Global fossil energy CO₂ emissions:
2020: ⬇️ 5.8%, or ~2GtCO₂
2021: ⬆️ 4.8%, or ~1.5GtCO₂
Everyone wanted back to normal🤔
1/
My guestimate was 3.5% as of April 2021, so quite some lower.
My method is very aggregated, based on GDP & historical trends in CO₂/GDP. I would trust the IEA much more with disaggregated approaches... Or?
2/
Projections change over time. This is the projection I made in January, it was for 3% growth (not 3.5%). The difference? @IMFNews increased their projected GDP growth.
3/
The @gcarbonproject has been making these projections for years. Most important is to evaluate how the projections performed.
There are uncertainties. These are projections. A projection in April is harder, as there is still 8 months in the year... essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/32…
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The study essentially argued that based on the AR5 carbon budgets, viewed from 2014, there was seven years (2021) until the 1.5°C carbon budget was used, & therefore 1.5°C was essentially a "geophysical impossibility".
They had a new method with a more realistic budget.
2/
The @CarbonBrief post was titled: "Why the 1.5°C warming limit is not yet a geophysical impossibility"
The authors wrote: "[A]lthough 1.5°C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, it remains a very difficult policy challenge."
Despite China building more coal capacity (net), coal use has been flat in the decade (green). This means the coal power utilisation rate is declining.
Coal is going down in Europe & the US, but up in most other places.
1/
And here is the same figure as a line chart, which makes it easier to compare countries and see the trends...
There are much more ups & downs in coal production. Most of the differences (to consumption) are likely to relate to stock piles (& statistical differences).
'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)