Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
Sources – Can WE Fix Climate Change?
We would like to thank the following experts for their support:
Dr. Hannah Ritchie
Our World in Data
- And so for many the future seems grim and hopeless. Young people feel particularly anxious and depressed. Instead of looking ahead to a lifetime of opportunity they
wonder if they will even have a future or if they should bring kids in this world. It’s an age of doom and hopelessness and giving up seems the only sensible thing.
In one of the few quantitative studies on this subject, the so-called “eco-anxiety”, more than 15,000 young people aged 16 to 25 were surveyed. They came from 10 countries (including the UK, Australia, India and Nigeria, for example). Even though it is still a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed, the results are impressive. Of the 10,000 participants who completed the survey, 59% were very or extremely worried, 84% at least moderately worried. More than 50% felt sad, anxious, angry, helpless, and even guilty. 39% of the participants were hesitant to have children.
#Hickman, C. et al. (2021): Young People's Voices on Climate Anxiety, Government Betrayal and Moral Injury: A Global Phenomenon (available at SSRN, not yet peer reviewed)
- Some of the most widely shared stories on Climate Change are that it is an existential threat – the end of human civilization and maybe even our extinction event. And that it is basically unavoidable now.
For example, author David Wallace-Wells attracted a great deal of public attention with his article "The Uninhabitable Earth" and subsequent book of the same name.
In his article, he argues that society is alarmed, but far from alarmed enough.
In his opinion, the problem is that we do not really recognize the dramatic extent of climate change. He calls it an "incredible failure of imagination." The reasons for this are complex: scientists who are too cautious in communicating their findings, technocratic governments that think they can solve all problems with technology, that we think it only hits others hard, and much more.
In the following articles, in which he describes the effects of climate change, the author consequently uses drastic terms like "Doomsday", "Climate Plagues".
He has also talked to scientists who believe that we are facing a great mass extinction, as the Earth has already experienced several times in the past. But he also ends his article with an optimistic outlook: Many scientists believe in human ingenuity and that they can overcome the climate catastrophe - if they realize its true extent.
#Wallace-Wells, D. (2017): The Uninhabitable Earth: Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: What climate change could wreak — sooner than you think. New York Magazine
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
Quote: “But no matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough. Over the past decades, our culture has gone apocalyptic with zombie movies and Mad Max dystopias, perhaps the collective result of displaced climate anxiety, and yet when it comes to contemplating real-world warming dangers, we suffer from an incredible failure of imagination. The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called “scientific reticence” in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn’t even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear. But aversion arising from fear is a form of denial, too.
(...)
Nevertheless, by and large, the scientists have an enormous confidence in the ingenuity of humans — a confidence perhaps bolstered by their appreciation for climate change, which is, after all, a human invention, too. They point to the Apollo project, the hole in the ozone we patched in the 1980s, the passing of the fear of mutually assured destruction. Now we’ve found a way to engineer our own doomsday, and surely we will find a way to engineer our way out of it, one way or another. The planet is not used to being provoked like this, and climate systems designed to give feedback over centuries or millennia prevent us — even those who may be watching closely — from fully imagining the damage done already to the planet. But when we do truly see the world we’ve made, they say, we will also find a way to make it livable. For them, the alternative is simply unimaginable.”
- But what does science actually say? As of 2022 global average temperature have risen 1.2 degrees compared to preindustrial times.
We are referring to global average surface temperatures here. At the time this sourcesheet was created (November 2021), figures for 2022 were not yet available. However, there is a solid data foundation that makes this an extremely likely estimate. Here are our sources:
Global average temperatures increase by about 0.18 °C per decade, which is about 0.018 °C per year. Between 2020 and 2022, we can expect a temperature increase of 0.036°C. That’s smaller than the error bar (about ±0.05°C) for the +1.2°C temperature we have right now."
#NOAA (2021): Climate Change: Global Temperature
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Quote: “Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.14° F (0.08° C) per decade since 1880, and the rate of warming over the past 40 years is more than twice that: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade since 1981.”
#NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (accessed on 30.11.2021): GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/
Quote: "Roughly speaking, the uncertainty of annual global means after 1960 is about ±0.05°C, for seasonal and monthly means that number increases to ±0.1°C and ±0.17°C, respectively."
The relative temperature changes mostly refer to a reference period from 1880 to 1900 (so-called "pre-industrial").
#NOAA (2021): Climate Change: Global Temperature
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Quote: “Averaged across land and ocean, the 2020 surface temperature was 1.76° F (0.98° Celsius) warmer than the twentieth-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C) and 2.14˚F (1.19˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).”
- Limiting the warming to 1.5 degrees was the most ambitious goal of the Paris agreement but we are not likely to meet it.
Since it was adopted in 2015, the legally binding international treaty was signed by 195 signatories in late 2015. I went into effect in 2016. You can find the original text here:
#UN (2015): Framework Convention on Climate Change
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
Quote:“1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:
(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;”
The latest UNEP (UN Environment Programme) “Emissions Gap Report” found out that all efforts would prevent only 7.5% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. To reach the 1.5°C target, however, it would have to be 55%.
The models in the report included the new and updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to climate protection in the context of the 2021’s UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow. Even with these new targets, we would have a warming of 2.7°C within this century.
#UN (2021): Emissions Gap Report 2021
https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021#:~:text=DOWNLOAD%20THE%20FULL%20REPORT
Quote: “The report shows that new or updated NDCs and announced pledges for 2030 have only limited impact on global emissions and the emissions gap in 2030, reducing projected 2030 emissions by only 7.5 per cent, compared with previous unconditional NDCs, whereas 30 per cent is needed to limit warming to 2°C and 55 per cent is needed for 1.5°C. If continued throughout this century, they would result in warming of 2.7°C. The achievement of the net-zero pledges that an increasing number of countries are committing to would improve the situation, limiting warming to about 2.2°C by the end of the century. However, the 2030 commitments do not yet set G20 members (accounting for close to 80 per cent of GHG emissions) on a clear path towards net zero.”
