not gonna lie, I immediately looked myself up on that website 🙂
This paper reports 8.8 GtCO2 in last year's fire season essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/...
Abstract. Climate change contributes to the increased frequency and intensity of wildfires globally, with significant impacts on society and the environment. However, our understanding of the global d...
This is definitely a concern and there are live discussions on how to separate "natural" from "anthropogenic" in emissions reporting - probably one of the biggest challenges we have in this area.
Forest fires that aren't related to land use change (i.e. clearing for agriculture and livestock) aren't usually counted in "anthropogenic" GHG emissions. Instead they are counted as natural fluxes, e.g. in the global carbon budget, even though climate change could be a driver.
IEA also reports a large hydropower shortfall in 2023, which may be temporary www.iea.org/reports/co2-...
CO2 Emissions in 2023 - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.
and me please !
These are things I'd like to study, as they also open the door on the production of disinformation, which has received far too little attention... Anyways, I'm glad they raise this, as its a worry I've had about the framework for a while
But there may be other ways to think about this, like considering actor histories (have they propagated climate denial in the past?), organisational networks (are they connected to climate obstruction think tanks?), or conflicting stances (e.g. on climate and social policy)
I've been reading a lot into delay studies recently and very few explicitly refer to intent. Often intent is implicit or simply assumed (e.g. oil exec -> presumed intent to delay).
Of course, those jostling over the COP28 language to insert these caveats probably know this, so the plan is to provide cover and delay for doing little. All the more reason to increase our scrutiny over CCS and CDR pledges