DOCSLIB.ORG

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Scenarios for Major Emitting Countries Analysis of Current Climate Policies and Mitigation Commitments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Scenarios for Major Emitting Countries Analysis of Current Climate Policies and Mitigation Commitments Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for major emitting countries Analysis of current climate policies and mitigation commitments: 2019 update Authors: Takeshi Kuramochi, Leonardo Nascimento, Maria Jose de Villafranca Casas, Hanna Fekete, Gustavo de Vivero, Swithin Lui, Marie Kurdziel, Mia Moisio, Paola Tanguy, Louise Jeffery, Tessa Schiefer, Masahiro Suzuki, Niklas Höhne (NewClimate Institute) Heleen van Soest, Michel den Elzen, Kendall Esmeijer, Mark Roelfsema (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency) Nicklas Forsell, Mykola Gusti (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) December 2019 Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for major emitting countries Analysis of current climate policies and mitigation commitments: 2019 update Project number 317041 © NewClimate Institute 2019 Authors Takeshi Kuramochi, Leonardo Nascimento, Maria Jose de Villafranca Casas, Hanna Fekete, Gustavo de Vivero, Swithin Lui, Marie Kurdziel, Mia Moisio, Paola Tanguy, Louise Jeffery, Tessa Schiefer, Masahiro Suzuki, Niklas Höhne (NewClimate Institute) Heleen van Soest, Michel den Elzen, Kendall Esmeijer, Mark Roelfsema (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency) Nicklas Forsell, Mykola Gusti (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) This update report builds on Kuramochi et al. (2018). This report has been prepared by PBL/NewClimate Institute/IIASA under contract to European Commission, DG CLIMA (EC service contract N° 340201/2017/764007/SER/CLIMA.C1), started in December 2017. Disclaimer The views and assumptions expressed in this report represent the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the client. Download the report http://newclimate.org/publications/ Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for major emitting countries Table of Contents Table of Contents................................................................................................................................. i Acronyms........................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. v 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................1 1.2 Objectives .........................................................................................................................1 1.3 Summary of methods .........................................................................................................2 1.4 Limitations of this report .....................................................................................................4 2 Key findings ..................................................................................................................................6 2.1 National total GHG emissions ............................................................................................6 2.2 Changes in emissions projections since pre-Paris ..............................................................9 2.3 Other key indicators (for G20 members)...........................................................................14 2.4 Uncertainty on the emissions projections .........................................................................18 3 Results per country .....................................................................................................................19 3.1 Argentina .........................................................................................................................20 3.2 Australia ..........................................................................................................................24 3.3 Brazil ...............................................................................................................................28 3.4 Canada............................................................................................................................32 3.5 Chile ................................................................................................................................36 3.6 China...............................................................................................................................40 3.7 Colombia .........................................................................................................................45 3.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) ........................................................................50 3.9 Ethiopia ...........................................................................................................................53 3.10 European Union...............................................................................................................57 3.11 India ................................................................................................................................61 3.12 Indonesia .........................................................................................................................65 3.13 Japan ..............................................................................................................................69 3.14 Kazakhstan......................................................................................................................73 3.15 Mexico .............................................................................................................................77 3.16 Morocco ..........................................................................................................................82 3.17 Philippines .......................................................................................................................86 3.18 Republic of Korea ............................................................................................................90 3.19 Russian Federation..........................................................................................................93 3.20 Saudi Arabia ....................................................................................................................97 3.21 South Africa ................................................................................................................... 101 3.22 Thailand ........................................................................................................................ 105 3.23 Turkey ........................................................................................................................... 109 3.24 Ukraine .......................................................................................................................... 112 3.25 United States of America ............................................................................................... 