If emissions had peaked back in 2000 we would be skiing down a bunny slope toward 1.5C. Today we face a double black diamond, and in a few years it will be a cliff.
We are almost certainly going to overshoot 1.5C and need large-scale permanent carbon removal to get back down.
Scenarios commonly used to limit warming to 1.5C include a lot of late century negative emissions – sucking a quarter to a half of current emissions out of the atmosphere each year by 2100 – in order to make near-term reductions more plausible:
There is, of course, no guarantee that negative emissions of that scale will pan out, but any chance of ultimately limiting warming to 1.5C likely requires both speeding up emissions reductions significantly and building a robust carbon removal industry later in the century.
Thankfully, the pathways to 2C with limited net-negative emissions are a lot less daunting, but every year global emissions continue to rise or stay flat it too becomes much more difficult to achieve:
It is worth mentioning that reducing global emissions 20 years ago would have been much harder than today. China was still industrializing rapidly through expanded coal use, clean energy was expensive, and political will was lacking.
Its much easier to mitigate today, but at the same time the emissions that have accumulated in the atmosphere over the past 20 years make it much more difficult to meet our ambitious climate mitigation targets.
Finally, its worth emphasizing that climate change is fundamentally a matter of degrees rather than thresholds. It not like 1.4C is fine but at 1.6C there be dragons; similarly, things do not suddenly spiral out of control at 2.1C. Its important to mitigate as much as we can.
Thanks to @robbie_andrew for creating these no-net-negative emissions pathways; it got a lot of attention when we first featured them at @CarbonBrief back in 2017, and recently has really blown up (e.g. with this new @climate visualization): bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Planting trees is great. It helps restore ecosystems, sequesters some carbon, and has many other co-benefits.
But a ton of carbon absorbed by trees its not equivalent to avoiding a ton of CO2 emissions, and we need to stop pretending that it is. grist.org/wildfires/cali…
The warming effects of CO2 emissions last thousands of years, and a ton of CO2 that we avoid emitting is a ton of CO2 that is never emitted.
A ton of CO2 absorbed by planting trees, on the other hand, is temporarily rather than permanently removed from the atmosphere.
If we reforest an area that would have otherwise never been reforested, keep trees intact in that location for thousands of years to come, and don't have any secondary land use impacts, then its equivalent to mitigating CO2 emissions. But thats rarely – if ever – the case today.
The new UNEP Emissions Gap report provides up-to-date estimates of likely warming outcomes associated with current policies, NDCs, and net-zero pledges. Between UNEP, @climateactiontr, and @IEA we are getting a clearer picture of how much the world is on track to warm: 1/6
Note that UNEP does not provide a lower bound to its warming ranges, just 50th, 66th, and 90th percentiles. For this reason the uncertainties are expressed as "up to" the 90th percentile rather than a 10th-90th percentile range. 2/
A technical detail: I've also estimated the 90th percentile of combined emissions and climate system (e.g. sensitivity, carbon cycle feedback) uncertainties by adding the two in quadrature, assuming independence. 3/
The new UNEP Emissions Gap report shows that the gap between what countries have committed to and whats needed to limit warming to below 2C has slightly shrunk, but many commitments are still "weak promises, not yet delivered". My latest @CarbonBrief: carbonbrief.org/unep-current-c… 1/6
Despite stronger climate policy and higher ambition in the latest national pledges, there is still a large gap between near-term commitments under the Paris Agreement and what would be needed to limit warming to well-below 2C and aim for below 1.5C. 2/
UNEP finds that while 121 countries updated NDCs under the terms of the Paris Agreement in the lead-up to the COP26 summit in Glasgow, the effect of these is relatively limited – new pledges are cut global GHG emissions in 2030 by about 2.9bn tonnes of CO2eq. 3/
Interesting discussion in @ISSUESinST about future emissions scenarios. Its encouraging that there is a growing recognition on all side of the debate about the progress we have made in making very high emissions scenarios much less plausible. issues.org/climate-scenar…
I do want to take a bit of an issue with this statement by @chrfield and @Marcia4Science that it "remains 100% accurate" to call RCP8.5 a BAU scenario "even if RCP8.5 does not appear to be the most likely high-emissions pathway."
Both @DetlefvanVuuren and Keywan Riahi who developed the scenario emphasized to me that it was never intended to be "business as usual", but rather a reflection of the upper bound of potential baseline outcomes when RCPs were developed in the late 2000s. carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-…
Passing Build Back Better bill without CEPP risks premature retirement of 20% of current US nuclear reactors, jeopardizing emissions reductions goals. To avoid this the US should extend PTC for existing nuclear from 5 years to 10 years to fill in the gap: thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
CEPP is likely gone from the budget reconciliation bill. It was a major incentive to keep existing reactors open, and as @JesseJenkins and the REPEAT team find its absence will result in an additional 20 GW (20% of existing nuclear) retiring by 2030. repeatproject.org/docs/REPEAT_Pr…
This means that the additional clean energy is replacing nuclear rather than fossil fuels, resulting in additional CO2 emissions of up to 75 million metric tons per year in 2030 compared to a scenario where these reactors remained open.
The US beef industry is trying to deflect their responsibility for methane emissions by claiming that emissions US cows are no longer increasing atmospheric methane concentrations. This is technically true, and completely besides the point.
The climate impacts of methane is usually compared with CO2 through the use of Global Warming Potentials (GWPs). There are usefully simple multipliers for a single year's emissions, but provide a misleading impression when applied to emissions over time. 2/
CO2 and methane (CH4) have very different lifetimes. When a ton of CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere, a portion is absorbed quickly, but around 40% remains after a century (and 20% after thousands of years). CH4 is removed much faster, with most gone after 20 years. 3/