likely, it was a combination of both.
Crossover SUVs are not the same SUVs of old.
They are a) built on car frames, b) using car engine and drive platforms, c) with next to zero towing capacity.
80% of SUVs sold today are nothing more than mid-sized hatchbacks with AWD. They are NOT SUVs. They're more akin to the old Subaru AWD station wagons than anything else. But marketing....
No one wants to drive a station wagon, and few guys want to drive hatchbacks. So they call them "Crossovers".
They are NOT built on truck frames, nor do they contain truck engines, and most of them have low towing capacity. Hence, their MPG isn't that far off of most sedans. And often significantly better than many minivans, of which Crossover SUVs have significantly displaced.
Where as real SUV is built on a solid much heavier truck frame. Can load and tow a significant amount of weight. And the non-2WD models usually feature "true" 4WD as opposed to mere AWD. (And yes, there is a difference.)
The tragedy of the commons is real, and has come up again, and again and again in economics. This time it is the atmosphere, and those who prosper most from the commons are responding to calls from the people for taxing the commons with "be REASONABLE!"
Basic. Fucking. Economics.
Yes, lets subsidize $60,000 Tesla's. That will show those rich people! By the way, capital gains are already taxed.
The moment I saw MailGaters from East Anglia quoted I knew this was more bullshit. 95% of climate pseudo scientists depend on data from known liars and scammers. If the East Anglia scumbags were Republicans you would be all over them and crying about vast right wing conspiracies.
I dare you to wrap your mouth around a car's tailpipe and breathe deeply.
I don't respond to AC's.
Yes, let's do that. If a rich person trades in a car to buy a Tesla and get a $20000 subsidy, that's fine. Rich people don't generally drive cars which are worth less than $20000. A new-for-old program with a fixed subsidy is exactly the kind of subsidy that doesn't favor the rich. You got a $1500 clunker and want to buy an electric? You can't now, but with a subsidy like that it's a feasible investment and a great deal. You won't get a Tesla, of course, but there are several electric cars below $30000. The Smart Fortwo Electric is less than $25000.
And no, capital gains are not adequately taxed. Don't take it from me. Listen to Warren Buffet. It's not news either. That was 2010!
It's countries behaving according to actual beliefs in CO2 being a problem for global warming, instead of the rhetoric they put forth.
For many countries, CO2 reduction is just another tool of economic war to the extent they can convince other countries to play along reduces their economic output and prosperity chasing the goal of CO2 reduction instead. That is certainly why China constantly promotes CO2 reduction despite doing essentially nothing to reduce it themselves.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Worst, I said in first posting that that America is buying lower mpg vehicles. So you lied about what I said
Secondly, these vehicles are as efficient as any from Europe esp since they are the same. Europe buys smaller cars because of small roads and families but same efficiency.
Third, when America/europe buys a new car, it typically replaces a car. When China buys a new car, it adds to their total. Iow, a car is typically not junked. As such, which 98% of China's vehicle bring fossil fuels, it adds lots more emissions. America's and Europe do not.
If you did the math, you would have found out that BOTH China and America have 2% of new car sales as EV. So you lie, again, when screaming that China is buying more.
Finally, with China at 80% of their electricity ( yes, 80% ) as coal, your electricity is filthy. Worse yet, while America continues to drop our coal, you continue to lie about your nation adding more coal than America has total.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
This is a terrible troll. It's one thing to troll. It's completely another to come right out and say, "I would suggest at least you keep an open mind and read the climate change research from Heartland Institute to get the other side of this debate. ". Anybody with two brain cells to run together knows that the "Heartland Institute" assholes are on the wrong side of every subject, whether it's pollution, tobacco use, education, health care, or taxes. If you're going to troll this kind of serious bullshit, at least don't make it so damn obvious, dummy.
I don't respond to AC's.
Even China buys cleaner cars....
Stop accepting the bullshit statistics China feeds you and try visiting sometime. China DOES NOT have cleaner cars, as you can tell from the cars themselves, but especially from the hellacious pollution they have in many cities, even worse than LA in the heyday.
