Greenhouse gas pollution up despite economic downturn

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Despite a slowing global economy, carbon dioxide emissions continued to rise in 2007, according to energy use figures from oil company BP—jumping to 8.47 billion metric tons of the most common greenhouse gas responsible for global warming or 2.9 percent higher than the last year's total. Leading the charge: the U.S. (up nearly 2 percent to 1.58 billion metric tons) and China (up more than 7 percent to 1.8 billion metric tons).

These figures outpace even the worst-case projections of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warned last year that unless pollution is reduced, global average temperatures could rise by between four and 11 degrees Fahrenheit (two to six degrees Celsius).

Such a temperature rise would likely cause a slew of ill effects, among them: major melting of  ice sheets the world over (raising sea levels and impacting water supplies, particularly in Asia) and changes in weather patterns.
Developing countries currently account for more than half of global carbon dioxide emissions—led by China and India.

But that statistic is tempered by the fact that somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of Chinese emissions are the result of manufacturing for developed countries. On the other hand, Chinese emissions may be underestimated by as much as 20 percent by this study, according to author Gregg Marland, a scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Emissions have been rising four times faster this decade, despite efforts such as the international Kyoto Protocol agreement to limit greenhouse gas pollution. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 now stand at 383 parts-per-million (ppm), more than two ppm more than in 2006—a rate of growth matched throughout the 2000s and nearly double the rate of growth in the 1970s.

In addition to the rise in CO2 levels from fossil fuel burning, 1.5 billion metric tons of CO2 were added to the atmosphere by the cutting down of forests, according to the Global Carbon Project, the Australian group that analyzed the country data.

"The acceleration of both CO2 emissions and atmospheric accumulation are unprecedented and most astonishing during a decade of intense international developments to address climate change," said Pep Canadell, executive director of the Global Carbon Project.

Credit: istockphoto.com


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


 

 

 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe