# data[].attributes.body
https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-population/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Before 1973

Polar bears are an integral part of the Arctic ecosystem and the food web for Indigenous Peoples - who have hunted polar bears sustainably for millennia. But, beginning in the 1700s, large-scale hunting by European, Russian and North American hunters and trappers took place, raising concerns about the future survival of polar bears. Unregulated commercial and recreational hunting continued until the 1970s.

1973

Canada, the United States, Denmark, Norway and the former USSR signed the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and their Habitat, strictly regulating commercial hunting.

The US Government classified the Polar Bear under its Endangered Species Act (ESA).
2005
The polar bear was upgraded from Least Concern to Vulnerable by the the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group.
2013
Ministers and other leaders from the five polar bear range states met in Moscow for the first International Forum on Polar Bear Conservation. The leaders made significant commitments to address issues of polar bear habitat, research and trade. This event was supported by WWF.

Today

Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range-and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers.

Although most of the world's 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between them. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.

Status of the polar bear populations
Updated 2021 with data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialists Group:

3 populations are in decline
2 populations are increasing
4 populations are stable
10 populations are data-deficient (information missing or outdated)

In the future

By 2040, scientists predict that only a fringe of ice will remain in Northeast Canada and Northern Greenland when all other large areas of summer ice are gone. This "Last Ice Area" is likely to become important for polar bears and other life that depends on ice.

A projection of sea ice in the archipelago, supported by WWF, shows that much of the region is facing significant ice loss in the coming decades - with potentially serious consequences for polar bears.
Global polar bear numbers are projected to decline by 30% by 2050.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How many polar bears are there? See current polar bear populations, IUCN Red List status by country and timeline of polar bear conservation.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Based on the annual report from NOAA's Global Monitoring Lab, global average atmospheric carbon dioxide was 417.06 parts per million ("ppm" for short) in 2022, setting a new record high. The increase between 2021 and 2022 was 2.13 ppm-the 11 th year in a row where the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by more than 2 ppm. At Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, where the modern carbon dioxide record began in 1958, the annual average carbon dioxide in 2022 was 418.56.

Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising mostly because of the fossil fuels that people are burning for energy. Fossil fuels like coal and oil contain carbon that plants pulled out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis over many millions of years; we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in just a few hundred. Since the middle of the 20 th century, annual emissions from burning fossil fuels have increased every decade, from close to 11 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year in the 1960s to an estimated 36.6 billion tons in 2022 according to the Global Carbon Budget 2022.

Carbon cycle experts estimate that natural "sinks"-processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere-on land and in the ocean absorbed the equivalent of about half of the carbon dioxide we emitted each year in the 2011-2020 decade. Because we put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than natural sinks can remove, the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases every year.

The more we overshoot what natural processes can remove in a given year, the faster the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide rises. In the 1960s, the global growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 0.8± 0.1 ppm per year. Over the next half century, the annual growth rate tripled, reaching 2.4 ppm per year during the 2010s. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.

Why carbon dioxide matters

Carbon dioxide is Earth's most important greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs and radiates heat. Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb heat radiating from the Earth's surface and re-release it in all directions-including back toward Earth's surface. Without carbon dioxide, Earth's natural greenhouse effect would be too weak to keep the average global surface temperature above freezing. By adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, people are supercharging the natural greenhouse effect, causing global temperature to rise. According to observations by the NOAA Global Monitoring Lab, in 2021 carbon dioxide alone was responsible for about two-thirds of the total heating influence of all human-produced greenhouse gases.

Another reason carbon dioxide is important in the Earth system is that it dissolves into the ocean like the fizz in a can of soda. It reacts with water molecules, producing carbonic acid and lowering the ocean's pH (raising its acidity). Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of the ocean's surface waters has dropped from 8.21 to 8.10. This drop in pH is called ocean acidification.

Past and future carbon dioxide

Natural increases in carbon dioxide concentrations have periodically warmed Earth's temperature during ice age cycles over the past million years or more. The warm episodes (interglacials) began with a small increase in incoming sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere due to variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun and its axis of rotation. (For more details, see the "Milankovitch cycles and ice ages" section of our Climate change: incoming sunlight article.) That little bit of extra sunlight caused a little bit of warming. As the oceans warmed, they outgassed carbon dioxide-like a can of soda going flat in the heat of a summer day. The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere greatly amplified the initial, solar-driven warming.

Based on air bubbles trapped in mile-thick ice cores and other paleoclimate evidence, we know that during the ice age cycles of the past million years or so, atmospheric carbon dioxide never exceeded 300 ppm. Before the Industrial Revolution started in the mid-1700s, atmospheric carbon dioxide was 280 ppm or less.

By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in human history. In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5-7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5-4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher.

If global energy demand continues to grow rapidly and we meet it mostly with fossil fuels, human emissions of carbon dioxide could reach 75 billion tons per year or more by the end of the century. Atmospheric carbon dioxide could be 800 ppm or higher-conditions not seen on Earth for close to 50 million years.

More on carbon dioxide
NOAA carbon dioxide observations Carbon cycle factsheet Carbon dioxide emissions by country over time Comparing greenhouse gases by their global warming potential Ocean acidification
References

Collins, M., R. Knutti, J. Arblaster, J.-L. Dufresne, T. Fichefet, P. Friedlingstein, X. Gao, W.J. Gutowski, T. Johns, G. Krinner, M. Shongwe, C. Tebaldi, A.J. Weaver and M. Wehner, 2013: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Gregor, L., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Alkama, R., ... Zheng, B. (2022). Global Carbon Budget 2022. Earth System Science Data, 14(11), 4811-4900. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022

Lan, X., B. D. Hall, G. Dutton, J. Mühle, J. W. Elkins, and I. J. Vimont. (2022). Long-lived greenhouses gases [in State of the Climate in 2021, Chapter 2: Global Climate]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 103 (8), S81-S84. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0092.1.

Lüthi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier, J.-M. Barnola, U. Siegenthaler, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H. Fischer, K. Kawamura, and T.F. Stocker. (2008). High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000 years before present. Nature, Vol. 453, pp. 379-382. doi:10.1038/nature06949.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. (2015). Introduction to ocean acidification. Accessed October 4, 2017.

Lindsey, R. (2009). Climate and Earth's energy budget. Accessed October 4, 2017.

Based on the annual report from NOAA's Global Monitoring Lab, global average atmospheric carbon dioxide was 417.06 parts per million ("ppm" for short) in 2022, setting a new record high. The increase between 2021 and 2022 was 2.13 ppm-the 11 th year in a row where the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by more than 2 ppm. At Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, where the modern carbon dioxide record began in 1958, the annual average carbon dioxide in 2022 was 418.56.

Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising mostly because of the fossil fuels that people are burning for energy. Fossil fuels like coal and oil contain carbon that plants pulled out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis over many millions of years; we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in just a few hundred. Since the middle of the 20 th century, annual emissions from burning fossil fuels have increased every decade, from close to 11 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year in the 1960s to an estimated 36.6 billion tons in 2022 according to the Global Carbon Budget 2022.

Carbon cycle experts estimate that natural "sinks"-processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere-on land and in the ocean absorbed the equivalent of about half of the carbon dioxide we emitted each year in the 2011-2020 decade. Because we put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than natural sinks can remove, the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases every year.

The more we overshoot what natural processes can remove in a given year, the faster the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide rises. In the 1960s, the global growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 0.8± 0.1 ppm per year. Over the next half century, the annual growth rate tripled, reaching 2.4 ppm per year during the 2010s. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.

Why carbon dioxide matters

Carbon dioxide is Earth's most important greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs and radiates heat. Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb heat radiating from the Earth's surface and re-release it in all directions-including back toward Earth's surface. Without carbon dioxide, Earth's natural greenhouse effect would be too weak to keep the average global surface temperature above freezing. By adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, people are supercharging the natural greenhouse effect, causing global temperature to rise. According to observations by the NOAA Global Monitoring Lab, in 2021 carbon dioxide alone was responsible for about two-thirds of the total heating influence of all human-produced greenhouse gases.

Another reason carbon dioxide is important in the Earth system is that it dissolves into the ocean like the fizz in a can of soda. It reacts with water molecules, producing carbonic acid and lowering the ocean's pH (raising its acidity). Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of the ocean's surface waters has dropped from 8.21 to 8.10. This drop in pH is called ocean acidification.

Past and future carbon dioxide

Natural increases in carbon dioxide concentrations have periodically warmed Earth's temperature during ice age cycles over the past million years or more. The warm episodes (interglacials) began with a small increase in incoming sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere due to variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun and its axis of rotation. (For more details, see the "Milankovitch cycles and ice ages" section of our Climate change: incoming sunlight article.) That little bit of extra sunlight caused a little bit of warming. As the oceans warmed, they outgassed carbon dioxide-like a can of soda going flat in the heat of a summer day. The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere greatly amplified the initial, solar-driven warming.

Based on air bubbles trapped in mile-thick ice cores and other paleoclimate evidence, we know that during the ice age cycles of the past million years or so, atmospheric carbon dioxide never exceeded 300 ppm. Before the Industrial Revolution started in the mid-1700s, atmospheric carbon dioxide was 280 ppm or less.

By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in human history. In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5-7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5-4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher.

If global energy demand continues to grow rapidly and we meet it mostly with fossil fuels, human emissions of carbon dioxide could reach 75 billion tons per year or more by the end of the century. Atmospheric carbon dioxide could be 800 ppm or higher-conditions not seen on Earth for close to 50 million years.

More on carbon dioxide
NOAA carbon dioxide observations Carbon cycle factsheet Carbon dioxide emissions by country over time Comparing greenhouse gases by their global warming potential Ocean acidification
References

Collins, M., R. Knutti, J. Arblaster, J.-L. Dufresne, T. Fichefet, P. Friedlingstein, X. Gao, W.J. Gutowski, T. Johns, G. Krinner, M. Shongwe, C. Tebaldi, A.J. Weaver and M. Wehner, 2013: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Gregor, L., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Alkama, R., ... Zheng, B. (2022). Global Carbon Budget 2022. Earth System Science Data, 14(11), 4811-4900. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022

Lan, X., B. D. Hall, G. Dutton, J. Mühle, J. W. Elkins, and I. J. Vimont. (2022). Long-lived greenhouses gases [in State of the Climate in 2021, Chapter 2: Global Climate]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 103 (8), S81-S84. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0092.1.

Lüthi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier, J.-M. Barnola, U. Siegenthaler, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H. Fischer, K. Kawamura, and T.F. Stocker. (2008). High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000 years before present. Nature, Vol. 453, pp. 379-382. doi:10.1038/nature06949.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. (2015). Introduction to ocean acidification. Accessed October 4, 2017.

Lindsey, R. (2009). Climate and Earth's energy budget. Accessed October 4, 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In addition to climate warming, other challenges to the bears include increased commercial activities, conflicts with people, pollution, disease, inadequate habitat protection (of denning and seasonal resting areas), and the potential for over-harvest in smaller or declining polar bear populations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The polar bear is classified as a vulnerable species. Learn about the 19 polar bear populations and how they are faring.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-population/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Before 1973

Polar bears are an integral part of the Arctic ecosystem and the food web for Indigenous Peoples - who have hunted polar bears sustainably for millennia. But, beginning in the 1700s, large-scale hunting by European, Russian and North American hunters and trappers took place, raising concerns about the future survival of polar bears. Unregulated commercial and recreational hunting continued until the 1970s.

1973

Canada, the United States, Denmark, Norway and the former USSR signed the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and their Habitat, strictly regulating commercial hunting.

The US Government classified the Polar Bear under its Endangered Species Act (ESA).
2005
The polar bear was upgraded from Least Concern to Vulnerable by the the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group.
2013
Ministers and other leaders from the five polar bear range states met in Moscow for the first International Forum on Polar Bear Conservation. The leaders made significant commitments to address issues of polar bear habitat, research and trade. This event was supported by WWF.

Today

Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range-and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers.

Although most of the world's 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between them. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.

Status of the polar bear populations
Updated 2021 with data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialists Group:

3 populations are in decline
2 populations are increasing
4 populations are stable
10 populations are data-deficient (information missing or outdated)

In the future

By 2040, scientists predict that only a fringe of ice will remain in Northeast Canada and Northern Greenland when all other large areas of summer ice are gone. This "Last Ice Area" is likely to become important for polar bears and other life that depends on ice.

A projection of sea ice in the archipelago, supported by WWF, shows that much of the region is facing significant ice loss in the coming decades - with potentially serious consequences for polar bears.
Global polar bear numbers are projected to decline by 30% by 2050.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How many polar bears are there? See current polar bear populations, IUCN Red List status by country and timeline of polar bear conservation.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nwf.org/polarbear

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Polar Bear | National Wildlife Federation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn facts about the polar bear’s habitat, diet, life history, and more.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-population/&ved=2ahUKEwjS1omM6bP6AhWqQPUHHYemDOUQFnoECGMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3--U1fPx5KSLdpv39R_Edw

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Carbon dioxide (CO ₂) is an important heat-trapping gas, also known as a greenhouse gas, that comes from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, and natural gas), from wildfires, and natural processes like volcanic eruptions. The first graph shows atmospheric CO ₂ levels measured by NOAA at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, since 1958. The second graph shows CO ₂ levels during Earth's last three glacial cycles, as captured by air bubbles trapped in ice sheets and glaciers.

Since the onset of industrial times in the 18th century, human activities have raised atmospheric CO ₂ by 50% - meaning the amount of CO ₂ is now 150% of its value in 1750. This human-induced rise is greater than the natural increase observed at the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago.

The animated map shows how the historical changes in global carbon dioxide over time. Note the colors change as the amount of CO ₂ rises from 365 parts per million (ppm) in 2002 to over 420 ppm currently. It's important to understand that "parts per million" refers to the number of carbon dioxide molecules per million molecules of dry air. These measurements are from the mid-troposphere, the layer of Earth's atmosphere that is 8 to 12 kilometers (about 5 to 7 miles) above the ground. This data provides insights into the significant rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, highlighting the impact of human activities on Earth's climate.

CO₂ Through the Seasons

A closer look at the carbon dioxide measurements at Mauna Loa shows a series of wiggles in the data. Although total CO ₂ is increasing each year, there is also a short-term cycle visible within the larger trend.

