Glen Peters
@glenpeters.bsky.social
Energy, emissions, & climate
CICERO Center for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway
https://cicero.oslo.no/en/employees/glen-peters
CICERO Center for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway
https://cicero.oslo.no/en/employees/glen-peters
If you want more figures on the UNEP Emissions Gap Report emission trends (Chapter 2), then you can't go past @wflamb.bsky.social page...
This is the change in total global GHG emissions from 2015 to 2014.
Figures and data here: lambwf.github.io/UNEP-Gap-Rep...
This is the change in total global GHG emissions from 2015 to 2014.
Figures and data here: lambwf.github.io/UNEP-Gap-Rep...
November 6, 2025 at 10:00 AM
If you want more figures on the UNEP Emissions Gap Report emission trends (Chapter 2), then you can't go past @wflamb.bsky.social page...
This is the change in total global GHG emissions from 2015 to 2014.
Figures and data here: lambwf.github.io/UNEP-Gap-Rep...
This is the change in total global GHG emissions from 2015 to 2014.
Figures and data here: lambwf.github.io/UNEP-Gap-Rep...
*I did not ring my colleagues of course, I used this modern thing called email...
BTW here is the 10 year changes, with LUC going down
3/3
BTW here is the 10 year changes, with LUC going down
3/3
November 6, 2025 at 8:59 AM
*I did not ring my colleagues of course, I used this modern thing called email...
BTW here is the 10 year changes, with LUC going down
3/3
BTW here is the 10 year changes, with LUC going down
3/3
"Here is the graph, which is so wild, the climate scientist had to call a colleague & check it"
It is true actually! In the Global Carbon Budget we do not usually show the LUC like this, because of interannual variability & uncertainty. But it is what the data says!
politiken.dk/klima/art106...
It is true actually! In the Global Carbon Budget we do not usually show the LUC like this, because of interannual variability & uncertainty. But it is what the data says!
politiken.dk/klima/art106...
November 6, 2025 at 7:40 AM
"Here is the graph, which is so wild, the climate scientist had to call a colleague & check it"
It is true actually! In the Global Carbon Budget we do not usually show the LUC like this, because of interannual variability & uncertainty. But it is what the data says!
politiken.dk/klima/art106...
It is true actually! In the Global Carbon Budget we do not usually show the LUC like this, because of interannual variability & uncertainty. But it is what the data says!
politiken.dk/klima/art106...
GHG Emissions in the top six absolute emitters, & per person.
Russia has passed the US in terms of GHG emissions per person.
No peak in Chinese emissions, & not expected even if CO2 emissions peak.
Country figures exclude LULUCF.
4/
Russia has passed the US in terms of GHG emissions per person.
No peak in Chinese emissions, & not expected even if CO2 emissions peak.
Country figures exclude LULUCF.
4/
November 5, 2025 at 8:24 AM
GHG Emissions in the top six absolute emitters, & per person.
Russia has passed the US in terms of GHG emissions per person.
No peak in Chinese emissions, & not expected even if CO2 emissions peak.
Country figures exclude LULUCF.
4/
Russia has passed the US in terms of GHG emissions per person.
No peak in Chinese emissions, & not expected even if CO2 emissions peak.
Country figures exclude LULUCF.
4/
What are the most important sectors?
* 73% of GHG emissions from fossil fuels
* 27%: Power sector
* 20%: Industry (11%) + processes (9%)
* 15%: Transport
* 11%: Agriculture
* 8%: LULUCF (though deforestation higher)
3/
* 73% of GHG emissions from fossil fuels
* 27%: Power sector
* 20%: Industry (11%) + processes (9%)
* 15%: Transport
* 11%: Agriculture
* 8%: LULUCF (though deforestation higher)
3/
November 5, 2025 at 8:24 AM
What are the most important sectors?
* 73% of GHG emissions from fossil fuels
* 27%: Power sector
* 20%: Industry (11%) + processes (9%)
* 15%: Transport
* 11%: Agriculture
* 8%: LULUCF (though deforestation higher)
3/
* 73% of GHG emissions from fossil fuels
* 27%: Power sector
* 20%: Industry (11%) + processes (9%)
* 15%: Transport
* 11%: Agriculture
* 8%: LULUCF (though deforestation higher)
3/
Why did GHG emissions rise?
50% of the increase was from land-use change, primarily due to more fires during El Niño. We expect this to drop in 2025. LUC is also very uncertain.
All other main regions, except EU27, with rising emissions in 2024.
2/
50% of the increase was from land-use change, primarily due to more fires during El Niño. We expect this to drop in 2025. LUC is also very uncertain.
