UK consortium to develop new drivetrain technology for hybrid & electric vehicles to reduce dependency on rare earth metals
Stanford team demonstrates hollow carbon nanofiber-encapsulated sulfur cathode for high-capacity Li-S batteries

Steep increase in global CO2 emissions despite reductions by industrialized countries; driven by power generation and road transport

JRC global CO2
Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and cement production per region. Source: JRC. Click to enlarge.

After a decline in global CO2 emissions in 2009 of 1% (including a correction for the leap year 2008), global emissions have jumped by more than 5% in 2010, which is unprecedented in the last two decades, according to the newly published report “Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions,” prepared by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Global emissions of CO2 have increased by 45% between 1990 and 2010, and reached an all-time high of 33 billion tonnes in 2010 despite emission reductions in industrialized countries during the same period. Increased energy efficiency, nuclear energy and the growing contribution of renewable energy are not compensating for the globally increasing demand for power and transport, which is strongest in developing countries.

Indexed CO2
Indexed global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and cement production per sector (1970 = 100). Source JRC. Click to enlarge.

Even though different countries show widely variable emission trends, industrialised countries are likely to meet the collective Kyoto target of a 5.2% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 as a group, partly thanks to large emission reductions from economies in transition in the early nineties and more recent reductions due to the 2008-2009 recession, according to the report.

The report, which is based on recent results from the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) and latest statistics for energy use and other activities, shows large national differences between industrialised countries.

Over the period 1990-2010, in the EU-27 and Russia CO2 emissions decreased by 7% and 28% respectively, while the USA’s emissions increased by 5% and the Japanese emissions remained more or less constant. In 1990, the industrialised countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol (ratifying Annex 1 countries) and the US caused about two-thirds of global CO2 emissions. Their share of global emissions has now fallen to less than half the global total.

Continued growth in the developing countries and emerging economies and economic recovery by the industrialized countries are the main reasons for a record breaking 5.8% increase in global CO2 emissions between 2009 and 2010, according to the report.

Most major economies contributed to this increase, led by China, USA, India and EU-27 with increases of 10%, 4%, 9% and 3% respectively. The increase is significant even when compared to 2008, when global CO2 emissions were at their highest before the global financial crisis. In the EU-27, CO2 emissions remain lower in absolute terms than they were before the crisis (4.0 billion tonnes in 2010 as compared to 4.2 billion tonnes in 2007).

per country
per capita
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and cement production per country (left), per capita (center), and per unit of GDP (right). Source: JRC. Click each to enlarge.

At present, the US emits 16.9 tonnes CO2 per capita per year, more than twice as much as the EU-27 with 8.1 tonnes. By comparison, Chinese per capita CO2 emissions of 6.8 tonnes are still below the EU-27 average, but now equal those of Italy. The average figures for China and EU-27 hide significant regional differences.

Long term global growth in CO2 emissions continues to be driven by power generation and road transport, both in industrial and developing countries. Globally, they account for about 40% and 15% respectively of the current total and both have consistent long-term annual growth rates of between 2.5% and 5%.

Throughout the Kyoto Protocol period, industrialized countries have made efforts to change their energy sources mix. Between 1990 and 2010 they reduced their dependence on coal (from 25% to 20% of total energy production) and oil (from 38% to 36.5%), and shifted towards natural gas (which increased from 23% to 27 %), nuclear energy (from 8% to 9%) and renewable energy (from 6.5% to 8%).

In addition they made progress in energy savings, for example by insulation of buildings, more energy-efficient end-use devices and higher fuel efficiencies.

The report shows that the current efforts to change the mix of energy sources cannot yet compensate for the ever increasing global demand for power and transport. This needs to be considered in future years in all efforts to mitigate the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions, as desired by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Bali Action Plan and the Cancún agreements.

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) is the European Commission’s in-house science service. Its mission is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of European Union policies.

The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) project uses the latest scientific information and data from international statistics on energy production and consumption, industrial manufacturing, agricultural production, waste treatment/disposal and the burning of biomass in order to model emissions for all countries of the world in a comparable and consistent manner. EDGAR is also unique in its provision of historical emission data for 20 years prior to 1990, the reference year for the Kyoto protocol.




