CO2 levels just broke another record. Here's what that means
Social Sharing
When man first walked on the moon, the carbon dioxide concentration in Earth's atmosphere was 325 parts per million (ppm).
By 9/11, it was 369 ppm, and when COVID-19 shut down normal life in 2020, it had shot up to 414 parts ppm.
This week, our planet hit the highest levels ever directly recorded: 430 parts per million.
For 67 years, the observatory on Hawaii's Mauna Loa volcano has been taking these measurements daily — tracking the invisible gas that is building up in our atmosphere and changing life on Earth.
The record is known as the Keeling Curve. Charles David Keeling began those recordings, some of the first in the world to measure CO2 concentration over time.
His son, Ralph Keeling, born one year before the observatory opened, has witnessed the rapid increase firsthand over his lifetime.
"I was a teenager when I first started to appreciate what my father was doing and how it might be significant," Keeling told CBC News. Back then it was around 330 ppm.
Keeling, a geochemistry professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, took over the research once his father passed away in 2005.
"This problem is not going away, and we're moving further and further into uncharted territory, and almost certainly, very dangerous territory."
Why CO2 matters
The build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere isn't visible to the naked eye, but its concentration matters because of the greenhouse effect.
Like the glass walls that trap heat from the sun in an actual greenhouse, gases in our atmosphere such as CO2 and methane also trap heat from the sun.
At the start of the Industrial Revolution, ice core samples show CO2 levels were around 280 parts per million but as they rose, warming has increased by about 1.3 C over the pre-industrial average.
That's led to rising temperatures and leading to more frequent and extreme weather, like heat waves, floods, wildfires and droughts.
While many have heard about the goals of limiting warming to 1.5 C or 2 C above pre-industrial levels, there have also been efforts to return CO2 levels to below 350 parts per million, as a key part of limiting the damage from climate change.
The record highs have continued though. Just in the last year, CO2 readings from May have increased more than three parts per million — that many more molecules of CO2 trapping heat and contributing to warming.
"We know why it's rising faster than ever, it's because we're burning more fossil fuels each year," said Keeling.
Direct link to fossil fuels
Damon Matthews, a climate scientist and professor at Concordia University in Quebec, also says he's concerned and isn't surprised that there are new records every year.
"If we want to actually stabilize CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we would need to cut global emissions by more than 50 per cent, and we're nowhere near doing that," he said, adding that there are other gases at play but CO2 is the dominant influence.
"Every May, we're going to see a new record of atmospheric CO2, until we actually make a lot more progress on climate mitigation than we have today."
The annual cycle, peaking in late spring in the northern hemisphere, is tied to plant photosynthesis — CO2 concentrations drop in the summer as plants absorb the gas and release oxygen.
In 2021, the International Energy Agency said that if the world wants to limit global warming and reach net-zero by 2050, there could be no new coal, oil or gas projects.
Matthews is part of Canada's net-zero advisory body and says he's seen some progress in decreasing CO2 emissions the last few years, but not enough.
He says Europe's emissions have been going down for decades, and that last year CO2 emissions in China didn't increase. However, he says Canada still lags behind other countries, and the U.S. is trending the other way.
"There's lots of policy options, certainly focusing on expanding the oil and gas industry in Canada right now is not going to get us where we need to go in terms of climate," he said.