#UNFCCC (2021): Updated Climate Commitments Ahead of COP26 Summit Fall Far Short, but Net-Zero Pledges Provide Hope
Quote: “The report, now in its 12th year, finds that countries’ updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) – and other commitments made for 2030 but not yet submitted in an updated NDC – only take an additional 7.5 per cent off predicted annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2030, compared to the previous round of commitments. Reductions of 30 per cent are needed to stay on the least-cost pathway for 2°C and 55 per cent for 1.5°C.”
Actually, there is no specific target year in the agreement. The goals are called “long-term goals”. Actors such as the IPCC or individual nations work with different, common time frames such as near-term, mid-term or long that are often described with time frames such as 2030, 2050, or 2100.
#UN (2015), Framework Convention on Climate Change
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
Quote: “Article 4 1. In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.”
#IPCC (2021): Climate Change 2021. The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf
Quote: “A set of five new illustrative emissions scenarios is considered consistently across this Report to explore the climate response to a broader range of greenhouse gas (GHG), land-use and air pollutant futures than assessed in AR5. This set of scenarios drives climate model projections of changes in the climate system. These projections account for solar activity and background forcing from volcanoes. Results over the 21st century are provided for the near term (2021–2040), mid-term (2041–2060) and long term (2081–2100) relative to 1850–1900, unless otherwise stated.”
- Already with this warming we have today, hot places will get hotter, wet places wetter and the risks and strength of extreme weather events increase significantly.
In the picture below, one can see various risks and impacts as a function of the global mean surface temperature change relative to pre-industrial levels. The gray horizontal bar reflects the change in temperature between 2006 and 2015.
You can see that in the area of extreme weather events (RFC2), for example, we are already in a yellow area (= moderate = impacts/risks are detectable and attributable to climate).
The extreme weather events are defined here as: “risks/impacts to human health, livelihoods, assets and ecosystems from extreme weather events such as heat waves, heavy rain, drought and associated wildfires, and coastal flooding.”
#IPCC (2018): Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_LR.pdf
The quote below is just an example of the impacts expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for a warming of 1.5°C and 2°C. There are many other impacts, covering all aspects of life on Earth like water availability, biome shifts, sea level, polar ice sheets, heat-related illness and mortality or food security.
#Buis, A. (2019): A Degree of Concern: Why Global Temperatures Matter, NASA's Global Climate Change Website
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/
Quote: “Most land regions will see more hot days, especially in the tropics. At 1.5 degrees Celsius warming, about 14 percent of Earth’s population will be exposed to severe heatwaves at least once every five years, while at 2 degrees warming that number jumps to 37 percent. Extreme heatwaves will become widespread at 1.5 degrees Celsius warming.
(...)
At 2 degrees Celsius warming, the deadly heatwaves India and Pakistan saw in 2015 may occur annually.
(...)
About 61 million more people in Earth’s urban areas would be exposed to severe drought in a 2-degree Celsius warmer world than at 1.5 degrees warming.
(...)
The report finds that at 2 degrees Celsius warming, some places will see an increase in heavy rainfall events compared to at 1.5 degrees warming, especially in the Northern Hemisphere high latitudes (Alaska/Western Canada, Eastern Canada/Greenland/Iceland, Northern Europe, Northern Asia); mountainous regions like the Tibetan Plateau; Southeast Asia; and Eastern North America, with higher flooding risks.
More of Earth’s land areas will also be affected by flooding and increased runoff. Heavy rainfall from tropical cyclones is projected to be higher.
(...)
The report studied 105,000 species of insects, plants and vertebrates. At 1.5 degrees Celsius warming, 6 percent of the insects, 8 percent of the plants and 4 percent of the vertebrates will see their climatically determined geographic range reduced by more than half.
At 2 degrees Celsius warming, those numbers jump to 18 percent, 16 percent and 8 percent, respectively. The consequences of such range changes could be considerable. Take insects, for example. Pollinating insects, such as bees, hoverflies and blowflies that support and maintain terrestrial productivity, including agriculture for human food consumption, have significantly greater geographic ranges at 1.5 degrees Celsius warming than at warming of 2 degrees.”
- Warming beyond 2 degrees makes all of these extremes more extreme, extreme weather events more common and more ecosystems be put under major pressure. Some will not survive.
At 3 degrees, significant parts of earth, especially in developing countries, might become unable to feed their populations. Heat waves will become a major global issue. Large scale natural systems will break down. The scale and frequency of hurricanes, fires and droughts will further increase and cause trillions worth of damages. Poor places and subsistence farmers will be hit the hardest.
The links between climate change and food production are extremely complex. The numerous effects of climate change (e.g. rising temperatures, precipitation) encounter various factors such as crop type, farming system or region.
At the same time, food production is influenced by climate and food production in turn influences climate.
In general, however, it can be said that food security (especially also with regard to a rising population) is problematic. Especially pastoralism (the use of land by moving herds of cattle over natural pastures in the region), which is traditionally practiced e.g. in Africa by nomads, will be affected by climate change in the future.
