Global CO2 emissions increased by 1.0 Gt in 2011

[Aurora]

IEA - 24/05/12

Global carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fuel combustion reached a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2011, according to preliminary estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA). This represents an increase of 1.0 Gt on 2010, or 3.2%. Coal accounted for 45% of total energy-related CO2 emissions in 2011, followed by oil (35%) and natural gas (20%).

The 450 Scenario of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2011, which sets out an energy pathway consistent with a 50% chance of limiting the increase in the average global temperature to 2°C, requires CO2 emissions to peak at 32.6 Gt no later than 2017, i.e. just 1.0 Gt above 2011 levels. The 450 Scenario sees a decoupling of CO2 emissions from global GDP, but much still needs to be done to reach that goal as the rate of growth in CO2 emissions in 2011 exceeded that of global GDP.

“The new data provide further evidence that the door to a 2°C trajectory is about to close,” said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol.

Article continues ...

[biffvernon]

Good old Fatih Birol.

3.2% increase in carbon emissions. What was global economic growth during the same period? We ought to know the degree to which economic activity is tied to carbon emission (a proxy for coal, oil and gas use).

[snow hope]

Whilst most people in the Energy industry try to play down climate change and the resulting increases in CO2 caused by their industry, there seems to be just one exception to this consensus. IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol is warning that the "the door to a 2°C trajectory is about to close".

Is this not proof that climate change is simply a proxy for Peak Oil? Is it not clear that one of the most senior people in the Energy Industry is attempting to curb our use of fossil fuels by warning us that if we do not reduce oil and gas use we will go beyond the point of no return with climate change?

Is this not a serious attempt to reduce fossil fuel usage by warning that climate change is about to jump to a worsening level because we are not curbing our fossil fuel usage enough?

Or am I mis-interpretting what has been said?

[mobbsey]

This looks really serious.

What we need to do is set up a public lobby of concerned people, led by some large membership organisations with the power to co-ordinate the public's efforts and drawing on the talents of celebrities, to express their views so that politicians take notice and act to change the policies which are driving carbon emissions.....

...err, oh dear!!

OK, take two. Exclude the public, all we need to do is get the best scientists together in a big room with policy makers, from as many countries as possible, get the scientists to explain the risks and very quickly they'll be able to agree a way forward for the world....

...wow, we really stuffed aren't we!

[biffvernon]

Indeed. And yes Snowhope, I think you are quite right. Fatih Birol has been telling the world about peak oil, quietly, in way that doesn't lose him his job for many years.

[Aurora]

Indeed. And yes Snowhope, I think you are quite right. Fatih Birol has been telling the world about peak oil, quietly, in way that doesn't lose him his job for many years.

+1

[Cabrone]

Did anyone really think we were going to pull out of this anyway?

Let the experiment continue.

[Totally_Baffled]

IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol

I thought we hated economists on this forum? Since when have we listened to them lol

[biffvernon]

Don't tar them all with the same brush.

[snow hope]

Whilst most people in the Energy industry try to play down climate change and the resulting increases in CO2 caused by their industry, there seems to be just one exception to this consensus. IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol is warning that the "the door to a 2°C trajectory is about to close".

Is this not proof that climate change is simply a proxy for Peak Oil? Is it not clear that one of the most senior people in the Energy Industry is attempting to curb our use of fossil fuels by warning us that if we do not reduce oil and gas use we will go beyond the point of no return with climate change?

Is this not a serious attempt to reduce fossil fuel usage by warning that climate change is about to jump to a worsening level because we are not curbing our fossil fuel usage enough?

Or am I mis-interpretting what has been said?

Can I have a response to the above? (As far as I understand it, the IEA has no reason to be involved in climate change discussion.) Or is everybody on this forum that reads this thread just going to ignore these questions?

If you agree then please let me know.

If you think I have mis-interpretted his comments, please put me right.

Thank you.

[mobbsey]

Can I have a response to the above? (As far as I understand it, the IEA has no reason to be involved in climate change discussion.)