"We just need to stop arguing about whether it's a priority and start doing the things that we know will help to solve the problem."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
13 hours ago
- CBC
He can't quit him — easily. Why SpaceX could complicate the Trump-Musk split
Billions of dollars lost in government contracts. A slew of regulatory headaches. These are just some of the ramifications Elon Musk could face over his fallout with U.S. President Donald Trump. The two men may have personally split, at least for now. But if Trump is seeking to retaliate against the tech billionaire, severing the relationship between Musk's many companies and the U.S. government could prove difficult, analysts say. "I would say the president has more cards than Musk does, but it doesn't mean that [Musk] doesn't have any," said Peter Hays, a lecturer of space policy and international affairs at George Washington University's Space Policy Institute. Both sides have "all kinds of leverage on each other," added Dan Grazier, senior fellow and program director at the D.C.-based Stimson Center, a think-tank focused on international security. The public fallout came after Musk repeatedly criticized Trump's spending bill. Trump eventually lashed back, posting on Truth Social that the easiest way to save "Billions and Billion of Dollars" would be to "terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts." However, those threats might not be so simple to implement. SpaceX, satellite contracts SpaceX has $15 billion US worth of contracts from NASA for the company's Falcon 9 rockets and its development of the multipurpose Starship rocket system, tapped to land NASA astronauts on the moon this decade. The company has also been awarded billions of dollars to launch most of the Pentagon's national security satellites into space while it builds a massive spy satellite constellation. That's why, if Trump cancels those contracts, SpaceX would have to seriously rethink its business model, Grazier says. Musk "needs the government to keep his company operating as they are," he said. But the U.S. government is also reliant on SpaceX, he says. For example, it's the only U.S. company capable right now of transporting crews to and from the International Space Station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. "Trump needs Elon Musk in pretty much the exact same way that Elon Musk needs President Trump, as far as SpaceX goes," Grazier said. "It's not like the United States has a credible alternative to SpaceX right now as far as space launch goes," he said. "And the United States needs reliable space launch capabilities." WATCH | F eud explodes into public view: Threats, insults as Trump-Musk feud explodes into public view 1 day ago Duration 2:27 Tearing up SpaceX contracts would have a huge domino effect across a lot of the government's critical functions in space, according to Clayton Swope, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. And those functions are "most closely centred around the Pentagon and NASA," he told Bloomberg News. But if Trump holds off on cancelling SpaceX contracts, and is looking for another way to poke at Musk, he could put the squeeze on Musk's companies through the government's regulatory agencies, some experts say. "Those can all be leverage points for the administration," said Cary Coglianese, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn program on regulation. Last year, Musk was waging at least 11 separate regulatory or legal battles with the Biden administration or independent federal agencies related to his business empire, according to NBC News. This might have been why, in part, Musk eventually endorsed Trump, who had pledged during the presidential campaign to slash regulations. How Trump's tax bill ignited his feud with Musk | Hanomansing Tonight 1 day ago Duration 7:21 Yet Trump could now pressure those same agencies to make Musk's life difficult. Just some of the regulators Musk's business empire must deal with include the Federal Communications Commission for his satellite internet service Starlink, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for Tesla, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for SpaceX. The FAA, under pressure from Trump, or to curry his favour, could say it's not going to approve any SpaceX launch permits, says Roger Nober, director of the Regulatory Studies Center, also at George Washington University. For Tesla, for example, Trump could pressure regulators to deny necessary approvals of its autonomous driving program, or could renew investigations into the safety of its full self-driving software, some analysts told ABC News. "If full self-driving were to be invalidated, that would be a huge hit to Tesla stock and to Musk," Gordon Johnson, CEO and founder of the data firm GLJ Research, told ABC. Although the courts shouldn't tolerate such actions if they are shown to be vindictive, the president wouldn't necessarily need a "litigation-proof strategy to really mess up" Musk's life, Coglianese said. It could still be "very painful and problematic" for Musk, while courts sorted out the issues, he said. "And if Musk's operations get delayed or disrupted, that can mean real money." Nober says he believes that any lasting regulatory change against Musk's companies would be difficult to implement, given his very public spat with Trump and that the president said he's going to punish his one-time friend. "If they then initiate regulatory action that's intended punish any of Musk's business… it's going to be vulnerable to challenge on the theory that it was arbitrary," he said. However, there may be other minor administrative regulatory roadblocks that government agencies could impose on Musk that would be difficult to challenge in court, Nober says. "They can make life difficult" for Musk, he said. On Thursday, amid their war of words, shares of Tesla plunged more than 14 per cent, leaving $150 billion US of the electric automaker's value erased by the end of trading day. The plunge was probably because Tesla, like a lot of Musk's companies, have a lot of little things they deal with, with a lot of regulatory bodies, Nober says. "Just making those more difficult, or slowing them down, or reviewing them, or taking longer to turn things around, has a cumulative impact," he said.