If anybody is denying Dr Lu's finds it is you Reel. the links you provided say it all and here's a quote from just one;

"Now Leon Sanche and Qing-Bin Lu of the University of Sherbrooke in Canada think they know what's causing the release of active chlorine. The two believe that cosmic rays from deep space are penetrating the clouds and knocking loose electrons. The electrons interact with the CFCs to liberate the active chlorine molecules."

Face it, they're not saying what you want them to say.


Gentlemen, I have merely pointed out that scientists (primarily Rowland and Molina) in 1974 promised that CFCs were destroying Earth's ozone layer, especially over the Antarctic - accelerating probability of vast increases in skin cancer from UV-B radiation. 33 years after the Montreal Protocol (a formidable achievement in international agreement) and US ban on CFCs - the ozone hole is STILL THERE! And recently ozone depletion (a new hole) has been recorded over the Arctic. What part of "the scientists got it wrong" do you not grok??

"There is no proven chemical mechanism to account for the creation of the ozone hole. This is a very serious failure. If you have a theory, you should be able to provide a definitive mechanism. Otherwise is pure speculation. This Antarctic ozone depletion issue has to be put on a more solid scientific basis." Igor Eberstein NASA Goddard ISS

Again, it's okay to be wrong. But don't expect us to drink the kool aid more than once.

33 years after the Montreal Protocol (a formidable achievement in international agreement) and US ban on CFCs - the ozone hole is STILL THERE!
The ozone hole is still there because the gases which provide the halogens which deplete ozone have just barely begun to decline in concentration.

This reference was given to you before, but you still made an argument based on denial of facts you had. Your complete lack of good faith is proven.

The Eberstein quote is from 1990. A person of reason would assume that we might have learned something in the last 21 years, but you are a propagandist.


You're so impatient Reel. The scientists never promised the problem would go away quickly. In fact their predictions were for the ozone levels to hit their lowest levels by 2020 and to recover by about 2050, and for the longer lived ODS the stay in the air for a hundred years.

Heck, the phase-out of CFCs was so gradual it wasn't until 2010 (last year) that global production of CFCs and halons was to end and there's still a legal trade in the recycled stuff. And that says nothing about the phase-out of Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), Hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs), Methyl chloroform and Methyl bromide.


Gentlemen, it is nice to see you both rallying to the defense of the "consensus" photochemical theory of Antarctic ozone depletion. But it has largely been falsified by Dr. Lu's far more convincing theory of a cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reaction mechanism or "CR-driven" O3 depletion.

"...the widely accepted photochemical model predicted that the total O3 over 60S to 60N and the Antarctic springtime O3 would recover (increase) by 1% to 2.5% and 5% to 10% between 2000 and 2020, respectively [24], which are clearly not consistent with the observed data." Lu PRL 102, 2009

Total halogen level in the lower atmosphere was observed to peak in 1994 and the equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine concentrations (EESC) over Antarctica was estimated to peak around the year 2000 (and has declined since then.) Consensus theory predicted we would see recovery in O3 starting early 2001 - but observations confirm WE HAVE NOT. And a newly observed ozone hole has formed over the Arctic.

So, the consensus photochemical theory of ozone depletion appears to be wrong. And the predicted correlation between decreasing EESC and recovery of Antarctic O3 also appears to be wrong..

Interestingly, Dr. Lu's work was suggested by Svensmark's pioneering work in CR-driven cloud formation, recently confirmed in part by the CERN CLOUD experiment. CLOUD demonstrated a tenfold increase in aerosol clusters (cloud seeds) due to cosmic rays.

Both Dr. Lu, Svensmark, and the CLOUD experiment suggest that naturally occurring cosmic rays and solar winds play a far greater role in global climate than man-made phenomena.




