New Data Shows Record CO2 Levels in 2024. Are Carbon Sinks Failing? (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0179826738
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/10/19/040239/new-data-shows-record-co2-levels-in-2024-are-carbon-sinks-failing
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/15/record-leap-in-co2-fuels-fears-of-accelerating-global-heating?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
But what's more troubling is why:
> Several factors contributed to the leap in CO2, including another year of [3]unrelenting fossil fuel burning despite a pledge by the world's countries in 2023 to "transition away" from coal, oil and gas. Another factor was an upsurge in wildfires in conditions made hotter and drier by global heating. Wildfire emissions in the Americas reached [4]historic levels in 2024 , which was the hottest year yet recorded. However, scientists are concerned about a third factor: the possibility that the planet's carbon sinks are [5]beginning to fail . About half of all CO2 emissions every year are taken back out of the atmosphere by being dissolved in the ocean or being sucked up by growing trees and plants. But the oceans are getting hotter and can therefore absorb less CO2 while on land hotter and drier conditions and more wildfires mean less plant growth...
>
> Atmospheric concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide — the second and third most important greenhouse gases related to human activities — also rose to record levels in 2024. About 40% of methane emissions come from natural sources. But scientists are concerned that global heating is [6]leading to more methane production in wetlands , another potential feedback loop.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader [7]mspohr for sharing the article.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/15/record-leap-in-co2-fuels-fears-of-accelerating-global-heating?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
[2] https://wmo.int/media/news/carbon-dioxide-levels-increase-record-amount-new-highs-2024
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/13/no-sign-of-promised-fossil-fuel-transition-as-emissions-hit-new-high
[4] https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/cams-global-wildfires-review-2024-harsh-year-americas
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-carbon-sink-collapse-global-heating-models-emissions-targets-evidence-aoe
[6] https://www.carbonbrief.org/exceptional-surge-in-methane-emissions-from-wetlands-worries-scientists/
[7] https://www.slashdot.org/~mspohr
More nuclear energy yet? No? (Score:3, Interesting)
We were on the path to so much reductions in CO2 in the 1970s. The USA was putting one gigawatt of new civil nuclear fission generating capacity on the grid every month for a while in that decade. That would be about 50 years ago today. 50 years, 12 months in a year, 1 GW per month, that would mean 600 more GW on the grid today to replace fossil fuels.
Jimmy Carter pretty much put a stake in the heart of nuclear power with how he reacted to Three Mile Island. He'd seen nuclear reactor cores meltdown before and he knew what happened at TMI was effectively a nonevent. Sure, there was a billion dollar reactor turned to a radioactive mess but nobody died, nobody was at any real risk of harm in the future from it, was anyone even injured? He didn't want to speak out against his party on opposing nuclear energy so he put in place rules that meant a lot of nuclear engineers and technicians lost their jobs. I know people will want to point out that Reagan reversed these rules months later but that was too little too late. Once these people went off to find new jobs, or enjoy an early retirement, there's no easy way to get those people back.
The Democrats tried to kill off the "nuclear navy" too. They were half way successful in that, they put the nuclear powered destroyers on a path to early retirement. The nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers were simply too valuable in the Cold War to kill off. We even had an experimental nuclear powered cargo ship. With Russia having recently returned a nuclear powered battle-cruiser to service, building nuclear powered icebreakers, and building floating nuclear power plants, then maybe the USA needs to rethink the idea of a "nuclear navy" to keep up. Australia is getting new nuclear powered submarines. France is building another nuclear powered aircraft carrier. UK, Japan, South Korea, and other nations are thinking of building nuclear powered civil cargo ships. If keeping up with the Russians isn't enough motivation to get back into nuclear powered ships then maybe keeping up with allies will be the motivation we need.
I just watched a video about efforts to reduce CO2 emissions from shipping. Nuclear powered ships were mentioned as an option. Also mentioned as an option was using ammonia as fuel. Where are we going to get this ammonia? As I understand it nearly all ammonia produced today comes from burning natural gas. Why not use nuclear fission instead? If ammonia is used then that's a safety hazard if it leaks as it is a potent irritant. Then is that burning ammonia produces nitrous oxides, a potent greenhouse gas. Is that an improvement over natural gas on global warming even if we have a "green" source of ammonia?