CBC
13 hours ago
- CBC
CO2 levels just broke another record. Here's what that means
Social Sharing When man first walked on the moon, the carbon dioxide concentration in Earth's atmosphere was 325 parts per million (ppm). By 9/11, it was 369 ppm, and when COVID-19 shut down normal life in 2020, it had shot up to 414 parts ppm. This week, our planet hit the highest levels ever directly recorded: 430 parts per million. For 67 years, the observatory on Hawaii's Mauna Loa volcano has been taking these measurements daily — tracking the invisible gas that is building up in our atmosphere and changing life on Earth. The record is known as the Keeling Curve. Charles David Keeling began those recordings, some of the first in the world to measure CO2 concentration over time. His son, Ralph Keeling, born one year before the observatory opened, has witnessed the rapid increase firsthand over his lifetime. "I was a teenager when I first started to appreciate what my father was doing and how it might be significant," Keeling told CBC News. Back then it was around 330 ppm. Keeling, a geochemistry professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, took over the research once his father passed away in 2005. "This problem is not going away, and we're moving further and further into uncharted territory, and almost certainly, very dangerous territory." Why CO2 matters The build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere isn't visible to the naked eye, but its concentration matters because of the greenhouse effect. Like the glass walls that trap heat from the sun in an actual greenhouse, gases in our atmosphere such as CO2 and methane also trap heat from the sun. At the start of the Industrial Revolution, ice core samples show CO2 levels were around 280 parts per million but as they rose, warming has increased by about 1.3 C over the pre-industrial average. That's led to rising temperatures and leading to more frequent and extreme weather, like heat waves, floods, wildfires and droughts. While many have heard about the goals of limiting warming to 1.5 C or 2 C above pre-industrial levels, there have also been efforts to return CO2 levels to below 350 parts per million, as a key part of limiting the damage from climate change. The record highs have continued though. Just in the last year, CO2 readings from May have increased more than three parts per million — that many more molecules of CO2 trapping heat and contributing to warming. "We know why it's rising faster than ever, it's because we're burning more fossil fuels each year," said Keeling. Direct link to fossil fuels Damon Matthews, a climate scientist and professor at Concordia University in Quebec, also says he's concerned and isn't surprised that there are new records every year. "If we want to actually stabilize CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we would need to cut global emissions by more than 50 per cent, and we're nowhere near doing that," he said, adding that there are other gases at play but CO2 is the dominant influence. "Every May, we're going to see a new record of atmospheric CO2, until we actually make a lot more progress on climate mitigation than we have today." The annual cycle, peaking in late spring in the northern hemisphere, is tied to plant photosynthesis — CO2 concentrations drop in the summer as plants absorb the gas and release oxygen. In 2021, the International Energy Agency said that if the world wants to limit global warming and reach net-zero by 2050, there could be no new coal, oil or gas projects. Matthews is part of Canada's net-zero advisory body and says he's seen some progress in decreasing CO2 emissions the last few years, but not enough. He says Europe's emissions have been going down for decades, and that last year CO2 emissions in China didn't increase. However, he says Canada still lags behind other countries, and the U.S. is trending the other way. "There's lots of policy options, certainly focusing on expanding the oil and gas industry in Canada right now is not going to get us where we need to go in terms of climate," he said. "We just need to stop arguing about whether it's a priority and start doing the things that we know will help to solve the problem."
CBC
a day ago
- CBC
Researchers look at how N.W.T.'s Giant Mine closure plan can consider climate change
Social Sharing Yellowknife residents had a chance this week to learn more about a research project that's looking at how a changing climate could affect the management and remediation of legacy mine projects, like Giant Mine. A drop-in session was hosted on Wednesday by a research group undertaking a three-year project focused on how the mining sector can adapt to climate change. The Climate Ready Mine project is being led by RFS Energy and the University of Guelph and is funded by the federal government with in-kind support from the Giant Mine Oversight Board. The research group hopes its work will be applicable in a wider northern context, and for other mines as well. Nicolas Brunet, an associate professor at the University of Guelph who's helping lead the project, says there is very little known about the topic. "I had a student working with us for the last year who did a complete review of industry documents, everything, scoured the internet — and our knowledge of how climate will impact [mine] closure planning is in its infancy," said Brunet. He added that the researchers aren't looking to critique the work now happening around Giant Mine's closure, but rather to use the high-profile mine site as a jumping-off point to explore some of the issues. "We don't have any guidance right now, and so you kind of have to invent it as you go," said Brunet. Branda Le, executive director for the Giant Mine Oversight Board (GMOB), says the project and its outcomes will be helpful for assessing how climate change should be factored into the mine's perpetual care plan. Brunet said they hope the research project will offer a different perspective on what mine closure could look like, with a focus on the environmental and human impacts even hundreds of years into the future. This week's information session in Yellowknife was a first step toward keeping the community informed about the research work, and to get some local input. "It's really important for us to talk to people who live here and hear their experiences, and get an understanding from the people that live here," said Laura Guerrero Sanchez, the CEO of RFS Energy. "And so we wanted to introduce the project in person and be able to have these dialogues and hear feedback." One of the goals of the project is to develop an assessment tool to determine how different elements of a mine closure plan can be adapted in response to the impacts of climate change. Sanchez says that could be useful to Indigenous governments, NGOs, and the mining industry itself as it develops final closure plans. A major part of the Giant Mine Remediation Project is determining the long-term management of 237,000 tonnes of arsenic trioxide dust at the site. The current method of storing it underground was determined as the best temporary solution by the remediation team. Having an assessment tool would help the GMOB determine a long-term plan for dealing with the arsenic trioxide that accounts for climate change, the researchers suggest.
