Latest news with #GlobalCarbonProject
News18
3 days ago
- General
- News18
World's Top Polluters: Where Does India Stand?
Last Updated: China, the USA, and India are the top carbon emitters, with China aiming for carbon neutrality by 2060, the US transitioning to renewables, and India targeting net zero by 2070 The primary global concern regarding climate change at the moment is minimising carbon emissions. Notably, the top three countries making significant efforts in this regard are China, the United States of America, and India. Global efforts are underway to address this issue. Top Carbon Emitting Countries Let us first look at the countries emitting the most carbon and the quantities they are emitting as of 2023. The data is provided in million tonnes of CO₂ per year (MtCO₂/yr), sourced from the Global Carbon Project, IEA, and EDGAR. China: Responsible for 30% of the world's total CO₂ emissions, primarily due to heavy reliance on coal. However, China is investing in solar and wind energy, aiming for carbon neutrality by 2060. Current emissions are 12,400 MtCO₂. Energy sources: Coal (55%), Oil (20%) and Gas (10%). The United States of America: Accounts for 14% of global emissions. The USA is transitioning towards natural gas and renewable energy, though progress may be affected by political changes. Current emissions are 5,100 MtCO₂. Energy sources: Oil (45%), Gas (33%) and Coal (12%). India: Contributes 7% of global emissions. India is heavily dependent on coal but is working towards reducing this through renewable energy, with a goal of net zero by 2070. Current emissions are 3,400 MtCO₂. Energy sources: Coal (70%) and Oil (25%). Russia: Emits 5% of global carbon emissions, focusing on natural gas exports but lagging in renewable energy advancement. Emissions Per Capita (2023) Major Sources Of Emissions (By Country) What Are Greenhouse Emissions? Greenhouse gases (GHGs) trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, causing a greenhouse effect. Carbon Dioxide (CO₂): Released by burning fossil fuels (coal, petrol, diesel). Methane (CH₄): Emitted from agriculture, animal husbandry, and landfills. Nitrous Oxide (N₂O): Released from fertilisers and industrial processes. Fluorinated Gases (HFCs, PFCs, SF₆): Released from refrigeration and industrial use. Understanding Carbon Emissions top videos View all Carbon emissions mainly consist of CO₂, resulting from human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation, and constitute about 75% of GHG emissions. Both greenhouse and carbon emissions lead to global warming, climate change, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events. First Published: News india World's Top Polluters: Where Does India Stand?
Newsweek
21-05-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
The Double-Edged Sword of Trump's Tariffs: Environmental Whispers Amid Economic Pain
The Trump administration's recent tariffs on imported goods, primarily framed as economic nationalism to correct trade imbalances, have an often-overlooked aspect: potential environmental co-benefits in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fast fashion waste. Societally, it is useful that these environmental co-benefits may occur, especially when the administration is actively anti-GHG mitigation and has left the Paris climate agreement. There is value to exploration of these minor and likely temporary environmental advantages against the significant co-costs to labor, livelihoods, and the broader sustainable transition. While a superficial view might see an environmental silver lining, a deeper look reveals these benefits are overshadowed by detrimental economic and long-term environmental progress impacts. The Murky Silver Lining: Environmental Co-Benefits? Tariffs increase the cost of imported goods, typically leading to a reduction in international trade volume. This decrease in cross-border movement directly correlates with lower GHG emissions, particularly from the significant shipping and transportation sectors. Rob Jackson, head of the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists who monitor greenhouse gas emissions yearly, noted that these tariffs may reduce emissions temporarily due to an anticipated economic downturn. This temporary dip results from reduced industrial output and consumption, lessening the demand for transporting raw materials and finished products globally. Proponents also argue that pricier imports could incentivize domestic manufacturing, potentially shortening supply chains and reducing the carbon footprint associated with complex global production. Localized production would eliminate extensive international shipping, thus lowering transportation emissions. President Donald Trump speaks during a 'Make America Wealthy Again' trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025, in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump speaks during a 'Make America Wealthy Again' trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025, in Washington, tariffs are also expected to impact the fast fashion industry, known for its environmental consequences from overproduction and rapid disposal of clothing. The elimination of the de minimis exemption, which previously allowed low-value packages to enter the U.S. duty-free, directly increases the cost of fast fashion items from major online retailers like Shein and Temu, heavily reliant on direct-to-consumer shipments from China. The expectation is that higher prices will make frequent purchases of cheap, trendy clothing less appealing. Fashion industry experts and environmental advocates hope this price increase could shift consumer behavior toward fewer, higher-quality, and more durable garments, ultimately reducing textile waste in