Global car sales shrank by ~14% in 2020
* Sales of electric cars grew ~50% (from a very low level)
* Sales of SUVs declined ~10%, but share of sales went from 39% to 42%
Emissions from SUVs are estimated to have seen a slight increase of 0.5% in 2020, despite global emissions down ~7%.
"Despite the effects of the pandemic on overall car use, SUVs consumed more oil last year than they did in 2019"
2/
"Oil consumption from SUVs reached 5.5 million barrels per day in 2020"
"Remarkably, we estimate that the increase in the overall SUV fleet in 2020 cancelled out the declines in oil consumption by SUVs that resulted from Covid-related lockdown measures"
3/
"SUV emissions are comparable to those of the entire maritime industry, including international shipping"
"Emissions from SUVs have nearly tripled over the past decade"
4/
"we estimate that the reduction in oil demand from the increased share of electric vehicles in the overall car market in 2020 – around 40,000 barrels a day – was completely cancelled out by the growth in SUV sales over the same period."
5/
"An estimated 9 million people delayed the replacement of their old car, and the prolonged use of these older, less-efficient vehicles increased oil demand by 50,000 barrels a day in 2020, according to IEA analysis."
6/
"Over the past decade, SUVs were the only area of energy-related emissions growth in advanced economies, adding 300 Mt CO2. Across all other sectors of the economy and other forms of transport, carbon emissions remained flat or declined."
7/
And shifting to electric SUVs does not help much, as it puts more demand on resources: "The strong consumer preference for SUVs has implications for clean energy transitions more broadly, notably in terms of electricity demand, batteries and raw materials."
8/
When I wrote "studies ranging from −100 to about 800 GtCO₂" back in 2018 I was being very conservative (there were no full uncertainty analyses then) rdcu.be/bHT2C
Good to see papers (now) being much more explicit about the uncertainty & range...
2/
I have problems with the remaining carbon budgets presented as a single number, instead of a range. Is there any other climate variable presented as a one-sided probability? The ECS, eg, is presented as a range. rdcu.be/bHT2C
1. Oil & gas companies still expect the world to consume large quantities of oil & gas in 2050. That view would seem to put the oil giants in conflict with the IPCC.
2. [O]il companies & the IPCC alike rely on a contentious strategy known as negative emissions — the practice of pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. In theory, NETs would buy the world a little more time to phase out the use of fossil fuels ...
3. "[N]one of these models are forecast machines" @DetlefvanVuuren
"It's just an element, a tool to explore different trajectories on the basis of the knowledge we have today & to see what ... might encounter."
Both critics & modelers agree such nuance is often lost
1. Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) often assume the same carbon prices in each region (left, orange dots): this is efficient but leads to large inequities (right).
More equitable distributions of carbon prices (left, blue dots) is less efficient.
2. @NB_pik addresses this problem in a new paper: "The core finding of this research is the strongly nonlinear trade-off between cost-efficiency and sovereignty in achieving the long-term PA climate target in an equitable way."
Small changes to efficiency have big equity gains.
3. The gaps between uniform & differentiated carbon prices (first tweet) was modified to create the trade-off curve (previous tweet). This was done by applying an exponential function to adjust pairs of regional prices.
Is the "core finding" dependent on the "exponential"?
Some updated carbon budgets from @CONSTRAIN_EU
→ 5 years left for 66% <1.5°C (HT @rtmcswee)
To what degree should we look at 66% <1.5°C?
* According to the 2018 #SR15, there are no scenarios 66% <1.5°C
* Huge gap between 50% 1.5°C & 66% 2°C (~1.7-1.8°C)
We have become so obsessed with these arbitrary lines at 1.5°C & 2°C, but I think the more relevant point, is that there is a HUGE gap between 1.5°C & 2°C.
While 1.5°C might be too late, there is still lots to fight for.
A slight technical point. 66% <1.5°C is probably around 1.3-1.4°C for 50%. We are at ~1.2°C today, so a 0.1°C increase or 200GtCO₂ is quite consistent with the remaining budget for 66% <1.5%...
[The 0.1°C ~ 200GtCO₂ is based on the TCRE, see link in previous tweet]
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).