EMISSIONS CREEP: Greenhouse gas emissions from most countries that have pledged to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases the global warming pollution are still rising.
Image: ©Kimberly Deprey/istockphoto.com
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The 38 countries that pledged to restrain their emissions of climate change–inducing greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2), are failing, according to new figures released today. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the body charged with overseeing global emission reduction efforts, says that, overall, greenhouse emissions—measured in terms of the most ubiquitous: carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)—dropped by 894 million metric tons between 1990 and 2006 (the latest year for which figures are available).
But the UNFCCC found that emissions had grown by 2.3 percent—403 million metric tons of CO2e—from 2000 to 2006, and that the 16-year dip was due entirely to the drop in economic activity (factory and power plant shutdowns) in former Eastern bloc countries such as Russia after the 1989 fall of communist governments, which led to a decline of more than two billion metric tons of CO2e emissions. Those countries' economies have recovered since 2000, leading to an increase in CO2e emissions of some 258 million metric tons, according to UNFCCC.
Most industrialized European nations as well as China and the U.S. (which have not agreed to any emissions' reductions) have been spewing more carbon dioxide since 1990—up in total some 403 million metric tons of CO2e from 2000 levels.
The UNFCCC cautions that emissions may be even worse now, noting that the statistics in the study are already nearly three years old. "UNFCCC expert review teams need two years to verify the data, partly by traveling to the countries concerned," says UNFCCC spokesman John Hay. "This makes the UNFCCC data not the freshest, but the most reliable on the market."
The U.K. and the Principality of Monaco are the only two European countries that, after pledging to reduce emissions (by 12.5 percent and 8 percent, respectively) by 2012, appear to be on track. In contrast, Austria, which vowed in 2002 to cut emissions by over the next 10 years 13 percent below 1990 levels, is instead pumping out 15 percent more CO2e than it did in 1990. Likewise, Japan is now emitting over 6 percent more greenhouse gases now than in 1990 despite a promise in 2002 to reduce them by 6 percent by 2012.
Even countries allowed to emit more greenhouse gases under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol (an international treaty to reduce emissions) to allow further economic development have nearly doubled their allowed growth. Ireland, for example, has seen greenhouse gas emissions grow by nearly 26 percent when, under the terms of the treaty, they should only rise by 13 percent.
The treaty signatories have until 2012 to get their acts together. If they continue to exceed their limits by that date, they will be suspended from international carbon trading, which currently allows them to purchase cheaper emission reductions from developing countries in lieu of reducing their own; instead, they would be required to achieve 1.3 times the missed reduction in future years.
World governments are set to gather next month in Poznan, Poland, to continue negotiations on a binding international agreement to cut globe-warming greenhouse gases after 2012—a so-called successor to the Kyoto Protocol currently in force.
Under the Bush administration, the U.S. has participated in such talks without accepting a binding emissions reduction target. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. emitted nearly six billion metric tons of CO2 last year, up from roughly five billion metric tons in 1990. It remains to be seen how the incoming Obama administration will proceed, though on the stump the president-elect pledged to cut U.S. emissions to 80 percent below present levels by 2050.
When releasing today's report, UNFCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer stressed the importance of negotiating a new and binding agreement to cut climate change pollution. "The figures clearly underscore the urgency for the U.N. negotiating process to make good progress in Poznan and move forward quickly in designing a new agreement to respond to the challenge of climate change," he said. He also noted that President-elect Obama would not attend.
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentThe reason for all the increase is Cars. Gas Cars. If people weren't so obsessed with going fast, we wouldn't have this problem. Hybrids are useless, just a marketing ploy to sell gas cars. The automotive industries need to shut down and rework everything to build electric and hydrogen vehicles. STOP building more gas cars. Force everyone to trade in their gas guzzlers for electric and just recycle the junk. It has to become illegal to drive any gas powered vehicle. After that, you can work on other industries, because we will have learned so many new ways to build and create. We have to get it into our heads that FAST IS BAD.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is another alternative, that doesn't (necessarily) discount the need-for-speed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can make the -roads- (highways to start) move like a conveyor belt.
Michael X. Maelstrom.
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Earth, Sometimes.
There is another alternative, that doesn't (necessarily) discount the need-for-speed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can make the -roads- (highways to start) move like a conveyor belt.
Michael X. Maelstrom.
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Earth, Sometimes.
This would be terrible, but that would begin with the assumption that AGW is real. I find it intellectually dishonest that now that the eco-romantics are being forced to admit that AGW is a crock that they slide right over into lumping CO2 in with real, toxic pollutants. Next cause coming up!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe will probally see a reduction in 2008-9 due to global economic recession and see that offically reported in 2010.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile goals have been missed, significantly more than nothing has been achived. Investing in more emission heavy energy sources has become risky which has lowered thier discovery and supply. Each time we grow near the limit of that lowered supply we go into global recession.
Get used to this pattern. Our lack of exploration causing slower global growth is the only things keeping things from getting totally out of hand.