#IPCC (2021): Special Report: Special Report on Climate Change and Land - Food Security
https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/
Quote: “Food security will be increasingly affected by projected future climate change (high confidence). Across Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) 1, 2, and 3, global crop and economic models projected a 1–29% cereal price increase in 2050 due to climate change (RCP 6.0), which would impact consumers globally through higher food prices; regional effects will vary (high confidence). Low-income consumers are particularly at risk, with models projecting increases of 1–183 million additional people at risk of hunger across the SSPs compared to a no climate change scenario (high confidence). While increased CO2 is projected to be beneficial for crop productivity at lower temperature increases, it is projected to lower nutritional quality (high confidence) (e.g., wheat grown at 546–586 ppm CO2 has 5.9–12.7% less protein, 3.7–6.5% less zinc, and 5.2–7.5% less iron). Distributions of pests and diseases will change, affecting production negatively in many regions (high confidence). Given increasing extreme events and interconnectedness, risks of food system disruptions are growing (high confidence). {5.2.3, 5.2.4}
Vulnerability of pastoral systems to climate change is very high (high confidence). Pastoralism is practiced in more than 75% of countries by between 200 and 500 million people, including nomadic communities, transhumant herders, and agropastoralists. Impacts in pastoral systems in Africa include lower pasture and animal productivity, damaged reproductive function, and biodiversity loss. Pastoral system vulnerability is exacerbated by non-climate factors (land tenure, sedentarisation, changes in traditional institutions, invasive species, lack of markets, and conflicts). {5.2.2}”
The source below shows different impacts at different temperatures up to a warming of 5 °C.
At 3 °C, droughts and major droughts will increase and the length will also increase. The case for floods is similar. Here too the frequency will increase.
#Arnell, N. W. et al. (2019): Global and regional impacts of climate change at different levels of global temperature increase. Climatic Change 155
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-019-02464-z#citeas
The UN estimates costs of up to 300 billion annually by 2030 and up to 500 billion annually by 2050 - just for developing countries.
#UNEP (2021): The Gathering Storm Adapting to climate change in a post-pandemic world. Adaptation Gap Report 2021.
https://www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2021
Quote: “New estimates of the costs of adaptation and the estimated financial needs for adaptation from developing countries indicate higher values than previously reported.
(...)
Second, the estimated annual adaptation costs in the literature are now also generally in the upper range of the 2016 estimate of the Adaptation Gap Report of US$ 140–300 billion by 2030 and US$ 280–500 billion by 2050.”
- Hundreds of millions will need to leave their homes.
Although the term "climate refugee" is frequently used in the media and society, it is not an official term. The relationship between migration and climate change is extremely complex. For example, there are numerous reasons why people leave their homeland, many of which are interrelated. An immediate natural disaster such as a flood can be a cause, but so can, for example, the slow destruction of livelihoods through desertification. At the same time, a distinction must be made between people who move within their country or home region and those who cross national borders. You can find a good overview of different definitions here:
#IOM - International Organization for Migration (accessed 01.12.2021): Environmental Migration
https://environmentalmigration.iom.int/environmental-migration-1
Regardless of various definitions or official wordings, it can be assumed that with climate change, more and more people need help. Already today, more than 100 million people need some form of humanitarian assistance due to climate disasters. In twenty years, this number could have doubled.
#IFRC - International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2019): The cost of doing nothing - The humanitarian price of climate change and how it can be avoided
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/2019-IFRC-CODN-EN%20%281%29.pdf
Quote: “By 2050, 200 million people every year could need international humanitarian aid as a result of a cruel combination of climate-related disasters and the socioeconomic impact of climate change. This is nearly twice the estimated 108 million people who need help today from the international humanitarian system because of floods, storms, droughts and wildfires.”
- At the 4-8 degree range the apocalypse begins – the hothouse earth, where things change so quickly, that it may become unable to support our large human population and billions may perish, leaving the rest on a hostile alien planet.
As global warming increases, so do the areas where people suffer from heat stress.
The human body has only a very narrow range of its core temperature in which it remains healthy (36.5-37.5 °C). At 38-39 °C core temperature, the risk of heat collapse increases, and at 40 °C and above, fatal heatstroke is imminent.
To regulate body temperature, we sweat. The evaporative cooling of sweat on the skin cools us. However, it becomes problematic in regions with high humidity (e.g. in the tropics). The sweat can no longer evaporate optimally and our cooling system comes to a standstill.
Peak heat stress is often quantified by the so-called “wet bulb temperature” (TW).
In a nutshell, this temperature describes the lowest temperature that can be achieved by evaporative cooling under the given conditions. If this temperature is above 35°C, the body can no longer release heat and health is at risk.
With a global-mean warming of 7°C, for the first time there will be regions in which heat dissipation will no longer be possible and thus the places would be practically uninhabitable for humans.
#Andrew, O. et al. (2018): Implications for workability and survivability in populations exposed to extreme heat under climate change: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health Vol. 2
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519618302407
Quote: “An important feature of global climate change is increasing air temperatures across most areas of the world. Extremes of atmospheric temperature are a known health hazard, since good health relies on maintaining the core body temperature within a narrow range (36·5–37·5°C) under different external environmental conditions. If core body temperature increases to more than 38–39°C, there is a risk of heat exhaustion. At core body temperatures of more than 40°C, serious heat stroke can cause death. Evaporation of sweat is a key mechanism for cooling the body when the external temperature is above 35°C. In high-humidity environments, evaporation of sweat is inhibited, so this important natural heat loss mechanism is undermined. Many tropical and subtropical areas can already experience high levels of heat stress annually for several months of the year. Ongoing climate change is projected to substantially increase temperatures in many densely populated areas. In assessments of the health risks associated with increasing global temperature, it is essential to consider temperature, humidity, and the heat generated from physical activity. Acclimatisation to high temperature does occur, but there is a limit, and combinations of high temperature and high humidity can lead core temperature to reach problematic levels.”
