Industry weighs various greenhouse gas options

Ontario Pickering Nuclear Closure will shift supply to natural gas, raising emissions as the electricity grid manages nuclear refurbishment, IESO planning, clean power imports, and new wind, solar, and storage to support electrification.

Key Points

Ontario will close Pickering and rely on natural gas, increasing emissions while other nuclear units are refurbished.

✅ 14% of Ontario electricity supplied by Pickering now

✅ Natural gas use rises; grid emissions projected up 375%

✅ IESO warns gas phaseout by 2030 risks blackouts, costs

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall with natural gas-generated power in a move that will, as an analysis of Ontario's grid shows, hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions substantially in the coming years.

In a report released this week, a nuclear advocacy group urged Ontario to refurbish the aging facility east of Toronto, which is set to be shuttered in phases in 2024 and 2025, prompting debate over a clean energy plan after Pickering as the closure nears. The closure of Pickering, which provides 14 per cent of the province’s annual electricity supply, comes at the same time as Ontario’s other two nuclear stations are undergoing refurbishment and operating at reduced capacity.

Canadians for Nuclear Energy, which is largely funded by power workers' unions, argued closing the 50-year-old facility will result in job losses, emissions increases, heightened reliance on imported natural gas and an electricity supply gap across Ontario.

But Palmer Lockridge, spokesperson for the provincial energy minister, said further extending Pickering’s lifespan isn’t on the table.

“As previously announced in 2020, our government is supporting Ontario Power Generation’s plan to safely extend the life of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station through the end of 2025,” said Lockridge in an emailed response to questions.

“Going forward, we are ensuring a reliable, affordable and clean electricity system for decades to come. That’s why we put a plan in place that ensures we are prepared for the emerging energy needs following the closure of Pickering, and as a result of our government’s success in growing and electrifying the province’s economy.”

The Progressive Conservative government under Premier Doug Ford has invested heavily in electrification, sinking billions into electric vehicle and battery manufacturing and industries like steel-making to retool plants to run on electricity rather than coal, and exploring new large-scale nuclear plants to bolster baseload supply.

Natural gas now provides about seven per cent of the province’s energy, a piece of the pie that will rise significantly as nuclear energy dwindles. Emissions from Ontario’s electricity grid, which is currently one of the world’s cleanest with 94 per cent zero-emission power generation, are projected to rise a whopping 375 per cent as the province turns increasingly to natural gas generation. Those increases will effectively undo a third of the hard-won emissions reductions the province achieved by phasing out coal-fired power generation.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which manages Ontario’s grid, studied whether the province could phase out natural gas generation by 2030 and concluded that “would result in blackouts and hinder electrification” and increase average residential electricity costs by $100 per month.

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, however, obtained draft documents from the electricity operator that showed it had studied, but not released publicly, other scenarios that involved phasing out natural gas without energy shortfalls, price hikes or increases in emissions.

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall facing Ontario with natural gas-generated power in a move that will hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions.

One model suggested increasing carbon taxes and imports of clean energy from other provinces could keep blackouts, costs and emissions at bay, while another involved increasing energy efficiency, wind generation and storage.

“By banning gas-fired electricity exports to the U.S., importing all the Quebec water power we can with the existing transmission lines and investing in energy efficiency and wind and solar and storage — do all those things and you can phase out gas-fired power and lower our bills,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

The IESO has argued in response that the study of those scenarios was not complete and did not include many of the challenges associated with phasing out natural gas plants.

Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith asked the IESO to develop “an achievable pathway to zero-emissions in the electricity sector and evaluate a moratorium on new-build natural gas generation stations,” said his spokesperson. That report, an early look at halting gas power, is expected in November.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Pacific Northwest Transmission Bottleneck slows clean energy progress as BPA's aging grid constrains renewable interconnections, delaying wind, solar, and data center growth; decarbonization targets depend on transmission upgrades, new substations, and policy reform.

Key Points

An interconnection and capacity shortfall on BPA's aging grid that delays renewables and impedes clean energy goals.

✅ BPA approvals lag: 1 of 469 projects since 2015.

✅ Yakama solar waits for substation upgrades until 2027.

✅ Data centers and decarbonization targets face grid constraints.

