Near-real-time monitoring of global CO2 emissions reveals the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic

Liu, Zhu; Ciais, Philippe; Deng, Zhu; Lei, Ruixue; Davis, Steven J.; Feng, Sha; Zheng, Bo; Cui, Daan; Dou, Xiangfeng; Zhu, Biqing; Guo, Rui; Ke, Piyu; Sun, Taochun; Lu, Chenxi; He, Pan; Wang, Yuan; Yue, Xu; Wang, Yilong; Lei, Yadong; Zhou, Hao; Cai, Zucong; Wu, Yuhui; Guo, Runtao; Han, Tingxuan; Xue, Jinjun; Boucher, Oliviér; Boucher, Eulalie; Chevallier, F.; Tanaka, Katsumasa; Wei, Yi‐Ming; Zhong, Haiwang; Chen, Kang; Zhang, Ning; Chen, Bin; Xi, Fengming; Liu, Miaomiao; Bréon, François‐Marie; Lü, Yonglong; Zhang, Qiang; Guan, Dabo; Gong, Peng; Kammen, Daniel M.; He, Kebin; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim

doi:10.1038/s41467-020-18922-7

Cited by 533 publications

(545 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

493

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Le Quéré et al ( 2020 ) showed that because of confinement in various places, the peak reduction in carbon dioxide emissions was 26%. Liu et al ( 2020 ) also reported a drop of 8.8% of carbon emissions in the first half of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. Shakil et al ( 2020 ) summarized the impact of COVID-19 on the environment: while lowered air and sound pollution, temperature, and humidity were related to COVID-19, medical and domestic wastes increased.…”

Section: Reflection 8: Consumption Versus Environmental Protectionmentioning

confidence: 93%

COVID-19 and Quality of Life: Twelve Reflections

Shek

2021

Applied Research Quality Life

128

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 has severely affected the world since December 2020. Because of its sudden onset and highly contagious nature, the world has responded in a “crisis management” manner. With effective vaccines almost available, it is appropriate at this time to have some reflections about COVID-19 in relation to the quality of life issues. In this paper, we highlight twelve issues for reflection, which can help us better prepared for future pandemics. These include: digital divide, health inequality, gender inequality, economic disadvantage, family well-being, impact on holistic well-being, economic development versus saving lives, consumption versus environmental protection, individual rights versus collective rights, international collaboration versus conflict, prevention of negative well-being, and promotion of positive well-being.

show abstract

Section: Reflection 8: Consumption Versus Environmental Protectionmentioning

confidence: 93%

COVID-19 and Quality of Life: Twelve Reflections

Shek

2021

Applied Research Quality Life

128

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To constrain the models' interpretation of whether rangeland implies the original natural vegetation to be transformed to grassland or not (e.g. browsing on shrubland), a forest mask was provided with LUH2-GCB2020; forest is assumed to be transformed to grasslands, while other natural vegetation remains (in case of secondary vegetation) or is degraded from primary to secondary vegetation (Ma et al, 2020). This is implemented in BLUE.…”

Section: Bookkeeping Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Carbon Budget 2020

Friedlingstein

O’Sullivan

Jones

et al. 2020

Earth Syst. Sci. Data

Self Cite

1,650

1,063

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2010–2019), EFOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1. For the same decade, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2019, GATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).

show abstract

“…In the first half of 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, global CO 2 emissions were 8.8% lower than in the same period in 2019 (Liu et al, 2020). To limit global heating to the aspirational Paris target of 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures (UNFCCC, 2015), global CO 2 emissions would have to be reduced by about 55% by 2030 (UNEP, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To limit global heating to the aspirational Paris target of 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures (UNFCCC, 2015), global CO 2 emissions would have to be reduced by about 55% by 2030 (UNEP, 2019). This foreshadows the magnitude of the climate mitigation challenge, which is underlined by the observation that, despite the appearance of a second wave of COVID-19 in several parts of the world, there was, commencing in April–May 2020, an increase in global emissions as some economies started to recover from the pandemic (Liu et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 and economic recovery in compliance with climate targets

Diesendorf

2020

Glob. Sustain.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-technical summary A small benefit of the disastrous COVID-19 pandemic has been the temporary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this paper asks: what strategies can return people to work without returning to the old high-emissions economy? How can we modify the old economic system to reduce environmental impacts while rebuilding employment? Technological change, such as replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy (RE), is necessary but, in an economy that's growing, unlikely to be sufficiently rapid to avoid dangerous climate change. Degrowth in physical consumption, especially by the 'rich' 10%, towards a steadystate economy, is needed as well as low-carbon jobs. Technical summary In planning recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments aim to return to economic growth that, by default, is closely coupled to growth in consumption of energy, materials and land, together with growth in population in some countries. This scenario almost certainly forecloses the option of a smooth transition to a climate in which global heating is limited to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level, the aspirational Paris target. Although the transition to energy efficiency and 100% REbased mainly on wind, solar and hydrois now technically feasible, affordable and progressing in some countries, states, cities and businesses, technological transformation would be chasing a retreating goal if economic growth returns. Even to stay below 2°C, reducing consumption, especially by the rich 10%, is needed as well as technology change. Therefore, we explore a pandemic recovery scenario in which low-carbon employment creation is fostered during a process of general degrowth, in biophysical terms, towards an ecologically sustainable steady-state economy. Strategies are suggested for governments to create low-carbon jobs, together with reduced consumption, and to drive and finance the transition. With strong public pressure on governments and business, a 2°C target without overshoot may still be possible. Social media summary Degrowth can be combined with green employment to cut emissions while improving social equity.

show abstract

Near-real-time monitoring of global CO2 emissions reveals the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic

Cited by 533 publications

References 20 publications

COVID-19 and Quality of Life: Twelve Reflections

COVID-19 and Quality of Life: Twelve Reflections

Global Carbon Budget 2020

COVID-19 and economic recovery in compliance with climate targets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About