#Sherwood, S. C. & Huberb M. (2010): An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 107 (21).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20439769/
Quote: “We conclude that a global-mean warming of roughly 7°C would create small zones where metabolic heat dissipation would for the first time become impossible, calling into question their suitability for human habitation. A warming of 11-12°C would expand these zones to encompass most of today's human population. This likely overestimates what could practically be tolerated: Our limit applies to a person out of the sun, in gale-force winds, doused with water, wearing no clothing, and not working. A global-mean warming of only 3-4 °C would in some locations halve the margin of safety (difference between TW and 35°C) that now leaves room for additional burdens or limitations to cooling. Considering the impacts of heat stress that occur already, this would certainly be unpleasant and costly if not debilitating.”
- A decade ago, for lack of action and perspective, many scientists assumed a 4+ degree world was our future and a lot of public communication focused on exactly this future path.
In the 2009 “Copenhagen Diagnosis”, scientists gave a kind of interim status report as a transition from the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) to the AR5 of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In a “business as usual” scenario (A1F1), they model global warming of 4 to 7 °C by 2100. Even in the most optimistic scenarios, there would be a warming of 2 to 3 °C.
#Allison, I. et al. (2009): The Copenhagen Diagnosis.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51997579_The_Copenhagen_Diagnosis
Quote: “The latest estimates of global mean air temperature projected out to 2100 are shown in Figure 21. The wide range in the projection envelope is primarily due to uncertainty in future emissions. At the high end of emissions, with business as usual for several decades to come, global mean warming is estimated to reach 4-7°C by 2100, locking in climate change at a scale that would profoundly and adversely affect all of human civilization and all of the world’s major ecosystems. At the lower end of emissions, something that would require urgent, deep and long-lasting cuts in fossil fuel use, and active preservation of the world’s forests, global mean warming is projected to reach 2-3°C by century’s end.”
Another study, which already refers to the evolving Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), concludes that the current emissions correspond to a greenhouse gas concentration scenario that assumes a mean temperature increase of 3.7°C by 2100 (see the second source).
#Peters, G. P. et al. (2012): The challenge to keep global warming below 2 °C. Nature Climate Change 3.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1783
Quote: “Current emissions are tracking slightly above RCP8.5, and given the growing gap between the other RCPs (Fig. 1), significant emission reductions are needed by 2020 to keep 2 °C as a feasible goal.”
#IPCC (2013): Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Note that temperatures here are compared to the period from 1986 to 2005! Compared to the preindustrial times, they would be even higher, roughly about 1 °C more.
- Luckily, its much less likely that this version of the apocalypse will come to pass.
We are aware that for people who are already affected by the impacts of climate change, global warming is a disaster and a tragedy.
When we use the term “apocalypse”, we mean the planet as a whole and refer to our assessment that humanity as a whole fortunately does not seem to be doomed.
- If current climate policies stagnate, we’re likely to end up at around 3 °C warming by 2100. Which is scary and tragic and far from acceptable.
Since they are estimates and predictions, it must be noted that there are different ranges within the different scenarios.
If you take a look at the scenario “Policies & action - Real world action based on current policies”, for example, you will see that there is an outcome of +2.7 °C with a range of +2.0 °C to +3,6 °C.
#CAT - Climate Action Tracker (2021): The CAT Thermometer - The CAT Thermometer explained
Current scenarios for temperature increase can also be found in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the IPCC.
Here, the scenario SSP2-4.5 describes a development that corresponds to the current climate policy (often called “middle of the road”, please see the second source at “SSP2”).
#IPCC (2021): Climate Change 2021. The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf
#I4CE - Institute for Climate Economics (2019): Understanding transition scenarios ‑ Eight steps for reading and interpreting these scenarios
- Between 2000 and 2010, greenhouse gas emissions had grown by 24%, almost three times as much as the increase in the previous decade.
Between 1990 and 2000, there was a change of +7.02 % in all greenhouse gas emissions in CO2eq, while there was a 24.40 % increase between 2000 and 2010.
#OWID (2022): CO₂ Data Explorer
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?stackMode=relative&time=2000..2010&facet=none&country=~OWID_WRL&Gas=All+GHGs+%28CO%E2%82%82eq%29&Accounting=Production-based&Fuel=Total&Count=Per+country&Relative+to+world+total=false
This chart is based on data published in the Data Explorer by Climate Watch.
#Climate Watch (2022): Data Explorer
#OWID (2022): CO₂ Data Explorer
This chart is based on data published in the Data Explorer by Climate Watch.
#Climate Watch (2022): Data Explorer
- For emerging countries like China and India coal was the cheapest fuel to fire up their growth while rich countries showed little interest in changing their ways.
For example, the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference which took place in Copenhagen, was unanimously rated as rather unsuccessful by the media.
#Reuters (2009): Copenhagen accord was a "disaster," says Sweden
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-eu-copenhagen-idUKTRE5BL2WT20091222
Quote: “The two-week, U.N.-led conference ended on Saturday with a non-legally binding agreement to limit global warming to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times, but did not lay out how to achieve that.
Despite months of preparation and strenuous international diplomacy, the talks boiled down to an inability of the world’s two largest emitters, the United States and China, to agree on headline fixed targets.
The 27 member states of the EU had gone into the talks with a unified position and with a plan for financing emissions cuts in the developing world, with a commitment to spend around 7 billion euros (6.2 billion pounds) over the next three years to aid poorer countries.
But those aims were largely sidelined as the talks failed to produce the breakthrough agreement many had hoped for.
“Europe never lost its aim, never, never came to splits or different positions, but of course this was mainly about other countries really (being) unwilling, and especially the United States and China,” said Carlgren.