Reel, you keep making the same mistake over and over and over again. Lu's theory says this "cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reaction mechanism" involves manmade CFCs. Electrons created by cosmic rays break down CFC molecules, leading to the production of chorine atoms, which in turn break down ozone: That's his theory, that's what he's saying and that's what the links you provided are reporting.

Also, the consensus photochemical theory of ozone depletion only appears to be wrong to you! Photochemical ozone depletion is an OBSERVED effect, we know it works, and we already knew CRs break down CFC molecules as well so the only question Lu brings up is what causes the hole during the winter - changes in atmosphere mixing or CRs.

Consensus theory predicted we would see recovery in O3 starting early 2001 - but observations confirm WE HAVE NOT.
No, the predictions had a range of dates, the one for 2001 was an outlier.

CLOUD demonstrated a tenfold increase in aerosol clusters (cloud seeds) due to cosmic rays.
And you're still getting this one wrong too;
"the cosmic ray idea would predict —

low solar activity –>

lower solar magnetic fields –>

more influx of cosmic rays –>

more ionizing of atmosphere –>

more cloud nuclei –>

more clouds –>

greater reflectivity –>

lower temps for the last few years, and more cooling to come.

There’s a problem with this idea. We are not observing such a cooling."


ai_vin - your response typifies the worldwide climate campaign failure. You refuse to accept any responsibility for failed theories and alarmist conclusions. This is why the public and politicians have soundly rejected cap and trade and carbon tax/mitigation schemes. There is an unmitigated arrogance emitted by climate priests ("experts") - unable to admit these and other critical miscalculations in their campaign.

You have no answer to Dr Lu's assertion that the accepted photochemical predictions for Antarctic ozone recovery are "clearly not consistent with observed data." Instead you ramble on misreading my post referring to the "consensus photochemical theory of Antarctic ozone depletion."

And you avoid any acknowledgement of the new-found ozone hole over the Arctic - further demonstrating the failure of the CFC-photochemical model to predict recovery of polar ozone.

Clearly there is a far more complex mechanism at work than the consensus theory offers. And clearly the ban on CFCs over the last 33 years has not helped recovery of Antarctic ozone. With respect to the CLOUD study from 68 international scientists representing 17 science institutes - a separate study using Argo data (2003-2008) puts ocean heat content in a range from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. Minimally indicating no statistical global warming.

Acceptance is a fundamental component of wisdom ai_... you and your climate change friends would do well to contemplate its use in dissemination of your gospel.

Roger Pham

Please look at the forest instead of fixated on certain trees. There are overwhelming volumes of data pointing to a rapidly warming earth. Data obtained by vastly different organizations...the sheer volume of it cannot be ignored.
The CO2 concentration went from 280 ppm to now over 380ppm, or 2ppm/year...This much increase in GHG concentration is causing the Earth to retain more heat from before.

We will need to do what we can to cool down the Earth. Heat is very bad for your health. In the high-humidity summer in the US South, a few degrees increase in temperature can make the difference of life and death...the body just cannot cool off when humidity is high, and ambient temp rises above body temp!

Please have some compassion for your fellow human beings...stop the for someone else, get a better job...stop working for the fossil-fuel lobby...Better yet, try to convince them of the right thing to do...If you guys can do better for humanity, good Karma will await you all!


Again, it's okay to be wrong.

And anybody can be wrong, including you Reel. Your problem is you refuse to accept any possibility that you might be wrong. This refusal puts you in the unsupportable position of ignoring most of what Dr lu is saying and reading only those words you want to hear.

'The evidence is wrong.'
'The theory is wrong.'
'The scientists are wrong.'
Everybody seems to be wrong... everybody but you.


I've already posted more than enough on Lu and CLOUD to sway a reasonable man and you chose to ignore it so I wont waste my time repeating it, but you did bring up something new - the Argo data - so I will leave you with this;
and this;

In short, the answer to 2003-2008 is simple decadal variability. But hey, feel free to ignore this too.


Indeed, I was wrong in assuming the climate campaign was capable of seeing its mistakes - and amending them.