116 References .....................................................................................................................................120 NewClimate Institute | December 2019 i Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for major emitting countries Appendix ............................................................................................................................................ I A1: Harmonisation of GHG emissions projections under current policies to the historical emissions data .......................................................................................................................................... I A2: Quantification of 2020 pledges and (I)NDC emission levels ....................................................II A3: NewClimate Institute projections (based on the Climate Action Tracker analysis) ................... V A4: The IMAGE model .............................................................................................................. VIII A5: The GLOBIOM and G4M models ........................................................................................... X NewClimate Institute | December 2019 ii Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for major emitting countries Acronyms AFOLU agriculture, forestry and other land use AR4 Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC AR5 Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC BAU business-as-usual CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards CAT Climate Action Tracker CCS Carbon capture and storage CH4 Methane CNG compressed natural gas CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent COP21 UNFCCC Conference of the Parties 21st session (Paris) CPP United States of America’s Clean Power Plan CSP concentrated solar power DESA UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo EDGAR Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research EEA European Energy Agency EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERF Emissions Reduction Fund ETS emissions trading system FAIR PBL’s Framework to Assess International Regimes for differentiation of commitments NF3 nitrogen trifluoride F-gas fluorinated gas G4M IIASA’s Global Forest Model GCF Green Climate Fund GDP gross domestic product GHG greenhouse gas GLOBIOM IIASA's Global Biosphere Management Model Gt gigatonne (billion tonnes) GW gigawatt (billion watts) GWP Global Warming Potential H2 hydrogen Ha Hectare HWP harvested wood products HEPS High Energy Performance Standards HFC hydrofluorocarbon
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Public Lands
    The Climate Report 2020: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Public Lands As the world works to respond to the dire regulations meant to protect the public and the warnings issued last fall by the United Nations environment from these exact decisions. New Environment Programme, the Trump policies have made it cheaper and easier for administration continues to open up as much fossil energy corporations to gain and hold of our shared public lands as possible to fossil control of public lands. And they have hidden fuel extraction.1 And while doing so, the federal from public view the implications of these government continues to keep the public (aka decisions for taxpayers and the planet. the owners of these resources) in the dark on This report seeks to pull the curtain back on the mounting greenhouse gas emissions that this situation and shed light on the range of would result from drilling on our public lands. potential climate consequences of these At the same time, we’ve seen this leasing decisions. administration water down policies and 1 UN. 26 Nov. 2019. stories/press-release/cut-global-emissions-76- https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and- percent-every-year-next-decade-meet-15degc Key Takeaways: The federal government cannot manage development of these leases could be as what it does not measure, yet the Trump high as 6.6 billion MT CO2e. administration is actively seeking to These leasing decisions have significant suppress disclosure of climate emissions and long-term ramifications for our climate from fossil energy leases on public lands. and our ability to stave off the worst The leases issued during the Trump impacts of global warming.
    [Show full text]
  • Aggregate Emission Intensity Targets: Applications to the Paris Agreement
    ADBI Working Paper Series AGGREGATE EMISSION INTENSITY TARGETS: APPLICATIONS TO THE PARIS AGREEMENT Jinhua Zhao No. 813 March 2018 Asian Development Bank Institute Jinhua Zhao is a professor and director at the Department of Economics, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, and the Environmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University. The views expressed in this paper are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of ADBI, ADB, its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADBI does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms. Working papers are subject to formal revision and correction before they are finalized and considered published. The Working Paper series is a continuation of the formerly named Discussion Paper series; the numbering of the papers continued without interruption or change. ADBI’s working papers reflect initial ideas on a topic and are posted online for discussion. Some working papers may develop into other forms of publication. Suggested citation: J. Zhao. 2018. Aggregate Emission Intensity Targets: Applications to the Paris Agreement. ADBI Working Paper 813. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available: https://www.adb.org/publications/aggregate-emission-intensity-targets-applications-paris- agreement Please contact the authors for information about this paper. Email: [email protected] Asian Development Bank Institute Kasumigaseki Building, 8th Floor 3-2-5 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-6008, Japan Tel: +81-3-3593-5500 Fax: +81-3-3593-5571 URL: www.adbi.org E-mail: [email protected] © 2018 Asian Development Bank Institute Aggregate Emission Intensity Targets: Applications to the Paris Agreement Jinhua Zhao1 February 18, 2018 1Department of Economics, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, and the Envi- ronmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 | April 2020
    Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 | April 2020 Table of contents Table of contents 2 Executive summary 3 Key findings 3 Context 3 About this report 4 Key issues in setting SBTs 5 Conclusions and recommendations 5 1. Introduction 7 2. Understand the business case for science-based targets 12 3. Science-based target setting methods 18 3.1 Available methods and their applicability to different sectors 18 3.2 Recommendations on choosing an SBT method 25 3.3 Pros and cons of different types of targets 25 4. Set a science-based target: key considerations for all emissions scopes 29 4.1 Cross-cutting considerations 29 5. Set a science-based target: scope 1 and 2 sources 33 5.1 General considerations 33 6. Set a science-based target: scope 3 sources 36 6.1 Conduct a scope 3 Inventory 37 6.2 Identify which scope 3 categories should be included in the target boundary 40 6.3 Determine whether to set a single target or multiple targets 42 6.4 Identify an appropriate type of target 44 7. Building internal support for science-based targets 47 7.1 Get all levels of the company on board 47 7.2 Address challenges and push-back 49 8. Communicating and tracking progress 51 8.1 Publicly communicating SBTs and performance progress 51 8.2 Recalculating targets 56 Key terms 57 List of abbreviations 59 References 60 Acknowledgments 63 About the partner organizations in the Science Based Targets initiative 64 Science-Based Target Setting Manual Version 4.1 -2- Executive summary Key findings ● Companies can play their part in combating climate change by setting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets that are aligned with reduction pathways for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C or well-below 2°C compared to pre-industrial temperatures.
