The energy sector is the largest in terms of GHG emissions.
The changes from 1990 to 2019 were:
* Energy industries: -41%
* Manufacturing: -41%
* Transport: +20%
* Other (buildings, etc): -27%
* Fugitive: solid -73%, oil/gas -46%
Transport is a problem...
2/
Considering only CO₂ emissions, emissions are nearly totally dominated by energy (see previous tweet for details), with some emissions from industrial processes (cement, etc) and LULUCF as a sink.
3/
CH₄ emissions have gone down 40% from 1990 to 2019, by sector:
* Energy: -61%
* Agriculture: -21%
* Waste: -46%
This shows that big reductions can be made for CH₄, it is more than burning cows...
4/
N₂O emissions have gone down 37% from 1990 to 2019, by sector:
* Energy -5%
* Industry: -90%
* Agriculture: -19%
* Waste: +12%
* LULUCF: +4%
Again, N₂O reductions can be made, particularly in industry. It is not just agriculture...
5/
Finally, the most complex sector, LULUCF, where there are both emissions & removals.
The biggest removals are from forests that remain forests (managed forests). Some of this will be management, some will be CO₂ fertilisation & climate (ie, luck).
Lots of other dynamics...
6/
That was the EU27+UK GHG emissions in a nutshell.
Lots more data to dig into, this is just a summary found in the UNFCCC submitted emission inventories. And there are about 40 countries with this data (Annex I).
Let me know what data you would like to see...
7/7
*burping...
My apologies for burning the cows in tweet 4, I only meant them to burp...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This question is ambiguous: "How high above pre-industrial levels do you think average global temperature will rise between now and 2100?"
* ...pre-industrial... between "now and 2100"?
* Where we are currently heading or where we could head? This is largely a policy question?
3/
One of the key arguments that Norway uses to continue oil & gas developments, is that under BAU it is expected that oil & gas production will decline in line with <2°C scenarios, even with continued investment.
Let's look closer at these projections & reality...
1/
Here is the projections from the 2003 report from the petroleum agency.
In reality (tweet 1) there was a dip around 2010, but production is now up around 250 million cubic again.
The forecast was totally & utterly WRONG!
2/
In 2011 there was a forecast for an increase in production to 2020, but then a decline. This is probably since they started to put the Johan Sverdrup field on the books.
The increase in production was way too low, again, they got it wrong.
CO2 emissions by fossil fuel:
* We thought coal peaked in 2014. No, & up another 1.1% in 2023
* Oil up 1.5%, on the back of a 28% increase in international aviation & China, but oil remains below 2019 level. 🤞
* Has the golden age of gas come to an end thanks to Russia?
2/
By top emitters:
* China up 4.0% & a peak this year would be a surprise
*US down 3.0%, with coal at 1903 levels
* India up 8.2%, with fossil CO2 clearly above the EU27
* EU27, down 7.4% with drops in all fuels
* Bunkers, up 11.9% due to exploding international aviation
Is the new @DrJamesEHansen et al article an outlier, or rather mainstream?
At least in terms of the key headline numbers, it seems rather mainstream, particularly if you remember most headline key numbers have quite some uncertainty!