World Emits 37 Billion Tons of CO2 for 0.6% Increase But USA CO2 Emissions Drops 1.7%

The Global Carbon Project reported that world CO2 emissions reached 37 billion tons per year in 2019. This was an increase from the 36.6 billion tons emission estimate for 2018. This was a 0.6% increase from 2018. There was 2.1 percent growth in 2018 and 1.5 percent growth in 2017.

The United States decreased emissions by 1.7% with reduced coal use and increased use of natural gas.

Net CO2 emissions from deforestation and other land-use change were 5.5±2.7 GtCO2 on average during 2009-2018, accounting for about 14% of all emissions from human activity (fossil fuel, industry, land-use change – aka less trees or more deserts).

Together, land-use change, fossil fuel and industry emissions, reached 42.1±2.8 GtCO2 in 2018. The 2019 projections is for a total CO2 emissions of 43.1 GtCO2 (39.9 to 46.2).

In 2018, the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions increased at an annual rate of 2.0%, reaching 51.8 gigatonnes in CO2 equivalent

The cumulative carbon emissions are the sum of the total CO2 emitted during a given period of time. Total cumulative emissions from 1850 to 2019 were 1649 GtCO2 from fossil fuels and industry, and 751 GtCO2 from land use change. The total of 2,400±238 GtC of emissions was partitioned among the atmosphere 953±18 GtCO2, ocean 586±73 GtCO2, and the land 733±147 GtCO2.

Methane (CH4) is the second most important long-lived greenhouse gas and contributes about 17% of radiative forcing. Approximately 40% of methane is emitted into the atmosphere by natural sources (e.g., wetlands and termites), and about 60% comes from human activities like cattle breeding, rice agriculture, fossil fuel exploitation, landfills and biomass burning.

Atmospheric methane reached a new high of about 1869 parts per billion (ppb) in 2018 and is now 259% of the pre-industrial level.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted into the atmosphere from both natural (about 60%) and anthropogenic sources (approximately 40%), including oceans, soil, biomass burning, fertilizer use, and various industrial processes.

Nitrous oxide also plays an important role in the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer which protects us from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun. It accounts for about 6% of radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases.

35 thoughts on “World Emits 37 Billion Tons of CO2 for 0.6% Increase But USA CO2 Emissions Drops 1.7%”

  1. Any climate reality you believe will lead to the same response, if you understand the basic situation. Go to Space, starting with space Solar Power.
    Thus, worrying about the climate details are like worrying about the color and quality of the paint job on the approaching locomotive. It does not matter!

  2. Isn’t it funny how your cohort has no problem when democrats do this kind of thing on the topics they don’t like, so spare me your melodrama.

  3. Nuclear power will never be deregulated, but it doesn’t have to be over-regulated. And the insurance industry is always socialist, to the extent that they depend on government backing for large catastrophes. As climate change starts to bite, waves will be crashing through a lot more cities. Maybe a few more millirem above background somewhere, every thirty years or so, won’t seem so apocalyptic, after all.

  4. Deregulated nuclear will never be able to afford insurance, so nuclear power will always remain an inherently socialist construct.
    The grid doesn’t need upgrading to support EVs. Light vehicle miles travelled being 100% EV is only 25% more electricity demand, all of which can be accommodated with the current grid (just don’t charge at late afternoon early evening peak).
    3.2 trillion miles is only 1000 TWh.

  5. Yes.
    And then the Isthmus of Panama formed and isolated the great oceans.
    We still lack a good hypothesis for the glacial cycles, though. I’m betting on solar intensity variations.

  6. They are slowly losing their grip on power. A combination of technological progress and innovative thinking is moving us away from things like the internal combustion engine. Once electric vehicles reach the market tipping point and take over, I think things will accelerate even more so, even in the developing world. The worlds power grid will need some upgrading. This will then lead to making renewables more practical. I am really hoping to see a deregulation of the nuclear industry in the near future. This would not only accelerate this trend but piss off the envirosocialists.

  7. Why?

    Climate activists are science denier and we live in a cold global climate.

    To that the only science study that clam it had as first detect higher greenhouse effect as function of higher level of CO2 do the opposite.

    Just change periods ore region and the study had give the opposite results.

    Take Colorado for the same period that is some between Oklahoma and Alaska or global 1940-1970 and 1988-1992.

  8. I give you some links from science that most climate activists believe.

    This is the human activity that contribute most to less temperature differences => higher global average temperature => more life friendly global climate.

