An unprecedented 2.4 GtCO₂ (7%) drop in emissions in 2020 due to COVID19 restrictions. But, daily emissions are already edging up towards levels last seen in late 2019.
2. A drop of 2.4 GtCO₂ has not been seen before, but emissions have not been this high either.
After the global financial crisis emissions increased 1.7GtCO₂ in 2010. Will this record increase be surpassed in 2021?
Relative changes of >±7% were common before 1950...
3. Despite the rapid change in emissions, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations continued up as if COVID19 never happened.
Why?
* Emissions were high, as high as in 2012
* The relative change is smaller than interannual variability
* CO₂ is cumulative, so total emissions matter
4. We used the median of four methods to estimate the emission changes in each region.
Emissions declined everywhere, but the changes are superimposed on pre-existing trends.
5. All datasets show the biggest changes occurring in transportation.
@CarbonMonitor shows that most other sector have recovered & are now similar to 2019 levels, but transport remains below 2019 levels.
6. All countries had a marked decline in emissions in the first wave, but the second wave has a much smaller decline in emissions.
@CarbonMonitor shows China, & globally, heading back to 2019 levels.
7. All charts look crazy in 2020. Instead of analyzing the battle between countries with rising & falling emissions (2019), to see if emissions peaked, we are analyzing how large the drops were in key countries (2020).
8. Using GCP estimates based on monthly data:
* Oil had the biggest drop due to its use in transport
* Coal was already struggling, & maybe COVID will just push coal further into decline
* Growth in gas was accelerating, & unfortunately, may bounce straight back up
9. A new element in the 2020 edition, is the inclusion of cement carbonation.
Cement slowly takes up CO₂ over time acting as a sink in the global carbon budget. Now included...
10. As an intermission, the funniest (?) part of the Global Carbon Budget 2020?
(previously the pink & blue were combined, so historical cumulative emissions in the EU will drop after #Brexit)
11. Emissions from land-use change are in line with decade trend, despite massive fires around the world.
Some fires, eg Australia, were not related to land-use change & are shown elsewhere in the budget.
Other fires, eg Amazon, relate to LUC & are included here
12. Another new element in the 2020 edition is the use of gross land fluxes:
* Gross positive fluxes (eg deforestation) are ~16GtCO₂/yr
* Gross negative fluxes (eg agricultural abandonment) are ~10GtCO₂/yr
* These combine to give ~6GtCO₂/yr (previous tweet)
13. The Global Carbon Budget is the balance of the sources (fossils, LUC) & sinks (land, ocean) with the excess remaining in the atmosphere & causing climate change.
The sinks continue to take up around 55% of the emissions... (Thank the sinks for cleaning up our mess)
14. The study of the Global Carbon Budget is a major activity.
The simple lines in each subplot are based on decades of work of 100s, if not 1000s, of people. Each year we improve our understanding, which is why we do this.
15. There will be many more threads to follow this one, this is just an appetizer.
1. What happened to EU27 emissions in 2020 & what does it mean for the 55% 2030 target?
COVID19 sent CO₂ emissions down ~12%:
* Coal went down 18% in 2019, COVID cements this in
* Oil has grown last 5 years, 2020 needs to start a new decline
* Gas is stubborn, problem for 2030!
2. The EU target is for GHGs (not just CO₂), but now includes the forest sink.
The inclusion of the sink makes the relative reduction in emissions from 1990 larger (24% to 2018) & makes a 2030 target easier to achieve (in terms of reduced growth rates to achieve it).
But...
3. The inclusion of the land sink is probably necessarily to meet the 2050 net-zero GHG emission goal.
It may be hard to maintain the land sink, particularly in the face of climate change.
The alternative is using technical carbon removal (BECCS or DACCS, which have troubles).
Although the COVID-19 pandemic will cause a dip in 2020 emissions, this will not bring the world closer to the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming this century to well below 2°C & pursuing 1.5°C.
2. The Low Energy Demand (LED) scenario did not quantify costs "We have not explored [costs] in any detail, with the exceptions of the costs of supply-side ... However, this is a one-sided story without analogous quantifications of the demand-side ..."
A 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 on how mitigation works, why we probably need some level of carbon capture & storage (CCS) & carbon dioxide removal (CDR) - just not as much as in scenarios.
2. We start with a baseline or reference scenario, that assumes no or limited mitigation. If we want to stay "well below 2°C" we need to get rid of the dark grey & be net-zero!
We can argue about the baseline, but for the purposes here, it doesn't matter nature.com/articles/d4158…
3. The heavy lifting is done by conventional mitigation: behavioural change, energy efficiency, fuel switching (fossils to non-fossils), changed transport, dematerialisation, etc, etc...
But, scenarios suggest this is not enough to get rid of all greenhouse gases.
2/ "As the IPCC points out, aggregate mitigation costs in IAMs generally increase when action is delayed. ... The longer mitigation is delayed, ... the more investments and/or devaluations it will therefore take to eventually bring emissions down to net zero/net negative."
3/ "The cost of mitigation is therefore not a function of continued fossil fuel use per se, but of the steepness of the mitigation curve, that is, of how quickly fossil fuel consumption needs to fall in order to reach the specified temperature target."
1/ "the availability of BECCS proved critical to the cost-efficiency, & indeed the theoretical possibility, of these deep mitigation scenarios, leading to systemic inclusion of BECCS in RCP2.6 scenarios" says @katedooley0, Christoff, @KA_Nicholas
2/ "The incorporation of NETs in IPCC scenarios is one clear illustration of how, as @EstherTurnhout put it, “dominant political discourses compel scientists to create assessments that work within these discourses”..." writes @wim_carton