Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Carbon Emissions Exceed Highest Assumptions Used in Climate Change Studies

By Peter N. Spotts, Christian Science Monitor. Posted May 22, 2007.


While global warming deniers argue that most climatologists are alarmists, CO2 emissions in the past few years have exceeded the levels used in scientists' models -- signaling even more cause for concern.
Advertisement

Global emissions of carbon dioxide are growing at a faster clip than the highest rates used in recent key UN reports.

CO2 emissions from cars, factories, and power plants grew at an annual rate of 1.1 percent during the 1990s, according to the Global Carbon Project, which is a data clearinghouse set up in 2001 as a cooperative effort among UN-related groups and other scientific organizations. But from 2000 to 2004, CO2 emissions rates almost tripled to 3 percent a year - higher than any rate used in emissions scenarios for the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

If the higher rate represents more than a blip, stabilizing emissions by 2100 will be more difficult than the latest UN reports indicate, some analysts say. And to avoid the most serious effects of global warming, significant cuts in CO2 emissions must begin sooner than the IPCC reports suggest. At the moment, no region of the world is "decarbonizing its energy supply," the analysis says.

The Global Carbon Project's calculations should be viewed with caution, says Michael Oppenheimer, a climate-policy specialist at Princeton University in New Jersey. Economies have been recovering from a recession at the turn of the millennium. And a spike in natural-gas prices - of uncertain duration - has given coal a second wind in developed countries. These short-term factors have probably contributed to the growth in emissions rates, he says.

Yet longer-term forces may be at play to sustain the high emissions rates. For instance, "There is concern among many experts that factors such as China's continued, very rapid coal-based growth may not be a blip that would turn around," he says.

The analysis is the Global Carbon Project's first cut at an annual effort to report on trends in CO2 emissions and the factors contributing to them, says Christopher Field, a scientist with the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

"We're trying to figure out a small set of numbers that give people a clear picture" of what's happening, says Dr. Field, a member of the Global Carbon Project's science steering committee and a co-author of the analysis, which appears in Monday's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The analysis comes at a time when negotiators for the G-8 group of leading industrial countries have been trying to work out the wording of a section on climate change, proposed for the final declaration at the group's meeting in Germany next month. Last week, US negotiators red-penciled key portions, severely weakening the statement.

The analysis also comes as countries prepare for a new round of UN-sponsored climate talks, scheduled for December in Bali. Negotiators are trying to establish a track for talks that would provide a seamless transition between the 1997 Kyoto Protocol's first reporting period, which runs from 2008 to 2012, and a new international regime to combat global warming that would follow - one in which developing countries would start taking an active role.

So far, developing countries account for only about 23 percent of emissions accumulated since the start of the Industrial Revolution. But they also account for 73 percent of the global emissions growth in 2004. This has been largely driven by China's explosive growth.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, carbon

Peter N. Spotts is a Staff Writer for the Christian Science Monitor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I just came inside from working in my back yard.
Posted by: HughScott on May 22, 2007 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As soon as I stop coughing and can breathe again, I'll read the artice to see if there is any truth about our air being polluted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Respiratory Jihad offers an unusual target in this article.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 22, 2007 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article (for whatever unusual reason) recognizes that the U.S. is not the center of the universe, and that the economies (most notably China, but also India) of other nations are being fueled by the burning of cheap, dirty coal and still-reasonably priced oil combusted without the restrictions present in the U.S.

Hmm. This is, perhaps, a sign that the environmentalism industry has finally begun to acknowledge the idea that freezing granny in the winter time by "capping" (aka prohibitively taxing the beejaysus out of) one energy form or another may simply offer a discounted energy source to be burned elsewhere in a country that doesn't create artificial economies to address poorly understood climate phenomena.

That's going to make the Anaerobic Crusades a tough, tough sell for the voters, and I would caution the environmentalists against the continued use of logic, reason, and transparent portrayals of scientific facts when advocating for their great causes in the future.

It's just not good for your business model or your branding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Caution...!!! Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Caution...!!! Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Caution...!!! Posted by: heftysmurf
The author stoops to attempting to conflate skepticism of man-made causes with "denial" of change
Posted by: rwa on May 22, 2007 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted to man-made climate change skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Best spam on the I-Net... Posted by: MartianBachelor
Is Global Warming Accelerating?
Posted by: edgar_michel on May 22, 2007 11:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Climate models have always predicted lower warming levels than actually recorded.

That is because every system has steady state equilibrium levels. There may be several equilibrium levels for a given system, but there is also no intermediate levels that can sustain steady state conditions. Therefore when one equilibrium level is being exceeded, the system jumps to the next steady state equilibrium level, this can be seen in the paleoclimate history of this planet. There has never been a gradual warming or cooling that would be consistent with the perturbations of earths orbit around the sun or its precession or wobble, or variability in net solar energy output. All of those variations take place over long periods of time and proceed according to very smooth curves that are very gradual. But the earth's temperature jumps in response to these gradual changes rather than following these smooth changes in energy absorption by the planet. We are only just beginning to understand the mechanisms that cause these abrupt changes, but we do know now that small changes in energy absorption by the planet triggers processes that lead to large temperature swings. We don't know with certainty all the mechanisms affecting temperature, but we do know that once initiated, they are nearly impossible to reverse.

