Global CO2 Soars Past 400 ppm

Data from IEA

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released their 2012 edition of the CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Statistics Highlights. World CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels have climbed past 396 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere and will hit 400 ppm in early spring before retreating slightly over the summer. Global CO2 emissions have grown by 47% since 1990 (based on IEA estimates for 2011). The CO2 levels on earth had averaged 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, but in the past century they began rising. 

As the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere increase the warming produced by the greenhouse gas effect is strengthened. Computer modeling of the climate predicts that there will be feedbacks that significantly increase the impact from the increasing CO2. This is a feedback control loop on a global scale. Mankind produces carbon dioxide from power plants, transportation (cars, trucks, planes, trains, and ships), heating, cement manufacture, deforestation, and breathing. Methane is produced from agriculture, livestock, mining, gas pipeline leaks and well heads, landfills, and sewage plants. Nitrous oxide is produced by fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, animal waste, polluted waters, and chemical processes. CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and water vapor are the major greenhouse gases. The IEA tells us that 65% of the global greenhouse gas emissions by mankind are from the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and in industrialized nations 83% of all greenhouse gas emissions are from power generation, heating and cooling and transportation, but it is clear that both population and industrialization drive CO2 production.  

Data from IEA

The climate models show that there is nothing that we can do to stop global warming and climate change. Even if the concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere were to stabilize at this level, global warming and sea level rising would continue for hundreds of years because of the time scales associated with climate and planetary feedback loops. In reality, the global emissions of CO2 will continue to rise for at least a generation. What is going to happen will happen. I will leave it to others to argue the case for the accuracy of climate models; however, both mankind and the earth itself will respond to changes in CO2 concentrations and temperature, but not before it becomes the pressing concern of the currently emerging nations. Though we constantly argue, discuss and meet, there is virtually nothing we can do to change what is going to happen in the next dozen generations. We can hope that mankind will move to a more sustainable course without the need for catastrophe to motivate us, but that will not change what is going to happen. 

Sorry, the scale is off.  I could not get 2011 to slide over. 

We need to face some tough realities. We cannot even stabilize the world CO2 emissions. As each region or county industrializes the world CO2 emissions have grown. World CO2 emissions are 146% of 1990 levels. Europe has stabilized their emissions and with effort under the Kyoto Treaty has decreased them 2.8% from 1990 levels. The U.S. seems to have finally begun its stabilization and reduction process in the past few years, but since 1990 has increased emissions by 9.5%. The far more populous emerging nations have blown past us in CO2 emissions. Asia (including India) has increased their CO2 emissions by 270% since 1990, and China has increased their CO2 emissions by 352% since 1990. Once the phenomenal growth in their economies that has driven the growth in CO2 emissions, slows down, the C02 emissions will stabilize at a higher level. As a county industrializes its emissions rise as Industrialization typically begins with coal fired power generation. Though coal fired power plants produce twice the CO2 as gas fired power plants they are the source of most power in China and India and still provide over 42% of power generation in the U.S. Nonetheless, except for the fall the Russian Federation, the CO2 emissions of a region or nation do not fall significantly. When populations get cars, homes with heating, air conditioning, on-demand water and power- become first world nations, they like to stay that way.

World CO2 Emissions Continue to Rise

The International Energy Agency, IEA, has released its preliminary 2011 estimates of world CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. World CO2 emissions rose by 1 billion metric tons, a 3.2 % increase over last year to reach 31.6 billion metric tons (34.83 billion tons). The IEA based in Paris was established in November 1974 in response to the global oil crisis created by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo. Its primary mandate was to promote energy security amongst its member countries. Over the years the mission has evolved to include holding global warming at 2°C by providing policy recommendations for ways to ensure reliable, clean energy for its 28 member countries (which includes the United States).