landfills. Additionally, more expensive new clothing due to tariffs might increase the popularity of the second-hand clothing market, further contributing to a more circular fashion economy by extending garment lifespans. The Sharp Edge: Co-Costs to Labor and Livelihoods Despite the superficial environmental benefits, the economic realities for American and international workers and consumers present a less optimistic picture. Tariffs on imported components and materials are expected to negatively affect employment in U.S. industries relying on these inputs, as increased costs could diminish their global competitiveness. A Goldman Sachs analysis suggests a potential net negative impact on overall U.S. employment of approximately 400,000 jobs. Even when the tariffs do create jobs in specific industries, the higher costs often outweigh these benefits. In his first administration, Trump's tariffs ended up costing consumers an average of $900,000 for every steel job created. Furthermore, workers in major apparel-producing countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Cambodia are particularly vulnerable. These countries could face average tariff rates of 46 percent, 37 percent, and 49 percent respectively if the 90-day pause expires. This could lead to American retailers reducing orders or seeking alternative sources, resulting in potential factory closures, job losses, and wage pressure in these export-dependent economies. Beyond direct employment impacts, tariffs act as a consumer tax, leading to higher prices for a wide range of imported goods, including clothing, electronics, and potentially groceries. Estimates from the Yale Budget Lab and the Center for American Progress indicate that the current tariff regime could cost the average U.S. household thousands of dollars annually, with estimates ranging from $1,200 to $5,200. This increased cost of living disproportionately affects low- and middle-income households, as tariffs are inherently regressive. The broader economic consequences of these tariffs also pose a significant threat to livelihoods. The risk of reduced GDP growth, potential recession, and increased economic uncertainty can negatively impact job security, investment opportunities, and overall economic well-being across various sectors. The potential revenue generated by these tariffs might not be sufficient to offset the widespread negative economic consequences for the average American family. The Illusion of Environmentalism While reduced emissions and less fast fashion waste might seem environmentally appealing, relying on tariffs as the primary means is inefficient and carries significant economic risks. A major concern is the potential for tariffs on imported components and materials to increase the cost of clean energy technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, and EV batteries, hindering the crucial transition to a low-carbon economy. Experts largely agree the long-term environmental benefits of green energy solutions would outweigh the emissions costs required to ship these materials, thereby undoing the impact of tariffs. A more effective and sustainable approach to environmental protection involves direct and targeted policies, such as carbon pricing, stricter environmental regulations, and substantial public and private investments in renewable energy infrastructure and sustainable practices. These measures can directly address environmental challenges without the broad and often damaging economic consequences of tariffs. Furthermore, trade wars triggered by tariffs can undermine the international cooperation essential for tackling global challenges like climate change. When countries are in trade disputes, their willingness to collaborate on environmental issues, and other human health, safety, and security issues, decreases. While the Trump tariffs might offer a temporary and unintended environmental benefit by slightly slowing GHG emissions and potentially reducing fast fashion waste, these co-benefits are significantly outweighed by the substantial co-costs imposed on labor and livelihoods. The potential for job losses, wage stagnation, increased consumer prices, and broader economic instability far overshadow any minor environmental advantages. Moreover, relying on tariffs as a primary tool for environmental protection is a crude and ultimately counterproductive strategy, especially considering the potential to hinder the transition to clean energy. These co-benefits may be a small win for those who care about the environment and climate change, but the direct impacts of these tariffs are not worth the gamble with Americans' and international health, livelihood losses, and the impending loss of American influence and trust around the world. Longer-lasting benefits can only come from adopting targeted, direct, and internationally collaborative policies that prioritize environmental sustainability and economic well-being. It is this approach that can ensure a future where both people, in the United States and abroad, and the planet can prosper. J. Freya H. Latwin, Ph.D., holds degrees in environmental and developmental economics from the University of Oxford and the London School of Economics and Political Science. She's lived and worked globally and holds affiliate academic positions at East Carolina University, George Mason University, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
New US orders throw states into disarray on critical goals: 'It is uncertain what demand there is'