We can't go back in time and reverse the mistakes made in the 1970s and 1980s on nuclear energy. What we can do though is stop repeating those mistakes. It would take a long time to rebuilt the expertise lost when Jimmy Carter scattered the nuclear engineers and technicians in 1979/1980. Once we rebuild that expertise though we can move very quickly on reducing CO2 emissions. 1 GW per month in new nuclear energy capacity was likely seen as a sprint in the 1970s, but today that would be a walk in the park. We can't keep ignoring nuclear energy.
Re: More nuclear energy yet? No? (Score:2)
The most hilarious is that Margaret Thatcher was one of the people warning about global warming in the early 80s - but the left wing were more worried about nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
The left deliberately conflated nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons. Yes, there was plutonium produced in some civil reactors back in the 50s but there was no reason to still campaign against nuclear power in the 80s like CND did. It was just anti science ignorance masquering as enviromental concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
If its not a potential problem why did Israel/USA bomb Iran's nuclear program and why is there a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to limit weapons? Just needs one nut job to start it off (Putin has already tried to threaten nuclear weapon use).
Re: (Score:2)
Much text, but you failed to see the point - that many nuclear proposers tend to also neglect.
Nuclear energy is a "fossil" fuel with limited availability, in basically every sense, one would be that the US have already exhausted approximate 80% percent of their Uranium resources, this in turn means, that the remaining resources are more difficult - thus expensive - to extract.
So if you would want to substitute many of the CO2 emissions from carbon-fossil power plants with nuclear energy, you would already f
Nuclear power civil ships? (Score:2)
I wouldn't trust a civil shipping company to maintain a nuclear reactor to a sufficient standard for it to be safe, particularly some of the dodgier firms flying a flag of convenience. Also civil ships have an unfortunately habit of sinking quite often so by now there would probably be dozens or even hundreds of decaying reactors with the minimum shielding they could get away with on the ocean floor - an enviromental disaster waiting to happen.
Re: Nuclear power civil ships? (Score:2)
Yeah, because climate change since the 70s are way more environmental friendly.
Onwards to 2C (Score:2)
1.5C passed, onwards to 2C above pre industrial levels. Will probably happen around 2034 if we keep accelerating then maybe a year or two earlier. All these commitments to do something have proven to be lies over the past 40 years and I doubt anything will change soon there are still plenty of deniers this scientific fact is happening and the danger it poses to our species. Continuous growth on a planet with finite resources and the damage that CO2 does to our habitat is unsustainable for life.
What's the root cause? (Score:2)
Jobs and growth are bad for the environment? If the elite didn't scam away our society's wealth, couldn't we all retire much younger, drive a lot less? There's a lot of climate destruction tied to that $37 trillion in national debt, and who knows how much that was spent and "paid for"
One small piece of good news... (Score:2)
... is that methane only has a half life of about 10 years in the atmosphere. Unfortunately N20 is about 100 years, not that the spaced out morons around my area getting high from catering canisters of the stuff give a damn.
Re: (Score:2)
If all the oil wells were properly capped around the world (over 4000 leaking wells in USA alone - goodness how many in Russia), it might make a difference a decade or so later
Yes, global carbon sinks are maxing out. (Score:2)
The most prominent example being the Amazonian rainforest, once heralded as the "earths lung", now has turned into a net zero factor in recent years. The area is getting so hot that some native tribes are already bugging out.
We are screwed. How hard is up to us.
Unfortunately that's something nobody could ha e f (Score:2)
/s
Every military that cares about homeland security (Score:2, Interesting)
Every military that cares about homeland security should have long since bombed all coal power plants.
Re: (Score:1)
Military is made of people. They also burn coal, diesel, gas, kerosene. They eat, they need transportation even more than anyone else. If they cared they woild stop themselves first. Look at the wars, look at all of the world militaries. How much CO2 and varoous poisons is produced by them in proportion to the rest of the population? What do wars cost us in terms of CO2 and poisons and all other ways, that military destroys the environment? Will people of this planet stop fighting and disban all milit