    [Show full text]
  • Paper Session III-A-History of the First NASA Contract with Russia
    1994 (31st) Space Exploration and Utilization The Space Congress® Proceedings for the Good of the World Apr 28th, 2:00 PM - 5:00 PM Paper Session III-A - History of the First NASA Contract with Russia Barbara D. Connelly-Fratzke NASA Headquarters, Office of Space Systems Development Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings Scholarly Commons Citation Connelly-Fratzke, Barbara D., "Paper Session III-A - History of the First NASA Contract with Russia" (1994). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 18. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-1994-31st/april-28-1994/18 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress® Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. History of the First NASA Contract with Russia Barbara D. Connelly-Fratzke NASA Headquarters Office of Space Systems Development This story begins after the end of the cold war with the Soviet Union. after perestroika had its initial impact on the economy, at about the time the Russian space firms were beginning to lose government support and fac ing hard times ahead. As part or the FY92 Budget approval, Congress, in its wisdom, directed NASA to investigate the Russian space hardware and determine its feasibility for use in the U.S. space program. At the invitation of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and the Russian firm NPO Energia, NASA made a reconnaissance visit to NPO Energia to open discussions concerning Russian space hardware.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Pig and Chicken Supply Chains – a Global Life Cycle Assessment
    Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains A global life cycle assessment Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains A global life cycle assessment A report prepared by: FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Animal Production and Health Division Recommended Citation MacLeod, M., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Tempio, G., Falcucci, A., Opio, C., Vellinga, T., Henderson, B. & Steinfeld, H. 2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains – A global life cycle assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specic companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reect the views or policies of FAO. E-ISBN 978-92-5-107944-7 (PDF) © FAO 2013 FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.
    [Show full text]
  • ALBEDO ENHANCEMENT by STRATOSPHERIC SULFUR INJECTIONS: a CONTRIBUTION to RESOLVE a POLICY DILEMMA? an Editorial Essay
    ALBEDO ENHANCEMENT BY STRATOSPHERIC SULFUR INJECTIONS: A CONTRIBUTION TO RESOLVE A POLICY DILEMMA? An Editorial Essay Fossil fuel burning releases about 25 Pg of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, which leads to global warming (Prentice et al., 2001). However, it also emits 55 Tg S as SO2 per year (Stern, 2005), about half of which is converted to sub-micrometer size sulfate particles, the remainder being dry deposited. Recent research has shown that the warming of earth by the increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is partially countered by some backscattering to space of solar radiation by the sulfate particles, which act as cloud condensation nuclei and thereby influ- ence the micro-physical and optical properties of clouds, affecting regional precip- itation patterns, and increasing cloud albedo (e.g., Rosenfeld, 2000; Ramanathan et al., 2001; Ramaswamy et al., 2001). Anthropogenically enhanced sulfate particle concentrations thus cool the planet, offsetting an uncertain fraction of the anthro- pogenic increase in greenhouse gas warming. However, this fortunate coincidence is “bought” at a substantial price. According to the World Health Organization, the pollution particles affect health and lead to more than 500,000 premature deaths per year worldwide (Nel, 2005). Through acid precipitation and deposition, SO2 and sulfates also cause various kinds of ecological damage. This creates a dilemma for environmental policy makers, because the required emission reductions of SO2, and also anthropogenic organics (except black carbon), as dictated by health and ecological considerations, add to global warming and associated negative conse- quences, such as sea level rise, caused by the greenhouse gases.