This annual rise and fall of CO ₂ levels is caused by seasonal cycles in photosynthesis on a massive scale. In Northern Hemisphere spring, plants come to life and draw in CO ₂ to fuel their growth. This begins the process of lowering the amount of CO ₂ in the atmosphere. In northern autumn, plant growth stops or slows down, and the whole process reverses itself. Much of the plant matter decomposes, releasing CO ₂ back to the atmosphere.

A similar but less intense pattern repeats in the Southern Hemisphere in opposite seasons. Spring growth starts in September and winter decomposition begins in March, so CO ₂ records in the Southern Hemisphere show the opposite pattern of that seen in Mauna Loa. However, because there is a lot more land and vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere than the southern, the global seasonal cycle more closely aligns with the northern pattern.

See the cycle in action in the visualization Watching Earth Breathe: The Seasonal Vegetation Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

This boom-and-bust cycle of plant growth gives the graph of CO ₂ a sawtooth pattern of ups and downs from year to year. At a larger scale, the upward climb of the trend line over the decades is caused by CO ₂ emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels. Thus, the data illustrate both natural factors and human additions of CO ₂.

Learn more:

NASA's Climate Kids: Why is Carbon Important?

Missions That Observe CO₂
Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-3)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

# data[].attributes.body
사라지는 북극곰 | WWF Korea - https://origin-korea.wwf-sites.org/campaign/wildlife/polar_bear/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202208

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Temperature

NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information calculates the global temperature anomaly every month based on preliminary data generated from authoritative datasets of temperature observations from around the globe. The major dataset, NOAAGlobalTemp version 5, updated in mid-2019, uses comprehensive data collections of increased global area coverage over both land and ocean surfaces. NOAAGlobalTempv5 is a reconstructed dataset, meaning that the entire period of record is recalculated each month with new data. Based on those new calculations, the new historical data can bring about updates to previously reported values. These factors, together, mean that calculations from the past may be superseded by the most recent data and can affect the numbers reported in the monthly climate reports. The most current reconstruction analysis is always considered the most representative and precise of the climate system, and it is publicly available through Climate at a Glance.

Precipitation

The maps shown below represent precipitation percent of normal (left, using a base period of 1961-1990) and precipitation percentiles (right, using the period of record) based on the GHCN dataset of land surface stations.

August 2022

Precipitation anomalies during August 2022 varied significantly around the world. August precipitation was generally less than normal across the western coast of the contiguous U.S., western Europe, western Russia, and southeast Asia, as well as parts of southeastern Brazil, southern and central Japan, and central Asia. Wetter-than-normal conditions were notable across parts of the southwestern U.S., western and central Gulf of Mexico coast, northern Japan, western India, and Pakistan.

Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP)

The following analysis is based upon the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Interim Climate Data Record. It is provided courtesy of the GPCP Principal Investigator team at the University of Maryland.

August and Seasonal Highlights:

Asian monsoon shows alternating wet and dry anomalies from the Indian Ocean northward associated with floods and drought

La Niña effects still dominate tropical Pacific across to Indian Ocean; land and ocean totals respectively set positive and negative records for August, but cancel out for global total

Drought continues over western Europe into Russia as dry zone extension from Atlantic Ocean

Tropical Indian Ocean to Magellan Straits feature for the June-August period linked to La Niña

For August, the climatological rain belts and dry zones are generally at or near their northernmost positions as seen in the top panel. The Asian monsoon covers southeast Asia, the northern Indian Ocean and extends out into the Pacific Ocean. The Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) positions over the Atlantic and Pacific and the peak mean rain areas over South America and Africa are also at their northern extreme positions.

When the specific amounts for this August are compared to the relatively smooth 40-year climatology, the resulting anomaly pattern (middle panel) and percentage anomaly pattern (bottom panel; especially useful in areas with smaller monthly amounts) have an irregular, highly variable pattern reflecting an individual month's precipitation events. While there are broad areas of positive and negative deviations from the mean, superimposed there are very intense features of both signs. On the broad scale, the negative area of anomalies across the tropical Pacific covers almost the entire zone and is generally associated with the ongoing La Niña. Imbedded in that broad zone are some intense negative features that occur mainly in areas of high rainfall and in this case are partially related to the relative absence of tropical cyclones this August, e.g., in the western Pacific. These intense negative features are not as intense in the percentage anomaly chart because of the large climatological means there.

On the positive anomaly side, there is a broad area of that sign across the Maritime Continent and out into the Indian Ocean, again mainly associated with the La Niña. Just to the north of that excess rain feature that was related to flooding in Indonesia is a narrow east-west dry feature running from just south of Indochina westward to India. But further north, another somewhat narrow east-west wet feature running from Pakistan through India, then across Indochina and the South China sea to the Philippines has imbedded peaks that included periods of flooding in Pakistan, northern India, Vietnam, and the northern Philippines. The positive anomaly in Pakistan is the most distinctive feature over land this month and the floods there were devastating with over 1000 dead and 30 million people affected.

Even further north yet another dry zone with similar orientation extends across China covering most of the Yangtze River valley, where a major drought has been inter-related with an intense heat wave reducing the flow in the Yangtze to extremely low levels affecting hydropower and transportation. And finally, north of that dry feature is another wet, east-west, anomaly with accompanying floods in northern China, Korea and Japan during the month. These five anomaly features (and possibly two more further north) point to the spatial variations in the summer monsoon of Asia, the complexities of the dynamics therein, and the large impacts (floods or drought) on communities and countries depending on their position relative to these features.

The seasonal rain belt over Africa was active in August producing a wet anomaly across the continent with associated floods, including in Nigeria, Sudan, and across the Red Sea into Yemen. This active convection zone over the continent extends out into the eastern Atlantic and is the breeding ground for waves that can grow into tropical cyclones. However, this August, for the first time in many years, no named storms (tropical storm or hurricane status) were initiated and that seems to be reflected in the general drier-than-normal situation in the tropical Atlantic into the Caribbean.

Over the Americas, there are variable patterns not linked to the La Niña, but the month shows that both floods and drought can coexist in the same month in the same region. In the midst of a long-term drought, the southwest U.S. and Mexico received some relief through an active monsoon providing above normal rainfall in some of the region. The immediate west coast is still drier than normal for the month as in the northwest U.S. and southwest Canada. Perhaps the driest place in the U.S., Death Valley, CA, experienced a flood in the middle of a very long dry period. The positive anomaly sweeps across the southwest U.S. and Mexico into the Mississippi River valley. On the edge of the feature, in the middle of a heat wave, Dallas, TX experienced a downtown flood and a small area of southeast Illinois received about 250 mm of rain in a day early in the month. Near the end of August, the south-central U.S. coast received substantial rain helping to produce the peak in the figure there and producing flooding along the Pearl River in Jackson, MS which led to serious water system problems there. In contrast, the northeast U.S. was relatively dry with rainfall deficits, with drought conditions in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

The Atlantic Ocean east of North America has a precipitation deficit for August and that feature continues into western Europe and northeastward into Russia. The lack of August rainfall extended the major drought over these land areas, and also helped to lead to wildfires in France and Russia and low flow on the Rhine River, negatively affecting shipping.

If one closely examines the anomaly map for this month, it is not hard to detect that most of the ocean area contains precipitation deficits, while the land seems to be dominated by areas of precipitation excess. The global statistics for this month confirm this impression. The global total for this August is estimated to be 2.71 mm/d, almost exactly equal to the climatological normal of 2.72 mm/d. However, the ocean mean value is 2.65 mm/d, with an anomaly of -0.18 mm/d, while the land area mean for this month is 2.83 mm/d with an anomaly of +0.35 mm/d. The land precipitation number is an August record at the high end for the entire record, while the ocean mean is a record low for the entire record.

Although this kind of land/ocean, positive/negative split is expected under La Niña conditions, the record-setting magnitudes are surprising under an average La Niña in terms of the magnitude of the Niño 3.4 SST index (~ -0.8). Perhaps the length of the La Niña (over two years) is a factor.

For this year's June through August period, the seasonal map (top panel) shows the planet's mean precipitation features for this time of year, while the middle panel displays the field of anomalies to compare to the long-term La Niña composite for the period in the bottom panel. Across the tropical Pacific through the Maritime Continent and into the Indian Ocean there is positive correlation between the two anomaly fields, indicating a contribution of La Niña to the seasonal variations, especially in the western Pacific and the Maritime Continent, with possible extensions further out.In fact, the positive anomaly extending from the northern Indian Ocean southeastward through Australia and continuing across the South Pacific into the Straits of Magellan is evident in both the anomaly map for this year's June through August and the composite.

Besides these La Niña-related features, the three-month anomaly map (middle panel) shows the seasonal deficit across western Europe and Russia, the positive anomaly over central Africa and a well-defined positive anomaly over eastern Asia above about 30°N. Over North America, western Mexico and the southwest U.S. is dominated by this year's stronger-than-usual monsoon, with a dry area running south-to-north from eastern Mexico through the Midwest U.S. into Canada.

Drought

Drought Information based on global drought indicators is available at the Global Drought Information System.

August 2022 was another month of excessively hot temperatures across Europe. The August heat, combined with very hot temperatures for July and June, resulted in the warmest summer in the 1910-2022 record for the continent. The persistent excessive heat increased evaporative demand which, when combined with below-normal precipitation, made drought conditions worse from Spain to Germany and from the British Isles to the Balkans. Some short-term relief occurred in some eastern and northern parts of Europe, where August was near to wetter than normal. But dry conditions have persisted for the last 9 to 12 months in some drought indicators, especially in southern areas. Groundwater and soil moisture were depleted, rivers were low, and vegetation stressed across most of the continent. The European Combined Drought Indicator showed drought stretching from Spain to southern Scandinavia and from the British Isles to Ukraine.

Numerous impacts were summarized in media reports: Wildfires continued to rage across the continent. The drought dried up rivers, drained reservoirs, and created water shortages that prompted water restrictions. In Britain, the source of the River Thames has dried up further downstream than ever before. Germans and Poles faced a mass fish die-off in a river flowing between their countries. Europe's Hunger Stones became visible again; this historically has been a warning of famine when water levels are low enough to expose the rocks. French utility EDF had to significantly reduce the capacity utilization rate of its nuclear power plants due to reduced water availability for cooling. Plunging water levels on the Rhine River are making it harder to transport cargo, threatening factories which may have to reduce production or halt it completely. The Rhine's level at Emmerich, near the Dutch border, hit zero on the depth gauge in August. The drought reduced crop yields across the EU, and dried up pastures halted the production of traditional cheese in France (the salers variety in the central Auvergne region) due to no grass for cows, and threatened the production of other prized cheeses.

August was drier than normal in western, central, and southeastern parts of Asia, with the dryness accompanied by abnormally hot temperatures over the west, southwest, and southeast regions. The month was wetter than normal over parts of Southwest Asia, but that did little to alleviate dryness there that has built up over the last year and longer. Indicators such as the Standardized Precipitation Evaporation Index (SPEI) show drought from the last 1 to 12 months, and longer, over central to southwestern Asia and parts of the northeast and northwest. Groundwater and soil moisture were low in these areas and over southeastern areas from China to the Bay of Bengal. Satellite observations show stressed vegetation across central to southwest Asia. According to media reports, in August China issued its first national drought alert of the year as authorities battled forest fires and mobilized specialist teams to protect crops from scorching temperatures across the Yangtze river basin. Up to 66 rivers in 34 counties in the southwestern China region of Chongqing have gone dry, according to state broadcaster CCTV. Factories in China's southwest shut down after reservoirs used to generate hydropower ran low, adding to economic strains.

Some precipitation fell across parts of Africa in August, including areas of drought-stricken East Africa. But it was not enough to eliminate deficits that have built up over several years. Widespread drought is still indicated in East Africa on the SPEI and Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI), especially at the 3-month and longer time scales. Dryness was also indicated over northern and western parts of Africa, as well as Madagascar. August was warmer than normal across much of Africa, with the heat further exacerbating drought conditions. Soil moisture and groundwater were depleted, and satellite analysis indicates stressed vegetation. According to media reports, in Kenya, pastoralists were losing their herds as the Horn of Africa's worst drought in 40 years leaves pastures desiccated and cows with nothing to eat.

Much of Australia was wetter than normal in August, with temperatures near normal. But longer-term dry conditions persist, especially in the southwest starting at the 2-month time scale and extending to the north coast by the 6-month time scale. The Evaporative Stress Index (ESI) shows dry conditions across western Australia, especially at the 3-month time scale. Groundwater and soil moisture levels are low from the southwest to north central areas, and satellite observations show stressed vegetation in the southwest. The August rains improved streamflow, but the observations of dry soils and rainfall deficits since December 2021 in the north and southwest were confirmed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's Combined Drought Indicator analyses.

Some of the drought areas in South America received rainfall during August, but temperatures were warmer than normal across much of the continent. But longer-term precipitation deficits persist, especially beginning at the 2-month time scale over parts of Brazil to Bolivia and southward across parts of Argentina. The dryness is especially acute from the 3- to 6-month time scales, but extends beyond that time frame. The ESI indicates high evaporative stress from southeast Brazil to northern Argentina, with large areas of low soil moisture and groundwater levels, plus stressed vegetation in places. Drought in southern and eastern Brazil was confirmed on the Northeast Brazil Drought Monitor.

In North America, August was warmer than normal across western and northern portions of the continent as well as parts of central Mexico. Above-normal precipitation fell over Alaska and much of the contiguous U.S. and Mexico. August was drier than normal across the central Plains and Pacific Northwest in the U.S. and several parts of Canada. The SPEI shows dry conditions across much of the northeastern, central, and western U.S., much of Mexico, and parts of western Canada at the 2- to 12-month time scales and, for some areas, longer time scales. The ESI shows evaporative stress across many parts of the continent. Satellite observations indicated poor vegetative health across much of the western U.S. and Great Plains from northeastern Mexico to the southern Canadian Prairies, as well as parts of the U.S. Northeast. Groundwater and soil moisture were low from northeast Mexico to the U.S. central Plains, across much of the U.S. Southwest, in parts of the northeastern U.S., and over parts of Canada. The North American Drought Monitor product depicted drought over parts of southern Mexico, from central Mexico to much of the U.S. from the West Coast to the Mississippi River, and into the southern Canadian Prairies, as well as across parts of northwestern Canada and eastern North America. According to media reports, drought prompted major cities in Mexico to ration water. Drought and water supply shortages in northern Mexico led President Obrador to say that beer brewing in northern Mexico is at an end (Mexico is the world's largest exporter of beer).

