Finland had a special year in 2019, worth a look...
In terms of Primary Energy, the largest energy source in Finland is now bioenergy, passing oil in 2019!
Finland also has a high share of nuclear...
1/
As of 2019, Finland now emits less CO₂ than Sweden & Norway in aggregate terms.
Finnish CO₂ emissions went down 9% in 2019.
Interesting to see how things look in 2021 (after 2020 changes).
2/
Though, CO₂ emissions per person are still relatively high in Finland, more than twice the global average.
In good news, Finnish CO₂ emissions per person are falling relatively fast.
3/
And here are total GHG emissions up until 2018, showing the size of the LULUCF sector in Finaldn...
(more later)
/end
Continued...
Here are the CO₂ emissions including LULUCF. The net CO₂ emissions have risen, due to a weakening sink (the gross emissions should be the same as tweet #2)
5/
The LULUCF CO₂ emissions have increased (got less negative) due to less update in forests.
I do not know why, would have to ask a Finn! Could be increased harvest, management, age class effects, etc.
6/
Methane emissions have continued downwards, primarily due to less methane emissions in the waste sector.
7/
N₂O emissions have been flat, except from a dramatic drop around 2008/2009. This is probably a factory closure.
8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
'Net' emissions are a slippery slope, but we already deal with net emissions. It is not so scary...
In most Annex I countries LULUCF emissions are a net-sink. The sink is mainly forest regrowth & recovery.
Net emissions have been here since 1990, at least...
1/
In the EU, most of the sink is increased uptake in existing forests, there is a small part of afforestation (dark green). There are also emission sources, such as from grasslands & new settlements.
Maintaining the sink over time (with climate impacts) could be hard.
2/
The EU27 now includes the land sink (LULUCF) in its climate targets.
Perhaps this is good? It forces the EU to maintain & expand its sink.
Perhaps this is bad? The EU can now have 'net-zero' emissions in 2050 (though, studies suggest this is mainly agricultural)
Historically, the land & ocean sink have removed about one-half of the anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.
If we mitigate successfully in the future, the sinks will take up less CO₂ since emissions are lower, but they will be replaced by 'engineered sinks'.
1/n
This is a more detailed figure showing the anthropogenic CO₂ emission sources (top), & the land and ocean sinks (with the balance remaining in the atmosphere). Bread & butter carbon cycle...
IPCC: "In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO₂ emissions [reach] net zero ~2050 (2045–2055)"
There are likely equally plausible scenarios (shown here) that reach net-zero CO₂ emissions in 2100 with the same 'carbon budget'.
1/
You don't believe me?
These are the scenarios used for net-zero ~2050 (2045-2055). They basically all cross zero around 2050. This is because they focus on 2100 targets & allow 'overshoot'.
This is a design feature of the scenarios, & are not the only way to get to 1.5°C!
2/
The temperature response to those scenarios all have a 'peak & decline' shape. Some of the 'peak & decline' is due to CO₂ emissions & some to non-CO₂ emissions (GWP100 confuses this point).
Most modelling uses a 2100 target, allowing overshoot (a cost-effective 'feature').
If we take a remaining carbon budget consistent with 1.5°C, then emissions need to drop rapidly. This curve converges to zero, there is no physical reason to have a straight line to zero.
(I took 580GtCO₂ from SR15 Table 2.2, not adjusted for time past)