    [Show full text]
  • ENERGYENERCY a Balancing Act
    Educational Product Educators Grades 9–12 Investigating the Climate System ENERGYENERCY A Balancing Act PROBLEM-BASED CLASSROOM MODULES Responding to National Education Standards in: English Language Arts ◆ Geography ◆ Mathematics Science ◆ Social Studies Investigating the Climate System ENERGYENERGY A Balancing Act Authored by: CONTENTS Eric Barron, College of Earth and Mineral Science, Pennsylvania Grade Levels; Time Required; Objectives; State University, University Park, Disciplines Encompassed; Key Terms; Pennsylvania Prerequisite Knowledge . 2 Prepared by: Scenario. 5 Stacey Rudolph, Senior Science Education Specialist, Institute for Part 1: Understanding the absorption of energy Global Environmental Strategies at the surface of the Earth. (IGES), Arlington, Virginia Question: Does the type of the ground surface John Theon, Former Program influence its temperature? . 5 Scientist for NASA TRMM Part 2: How a change in water phase affects Editorial Assistance, Dan Stillman, surface temperatures. Science Communications Specialist, Institute for Global Environmental Question: How important is the evaporation of Strategies (IGES), Arlington, Virginia water in cooling a surface? . 6 Graphic Design by: Part 3: Determining what controls the temperature Susie Duckworth Graphic Design & of the land surface. Illustration, Falls Church, Virginia Question 1: If my town grows, will it impact the Funded by: area’s temperature? . 7 NASA TRMM Grant #NAG5-9641 Question 2: Why are the summer temperatures in the desert southwest so much higher than at the Give us your feedback: To provide feedback on the modules same latitude in the southeast? . 8 online, go to: Appendix A: Bibliography/Resources . 9 https://ehb2.gsfc.nasa.gov/edcats/ educational_product Appendix B: Answer Keys . 10 and click on “Investigating the Appendix C: National Education Standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Influential Factors Regarding Carbon Emission Intensity in China: A
    sustainability Article Influential Factors Regarding Carbon Emission Intensity in China: A Spatial Econometric Analysis from a Provincial Perspective 1, 1, 1 1 2, Li-Ming Xue y, Shuo Meng y, Jia-Xing Wang , Lei Liu and Zhi-Xue Zheng * 1 Faculty of Energy & Mining, China University of Mining & Technology, Beijing (CUMTB), Beijing 100083, China; [email protected] (L.-M.X.); [email protected] (S.M.); [email protected] (J.-X.W.); [email protected] (L.L.) 2 College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China * Correspondence: [email protected] These authors contributed equally to this work and should be considered co-first authors. y Received: 2 September 2020; Accepted: 28 September 2020; Published: 1 October 2020 Abstract: Emission reduction strategies based on provinces are key for China to mitigate its carbon emission intensity (CEI). As such, it is valuable to analyze the driving mechanism of CEI from a provincial view, and to explore a coordinated emission mitigation mechanism. Based on spatial econometrics, this study conducts a spatial-temporal effect analysis on CEI, and constructs a Spatial Durbin Model on the Panel data (SDPM) of CEI and its eight influential factors: GDP, urbanization rate (URB), industrial structure (INS), energy structure (ENS), energy intensity (ENI), technological innovation (TEL), openness level (OPL), and foreign direct investment (FDI). The main findings are as follows: (1) overall, there is a significant and upward trend of the spatial autocorrelation of CEI on 30 provinces in China. (2) The spatial spillover effect of CEI is positive, with a coefficient of 0.083.
    [Show full text]
  • Methodology for Afforestation And
    METHODOLOGY FOR THE QUANTIFICATION, MONITORING, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS FROM AFFORESTATION AND REFORESTATION OF DEGRADED LAND VERSION 1.2 May 2017 METHODOLOGY FOR THE QUANTIFICATION, MONITORING, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS FROM AFFORESTATION AND REFORESTATION OF DEGRADED LAND VERSION 1.2 May 2017 American Carbon Registry® WASHINGTON DC OFFICE c/o Winrock International 2451 Crystal Drive, Suite 700 Arlington, Virginia 22202 USA ph +1 703 302 6500 [email protected] americancarbonregistry.org ABOUT AMERICAN CARBON REGISTRY® (ACR) A leading carbon offset program founded in 1996 as the first private voluntary GHG registry in the world, ACR operates in the voluntary and regulated carbon markets. ACR has unparalleled experience in the development of environmentally rigorous, science-based offset methodolo- gies as well as operational experience in the oversight of offset project verification, registration, offset issuance and retirement reporting through its online registry system. © 2017 American Carbon Registry at Winrock International. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro- duced, displayed, modified or distributed without express written permission of the American Carbon Registry. The sole permitted use of the publication is for the registration of projects on the American Carbon Registry. For requests to license the publication or any part thereof for a different use, write to the Washington DC address listed above.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon Emission Reduction—Carbon Tax, Carbon Trading, and Carbon Offset