References

Menne, M. J., C. N. Williams, B.E. Gleason, J. J Rennie, and J. H. Lawrimore, 2018: The Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Dataset, Version 4. J. Climate, in press. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0094.1.

Huang, B., Peter W. Thorne, et. al, 2017: Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 5 (ERSSTv5), Upgrades, validations, and intercomparisons. J. Climate, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0836.1

Peterson, T.C. and R.S. Vose, 1997: An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Database. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 78, 2837-2849.

Huang, B., V.F. Banzon, E. Freeman, J. Lawrimore, W. Liu, T.C. Peterson, T.M. Smith, P.W. Thorne, S.D. Woodruff, and H-M. Zhang, 2016: Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature Version 4 (ERSST.v4). Part I: Upgrades and Intercomparisons. J. Climate, 28, 911-930.

Adler, R., G. Gu, M. Sapiano, J. Wang, G. Huffman 2017. Global Precipitation: Means, Variations and Trends During the Satellite Era (1979-2014). Surveys in Geophysics 38: 679-699, doi:10.1007/s10712-017-9416-4

Adler, R., M. Sapiano, G. Huffman, J. Wang, G. Gu, D. Bolvin, L. Chiu, U. Schneider, A. Becker, E. Nelkin, P. Xie, R. Ferraro, D. Shin, 2018. The Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Monthly Analysis (New Version 2.3) and a Review of 2017 Global Precipitation. Atmosphere. 9(4), 138; doi:10.3390/atmos9040138

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information calculates the global temperature anomaly every month based on preliminary data generated from authoritative datasets of temperature observations from around the globe. The major dataset, NOAAGlobalTemp version 5, updated in mid-2019, uses comprehensive data collections of increased global area coverage over both land and ocean surfaces.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Sensitive is the Earth Climate to a Runaway Carbon Dioxide_

# data[].attributes.body
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/amp

# data[].attributes.body
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/oceans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Indicators: Oceans | US EPA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The global polar bear population is thought to be between 22,000 and 31,000. These bears are divided into 19 subpopulations around the Arctic, with some containing fewer than 200 individuals and others consisting of more than 2,000.

Polar bears' rapidly dwindling populations serve as a symbol of the climate crisis globally, but are they technically endangered? Their conservation status may surprise you. Learn more about polar bear populations, the threats these animals face, and what we can do to save them from extinction.

Did You Know?

Are Polar Bears Endangered?

Polar bears are listed as "vulnerable" on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, a designation they first received in 1982 and that was upheld by the latest assessment in 2015. They are protected by the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, a multilateral treaty signed in 1973 by the five polar bear nations: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the U.S. This agreement prohibits unregulated hunting of polar bears, including the use of aircraft or large motorized vehicles to hunt them. It compels member states to take appropriate actions to preserve the ecosystems that sustain polar bears.

Although not technically endangered, the U.S. government has protected them under the Endangered Species Act since 2008, classifying them as threatened throughout their range. It's important to note that while these bears face potentially existential threats in some places, a few populations have rebounded in recent decades from overhunting in the last century, leading some people to argue polar bears are actually thriving.

The late U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska was one of those people, saying in 2018 that "there are now three times as many polar bears in the Arctic than there were in the 1970s," a claim that has periodically resurfaced since. According to the IUCN, it's not clear which way polar bear populations are swinging on the whole. World Wildlife Fund data from 2019 shows that more subpopulations are declining than are increasing. The largest subpopulations look to be stable.

Laws Protecting Polar Bears

Limitations to the Data

Despite the encouraging rebound of some populations, there is little evidence to suggest polar bears are thriving overall. That's partly because there isn't enough long-term data on polar bears, especially for the northernmost regions.

Those who doubt their current plight have claimed that only 5,000 polar bears were left in the 1960s, but that claim is largely contested by conservation experts.

At least three polar bear populations are likely in decline, according to the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), but nine of the 19 subpopulations have insufficient data. There is too little data to even estimate population size for the three in decline.

While their specific status is more muddled than the overall outlook for climate change itself, there is significant evidence to suggest many polar bear populations are in peril.

How Is Climate Change Affecting Polar Bear Populations?

To understand why polar bears are threatened by climate change, you have to consider what polar bears eat and how they get their food. Polar bears are apex predators and a keystone species in their Arctic habitats, and their favorite food, by far, is seals. They specifically target ringed and bearded seals due to their high-fat content.

Polar bears spend about half their time hunting, typically by stalking seals from the sea ice and ambushing when they surface to breathe. They often travel long distances and wait hours or days for a single seal, and while only a fraction of their hunts succeed, it's generally worth the trouble for such a fatty meal.

Polar bears are considered marine mammals, but while they are excellent swimmers, they are no match for a seal in the water. Sea ice is therefore instrumental to their hunting strategy, and it's now declining due to rising Arctic temperatures, now warming at roughly twice the rate of the planet overall.

Arctic sea ice naturally waxes and wanes with the seasons, but its average late-summer minimum is now shrinking by 13% every decade, according to the NOAA. The oldest Arctic sea ice-frozen for at least four years, making it more resilient than younger, thinner ice-is now in steep decline. Whereas it comprised about 16% of the total ice pack in 1985, it now comprises less than 1%, representing a loss of 95% over just 33 years.

In 2020, Arctic sea ice reached its second-lowest extent since record-keeping began. This decline is alarming for several reasons: Arctic sea ice performs key services for the planet like reflecting solar heat and influencing ocean currents. It's even more directly important for polar bears, as less sea ice means fewer chances for them to catch seals.

The effects of climate change vary by location, and sea ice decline seems to be affecting some bears more than others. Western Hudson Bay had roughly 1,200 polar bears in the 1980s, for example, but that has since fallen to 842, and as Polar Bears International (PBI) notes, trends in their body condition, survival, and abundance have been linked to sea ice conditions. Bears in Southern Hudson Bay have also suffered a 17% decline since 2012, according to PBI, and their body conditions have similarly been linked to a longer ice-free period.

Most other subpopulations are either considered stable or lack sufficient data, but many will likely also face dire challenges from the loss of sea ice in their habitats. Some might be able to adapt, but their options likely will be limited. Even if they can exploit new food sources on land, they could face competition or conflict with established residents like brown bears and people.

Polar bears are slow to adapt due to their low reproductive rate and long time between generations. That doesn't bode well given the speed of modern climate change, already happening too quickly for many species to keep up.

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the lifespan of a polar bear?

Polar bears can live up to about 30 years, but environmental factors (melting Arctic ice, for example) can significantly decrease their lifespans.

What would happen if polar bears went extinct?

Polar bears are apex predators and a keystone species in the Arctic. Without them, animals like Arctic foxes and seagulls would lose a food source. Seals, reindeer, whales, and birds that polar bears eat would become overpopulated.

How can you help keep polar bears from going extinct?

The best way to help polar bear populations today is to fight climate change-both systematically and in your own life. Drive less, reduce your energy consumption, recycle, and swap some of your meat intake with locally grown veggies. If you have the means, consider donating to a charity like Polar Bears International.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Many Polar Bears Are Left? Populations and Endangerment Status

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The global polar bear population is thought to be between 22,000 and 31,000. These bears are divided into 19 subpopulations around the Arctic, with some containing fewer than 200 individuals and others consisting of more than 2,000. Polar bears' rapidly dwindling populations serve as a symbol of the climate crisis globally, but are they technically endangered?

# data[].attributes.body
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many of us watched the viral video in horror. A starving polar bear scavenging for food on barren land, his ribs visible beneath a jaundiced white coat.

"This is what climate change looks like," said National Geographic.

The magazine explained that because of melting sea ice, precipitated by climate change, more of these mammals are starving. They pointed to a new study in Science suggesting that polar bears require much greater caloric intake in their diet than previously believed.

The video, shot by photographers Paul Nicklen and Cristina Mittermeier on Somerset Island, sparked outcry over the decimation of polar bears due to global warming.

The footage was viewed by 2.5 billion people, National Geographic estimated. The video remains the most viewed on National Geographic 's website-ever.

What Followed

While many remember the footage of the polar bear, fewer are aware of what followed.

As Michele Moses recently explained in The New Yorker, scientists accused National Geographic of "being loose with the facts." There was no evidence, many pointed out, that the bear's condition was the result of climate change. The bear simply could have been old, ill, or suffering from a degenerative disease.

Mittermeier admitted as much a year later.

"I can't say that this bear was starving because of climate change," she wrote in National Geographic.

Perhaps we made a mistake in not telling the full story-that we were looking for a picture that foretold the future and that we didn't know what had happened to this particular polar bear.

The Polar Bear as a Symbol

Mittermeier was looking for visual evidence of the future she imagined, one ravaged by climate change. And she found it that day in a starving bear.

As Moses of The New Yorker points out, polar bears have become an "indisputable image of climate change."

"The story of climate change has been told, in part, through pictures of polar bears," Moses writes. "And no wonder: in their glittering icy habitat, they reflect the otherworldly beauty that rising temperatures threaten to destroy."

That picture of a single starving bear arguably did more to advance the issue of climate change than any white paper or IPCC report could have. Unfortunately, the footage tells us relatively little about the actual state of the polar bear population.

What the Numbers Say

While you'll find no shortage of headlines declaring that polar bears face extinction, the numbers tell a different story.

The State of the Polar Report 2018 put the new global mid-point estimate [of the polar bear population] at more than 30,000.

Data from conservation groups and the government show that the polar bear population is roughly five times what it was in the 1950s and three or four times what it was in the 1970s when polar bears became protected under international treaty.

In fact, though polar bears were placed under the protection of the Endangered Species Act in 2008 over concerns that its Arctic hunting grounds were being reduced by a warming climate, the polar bear population has been stable for the last three decades.

In 1984, the polar bear population was estimated at 25,000. In 2008, when polar bears were designated a protected species, The New York Times noted that number remained unchanged: "There are more than 25,000 bears in the Arctic, 15,500 of which roam within Canada's territory."

New estimates from the International Union for Conservation of Nature show a mid-point estimate of 26,500 (range: 22,000 to 31,000) in 2015. In The State of the Polar Report 2018, zoologist Susan J. Crockford says updates to IUCN data put the new global mid-point estimate at more than 30,000.

Even accepting the lower figure, the estimate is the highest since the polar bear became internationally protected in 1973.

The health of the polar bear population runs counter to predictions from scholars who have said two-thirds of polar bears will disappear in coming decades because of warming temperatures and melting sea ice in the Arctic.

The good news that polar bears are thriving is unlikely to draw as much attention as images of a starving polar bear scrounging for food on Somerset Island. Nevertheless, the story of a resurgent polar bear population deserves to be told and applauded.

This page relies heavily on JavaScript.

Please, enable JavaScript and reload the page to enjoy our modern features.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Myth That the Polar Bear Population Is Declining | Jon Miltimore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Data from conservation groups and the government show that the polar bear population is roughly five times what it was in the 1950s and three or four times what it was in the 1970s when polar bears became protected under international treaty.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature&ved=2ahUKEwiI8P_q1bb6AhUCtVYBHQjXAPgQFnoECCcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2EMKkPMBGMX3NXiJS1IhtE

# data[].attributes.body
https://polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears-changing-arctic/polar-bear-facts/status/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In addition to climate warming, other challenges to the bears include increased commercial activities, conflicts with people, pollution, disease, inadequate habitat protection (of denning and seasonal resting areas), and the potential for over-harvest in smaller or declining polar bear populations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The polar bear is classified as a vulnerable species. Learn about the 19 polar bear populations and how they are faring.

# data[].attributes.body
https://ko.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%98%A8%EC%8B%A4_%ED%9A%A8%EA%B3%BC

# data[].attributes.body
세계자연기금 홈페이지, WWF Korea - https://www.wwfkorea.or.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=press_release&wr_id=54&page=7&ht=

# data[].attributes.body
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You can download our complete Our World in Data CO ₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions database.

Carbon dioxide emissions are the primary driver of global climate change. It's widely recognised that to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the world needs to urgently reduce emissions. But, how this responsibility is shared between regions, countries, and individuals has been an endless point of contention in international discussions.

This debate arises from the various ways in which emissions are compared: as annual emissions by country; emissions per person; historical contributions; and whether they adjust for traded goods and services. These metrics can tell very different stories.

We teamed up with the YouTube channel, Kurzgesagt, to produce a video which explored these different metrics in detail: 'Who is responsible for climate change? - Who needs to fix it?'. All of the data and research featured in this video is contained in this article: below we look in detail at the many ways emissions are broken down.

This page is just one in our collection of work on CO ₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The rest can be explored via the navigation menu at the top of this page. There you can explore emissions of other greenhouse gases; where our emissions come from; what trajectories of future emissions look like; and what is driving emissions across the world.

In the navigation menu you also find Country Profiles, so you can see how your country is doing in reducing emissions, and our CO ₂ Data Explorer where you can browse all of these metrics in one place.

Global CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels

Global CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels

How have global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO ₂) changed over time?

In this chart we see the growth of global emissions from the mid-18th century through to today.

We see that prior to the Industrial Revolution, emissions were very low. Growth in emissions was still relatively slow until the mid-20th century. In 1950 the world emitted 6 billion tonnes of CO ₂ .

By 1990 this had almost quadrupled, reaching more than 22 billion tonnes . Emissions have continued to grow rapidly; we now emit over 34 billion tonnes each year .

Emissions growth has slowed over the last few years, but they have yet to reach their peak.

Global CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and land use change

How have global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO ₂) from fossil fuels and land use changed over time?

In this chart we see the growth of global emissions from the mid-18th century through to today.

We see that while emissions from fossil fuels have increased, emissions from land use change have declined slightly in recent years. Overall, this means total emissions have roughly stabilised over the past decade.

CO₂ emissions by region

This interactive chart shows the breakdown of global CO ₂ emissions by region.

We see that until well into the 20th century, global emissions were dominated by Europe and the United States. In 1900, more than 90% of emissions were produced in Europe or the US; even by 1950, they accounted for more than 85% of emissions each year.

But in recent decades this has changed significantly.

In the second half of the 20th century we see a significant rise in emissions in the rest of the world, particularly across Asia, and most notably, China.