Britain on Monday blamed China and a handful of other countries of holding the world to ransom by blocking a legally binding treaty at Copenhagen, stepping up a blame game that has gathered momentum since the talks ended.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown described the summit as “at best flawed and at worst chaotic” and demanded an urgent reform of the process to try to reach a legal treaty when talks are expected to resume in Germany next June.”
- In 2010, many expected these trends to continue. Instead of decreasing fossil fuel use their consumption would rise. The next decade turned out to be very different though.
At that time, experts expected coal consumption to increase, especially in China and India, by around 2030. To be seen in the middle of the chart ("Non-OECD Asia"). China and India (among other Asian countries) are not members of the OECD ("Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development"). Since China and India are by far the largest economies in the region, this chart can be practically equated with India and China.
#BP (2011): BP Energy Outlook 2030
In 2008, the International Energy Agency presented various scenarios for global energy markets through 2050. The scenarios that assumed "business as usual" (“Baseline 2030” and “Baseline 2050”) estimated that demand for coal would nearly triple by 2050.
#IEA - International Energy Agency (2008): Energy Technology Perspectives. Scenarios & Strategies to 2050.
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/0e190efb-daec-4116-9ff7-ea097f649a77/etp2008.pdf
If you look at the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of 2007, one can see that it was based on scenarios that estimated a growth of GHG emissions by 2100 of 25 to almost 140%, while the temperature, no matter how optimistic the scenario was, would increase by at least 1 °C.
#IPCC (2007): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
- First of all, coal burning in developing countries like India have slowed down or leveled off, like in China. And it has plummeted in rich countries like the UK and US.
Coal consumption in India hasn’t increased as it once was expected to. The sharp increase in coal consumption in China from 2000 is levelling off. It appears to have stagnated for about 10 years.
#OWID (2021): Coal Consumption
This chart is based on data published by BP.
#BP (2021): Statistical Review of World Energy
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
In the German version of this video we also show the graph for Germany:
#OWID (2021): Coal Consumption
- Since 2015 three-quarters of planned coal plants have been cancelled and 44 countries have committed to building no more. Ten years ago it would have seemed wishful thinking, but today we can say with confidence: Coal is dying.
In addition to the 44 countries, there are further 40 countries without any plans for coal power plants. Although the number of power plants built (or capacity) has increased in recent years, the number of cancellations has also increased.
#Littlecot, C. et al (2021): No new Coal by 2021 - The Collapse of the Global Coal Pipeline, E3G Report
Quote: “The global pipeline of proposed coal power plants has collapsed by 76% since the Paris Agreement in 2015, bringing the end of new coal power into view.
United Nations Secretary General Guterres has called for ‘no new coal by 2021’, while COP President Designate Alok Sharma has called for COP26 in November 2021 to ‘consign coal to history’. COP26 provides the ideal moment for governments to turn off the tap of new coal construction. Since 2015, 44 governments (27 in the OECD & EU, 17 elsewhere) have already committed to no new coal, opening a pathway for remaining countries that are yet to act. We find that a further 40 countries (8 in the OECD & EU, 32 elsewhere) are without any projects in the pre-construction pipeline and are in a position where they could readily commit to ‘no new coal’.”
Recently, at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (“COP26”), a new agreement was reached: to switch from coal to other energy sources by 2030 (for major economies) and globally by 2040. More than 40 countries have signed the agreement. However, the USA and China have not.
Still, China and the U.S. reached their own agreement at COP26. Both want to cooperate more closely in the fight against climate change.
Two aspects of this agreement are that China has made a commitment to reduce coal consumption and that both the USA and China want to end their international support for energy production from coal.
#UKCOP 26 - UN Climate Change Conference UK 2021 (2021): Global Coal to Clean Power Transition Statement
https://ukcop26.org/global-coal-to-clean-power-transition-statement/
Quote: “To rapidly scale up technologies and policies in this decade to achieve a transition away from unabated coal power generation in the 2030s (or as soon as possible thereafter) for major economies and in the 2040s (or as soon as possible thereafter) globally, consistent with our climate targets and the Paris Agreement, recognising the leadership shown by countries making ambitious commitments, including through the Powering Past Coal Alliance;”
#U.S. Department of State (2021): U.S.-China Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s
https://www.state.gov/u-s-china-joint-glasgow-declaration-on-enhancing-climate-action-in-the-2020s/
Quote: “B. The United States has set a goal to reach 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035.
C. China will phase down coal consumption during the 15th Five Year Plan and make best efforts to accelerate this work.
10. Recognizing that eliminating global illegal deforestation would contribute meaningfully to the effort to reach the Paris goals, the two countries welcome the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use. The two sides intend to engage collaboratively in support of eliminating global illegal deforestation through effectively enforcing their respective laws on banning illegal imports.
11. The two sides recall their respective commitments regarding the elimination of support for unabated international thermal coal power generation.”
- It is just not competitive anymore. Because technologies thought to remain expensive matured rapidly instead. Renewable electricity has shown explosive progress. In a mere decade wind energy got three times cheaper. Solar electricity is now ten times cheaper! Cheaper than coal or any other fossil-fuel burning power plant, even with the massive subsidies and global infrastructure propping them up.
#Lazard (2021): Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis - Version 15.0.
Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison - Historical Utility-Scale Generation Comparison
https://www.lazard.com/media/451905/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf
Even though the cost of gas or coal has decreased between 2009 and 2021 (by 37% and 2%, respectively), electricity from photovoltaics and wind turbines is by far the cheapest energy source compared to fossil fuels or nuclear power.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) puts fossil fuel subsidies in 2020 at $5.9 trillion. This includes not only the costs directly related to the extraction of raw materials, but also, for example, follow-up costs due to environmental damage or road congestion.