I have worked to expand the alternative energy industry, electrify transport, limit import of foreign oil, grow biofuels, etc. The refusal of the handful of climate priests to acknowledge their campaign's failure and change direction has resulted in... their campaign's failure:

"...many progressives are actually convinced that climate change is a losing message and are even on the defensive on slam dunk issues like clean energy and clean air/water." Joe Romm


And once again you show your intellectual dishonesty.
The refusal of the handful of climate priests to acknowledge their campaign's failure and change direction has resulted in... their campaign's failure:

The "handful" is on your side of the issue...the consensus is on mine;

So it looks like I was correct in assuming you are incapable of seeing your mistakes - and amending them.


ai_ I think we all are aware that the "priests" are not confused with the zealots.

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."

—Michael Crichton, Aliens cause Global Warming [January 17, 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology]


Sure, quote Crichton the science-fiction author and MD (a profession known for its unmerited God complex).


North America crude production is expected to hit an all-time high by 2016, given the current pace of drilling in the U.S. and Canada;
U.S. oil production will record a rise of a little over 2 million barrels per day (bpd) from 2010 to 2016, according to Bentek Energy.

Canadian crude production is expected to grow by 971,000 bpd.

Combined, U.S. and Canadian oil output will top 11.5 million bpd, more than in 1972.

Goldman Sachs has estimated the U.S. could move from being the No. 3 oil producer [inc shale oil and gas] behind Saudi Arabia and Russia to the No. 1 spot by 2017.

So if our wealth returns (slim chance) we can afford the cost to suck the CO2 out of the air.
If we still want to.

By then, that's where all those billions of bpd will be.

Roger Pham

Sure, "Drill, baby, drill," to be followed by "Grilled, baby, grilled!"

There seems to be a kind of karmic justice that the top GW deniers in Texas (Gov. Perry, Exxon-Mobi, GWB) and Oklahoma (Sen. Inhoffe) were sentenced to the hottest summer on record, the worst drought on record, and where Gov. Perry resides, Austin, TX experienced the worst forest fires in history! And for sure, there will be many summers like the last one in TX and OK to come!

Louisiana, where based a lot of offshore drilling activity, received Katrina, the most devastating damage in records, and recently, the worst oil spill in history, far worse than the Exxon-Valdez!
Sure, "Spilled, baby, spilled!"


Note that TT's total includes a lot of stuff that isn't crude oil, such as bitumen mined from tar sands.

11.5 mmbbl/d is far below the oil consumption of the USA alone. If we're going to eliminate overseas imports (and the trend is for net exports to shrink rather quickly), most of the change is going to have to come from the consumption end.


A commentary on Michael Crichton's Aliens cause Global Warming;
by Alden Griffith

For my part I find it interesting that a man who made a mint when he popularized the idea of recreating dinosaurs using damaged DNA, found in mosquitoes that sucked Saurian blood and were then trapped and preserved in amber, should bemoan the lost of good science because of the popularization of the search for aliens. I also find it interesting that this lecture preceded the release of his next book "State of Fear," a novel concerning eco-terrorists who attempt mass murder to support their views. Global warming and climate change serve as a central theme to the novel, and in Appendix I of the book, Crichton warns both sides of the global warming debate against the politicization of science. And I also find it interesting that this book has itself been used to politicize the science.

This novel received criticism from climate scientists, science journalists and environmental groups for inaccuracies and misleading information. Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research. One of those in disagreement was MIT meteorology professor Richard Lindzen, who stated "the science was handled intelligently and responsibly."(of course)