The US and Europe now account for just under one-third of emissions.

Where in the world does the average person emit the most carbon dioxide (CO ₂) each year?

We can calculate the contribution of the average citizen of each country by dividing its total emissions by its population. This gives us CO ₂ emissions per capita. In the visualization we see the differences in per capita emissions across the world.

Here we look at production-based emissions - that is, emissions produced within a country's boundaries without accounting for how goods are traded across the world. In our post on consumption-based emissions we look at how these figures change when we account for trade. Production figures matter - these are the numbers that are taken into account for climate targets¹ - and thanks to historical reconstructions they are available for the entire world since the mid 18th century.

There are very large inequalities in per capita emissions across the world.

The world's largest per capita CO ₂ emitters are the major oil producing countries; this is particularly true for those with relatively low population size. Most are in the Middle East: In 2017 Qatar had the highest emissions at 49 tonnes (t) per person, followed by Trinidad and Tobago (30t); Kuwait (25t); United Arab Emirates (25t); Brunei (24t); Bahrain (23t) and Saudi Arabia (19t).

However, many of the major oil producers have a relatively small population meaning their total annual emissions are low. More populous countries with some of the highest per capita emissions - and therefore high total emissions - are the United States, Australia, and Canada. Australia has an average per capita footprint of 17 tonnes, followed by the US at 16.2 tonnes, and Canada at 15.6 tonnes.

This is more than 3 times higher than the global average, which in 2017 was 4.8 tonnes per person.

Since there is such a strong relationship between income and per capita CO ₂ emissions, we'd expect this to be the case: that countries with high standards of living would have a high carbon footprint. But what becomes clear is that there can be large differences in per capita emissions, even between countries with similar standards of living. Many countries across Europe, for example, have much lower emissions than the US, Canada or Australia.

In fact, some European countries have emissions not far from the global average: In 2017 emissions in Portugal are 5.3 tonnes; 5.5t in France; and 5.8t per person in the UK. This is also much lower than some of their neighbours with similar standards of living, such as Germany, the Netherlands, or Belgium. The choice of energy sources plays a key role here: in the UK, Portugal and France, a much higher share of electricity is produced from nuclear and renewable sources - you can explore this electricity mix by country here. This means a much lower share of electricity is produced from fossil fuels: in 2015, only 6% of France's electricity came from fossil fuels, compared to 55% in Germany.

Prosperity is a primary driver of CO ₂ emissions, but clearly policy and technological choices make a difference.

Many countries in the world still have very low per capita CO ₂ emissions. In many of the poorest countries in Sub-Saharan Africa - such as Chad, Niger and the Central African Republic - the average footprint is around 0.1 tonnes per year. That's more than 160 times lower than the USA, Australia and Canada. In just 2.3 days the average American or Australian emits as much as the average Malian or Nigerien in a year.

This inequality in emissions across the world I explored in more detail in my post, ' Who emits more than their share of CO 2 emissions? '

Who emits the most CO ₂ each year? In the treemap visualization we show annual CO ₂ emissions by country, and aggregated by region. Treemaps are used to compare entities (such as countries or regions) in relation to others, and relative to the total. Here each inner rectangle represents a country - which are then nested and colored by region. The size of each rectangle corresponds to its annual CO ₂ emissions in 2017. Combined, all rectangles represent the global total.

The emissions shown here relate to the country where CO ₂ is produced (i.e.production-based CO ₂) , not to where the goods and services that generate emissions are finally consumed. We look at the difference in each country's production vs. consumption (trade-adjusted) emissions here.

Asia is by far the largest emitter, accounting for 53% of global emissions. As it is home to 60% of the world's population this means that per capita emissions in Asia are slightly lower than the world average, however.

China is, by a significant margin, Asia's and the world's largest emitter: it emits nearly 10 billion tonnes each year, more than one-quarter of global emissions.

North America - dominated by the USA - is the second largest regional emitter at 18% of global emissions. It's followed closely by Europe with 17%. Here we have grouped the 28 countries of the European Union together, since they typically negotiate and set targets as a collective body. You can see the data for individual EU countries in the interactive maps which follow.

Africa and South America are both fairly small emitters: accounting for 3-4% of global emissions each. Both have emissions almost equal in size to international aviation and shipping. Both aviation and shipping are not included in national or regional emissions. This is because of disagreement over how emissions which cross country borders should be allocated: do they belong to the country of departure, or country of origin? How are connecting flights accounted for? The tensions in reaching international aviation and shipping deals are discussed in detail at the Carbon Brief here.

The same data is also explorable by country and over time in the interactive map.

By clicking on any country you can see how its annual emissions have changed, and compare it with other countries.

In the interactive chart you can explore each country's share of global emissions. Using the timeline at the bottom of the map, you can see how the global distribution has changed since 1751. By clicking on any country you can see its evolution and compare it with others.

If you're interested in which countries emit more or less than their 'fair share' based on their share of global population, you can explore this here.

The distribution of emissions has changed significantly over time. The UK was - until 1888, when it was overtaken by the US - the world's largest emitter. This was because the UK was the first country to industrialize, a transition which later contributed to in massive improvements in living standards for much of its population.

Whilst rising CO ₂ emissions have clear negative environmental consequences, it is also true that they have historically been a by-product of positive improvements in human living conditions. But, it's also true that reducing CO ₂ emissions is important to protect the living conditions of future generations. This perspective - that we must consider both the environmental and human welfare implications of emissions - is important if we are to build a future that is both sustainable and provides high standards of living for everyone.

Rising emissions and living standards in North America and Oceania followed soon after developments in the UK.

Many of the world's largest emitters today are in Asia. However, Asia's rapid rise in emissions has only occurred in very recent decades. This too has been a by-product of massive improvements in living standards: since 1950 life expectancy in Asia has increased from 41 to 74 years; it has seen a dramatic fall in extreme poverty; and for the first time most of its population received formal education.

Whilst all countries must work collectively, action from the very top emitters will be essential. China, the USA and the 28 countries of the EU account for more than half of global emissions. Without commitment from these largest emitters, the world will not come close to meeting its global targets.

Annual change in CO₂ emissions

This interactive chart shows the year-on-year growth rate of CO ₂ emissions.

A positive figure in a given year indicates that emissions were higher than the previous year. A negative figure indicates they were lower than the year before. For example, a change of 1.5% indicates that global emissions were 1.5% higher than the previous year [-1.5% would mean they were 1.5% lower].

This measure allows us to see firstly where emissions are rising, and where they are falling; and secondly the rate at which emissions are changing - whether the growth in emissions are slowing down or accelerating.

Since 1751 the world has emitted over 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO ₂.² To reach our climate goal of limiting average temperature rise to 2°C, the world needs to urgently reduce emissions. One common argument is that those countries which have added most to the CO ₂ in our atmosphere - contributing most to the problem today - should take on the greatest responsibility in tackling it.

We can compare each country's total contribution to global emissions by looking at cumulative CO₂. We can calculate cumulative emissions by adding up each country's annual CO ₂ emissions over time. We did this calculation for each country and region over the period from 1751 through to 2017.³

The distribution of cumulative emissions around the world is shown in the treemap. Treemaps are used to compare entities (such as countries or regions) in relation to others, and relative to the total. Here countries are presented as rectangles and colored by region. The size of each rectangle corresponds to the sum of CO ₂ emissions from a country between 1751 and 2017. Combined, all rectangles represent the global total.

There are some key points we can learn from this perspective:

the United States has emitted more CO₂ than any other country to date: at around 400 billion tonnes since 1751, it is responsible for 25% of historical emissions;

this is twice more than China - the world's second largest national contributor;

the 28 countries of the European Union (EU-28) - which are grouped together here as they typically negotiate and set targets on a collaborative basis - is also a large historical contributor at 22%;

many of the large annual emitters today - such as India and Brazil - are not large contributors in a historical context;

Africa's regional contribution - relative to its population size - has been very small. This is the result of very low per capita emissions - both historically and currently.

All of this data is also explorable by country and over time in the interactive map. By clicking on any country you can see the country's cumulative emissions over time, and compare it with other countries.

In the visualizations above we focused on each country or region's total cumulative emissions (1) in absolute terms; and (2) at a single point in time: as of 2017.

In the chart we see the change in the share of global cumulative emissions by region over time - from 1751 through to 2017.

Up until 1950, more than half of historical CO ₂ emissions were emitted by Europe. The vast majority of European emissions back then were emitted by the United Kingdom; as the data shows, until 1882 more than half of the world's cumulative emissions came from the UK alone.

Over the century which followed, industrialization in the USA rapidly increased its contribution.

It's only over the past 50 years that growth in South America, Asia and Africa have increased these regions' share of total contribution.

In the final visualization you can explore the same cumulative CO ₂ emissions as you have seen above but now visualizes by country. Using the timeline at the bottom of the chart you can see how contribution across the world has evolved since 1751. By clicking on a country you can see an individual country's cumulative contribution over time.

The map for 2017 shows the large inequalities of contribution across the world that the first treemap visualization has shown. The USA has emitted most to date: more than a quarter of all historical CO ₂: twice that of China which is the second largest contributor. In contrast, most countries across Africa have been responsible for less than 0.01% of all emissions over the last 266 years.

What becomes clear when we look at emissions across the world today is that the countries with the highest emissions over history are not always the biggest emitters today. The UK, for example, was responsible for only 1% of global emissions in 2017. Reductions here will have a relatively small impact on emissions at the global level - or at least fall far short of the scale of change we need. This creates tension with the argument that the largest contributors in the past should be those doing most to reduce emissions today. This is because a large fraction of CO ₂ remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years once emitted.⁴

This inequality is one of the main reasons which makes international agreement on who should take action so challenging.

Consumption-based (trade-adjusted) emissions

CO ₂ emissions are typically measured on the basis of 'production'. This accounting method - which is sometimes referred to as 'territorial' emissions - is used when countries report their emissions, and set targets domestically and internationally.⁵

In addition to the commonly reported production-based emissions statisticians also calculate 'consumption-based' emissions. These emissions are adjusted for trade. To calculate consumption-based emissions we need to track which goods are traded across the world, and whenever a good was imported we need to include all CO ₂ emissions that were emitted in the production of that good, and vice versa to subtract all CO ₂ emissions that were emitted in the production of goods that were exported.

Consumption-based emissions reflect the consumption and lifestyle choices of a country's citizens.

In the interactive map we see the emissions of traded goods. To give a perspective on the importance of trade these emissions are put in relation to the country's domestic, production-based emissions.⁶

Countries shown in red are net importers of emissions - they import more CO₂ embedded in goods than they export.

For example, the USA has a value of 7.7% meaning its net import of CO₂ is equivalent to 7.7% of its domestic emissions. This means emissions calculated on the basis of 'consumption' are 7.7% higher than their emissions based on production.

Countries shown in blue are net exporters of emissions - they export more CO₂ embedded in goods than they import.

For example, China's value of -14% means its net export of CO₂ is equivalent to 14% of its domestic emissions. The consumption-based emissions of China are 14% lower than their production-based emissions.

We see quite a regional East-West split in net exporters and importers: most of Western Europe, the Americas, and many African countries are net importers of emissions whilst most of Eastern Europe and Asia are net exporters.

You can find these figures in absolute (tonnes of CO ₂) and per capita terms for each country in the Additional Information section.

How did the differences between a country's production and consumption-based emissions change over time?

In the interactive charts you can compare production- and consumption-based emissions for many countries and world regions since the first data is available in 1990.⁷ One chart shows total annual emissions, the other one shows the same on a per capita basis. Using the 'change country' toggle of the chart you can switch between them.

Individual maps of consumption-based annual and per capita emissions can also be found in the Additional Information which follows this post.

We see that the consumption-based emissions of the US are higher than production: In 2016 the two values were 5.7 billion versus 5.3 billion tonnes - a difference of 8%. This tells us that more CO ₂ is emitted in the production of the goods that Americans import than in those products Americans export.

The opposite is true for China: its consumption-based emissions are 14% lower than its production-based emissions. On a per capita basis, the respective measures are 6.9 and 6.2 tonnes per person in 2016. A difference, but smaller than what many expect.

Whilst China is a large CO ₂ emissions exporter, it is no longer a large emitter because it produces goods for the rest of the world. This was the case in the past, but today, even adjusted for trade, China now has a per capita footprint higher than the global average (which is 4.8 tonnes per capita in 2017). In the Additional Information you find an interactive map of how consumption-based emissions per capita vary across the world.

These comparisons provide the answer to the question whether countries have only achieved emissions reductions by offshoring emissions intensive production to other countries. If only production-based emissions were falling whilst consumption-based emissions were rising, this would suggest it was 'offshoring' emissions elsewhere.

There are some countries where this is the case. Examples where production-based emissions have stagnated whilst consumption-based CO ₂ steadily increased include Ireland in the early 2000s; Norway in the late 1990s and early 2000s; and Switzerland since 1990.

On the other hand there are several very rich countries where both production- and consumption-based emissions have declined. This has been true, among others, for the UK ( chart), France ( chart), Germany ( chart), and the USA ( chart). These countries have achieved some genuine reductions without outsourcing the emissions to other countries. Emissions are still too high in all of these countries, but it shows that genuine reductions are possible.

In most countries emissions increased when countries become richer, but this is also not necessarily the case: by comparing the change in consumption-based emissions and economic growth we see that many countries have become much richer while achieving a reduction of emissions.

In-depth: how much emissions are embedded in trade?

Decoupling CO₂ emissions from economic growth

Historically, CO ₂ emissions have been strongly correlated with how much money we have. This is particularly true at low-to-middle incomes. The richer we are, the more CO ₂ we emit. This is because we use more energy - which often comes from burning fossil fuels.

But this relationship no longer holds true at higher incomes. Many countries have managed to achieve economic growth while reducing emissions. They have decoupled the two.

Take the UK as an example. It is shown in the chart. This chart shows the change in GDP and annual CO ₂ emissions per capita since 1990. We see that the UK's GDP has increased a lot over the last 30 years, while its emissions have fallen. You can also see the data without per capita adjustments.

It's not just the UK. Many other countries have achieved this decoupling. Using the "Change country" button on the chart, you can see this for yourself. France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Czechia and Romania are some examples of countries where we see this.