In April, President Donald Trump signed four executive orders aimed at supporting coal-based power plants, risking climate catastrophe for the sake of what many consider a dying industry. Per the New York Times, the executive orders demanded that federal regulations against coal power be dropped and that environmental restrictions be loosened while proposing funding for more coal projects and opening federal land to coal mining. One order in particular is actively working against state climate laws, posing a direct threat to the protection of each state's environmental needs. Coal burning is at an all-time low now that natural gas fuels are more common and solar and wind power sources are in the mix. According to Reuters, due to coal's high carbon impact and health hazards, regulations under the Biden administration have made coal burning mostly a thing of the past. Now, coal burning yields less than 20% of American electricity. Even as energy demand rises, very few are turning to coal for supply. "It is uncertain what demand there is for any greater U.S. coal output," the article continued. Despite its decline over the past decade, coal contributes over 40% of the world's industrial carbon dioxide, according to the Global Carbon Project. The movement away from coal "has been the biggest reason for the drop in U.S. emissions since 2005," reported the New York Times. Burning coal releases a plethora of planet-warming gases that drive up temperatures worldwide, intensifying extreme weather events and putting global food supply at risk. In addition, the pollutants that coal burning introduces into the atmosphere worsen our air quality and cause health issues such as asthma complications and heart attacks, per the Environmental Protection Agency. If states can't pass direct regulations on carbon emissions from coal, they can opt to incentivize other forms of energy instead. For instance, Virginia proposed financial incentives on methane capture from coal mines in 2023, and Kentucky intends to replace coal entirely with natural gas and solar power by 2035. Should the government ban gas stoves? Yes Only in new buildings Only in restaurants No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Many state governments are also standing up to the orders themselves, noted AP News, including California, Vermont, and New York. For your part, you can help reduce electrical demand and slash your electrical bills by switching to home heat pumps and solar panels. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Washington Post
16-04-2025
- Science
- Washington Post
What a record spike in planet-warming gases says about the health of the Earth
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere last year grew at the fastest rate in recorded history — a dramatic spike that scientists fear may indicate that Earth's ecosystems are so stressed by warming they can no longer absorb much of the pollution humanity emits. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Global Monitoring Laboratory on Monday released data showing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by 3.75 parts per million in 2024. That jump is 27 percent larger than the previous record increase, in 2015, and puts atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at a level not seen in at least 3 million years. Though the vast majority of planet-warming gases come from people burning fossil fuels, a separate study released Tuesday suggests that last year's sudden spike was driven by a different force: the deterioration of rainforests and other land ecosystems amid soaring global temperatures. Coming during the hottest year scientists have ever seen, the surge in atmospheric CO2 indicates that humanity is losing a crucial ally in the fight against planetary warming, experts say. The land and oceans have historically taken up about half of the greenhouse gases people emit. Without these places that absorb CO2 — known as carbon sinks — global temperature rise would be twice the roughly 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) the world has already endured. The preliminary analysis published Tuesday shows how extreme drought and raging wildfires unleashed huge amounts of carbon from forests last year, effectively canceling out any pollution they might have absorbed. 'What this is showing is that climate change itself is having an impact on the terrestrial carbon sink,' said John Miller, a carbon cycle scientist at the Global Monitoring Laboratory. Every week, NOAA monitoring stations from Hawaii to the South Pole sample the air for carbon dioxide and other gases. By combining those data from across the globe, researchers can determine what fraction of the atmosphere is filled with planet-warming pollution and how fast that proportion is increasing. The agency's estimate for 2024 shows that the CO2 growth rate sped up by more than 30 percent from the previous year. 'This is next-level high,' said Glen Peters, who studies the carbon cycle at the CICERO Center for International Climate Research in Norway. 'So it raises that concern of 'why is it much higher than expected?'' The record growth can't be blamed solely on burning fossil fuels, data suggest. Though emissions from coal, oil and gas hit an all-time high last year, according to the International Energy Agency, the record was a modest one. The growth of fossil fuel pollution has tapered off in recent years as renewable energy sources like solar and wind power have become cheaper and more widely available. Preliminary estimates from the Global Carbon Project suggest that fossil fuel emissions in 2024 increased about 0.8 percent over the previous year — not nearly enough to explain such a dramatic jump in greenhouse gas levels. Nor do researchers think the rising carbon concentrations came from the ocean, which has historically absorbed about 25 percent of the pollution that people emit. Carbon dioxide usually moves from the atmosphere to the ocean when it is taken up by photosynthetic