Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rose At 'Alarming' Rate Last Year, US Data Shows (theguardian.com) 179

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Guardian: Record temperatures, devastating floods and superstorms are causing death and destruction across the planet but humans are failing to cut greenhouse gas emissions fueling the climate emergency, new US data shows. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide -- the greenhouse gases emitted by human activity that are the most significant contributors to global heating -- continued to increase rapidly during 2022, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa).

Carbon dioxide levels rose by more than two parts per million (ppm) for the 11th consecutive year: the highest sustained rate of CO2 increases since monitoring began 65 years ago. Before 2013, scientists had never recorded three consecutive years of such high CO2 growth. Atmospheric CO2 is now 50% higher than pre-industrial levels. The 2022 methane rise was the fourth-largest since records began in 1983, following record growth in 2021 and 2022, and now stands at an average of 1,912 parts per billion (ppb). Methane is a potent greenhouse gas less abundant than CO2 but which warms the Earth's atmosphere much faster, and today is responsible for about 25% of the heat trapped by all greenhouse gases.
"Methane levels in the atmosphere are now more than two and a half times their pre-industrial level," adds the Guardian. "The oil and gas sector is the largest industrial source of methane, which can also cause medical complications, fires and even engine failure leading helicopters to fall out of the sky."

"Levels of nitrous oxide, the third-most significant anthropogenic greenhouse gas, are now 24% higher than preâ"industrial levels, following a 1.25ppb rise last year." While fossil fuel-powered vehicles are a major source of nitrous oxide, the primary culprits behind the rising levels have been synthetic fertilizers and livestock manure from industrialized agriculture, says the report.

The NOAA report can be found here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rose At 'Alarming' Rate Last Year, US Data Shows

Comments Filter:
  • Reality (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @10:42PM (#63432016)

    https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov]

    The text is shocking but there's the graph. The change per year is pretty much the same for 65 years, +/- some trivial inside the error bar number. That is not exciting.

    What is actually important to note is that the rate hasn't changed despite all the efforts in the West to reduce co2 emissions which has generally trended downwards from Western nations.

    So.... why hasn't global co2 dropped? Who is still building new coal plants like they're the pathway to eternal bliss? You know who.

    • Re:Reality (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Thursday April 06, 2023 @11:01PM (#63432040) Homepage

      Who is still building new coal plants like they're the pathway to eternal bliss? You know who.

      And who is still producing twice as much greenhouse gas as them per capita? You know who.

      This is the 600lb guy telling the 300lb guy he should be on a diet.

      (Yes he should be on a diet, but...)

      Besides: That other country is adding renewables even faster.

      • (Yes he should be on a diet, but...)
        If he is made from pure muscles: nope :P

      • This is the 600lb guy telling the 300lb guy he should be on a diet.

        This is the fat short guy saying the slightly chubby tall guy needs to not become fat, or he's gonna break the bed. But they're still both in the same bed.

      • by skam240 ( 789197 )

        And who is still producing twice as much greenhouse gas as them per capita? You know who.

        That doesnt change the fact that it's quite disheartening to see the progress that we have made in the US essentially erased by countries like China and India. It also makes it much harder for us to create the political will to do more as too many people point to this fact to justify no further action.

        That also doesnt change the fact that China and India are growing their carbon footprints https://www.macrotrends.net/co... [macrotrends.net] , https://ourworldindata.org/co2... [ourworldindata.org] while here in the US we're shrinking ours https:/ [epa.gov]

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by gbjbaanb ( 229885 )

        what has "per capita" got to do with anything? The planet, if it is being destroyed by carbon emissions, doesn't care if you have 100 people putting out 1m tonnes or 1m people putting out 1m tonnes. The result on the planet is the same: 1m tonnes.

        The 'per capita' argument only serves 1 purpose: to highlight how disingenuous the climate change scam is, as it shows that you don't care about carbon emissions, only punishing western countries.

        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          No, it shows that America puts out 10x the carbon as Canada, so if we're going to ignore per capita, America needs to cut its CO2 to 10%. You get similar numbers comparing Australia to the USA. So just sticking to western countries, America puts out 10x more CO2 then it should while pointing fingers.

        • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

          Per-capita is about fairness.

          There is only one big pie, but how does one go about dividing it? If emissions per country mattered, then dividing China or the US into 50 separate countries each would solve the problem right? Well, no, the pie is still the same size. To shrink the whole pie, every person in every country should control their emissions. You can't go after the big countries and ignore the dozens of smaller ones that add up to the same size.

      • No, it's guys like you telling healthy people they should stop eating, because they are immoral. The reality is that China simply wants to attain the same per capita standard of living as Europe and the US. I interpret the gp as saying that whatever the "west" does will have no effect because China has its own interests and will pursue them, and the result will be higher global ghg emissions.
        If you want a change, you will have to go after China. That is an issue for those who want change, not those who n

      • over 2.2 billion of those per capita breathe, fart, and consume too, you know who? Frankly, the idea that 1/3 of the planet's population is going green while the other 2/3rds isn't doesn't make any sense.

    • Who is still building new coal plants like they're the pathway to eternal bliss? You know who.

      The "who" you are talking about has not increased coal consumption in over a decade. They aren't the reason for CO2 increase. You're not smarter than anyone here.

      • Link, please.

        That's a BOLD statement.