    This is opposite human activity.

    This is how we can send coal to seabed, than goes below earth surface in nearest subduction zone and come up as methane or oil several million years later.

    I´m for massproduktion of FS-MSR, that is the only technique we now work to create global basic income until 2050, with out it we will see som human created catastrophe.

  9. Why don´t you ask for science?

    Science show that we are living in an ice age that started 2,6 million years ago with interglacial like this one that have warmer more life friendly global climate.

    In the beginning of this interglacial the global average temperature was 2 C higher and 6 C nere the poles lika Svalbard.

    Then the sea was 1m higher around the great barrier reef but sea level is local so where ice push down continental plates the part that was under sea flowed up, like the North sea and the part between Asia and North Amerika.

    During that time Sahara was green and therefor don´t radiate as mush energy to space as now.

    Then the norther hemisphere was nearest the sun during its summer and that gave 7% higher sun effect.

    Ice free north pole in summer gave more than 7% less sun energi on winter hindren.

    On the south hemisphere there is more temperature ocean water that circulate and give less temperatur differences.

    All is about temperature differences non about changed greenhouse effect.

    To that have no one find higher greenhouse effect in earth atmosphere as function of higher level of carbon dioxide, if it was over 150 ppm it would be easy to detect for just CO2 act as greenhouse gas on 15µm wavelength.

    Climate politic has noting to do with climate but all to do with power and move it from voters to NGO´s like UN.

    Is easy to take as much carbon from atmosphere as human activity resale just by ocean fertilization, but they don´t want it, think about why?

  10. It’s sad that the agency that put men on the moon now has many of its public information webpages censored because the country elected a science illiterate as a president. Better monitoring of methane leaks would show whether the pivot from coal to natural gas was a net positive for the climate, but the administration has been trying to cut testing and roll back regulations. ( On mercury from coal, too, the little rascal – he probably thinks more retarded voters will help his polling.)

  11. In 1973, when the OPEC embargo doubled oil prices more or less overnight, about a fifth of US electricity was generated by burning oil. Within about fifteen years, that position had been taken by nuclear. In the same time span, oil went from being the source of nearly half of France’s power to about 1%, and nuclear from below 5% to 80%. In Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, and Ontario, over the same period, the combination of a ( temporary ) price shove and some government planning raised the percentage of power from nuclear to respectively 30, 45, 50 and 60 %. Those are the kind of time scales and magnitudes of change that need to happen again.

  12. To dream the impossible dream. I think there are two nuclear power plants under construction in the US. Both are way over budget and taking way longer to build than originally scheduled. In the same time tens of Gigawatts of wind and solar were built. Each time is gets cheaper and faster.

  13. Sadly the left (the leadership) does not want a good solution to the problem, they want THEIR solution to the problem which conveniently includes giving government more power and money.

  14. They claim that Allam cycle is cheaper and more efficient than coal and combine-cycle gas power plants, even before adding the cost of carbon capture to those plants. Whereas with Allam cycle, carbon capture is a native byproduct of the cycle.

    However, they need air separation (to separate oxygen and nitrogen) before combustion, and some have raised concerns that this may lower overall efficiency and raise costs too much.

  15. NET Power are testing a 25 MWe (50 MWth) Allam cycle power plant in Texas, and targeting a 300 MWe commercial plant for 2022. If they’re successful, it would help reduce and potentially eliminate emissions from new and retrofitted gas and gassified coal power plants.

    Allam cycle produces a pressurized (supercritical) pure CO2 output, which ideally would be coupled with sequestration projects. But more likely they’ll sell it to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) operators. That would end up sequestering the CO2 from the power plants, but leave emissions from the oil products (unless those are captured and sequestered too). Overall, that may still produce a reduction in total. (Worst case, they may just release the CO2, but it makes more sense to sell it, and there seems to be a market.)

    Furthermore, Allam cycle plants would have a synergy that could allow carbon-free hydrogen and ammonia production, which could further reduce global emissions. Coal gassification or methane reforming normally produces hydrogen + CO2. But here the CO2 can be merged with CO2 stream from the Allam cycle and sequestered, leaving just the hydrogen. The Allam cycle uses pure oxygen, so it produces nitrogen as a byproduct. That can be combined with the hydrogen to make ammonia, which is used for fertilizers and industrial processes.