More countries have managed to decouple more recently. Emissions in the US, for example, increased substantially in the 1990s. This means that its emissions today are still higher than in 1990. But if we look at the change since 2000 [you can do this by adjusting the time-slider on the bottom of the chart] we see a large drop in emissions alongside a rise in GDP. It's only over the last 20 years that this decoupling has started to happen.

There are two key reasons why emissions have fallen in these countries. First, some countries have managed to decouple energy use and economic growth. GDP has increased while total energy use has remained flat, or even fallen. But the second is the most important: countries are replacing fossil fuels with low-carbon energy. We can produce more energy, without the emissions that used to come with it.

It would be wrong to assume that this reduction in emissions in rich countries was only achieved by offshoring production overseas - by transferring emissions to manufacturing economies such as China and India. In the chart we see that consumption-based emissions - which adjust for emissions from goods that are imported or exported - have also fallen. Some emissions have been exported overseas, but this is not the only driver of this decline.

These countries show that economic growth is not incompatible with reducing emissions.

A key question is whether we can decarbonize fast enough, and across more countries. The continued decline in the cost of low-carbon technologies makes this acceleration more realistic every day.

Global inequalities in CO₂ emissions

Global inequalities by production

There are two parameters that determine our collective carbon dioxide (CO ₂) emissions: the number of people, and quantity emitted per person. We either talk about total annual or per capita emissions. They tell very different stories and this often results in confrontation over who can really make an impact: rich countries with high per capita emissions, or those with a large population.

To help us understand the global distribution of per capita emissions and population, we have visualized global CO 2 emissions by (1) World Bank income group and (2) by world region.

The world's total CO ₂ emissions⁹ are shown on the basis of two axes: the height of the bar (y-axis) is the average per capita CO ₂ emissions and the length of the box (x-axis) is the total population. Since total emissions are equal to per capita emissions multiplied by the number of people, the area of each box represents total emissions.¹⁰

When aggregated in terms of income, we see in the visualization that the richest half (high and upper-middle income countries) emit 86 percent of global CO ₂ emissions. The bottom half (low and lower-middle income) only 14%. The very poorest countries (home to 9 percent of the global population) are responsible for just 0.5 percent. This provides a strong indication of the relative sensitivity of global emissions to income versus population. Even several billion additional people in low-income countries - where fertility rates and population growth is already highest - would leave global emissions almost unchanged. 3 or 4 billion low income individuals would only account for a few percent of global CO ₂. At the other end of the distribution however, adding only one billion high income individuals would increase global emissions by almost one-third.¹¹

Note here that the summary by income is on the basis of country income groupings, rather than that of individuals. For example, 'low income' is the total emissions of all countries defined as low income, rather than the lowest income individuals in the world. These figures therefore don't take account of inequalities in emissions within countries. It's estimated that within-country inequalities in emissions can be as large as those between countries.¹²

If we were to calculate this distribution by the income of individuals, rather than countries, we'd see that the global inequalities in emissions would be even greater. The richest of the global population would be responsible for an even larger share of global emissions.

When aggregated by region we see that North America, Oceania, Europe, and Latin America have disproportionately high emissions relative to their population. North America is home to only five percent of the world population but emits nearly 18 percent of CO ₂ (almost four times as much). Asia and Africa are underrepresented in emissions. Asia is home to 60 percent of the population but emits just 49 percent; Africa has 16 percent of the population but emits just 4 percent of CO ₂. This is reflected in per capita emissions; the average North American is more than 17 times higher than the average African.

This inequality in global emissions lies at the heart of why international agreement on climate change has (and continues to be) so contentious. The richest countries of the world are home to half of the world population, and emit 86 percent of CO ₂ emissions. We want global incomes and living standards - especially of those in the poorest half - to rise. To do so whilst limiting climate change, it's clear that we must shrink the emissions of high-income lifestyles. Finding the compatible pathway for levelling this inequality is one of the greatest challenges of this century.
[Clicking on the visualization will open it in higher-resolution].

Global inequalities by consumption

The initial comparison of emissions by income group and region was based on 'territorial' emissions (those emitted within a country's borders) - these are termed 'production-based' and are the metrics by which emissions are commonly reported. However, these emissions do not account for traded goods (for which CO ₂ was emitted for their production). If a country is a large importer of goods its production-based emissions would underestimate the emissions required to support its standard of living. Conversely, if a country is a large goods exporter, it includes emissions within its accounts which are ultimately exported for use or consumption elsewhere.

'Consumption-based' emissions correct for this by adjusting for trade. Consumption-based emissions are therefore: (production-based emissions - embedded CO ₂ in exported goods + embedded CO2 in imported goods). The Global Carbon Project (GCP) publishes estimates of these adjustments in their carbon budget.¹³ You can find much more information and data on emissions in trade in our full entry here.

How do consumption-based emissions change the emission shares by income group and region? In the table I compare each group's share of the world population, production- and consumption-based CO ₂ emissions.

On a production basis we had previously found that the richest (high and upper-middle income) countries in the world accounted for half of the population but 86 percent of emissions.¹⁴ On a consumption basis we find the same result, but resulting from the fact that upper-middle income countries primarily export emissions to high income countries. High income countries' collective emissions increase from 39 to 46 percent when adjusted for trade (with only 16 percent of the population); upper-middle income countries' emissions decrease by the same amount (7 percentage points) from 48 to 41 percent. Overall, this balances out in the top half of the world population: upper-middle income countries are net exporters whilst high income net importers.

In the bottom half, it appears that very little changes for the collective of lower-middle and low income countries: their production and consumption emissions shares are effectively the same.

By region we see that traded emissions tend to flow from Asia to North America and Europe (Asia's share reduces when adjusted for trade whilst North America and Europe's share increases).

Note here that consumption-based emissions are not available for all countries. Collectively, countries without consumption-based estimates due to poor data availability account for approximately 3 percent of global emissions. Many of the missing countries are at low and lower-middle incomes. With the addition of these countries, we would expect small percentage point shifts across the distribution. The challenges in accounting for carbon embedded in global trade¹⁵ mean these estimates are not perfect; nonetheless they should provide a good approximation of the global transfers across the world.

On a consumption basis, high-income countries (Europe and North America in particular) account for an even larger share of global emissions (46 percent - nearly three times their population share of 16 percent).

Income or regional group

Share of population (%)

Share of production-based CO₂ emissions (%)

Share of consumption-based CO₂ emissions (%)

How do we measure or estimate CO₂ emissions?

Historical fossil fuel CO ₂ emissions can be reconstructed back to 1751 based on energy statistics. These reconstructions detail the production quantities of various forms of fossil fuels (coal, brown coal, peat and crude oil), which when combined with trade data on imports and exports, allow for national-level reconstructions of fossil fuel production and resultant CO ₂ emissions. More recent energy statistics are sourced from the UN Statistical Office, which compiles data from official national statistical publications and annual questionnaires. Data on cement production and gas flaring can also be sourced from UN data, supplemented by data from the US Department of Interior Geological Survey (USGS) and US Department of Energy Information Administration. A full description of data acquisition and original sources can be found at the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC).

As an example: how do we estimate Canada's CO 2 emissions in 1900? Let's look at the steps involved in this estimation.

Step 1: we gather industrial data on how much coal, brown coal, peat and crude oil Canada extracted in 1900. This tells us how much energy it could produce if it used all of this domestically.

Step 2: we cannot assume that Canada only used fuels produced domestically-it might have imported some fuel, or exported it elsewhere. To find out how much Canada actually burned domestically, we therefore have to correct for this trade. If we take its domestic production (account for any fuel it stores as stocks), add any fuel it imported, and subtract any fuel it exported, we have an estimate of its net consumption in 1900. In other words, if we calculate: Coal extraction − Coal exported + Coal imported − Coal stored as stocks, we can estimate the amount of coal Canada burned in 1900.

Step 3: converting energy produced to CO₂ emissions. we know, based on the quality of coal, its carbon content and how much CO₂ would be emitted for every kilogram burned (i.e. its emission factor). Multiplying the quantity of coal burned by its emission factor, we can estimate Canada's CO₂ emissions from coal in 1900.

Step 4: doing this calculation for all fuel types, we can calculate Canada's total emissions in 1900.

Providing good estimates of CO ₂ emissions requires reliable and extensive coverage on domestic and traded energy-the international framework and monitoring of this reporting has significantly improved through time. For this reason, our understanding of emissions in the late 20th and 21st centuries is more reliable than our long-term reconstructions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provide clear guidelines on methodologies and best practice for measuring and monitoring CO ₂ estimates at the national level.¹⁶

There are two key ways uncertainties can be introduced: the reporting of energy consumption, and the assumption of emissions factors (i.e. the carbon content) used for fuel burning. Since energy consumption is strongly related to economic and trade figures (which are typically monitored closely), uncertainties are typically low for energy reporting. Uncertainty can be introduced in the assumptions nations make on the correct CO ₂ emission factor for certain fuel types.

Country size and the level of uncertainty in these calculations have a significant influence on the inaccuracy of our global emissions figures. In the most extreme example to date, Lui et al. (2015) revealed that China overestimated its annual emissions in 2013 by using global average emission factors, rather than specific figures for the carbon content of its domestic coal supply.¹⁷

As the world's largest CO ₂ emitter, this inaccuracy had a significant impact on global emissions estimates, resulting in a 10% overestimation. More typically, uncertainty in global CO ₂ emissions ranges between 2-5%.¹⁸

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How much CO2 does the world emit? Which countries emit the most?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/oceans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Indicators: Oceans | US EPA

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/sea-level-rise-1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As humans continue to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, oceans have tempered the effect. The world's seas have absorbed more than 90 percent of the heat from these gases, but it's taking a toll on our oceans: 2021 set a new record for ocean heating.

Rising seas is one of those climate change effects. Average sea levels have swelled over 8 inches (about 23 cm) since 1880, with about three of those inches gained in the last 25 years. Every year, the sea rises another .13 inches (3.2 mm.) Research published in February 2022 shows that sea level rise is accelerating and projected to rise by a foot by 2050.

That translates into as much sea level rise in the next 30 years as occurred over the last century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Rick Spinrad, the NOAA administrator, called the findings "historic," and warned that the projected rise will occur even if carbon emissions are drastically cut.

(How carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.)

In the United States, the most vulnerable populations live on the East and Gulf Coasts, where damaging flooding is predicted to occur 10 times more often in 2050 than it does today. The acceleration of sea level rise along these coasts is "unprecedented in at least 120 years," according to a study published in April 2023.

Here's what you need to know about the causes-and consequences-of sea level rise.

Causes of sea level rise

The change in sea levels is linked to three primary factors, all induced by ongoing global climate change:

Thermal expansion: When water heats up, it expands. About half of the sea-level rise over the past 25 years is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space.

Melting glaciers: Large ice formations such as mountain glaciers naturally melt a bit each summer. In the winter, snows, primarily from evaporated seawater, are generally sufficient to balance out the melting. Recently, though, persistently higher temperatures caused by global warming have led to greater-than-average summer melting as well as diminished snowfall due to later winters and earlier springs. That creates an imbalance between runoff and ocean evaporation, causing sea levels to rise.

Loss of Greenland and Antarctica's ice sheets: As with mountain glaciers, increased heat is causing the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica to melt more quickly. Scientists also believe that meltwater from above and seawater from below is seeping beneath Greenland's ice sheets, effectively lubricating ice streams and causing them to move more quickly into the sea. While melting in West Antarctica has drawn considerable focus from scientists, especially with the 2017 break in the Larsen C ice shelf, glaciers in East Antarctica are also showing signs of destabilizing.

Consequences

When sea levels rise as rapidly as they have been, even a small increase can have devastating effects on coastal habitats farther inland, it can cause destructive erosion, wetland flooding, aquifer and agricultural soil contamination with salt, and lost habitat for fish, birds, and plants.

(Here's how warming oceans affects wildlife and storm systems.)

Higher sea levels are coinciding with more dangerous hurricanes and typhoons that move more slowly and drop more rain, contributing to more powerful storm surges that can strip away everything in their path. One study found that between 1963 and 2012, almost half of all deaths from Atlantic hurricanes were caused by storm surges.

Already, flooding in low-lying coastal areas is forcing people to migrate to higher ground, and millions more are vulnerable from flood risk and other climate change effects. The prospect of higher coastal water levels threatens basic services such as Internet access, since much of the underlying communications infrastructure lies in the path of rising seas.

Adapting to the threat

As a result of these risks, many coastal cities are already planning adaptation measures to cope with the long-term prospects of higher sea levels, often at considerable cost. Building seawalls, rethinking roads, and planting mangroves or other vegetation to absorb water are all being undertaken.

In Jakarta, a $40 billion project will aim to protect the city with an 80-foot-high seawall. Rotterdam, home to the Global Center on Adaptation, has offered a model to other cities seeking to combat flooding and land loss. The Dutch city has built barriers, drainage, and innovative architectural features such as a "water square" with temporary ponds.

Of course, communities vulnerable to rising seas can only go so far in holding back the tide. In the Marshall Islands, where rising sea levels are forcing a choice between relocating or building up the land, residents will need help from other nations if they decide to undertake the expensive latter option.

How high will it go?

Most predictions say the warming of the planet will continue and is likely to accelerate, causing the oceans to keep rising. This means hundreds of coastal cities face flooding. But forecasting how much and how soon seas will rise remains an area of ongoing research.

A special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we can expect the oceans to rise between 10 and 30 inches (26 to 77 centimeters) by 2100 with temperatures warming 1.5 °C. That's enough to seriously affect many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. Another analysis based on NASA and European data skewed toward the higher end of that range, predicting a rise of 26 inches (65 centimeters) by the end of this century if the current trajectory continues.

If all the ice that currently exists on Earth in glaciers and sheets melted it would raise sea level by 216 feet. That could cause entire states and even some countries to disappear under the waves, from Florida to Bangladesh. That's not a scenario scientists think is likely, and it would probably take many centuries, but it could eventually happen if the world keeps burning fossil fuels indiscriminately.

In the meantime, scientists keep refining their models of sea-level changes. They also point out that the extent to which countries work together to limit release of more greenhouse gases may have a significant impact on how quickly seas rise, and how much.

