A kernel of good news about global carbon emissions
Global carbon dioxide emissions rose significantly last year, but they didn’t rise quite as much as some experts expected. Instead of increasing by 4.9% over 2020 levels, which the Global Carbon Project forecast in November, new estimates from the group suggest the increase was about 4.3%.
Global carbon dioxide emissions rose significantly last year, but they didn’t rise quite as much as some experts expected. Instead of increasing by 4.9% over 2020 levels, which the Global Carbon Project forecast in November, new estimates from the group suggest the increase was about 4.3%.
But that pattern hasn’t exactly replicated itself this time around. In 2020, when lockdowns forced the global economy to shrink, emissions fell drastically. The year after, as restrictions were lifted, global gross domestic product rose and so did emissions—except the increase in CO? wasn’t as large as that seen in the post-financial crisis recovery.
One way to understand the difference is to consider the carbon intensity of the global economy. That is, how many kilograms of CO? are needed for every dollar of economic activity?
In 1990, after adjusting for inflation, every dollar of GDP led to 0.68 kg of CO?. In 2021, it caused only 0.38 kg of CO2. (The calculations use emissions from the Global Carbon Project and GDP figures from the International Monetary Fund.).
That’s broadly a good thing. The global economy is getting less carbon intensive over time. But the macro trend hides more complicated year-to-year changes.
领英推荐
One reason for that drop may be the growth in clean-energy investments. Between 2004 and 2008, just before the financial crisis, the total amount of investment in clean energy stood at less than $450 billion. Between 2015 and 2019, just before the pandemic hit, that spend stood at more than $2.2 trillion. Those investments likely pushed out the development of some new coal power plants, with India building fewer of those dirty assets in the 2010s than it did in the 2000s. All that may have stopped emissions from rebounding as much as they did a decade earlier.
Beyond that generalization, however, it’s hard to pinpoint all the major reasons for the recovery to be cleaner this time, says Glen Peters, senior researcher at the Center for International Climate Research. That’s because country-level trends make for a?messy narrative.
In the European Union, for example, post-lockdown recovery led to an increase in the carbon intensity of the economy. That may be because Europeans burned a?lot more coal?in a period when lack of supplies caused gas prices to spike.
But if coal were the only reason, China’s post-lockdown recovery should have looked bad too. That’s because coal use?reached record highs?in China last year. And, yet, the carbon intensity of the Chinese economy fell in 2021 at about?similar rates?to the previous decade.
All this leaves Peters with more questions than answers. That could be resolved with a deeper analysis of how economic growth and emissions played out in different sectors in each country. Until then, the way forward is clear: increase investments in clean energy, while finding ways to?cut energy use.
I'd love to?hear from you. You can get the?Bloomberg Green newsletter?every weekday in your inbox.
Another likely factor in the recent decarbonization of the global economy is the growing use of carbon pricing around the world. There are about twice as many countries pricing carbon now (46) compared with a decade ago, and the average price is rising. The EU is now at $85/tCO2 after more than doubling in the last year. Canada implemented Carbon Fee and Dividend a few years ago, and its economy-wide steadily rising price will reach $135 in 2030. Even in the US, where explicit carbon prices have not yet been implemented, hundreds of businesses and many municipalities are anticipating it by using shadow carbon pricing in their long-term decision making. The experts say carbon pricing is required to achieve ambitious climate goals, and those who are looking up today are preparing and helping accelerate it happening. https://carboncashback.org/carbon-cash-back
I think part of the reason for the apparent shift is a simple one: GDP & CO2 are correlated, but there isn’t a direct causal relationship between them. I’d dispute this assertion: “In 1990, after adjusting for inflation, every dollar of GDP led to 0.68 kg of CO?. In 2021, it caused only 0.38 kg of CO2” There are many ways to create GDP - from mining coal or operating a power station, to writing a newsletter or a poem & being paid for it. Obviously if you burn coal as a business, there’s a causal link. But in many cases there isn’t such an arrow of causality - or it could even be reversed (for instance, selling carbon scrubbers). We need to move away from the idea that GDP growth “causes” CO2 emissions, as it just fuels the delusions and misanthropy of “degrowth” advocates.