Glen Peters

a chart showing aus way above us, eu, china etc for emissions

Not sure it's well recognised within Aus just how weirdly emissions intensive its vehicle fleet is

theicct.org/publication/...

Ouch.

“If we plan restoration targets to match future climatic conditions and consider state transitions of currently natural ecosystems due to climate change, the potential for natural climate solutions related to ecosystem restoration is close to zero.”

Chart showing Top countries ranked using three GDP measures, from The Economist

If you adjust for both relative prices in each country and the number of hours worked, Norway is the richest country in the world per person. But Denmark, which has produced only about 10% of the oil and gas that Norway has since 1970, is in third place. Similar pop
www.economist.com/graphic-deta...

Not bad, for an economist...

Motherfucking wind farms…

Securing the forest carbon sink for the European Union’s climate ambition - Nature Actionable research recommendations are outlined to improve the monitoring and modelling of forest resources and their carbon sink, and to better inform forest management decisions and the European Gr...

Why is the European forest carbon sink declining?
How science can help reversing this trend?

A perspective paper in Nature discusses these questions, highlighting the importance to better monitor forest resources and their resilience.

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Right then...

A quick review of the DOE's new 'critical review' of climate science. Whether it's worth a formal community response - I'm still not sure, but here's my first thoughts

/thread/

Addendum:
Fossil CO₂ emissions in the USA are up about 2.8% in the first 6 months of 2025, while emissions in the EU are up 2.9% in the first 5 months.

This is a turnaround, with India's emissions growing more slowly that both the US and EU so far this year.

Graph showing: Monthly Indian fossil CO2 emissions

📢India's fossil CO₂ emissions in first half of 2025 up *only* 0.9%.
Preliminary data show very slow growth in emissions from both coal and oil, and a decline in natural gas. 🧵

This is where I get my numbers, and it gives a bit of a summary. www.iea.org/reports/coal...

My projection is full year "...we project a 0.2% increase for the full year...", from the IEA article. 0.5% in my figure is due to the leap year adjustment.

Figure showing coal, oil, and gas emissions from 1960, with a little red dot for 2025, with 0.5% growth in coal, 1% in oil, 1.6% in gas, and -1.1% for cement. These are all leap year adjusted since 2024 had one more day than 2025...

Based on fossil fuel growth rates from the IEA Coal Mid-Year Update, July Oil Market Report, & Gas Market Report Q3, fossil CO2 emissions would grow around 0.8% in 2025, reaching another record high...

We are only half way through the year, but don't build too much expectation for peak emissions.

In a new piece for @granthamicl.bsky.social, @frediotto.bsky.social and I unpack the significance of the ICJ’s landmark advisory opinion.

We reflect on how it reshapes the legal framing of climate action and what it means for states’ obligations going forward.

In the older SSPs, SSP2 and SSP4 are both under the UN range, and SSP1 and SSP5 are outside of the lowest sensitivity assessment. SSP3 is similar to the UN 95% range. In this figure, it looks like the SSPs are biased to explore the low end of the literature.

The SSPs Release 3 seem fair more reasonable than Release 2, much more consistent with the UN projections. Note the substantial upward revision of SSP4. SSP2 & UN are now similar.

The SSPs Release 3, previous post, will probably be the basis for most climate scenarios the next 5-10 years!

2/2

The SSPs plotted against the UN projections. SSP1 and SSP5 are almost identical, and 2 billion lower than SSP2 in 2100. SSP2 and UN median are similar. SSP4 is about 2 billion above SSP2 and SSP3 is another billion over SSP4. The UN probabilitic range is about plus - minus 1 billion in 2100, so the SSP1, 3, 4, 5 are well outside the probabilistic range.

I am just randomly updating some figures. Here is a comparison of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) Release 3 compared to the UN Population Division projections.

The SSPs cover the range reasonably well, but SSP1,3,4,5 are well outside of the probabilistic projections.

1/

Hmmm. Many Tibber customers pay less than 50øre/kWh?

I find that highly unlikely, for southern Norway at least. And the screen shot, those numbers seem unlikely, particularly the negative price for charging at the bottom?

Where in Norway could those numbers come from or this fake advertising?

Screenshot of: "Barring a disaster, in which case all predictions will be off, China will almost certainly achieve its GDP growth target in 2025, which means that predictions by all the global financial institutions will converge to 4.8–5.0 percent by the fourth quarter of 2025. Lower predicted growth rates earlier in the year, in other words, are mostly meaningless as predictions."

Very interesting piece by @michaelpettis.bsky.social.
His starting point is that China's GDP growth target is not a forecast, but a policy tool, and China will achieve it. The more interesting question is how. 1/
carnegieendowment.org/posts/2025/0...

Economically viable geological CO2 storage from direct air capture has critical threshold of 70% CO2 concentration - Communications Engineering Le Zhang and colleagues propose that a 70% concentration should be met for economically viable geological storage of carbon dioxide from Direct Air Capture (DAC). This finding provides practical guida...

"Direct Air Capture (DAC), a key component of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), has been widely studied."

I learn something new everyday... (two new things actually)

www.nature.com/articles/s44...

Graph showing: Indonesia's primary energy supply by source

Indonesia published its annual energy statistics report yesterday (HEESI). I've updated some of the charts on my dedicated Indonesia page.
Domestic consumption of coal continues to grow, and more strongly than other fossil categories. 1/

Auditors can’t save carbon offsets The theory behind carbon offset projects is appealing: Instead of an organization cutting its own emissions, it can fund lower-cost carbon-reducing projects elsewhere to “offset” its emissions. The re...

Poor integrity of carbon offsets :

"all key market participants benefit from inflated claims about carbon credits"

www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

Especially in science? I would say especially in the media. Just because the media has headlines like this doesn't mean scientist like it. Read the scientific article behind the headline. Chalk and cheese. Most scientists would be pissed with the headline, IMHO.

For the current period, yes. But when comparing to the previous period, you see in the figure, the rate was about 0.2C/decade. So since 1990, say, there has been an acceleration.

Nor have we had a globally harmonised 1000EUR/t CO2 price, all technologies available, no political issues, no delays in deployment, no cost overruns, decision made out to 2100 with discounting, etc? We don't meet remotely the conditions in the scenarios, hence we should not expect CCS or CDR, etc

What statements provide a "false sense of safety". Who around here is saying all is good and dandy?

Some people like budgets, hence they are popular.

That current policy type scenarios are not good at picking up trends! SO2 has gone down as in aggressive policy scenarios, CO2 has tracked middle of the road (weak policy), CH4, etc, are more highish due to lack of policy. Scenarios generally assume all levers pulled simulataneously.

The atmospheric increase is measured rather accurately. This means fires are in there, by mass balance. They are not isolated as a separate entity in the fig. If they are added in additionally, you have to add an additional removal to maintain mass balance. There is no easy "just add them" solution.

There are two sides to the coin. CO2 from (wild) forest fires are not directly included, nor is the carbon uptake from previous fires. Wildfires are 'assumed' carbon neutral.

Is this optimal? No. The alternative is not easy (data). At worst, this just means something else is attributed the CO2!

Not with the old scenarios. I would have to load in the concentration data. But I am on holidays...

In 2025, there is a 10% chance that we exceeded 1.5C already.