#IMF - International Monetary Fund (2021): Still Not Getting Energy Prices Right: A Global and Country Update of Fossil Fuel Subsidies. IMF Working Paper
Quote: “Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion in 2020 or about 6.8 percent of GDP and are expected to rise to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025.
(...)
Getting fossil fuel prices right is critical for efficiently allocating an economy’s scarce resources and investment across sectors and activities. The right price is the socially-efficient price that reflects the full societal costs of fuel use—not just the supply costs (e.g., labor, capital, and raw materials) but also the environmental costs, including carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, local air pollution, and broader externalities associated with fuel use (e.g., road congestion), as well as general taxes applied to household products. Underpricing fossil fuels not only undermines domestic and global environmental objectives but is a highly inefficient policy for helping lowincome households2 and has a sizable fiscal cost—too little revenue is raised from fuel taxes, implying other taxes or government deficits must be higher or public spending lower.”
- There’s 25 times more solar and nearly 5 times more wind electricity produced today than ten years ago, which is of course not nearly enough.
Here we refer to the period 2010 to 2020. In 2010, 346 TWh (terawatt hour) of wind power were generated worldwide, in 2020 1.591 TWh (2020). In 2010, only 34 TWh of solar power were generated, in 2020 already 856.
#OWID (2021), Renewable Energy, World
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/renewable-energy-gen?time=2010..latest
The rapid rise of renewable energy becomes even more spectacular when you look at the year 2000 figures: 856 times more solar power was produced (from 1 to 856 terawatt-hours) and 51 times more wind power (from 31 to 1,591 terawatt-hours). You could say something like 20 years ago solar power was virtually non-existent (at least commercially speaking).
#OWID (2021): Renewable energy generation, World
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/renewable-energy-gen?time=1980..latest
This chart is based on data published by BP.
#BP (2021): Statistical Review of World Energy
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
- One of the biggest obstacles is the variability of their power supply. Renewables need a lot of energy storage to be a reliable power source, like expensive batteries. Amazingly battery prices have decreased by 97% in the past 30 years, 60% in the last decade alone – which will serve all kinds of green technology like electric cars.
Here we refer to the thick orange line with alternating dashes and dots which is a representative curve for all possible cell shapes.
#Ziegler, M. S. & Trancik, J. E. (2021): Re-examining rates of lithium-ion battery technology improvement and cost decline. Energy & Environmental Science 14
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/ee/d0ee02681f?country=#!divAbstract
Quote: “We then develop representative series for these measures, while separating cylindrical cells from all types of cells. For both, we find that the real price of lithium-ion cells, scaled by their energy capacity, has declined by about 97% since their commercial introduction in 1991.”
In the following chart, which is based on the above source, you can read the numbers more clearly (although they only go up to 2018). In 1991 the price was 7532$ per kWh while in 2018 it was 181$. That is a difference of 96%. Since the authors of the first study mentioned covered a slightly larger period, they come up with 97%.
#OWID (2021): The price of batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades
- We’re rapidly replacing old incandescent light bulbs with LEDs that are ten times more efficient.
Here, we refer to luminous efficacy (lm/W, with lm = lumens and W = watt). Even if a direct comparison is difficult due to the huge number of different light sources, and even if the figures are already a few years old and the development in LED technology has progressed further, one can see the big differences between "classic light bulbs" (GLS) and LEDs.
This concerns not only the luminous efficacy but also, for example, the lifetime (here shown as “Lamp life” in hours). If you take a look at the lamp life of a “classic light bulb” and a LED in comparison, you can see that the LED can live up to 100 times longer (depending on the model, of course).
#De Almeida, A. et al. (2014): Solid state lighting review – Potential and challenges in Europe, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Vol. 34, pp. 30-48
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032114001506
- In 2020 about 7 out of 10 new cars in Norway were electric or hybrid – In 2021 it was already 8 out of 10.
Here we refer to “pure” electric cars and hybrid cars that can be recharged. We have excluded hybrid cars, which can only be charged by their combustion engine, from the calculation, since we don’t consider this way of generating electricity as sustainable for the future.
#OFV - Opplysningsrådet for veitrafikken (2022): Bilsalget i desember og hele 2021
https://ofv.no/bilsalget/bilsalget-i-desember-2021
The numbers are from the Norwegian Road Traffic Information Council OFV (automatically translated into english).
In 2021, there were 176,76 new passenger car registrations in Norway. 113,751 of them were cars with zero-emissions and 38,166 were rechargeable hybrid cars.
#OFV - Opplysningsrådet for veitrafikken (2021): Bilsalget i desember og hele 2020
https://ofv.no/bilsalget/bilsalget-i-desember-2020
The numbers are from the Norwegian Road Traffic Information Council OFV (automatically translated into english).
In 2020, there were 141,412 new passenger car registrations in Norway. 76,804 of them were cars with zero-emissions and 28,905 were rechargeable hybrid cars.
Even when you look at this topic at a larger scale, the numbers are impressive: Almost 12% of all new registrations of cars in 2020 in the EU-27, Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom were electric cars. That doesn’t sound like much, but the registrations are rising fast: in 2015, only 1,2% of all new registrations referred to electric cars.
#European Environment Agency (2021): Electric cars registered in the EU-27, Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/new-electric-vehicles-in-eu-1#tab-chart_1
If you take a look at a global scale, in 2020 there was a growth of 45% compared with 2019, including some outstanding examples like Germany (+ 263%), Italy (+ 247%) and Denmark (+ 246%).