    energies Editorial Carbon Emission Reduction—Carbon Tax, Carbon Trading, and Carbon Offset Wen-Hsien Tsai Department of Business Administration, National Central University, Jhongli, Taoyuan 32001, Taiwan; [email protected]; Tel.: +886-3-426-7247 Received: 29 October 2020; Accepted: 19 November 2020; Published: 23 November 2020 1. Introduction The Paris Agreement was signed by 195 nations in December 2015 to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change following the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. In Article 2 of the Paris Agreement, the increase in the global average temperature is anticipated to be held to well below 2 ◦C above pre-industrial levels, and efforts are being employed to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 ◦C. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides information on emissions of the main greenhouse gases. It shows that about 81% of the totally emitted greenhouse gases were carbon dioxide (CO2), 10% methane, and 7% nitrous oxide in 2018. Therefore, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (or carbon emissions) are the most important cause of global warming. The United Nations has made efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or mitigate their effect. In Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, three cooperative approaches that countries can take in attaining the goal of their carbon emission reduction are described, including direct bilateral cooperation, new sustainable development mechanisms, and non-market-based approaches. The World Bank stated that there are some incentives that have been created to encourage carbon emission reduction, such as the removal of fossil fuels subsidies, the introduction of carbon pricing, the increase of energy efficiency standards, and the implementation of auctions for the lowest-cost renewable energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Technology, Fuel, Market and Policy Drivers for New York State’S Power Sector Transformation
    sustainability Article Understanding Technology, Fuel, Market and Policy Drivers for New York State’s Power Sector Transformation Mine Isik * and P. Ozge Kaplan Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Durham, NC 27709, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-919-541-4965 Abstract: A thorough understanding of the drivers that affect the emission levels from electricity generation, support sound design and the implementation of further emission reduction goals are presented here. For instance, New York State has already committed a transition to 100% clean energy by 2040. This paper identifies the relationships among driving factors and the changes in emissions levels between 1990 and 2050 using the logarithmic mean divisia index analysis. The analysis relies on historical data and outputs from techno-economic-energy system modeling to elucidate future power sector pathways. Three scenarios, including a business-as-usual scenario and two policy scenarios, explore the changes in utility structure, efficiency, fuel type, generation, and emission factors, considering the non-fossil-based technology options and air regulations. We present retrospective and prospective analysis of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide emissions for the New York State’s power sector. Based on our findings, although the intensity varies by period and emission type, in aggregate, fossil fuel mix change can be defined as the main contributor to reduce emissions. Electricity generation level variations and technical efficiency have relatively smaller impacts. We also observe that increased emissions due to nuclear phase-out will be avoided by the onshore and offshore wind with a lower fraction met by solar until 2050.
    [Show full text]
  • Plastic & Climate
    EXECUTIVE SummarY Plastic & Climate THE HIDDEN COsts OF A PLAstIC PLANET Plastic Proliferation Threatens the Climate on a Global Scale he plastic pollution crisis that overwhelms our oceans is also a FIGURFIGUREE 1 significant and growing threat to the Earth’s climate. At current Annual Plastic Emissions to 2050 Tlevels, greenhouse gas emissions from the plastic lifecycle threaten the ability of the global community to keep global temperature rise below 3.0 billion metric tons 1.5°C. With the petrochemical and plastic industries planning a massive expansion in production, the problem is on track to get much worse. By 2050, annual emissions could grow to more than 2.5 2.75 billion metric tons Greenhouse gas emissions from the plastic lifecycle of CO2e from plastic threaten the ability of the global community to keep production and incineration. global temperature rise below 1.5°C. By 2050, the 2.0 greenhouse gas emissions from plastic could reach Annual emissions from incineration over 56 gigatons—10-13 percent of the entire 1.5 remaining carbon budget. If plastic production and use grow as currently planned, by 2030, these 1.0 emissions could reach 1.34 gigatons per year—equivalent to the emissions released by more than 295 new 500-megawatt coal-fired power plants. Annual emissions from By 2050, the cumulation of these greenhouse gas emissions from plastic 0.5 resin and fiber production could reach over 56 gigatons—10–13 percent of the entire remaining carbon budget. Nearly every piece of plastic begins as a fossil fuel, and greenhouse gases 0 are emitted at each of each stage of the plastic lifecycle: 1) fossil fuel 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 extraction and transport, 2) plastic refining and manufacture, 3) managing plastic waste, and 4) plastic’s ongoing impact once it reaches our oceans, Source: CIEL waterways, and landscape.
    [Show full text]