Editor's Note: This story was originally published on February 19, 2019. It has been updated with new data.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seas are predicted to rise a foot by 2050, regardless of how much global carbon emissions can be reduced. Why is this happening, and what can we do to adapt?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Carbon dioxide (CO ₂) is an important heat-trapping gas, also known as a greenhouse gas, that comes from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, and natural gas), from wildfires, and natural processes like volcanic eruptions. The first graph shows atmospheric CO ₂ levels measured by NOAA at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, since 1958. The second graph shows CO ₂ levels during Earth's last three glacial cycles, as captured by air bubbles trapped in ice sheets and glaciers.

Since the onset of industrial times in the 18th century, human activities have raised atmospheric CO ₂ by 50% - meaning the amount of CO ₂ is now 150% of its value in 1750. This human-induced rise is greater than the natural increase observed at the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago.

The animated map shows how the historical changes in global carbon dioxide over time. Note the colors change as the amount of CO ₂ rises from 365 parts per million (ppm) in 2002 to over 420 ppm currently. It's important to understand that "parts per million" refers to the number of carbon dioxide molecules per million molecules of dry air. These measurements are from the mid-troposphere, the layer of Earth's atmosphere that is 8 to 12 kilometers (about 5 to 7 miles) above the ground. This data provides insights into the significant rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, highlighting the impact of human activities on Earth's climate.

CO₂ Through the Seasons

A closer look at the carbon dioxide measurements at Mauna Loa shows a series of wiggles in the data. Although total CO ₂ is increasing each year, there is also a short-term cycle visible within the larger trend.

This annual rise and fall of CO ₂ levels is caused by seasonal cycles in photosynthesis on a massive scale. In Northern Hemisphere spring, plants come to life and draw in CO ₂ to fuel their growth. This begins the process of lowering the amount of CO ₂ in the atmosphere. In northern autumn, plant growth stops or slows down, and the whole process reverses itself. Much of the plant matter decomposes, releasing CO ₂ back to the atmosphere.

A similar but less intense pattern repeats in the Southern Hemisphere in opposite seasons. Spring growth starts in September and winter decomposition begins in March, so CO ₂ records in the Southern Hemisphere show the opposite pattern of that seen in Mauna Loa. However, because there is a lot more land and vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere than the southern, the global seasonal cycle more closely aligns with the northern pattern.

See the cycle in action in the visualization Watching Earth Breathe: The Seasonal Vegetation Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

This boom-and-bust cycle of plant growth gives the graph of CO ₂ a sawtooth pattern of ups and downs from year to year. At a larger scale, the upward climb of the trend line over the decades is caused by CO ₂ emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels. Thus, the data illustrate both natural factors and human additions of CO ₂.

Learn more:

NASA's Climate Kids: Why is Carbon Important?

Missions That Observe CO₂
Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-3)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Director

Author

National Geographic Society

Production Managers

Program Specialists

other

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sea Level Rise | National Geographic Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Media Credits The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited. Director Author National Geographic Society Production Managers Program Specialists other

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The past eight years have been the warmest in the global record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
빙산과 빙하, 녹을 때 해수면에 다른 영향 주는 이유는?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
㉓ 서울사대부고 기후변화수업에서 배우는 해수면 상승의 과학원리

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and farming livestock are increasingly influencing the climate and the earth's temperature.

This adds enormous amounts of greenhouse gases to those naturally occurring in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and global warming.

Global warming

2011-2020 was the warmest decade recorded, with global average temperature reaching 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels in 2019. Human-induced global warming is presently increasing at a rate of 0.2°C per decade.

An increase of 2°C compared to the temperature in pre-industrial times is associated with serious negative impacts on to the natural environment and human health and wellbeing, including a much higher risk that dangerous and possibly catastrophic changes in the global environment will occur.

For this reason, the international community has recognised the need to keep warming well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.

Greenhouse gases

The main driver of climate change is the greenhouse effect. Some gases in the Earth's atmosphere act a bit like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping the sun's heat and stopping it from leaking back into space and causing global warming.

Many of these greenhouse gases occur naturally, but human activities are increasing the concentrations of some of them in the atmosphere, in particular:

CO ₂ produced by human activities is the largest contributor to global warming. By 2020, its concentration in the atmosphere had risen to 48% above its pre-industrial level (before 1750).

Other greenhouse gases are emitted by human activities in smaller quantities. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO ₂, but has a shorter atmospheric lifetime. Nitrous oxide, like CO ₂, is a long-lived greenhouse gas that accumulates in the atmosphere over decades to centuries. Non-greenhouse gas pollutants, including aerosols like soot, have different warming and cooling effects and are also associated with other issues such as poor air quality.

Natural causes, such as changes in solar radiation or volcanic activity are estimated to have contributed less than plus or minus 0.1°C to total warming between 1890 and 2010.

Causes for rising emissions

Burning coal, oil and gas produces carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide.

Cutting down forests (deforestation). Trees help to regulate the climate by absorbing CO₂ from the atmosphere. When they are cut down, that beneficial effect is lost and the carbon stored in the trees is released into the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect.

Increasing livestock farming. Cows and sheep produce large amounts of methane when they digest their food.

Fertilisers containing nitrogen produce nitrous oxide emissions.

Fluorinated gases are emitted from equipment and products that use these gases. Such emissions have a very strong warming effect, up to 23 000 times greater than CO₂.

Countering climate change

As every tonne of CO ₂ emitted contributes to global warming, all emissions reductions contribute to slowing it down. In order to stop global warming completely, CO ₂ emissions have to reach net zero worldwide. In addition, reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases, such as methane, can also have a powerful effect on slowing global warming - especially in the short term.

The consequences of climate change are extremely serious, and affect many aspects of our lives. Both countering climate change and adapting to a warming world are top priorities for the EU.We need climate action now. Find out about what the EU is doing to fight the climate crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and farming livestock are increasingly influencing the climate and the earth's temperature.

# data[].attributes.body
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/extreme-weather-events-have-increased-significantly-in-the-last-20-years

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/&ved=2ahUKEwi_q8H22rb6AhW5pVYBHWc0DPkQFnoECD0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1RI0bscTNzAOMlTxFIMr7p

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change is a long-term shift in global or regional climate patterns. Often climate change refers specifically to the rise in global temperatures from the mid-20th century to present.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/sea-level-rise-1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As humans continue to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, oceans have tempered the effect. The world's seas have absorbed more than 90 percent of the heat from these gases, but it's taking a toll on our oceans: 2021 set a new record for ocean heating.

Rising seas is one of those climate change effects. Average sea levels have swelled over 8 inches (about 23 cm) since 1880, with about three of those inches gained in the last 25 years. Every year, the sea rises another .13 inches (3.2 mm.) Research published in February 2022 shows that sea level rise is accelerating and projected to rise by a foot by 2050.

That translates into as much sea level rise in the next 30 years as occurred over the last century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Rick Spinrad, the NOAA administrator, called the findings "historic," and warned that the projected rise will occur even if carbon emissions are drastically cut.

(How carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.)

In the United States, the most vulnerable populations live on the East and Gulf Coasts, where damaging flooding is predicted to occur 10 times more often in 2050 than it does today. The acceleration of sea level rise along these coasts is "unprecedented in at least 120 years," according to a study published in April 2023.

Here's what you need to know about the causes-and consequences-of sea level rise.

Causes of sea level rise

The change in sea levels is linked to three primary factors, all induced by ongoing global climate change:

Thermal expansion: When water heats up, it expands. About half of the sea-level rise over the past 25 years is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space.

Melting glaciers: Large ice formations such as mountain glaciers naturally melt a bit each summer. In the winter, snows, primarily from evaporated seawater, are generally sufficient to balance out the melting. Recently, though, persistently higher temperatures caused by global warming have led to greater-than-average summer melting as well as diminished snowfall due to later winters and earlier springs. That creates an imbalance between runoff and ocean evaporation, causing sea levels to rise.

Loss of Greenland and Antarctica's ice sheets: As with mountain glaciers, increased heat is causing the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica to melt more quickly. Scientists also believe that meltwater from above and seawater from below is seeping beneath Greenland's ice sheets, effectively lubricating ice streams and causing them to move more quickly into the sea. While melting in West Antarctica has drawn considerable focus from scientists, especially with the 2017 break in the Larsen C ice shelf, glaciers in East Antarctica are also showing signs of destabilizing.

Consequences

When sea levels rise as rapidly as they have been, even a small increase can have devastating effects on coastal habitats farther inland, it can cause destructive erosion, wetland flooding, aquifer and agricultural soil contamination with salt, and lost habitat for fish, birds, and plants.

(Here's how warming oceans affects wildlife and storm systems.)

Higher sea levels are coinciding with more dangerous hurricanes and typhoons that move more slowly and drop more rain, contributing to more powerful storm surges that can strip away everything in their path. One study found that between 1963 and 2012, almost half of all deaths from Atlantic hurricanes were caused by storm surges.

Already, flooding in low-lying coastal areas is forcing people to migrate to higher ground, and millions more are vulnerable from flood risk and other climate change effects. The prospect of higher coastal water levels threatens basic services such as Internet access, since much of the underlying communications infrastructure lies in the path of rising seas.

Adapting to the threat

As a result of these risks, many coastal cities are already planning adaptation measures to cope with the long-term prospects of higher sea levels, often at considerable cost. Building seawalls, rethinking roads, and planting mangroves or other vegetation to absorb water are all being undertaken.

In Jakarta, a $40 billion project will aim to protect the city with an 80-foot-high seawall. Rotterdam, home to the Global Center on Adaptation, has offered a model to other cities seeking to combat flooding and land loss. The Dutch city has built barriers, drainage, and innovative architectural features such as a "water square" with temporary ponds.

Of course, communities vulnerable to rising seas can only go so far in holding back the tide. In the Marshall Islands, where rising sea levels are forcing a choice between relocating or building up the land, residents will need help from other nations if they decide to undertake the expensive latter option.

How high will it go?

Most predictions say the warming of the planet will continue and is likely to accelerate, causing the oceans to keep rising. This means hundreds of coastal cities face flooding. But forecasting how much and how soon seas will rise remains an area of ongoing research.

A special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we can expect the oceans to rise between 10 and 30 inches (26 to 77 centimeters) by 2100 with temperatures warming 1.5 °C. That's enough to seriously affect many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. Another analysis based on NASA and European data skewed toward the higher end of that range, predicting a rise of 26 inches (65 centimeters) by the end of this century if the current trajectory continues.

If all the ice that currently exists on Earth in glaciers and sheets melted it would raise sea level by 216 feet. That could cause entire states and even some countries to disappear under the waves, from Florida to Bangladesh. That's not a scenario scientists think is likely, and it would probably take many centuries, but it could eventually happen if the world keeps burning fossil fuels indiscriminately.

In the meantime, scientists keep refining their models of sea-level changes. They also point out that the extent to which countries work together to limit release of more greenhouse gases may have a significant impact on how quickly seas rise, and how much.

Editor's Note: This story was originally published on February 19, 2019. It has been updated with new data.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seas are predicted to rise a foot by 2050, regardless of how much global carbon emissions can be reduced. Why is this happening, and what can we do to adapt?

# data[].attributes.body
https://polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears-changing-arctic/polar-bear-facts/status/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In addition to climate warming, other challenges to the bears include increased commercial activities, conflicts with people, pollution, disease, inadequate habitat protection (of denning and seasonal resting areas), and the potential for over-harvest in smaller or declining polar bear populations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The polar bear is classified as a vulnerable species. Learn about the 19 polar bear populations and how they are faring.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/weather-climate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rising global average temperature is associated with widespread changes in weather patterns. Scientific studies indicate that extreme weather events such as heat waves and large storms are likely to become more frequent or more intense with human-induced climate change. This chapter focuses on observed changes in temperature, precipitation, storms, floods, and droughts.

Why does it matter?

Long-term changes in climate can directly or indirectly affect many aspects of society in potentially disruptive ways. For example, warmer average temperatures could increase air conditioning costs and affect the spread of diseases like Lyme disease, but could also improve conditions for growing some crops. More extreme variations in weather are also a threat to society. More frequent and intense extreme heat events can increase illnesses and deaths, especially among vulnerable populations, and damage some crops. While increased precipitation can replenish water supplies and support agriculture, intense storms can damage property, cause loss of life and population displacement, and temporarily disrupt essential services such as transportation, telecommunications, energy, and water supplies.

Summary of Key Points

U.S. and Global Temperature. Average temperatures have risen across the contiguous 48 states since 1901, with an increased rate of warming over the past 30 years. Nine of the top 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. Average global temperatures show a similar trend, and all of the top 10 warmest years on record worldwide have occurred since 2005. Within the United States, temperatures in parts of the North, the West, and Alaska have increased the most.

Seasonal Temperature. As the Earth warms overall, average temperatures increase throughout the year, but the increases may be larger in certain seasons than in others. Since 1896, average winter temperatures across the contiguous 48 states have increased by nearly 3°F. Spring temperatures have increased by about 2°F, while summer and fall temperatures have increased by about 1.5°F.

High and Low Temperatures. Many extreme temperature conditions are becoming more common. Since the 1970s, unusually hot summer days (highs) have become more common over the last few decades in the United States. Unusually hot summer nights (lows) have become more common at an even faster rate. This trend indicates less "cooling off" at night. Although the United States has experienced many winters with unusually low temperatures, unusually cold winter temperatures have become less common-particularly very cold nights (lows). Record-setting daily high temperatures have become more common than record lows.

Heat Waves. Heat waves are occurring more than they used to in major cities across the United States. Heat waves are occurring three times more often than they did in the 1960s-about six per year compared with two per year. The average heat wave season is 49 days longer, and individual heat waves are lasting longer and becoming more intense.

U.S. and Global Precipitation. Total annual precipitation has increased over land areas in the United States and worldwide. Since 1901, precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.2 inches per decade over the contiguous 48 states. However, shifting weather patterns have caused certain areas, such as the Southwest, to experience less precipitation than usual.

Heavy Precipitation. In recent years, a higher percentage of precipitation in the United States has come in the form of intense single-day events. The prevalence of extreme single-day precipitation events remained fairly steady between 1910 and the 1980s but has risen substantially since then. Nationwide, nine of the top 10 years for extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1996. The occurrence of abnormally high annual precipitation totals (as defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has also increased.