      • Except they are, and they are. That is, they are actively building coal-fired plants across the globe, hundreds of them, which is just one of the ways they are responsible for most of the current increases.

        Emissions from China and India are increasing faster than the West's decrease. The fight is not here.

    • No, really not reality.

      China is on the US hate list - it's the new "baddie".
      The USSR has gone and even though the remnants of that former superpower are waging war in Europe, the US is sizing up to the new foe.

      To imply that China is almost solely responsible for the continuation of co2 emission increases is absurd.

      I guess the hate speech is working - "China is the new bad guy!"

      Why? Because it is daring to be a superpower on a par with the USA.
      Because the USA cannot control it. It has little to no influence.

      • I stand corrected in my statement "To imply that China is almost solely responsible for the continuation of co2 emission increases is absurd."

        Whilst this is somewhat correct, they are right now the biggest contributor of emissions.

        However, historically, if you look at the data, the USA still "enjoys" double the cumulative emissions over time that China does.

        There's no room to point fingers here, no room at all.

    • You mean those "emerging economies again?"

  • So begins the end...

    Or whatever.

  • Might this be the first time somebody is literally saying that the sky is falling? Now I finally understand why Jack Horkheimer kept telling me to "Keep looking up".

  • So lets burn it all up and they will survive

  • by wooppp ( 921578 ) on Friday April 07, 2023 @01:50AM (#63432222) Journal

    The number of humans is now more than 7 times their pre-industrial level. Do you think we can keep everything else the same?

    • Not for long.

    • by sonlas ( 10282912 ) on Friday April 07, 2023 @03:18AM (#63432294)

      You might be interested in the Kaya identity [wikipedia.org]:

      This shows the different ways to reduce emissions to reach a decline compatible with +1.5 or +2 C:
      - you can either divive world population by 3: hard to find volunteers for that. And betting on a huge epidemy or war to wipe out 2 thirds of the world population is hardly something to wish for
      - alternatively, we could divide the GDP/capita by 4 (by 4, because either we divide everything by 3, or if we say we don't want to reduce the world population, then we need to lower the other parts of the equation even more). Unfortunately, it is hard for politicians to get electing by selling a recession vision. So let's assume we will instead get a 2% increase in GDB/capita.
      - That leaves us with needing to increase the "energy intensity" or to improve the efficiency of our energy usage, by a factor of 10. In the past 40 years, we gained ~35% of energy intensity decrease. But as always, the first gains are the easiest. Let's still imagine we can still improve it by a factor of 2 by 2050, which is optimist, then it means the energy intensity would be half in 2050 of what it is today.
      - The last part of the identity now tells us that in order to match the CO2 emissions reduction targets for a +2C scenario (a scenario in which we already have to deal with pretty bad consequences), the amount of CO2eq emitted by energy unit needs to be divided by 4. Knowing that in the last 40 years, it only decreased by a small 10%.

      If you are interested in a better and more detailed analysis, here is a good explanation about that [translate.goog].

  • China has higher per capita emissions than much if not most of Europe.

    So this is very much China bad and moving in the wrong direction and the USA very bad and moving too slowly in the right direction.

    • by sonlas ( 10282912 ) on Friday April 07, 2023 @08:33AM (#63432666)

      So this is very much China bad and moving in the wrong direction and the USA very bad and moving too slowly in the right direction.

      Latest IEA report (march 2023) [iea.org] shows that China’s emissions were relatively flat in 2022, declining by 23 Mt or 0.2%. On the other side, US emissions grew by 0.8% or 36 Mt.

      Let me transform your assertion with those facts. I will give you several options:
      1. If looking at emissions per capita, China bad and moving too slowly in the right direction and the USA very bad and moving in the wrong direction
      2. If looking at total emissions/year, China very bad and moving too slowly in the right direction and the USA bad and moving in the wrong direction
      3. If looking at total emission/year AND past total emissions, China slightly bad and moving too slowly in the right direction and the USA very very bad and moving in the wrong direction

      Which one do you prefer?

  • by OfMiceAndMenus ( 4553885 ) on Friday April 07, 2023 @07:33AM (#63432578)
    It's almost like most people in the world were off the roads for the better part of two years leading to record low emissions... and everyone suddenly all started driving again at once (often at the behest of the government and their employers). Wonder why emissions suddenly went up?
  • by rbgnr111 ( 324379 ) on Friday April 07, 2023 @08:49AM (#63432704)

    I'd expect this. Everything shut down, then we open everything back up and expect rates to be what they where when everything shut down?
    this article just seems like its trying to raise alarm over the return to pre-pandemic outputs. Could this be reduced? sure. Is it something to be alarmed about? no.

  • Every greenhouse owner forced by law to keep the door closed.

  • How many people at your company are using multiple monitors? How many of those need them? And how many need them turned on all the time? (As a coder, I don't need it and keep it off.) Even our receptionist has two monitors!

    Ball mice use 1/5th the power that wired optical mice use. Wireless optical mice use even more power.

    We won't give up the tiniest preferences, let alone telling people they can no longer fly everywhere. Hence, I think population control (less future babies) is required go
  • .. in 2022. Compared to what? We just came out of a lockdown thsnks to Covid. So a rise is to be expected.

"A mind is a terrible thing to have leaking out your ears." -- The League of Sadistic Telepaths

Working...