Several scientists whose research had been referenced in the novel stated that Crichton had distorted it in the novel. Peter Doran, leading author of the Nature paper, wrote in the New York Times stating that
"... our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear”
Myles Allen, Head of the Climate Dynamics Group, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, wrote in Nature in 2005:
"Michael Crichton’s latest blockbuster, State of Fear, is also on the theme of global warming and is likely to mislead the unwary. . . Although this is a work of fiction, Crichton’s use of footnotes and appendices is clearly intended to give an impression of scientific authority."
The American Geophysical Union, consisting of over 50,000 members from over 135 countries, states in their newspaper Eos in 2006:
"We have seen from encounters with the public how the political use of State of Fear has changed public perception of scientists, especially researchers in global warming, toward suspicion and hostility."
James E. Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies wrote: "He (Michael Crichton) doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about." Jeffrey Masters, Chief meteorologist for Weather Underground, writes: "Crichton presents an error-filled and distorted version of the Global Warming science, favoring views of the handful of contrarians that attack the consensus science of the IPCC." and "Flawed or misleading presentations of global warming science exist in the book, including those on Arctic sea ice thinning, correction of land-based temperature measurements for the urban heat island effect, and satellite vs. ground-based measurements of Earth's warming. I will spare the reader additional details. On the positive side, Crichton does emphasize the little-appreciated fact that while most of the world has been warming the past few decades, most of Antarctica has seen a cooling trend. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually expected to increase in mass over the next 100 years due to increased precipitation, according to the IPCC."

The Union of Concerned Scientists devote a section of their website to what they describe as misconceptions readers may take away from the book;


The bureaucrats still have not managed to coerce or threaten the mighty Oak and Redwood to submit their annual CO2 sequestration figures.

Here in North America our Flora in forests, ranchlands, and farms are expanding rapidly thanks to the to removing the starvation levels of CO2 that Flora had depleted from the atmsophere.

Since we don't have any idea how much we bio-sequester, any attempted accounting is ridiculous. Now suggested to be revised upward by 17 times more than Man emits, according to a recently peer-reviewed published in Nature, except that it is more than we emit in North America, all such accounting is P-H-O-N-Y! America is a NET carbon sink as measured by peer-reviewed and published measurements published by Scientists from princeton University.

This is typical scare tactics by the eco-loons and their cynical, corrupt, eco-organizations like WWF, UCS, Green Slime etc,seeking more funding and Solyndra type ripoffs.


ExDemo, America is SOMETIMES a net carbon sink as measured by peer-reviewed and published measurements.

Here in North America our Flora in forests, ranchlands, and farms are expanding rapidly thanks to the to removing the starvation levels of CO2 that Flora had depleted from the atmsophere.

Try telling that to the ranchers in Texas and the other states stuck under the heat dome. Or the farmers in the north who saw their fields disappear under floodwaters.


I stand by Dr. Crichton's cogent critique of "consensus science." And his laconic suggestion as to the source of "global warming."


Of course you do.

Roger Pham

Back to topic: CO2level has been rising uncontrollably

Let's look at the facts:

1) 27% higher CO2 level since the dawn of industrial revolution, the age of coal and oil combustion, from 280 ppm to now, over 380 ppm.

2) CO2 is known to keep in the heat, like a warming blanket, or like a glass cover in a greenhouse.

3) Rapid rise in earth's temperature, worse recently that is parallel with China and India joining the coal-consumption frenzy...

Duhhh...It's such a simple scientific cause and effect that anyone with a basic high school-level science knowledge can grasp. Why invoke esoteric theories like aliens or cosmic rays?

Those who are in denial has too much vested interests in fossil fuel, financially and emotionally...trying to confuse others...

Little do the deniers know that for having been so successful in the coal, oil and gas business, and in smashing success politics, for having been able to control our government so completely, they will be equally successful in the future renewable energy business.
All that'll be needed for 'em to repeat their past oil, coal and gas successes and moving on into the renewable energy business is to get the gov. to change the laws and taxes to encourge more PRIVATE investments in renewable energy developments. Do it in the name of Energy Independence, or whatever. With so much profits in oil and gas, they have more money than anyone else to invest in renewable energy that they will come out ahead of everyone else! The economy will boom again everywhere in the world, and there'll be jobs for that can't be outsourced. It'll be a win win situation for everyone involved!

But, of course, oil, coal and gas are like their kin folks who can't do no wrong, even after their kin was arrested by the police with smoking-gun evidences and a clear, Johnny (or whoever) could do no wrong..."No NO NO...It must of been the corrupted cops...tryin' to...[do whatever "green loons" have been accused of!]

The comments to this entry are closed.