#VDA (Verband der Automobilindustrie), Erstes globales E-Mobility-Ranking, 2021.
https://www.vda.de/de/presse/Pressemeldungen/210423-Erstes-globales-E-Mobility-Ranking
- We can see the effect already: The domestic CO2 output of rich countries is falling without a major recession. Since the year 2000, the EU as a whole shows a 21% decrease, Italy 28%, the UK 35%, Denmark 43%.
If you look at the CO2 emissions of said countries in the last 20 years, you can see a clear downward trend. Particularly striking are the years before 2010, which show an almost similar and simultaneous decline.
This is most likely related to the global "Great Recession" between 2007 and 2009, as you can see in the second graph (GDP per capita).
#OWID (accessed 03.12.2021): CO₂ Data Explorer - Change in annual CO2 emissions
#OWID (accessed 03.12.2021): GDP per Capita
- But the best news may be that emissions are no longer necessarily coupled to economic growth. In the past this was an inconvenient truth – to get richer, you had to emit more. Which led to fierce arguments between developing and developed countries about the fairness of reducing emissions while their populations were still poor. But in the last decade we have seen that it IS possible to increase prosperity without increasing emissions. Emissions from the Czech Republic dropped 13% while their GDP grew by 27%! France reduced their CO2 emissions by 14% while increasing GDP by 15%! Romania saw a 8% decrease and 35% growth! And even the largest economy on earth - the USA - decreased emissions by 4% while growing GDP by 26%!
Decoupling is a very complex process. However, it does not mean that there are no emissions at all: A distinction is made between absolute decoupling (GDP increases and emissions decrease) and relative decoupling (GDP increases, emissions also, but at a smaller rate than GDP).
#Ruffing, K. (2007): Indicators to measure decoupling of environmental pressure from economic growth. Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment, 67
https://www.oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling-outlooks/1933638.pdf
Quote: ”Decoupling occurs when the growth rate of an environmental pressure is less than that of its economic driving force (e.g. GDP) over a given period. Decoupling can be either absolute or relative. Absolute decoupling is said to occur when the environmentally relevant variable is stable or decreasing while the economic driving force is growing. Decoupling is said to be relative when the growth rate of the environmentally relevant variable is positive, but less than the growth rate of the economic variable.”
We would like to emphasize that decoupling is possible, but it is highly debated how sustainable, strong and fast and how widespread this takes place. Many experts argue that it is currently only possible with great effort.
#Haberl, H. et. al (2020): A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 15 (6)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a#artAbst
Quote: “Examples of absolute long-term decoupling are rare, but recently some industrialized countries have decoupled GDP from both production- and, weaklier, consumption-based CO2 emissions. We analyze policies or strategies in the decoupling literature by classifying them into three groups: (1) Green growth, if sufficient reductions of resource use or emissions were deemed possible without altering the growth trajectory. (2) Degrowth, if reductions of resource use or emissions were given priority over GDP growth. (3) Others, e.g. if the role of energy for GDP growth was analyzed without reference to climate change mitigation. We conclude that large rapid absolute reductions of resource use and GHG emissions cannot be achieved through observed decoupling rates, hence decoupling needs to be complemented by sufficiency-oriented strategies and strict enforcement of absolute reduction targets. More research is needed on interdependencies between wellbeing, resources and emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-and-gdp?country=~CZE
For the German version of this video, we also included the data for Germany:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-emissions-and-gdp?time=2009..2019&country=~DEU
- Some of you may call this a numbers trick. That rich countries are just exporting emissions to poorer nations by moving the dirty parts of their economies like manufacturing. But even when we account for all of our imported goods, it stays true! It’s no longer a matter of having to choose between prosperity and the climate as it seemed to be a decade ago.
In the charts above, you can find this info in the “Consumption-based CO2 emissions” -graphs. Basically, consumption-based perspective reflects emissions that occur on the way to a country (“territory”), i.e. during import.
#Haberl, H. et al. (2020): A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 5, No. 6
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a
Quote: “(1) The production-based (territory-based) perspective accounts for resources used in or emissions emerging from a territory. It underlies emission accounts of the UNFCCC. (2) The consumption-based perspective accounts for resources used or emissions emerging—no matter where in the world—along supply chains and required to meet the final demand of a national economy. Such a perspective is required to account for displacements and problem shifting through international trade, e.g. 'improvements' of energy intensity (energy/GDP) resulting from increasing imports of embodied energy in imported goods that help reducing the need to produce these goods domestically.”
- And we haven’t really even talked about solutions like carbon capture. In 2000 it didn’t really exist. In 2022 it does and costs around $600 to remove one ton of CO2 from the atmosphere.
For carbon capture plants that exist and operate today, we have a few published prices. A price is arbitrarily set by a company so it does not necessarily tell us something about the true cost of carbon capture. The price can include a very large profit margin or it can be lower than the true cost if the company wants to look attractive to investors.
With this in mind, we used the prices published by Climeworks. Its ‘Orca’ facility is a small installation the size of eight cargo containers, with an annual capture capacity of 500 tons of CO2 each, but it is still the largest Direct Air Capture operation in the world. It is also a tangible reference that you can buy from today. They offer a price of $1100 per ton of CO2 captured. For bulk buyers, they offer a lower price of $600 per ton.
#Grist (2021): ‘Orca,’ the largest carbon removal facility to date, is up and running
https://grist.org/technology/orca-the-largest-carbon-removal-facility-to-date-is-up-and-running/
Quote: “The price, however, is steep. Individuals can pay between $8 and $55 per month to remove 85 to 600 kilograms of CO2 from the atmosphere per year, which translates to roughly $1,100 per metric ton. In the past, the company has named costs between $600 and $800 per metric ton, though Bloomberg Green reports that those rates are for bulk buyers like Bill Gates.”
