Greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb in 2011

(LiveScience) International talks to address human-caused global warming began 20 years ago in Rio de Janeiro. But despite attempts to curb emissions of the greenhouse gases responsible, they have continued to pour into the atmosphere since then. Last year was no exception.

In 2011, the burning of fossil fuels, as well as other activities such as cement and oil production, produced 3 percent more carbon dioxide in 2011, bringing this segment of emissions to an all-time 37.5 billion-ton (34 billion-metric tons) high that year, a European analysis reports. 

Top emitters

The past decade has seen a 2.7 percent annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions. China, the United States, the European Union, India, the Russian Federation and Japan rank as the top five emitters, from highest to lowest.

Last year's increase was driven by China and India, which saw their carbon dioxide emissions jump by 9 and 6 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, emissions from the European Union, the United States and Japan all decreased, according to the report, Trends in Global CO2 Emissions.

"Although all developing countries together increased their emissions on average by 6 percent, the increases in China and India caused by far the largest increase in global emissions," the report notes.

The report, by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the E.U.'s Joint Research Centre, does not include carbon dioxide emitted by deforestation, forest fires and other land-use related activities. These sources could potentially add between 10 and 20 percent to the carbon dioxide emission figures, the authors write.

The authors also note that renewable energy technology, such as solar, wind and biofuels, accounts for a small share of energy sources; however they found its use is accelerating.

Carbon countdown

If global emissions of carbon dioxide continue to increase at their current rate, within two decades they will exceed the amount necessary to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), the target established in international negotiations, the authors of the report write. [How 2 Degrees Will Change Earth]

In late November and early December, international climate negotiators will converge in Doha, Qatar, to continue chipping away at this monumental problem.

Projections indicate limiting warming to 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) by 2100 will avert the worst of the many potentially devastating impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise, extreme weather and extinctions. However, scientists worry that this goal is becoming increasingly unrealistic as time passes.

While carbon dioxide is the primary gas implicated in human-caused global warming, other gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, also contribute. These were not included in the report.

Follow Wynne Parry on Twitter @Wynne_Parry or LiveScience @livescience. We're also on Facebook & Google+.

• Top 10 Craziest Solutions to Global Warming
• Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming
• Earth in the Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points

Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[hypnotoad72]

It's been known about for decades. The following movie clip, from 1958 and featuring a real scientist and not a more modern opportunist, has more to say on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

Even if it's America-centric, that dude deserves more awards than the aforementioned modern opportunist...

[mflskdlu]

"As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease." Worldwatch Institute, "Is Meat Sustainable?"

"The livestock sector emerges as one of the top contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Livestock's contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency." UN Food and Agricultural Organization's report "Livestock's Long Shadow"

"If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains... the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads." Environmental Defense Fund

Why would someone choose to be vegan? To slow global warming for one! Here are two uplifting videos to help everyone understand why so many people are making this life affirming choice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKr4HZ7ukSE and http://www.veganvideo.org

[hypnotoad72]

Except humans are carnivorous and those who are vegetarian take supplements. Real vegans don't exist because animal byproducts are found everywhere and that includes fertilizer used to grow what they eat. If they claim they won't have anything to do with an animal or byproduct, directly or indirectly, then they should be starving to death.

But if Ayn Rand would sacrifice her principles when it became a matter of convenience (and in return prove she was wrong), the vegan folks will turn their backs as well.


A diet is about balance - even too many grains can cause problems... meat isn't as much a problem as deforestation, social injustice, and other issues... but who needs meat, drink plenty of Juicy Juice brand fruit juice substitute with 3% fiber and 9% concentrated protein and kill those kidneys far sooner...

[lstrut123]

This discussion is good for an alarming headline, but not much else. And now for a wake up call: Global temperature hasn't increased since the 1990s, even though CO2 has continued to increase. The reality has been acknowledged even by a major advocate of the now-dated message, who was forced to concede the obvious:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html

The discrepancy between CO2 and global temperature is consistent with a seldom spoken fact: 95% of the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere is put in by nature:

http://drtimball.com/2012/ipcc-control-calculations-of-annual-human-co2-production-for-political-agenda/

through processes unfazed by government bureaucracy and media hype.

[j_mcdonald-2009]

Nonsense. The decade of 2000-2009 was substantially warmer than 1990-1999, and 2010 was then tied (with 2005) for the warmest year on record.

The only year of the 1990's that approached recent temperatures was 1998, which happened to be an extreme El Nino year, and even then has been surpassed by non-El Nino years.

If you subtract out random variations that average to zero in the long run (solar irradiance, El Nino/La Nina, and volcanic aerosols) the rise has been a very steady 0.02C per year, as seen in figures 5 and 8 of the following study: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

[j_mcdonald-2009]

More generally, you are making the thoroughly discredited "escalator" argument.

The following makes it pretty clear why it is so totally bogus: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

[fiddlestickawshucks]

With everybody and their brother screaming about emissions from industries; I would like to know how many tons cigarette smoke contributes to the problem.

Emissions from industry is never going to decrease until the government gets the primary offenders to increase the amount of pollution control devices.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen, (no pun intended) because as soon as somebody brings this up, Congress and the major polluting industries say "We can't afford to upgrade; it would cost too much".

So; we will continue to pollute the environment with industrial emissions while those who smoke pay a higher and higher price for their right to do so because it's the only industry the governments (federal and state) have the guts to take on.!

[j_mcdonald-2009]

As bad as cigarette smoke it (and it's really, really bad), it has nearly zero effect on global warming.

The quantity of greenhouse gases emitted by them is miniscule by comparison to other sources, and the tobacco and paper tend to come from recent plant growth, not fossil fuels, so don't have much long-term effect.

Stopping cigarette smoking is a good goal in and of itself, and doesn't need to be linked to global warming.