Skip to content

Global Emissions Up 1.4% In 2017

March 23, 2018
tags: , ,

By Paul Homewood



Global carbon dioxide emissions rose 1.4 percent in 2017 to a record-setting 32.5 gigatonnes, according to a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Emissions rose after stalling for three years in a row, IEA reported. The Paris climate accord was signed by nearly 200 countries in 2015, which went into effect a year later. One year into the Paris accord, and emissions are on the rise.

IEA’s report echoes findings published by the Global Carbon Project late last year, predicting global emissions would rise 2 percent. The group projected emissions to rise again in 2018.

CO2 emissions rose because of a 2.1 percent increase in global energy demand, 70 percent of which was met by fossil fuels, especially natural gas and coal-fired electricity. China’s 6 percent jump in electricity demand was met by coal, IEA reported.

Meanwhile, U.S. emissions continued to fall “mainly because of higher deployment of renewables,” IEA reported on Thursday. U.K. emissions also fell, but European Union emissions grew last year, a no doubt awkward development for European leaders who chastised President Donald Trump for leaving the Paris accord.

A major reason emissions rose was because the world economy grew 3.7 percent last year. Higher economic growth means more emissions, despite claims that economic growth had begun to “decouple” from greenhouse gas emissions.

With 81 percent of the world’s energy being met with fossil fuels, any increase in economic activity necessitates more emissions. IEA issued a dire warning on 2017’s jump in emissions.

“The growth in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2017 is a strong warning for global efforts to combat climate change, and demonstrates that current efforts are insufficient to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement,” IEA warned.


Some of us have been predicting this since Paris, and before.

There is a very simple equation here:

If  the global economy continues to grow, it will need more energy. And renewables are simply not up to the job of providing the cheap, reliable energy that growing economies need.

We will carry on seeing this pattern for many years to come – renewable energy will continue to grow rapidly, but from a tiny starting point. But conventional energy sources will need to provide more and more, if developing countries are to grow their economies.

Only a global recession will put the brake on emissions of CO2.

Of course, behind all of the smoke and mirrors, we need to remind ourselves that global emissions are already much higher than when this whole charade began in the 1990s, in the days of Kyoto.

Then we were told that emissions had to come down quickly, or else. Since then emissions have risen by nearly 50%.

Whether they go up or come down now by an odd percent or so is pretty much irrelevant when seen in those terms.


  1. March 23, 2018 10:51 pm

    Few countries agreed to do anything much in the Paris Agreement. Not worth the paper it was written on really.

  2. markl permalink
    March 23, 2018 11:38 pm

    Reality strikes again. Fossil fuels are the backbone of growth and prosperity. The ‘renewables’ didn’t even keep pace with the energy use increase. And I disagree that the US emissions fell due to higher use of renewables…. it’s because of the switch from coal to natural gas.

  3. tom0mason permalink
    March 24, 2018 12:13 am

    Yep and all that additional CO2 in the atmosphere is doing it’s job, eh. Such as making a warm winter in the Northern Hemisphere, and a boiling hot summer in the Southern Hemisphere? No, the reality shows the world is cooling.

    Historically CO2 has never been a climate controller, and currently is not in control the climate. The only control that is trying to be exerted is by the UN through the UN-IPCC, and the cadre of evil, deranged, hubristic ‘climate $cientists™’, who make money from the scam.

  4. March 24, 2018 1:04 am

    Good report

  5. AndyG55 permalink
    March 24, 2018 1:27 am


    Still, a LONG way to go to get to 700ppm. !

    • HotScot permalink
      March 24, 2018 1:34 am

      Beat me to it………….Damn!

  6. AndyG55 permalink
    March 24, 2018 1:30 am

    “Only a global recession will put the brake on emissions of CO2.”

    A global recession would CERTAINLY slow down the growth of wasteful “unreliables”

    Recessions have a way of making people see reality, and be far more cautious with their funds.

    • HotScot permalink
      March 24, 2018 1:41 am

      I would suggest there is no such thing as a global recession.

      It’s like global CO2 sequestration, the money is somewhere.

      In fact, like energy, never exhausted, merely displaced.

      It’s not like all the money is chucked out into space (OK, well a tiny amount is) never to be recovered. It just circulates, it’s invested, re invested and churned. There’s only so much of it (not just money, but resources that make money) so it’s a kind of a self levelling phenomenon.

      Were it not for politicians and the media.