“Orca” went into operation in September 2021. This plant uses the "Direct Air Capture" (DAC) concept. In short, this plant sucks CO2 out of the air and makes it storable. This process is quite new and was only proposed in 1999.
Since the technology is still very new, and many plants are still in prototype status and therefore undergoing a lot of experimentation, the costs vary extremely widely. Sources indicate price ranges from $50 to $1,000 per ton of CO2.
#Climeworks (2021): The world’s largest climate-positive direct air capture plant: Orca!
https://climeworks.com/roadmap/orca
Quote: “From vision to reality: on the 8th of September 2021, we launched Orca, the world’s first and largest climate-positive direct air capture and storage plant, making direct air capture and storage a reality. We improved the capture capacity of Orca by applying a new technology design. The facility consists of eight collector containers, with an annual capture capacity of 500 tons each. The containers are arranged around a central process hall that accommodates all electrics, such as the processing unit, allowing us to operate and control the facility from afar. The heat and electricity required to run the direct air capture process is supplied by the Hellisheidi Geothermal Power Plant. An important aspect was that Orca is smoothly integrated into the beautiful Icelandic landscape. We therefore chose earthy colours and natural materials that give it a natural touch.”
#Lebling, K. et al. (2021): Direct Air Capture: Resource Considerations and Costs for Carbon Removal. World Resources Institute
https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal
Quote: “Direct air capture is a technological method that uses chemical reactions to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. When air moves over these chemicals, they selectively react with and remove CO2, allowing the other components of air to pass through. These chemicals can take the form of either liquid solvents or solid sorbents, which make up the two types of DAC systems in use today.
Once the carbon dioxide is captured from the atmosphere, heat is typically applied to release it from the solvent or sorbent. Doing so regenerates the solvent or sorbent for another cycle of capture.
The captured CO2 can be injected underground for permanent storage in certain geologic formations or used in various products and applications. Permanent storage will result in the biggest climate benefit.
The carbon benefit of use in products depends on the product itself. Using the captured carbon for products such as construction material or plastics can also provide long-term storage (decades or even centuries). However, using the carbon for products like beverages would quickly re-release carbon into the atmosphere.”
#Keith, D.W. et al. (2018): A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere. Joule,
Volume 2 (8).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118302253
Quote: “Estimates of the cost of DAC vary widely. Cost estimates based on simple scaling relationships yield results from 50 to 1,000 $/tCO2.”
#Lackner, K. S. et al. (1999): Carbon dioxide extraction from air: Is it an option? Proceedings of the 24th Annual Technical Conference on Coal Utilization & Fuel Systems
Quote: “Controlling the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere without limiting access to fossil energy resources is only possible if carbon dioxide is collected and disposed of away from the atmosphere. While it may be cost-advantageous to collect the carbon dioxide at concentrated sources without ever letting it enter the atmosphere, this approach is not available for the many diffuse sources of carbon dioxide. Similarly, for many older plants a retrofit to collect the carbon dioxide is either impossible or prohibitively expensive. For these cases we investigate the possibility of collecting the carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. We conclude that there are no fundamental obstacles to this approach and that it deserves further investigation. Carbon dioxide extraction directly from atmosphere would allow carbon management without the need for a completely changed infrastructure. In addition it eliminates the need for a complex carbon dioxide transportation infrastructure, thus at least in part offsetting the higher cost of the extraction from air.”
- We are now in phase 4 in the public debate against rapid climate change action:
Phase 1 was: Climate Change is not real.
Phase 2 was: Climate Change is real but not human made.
Phase 3 was: Climate Change may be human made but it’s not that bad.
Phase 4 is: Climate Change is no longer preventable. We are doomed and it doesn’t matter what we do.
These phases are inspired by James Lawrence Powell. He says that these phases are like lines of defense. Every time science disproves one line, climate change deniers fall back on another. Once all the lines are broken by science, the process starts all over again.
In general, Powell describes three further phases in addition to the four mentioned above. One could paraphrase them with:
5. Yes, something could be done about climate change, but there are more pressing problems.
6. At some point we will be able to afford to fight climate change, but we need to do more research.
7. There is no warming, it ended 20 years ago and was never a crisis.
#Powell, J. (2011): Inquisition of Climate Science
https://books.google.de/books?id=5SU7utP8PIMC&pg=PA172&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Quote:"
The earth is not warming.
All right, it is warming but the Sun is the cause.
Well then, humans are the cause, but it doesn't matter, because it warming will do no harm. More carbon dioxide will actually be beneficial. More crops will grow.
Admittedly, global warming could turn out to be harmful, but we can do nothing about it.
Sure, we could do something about global warming, but the cost would be too great. We have more pressing problems here and now, like AIDS and poverty.
We might be able to afford to do something to address global warming some-day, but we need to wait for sound science, new technologies, and geoengineering.
The earth is not warming. Global warming ended in 1998; it was never a crisis."
- In 2022 most governments not only acknowledge it but set their own net zero goals – in democratic and autocratic countries.
“Net-zero” or “net-zero carbon emissions” means that all human-made greenhouse emissions or CO2 emissions are removed from the atmosphere. Think of it as being ghg neutral.
In most major economies, there are either legislated targets or pledges. It is important to note that the target vary, as do the inclusion criteria. For example, Germany aims to reach the net-zero carbon emissions target in 2045, while Brazil aims to reach it in 2060 and while Sweden has a detailed plan for this target, Germany hasn’t.
Take a look a the source of Our World in Data, to find out more details:
#OWID (2021): Which countries have set net-zero emissions targets?
Here you can get an even more detailed look at which countries have which climate goals:
#Net Zero Tracker (2021): Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, Data-Driven EnviroLab, NewClimate Institute, Oxford Net Zero