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%
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%.
"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.
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
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?
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..
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)
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?