So what should our national policy be, given the knowledge we already have? Since we know that there are global mechanisms we are just barely coming to understand, and that in the Paleolithic past these mechanisms have caused rapid changes in climate, our policy should be based on the assumption that increasing the amount of energy retained by the planet through dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere will most likely cause a radial jump in temperature to a new equilibrium level that is beyond our current capability to ascertain. It would be therefore very wise to believe that we need to stop introducing any more CO2 into the atmosphere immediately. We cannot afford to wait and see what another ten years of research uncovers as George W. Bush has suggested. We need to begin turning our vast highway system into an electric rail corridor that can take advantage of next generation power plants that do not exhaust CO2 to the atmosphere.

We need to do this immediately while there is still energy resources available to build the rail system over existing highways.

We have to say NO to George W. Bush and the corporations he represents, no matter what action he threatens, because to allow him to continue another day on his destructive path brings us just one day closer to our own demise.

An it is our demise that is at issue here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is Global Warming Accelerating? Posted by: edgar_michel
» The nuclear fallacy Posted by: themotie
DrColes
Posted by: DrColes on May 22, 2007 12:18 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing how folks just keep talking about a false premise/issue of CO2 causing climate change. They are both poorly educated and misled by a party line or economic criminals.

Current incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change are a fraud.

When you base anything on a false premise everything else that follows is false. CO2 causing climate change IS a false premise.

Consensus is NOT science. Educate, inform yourself, take a 9th grade science class.

Additional information http://www.InteliOrg.com/co2_climate_change.html

Stop listening to folks that have a financial interest in the subject. Unfortunately, many have learned to spin information, thusly have become intellectually and academically dishonest.

Information Vetting: I have no financial interest in this subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DrColes - HAHAHAHAHAHA Posted by: lessbread
One Sceptic's Modest Little Question
Posted by: scot on May 22, 2007 1:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So if the heat has just been turned up much higher than we thought, why isn't it hotter?

Could it be that there is some crucial bit of actual science that Al Gore's Sunday-school lesson left out? Like CO2 levels doing nothing along this line in comparison with the activity of the sun?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The answer is simple: No. Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» What do you mean Posted by: xconservative
It's shockingly reckless
Posted by: vangogh69 on May 22, 2007 2:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How we're going about living our lives, knowing that we're making the earth hotter and darker in the process. In effect, we're saying that the (relative) affluence of today is worth the price of an inhospitable planet in the future, a terrible position! Humans have gotten so far removed from seeing themselves as animals that we believe we can live without the planet...it's crazy! Still, the Earth will continue to exist...even if the billions can no longer live on it. There is a reason why venus is clearly visible to the naked eye in the sky.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's shockingly reckless Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: It's shockingly reckless Posted by: edgar_michel
It's really a simple issue.
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker on May 22, 2007 4:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Skeptics who pooh-pooh global warming are in Rush Limbaugh's camp. Enough said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You nailed it, lessbread. Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
Frightening? Damn right!
Posted by: monkeywrench on May 23, 2007 9:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Synopsis of the report, factoring in human nature: we're screwed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is our demise that is at issue here.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 24, 2007 11:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference the Scientific American article "Impact from the
Deep", in the October 2006 issue on pages 65 to 71. The
article says: If the warming trend from whatever cause
continues for 200 years [or now less than 200 years] we
will go extinct. The cause of the extinction of Homo
Sapiens will be hydrogen sulfide bubbling out of the hot
oceans. It doesn't make sense to quibble over the cause.
We have to stop the warming or die. THIS HAS
HAPPENED BEFORE. There was a similar minor
extinction 54 Million years ago. The cause of global
warming was not intelligent creatures burning coal, but it
was global warming none the less. The End Permian
extinction 251 million years ago had the same cause, global
warming. The cause of the global warming for the End
Permian extinction event was super volcanoes covering
Siberia. The Siberian volcanoes were no ordinary
volcanoes. They built Siberia, a huge land mass. Global
warming is global warming. The End Permian extinction
was the worst extinction event ever. Adaptation means
death and extinction. It took evolution longer than the
usual 20 million years to recover species diversity to the
normal level after the End Permian.
There is a solution. Did you know that enough
URANIUM goes up the smokestack of a coal-fired power
plant to Fully fuel a nuclear power plant with the same
output? See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html
If breeding of thorium into uranium and using plutonium as
fuel are allowed, enough uranium and thorium go up the
smokestack of one coal-fired power plant to fully fuel 500
nuclear power plants of the same size. And that isn't all
that goes up the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants.
Arsenic and lead are also among the 73 elements in coal
smoke, and the quantities are worthy of commercial
production. Did you know that you get 100 times as much
radiation from a coal-fired power plant as from a nuclear
power plant?
Have you ever heard of background radiation? The
natural background radiation that has been there since the
beginning of time is 1000 times what you get from a
nuclear power plant or 10 times what you get from a coal-
fired power plant. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
or
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html
By the way, the Chernobyl accident put as much radiation
into the environment as an equally-sized coal-fired power
plant does in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl
reactor was an extremely obsolete design that hasn't been
built in this country since 1944.
Reccomendation: Nuclear power is the safest kind and it
just got safer. See the December 2005 issue of Scientific
American article on a new type of nuclear reactor that
consumes the nuclear "waste" as fuel. Convert all coal-
fired power plants worldwide to nuclear ASAP.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I would like to know more Posted by: KeepsonTickn