1. The @IEA is out with estimates of fossil energy CO₂ emissions for 2020:
* Primary energy down ~4%
* CO₂ emissions down 5.9% or 2GtCO₂
* Coal down 4%
* Oil down 8.6%

iea.org/articles/globa…
2. Our latest estimate (from yesterday) is 4.9% down. The main difference is in oil. Our method may not have picked up the drop in international bunkers. Time will tell...

3. The drop in monthly CO₂ emissions was greatest in April during the first COVID19 wave.

CO₂ emissions recovered throughout the year to end higher than levels in 2019, despite 2nd & 3rd & ... waves of COVID19.
4. The biggest emission drops were in transport, down ~14% compared to 2019 & accounting for over half the total drop in emissions.

Aviation down 45%, to levels last seen in 1999!
5. CO₂ emissions in the power sector were already declining, with COVID19 accelerating the declines.

Power sector CO₂ emissions fell 3.3% in 2020, driven mainly by the accelerating expansion of renewables. This is great news moving forward.
6. CO₂ emissions went down in all major economies, except China. Growth rates were much lower than recent trends, except China (& small differences in Japan & Brazil).

Rich nations generally had bigger relative declines in emissions.
7. China is the real outlier.

CO₂ emissions dropped 12% by February, but since April emissions were 5% above the levels in 2019.

India & Brazil both had emissions at the end of 2020 back to 2019 levels.
8. All the data points to a rebound in 2021. Global monthly emissions were back to 2019 levels in December.

The sustainable recovery has not happened. It is a question if the growth in 2021 will surpass the declines of 2020.
9. Based on IMF GDP data (5% growth), a crude estimate is that CO₂ emissions will grow 3% in 2021 based on the 10 year trend in CO₂/GDP.

If CO₂/GDP remains flat (as in 2010), then CO₂ emissions would rebound 5%.

10. There is a distinct chance that 2021 could fully recover the drops in 2020.

It is early March, & lots could happen in 2021, & governments have many choices to avoid a full rebound in emissions.

[New @NatureClimate Commentary coming tomorrow!]

/end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Glen Peters

Glen Peters Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Peters_Glen

26 Feb
"The reason we’re net zero is that we have this enormous renewables business ... all the avoided emissions that come with that" compensate for emissions in other investments.

Houston, we have a problem... This from climate finance champion Carney.

1/

bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
2. "Most large asset managers have a renewable energy fund. Simply having one does not make you net zero. ... Such commitments are not credible & represent greenwashing" @bencaldecott
3. "It’s virtually impossible for a company to be a net-zero company now" @FarsanAlexander

"It won’t matter how many solar panels one installs if we don’t reduce actual CO₂ emissions." @UlfErlandsson
Read 6 tweets
16 Feb
THREAD: A critical look at baseline scenarios

I did a presentation for the @Tekna group on Energy, Industry, & Environment.

Presentation: slideshare.net/GlenPeters_CIC…

Video: tekna.no/fag-og-nettver…
2. There are a range of scenarios spanning the high-end (>5°C in 2100) to the low-end (<1.5°C in 2100). This shows the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (one of many scenario intercomparisons).

Out of these scenarios, which ones should be used for analysis?

carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-…
3. Baseline scenarios assume no climate policy. Essentially, integrated assessment models (IAMs) apply no carbon price (or emission constraint).

Baseline scenarios range from emissions peaking & declining (<3°C in2100) to a high-end outlier (by choice) RCP8.5 (>5°C in 2100).
Read 25 tweets
15 Feb
IPCC: By 2050 a Brazil-sized area of new forests and/or crops may be needed to meet 1.5°C climate goal…

No, this is not the new Shell scenario, this is the IPCC SR15 Summary for Policy Makers. These are scenarios with no or limited overshoot...

ipcc.ch/sr15/

1/
Shell requires some “700m hectares of land would be required over the century, an area approaching that of Brazil”.

[Why Brazil, that is 850Mha, Australia 770Mha?]

This is a similar area to the favoured “Low Energy Demand” (LED) scenario.

carbonbrief.org/analysis-shell…
2/
Ok, people like spruiking the Low Energy Demand (LED) scenario. I am fine with that.

Despite the title, LED uses just as much land for forests as Shell.

It is a case of low energy demand AND carbon dioxide removal (not either/or). Do people get this?

nature.com/articles/s4156…
3/
Read 10 tweets
13 Feb
Fossil CO₂ emissions are likely to remain flat through 2100 leading to ~2.8°C warming if countries continue historical CO₂/GDP trends.

If countries meet emission pledges & continue reductions, then ~2.3°C.

Not RCP8.5, nor RCP1.9 or RCP2.6...

nature.com/articles/s4324…
Though, note that these sorts of methods are very sensitive to assumptions (played with this before).

They had a similar study a few years back, some thoughts here
medium.com/@Peters_Glen/w…

And here is how the method performed...
Here is a Kaya based projection we did 7 years ago. If a country continues along historical trends, the method is ok. If the country changes trends, the method is useless. See China. We were way out.

Though, for the EU, we will much better than the other study..
Read 5 tweets
12 Feb
"If you gave the average CEO a multiple-choice question whether the Paris Agreement goal is 2°C or 1.5°C, I wonder what they would write"

Let's see... bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
According to @CFigueres chatting to @MLiebreich

The hard target in the Paris Agreement is “well below 2°C” (you have to do this). The soft target is 1.5°C (the aspiration, we would like to do this).

Listen to the whole Episode 6 liebreich.com/cleaning-up/
The Paris Agreement asked IPCC do to a Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C. This was done in the Paris Agreement "decision" text. This was why there was a 1.5°C report (interestingly not a "well below 2°C" report)

unfccc.int/process-and-me…
Read 6 tweets
12 Feb
1. “one of the most important sentences of the last few centuries”…

Did the IPCC SR15 change the debate, the IPCC just in the right place at the right time, or are some people just slow to get it?

Seriously...

bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
2. Why not put praise on the earlier Paris Agreement, which has a legal form & is the text countries agree to adhere too?

🤔 Perhaps many just do not know about the Paris Agreement (or was it Accord?), or confuse IPCC SR15 and Paris?
3. Scientists have been on net-zero for years. So have policy makers. The Paris Agreement did not happen in a vacuum, nor IPCC SR15, it built on the work over years, even decades.

IPCC SR15 is an assessment of the literature, not new science. Or is it?
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!