All other main regions, except EU27, with rising emissions in 2024.
2/
November 5, 2025 at 8:24 AM
Why did GHG emissions rise?
50% of the increase was from land-use change, primarily due to more fires during El Niño. We expect this to drop in 2025. LUC is also very uncertain.
All other main regions, except EU27, with rising emissions in 2024.
2/
50% of the increase was from land-use change, primarily due to more fires during El Niño. We expect this to drop in 2025. LUC is also very uncertain.
All other main regions, except EU27, with rising emissions in 2024.
2/
Global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions rise again in 2024, up 2.3%.
This is our collective progress, 10 years after the Paris Agreement.
www.unep.org/resources/em...
1/
This is our collective progress, 10 years after the Paris Agreement.
www.unep.org/resources/em...
1/
November 5, 2025 at 8:24 AM
Global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions rise again in 2024, up 2.3%.
This is our collective progress, 10 years after the Paris Agreement.
www.unep.org/resources/em...
1/
This is our collective progress, 10 years after the Paris Agreement.
www.unep.org/resources/em...
1/
Correct, there were six that did not exceed 1.5C in AR6. Here they are. Those higher ones, in 2050, have some issues with "infilling" (non-CO2 emissions were estimated from other models, & that infilling did not work so well for those scenarios, so yes, <1.5C, but they were not designed to be).
November 4, 2025 at 10:11 AM
Correct, there were six that did not exceed 1.5C in AR6. Here they are. Those higher ones, in 2050, have some issues with "infilling" (non-CO2 emissions were estimated from other models, & that infilling did not work so well for those scenarios, so yes, <1.5C, but they were not designed to be).
Perhaps the most important word in our commentary is "incentivise".
If IAMers cannot incentivise others to submit scenarios, assess scenarios & the work of others, build new methods & tools, publish high level articles, etc, then the whole enterprise will not work.
5/5
If IAMers cannot incentivise others to submit scenarios, assess scenarios & the work of others, build new methods & tools, publish high level articles, etc, then the whole enterprise will not work.
5/5
November 4, 2025 at 8:23 AM
Perhaps the most important word in our commentary is "incentivise".
If IAMers cannot incentivise others to submit scenarios, assess scenarios & the work of others, build new methods & tools, publish high level articles, etc, then the whole enterprise will not work.
5/5
If IAMers cannot incentivise others to submit scenarios, assess scenarios & the work of others, build new methods & tools, publish high level articles, etc, then the whole enterprise will not work.
5/5
There is a new Perspective which comes to much the same conclusions on future databases, thankfully they did manage to mention earlier work in passing...
(ref 28 is the article in the first post, ref 29 is another in the same journal special collection).
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
3/
(ref 28 is the article in the first post, ref 29 is another in the same journal special collection).
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
3/
November 4, 2025 at 8:23 AM
There is a new Perspective which comes to much the same conclusions on future databases, thankfully they did manage to mention earlier work in passing...
(ref 28 is the article in the first post, ref 29 is another in the same journal special collection).
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
3/
(ref 28 is the article in the first post, ref 29 is another in the same journal special collection).
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
3/
A part of the motivation for that is now published, highlighting how voluntary submissions to a database can & do (eg IPCC) lead to an uneven representation of scenarios.
The community needs to developed tools to assess databases, not just use summary statistics:
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
2/
The community needs to developed tools to assess databases, not just use summary statistics:
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
2/
November 4, 2025 at 8:23 AM
A part of the motivation for that is now published, highlighting how voluntary submissions to a database can & do (eg IPCC) lead to an uneven representation of scenarios.
The community needs to developed tools to assess databases, not just use summary statistics:
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
2/
The community needs to developed tools to assess databases, not just use summary statistics:
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
2/
Two years ago we had a commentary on how future scenario databases could look. We suggested a more CMIP like approach, with peer reviewed scenario protocols, an open process & open data, community efforts, etc, to encourage (probably not solve) inclusivity.
www.nature.com/articles/s44...
1/
www.nature.com/articles/s44...
1/
November 4, 2025 at 8:23 AM
Two years ago we had a commentary on how future scenario databases could look. We suggested a more CMIP like approach, with peer reviewed scenario protocols, an open process & open data, community efforts, etc, to encourage (probably not solve) inclusivity.
www.nature.com/articles/s44...
1/
www.nature.com/articles/s44...
1/
There is increasing talk about overshoot of 1.5°C, particularly that *now* we can only achieve 1.5°C by first overshooting 1.5°C.