I find it amusing you also believe them about percentage of electricity from coal.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's a great example of "fuck you, I've got mine". And your selfish fucking ass is why humanity is doomed. Because you *want* to drive a giant vehicle 10,000 miles because you *want* to, and fuck anybody else who says you shouldn't. You're a tremendous asshole.
I don't respond to AC's.
Spot-on. Nuclear SMR should be replacing ok'd coal plants ( most are quite small ), along with going into any site that HAD nuclear power. A good example is Zion just north of Chicago.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Problem is that people have been saying that for decades... and the oceans have risen a few CM.
Sea levels were much lower 10,000-20,000 years ago when 2 miles of ICE covered most of north america.
Good thing the ocean levels rose and the temperatures rose then or you would not be here complaining.
Humans were not involved in that great melting ... so there are obviously forces you do not understand affecting climate.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
I've got news for ya bunkie...
Cars in the US are primarily the same as cars everywhere else in the world.
A Nissan Sentra in the US is nominally identical to a Nissan Sentra in Japan.
Same for Kia.
Same for Jaguar.
Same for Ford.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Hey, if you want to volunteer to go live in a cave and subsist on grass, BE MY GUEST!
It's really easy to moralize how OTHER people should react and be okay with massive economic upheaval if it isn't affecting YOU.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Maybe in China. Sure.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Please remind me what cars are the best selling ones in the USA?
And as for being nominally identical, that is only on the outside. Inside even European cars sold in the United States have larger engines as a rule.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
What does the cost of your house and car have to do with it, and who the fuck pays $6,000 for an EV charger?
Dirty little secret, economic activity uses energy. Americans actually like having jobs, homes, and feeding our families.
Take a look at the list of countries by population growth rate. Then take a look at the list of countries by GDP per capita. You'll see an interesting negative correlation - the higher the GDP, the lower the population growth rate (or, in fact, a population reduction for a lot of the top GDP-per-capita nations). The proven method of reducing overpopulation? Accelerate GDP per capita.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yes, the Earth goes through a 5000 year climate cycle, so it is difficult to determine what part of climate change is due to natural cycles and what part is due to human actions. However, I cannot believe the huge amounts of carbon dioxide we've released into the atmosphere in the past 100 years has had no effect on climate!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
You can't do anything from all the GHG in the atmosphere and oceans now.
Or can you?
1. The 23 US States (and BC) that have Renewable Energy Portfolio standards of 50 pct of all new energy, lead the way. They reduced their emissions, even while their population increased and their GDP outpaced the rest of the US. This shows we need to set a 120 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), where for every new KWHr we use in new energy, we have to build 120 percent of that in renewable utility plants. This can include solar and wind residential use, but must include decommissioning of coal and oil usage.
2. A lot of China and India still use coal for heating. Fix that.
3. Remove all tax exemptions, exclusions, subsidies and grandfather clauses for all fossil fuel usage. This includes depreciation, which should sunset in 2020. Got a coal plant after 2020? Not a tax deduction for depreciation, and you pay the full cost of all cleanups.
4. We can remove carbon easily from both the food supply and the oceans (where it's been going). Institute large scale shellfish reefs (clams, mussels, other bivalves, not shrimp) with seagrass and seaweed planted in and around it. Studies show this acts as a massive carbon sink (the shells), you can eat the meat from it, and the shells can also be used in various forms of concrete, replacing the current sources that add to GHG emissions.
We've shown you how. Now stop whining.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Some would say that its because of high EV growth in 2018 specifically the Tesla Model 3. LOL.
The only number that matters is total world output of carbon emissions. Countries can manipulate their carbon output to look clean through increasing imports. China produces a lot of carbon emissions but it is the largest exporter in the world. Despite the claims by many countries of switching to clean energy, many countries are also exporting their carbon output by importing high carbon output products. Germany for example, imports more than a quarter of its GDP. 10 percent of those imports come from China and 20 percent come from Asia. Germany's major imports from China are products with a high carbon output in manufacturing, such as heavy machinery, autos and auto parts. Germany also imports its electricity from other EU countries. Unless one accounts for the carbon emissions produced by imports, a focus solely on a country's measure of it own carbon emissions gives a false reading. Countries are also responsible for the carbon emissions produced by their imports. The US imports about 10 percent of its GDP. It is much more a closed economy than most other major developed countries. The US reduction in carbon emissions is a real number since its reduction is due to changes in manufacturing and energy production processes within the US and not through a switch to high carbon emission imports. Germany's switch to renewable energy has increased energy cost in Germany and made energy intensive (high carbon emission) products less competitive with imports. Importing a high carbon emission product that once was made domestically is not a true reduction in carbon emissions. The only change that occurred is the location of the carbon output.
wrong.
