Climate Change

Ominous warnings: emissions increasing, not decreasing

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), an intergovernmental organization with 193 member states and territories, issued an ominous climate change warning on October 26, 2022. The cold reality is that G20 nations —  responsible for around 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions — have promised to reduce dangerous emissions but allowed releases of greenhouse gases to increase.

WMO observations show conclusively that:

  • Globally averaged atmospheric methane CH4 has been increasing;
  • The rate of increase of atmospheric methane is accelerating;
  • Annual increases in 2020 and 2021 are the largest since the systematic record began in 1983.
  • Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions also reached new highs in 2021;
  • Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are also potent greenhouse gases, are increasing at relatively rapid rates.

Reported by Washington Post:

Methane concentrations are not just rising, they’re rising faster than ever,” said Rob Jackson, a professor of Earth system science at Stanford University.

The study comes on the same day as a new U.N. report that says the world’s governments haven’t committed to cut enough carbon emissions, putting the world on track for a 2.5 degree Celsius (4.5 degree Fahrenheit) increase in global temperatures by the end of the century.

That U.N. report shows current commitments of all nations will increase emissions by 10.6% by 2030, compared to 2010 levels. 

British environment journalist Fred Pearce wrote for Yale e360:

A sudden surge in methane emissions is threatening to undermine international efforts to halt planetary warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius. …climate negotiators are underestimating by a factor of three the warming effect that methane will have over the critical quarter-century we have left to reach net-zero emissions under the 2015 Paris Agreement.

As a result, scientists say, governments are giving far too little attention to curbing methane by measures such as plugging abandoned gas wells, sealing pipelines, covering up landfills, and preventing crop waste.

The problem arises because of a long-standing convention that the warming effect of emissions of different planet-warming gases is measured according to their average impact over 100 years. Scientists say that was fine when the world was focused on stabilizing temperatures by the end of the century. But now that the target is to halt warming at a level that will be reached by mid-century, it is no longer fit for purpose because it drastically underestimates the importance of methane, which typically lasts little more than a decade in the air but has most of its warming impact in that time.

Science provides tools that can identify the sources of methane. This year, data from NASA’s Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) has allowed the science team to identified more than 50 “super-emitters” of methane, a gas estimated to be 80 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere in the 20 years after release, compared to carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately, governments in oil and gas producing regions have little interest in using scientific tools that might impact growth of fossil fuel production. We’ve known for years that British Columbia and Alberta underestimate methane emissions from oil and gas facilities. Governments know; they pretend not to.

The top ten GHG emitters contribute over two-thirds of global emissions. According to the federal government, Canada was the highest GHG emitting country per capita among the top 10 emitting countries.

Why People Aren’t Motivated to Address Climate Change, an article in the Harvard Business Review, notes that people are often highly motivated to avoid immediate threats but then asks why is it so hard to get people to act on climate change. The answers:

  • Acting on climate change represents a trade-off between short-term and long-term benefits.
  • Ignoring climate change in the short term has benefits both to individuals, organizations, and governments.
  • Climate change is a nonlinear problem. People are much better with obvious threats like that nasty dog at the door than they are with threats that escalate quickly and nonlinearly.
  • Many effects of climate change are distant from most people.
  • The future is always more uncertain than the present. That is one reason people value the present so much more strongly.

These factors probably explain why Canadian politicians largely confine climate actions to press releases and promises. Because citizenry is trained to see economic growth as the primary indicator of government success, degrowth is an intolerable subject in political circles.

Our leaders refuse to accept the minimum condition for long-term sustainability:

All resource use curves must be simultaneously flatlined and all pollution curves simultaneously extinguished.

The Delusion of Infinite Economic Growth

Please keep this site ad-free by supporting In-Sights. Click here.

Categories: Climate Change

6 replies »

  1. Norm
    I have posted this elsewhere also.

    To all commentators on climate

    For consideration….Climate is quite a hot issue these days and therefore draws considerable discussion. The term often used to describe this exacerbating problem is climate change.

    The term is actually considered a misnomer in some areas of climate study.
    The more accurate name reference is global climate disruption.(GCD). A mouthful yes but perhaps a metaphorical example to consider would be a sloth versus a Tasmanian devil in your minds eye.

    Therefore based on what your objective might be in climate discussions you can pick the sloth reference or the devil reference.

    I wonder which reference the high carbon emitters would likely choose?


  2. Its not a surprise that things are getting worse instead of better. We haven’t had a direct impact on us and those who have in North America, have their governments usually provide assistance. Our governments have the money to rebuild, enough that people don’t get too concerned about things. Now those who suffered through the floods in Pakistan have a whole other story.

    The reasons people don’t pay much attention as you have listed at the end of your article are all very much in play. Then we have idiots like Musk advocating for increasing the population. The world could feed more people if we wanted to and organize around that, but given we in the G 20 countries aren’t being directly affected, we don’t care.

    Corporations don’t want to change things, they have too much money at stake and shareholders to keep happy.

    It isn’t until people are directly impacted that we will see change or governments enforce change. We have to look no further than places in California which don’t have enough water and the cities have water patrols to ensure people don’t over use. In Sechelt people got with the agenda and reduced their use of water by 50%.

    Whether climate change is the result of the people on this earth or some other thing, we need to start treating it seriously. We could run out of water and its 3 days without it and you’re dead.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. We have been playing games with Global Warming and climate change as real action has been avoided.

    The Carbon Credit/Capture game is a fools errand, as we allow forests (which have proven to capture carbon ) are being clear cut at an alarming rate. The Amazon rain forest is soon to be turned into wastelands.

    In Canada, we continue along merrily as nothing is happening and except of increasing taxes, real solutions are avoided.

    What needs to be done is not being done and thus, the climate err odes ever faster.


  4. Was just reading the Guardian which has an article up about a U.N. report which advises the world is coming to a tipping point of no return regarding climate change/the enviornment. Then it added oil companies are making more money than ever.

    It really is about time all governments started taxing oil/gas companies and end the subsidies they receive from governments. It would save the rest of us taxpayers a lot of money and it might cause the companies to be a tad more responsible.

    This is not going to end well if we keep going the way we are.


    • If I may play the devil’s advocate for a moment.

      If a true blood capitalist
      reads the report they can only hope to be around when the tipping point
      has been reached. Why? Well why not lobby the government at that point to increase the O&G subsidies which in turn would increase O&G profits and be reflected in the increased returns in my O&G stock portfolio. It certainly would be worth trying to promote. Further emission harm would be a non starter in that scenario and could garner support from the “it’s too late anyway” mind set.

      The metaphor “the horse has left the barn” comes to mind.

      All tongue-in-cheek of course.:)


Leave a reply but be on topic and civil.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s