Well, sorry to tell you, 1.5°C have always been overshoot scenarios. Here from the original 'SSP' 1.5°C scenarios published in 2018.
[Overshoot is a scenario design]
Well, sorry to tell you, 1.5°C have always been overshoot scenarios. Here from the original 'SSP' 1.5°C scenarios published in 2018.
[Overshoot is a scenario design]
November 4, 2025 at 8:00 AM
There is increasing talk about overshoot of 1.5°C, particularly that *now* we can only achieve 1.5°C by first overshooting 1.5°C.
Well, sorry to tell you, 1.5°C have always been overshoot scenarios. Here from the original 'SSP' 1.5°C scenarios published in 2018.
[Overshoot is a scenario design]
Well, sorry to tell you, 1.5°C have always been overshoot scenarios. Here from the original 'SSP' 1.5°C scenarios published in 2018.
[Overshoot is a scenario design]
The National Party of Australia dumped its Net Zero policy as Australia is moving too fast, & faster than its peers in the OECD.
Well, fossil CO2 emissions in the last 10 years have gone down
* -0.5% per year in Australia
* -1.4% per year in the OECD
Australia is somewhat of a laggard...
Well, fossil CO2 emissions in the last 10 years have gone down
* -0.5% per year in Australia
* -1.4% per year in the OECD
Australia is somewhat of a laggard...
November 3, 2025 at 9:00 AM
The National Party of Australia dumped its Net Zero policy as Australia is moving too fast, & faster than its peers in the OECD.
Well, fossil CO2 emissions in the last 10 years have gone down
* -0.5% per year in Australia
* -1.4% per year in the OECD
Australia is somewhat of a laggard...
Well, fossil CO2 emissions in the last 10 years have gone down
* -0.5% per year in Australia
* -1.4% per year in the OECD
Australia is somewhat of a laggard...
Although conceptually appealing, reliance on offsets has fatal flaws:
* Difficult to ensure that they represent real emissions reductions
* Ensuring that emission reductions are ‘additional’
* Crucial to ensure that the CO2 is locked away permanently
ICYMI: www.nature.com/articles/d41...
* Difficult to ensure that they represent real emissions reductions
* Ensuring that emission reductions are ‘additional’
* Crucial to ensure that the CO2 is locked away permanently
ICYMI: www.nature.com/articles/d41...
November 3, 2025 at 8:45 AM
Although conceptually appealing, reliance on offsets has fatal flaws:
* Difficult to ensure that they represent real emissions reductions
* Ensuring that emission reductions are ‘additional’
* Crucial to ensure that the CO2 is locked away permanently
ICYMI: www.nature.com/articles/d41...
* Difficult to ensure that they represent real emissions reductions
* Ensuring that emission reductions are ‘additional’
* Crucial to ensure that the CO2 is locked away permanently
ICYMI: www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Where are we on climate action?
The bottom black line is countries that submitted new commitments (on time), the dotted line is global emissions. Blue shading are the commitments.
That is the progress 10 years after Paris...
unfccc.int/process-and-...
The bottom black line is countries that submitted new commitments (on time), the dotted line is global emissions. Blue shading are the commitments.
That is the progress 10 years after Paris...
unfccc.int/process-and-...
October 30, 2025 at 8:11 AM
Where are we on climate action?
The bottom black line is countries that submitted new commitments (on time), the dotted line is global emissions. Blue shading are the commitments.
That is the progress 10 years after Paris...
unfccc.int/process-and-...
The bottom black line is countries that submitted new commitments (on time), the dotted line is global emissions. Blue shading are the commitments.
That is the progress 10 years after Paris...
unfccc.int/process-and-...
I asked ChatGPT for a summar. This look about right?
October 28, 2025 at 7:21 PM
I asked ChatGPT for a summar. This look about right?
This is the text in the summary of the last IPCC report. The only element estimated are the "direct costs", grey bars in the previous post, as this is a direct output of "Integrated Assessment Models".
You find the last report here: www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth...
10/10
You find the last report here: www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth...
10/10
October 24, 2025 at 9:14 AM
This is the text in the summary of the last IPCC report. The only element estimated are the "direct costs", grey bars in the previous post, as this is a direct output of "Integrated Assessment Models".
You find the last report here: www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth...
10/10
You find the last report here: www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth...
10/10
This is all noted in the IPCC, but the authors were very tentative to put actual numbers on different elements because they know the estimates are incomplete and misleading.
But when assessing all the literature, it is clear it is cheaper overall to mitigate than to not.
9/
But when assessing all the literature, it is clear it is cheaper overall to mitigate than to not.