In 2011 the top four world generators of CO2 emission from fossil fuels were in descending order China, the United States, the European Union and India who edged out Russia to take the number four slot. China increased their emissions the most. China contributed almost three quarters of the global increase, with its emissions rising by 720 million metric tons, or 9.3% to 8.46 billion metric tons of CO2, primarily due to higher coal consumption. India’s emissions rose by 140 million metric tons or 8.7% to 1.75 billion metric tons. CO2 emissions in the United States in 2011 fell by 92 million metric tons of CO2, or 1.7% to an estimated 5.32 billion metric tons. This reduction was primarily due to EPA regulations and increased availability of natural gas from shale deposits the cause the switching from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and helped by a mild winter in most of the United States, which reduced the demand for space heating. U.S. emissions have now fallen by 430 million metric tons or 7.7% since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions. Unfortunately, this decrease has been made practically meaningless by the unrelenting growth in China and India.

Other highlights from the report were the European Union increased their CO2 emissions from fossil fuel by 69 million metric tons to approximately 3.56 billion metric tons. Japan’s CO2 emissions increased by 28 million metric tons, or 2.4% to approximately 1.19 billion metric tons, as a result of a substantial increase in the use of fossil fuels in power generation post-Fukushima tsunami when the three of the six Fukushima Daiichi nuclear  reactors  in operation at the time suffered melt downs. Now Germany, Belgium, and Switzerland have developed plans to phase out their nuclear reactors in the next decade in response to the damage to the nuclear reactors that occurred in the Japanese tsunami. So, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion is likely to increase in those countries. Russia and Canada remained fairly stable from the previous year, though Russia reports fewer data inputs than most developed countries so estimates are not as easily made.

The IEA tracks not only energy data and carbon dioxide releases but also investment in carbon control technologies and progress along various strategies to limit global temperature rise by controlling CO2 emissions from fossil fuel. IEA also makes progress reports on converting to clean energy and implementing carbon dioxide controls worldwide geared to preventing global temperatures from increasing more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, the so called 450 Scenario which limits global warming by limiting concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to around 450 parts per million of CO2. Unfortunately,  we’re pretty much out of time since the 450 Scenario calls for CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel to peak at 32.6 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions annually just 1 billion metric tons above current levels and the amount the world emissions increased this past year.

The IEA still believes that it is possible to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius if “timely and significant government policy action is taken, and a range of clean energy technologies are developed and deployed globally.” The government action required is spending more money, much more money. The money is to be spent for the development and implementation of clean technologies to reduce Energy related CO2 emissions by over 5 billion metric tons before 2020 and continue to fall thereafter to less than half of the 2009 level while world population continues to grow. The IEA estimates that achieving these carbon reductions would cost $5 trillion by 2020.  The world does not appear to have the financial capacity or will for these actions on top of all the other needs of nations.

The worldwide level of CO2 emissions is higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just five years ago, but fortunately temperatures have not (yet) risen as projected by the climate models.  The relationship of climate change to worldwide CO2 levels may not be the one previously assumed as research and modeling of the climate at Oregon State University predict a lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought. The earth is going to be their laboratory. In the meantime we really need to worry about access to clean water and safe human sanitation and animal waste disposal.

IEA Says $ 5 Trillion needed to Prevent Global Warming

International Energy Agency (IEA) was established in November 1974 in response to the global oil crisis created by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo. Its primary mandate was to promote energy security amongst its member countries by organizing a collective response to future oil embargo's or other disruptions in the oil supply. Over the years the mission has evolved to include holding global warming at 2°C by providing policy recommendations for ways to ensure reliable, clean energy for its 28 member countries (which includes the United States). The IEA has become a tracker of carbon dioxide releases and investment in carbon control technologies. They released their annual progress report to member countries on implementing clean energy and carbon dioxide controls worldwide geared to preventing global temperatures from increasing more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels called the Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 2°C Scenario Report, EDP 2DC for short .

Though filled with cheerful statement about accomplishments in installing solar panels and the growth in wind turbines, the report tells us that the world is not really doing that well at instituting clean energy technologies. The EDP 2DC, states that it is still feasible to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius if “timely and significant government policy action is taken, and a range of clean energy technologies are developed and deployed globally,” but we’re pretty much out of time. The government action required is spending more money, much more money. The money is to be spent for the development and implementation of clean technologies to reduce Energy related CO2 emissions by over 5 billion metric tons before 2020 and continue to fall thereafter to less than half of the current level while world population continues to grow. The IEA estimates that the  additional investment cost of achieving these carbon reductions would cost $5 trillion by 2020, but the countries would save $4 trillion (in future dollars) in fuel not burned from the scenario where the world just marches forward on its current path and doubles it’s fossil fuel use by 2050.