IEA gets involved in carbon because it has the responsibility to forecast future energy supply -- on so it has to have an eye on what the impact of its forecasts are on carbon emissions. In turn, IPCC use IEA's forecasts of future energy supply/mix in order to project the impacts of future carbon emissions.

One of the problems with IPCC's future climate forecasts is that they assume that IEA are right, and that all that reserve estimates for coal, oil and gas are correct and will be exploited. What's clear is that's not the case, but even so the issue doesn't question the basic principle of 2C-6C+ warming -- we've arguably exceeded the 2C threshold already.

But that's not the issue...

In order to significantly cut carbon emissions you have to cut growth. The politicians know that. The scientists know that. The environmentalists know that. Unfortunately no one will admit it because economic growth is the prime measure by which society values its progress.

Instead we're sold "green growth" or "sustainable consumption", which talks sustainability and ecological change but which doesn't actually deliver because no one will challenge the supremacy of growth. What's worse is that the breakaway group of nations at Copenhagen basically accepted that no solution which preserved growth was possible, and so are chasing technofix and "green investment" measures which do nothing to really tackle the problem. In the mean time, because so many environmentalists and politicians are afraid to face the reality of the link between carbon and growth, the debate rumbles on because no one will confront the reality of what tackling climate change means for "modernity".

Of course peak oil, or rather the whole "limits to growth" package, isn't even on the fringe agenda at most of the world climate gatherings (I'm not sure if Jorgen Randers et. al. are appearing at the Rio+20 conference -- I haven't seen anything to suggest he is). That's because it directly attacks the idea that you can have your cake and eat it. We see the same problem in other spheres -- for example the idea that we can keep borrowing money to support the economy of the most affluent states.

I've been giving a lot of thought to this recently as I'm deciding how to proceed my work for the next few years. I think trying to campaign/highlight peak oil/limits to growth is pointless because a whole load of corporate/elite funded groups will create the same kind of delusional smokescreen against change that has plagued the climate issue. What's worse, because the solutions will challenge the whole growth meme that's dominated politics for the last 60 years, you're going to have problems getting anyone to accept the facts -- which is exactly where we are on climate change after more than 30 years of active campaigns on the issue, in part because none of the western campaign groups have the intellectual spine to challenge the affluence issue head-on .

Consequently we have to think outside of the conventional sphere of action, looking towards more practical/local movements working for themselves. In effect, getting people to secede from "accepted normality". That way, as things get worse, what we can promote is a different vision of how we live in order to tackle the human ecological crisis. Unfortunately, because environmentalists have fallen for the green consumerism/sustainable consumption kool-ade, no one has yet presented a serious challenge to the economic basis of why tackling climate change will inevitably involve economic contraction. We can't let the same thing happen in relation to the general "limits to growth" issue.

[biffvernon]

Can I have a response to the above? (As far as I understand it, the IEA has no reason to be involved in climate change discussion.) Or is everybody on this forum that reads this thread just going to ignore these questions?

If you agree then please let me know.

If you think I have mis-interpretted his comments, please put me right.

Thank you.

Well I said I agreed with you and Araura plus oned it. What more do you want?

[biffvernon]

Consequently we have to think outside of the conventional sphere of action, looking towards more practical/local movements working for themselves. In effect, getting people to secede from "accepted normality". That way, as things get worse, what we can promote is a different vision of how we live in order to tackle the human ecological crisis.

Ah, here's a cunning plan to do just that: http://www.transitionnetwork.org/

[mobbsey]

Ah, here's a cunning plan to do just that: http://www.transitionnetwork.org/

For the affluent middle classes, yes -- the plebians have yet to find a post-peak representative of their interests.

[emordnilap]

Is this not proof that climate change is simply a proxy for Peak Oil?

Yes. It is the IEA's job to know - amongst other things - what fossil fuels have been burnt.

Forgive me, but it's not clear what the motivation for your post is, snow.