9/
October 24, 2025 at 9:14 AM
This is all noted in the IPCC, but the authors were very tentative to put actual numbers on different elements because they know the estimates are incomplete and misleading.
But when assessing all the literature, it is clear it is cheaper overall to mitigate than to not.
9/
But when assessing all the literature, it is clear it is cheaper overall to mitigate than to not.
9/
When you hear "costs" in the context of climate, it usually ignores benefits from avoiding climate changes, co-benefits (such as reduced air pollution), macroeconomic effects, assumes the current world state is optimal, etc.
Essentially, only the grey bar is considered in the IPCC rdcu.be/cByCM
8/
Essentially, only the grey bar is considered in the IPCC rdcu.be/cByCM
8/
October 24, 2025 at 9:14 AM
When you hear "costs" in the context of climate, it usually ignores benefits from avoiding climate changes, co-benefits (such as reduced air pollution), macroeconomic effects, assumes the current world state is optimal, etc.
Essentially, only the grey bar is considered in the IPCC rdcu.be/cByCM
8/
Essentially, only the grey bar is considered in the IPCC rdcu.be/cByCM
8/
The economists dream is to put a value on climate impacts. The estimates are all over the place. Many things can't be evaluated.
Yet: "The global economic benefit of limiting warming to 2°C is reported to exceed the cost of mitigation in most of the assessed literature (medium confidence)."
6/
Yet: "The global economic benefit of limiting warming to 2°C is reported to exceed the cost of mitigation in most of the assessed literature (medium confidence)."
6/
October 24, 2025 at 9:14 AM
The economists dream is to put a value on climate impacts. The estimates are all over the place. Many things can't be evaluated.
Yet: "The global economic benefit of limiting warming to 2°C is reported to exceed the cost of mitigation in most of the assessed literature (medium confidence)."
6/
Yet: "The global economic benefit of limiting warming to 2°C is reported to exceed the cost of mitigation in most of the assessed literature (medium confidence)."
6/
Much of mitigation is an investment. Investment stimulates economic activity, jobs, etc. Studies often find that the stimulus effects offset the direct 'costs' (e.g., IMF, WB, NGFS, etc). But, very few macroeconomic model studies are assessed in the IPCC. This is noted in the SPM.
3/
3/
October 24, 2025 at 9:14 AM
Much of mitigation is an investment. Investment stimulates economic activity, jobs, etc. Studies often find that the stimulus effects offset the direct 'costs' (e.g., IMF, WB, NGFS, etc). But, very few macroeconomic model studies are assessed in the IPCC. This is noted in the SPM.
3/
3/
"Mitigation options costing USD100/tCO2-eq or less could reduce global GHG emissions by at least half the 2019 level by 2030 (high confidence)."
But, even this is very misleading, because this tallies only costs, not benefits.
2/
But, even this is very misleading, because this tallies only costs, not benefits.
2/
October 24, 2025 at 9:14 AM
"Mitigation options costing USD100/tCO2-eq or less could reduce global GHG emissions by at least half the 2019 level by 2030 (high confidence)."
But, even this is very misleading, because this tallies only costs, not benefits.
2/
But, even this is very misleading, because this tallies only costs, not benefits.
2/
I have been tracking (official) projections for Norway, and the drop was not predicted (the year of projection is the cross). The harvest is not so far off, but the green and orange lines did not project it at all. For the blue and pink lines they had full knowledge of the drop.
October 24, 2025 at 6:57 AM
I have been tracking (official) projections for Norway, and the drop was not predicted (the year of projection is the cross). The harvest is not so far off, but the green and orange lines did not project it at all. For the blue and pink lines they had full knowledge of the drop.
But what is the harvest used for?
Most is used for bioenergy, then pulp & paper, with less than 20% going into long-lived products.
A lot of the bioenergy is used for pulp & paper, overall, making pulp & paper quite important in Finland.
5/
Most is used for bioenergy, then pulp & paper, with less than 20% going into long-lived products.
A lot of the bioenergy is used for pulp & paper, overall, making pulp & paper quite important in Finland.
5/
October 23, 2025 at 7:54 AM
But what is the harvest used for?
Most is used for bioenergy, then pulp & paper, with less than 20% going into long-lived products.
A lot of the bioenergy is used for pulp & paper, overall, making pulp & paper quite important in Finland.
5/
Most is used for bioenergy, then pulp & paper, with less than 20% going into long-lived products.
A lot of the bioenergy is used for pulp & paper, overall, making pulp & paper quite important in Finland.
5/