plankton or becomes dissolved in seawater; scientists have not yet observed significant changes in either process. The only remaining explanation, Miller said, is a change in the amount of pollution being absorbed by land. Carbon sinks on land are especially vulnerable, researchers say, because they rely on biological processes that can change a lot year to year. When growing conditions are good, plants will suck up billions of tons of carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. This carbon is then locked away in wood or buried in the soil, where it can stay sequestered for centuries. On average, forests and other land-based ecosystems have taken up about 30 percent of the carbon emitted by humans in the last decade, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yet these landscapes are increasingly disrupted by human and natural forces, said Nancy Harris, research manager for the Global Forest Watch program at World Resources Institute. Using satellite imagery and other monitoring tools, Harris and her colleagues have studied how a logging operation or wildfire can unleash hundreds of years of accumulated carbon in the space of a single day. Droughts may also prevent plants from performing photosynthesis, interfering with carbon uptake. Rising temperatures can accelerate decomposition in soils, releasing more carbon dioxide back into the air. 'From a selfish humanity perspective, we've continued to rely on these forests to buffer our emissions,' Harris said. 'If we don't have that sink to rely on, climate change is going to get even worse than it is now.' When 2024 began, the Earth was already in the midst of a natural climate pattern called El Niño, when hot conditions in the Pacific Ocean tend to send global average temperatures soaring. El Niño events are known to be bad for terrestrial carbon storage, said Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Climate and Environmental Sciences Laboratory outside Paris. The warm Pacific waters tend to decrease rainfall in tropical forests, particularly the Amazon, leading to carbon-emitting wildfires and a decline in vegetation growth. In a preliminary study published to the preprint server arXiv on Tuesday, Ciais and Peters worked with a team of international researchers to analyze sources and sinks for carbon over the course of the past El Niño event, which spanned roughly from July 2023 to June 2024. Though the analysis has not been published in an academic journal, it used well-established peer-reviewed methods to track how carbon moves through the atmosphere, oceans and land. Using data from the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), they found that the dry conditions in tropical rainforests were much more extensive than during previous El Niños; at the height of the event, nearly a third of the Amazon was gripped by extreme drought. Using multiple global vegetation models as well as data from NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory, which measures carbon dioxide from space, the researchers estimated that the land took up about 2.24 fewer gigatons of carbon over the 12-month period — the rough equivalent of burning 9 billion pounds of coal. Depending on how it's calculated, the change either zeroed out the land sink or turned terrestrial ecosystems into a net source of carbon pollution. 'This tropical dryness is basically shutting down CO2 uptake,' Ciais said. The analysis only extends through June, when the El Niño was declared over. But the scientist said he was even more concerned by what came next. Though the end of the climate pattern typically signals the return of moisture, in the second half of last year the extreme drought in the Amazon surged to encompass nearly 40 percent of the rainforest. Across South America, many rivers fell to record-low levels. Wildfires ripped through the parched landscape, burning an area larger than California. On the other side of the Atlantic, an equally severe drought had descended on the rainforests of central Africa. By midsummer, more than half of the region was experiencing 'extreme' conditions, according to the ECMWF data. Satellite measurements showed that the forests were absorbing far less of the sun's radiation than normal — an indication of trees dying or becoming too stressed to perform photosynthesis. 'It's a bad cocktail of an El Niño followed by a very strong dry event, so the plants don't get a break,' Ciais said. 'This has no equivalent during previous Niño events.' It is still unclear why the world's forests suffered so intensely last year. It may be a simple case of bad luck — a severe El Niño event that happened to coincide with a randomly occurring drought. Or it could be a sign of an emerging climate feedback loop, in which rising temperatures trigger the release of more carbon, which then causes the planet to heat up further. 'The obvious question is, are we on the cusp of a tipping point in natural ecosystems?' said Rob Jackson, a climate scientist at Stanford University's Woods Institute for the Environment. 'I don't think one year's rise answers that question, so I'm not saying we are, but that's the question on my mind.' Scientists are still collecting data on last year's emissions and anxiously waiting to see what happens to the atmosphere in 2025. Yet the past year should be a warning about the toll of continued planet-warming pollution, Miller said. As long as people continue to emit greenhouse gases, temperatures will continue to rise, and the risk of unleashing carbon stored in the Earth creeps ever closer. 'We're very fortunate that we have these chemical and biological systems that are absorbing a huge amount of what we emit, but there's no guarantee,' Miller said. '[2024] is an example of that.'
