Vocal Voices

The smugness with which some correspondents report news is staggering.

A new report by the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre shows that emissions of carbon dioxide reached a new record in 2012 of 34.5bn tonnes - get that "a new record". However, it also reports that the rate of increase in CO2 is only half of what it has averaged over the past decade.

That second part is a cue for celebrations and much back-slapping. There is even a suggestion that at some unknown point in the future the increase might slow down permanently whilst still allowing the global economy to grow. And we all know that the global economy needs to grow forever and ever, so that's good news.

What is not said, however, is more important. Nothing is mentioned about Kyoto or Rio and their targets constantly being missed. Nothing is said about 450 ppm of atmospheric CO2 being the target for stabilisation or that it has risen nearly 100ppm in 60 years to its current level of 394ppm. Nothing is said about the need to reduce emissions levels to between 25%to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, at the latest, to achieve stabilisation. CO2 being active for 100 years in the atmosphere and us not being able to meet a 2C temp target for 2050 is only mentioned in passing

This quote from green activist Bill McKibben, who campaigns for divestment from fossil fuels

"It is good news but nowhere near good enough. The solution we need here is dictated by physics, and at the moment the physics is busy melting the Arctic and acidifying the ocean. We can't just plateau or go up less, we have to very quickly try and get the planet off fossil fuels."

is even passed off as though he agrees with the message in the reporting of the report.

Talk about twisting what was said.

Interesting isn't it.

Reality is a touch more stark.

Looking at the figures, the average annual growth per decade, from detailed records beginning was:

1960’s 0.82
1970’s 1.30
1980’s 1.59
1990’s 1.47
2000’s 1.90
2010’s 2.19

Granted the 2010's are only 3 years worth of data so could be swayed by a few peak years. But the point is they ARE peak years.

A picture speaks a thousand words....

2012 was tied for third highest place in the record. More concerning is that 2010 comes second....

At current levels of emissions we are set to hit the 450ppm in about fifteen years, not 2050 as was previously planned, and 450pp is only a best guestimate.

As McKibben notes: "at the moment the physics is busy melting the Arctic and acidifying the ocean. We can't just plateau or go up less, we have to very quickly try and get the planet off fossil fuels."

The disaster is already happening, but the reporting in the media makes it look as though we are on top of the problem and even undoing the damage of previous decades. The report does not say that at all. All it does is present the facts, the numbers. It in no way gives cause for celebration.

One of the authors, Dr Maenhout, said."It is good news but still not sufficient" but that is not how it is being presented.