Oregon and Washington have set ambitious targets to decarbonize their power sectors, aiming for 100% clean electricity in the coming decades. However, a significant obstacle stands in the way: the region's aging and overburdened transmission grid, underscoring why 100% renewables remain elusive even as momentum builds.

The Grid Bottleneck

The BPA operates a transmission system that is nearly a century old in some areas, and its capacity has not expanded sufficiently to accommodate the influx of renewable energy projects, reflecting stalled grid spending in many parts of the U.S., according to recent analyses. Since 2015, 469 large renewable projects have applied to connect to the BPA's grid; however, only one has been approved—a stark contrast to other regions in the country. This bottleneck has left numerous wind and solar projects in limbo, unable to deliver power to the grid.

One notable example is the Yakama Nation's solar project. Despite receiving a $32 million federal grant under the bipartisan infrastructure law as part of a broader grid overhaul for renewables, the tribe faces significant delays. The BPA estimates that it will take until 2027 to complete the necessary upgrades to the transmission system, including a new substation, before the solar array can be connected. This timeline poses a risk of losing federal funding if the project isn't operational by 2031.

Economic and Environmental Implications

The slow pace of grid expansion has broader implications for the region's economy and environmental goals. Data centers and other energy-intensive industries are increasingly drawn to the Pacific Northwest due to its clean energy potential, while interregional projects like the Wyoming-to-California wind link illustrate how transmission access can unlock supply. However, without adequate infrastructure, these industries may seek alternatives elsewhere. Additionally, the inability to integrate renewable energy efficiently hampers efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.

Policy Challenges and Legislative Efforts

Efforts to address the grid limitations through state-level initiatives have faced challenges, even as a federal rule to boost transmission advances nationally. In 2025, both Oregon and Washington considered legislation to establish state bonding authorities aimed at financing transmission upgrades. However, these bills failed to pass, leaving the BPA as the primary entity responsible for grid expansion. The BPA's unique structure—operating as a self-funded federal agency without direct state oversight—has made it difficult for regional leaders to influence its decision-making processes.

Looking Ahead

The Pacific Northwest's renewable energy aspirations hinge on modernizing its transmission infrastructure, aligning with decarbonization strategies that emphasize grid buildout. While the BPA has proposed several projects to enhance grid capacity, the timeline for completion remains uncertain. Without significant investment and policy reforms, the region risks falling behind in the transition to a clean energy future. Stakeholders across Oregon and Washington must collaborate to advocate for necessary changes and ensure that the grid can support the growing demand for renewable energy.

The Pacific Northwest's commitment to clean energy is commendable, but achieving these goals requires overcoming substantial infrastructure challenges, and neighboring jurisdictions such as British Columbia have pursued B.C. regulatory streamlining to accelerate projects. Addressing the limitations of the BPA's transmission system is critical to unlocking the full potential of renewable energy in the region. Only through concerted efforts at the federal, state, and local levels can Oregon and Washington hope to realize their green energy ambitions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

N.B. Power Crypto Mining Moratorium underscores electricity demand risks from bitcoin mining, straining the energy grid and industrial load capacity in New Brunswick, as a cabinet order prioritizes grid reliability, utility planning, and allocation.

Key Points

Official pause on new large-scale crypto mining to protect N.B. Power grid capacity, stability, and reliable supply.

✅ Cabinet order halts new large-scale crypto load requests

✅ Review targets grid reliability, planning, and capacity

✅ Non-crypto industrial customers exempt from prolonged pause

N.B. Power says a freeze on servicing new, large-scale industrial customers in the province remains in place over concerns that the cryptocurrency sector's heavy electricity use could be more than the utility can handle.

The Higgs government quietly endorsed the moratorium in a cabinet order in March 2022 and ordered a review of how the sector might affect the reliable electricity supply and broader electricity future planning in the province.

The cabinet order, filed with the Energy and Utilities Board, said N.B. Power had "policy, technical and operational concerns about [its] capacity to service the anticipated additional load demand" from energy-intensive customers such as crypto mines.

It said the utility had received "several new large-scale, short-notice service requests" to supply electricity to crypto mining companies that could put "significant pressure" on the existing electricity supply.