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Could Trump's tariffs slow emissions? Sure, experts say, but at great cost overall
President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs have stirred widespread anxiety about a severe economic downturn -- and curiosity, for some, about how it might affect the world's warming climate. Experts say a slowdown in international trade might have a brief and slight benefit in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which come in part from fuels like gas and oil that are used to move goods around the world via ships, planes and vehicles. But any such benefit in reducing emissions, which cause climate change, will be swamped by sharply rising costs worldwide that will hurt efforts to transition to green energies. 'I would say it might help the climate in the first year or two if we have a downturn in economic activity or a recession, which no one wants,' said Rob Jackson, head of the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists who monitor greenhouse gas emissions yearly. 'But it will hurt the climate long-term because tariffs impact clean tech more than most other industries because of trade with China. 'Any emissions reduction would be temporary," said Dan Jasper, senior policy advisor at Project Drawdown. 'I'm deeply skeptical that this would have positive impacts on climate change and in particular the energy transition.' Climate experts have closely studied changes in world economic activity the last century, from the Great Depression to the recent coronavirus pandemic, looking for insights to help shape policies to reduce carbon emissions. A major U.S.-China trade war would be a very different dynamic than other recent slowdowns, as China produces much of the equipment needed for a transition to renewable energies, such as solar panels. Trump imposed, then suspended for 90 days, import taxes on dozens of countries Wednesday. He escalated his trade war with China, raising tariffs on its products to well above 100%. China makes more than 80% of the world's solar panels. The tariffs could slow global trade and economic activity. Carbon dioxide emissions dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and during the global financial crisis in 2009, then rebounded within a year. Jackson said he expects at most a 1% drop in emissions if full tariffs are implemented — significant, but far less than the 5.7% that his group calculated for the pandemic's first year. And Jackson noted that the world can't reach net-zero carbon emissions to try to limit future warming without structural changes, namely replacing fossil energy and manufacturing with clean renewable energy. 'A drop in emissions is important. But it boomerangs back to the same levels or keeps increasing afterwards,' he said. 'And we really haven't done anything meaningful to address climate issues.' Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, also thinks there could be a slight, temporary drop in greenhouse gas emissions if tariffs paralyze businesses and people aren't working. But, he said, the higher prices for components for new renewable energy facilities will make some not economical to build and there will be far fewer imports of electric vehicles, both of which will lead to more emissions. The transition to electric vehicles is an important part of the shift to clean energy to reduce emissions from road transport. The United States is a top importer of EVs and China is a top exporter. Renewable energy investor Excelsior Energy Capital announced Tuesday that it has raised just over $1 billion to continue investing equity in solar, energy storage, wind and other energy transition projects across the United States. Co-founder and managing partner Chris Moakley said they need stability and predictable costs — tariffs cause volatility. 'If there is an increase in tariffs, I think there's going to be a time where we will have a slowdown,' he said. 'The overall economics of these investments and transactions, there's going to need to be a reset.' Grid-scale batteries and solar panels, as well as power transformers, are among the hardest hit by price increases on imports, said David Shepheard, partner and energy expert at the global consultant Baringa. Combining batteries with green energy is a fast-growing climate solution. Batteries allow renewables to replace fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal, while keeping a steady flow of power when sources like wind and solar are not producing. Shepheard calculated a 55% price increase for grid-scale batteries if the tariffs are fully implemented on China, where about 80% of these batteries are manufactured, undermining the case for using solar and battery storage to satisfy a surging demand for electricity. If prices for renewables increase, the United States will turn more to fossil fuels, tying the nation to carbon-emitting power sources for decades, Shepheard added. President Joe Biden sought to lock in a trajectory for reducing the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Trump began reversing the country's energy policies his first day in office with a spate of executive orders aimed at boosting oil, gas and coal. He's also moved aggressively against clean energy technologies, including halting offshore wind lease sales in federal waters, canceling clean energy loans and threatening action against states' climate laws. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