Worldwide CO2 emissions are up 6% from 2009, to over 30 billion metric tons, in 2010. Thirty billion metric tons of CO2 is an increase of 40% above the 1990 levels and it seems impossible that any group of policy recommendations will stop the increase in energy use in the emerging markets from continuing. The IEA estimates that the since 2000, China has more than tripled its installed capacity of coal power plants, while India’s capacity has increased by 50%. Unfortunately, they have not used to most efficient designs and technologies available in those plants. In addition, while the IEA strategy includes doubling the nuclear power capacity by 2025, almost 440 nuclear reactors in operation across the world remained virtually constant over the past decade, with 32 reactors shut down and the same number added to the grid. Overall, nuclear capacity increased by 6%, due to installation of larger reactors and power upgrades in existing reactors.  However, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Japan have developed plans to phase out their nuclear reactors in the next decade in response to the damage to the nuclear reactors that occurred in the Japanese tsunami. Finally, while wind and solar power have enjoyed significant growth in the past few years, the world economic climate has forced many nations (notably Germany and Spain) to reduce or eliminate solar incentives and IEA doubts that the growth rate in this area can be sustained. 

The worldwide level of CO2 is higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just five years ago, but fortunately temperatures have not (yet) risen as projected by the climate models.  The relationship of climate change to worldwide CO2 levels may not be the one assumed in the climate models, nonetheless, the IEA report assumes the projections of the climate models are the absolute trajectory of global temperatures.  Recently,  the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced total gross US emissions of CO2 equivalents in 2010 was to 6,822 million metric tons of carbon dioxide gross,and 5,746 million metric tons of CO2 net of the carbon sink of our forests. The peak of CO2 emissions in the US was 2007 and though emissions have increased since 2009, they are still below 2007 levels. This is true for most of the older first world nations whose carbon emission have already peaked or have slowed their growth significantly. Now the developed world is struggling with huge budget deficits, how to implement austerity measures and how to fund the entitlements programs, pensions, health care and other government promises. The emerging nations are sprinting to build power infrastructure in their nations where significant portions of their citizens do not have reliably available electric power or yet have cars. This does not seem to be a scenario where the recommended policies and strategies are likely to be implemented.

The IEA report talks about how technologies from electric vehicles, solar panels, nuclear generators, to wind farms and technologies to sequester carbon can make a decisive difference in limiting global temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. EDS 2DC provides policies for nations on how to spend their way to a cleaner energy future. The IEA believes that the technologies with the greatest potential for energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions savings are making the slowest progress: “carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not seeing the necessary rates of investment into full-scale demonstration projects and nearly one-half of new coal-fired power plants are still being built with inefficient technology; vehicle fuel-efficiency improvement is slow; and significant untapped energy-efficiency potential remains in the building and industry sectors.”

The development of carbon sequestion technology is a one of the big leaps of faith, but the implementation of energy saving strategies like insulation, efficient lighting and higher efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, on commercial and residential buildings are seemingly easy improvements because they show a short term and immediate return on investment and are simple to do. Commercial and residential buildings account for 32% of energy use and improved insulation and changes in temperature settings, lighting efficiency and other small choices could reduce world energy use 8-10% yet nations have failed to adopt regulations and implementation strategies to promote this. We have failed to accomplish even the most straight forward of the policy goals while spending huge amounts of money on renewable energy incentives. The IEA continues to pursue a mirage of a future where renewable energy and carbon sequestion will save us. Instead, IEA needs to spend their brain power and resources in developing strategies for living in the world we are going to find ourselves in. 