  16. I stand corrected. This is a quote from him before he became president. Maybe he didn’t get everything done he planned to:

    “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted”


    “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad,” he added. “Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to, uh, retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

  17. Obama did not shut down coal power plants. He did effectively block the addition of new coal power plants by making restrictions on CO2 for new power plants of any kind.
    Yes, plants shut down, but this was by choice of the utilities…they wanted more efficient and cheap natural gas power plants. Though, various State regulations in some cases compelled utilities to add some percentage of renewable and/or low carbon energy.
    Obama did shut down most lead smelters and lead mines…by simply enforcing rules that had been in place for decades they never were able to comply with. That backfired somewhat. The smelting moved right over the boarder in Mexico where the plants are much dirtier than the ones that got closed.

    I certainly don’t think electricity needs to be more expensive. Don’t know if he said this or not. I doubt it. Environmentalists have certainly said this. They are just wrong. We need energy that is clean and cheaper than the fossil alternatives…so people will want to switch…especially other nations like China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and all the other rapidly industrializing countries.

  18. It is good to see that the US Carbon Footprint is heading in the right direction. Perhaps this will help us regain a leadership status in the fight to get carbon emissions down worldwide. Natural Gas is cleaner than coal, but we still need to find more ways that when we burn it we use technology to minimize any emissions.

    U.S. industry should look at sustainable energy/CO2 reduction technology as a market opportunity rather than something to be fought against. If the U.S. govt. cannot legislate corrective action, at least it should stop indulging in the rhetoric of anti-science and climate change denial.

  19. A self pat on the back may not be warranted. Our effects actually might be worse than China. Unburned methane leaks are likely up from fracking. We don’t get it all. The ground will leak a sizable amount…and may for decades after we have stopped collecting it. There are also accidents and releases when we are digging for it. And methane is lost from bad connections and when a connection is released say after something is filed and you are done, you separate it from the line. What is sitting in the hose before the valve or pipe escapes. This is relevant as methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas. Oil you see. Everyone in concerned when that stuff starts oozing, but natural gas can leak for months before anyone notices especially if it is happening outdoors.

    We really need to move onto nuclear.

  20. In 2018, global CO2 emissions were dominated by emissions from China (28%), the USA (15%), the EU (28-member states; 9%) and India (7%). Growth rates of these countries from 2017 to 2018 were +2.3% for China, +2.8% for the USA, -2.1% for the EU28, and +8.0% for India. The per-capita CO2 emissions in 2017 were 4.8 tCO2 tonnes of carbon person-1yr-1 for the globe, 16.6 tCO2 for the USA, 7.0 tCO2 for China, 6.9 tCO2 for the EU28, and 2.0 tCO2 for India.

    The 2019 growth rate projections are +2.6% (+0.7 to +4.4%) for China, -1.7% (-3.7 to +0.3) for the U.S.A, -1.7% (-3.4 to +0.1%) for EU28, and +1.8% (+0.7 to +3.7%) for India.

    Is the angle of the curve going from negative to positive “-3.7 to +0.3”?

  21. Are you saying Obama shutting down coal plants while saying electricity needs to be more expensive for everyone to save the world isn’t a political effort?

  22. It does not matter whether the climate is heating, cooling or staying the same. The reason does not matter. All possibilities mean the same thing: Start Space Solar Power project NOW!.

  23. The Paris Accord was mostly about transferring $100 billion a year from developed economies to developing economies. You know, the ones whose CO2 emissions are increasing.
    Permit me to be skeptical that of the $100 billion, the amount spent on mitigating pollution in all forms in those countries would be greater than the amount the local oligarchs would rake off.

  24. You think being part of some non-binding (and no consequences) multi-country arrangement will have any effect on US domestic policy? You might be falling into the argument trap many use, “only if the US was part of the agreement……” That is not how the US operates. See Obama as a perfect example. There was nothing stopping him from acting “as if” the US signed an agreement or was part of the global effort. Just like there was nothing stopping the EU from doing their share ON THEIR OWN (and, it turns out, not being successful at it though touting their virtue signaling).

    We are a very decentralized, localized country with competing interests. A continent. In general Americans don’t really care about international topics and certainly when others – like the EU (who is driving this) – tries to imprint US policy when at the same time they can’t deliver.

  25. Not quite. Gas replacing coal mainly. Now imagine how much emissions could have dropped with actual political effort!

  26. We lowered our emissions because we are not part of the Paris Agreement. Greta is right – the big climate meetings and agreements are a waste of time.

Comments are closed.