Global directly-anthropogenic CO2 emissions - things we measure and attribute to countries - have been flat in the period 2019-23 (except for covid dip)

Could you provide a link (or more) that support this claim?

The article posted here tells a very different story and has many links to support what they say.

When combined with 2023’s increase of 3.0 ppm, 2022 to 2024 has seen the largest two-year jump in the May peak of the Keeling Curve in the NOAA record. For Scripps, the two-year jump tied a previous record set in 2020.

“Not only is CO2 now at the highest level in millions of years, it is also rising faster than ever. Each year achieves a higher maximum due to fossil-fuel burning, which releases pollution in the form of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” said Ralph Keeling, director of the Scripps CO2 program that manages the institution’s 56-year-old measurement series.

The record two-year growth rate observed from 2022 to 2024 is likely a result of …

Farmers’ groups have stormed European capitals to protest proposals to limit pollution from agriculture.

I’m sorry but this is not the case. This is the framing that mainstream media chose to adopt. Farmers in Europe are not against climate change regulations, this is not the point. The people that feed us are in the streets fighting for their day-to-day survival. Also, have you noticed that lately this movement has been associated with right-wing tendencies? This reflects the effort to delegitimize it, not the tendencies within these mobilizations. Same thing that had happened in France with Yellow vests protests, not that long ago.

Europe’s farmer protests are spreading. Here’s where and why :: January 31, 2024

Protests around the EU reflect common grievances over debts, price pressures, extreme weather and cheap imports

Farmers are being burdened by debt, squeezed by powerful retailers and agrochemical companies, battered by extreme weather, and undercut by cheap foreign imports, for years now — all while relying on a subsidy system that favors the big players.

The war in Ukraine has only made matters worse. A spike in prices for crops like wheat proved to be short-lived. And Russia’s aggression has upended trade flows, causing a supply glut.

Just to clarify that greenwishing was not a typo:

The term “greenwishing” was coined in 2019 by long-time investment adviser Duncan Austin to characterize the failure of the “sustainable business” model to materially contribute to climate change mitigation…

I allowed myself to call it that way, because the author has incorporated in this text the business narrative of climate change.

Thank you! The funny thing is that I was just reading it and wrote a relevant comment there. So I’ll just copy-paste it:

But we now appear to be living through the precise moment when the emissions that are responsible for climate change are starting to fall, according to new data by BloombergNEF, a research firm. This projection is in roughly in line with other estimates, including a recent report from Climate Analytics.

First of I wouldn’t trust BloombergNEF for environmental sustainability estimates, only for business expansion advice.

Second would be that what the actual report of Climate Analytics says is:

In this report, we find there is a 70% chance that emissions start falling in 2024 if current clean technology growth trends continue and some progress is made to cut non-CO2 emissions. This would make 2023 the year of peak emissions – meeting the IPCC deadline.

This is a greenwishing NYT article, at best.

But we now appear to be living through the precise moment when the emissions that are responsible for climate change are starting to fall, according to new data by BloombergNEF, a research firm. This projection is in roughly in line with other estimates, including a recent report from Climate Analytics.

First of I wouldn’t trust BloombergNEF for environmental sustainability estimates, only for business expansion advice.

Second would be that what the actual report of Climate Analytics says is:

In this report, we find there is a 70% chance that emissions start falling in 2024 if current clean technology growth trends continue and some progress is made to cut non-CO2 emissions. This would make 2023 the year of peak emissions – meeting the IPCC deadline.

This is a greenwishing NYT article, at best.

Is the study they cite legitimate?

It sounds legit cause it comes from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. It looks like Scripps has been doing this kind of monitoring, since the 1950’s.

Apart from that to my understanding CO2 emissions are just skyrocketing. Sorry, but for some reason the NYT article doesn’t open for me, so I don’t know what it says.

There are several place that atmospheric pollution is counted. This article talks about how military related emissions are not taken into account due to bureaucracy:

The Kyoto Protocol originally intended to account for military emissions. But the U.S. successfully pushed to exempt them. The U.S. later failed to formally ratify the treaty.

The 2015 Paris Agreement technically removed the exemption for military emissions. But it didn’t require countries to report them, either — making it voluntary instead.

The richest 1% of people in the world are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the 66% at the other end of the scale, yet they experience little of the vulnerability to climate shocks that are causing suffering and death, mainly among poorer people.

I couldn’t agree more. Which countries will implement those taxes tho?

While most of the discussion at Cop29, and in Bonn, will focus on how to raise the money needed, but questions over how it should be spent also need to be resolved.

So to my understanding, once more the talk has to be focused on sustaining the money flow, not sustaining the environment.

I could say, understanding a text written by an indigenous author may need of “us”/others some getting used to the language, due to cultural diffrences. So what I got from the text is more like a critic on how climate science is used within capitalism. I don’t see an attack on climate scientists.

deleted by creator

The way I see things carbon markets cannot work either. I liked these 2 quotes from the article describing why not:

“Carbon markets provide the loophole the fossil fuel industry needs to continue extraction, combustion, and with a fossil extractive economy that is wrecking the harmony of Mother Earth and Father Sky.

“Carbon markets have been set up by the polluting industries. The premise of carbon markets as a good mitigation outcome or a good mitigation programme for the UNFCCC is in and of itself a flawed concept. And we know that because of who’s put it together.”

[Edit: Ooops looks like the quotes are from another article]

There have been models of capitalism that favor government interventions, they are just not prevalent now-a-days. With a model like that, for the US, Keynes provided the golden years of capitalism:

Keynesian Economics: Theory and How It’s Used :: Investopedia [lovely 2 min video included]