Tropical Cyclone Activity. Tropical storm activity in the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico has increased during the past 20 years. Storm intensity, a measure of strength, duration, and frequency, is closely related to variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic and has risen noticeably during that time. However, changes in observation methods over time make it difficult to know for sure whether a longer-term increase in storm activity has occurred. Records collected since the late 1800s suggest that the actual number of hurricanes per year has not increased.

River Flooding. Increases and decreases in the frequency and magnitude of river flood events vary by region. Floods have generally become larger across parts of the Northeast and Midwest and smaller in the West, southern Appalachia, and northern Michigan. Large floods have become more frequent across the Northeast, Pacific Northwest, and parts of the northern Great Plains, and less frequent in the Southwest and the Rockies.

Drought. Average drought conditions across the nation have varied over time. The 1930s and 1950s saw the most widespread droughts, while the last 50 years have generally been wetter than average. Specific trends vary by region, as the West has generally experienced more drought while the Midwest and Northeast have become wetter. A more detailed index developed recently shows that over the period from 2000 through 2020, roughly 20 to 70 percent of the U.S. land area experienced conditions that were at least abnormally dry at any given time. However, this index has not been in use for long enough to compare with historical drought patterns.

A Closer Look: Temperature and Drought in the Southwest. The southwestern United States is particularly sensitive to changes in temperature and thus vulnerable to drought, as even a small decrease in water availability in this already arid region can stress natural systems and further threaten water supplies. Several measures indicate persistent and more severe drought conditions in recent years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Indicators: Weather and Climate | US EPA

# data[].attributes.body
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere. It is an integral part of the carbon cycle, a biogeochemical cycle in which carbon is exchanged between the Earth’s oceans, soil, rocks and the biosphere. Plants and other photoautotrophs use solar energy to produce carbohydrate f…

# data[].attributes.body
https://scholar.google.co.kr/scholar?hl=ko&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1&scioq=extreme+weather+events&qsp=1&q=attribution+of+extreme+weather+%22climate+events%22&qst=br#d=gs_qabs&t=1664429567301&u=%23p%3DPPyDZTav0YEJ

# data[].attributes.body
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

# data[].attributes.body
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

# data[].attributes.body
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/extreme-weather-events-have-increased-significantly-in-the-last-20-years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There has been a "staggering rise" in the number of extreme weather events over the past 20 years, driven largely by rising global temperatures and other climatic changes, according to a new report from the United Nations. From 2000 to 2019, there were 7,348 major natural disasters around the world, killing 1.23 million people and resulting in $2.97 trillion in global economic losses.

By comparison, the previous 20-year period, 1980-1999, had 4,212 natural disasters, claiming 1.19 million lives and causing $1.63 trillion in economic losses.

Much of this increase, the report notes, can be attributed to climate change. Climate-related disasters jumped 83 percent - from 3,656 events during the 1980-1999 period to 6,681 in the past 20 years. Major floods have more than doubled, the number of severe storms has risen 40 percent, and there have been major increases in droughts, wildfires, and heatwaves.

"We are willfully destructive," Mami Mizutori, the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Disaster Risk Reduction, said in a statement. "That is the only conclusion one can come to when reviewing disaster events over the last twenty years. Disaster management agencies, civil protection departments, fire brigades, public health authorities, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and many NGOs are fighting an uphill battle against an ever-rising tide of extreme weather events. More lives are being saved, but more people are being affected by the expanding climate emergency."

The report, "The Human Cost of Disasters 2000-2019," found that Asia experienced the highest number of extreme weather events, with 3,068 over the 20-year period. China had the highest number of any single country, suffering from 577 major natural disasters. The United States came in second, with 467 events, followed by India, 321 events, the Philippines, 304, and Indonesia, with 278 disasters.

The authors of the report said the findings show a critical need to invest in disaster prevention and preparedness.

"Disaster risk is becoming systemic with one event overlapping and influencing another in ways that are testing our resilience to the limit," Mizutori said. "The odds are being stacked against us when we fail to act on science and early warnings to invest in prevention, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction."

The authors of the report said the findings show a critical need to invest in disaster prevention and preparedness.

"Disaster risk is becoming systemic with one event overlapping and influencing another in ways that are testing our resilience to the limit," Mizutori said. "The odds are being stacked against us when we fail to act on science and early warnings to invest in prevention, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Extreme Weather Events Have Increased Significantly in the Last 20 Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There has been a "staggering rise" in the number of extreme weather events over the past 20 years, driven largely by rising global temperatures and other climatic changes, according to a new report from the United Nations. From 2000 to 2019, there were 7,348 major natural disasters around the world, killing 1.23 million people and resulting in $2.97 trillion in global economic losses.

# data[].attributes.body
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
101 (± 4.0) mm

This is the "uncertainty margin," or the range from the mean (average) within which there is a high probability that the true number resides. For example, when we say global sea level has risen 101 mm +/- 4 mm, the true value has a high probability of being between 97 and 105 mm. The uncertainty margin exists both because of sea level variability (sea level above the first point in the time series) in the ocean and the accuracy with which we measure the individual values.

Key Takeaway:

Global sea levels are rising as a result of human-caused global warming, with recent rates being unprecedented over the past 2,500-plus years.

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers, and the expansion of seawater as it warms. The first graph tracks the change in global sea level since 1993, as observed by satellites.

The second graph, which is from coastal tide gauge and satellite data, shows how much sea level changed from about 1900 to 2018. Items with pluses (+) are factors that cause global sea level to increase, while minuses (-) are what cause sea level to decrease. These items are displayed at the time they were affecting sea level.

The data shown are the latest available, with a four- to five-month delay needed for processing.

* You now need to create an Earthdata account to access NASA's sea level data. Register here for free. Once logged in, click the "download data" button on this page to access the data.
NASA Sea Level Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-05-22-global-temperature-change-attributable-external-factors-confirms-new-study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global temperature change attributable to external factors, confirms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Researchers at the University of Oxford have confirmed that human activity and other external factors are responsible for the rise in global temperature.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There has been a "staggering rise" in the number of extreme weather events over the past 20 years, driven largely by rising global temperatures and other climatic changes, according to a new report from the United Nations. From 2000 to 2019, there were 7,348 major natural disasters around the world, killing 1.23 million people and resulting in $2.97 trillion in global economic losses.

By comparison, the previous 20-year period, 1980-1999, had 4,212 natural disasters, claiming 1.19 million lives and causing $1.63 trillion in economic losses.

Much of this increase, the report notes, can be attributed to climate change. Climate-related disasters jumped 83 percent - from 3,656 events during the 1980-1999 period to 6,681 in the past 20 years. Major floods have more than doubled, the number of severe storms has risen 40 percent, and there have been major increases in droughts, wildfires, and heatwaves.

"We are willfully destructive," Mami Mizutori, the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Disaster Risk Reduction, said in a statement. "That is the only conclusion one can come to when reviewing disaster events over the last twenty years. Disaster management agencies, civil protection departments, fire brigades, public health authorities, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and many NGOs are fighting an uphill battle against an ever-rising tide of extreme weather events. More lives are being saved, but more people are being affected by the expanding climate emergency."

The report, "The Human Cost of Disasters 2000-2019," found that Asia experienced the highest number of extreme weather events, with 3,068 over the 20-year period. China had the highest number of any single country, suffering from 577 major natural disasters. The United States came in second, with 467 events, followed by India, 321 events, the Philippines, 304, and Indonesia, with 278 disasters.

The authors of the report said the findings show a critical need to invest in disaster prevention and preparedness.

"Disaster risk is becoming systemic with one event overlapping and influencing another in ways that are testing our resilience to the limit," Mizutori said. "The odds are being stacked against us when we fail to act on science and early warnings to invest in prevention, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction."

The authors of the report said the findings show a critical need to invest in disaster prevention and preparedness.

"Disaster risk is becoming systemic with one event overlapping and influencing another in ways that are testing our resilience to the limit," Mizutori said. "The odds are being stacked against us when we fail to act on science and early warnings to invest in prevention, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Extreme Weather Events Have Increased Significantly in the Last 20 Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There has been a "staggering rise" in the number of extreme weather events over the past 20 years, driven largely by rising global temperatures and other climatic changes, according to a new report from the United Nations. From 2000 to 2019, there were 7,348 major natural disasters around the world, killing 1.23 million people and resulting in $2.97 trillion in global economic losses.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature&ved=2ahUKEwiJn4Dzo7n6AhXhhVYBHev-AAsQFnoECGIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2gnoYqLpyY0IxRUFwn361c

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
“20년간 전세계 기상이변 사망 50만명…실제 피해는 더 심각”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
“20년간 전세계 기상이변 사망 50만명…실제 피해는 더 심각”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
영국·뉴질랜드 연구팀 분석…”폭염피해 특히 과소집계”″통계분석 체계 미비 저개발국에 체계적 감시체계 도입해야”

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.acea.auto/publication/position-paper-review-of-co2-emission-standards-regulation-for-heavy-duty-vehicles/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
ACEA - European Automobile Manufacturers' Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to content

CO2 emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles have been in force since 2019, when targets were set to reduce CO2 emissions from the most relevant heavy-duty vehicle segments by -15% in 2025 and -30% in 2030. Key elements of the regulation will be reviewed by the end of 2022.

ACEA welcomes the review as an important opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the regulation, adjust different elements, expand its scope and - most importantly - ensure alignment with other important regulations which should create the enabling framework for the transition to climate neutrality.

The CO2 standards regulation for heavy-duty vehicles is just one element (albeit an important one) of the wider regulatory framework that should enable the road transport sector to become climate neutral.

Manufacturers are already well on the way to implementing strategies for a rapid decarbonisation of road transport. This will require a fundamental shift in powertrain technologies. Zero-emission vehicles, namely battery-electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles, will have to become the backbone of road transport if the sector is to reach its decarbonisation targets.

All manufacturers have either started series production of battery-electric trucks or are in the final stages before series production. More than a dozen different battery-electric truck models are available today in various configurations that can be adapted to individual specifications.

Hydrogen-powered (fuel-cell electric) trucks are the second major zero-emission powertrain technology. The first fuel-cell trucks are already in customers' hands to gain real-world experiences in regular day-to-day operations. Several manufacturers have announced the start of series production of these vehicles from 2024.

Key messages

1. To ensure a swift adoption of zero-emission vehicles, enabling conditions must be put in place, including a sufficiently dense network of charging and refuelling infrastructure and an effective carbon pricing system.

2. ACEA supports the review of the CO2 emissions reduction target, which should now be set as a fixed ambition level for 2030. Target levels for 2035 and 2040 can be set now but should be reviewed again in due time in view of the status of the enabling conditions, especially the charging and refuelling infrastructure network. ACEA does not support setting intermediate targets before 2030.

3. Despite manufacturers' focus on zero-emission vehicles, ACEA does not consider a general -100% target or an internal combustion engine (ICE) phase-out date (across the board or for all vehicle groups) to be a reasonable policy at this point in time.

4. Strong and effective incentive schemes must be put in place to encourage and enable transport operators to invest in zero-emission vehicles, and to accelerate fleet renewal investments with a focus on the latest technologies.

5. The credit/debit system should be improved and extended beyond 2030.

6. ACEA supports the inclusion of additional vehicle groups in the CO2 emission standards regulation if a CO2 certification framework is already in place (and provided that the specificities of the different vehicle segments are fully accounted for).

Downloads

Reproduction of (parts of) this information or related documents is not permitted without the prior written consent of ACEA. Whenever reproduction is permitted, ACEA shall be referred to as source of the information.

back to top

When you use our website, cookies are placed on your device. By clicking on 'Agree' you indicate that you have read all information about our use of cookies and that you explicitly agree to the use as set out in our cookie policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Position paper - Review of CO2 emission standards regulation for heavy-duty vehicles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CO2 emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles have been in force since 2019, when targets were set to reduce CO2 emissions from the most relevant heavy-duty vehicle segments by -15% in 2025 and -30% in 2030. Key elements of the regulation will be reviewed by the end of 2022.

# data[].attributes.body
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/extreme-weather-events-have-increased-significantly-in-the-last-20-years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There has been a "staggering rise" in the number of extreme weather events over the past 20 years, driven largely by rising global temperatures and other climatic changes, according to a new report from the United Nations. From 2000 to 2019, there were 7,348 major natural disasters around the world, killing 1.23 million people and resulting in $2.97 trillion in global economic losses.

By comparison, the previous 20-year period, 1980-1999, had 4,212 natural disasters, claiming 1.19 million lives and causing $1.63 trillion in economic losses.

Much of this increase, the report notes, can be attributed to climate change. Climate-related disasters jumped 83 percent - from 3,656 events during the 1980-1999 period to 6,681 in the past 20 years. Major floods have more than doubled, the number of severe storms has risen 40 percent, and there have been major increases in droughts, wildfires, and heatwaves.

"We are willfully destructive," Mami Mizutori, the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Disaster Risk Reduction, said in a statement. "That is the only conclusion one can come to when reviewing disaster events over the last twenty years. Disaster management agencies, civil protection departments, fire brigades, public health authorities, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and many NGOs are fighting an uphill battle against an ever-rising tide of extreme weather events. More lives are being saved, but more people are being affected by the expanding climate emergency."

The report, "The Human Cost of Disasters 2000-2019," found that Asia experienced the highest number of extreme weather events, with 3,068 over the 20-year period. China had the highest number of any single country, suffering from 577 major natural disasters. The United States came in second, with 467 events, followed by India, 321 events, the Philippines, 304, and Indonesia, with 278 disasters.

The authors of the report said the findings show a critical need to invest in disaster prevention and preparedness.

"Disaster risk is becoming systemic with one event overlapping and influencing another in ways that are testing our resilience to the limit," Mizutori said. "The odds are being stacked against us when we fail to act on science and early warnings to invest in prevention, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction."

The authors of the report said the findings show a critical need to invest in disaster prevention and preparedness.

"Disaster risk is becoming systemic with one event overlapping and influencing another in ways that are testing our resilience to the limit," Mizutori said. "The odds are being stacked against us when we fail to act on science and early warnings to invest in prevention, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Extreme Weather Events Have Increased Significantly in the Last 20 Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There has been a "staggering rise" in the number of extreme weather events over the past 20 years, driven largely by rising global temperatures and other climatic changes, according to a new report from the United Nations. From 2000 to 2019, there were 7,348 major natural disasters around the world, killing 1.23 million people and resulting in $2.97 trillion in global economic losses.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1880.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1880.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/killer-coal-just-how-bad-are-the-health-effects-of-coal/

# data[].attributes.body
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that lasted from c. 950 to c. 1250.[2] Climate proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, which…

# data[].attributes.body
Developed Countries Are Responsible for 79 Percent of Historical Carbon Emissions | Center for Global Development | Ideas to Action - https://www.cgdev.org/media/who-caused-climate-change-historically

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human influence is rapidly changing the climate.