Energy Consumption in the US 2010

According to the US Energy Information Administration, the statistics branch of the Department of Energy, the US used 98 quadrillion BTU last year. Energy sources are measured in different physical units depending on the type of energy source: barrels of oil, cubic feet of natural gas, tons of coal, kilowatt hours of electricity. In the United States, British thermal units (Btu), a measure of heat energy, is a commonly used unit for comparing different types of energy. In 2010, U.S. primary energy use equaled 98 quadrillion (=E15, or one thousand trillion) Btu. If it helps to visualize this any better, that is equivalent to about 2,471 Mtoe (million tons of oil equivalent) the energy measurement standard used by the International Energy Agency, IEA, the keeper of world statistics. In a world with seven billion people the United States is estimated to have 310 million people, about 4% of the world’s population, 7% of the land mass and use about 14% of the energy (depending on how fast China and India are growing since the world energy data is about two years old).

In the United States the US Energy Information Administration collects and reports the energy statistics in quadrillion BTUs and has recently reported the summary data for 2010. These statistics paint a picture of who we are today. The major energy sources in the United States are petroleum-gas and oil (37%), natural gas (25%), coal (21%), nuclear (9%), and renewable energy primarily biomass and hydro power generation (8%). The United States only produces about 75% of the energy we consume, the shortfall is imported petroleum. The major users are heating of residential and commercial buildings (11%), industry (20%), transportation including cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships (27.4%), and electric power generation (40%).

The slightly complicated chart above shows the types of fuel and the sector that consumes it. Looking at petroleum, you can see that it supplies 37% of our energy needs. Transportation, cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships, uses 71% of petroleum and that petroleum provides 94% of the total energy used in transportation. Industry uses 22% of the total petroleum consumed by the United States to supply 40% of the energy used by industry. Studying all the details of the chart tells you a lot about the United States in 2010. It will also allow you to understand the impact that policies, regulation and scientific advances might have on the country.

For example, 92% of coal mined in the United States is used to generate electricity, regulations like the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule affecting electricity generation are likely to impact coal use, cost of electricity, mining and mining regions. In 2010, of the 1,085.3 million short tons of coal produced in the United States, about 7.5% was exported, so if the number of coal fired electrical plants is decreased, the demand for coal to produce electricity is reduced, the amount of coal mined in the United States will decrease, the number of coal miners and employees of coal companies will decrease, the trains transporting coal and their employees will not be necessary, and the cost of electricity will increase as the electrical power industry builds new generation plants burning other fuels.
.
Some primary energy sources, such as nuclear and coal, are entirely used in one sector, electrical generation. Others, like natural gas and renewables, are more evenly distributed across sectors. Similarly, while transportation is almost entirely dependent on petroleum, electric power uses a variety of fuels. Because the United States is the world’s largest oil importer, it may seem surprising that it also exports about 2 million barrels a day of refined petroleum products. It seems were are also an excellent oil refiner on the easily accessed Gulf Coast. Petroleum is used primarily for gasoline for cars (55%), diesel for trucks and heating oil (23%), propane and liquefied petroleum gases used in homes and farms for cooking, heating, and jet fuel (9%). The five biggest sources of net crude oil imported to the United States in 2010 were: Canada (25%), Saudi Arabia (12%), Nigeria (11%), Venezuela (10%), Mexico (9%). Policy decisions about a future Keystone pipeline may change that in the future. U.S. crude oil imports grew rapidly from mid-20th century until the late 1970s, but fell sharply from 1979 to 1985 because of restructuring the economy (manufacturing as a component of the economy was reduced), conservation, and improved efficiency. After 1985, the upward trend resumed, peaking at 10.1 million barrels per day in 2005, and falling to 9.2 million barrels per day in 2010.

Natural gas is the source of 25% of the energy consumed in the United States and in 2010 was used almost equally for industry, electrical generations and residential and commercial heating. Most, but not all, of the natural gas consumed in the United States is produced in the United States. Some natural gas is imported to the United States in the older Keystone pipelines. Natural gas is also being shipped to the United States as liquefied natural gas (LNG). U.S. natural gas production and consumption were nearly in balance through 1986 though U.S. production of natural gas peaked in 1973. From 1986 to 2006 consumption of natural gas outpaced production, and imports rose. Then in 2006 U.S. production of natural gas began to increase as a result of the development of more efficient and cost effective hydraulic fracturing techniques. In 2010 natural gas production in the United States reached the highest recorded annual total since 1973. Regulation and control of hydraulic fracturing will impact the cost of natural gas production in the United States, the availability of gas and the environmental impact to our natural resources.