American cars are the same and have the same efficiency. Lower MPG does NOT mean lower efficiency. It means simply more fuel used per vehicle to carry more. Caffeinated Bacon, who posted the original, is a troll who constantly makes things up and lies.
BTW, America is switching to SUVs, but so are most other nations. That includes Europe and China. Probably the biggest difference is that Europe is buying SMALLER SUVS (or X-overs), while America has bought larger (due to our larger roads/families/ and probably just plain assholes who do not think long term) for the last couple of years. Thankfully, EVs are up to 2% of sales in America (and the same in China; not sure what Europe's is), and increasing fast.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
oh dear people taking sarcasm seriously.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
nuclear baseline
Perhaps you should listen to Primus
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Does CO2-driven climate change care about who emits how much CO2, or does it care about how much CO2 is emitted?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Since they cannot measure emissions, they know not of what they speak. They can measure atmospheric carbon levels, and estimate some emissions, for instance fossil fuel consumption. But a large source of emissions is concrete curing, and China is doing enormous infrastructure increases. Another is forest burning, and Amazon, California, etc are doing their part on that. Atmospheric carbon levels are emissions minus consumption. Forests consume carbon, so Amazon clear-cut / slash and burn with no replanting is a big problem, a double whammy. The ocean is the biggest consumer of carbon from the atmosphere, and it is filling up with carbon. Oceanic out-gassing of carbon has started near Antarctica. That is the biggest threat. The only way to actively combat atmospheric carbon levels is to plant fast-growing crops, like hemp or fast trees. But that is not technological and very lacking in profits for the many friends of people in office, so that will not happen. No serious kickbacks so not happening. Anything technological has carbon-polluting costs as well as carbon-consuming abilities, and what usually happens is that the (unconsidered) polluting of making the materials and equipment, and using them outweighs the supposed benefits. Methanol, for example.
wake up and hold your nose
Good post.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You don't want to answer because it will show you are flat-out wrong. As far as "cleaning up our yard", our emissions have been falling over the last 10 years - the EU, China, India, the rest of the world - all up. We've been doing our part, why won't you do yours? Again - is it because our CO2 molecules are worse than your CO2 molecules?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Then you gotta vote in someone... oh, wait. Right. You can't.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hey look you're talking about me! 14 months ago I bought a dually diesel F-350 so I could haul a 16k pound RV around America and check it out with my family of 5. I lived in the RV for a year, and it's not like I drove the truck every day, so for all I know my carbon footprint went down. I wouldn't know, since I don't actually give a shit.
My kids got to see more of America. It's a beautiful country, and the fact that I had an option like that is part of what makes it beautiful.
It's really hard for me to take the vast majority of environmentalists seriously since their ideological ancestors are the reason nuclear power has been hamstrung for so long. If we'd built nuclear power plants we'd be outputting drastically less CO2, and energy would be cheaper. Environmentalists took that away from me, and now they'd also like to take my truck away to 'pay' for their dumbass policies.
America is about freedom. Figure it out. Identify how to convince free people to change their behaviour in the way that you want.
You can do this by making reasonable arguments. Which brings me to:
Millions of human beings would die in the short term. Specifically, poor people. It seems like an extreme position to say "let's kill millions of poor people, for the environment!" but you do you.
-knewter
Science methods exclude any feelings, gut related included. Thought that would be obvious, but it turned out that it wasn't.
The only guy who got the sarcasm, was a real scientist with a PhD, according to his site. He got downvoted as well in the knee jerk avalanche.
Like 2017, when France, Germany, Spain and Italy increased emissions, when US and UK dropped them?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
No, that isn't "fine". It is inefficient to give some rich guy $20k. It would be better to spend that money on something that is actually effective at reducing emissions: public transportations. Cars are not green. EVs are just good for posturing.