      • tom0mason permalink
        March 24, 2018 10:54 am

        A recession is when very wealthy people and institutions (the capital markets) stop investing in meaningful businesses (that create and maintain employment), and everyone else pays the price.

        Investments go to artworks, gold, and other ‘safe’ investments.

  7. John F. Hultquist permalink
    March 24, 2018 3:35 am


    The headline writer (or the author) shows ignorance of the Paris Agreement — a set of meaningless papers bound together that signifies that 200 nations can’t agree on anything — except trying to extract money from the U. S. and a few other countries.
    Barack Obama (worst president ever) is the only person known that believed the Paris “papers” involved major reductions in CO2 emissions. BO is now flotsam on the waters of history. Same as the Paris Agreement.

    • gallopingcamel permalink
      March 24, 2018 6:01 am

      Jimmy Carter should be ecstatic. He is now the second worst American president thanks to Barack Obama. Obama is a learned fool. How could anyone suggest that “Climate Change” is a more imminent threat than ISIS, the Norks or Iran?

      We humans are mammals. Mammals became dominant fifty million years ago when sea levels were 120 feet higher than today because polar temperatures were 18 degrees Centigrade higher. The global temperatures was five degrees Centigrade higher than today. Even though there were no SUVs back then the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was over 1,500 ppm, almost four times what it is today.

      Did the high level of CO2 cause the high temperatures back in the PETM (Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum)? Absolutely not! The high temperature caused the oceans to give up CO2 owing to Henry’s law.

      • tempestnut permalink
        March 24, 2018 5:00 pm

        I think all we can agree on at present is that we don’t know very much about anything, certainly not about the age of the earth, how long we have been here and why we became dominant.

        The whole climate change thing has become a joke with both climate zealots and sceptics arguing about things that are wrong. I have spent the last few years learning everything I can about the electric universe and have come to the conclusion that our world and universe is very different to that that most people have in their minds. Certainly when it comes to climate, and the reasons we are warm on earth, I thing all sides are wrong, and the real answer is yet to be understood. But those who have read nothing of the electric universe will not agree and vehemently argue there version is correct. But the good thing is NASA is beginning to see the light, and certainly when it comes to earthquake they are on board with the electric universe

  8. mikewaite permalink
    March 24, 2018 8:50 am

    How will the BBC play this news? (If it has not already – I avoid having to listen to them on TV or radio as far as possible).

    • March 24, 2018 10:27 am

      Well, the BBC – in the middle of last night – were making much of Arctic warmth, thus changed jet stream, thus recent NH cold temperatures. This was followed by reports of Mount Etna’s 14 millimetre per year move to the south east. Scary – according to the academic involved – as this could lead to major upheaval.
      This morning – they seem to be limiting themselves to Mt Etna. No mention so far of increased global CO2.

      • dave permalink
        March 24, 2018 11:09 am

        According to the United States Geological Survey there are 1,500 active volcanoes around the world. If our ludicrous BBC is going to scream every time one of them burps…

    • Up2snuff permalink
      March 24, 2018 5:02 pm

      Mike, the bbc covered it at the end of last year (2017) but did not go into a careful analysis of who was up, who was down and certainly not why. Instead they (Harrabin mostly) were in alarmist mode.

      But just remembering some reports about weather, I seem to recall there were some exceptionally cold periods in both southern & northern hemispheres during 2017. To stay alive and/or comfortable in cold ambient conditions, humans need heat. That heat still comes largely from fossil fuels.

      • Up2snuff permalink
        March 24, 2018 5:05 pm

        Ooops! Forgot to add, IIRC 2017 was a particularly bad year for forest fires which would have added lots of CO2 to emissions. These occur usually quite naturally (a result of lightning strikes) and are part of our planet’s regenerative process.

  9. dave permalink
    March 24, 2018 10:51 am

    Blaming cold weather on warming – a very effective ploy, since cold weather comes once a year – has bought another twenty years for the farceurs.

  10. March 24, 2018 11:58 am

    Can you detect the impact of your higher utility bills in the following?

  11. mikewaite permalink
    March 24, 2018 1:49 pm

    How are the annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions known so accurately?
    Is it by calculation from the amount of fuel sold?
    From the energy outputs /nation- but what about personal transport and domestic heating?
    Is there an isotopic carbon signature in the gas measured at Mauna Loa attributable to fossil carbon ?
    What about CO2 from concrete and steel making?
    Where does agriculture as a source or sink fit in ?
    Can Harrabin answer my questions ?