In truth I am an old time engineer who learned to look at the world with a slide rule (calculators were just coming in and thought to be cheating). Through numbers I understand the world, policies and see relationships.

World CO2 Emissions and Durban

More than 10,000 ministers, officials, activists and scientists from 194 countries are meeting in Durban in what appears to be a last ditch attempt to extend the Koyoto treaty and to try and to try to tax all the developed nations to pay for climate impacts on poorer nations through the Green Fund for climate assistance. Durban, the 17th annual Conference of the Parties (COP17) to be held since the United Nations' first began to coordinate an attempt to control global warming through carbon dioxide control has reached the final stretch. At this point it appears that the conference will close without any agreement. The European Union refuses to extend without the United States and China committing and neither country appears likely to make any legally binding commitment. The Climate Change movement has lost its urgency. The failure to get any binding international agreement in Durban may be caused by the global economic problems or by the failure of the Global Warming/ Climate Change models to predict temperatures. Levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago, but temperatures have not risen as projected by the climate models.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol bound developed countries to cuts of about 5-6% from 1990 levels in global emissions of greenhouse gases as represented by carbon dioxide by 2012. President George W. Bush rejected Kyoto in 2001, saying it did not impose emissions limits on emerging industrialized nations – chiefly China and India, and now China has surpassed the United States as the world largest emitter of greenhouse gases. China (6.9 billons tons in 2009), the United States (5.2 billion tons 2009), India, the Russian Federation (1.5 billion tons in 2009) and the European Union (3.0 billion tons in 2009) were the largest contributors to global emissions growth to a total of almost 30 billion tons of CO2 in 2009 (the specific breakout for 2010 was unavailable from the International Energy Agency, IEA, but the increase worldwide was about 6% 2010). Canada, who signed the Koyoto pact blew through their CO2 levels exceeding their 2000 levels and joined the United States as among the highest per capita emitters on the planet. Canada had agreed to cut emissions 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 as part of the Kyoto Protocol, but Canada’s emissions (0.7 billion tons in 2009) are now 17 % above 1990 levels, largely because of increased emissions related to the development of the Canadian oil industry. Canada failed to meet its Kyoto targets because they refused to take the large economic hit necessary for a big, cold, northern, sparsely populated, oil and natural gas producing nation to achieve them. There are no meaningful penalties for missing a Kyoto emission target. Even the most cooperative countries are missing their Kyoto targets.

However, Japan has been faithful to their word. Japan's Trade Ministry said on Tuesday emissions of CO2 fell 5.6 % to 1.075 billion tons in the year ended March 2010, bringing the Japanese below their Kyoto goal of 1.186 billion tons a year, when taking into account the volumes of carbon offsets Japan has bought from abroad. However, Japan announced that they are reconsidering plans to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 25% by 2020 due to closing of a significant portion of its nuclear power generation, and the costs of the carbon-credit programs that cost the county almost $11 billion to purchase the carbon offsets by investing in carbon abatement programs in other countries.

The failure to get a binding international agreement in Durban has the Climate Model believers in a frenzy as CO2 emissions are up 6%, to over 30 billion tons, in 2010 40% above the 1990 level. This level of CO2 is higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago. Securing a commitment from major polluters such as China and India to sign up to a Kyoto II in the future – a move spearheaded by the British and European Union Energy Secretaries appear doomed to failure. The failure to get a binding international agreement in Durban may be caused by the continuing steep rises in annual global CO2 emissions without an accompanying significant rise in global temperatures. Levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago, but temperatures have not risen as projected by the climate models. The relationship of climate change to worldwide CO2 levels may not be the one assumed in the climate models. In addition, the difficulty in reducing CO2 levels worldwide can be seen in the diagram above. Canada, Russia, and Japan withdrawing from the Koyoto Treaty and the United States not making a binding commitment despite President Obama’s commitment in Copenhagen to reduce United States emissions of CO2 17% by 2020 has doomed Durban.