Large-scale hydrogen refinement and hydrogen BURNING engines will do the trick. Fuel cell technology is just another red herring. Hydrogen burning vehicles only emit water vapor. I can't believe this technology hasn't been pursued like the Holy Grail that it is. Once our leaders endorse it, the sheeple will queue up for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThankyou areophile! Attach a biomass-pyrolysis gazogene to a car and you generate hydrogen...This was done for decades, but nobody has improved the technology since the fifties. The only bi-product is agri-charcoal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe big deal here is not that countries who pledged to reduce CO2 emissions aren't meeting their targets, it's that presumably reasonable people ever expected them to do so. These countries are discovering the dismal economic reality of trying to curb what amounts to a non-pollutant; a substance that is emitted by just about every organic and non-organic process on the planet. Faced with economic regression back to the Dark Ages, hopefully some of these countries will come to the obvious realization that maybe the data and assumptions need to be re-analyzed. No one has yet demonstrated a significant connection between CO2 and global warming. Perhaps their efforts would be better spent on cleaning up real pollution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason that the U.S. and China haven't agreed to the pollution reduction is due to the massive need of polluting the world lol The U.S. has no excuse and they should be a part whereas China is the worlds leading pollutant in the fight against greenhouse gases. This has been a serious problem for many years now and China must know that if they were to reduce the amount of pollution that would accompany other reductions in say money and business. The other countries should do something and this policy or "agreement" should be made mandatory. If not then there should be a fine associated with not reducing emissions!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" I find it intellectually dishonest that now that the eco-romantics are being forced to admit that AGW is a crock that they slide right over into lumping CO2 in with real, toxic pollutants. "
Who is being forced specifically? What piece of data is it? Who then changed their position? Was this piece of data peer reviewed?
Trent 1492:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps "forced to admit that AGW is a crock" is a wrong term. How about "realizing that AGW is a crock and abandoning a flirtation with a pseudo religous cult" may be more appropriate. Check out climatedebate daily.com . Even the IPCC scientists are abandoning the fallacy of AGW in droves. You can see their comments for yourself you don't need me to interpret for you.
With AGW dead and buried, maybe now we can harness all of that wasted scientific talent and do something really useful, like develop alternative and sustainable energy resources that can work in the real world free of the scare-mongering and bullying tactics favoured by the eco-romantics. Like it or not, we'll need these sources, but killing our industry and economy will not make the path easier, only more difficult.
Trent 1492:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at the mis-information that Obama is parroting and passing off as science with respect to CO2. CO2 is clearly not a pollutant, and yet he wants it classified as one. If CO2 was really a pollutant, wewould die with every breath. As a fiend of mine who is an agrologist stated over beers one night, "CO2 ain't a pollutant; it's plant food".
@ Shosin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have failed to answer my questions. Once again, what climate scientist has changed his mind and what particular piece of data is it?
@shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"CO2 is clearly not a pollutant, and yet he wants it classified as one. "
I am sorry, but I do not accept fact by assertion as evidence. The Obama administration, can in fact, regulate Co2 emissions. Disagree? Then tell it to the Supreme Court, which has ruled that the EPA can and MUST regulate CO2 emissions in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
" If CO2 was really a pollutant,.."
In the context of warming the Earth it is.
"...we would die with every breath. "
You know the only people I know who make such an argument are Global Warming Deniers. The only people who are convinced by such transparently flawed arguments are Global Warming Deniers.
"As a fiend of mine who is an agrologist stated over beers one night, "CO2 ain't a pollutant; it's plant food"."
Water is a necessity for life , yet too much of it and you DROWN. When can I expect you to advocate for the removal of Hoover Dam? After all, if water is a necessity then 30 feet of it over your head can only be beneficial.
Trent1492:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour assertions are baseless and display a complete lack of what science is and is not. Science cares not one whit about the sayings of the Supreme Court, the Spanish Inquisition or Charlie Brown and the whole Peanuts gang. Science cares about reality, testing and repeatability. Computer models are not evidence.
China the world's leader in pollution reduction! excuse me while I puke...... ................................................................ ah.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only reason china reduced pollution in 2008 is they shutdown all industries to clear the air for the Olympics. They also sucked up a very large portion of the worlds diesel supply to generate cleaner electricity. Remember prices of light oil fuels last summer. China is the largest gross pollution creator in the world.
The above articial's facts indicate a reduction in carbon emissions over the sample time. and needed to cherry pick to make their argument. I would expect a sample 1990 to 2010 will show a similar trend as it would include two economic cycles and improved efficencys.
Shoshin: "Science cares not one whit about the sayings of the Supreme Court, the Spanish Inquisition or Charlie Brown and the whole Peanuts gang. Science cares about reality, testing and repeatability. Computer models are not evidence."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent observation. As a geologist I find it sad that many so-called 'environmnetalists' have not even the basic undersanding of scientific methodology. Their idea of 'science' is tarnished by ideology and and 'an agenda'. Science is careful scrutiny of specfic measurable evidence and, as you say, nothing to do with n0n-science groups passing comment. Many of the global warming groupies are no more than cultists parotting the latest mantra of the day.
There is a lot of talk about reducing greenhouse emissions, but little effort. We are building cities and one key thing (other than energy use) is the use of concrete with contributes some 12% of greenhouse emissions. The simple lessons are 1) stop building and 2) start using fuel cells
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the trading schemes in the world are doing nothing and are a waste of money