  12. manicbeancounter permalink
    March 24, 2018 2:06 pm

    The Paris Climate Agreement, even if fully implemented, will not reduce global emissions. This is clear from paragraph 17 of the Paris Agreement, which stated that even if fully implemented total GHG emissions would be 55 GtCO2e in 2030, higher than in 2015.

    This is still the case. in October 2017, just before COP23 Bonn, UNEP produced their annual “Emissions Gap Report”. The key figure (reproduced below) shows global emissions still rising under current policies in 2030, whilst the objective is for emissions to fall rapidly post 2020. Indeed, the central forecast for emissions in 2030 under the current policy trajectory has risen from 55 to 58 GtCO2e.

    • dave permalink
      March 24, 2018 2:37 pm

      It will give a better test of the CO2 theory, the more that emissions rise. All impartial lovers of truth must therefore rejoice that the Chinese et al are doing their bit for science.

      Meanwhile, another ‘death spiral’ seems to have been derailed – this time, way down south:

      • dave permalink
        March 24, 2018 2:48 pm

        That link did not work as expected! Click through to Antarctica Daily to notice that sea-ice cover has risen by an unusual amount in March, and the total affected area is coming close to “average for the time of year.”

        Mind you, who really cares! I just like to inspect the field to see whether there was a battle – or a skirmish.

      • Up2snuff permalink
        March 24, 2018 5:13 pm

        Dave, the BBC has picked up on the record vegetation growth that has been identified by satellite imaging. Think that was back in 2016 and they also reported that scientists were considering that it was a result of increasing CO2 emissions.

        Could it be that increased vegetation + naturally increasing global cooling? Alarmists will no doubt deny that, overlooking how cold a human quickly becomes when inactive in deep forest growth, for example, even in the tropics in summer.

        The BBC were none to clear about the stalling of emissions growth and reporting what the IEA have noticed in prior years. I wonder why?

  13. dennisambler permalink
    March 24, 2018 2:24 pm

    Emissions won’t go down anytime soon. As they are having no impact on the weather and long term climate, it is irrelevant anyway. The Paris Accord was purely for public consumption, with “targets” and “plans” for feel-good politicians to aspire to and outbid each other in an economics race to the bottom.

    “Northern Ireland-based LCC Group and Belfast Harbour have invested a combined £30 million in putting the city at the centre of the global supply chain for high-tech coal.

    LCC imports coal to Belfast from Columbia for processing before onward export.
    “Belfast Harbour is now handling direct export shipments to Saudi Arabia for the first time in its history and recently exported bulk cargo to Australia for the first time in living memory.

    This new trade is also supporting jobs across a wide range of port services including stevedores and hauliers.”

    Growth of coal around the world.

    “Despite the government’s goal of generating 20% of Taiwan’s electricity from renewable sources by 2025, the ministry said it still needs to partly rely on coal-generated energy to ensure a stable energy supply. Taiwan is vulnerable to fluctuations in global energy prices, as it imports nearly 98% of its fuel, the ministry said.

    Coal-generated energy is seen as a more stable energy resource compared with renewable sources, as coal can be stored for 30 days, it added.”

    WCA comments on global coal fleet report

    “There is no doubt that the global coal fleet is changing as older inefficient subcritical stations built decades ago in Europe and the US are being replaced by new, highly efficient plants in emerging economies like China, south and southeast Asia.

    97 GW of inefficient coal has been displaced by 209 GW of new plants, according to analysis by the same report.

    …India and China, …..coal will continue to act as the base load for the foreseeable future – in China and India coal provides more than 50% of the energy mix.

    In the last five years as China became the largest solar and wind market in the world – it also added 229 GW of coal power. Thus, increasing coal generation by a third.

    The IEA predicts that India and southeast Asia will be the driving force of demand for coal in the decades to come.

    According to a Wood Mackenzie report, there is a US$250 billion coal investment opportunity in ASEAN over the next decade.”

    “India’s power plants are short of coal despite rising output. Stocks at Coal India’s pit heads have risen from 20 million t in November to 45 million t, enough to run nearly a dozen 1000 MW plants non-stop for a year at 85% capacity utilisation, but power stations remain starved of fuel.

    “The issue lies with logistics, including roadways, conveyor belts and short distance railway lines,” said Coal India Chairman Gopal Singh. “We are not being able to produce to fullest extent due to such evacuation and logistics issues,” he continued.”

  14. March 25, 2018 10:01 am

    Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: