Ok, if I add the fossil CO₂ emissions to the LUC CO₂ emissions, from Houghton and Nassikas, there are changes in ranking (Brazil and Indonesia mainly).
Just to note the obvious, this change is much less with the FAO data, so the ranking is not robust.
5/
Let's get to something easier...
The top 10 for CH₄ emissions. Many developing countries move up onto the top 10 list, indicating a much larger share of agriculture in their economies.
6/
Finally, N₂O emissions. Again, developing countries move up the list in comparison to CO₂ emissions.
7/
GHG emissions? You know that is misleading as the GWP is not such a good indicator of climate impacts?
But, here it is, without LUC, as that makes it more uncertain. Only the Top 6, and this is from the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2020.
8/
By popular demand, here is GHG emissions per person, for the top 6 absolute emitters.
9/
The main point of this thread was to point out the differences with CH₄ & N₂O emissions, which gives more emphasis to developing countries.
Addressing CO₂ emissions from LUC is really hard. It is easy to download a dataset & plot, but this masks the huge uncertainties.
/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Instead of leaving such work to volunteers, global institutions should marshal the funding & expertise to collect crucial data, & mandate their publication"
💯agree with @_HannahRitchie. No one wants to fund the giant who's shoulders we stand on.
The approach to science is to fund big models, expensive observations, etc. All this is needed, but somehow science seems to have forgotten the importance careful curation & maintenance of data.
2/
Science is full of projects that improve models, do model comparisons, process some satellite data, etc, & if you are lucky there might be a task that scrapes together some data to feed the models.
3/
Scientific studies (eg IPCC Assessment Reports) generally consider CO₂ emissions from 'Net Conversions' as the emissions, while government reporting to the UNFCCC combines the conversions & sink (black line).
The 'sink' is not the total sink, only a part of the forest sink.
There are two facilities (capturing in 2019), but very different stories:
* Boundary Dam: Operates ~60% capacity, used for EOR
* Quest: Operates ~90% capacity, permanent storage, but the generated H₂ is used to upgrade oilsands
1/
Boundary Dam is CCS on coal power, with the goal of capturing CO₂ for Enhanced Oil Recovery.
In short, it has not lived up to expectations. How much CO₂ gets stored is unknown, & in any case, the CO₂ is used for EOR (more CO₂).
Norway is known for its Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) & is best in class.
Even the best in class does not run at capacity. Currently ~80% of capacity is used, but Sleipner has dropped to ~65%.
But, Norwegian CCS is the easy type, removing CO₂ from extracted gas.
1/
The extracted gas at Sleipner Vest contains ~9% CO₂, but has to be reduced to ~2.5% to meet sales specifications.
The extracted gas in the Snøhvit field contains ~5-7.5% CO₂, and this has to be removed to avoid it freezing out in the downstream liquefaction process.
2/
The CO₂ has to be removed for market or technical reasons. You would therefore expect the facilities to run at a high capacity, as they have to!
The CO₂ is captured & stored, presumably to avoid paying the Norwegian CO₂ tax. This is great, but a different issue.
3/