# data[].attributes.body
지구 온도와 이산화탄소 | 글로벌체인지.gov - https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/global-temperature-and-carbon-dioxide

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%25E2%2580%2599s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade&ved=2ahUKEwiJ2Ibtprn6AhWtmlYBHVJODwoQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1TKBSnCMlQkLW9lv6bTW4c

# data[].attributes.body
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coal is a combustible black or brownish-black sedimentary rock, formed as rock strata called coal seams. Coal is mostly carbon with variable amounts of other elements, chiefly hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen.[1]
Coal is formed when dead plant matter decays into peat and is converted into coal…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wealthy people have disproportionately large carbon footprints and the percentage of the world's emissions they are responsible for is growing, a study has found.

In 2010, the most affluent 10% of households emitted 34% of global CO2, while the 50% of the global population in lower income brackets accounted for just 15%. By 2015 the richest 10% were responsible for 49% of emissions against 7% produced by the poorest half of the world's population.

Aimee Ambrose, a professor of energy policy at Sheffield Hallam University and author of the study published in the journal Science Direct, says cutting the carbon footprint of the wealthiest might be the fastest way to reach net zero.

In terms of energy demand in the UK, the least wealthy half of the population accounts for less than 20% of final demand, less than the top 5% consumes. While their homes may be more energy efficient, high consumers are likely to have more space to heat. They also own and use more luxury items and gadgets.

Ambrose said the cost of living crisis was likely to make those on middle to low incomes reduce their carbon consumption by holidaying in the UK, if at all, and by using less fuel. However, those who consume the most are unlikely to have to make such changes.

"It is much easier for richer consumers to absorb these increases in costs without changing their behaviour," said Ambrose. "Unlike the less wealthy, the thermostat won't be turned down and the idea of not jetting off on a long-haul flight to find some sun is out of the question.

In most countries, before Covid-19, less than half of people reported flying at least once a year while more than half of emissions from passenger aviation were linked to the 1% of people who fly most often.

"In many ways, the rich are being largely insulated from the spike in energy costs," said Ambrose. "But addressing excessive personal consumption is something that isn't on the agenda for the government and policymakers. This is bad news for the planet and our prospects of reaching net zero."

She said the resulting policy neglect of high consumers was a "missed opportunity" to address inequality and opportunities for carbon reduction.

"Price mechanisms may force low-income households to cut back consumption to dangerous levels," Ambrose added. "Moreover, high consumption and large carbon footprints are spatially concentrated in high-income cities and suburbs - while their negative effects, such as air pollution, typically spill over into less affluent areas."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Carbon footprint gap' between rich and poor expanding, study finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wealthy people have disproportionately large carbon footprints and the percentage of the world's emissions they are responsible for is growing, a study has found. In 2010, the most affluent 10% of households emitted 34% of global CO2, while the 50% of the global population in lower income brackets accounted for just 15%.

# data[].attributes.body
“전례 없는 기상이변이 다가오고 있다” – Sciencetimes - https://www.sciencetimes.co.kr/news/%EC%A0%84%EB%A1%80-%EC%97%86%EB%8A%94-%EA%B8%B0%EC%83%81%EC%9D%B4%EB%B3%80%EC%9D%B4-%EB%8B%A4%EA%B0%80%EC%98%A4%EA%B3%A0-%EC%9E%88%EB%8B%A4/

# data[].attributes.body
지구 온도와 이산화탄소 | 글로벌체인지.gov - https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/global-temperature-and-carbon-dioxide

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/killer-coal-just-how-bad-are-the-health-effects-of-coal/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article is more than 3 years old
Like we needed another reason to kick coal to the curb.
No matter how you label it, coal is always polluting. In fact, it is the most polluting way to produce electricity. When coal is dug up and later burned in power stations, it releases massive amounts of pollution, damaging our health and contributing to intensifying climate change.

Along with adding to greenhouse gas pollution, burning coal emits toxic and carcinogenic substances into our air, water and land, severely affecting the health of miners, workers and surrounding communities.

"The continuation or development of any new coal projects is fundamentally at odds with our health and Australia's commitment to tackling climate change." - Petra Stock, Senior Energy and Climate Solutions Analyst

Image Credit: Unsplash

In Australia, coal's health impacts cost taxpayers an estimated $2.6 billion every year and can cause a range of health problems including lung cancer, heart disease and premature death.

In recent years, Australia has seen the re-emergence of the life threatening 'black lung' (coal workers' pneumoconiosis) in Australia, which was thought to have been eradicated. Since 2015 there have been 21 confirmed cases.

There is a high probability that at least 11 people died from air pollution from the 2014 Hazelwood mine fire in Victoria.

Image Credit: "Morwell & Hazelwood - 9/10 Feb, 2014" by Flickr user Sascha Grant licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Other countries are experiencing severe health impacts from coal. In 366,000 deaths were attributed to coal in 2013 alone. In , coal kills about 169,000 people annually.

In the United States , 50,000 coal-related deaths are recorded each year, with air pollution from coal-fired power stations contributing to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the US (heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic respiratory diseases).

"Why put lives at risk over a polluting and pre-historic energy source, when a clean alternative is ready and waiting?" - Petra Stock, Senior Energy and Climate Solutions Analyst.

Clean energy solutions are available now in the form of clean, reliable, affordable renewable energy and storage technology. The times are a changin' globally as more solar was installed in 2017 than coal, gas and nuclear combined.

Image Credit: Unsplash

Kicking coal to the curb isn't just a good idea for our climate, it will help save lives.
For more information on coal and its impacts on human health please see Risky Business: Health, climate and economic risks of the Carmichael Coalmine
By Climate Council / 22 January 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Killer Coal: Just how bad are the health effects of coal? | Climate Council

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article is more than 3 years old Like we needed another reason to kick coal to the curb. No matter how you label it, coal is always polluting. In fact, it is the most polluting way to produce electricity.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-population/

# data[].attributes.body
https://wid.world/news-article/climate-change-the-global-inequality-of-carbon-emissions/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this paper, Lucas Chancel estimates global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inequality between 1990 and 2019, based on a newly assembled global dataset of income and wealth inequality from the World Inequality Database and on Environmental Input-Output tables. The data shows that the richest 10% of the global population emits nearly 48% of global emissions in 2019, the top 1% emits 17% of the total, whereas the poorest half of the global population emits 12% of global emissions. While two thirds of the inequality in individual emissions was due to emissions inequalities between countries in 1990, the situation has entirely reversed in 2019: 63% of the global inequality in individual emissions is now due to gaps between low and high emitters within countries. Lastly, a lot of efforts need to be done by governments to properly monitor carbon inequalities. Absent such information, it is impossible to assess the distributional impacts of climate policies.

📥 Download the study and the summary

📈 Check out the data

Key findings

At the global level, the top 10% of global emitters (771 million individuals) emit on average 31 tonnes of CO2 per person per year and are responsible for about 48% of global CO2 emissions. The bottom 50% are responsible close to 12% of global carbon emissions in 2019 (3.8 billion individuals who emit on average 1.6 tonnes per person). The global top 1% contribute to 17% of CO2 emissions in a year (they emit on average 110 tonnes).

Global inequality in per capita emission is due to large inequalities in average emissions between countries and to even larger inequalities in emissions in each country. Currently, average emissions in Europe are close to 10 tonnes CO2 per person and per year. In North America, the average individual emits around 20 tonnes. This value is of 8 tonnes in China, 2.6 tonnes in South & South-East Asia and 1.6 tonnes in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Historical emissions inequality between regions are very large: North America and Europe are responsible for around half of all emissions since the Industrial Revolution. China represents about 11% of the historical total and Sub-Saharan Africa just 4%.

Since 1990, emissions from the top 1% have risen faster than any other groups because of the rise in economic inequalities within countries and because of the carbon content of their investments.

Per-capita emissions levels of the poorest half of the global population only moderately increased since 1990, from 1.2 tonnes to 1.6 tonnes over the period. Average emissions of the global bottom 50% remain today about 4 times below the global average and the poorest billion of individuals on earth billion emit less than one tonne CO2 per capita per annum.

In many rich countries, per capita emissions of the poorest half of the population have declined since 1990, contrary to that of wealthier groups. Current emissions levels of the poorest half the population are close to per-capita 2030 climate targets in the US, the UK, Germany or France. In these countries, policy efforts should therefore be largely focused on reducing emissions levels of the top half of the population and in particular of the top 10%. In low-income and emerging countries, while certain groups will see their emissions levels rise in the coming decades, urgent action is needed to curb down emissions of the wealthy.

While they officially report carbon emitted within their own territory, governments do not produce systematic data on the carbon imported in goods and services to sustain living standards in their country. Factoring-in emissions embedded in imports and exports (as we do in this study), European emission levels increase by around 25% and reduce reported emissions in China and Sub-Saharan Africa by around 10% and 20%, respectively.

Since the industrial revolution, around 2500 billion tonnes of CO2 have been emitted by humankind. Based on current emissions rates, the remaining carbon budget to limit global warming to 2°C above preindustrial levels (that is, 900 billion tonnes of CO2) will be entirely depleted in 18 years. To limit global warming to 1.5°C, the remaining budget (300 billion tCO2) will be depleted in 6 years.

Policy recommendations

Monitoring. Countries do not possess basic, up-to-date information to track carbon emissions inequalities. It is urgent to develop public monitoring systems to measure carbon emissions of individuals, with a particular focus on carbon emissions embedded in consumption and in investment portfolios.

Reporting. Based on improved carbon inequality data, public deliberation could set clear targets in terms of emissions reductions per capita (not only in terms of national totals) and develop information systems enabling individuals to check the distance between their own emissions levels and national per capita targets. A systematic assessment of the beneficiaries and losers of climate policies should also be carried out by public authorities.

Taxing. Climate policies have been disproportionately borne by low-income consumers over the past decades, in particular via carbon and energy taxes. More emphasis should be placed on wealthy polluters. This can be done via policy instruments targeting investments in polluting and fossil activities. Progressive wealth taxes on the ownership of polluting activities could accelerate divestments, reduce pollution levels of the wealthiest and generate much-need resources to scale-up investments in low-carbon infrastructures. Ultimately, the ownership and sale of assets associated to new fossil projects should be prohibited.

Earmarking. Public actors must significantly scale-up their investments in low-carbon energy production infrastructures, transport and energy efficiency in order to ensure a fair transition. Overall, additional annual investments in the energy transition of around 2% of global GDP are needed (representing an additional $ 1800bn in 2021). A relatively modest progressive global wealth with a pollution top-up, such as the one presented in this study, could generate 1.7% of global income. A significant part of these revenues can be earmarked towards the green transition to finance climate investments without additional financial cost for low- and middle-income groups.

Contacts & Credits

Lucas Chancel (Paris School of Economics; World Inequality Lab; Sciences Po)
Media inquiries

Olivia Ronsain: olivia.ronsain@psemail.eu; +33 7 63 91 81 68
This work benefitted from the support of the United Nations Development Programme.
Resources

Working paper and its Appendix detailing the methodology of distributional carbon estimates

See also the complementary Technical Note on the methodology for aggregate CO2 emissions series

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change & the global inequality of carbon emissions, 1990-2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this paper, Lucas Chancel estimates global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inequality between 1990 and 2019, based on a newly assembled global dataset of income and wealth inequality from the World Inequality Database and on Environmental Input-Output tables.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/killer-coal-just-how-bad-are-the-health-effects-of-coal/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article is more than 3 years old
Like we needed another reason to kick coal to the curb.
No matter how you label it, coal is always polluting. In fact, it is the most polluting way to produce electricity. When coal is dug up and later burned in power stations, it releases massive amounts of pollution, damaging our health and contributing to intensifying climate change.

Along with adding to greenhouse gas pollution, burning coal emits toxic and carcinogenic substances into our air, water and land, severely affecting the health of miners, workers and surrounding communities.

"The continuation or development of any new coal projects is fundamentally at odds with our health and Australia's commitment to tackling climate change." - Petra Stock, Senior Energy and Climate Solutions Analyst

Image Credit: Unsplash

In Australia, coal's health impacts cost taxpayers an estimated $2.6 billion every year and can cause a range of health problems including lung cancer, heart disease and premature death.

In recent years, Australia has seen the re-emergence of the life threatening 'black lung' (coal workers' pneumoconiosis) in Australia, which was thought to have been eradicated. Since 2015 there have been 21 confirmed cases.

There is a high probability that at least 11 people died from air pollution from the 2014 Hazelwood mine fire in Victoria.

Image Credit: "Morwell & Hazelwood - 9/10 Feb, 2014" by Flickr user Sascha Grant licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Other countries are experiencing severe health impacts from coal. In 366,000 deaths were attributed to coal in 2013 alone. In , coal kills about 169,000 people annually.

In the United States , 50,000 coal-related deaths are recorded each year, with air pollution from coal-fired power stations contributing to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the US (heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic respiratory diseases).

"Why put lives at risk over a polluting and pre-historic energy source, when a clean alternative is ready and waiting?" - Petra Stock, Senior Energy and Climate Solutions Analyst.

Clean energy solutions are available now in the form of clean, reliable, affordable renewable energy and storage technology. The times are a changin' globally as more solar was installed in 2017 than coal, gas and nuclear combined.

Image Credit: Unsplash

Kicking coal to the curb isn't just a good idea for our climate, it will help save lives.
For more information on coal and its impacts on human health please see Risky Business: Health, climate and economic risks of the Carmichael Coalmine
By Climate Council / 22 January 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Killer Coal: Just how bad are the health effects of coal? | Climate Council

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article is more than 3 years old Like we needed another reason to kick coal to the curb. No matter how you label it, coal is always polluting. In fact, it is the most polluting way to produce electricity.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data&ved=2ahUKEwj93bWQscX6AhV6q1YBHagRCnkQFnoECDwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2yKbIn24VH9x75_f-nitCq

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERROR: The request could not be satisfied