Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Glen Peters

@glenpeters.bsky.social

25K followers 290 following 1.8K posts

Energy, emissions, & climate CICERO Center for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway https://cicero.oslo.no/en/employees/glen-peters

Videos

Environmental science 41%

Economics 22%

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · Nov 13

📢Global Carbon Budget 2024📢

Despite some predicting a peak in global fossil CO2 emissions, we estimate growth of 0.8% [-0.3% to 1.9%] in 2024. Maybe a peak next year?

Is it all bad news, or can we find some good news?

essd.copernicus.org/preprints/es...

1/

21 150 350

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 18h

Not sure about that (left) and coal generation is done somewhat (right). Figures from here: robbieandrew.github.io/china/

(But yes, China is still building coal power plants)

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 1d

The difference between production and consumption is what China exports on a net basis. So it is important, not dominant. But these estimates are not near real time, so may not get recent dynamics. I think it is mainly that energy use is growing faster than anticipated.

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 1d

Yes, probably a mix of all these factors. The point being the electricity is dynamic. It is not just a simple displacement from industry to electricity. There will be new uses, rebound effects, etc, all wrapped in together.

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 1d

For interest, electricity has grown, while industry has levelled. That makes sense.

I am saying that electricity has grown even faster than assumed.

1 1

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 1d

I am questioning the "surely"... bsky.app/profile/glen...

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 1d

Yes, you would think. My hypothesis would be that electricity has grown faster than many expected, hence solar/wind did not account for the annual increment in energy use. Hence no peak.

Intuitively you are correct, but maybe our intuition has led us astray...

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 1d

While the CO2/Energy (shift to renewables) has continued in China, Energy/GDP (energy efficiency, structural change) has basically stopped. Maybe this is because of electrification?

In any case, the changes in CO2/GDP in the last 10 years are very disappointing (hence no peak).

3/3

3 2 13

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 1d

We thought the growth in solar and wind was enough to cover the annual increment in energy in 2015, but total energy grew even faster.

After 10 years, maybe solar and wind have caught up again (CO2/Energy improving)?

Time will tell.

2/

1 1 12

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 1d

Why didn't Chinese fossil CO2 emissions peak in 2013?

It looked like Chinese emissions might peak in 2013, after declines in 2014 & 2015, but since then, improvements in the CO2 efficiency of the economy slowed significantly.

CO2 will peak if efficiency improvements return.

See ALT text.

1/

The figure is a simplified Kaya Identity. The bars are the contributions to growth from GDP, Energy/GDP, CO2/Energy, and when you add the bars together you get the black dot, CO2 growth. For a given GDP, if the improvements in Energy/GDP and CO2/Energy are greater than the GDP growth, then emissions go down.

3 10 25

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 1d

😆

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 1d

For what it is worth, EDGAR v10 has 0.52% up in 2024, including leap year adjustment.

Reposted by Daniela Gabor, Glen P. Peters, Graeme S. Cumming , and 6 more Daniela Gabor, Glen P. Peters, Graeme S. Cumming, Alistair Munro, Benjamin Braun, Leonhard Dobusch, John Hogan, Étienne Espagne, Matthias Schnetzer

Gregor Semieniuk @gregorsemieniuk.bsky.social · 1d

🚨NEW PAPER🚨
We all know the 2022 energy price shock fueled the cost of living crisis. It also caused a profit bonanza for the very rich. We show the US reaped the largest profits ($377bn) of any country. 50% went to the richest 1%, only 1% to the bottom 50%. A🧵 www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

River or sankey diagram showing the allocation of profits from global oil and gas companies to quantiles of the US wealth size distribution via financial system intermediaries, such as asset managers, and categories of ultimate beneficiaries, such as business owners, pension funds and shareholders in listed companies. The scale is hundreds of billions of US dollars, and ultimately 50.4% of profits reaching the US personal wealth distribution go to the richest 1% of households.

8 190 320

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 1d

GCB has a leap year adjustment, not sure of IEA. Not at laptop, so can't do direct comparison.

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 2d

Well, depending on dataset. I think CM is the only one with 2024 down.

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 2d

There is a lot of talk about a peak in Chinese fossil CO2 emissions.

Carbon Monitor already has estimated a decline in Chinese CO2 in 2024 (last year) of -0.44%.
carbonmonitor.org/variation

The Global Carbon Budget has a 0.7% increase in 2024.

Across two datasets, we don't know if up or down!

4 11 52

Reposted by Valerie M. Delmotte, Glen P. Peters, Sonia I. Seneviratne , and 1 more Valerie M. Delmotte, Glen P. Peters, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Diane E. Pataki

IPCC @ipcc.bsky.social · 2d

📣 Attention: Early-career researchers from developing countries & countries in transition!

Are you interested in becoming a Chapter Scientist and supporting author teams for #IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report?

Apply by 18 Oct 2025

🔗 www.ipcc.ch/2025/10/07/c...

30 23

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 4d

"It is the model with the most scenarios that has the largest influence on 1.5°C scenario findings. Individual studies have only a small or negligible impact on most findings," says @idasogn.bsky.social

cicero.oslo.no/en/articles/...

2 4 16

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 5d

It is possible to make narratives where it makes sense. Maybe technology develops and we have scalable free fusion in 50 years, and so the overshoot part is easy. I just think it is more relevant to look at the consequences of 2.5C, then look at what is different going from 2.5 to 2.0C.

1 4

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 5d

Sure, a valid point. But the assumption is "urgent action doesn't happen now, but it will suddenly happen in 20 years". So we are irrational for the next 10-20 years, then suddenly, we are all rational. I think that future is rather unlikely. It is more likely we just have a warmer world.

2 2

Reposted by Glen P. Peters

Robbie Andrew @robbieandrew.bsky.social · 6d

My estimates of how much Norway's CO₂ emissions have been reduced as a result of EVs, PHEVs, and biofuels.
robbieandrew.github.io/EV/

Graph showing: Avoided emissions from passenger cars in Norway

13 36 120

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 6d

Yes, it is amazing. Tesla is quite established in Norway, they often have good deals and cut prices if sales drop, and have good charging infrastructure. Then they probably discount the extra baggage of the owner (if they even care)...

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 6d

Do you know how many people die each year from air pollution from coal power plants, even before we talk about climate?

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 6d

Actually, I made a thread on this. You will see on the C2 and C3 scenarios, there are some with delay. Often they are "don't do anything to 2025 or 2030, then go crazy on mitigation". This will also give you an idea of the mapping of current trends. bsky.app/profile/glen...

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · Apr 16

Just your regular reminder of where global CO2 emissions are tracking compared to scenarios that keep warming to below 1.5C in 2100, with "no or low overshoot" (maximum temperature around 1.6C).

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....

C1/

1 1

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 7d

I wonder how important this is for people buying Tesla's. If they were undecided between a Tesla and a non-Tesla, but then found the deal was so good with the Tesla?

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 7d

Yes, but there was criteria. They had to have emissions and trends within a certain range. So if you had a scenario with peak emissions in 2010, it would not be included, for example. So all scenarios would have been made from 2015 or later, in general.

Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social · 7d

Nothing wrong with a conference, etc, I am just a little on the picky side.

4/4

1 3