From the web-page of reuters an article is available, which discusses the recent strong increase in CO2 emissions, perspectives for the future and ongoing political efforts:I find this article interesting.
CO2 emissions rose by 3.2 percent last year to 31.6 billion metric tons (34.83 billion tons), preliminary estimates from the Paris-based IEA showed.(for reading the entire article, refer to http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/24/us-co2-iea-idUSBRE84N0MJ20120524).
China, the world's biggest emitter of CO2, made the largest contribution to the global rise, its emissions increasing by 9.3 percent, the body said, driven mainly by higher coal use.
"When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet," Fatih Birol, IEA's chief economist told Reuters.
Scientists say ensuring global average temperatures this century do not rise more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is needed to limit devastating climate effects like crop failure and melting glaciers.
They believe that is only possible if emission levels are kept to around 44 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2020.
Negotiators from over 180 nations are meeting in Bonn, Germany, until Friday to work towards getting a new global climate pact signed by 2015.
First, the timing - it seems that the IEA launched the story in support of the meeting in Bonn.
Second, the content: the emissions have reached new records, with China contributing significantly, both in terms of amount and increase - which I consider relevant and mostly accurate news. Next, the 2 degree goal is repeated as a need established by scientists.
A third point, not in the above quote but later in the article, deals with nuclear power:
He also warned about the impact of phasing out nuclear power output after the Fukushima accident in Japan, which helped push Japanese carbon emissions 2.4 percent higher in 2011.
About the record itself - I wonder which effects the ongoing alarmism as well as the ongoing denying of the severity of the issue had on the emergence of the record. Would we have actually more emissions without "The inconvenient truth" - and less without "The great swindle"? Or reversed, more because of "the day after tomorrow" or less because Heartland's activity? Much more/less, minuscule more/less, no effect?