The order, signed by Premier Blaine Higgs, said non-crypto companies shouldn't be subject to the pause for any longer than required for the review, amid shifts in regional plans like the Atlantic Loop that are altering timelines. Ws.

The freeze was ordered months after Taal Distributed Information Technologies Inc. announced plans to establish a 50-megawatt bitcoin mining operation and transaction processing facility in Grand Falls.

A town official said this week that the deal never went ahead.

24 hours a day
The Taal facility would have joined a 70-megawatt bitcoin mine in Grand Falls operated by Hive Blockchain Technologies.

Hive's Bitcoin mine comprises four large warehouses containing thousands of computers running 24 hours a day to earn cryptocurrency units.

The combined annual electricity consumption of the two mines would exceed what could be produced by the small modular nuclear reactor being designed by ARC Clean Energy Canada of Saint John, even as Nova Scotia advances efforts to harness the Bay of Fundy's powerful tides for clean power.

Put another way, the two mines would gobble up more than three months' electricity from N.B. Power's coal-fired Belledune generating station under current operations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

ABL has secured a contract for the UK Subsea Power Link, highlighting ABL Group’s marine warranty role in Eastern Green Link 2, a 2 GW offshore electricity superhighway connecting Scotland and England to enhance grid reliability and renewable energy transmission.

Key Points: ABL Group’s contract for the UK Subsea Power Link

ABL Group has been appointed to provide marine warranty survey services for the 2 GW Eastern Green Link 2 subsea interconnector between Scotland and England.

✅ Manages vessel suitability checks, installation oversight, and DP assurance

✅ Strengthens UK grid reliability and advances the clean energy transition

✅ Sizeable contract valued between USD 1 million and 3 million

Energy and marine consultancy ABL, a subsidiary of ABL Group, has been awarded a contract by Eastern Green Link 2 (EGL2) to provide marine warranty survey (MWS) services for the installation of a new 2 GW subsea power connection between Scotland and England.

EGL2 is one of the United Kingdom’s most significant energy-infrastructure projects, involving the creation of a 505-kilometre “electricity superhighway” that will enable simultaneous power transfer between Peterhead in Aberdeenshire and Drax in North Yorkshire, mirroring a renewable power link announced for the same corridor recently. The project is designed to strengthen grid resilience, integrate renewable energy from Scotland’s offshore resources, and advance the UK’s broader energy transition goals.

Under the terms of the contract, ABL will be responsible for the technical review and approval of the project and procedural documentation, as well as conducting suitability surveys of the proposed fleet for marine transportation and installation operations. The company will also provide dynamic positioning (DP) assurance where required and will review and approve all warranted operations through on-site attendances, reflecting practices used on projects like the Great Northern Transmission Line in North America.

Cable-laying operations for the link are scheduled to take place between January and September 2028, amid wider efforts to fast-track grid connections across the UK. According to ABL, the engagement represents a “sizeable” contract, valued between USD 1 million and 3 million.

“This appointment reflects ABL's reputation as a trusted MWS partner for major power transmission infrastructure development and reinforces our position at the forefront of supporting the UK's energy transition,” said Hege Norheim, CEO of ABL Group. “We look forward to contributing to this strategic initiative.”

The subsea interconnector, known as Eastern Green Link 2, will transmit up to 2 gigawatts of electricity—enough to power approximately 2 million homes. It forms part of the Great Grid Upgrade, National Grid’s nationwide program to modernize and expand the transmission network in preparation for a low-carbon future, alongside a recent 2 GW substation milestone.

By linking renewable-rich northern Scotland with high-demand regions in England, EGL2 is expected to reduce congestion on the existing grid by leveraging HVDC technology to improve transfer efficiency, enhance security of supply, and facilitate the more efficient flow of surplus renewable energy south. The connection will also support the UK government’s target of decarbonizing the electricity system by 2035.

ABL’s appointment follows a period of intensive marine and geotechnical surveys along the proposed cable route to assess seabed conditions and environmental sensitivities. The company’s marine warranty oversight will ensure that transportation and installation operations meet strict safety, technical, and environmental standards demanded by insurers and project partners, as seen in a recent cross-border transmission approval in North America.

For ABL Group, which provides engineering and risk services to the offshore energy and marine industries worldwide, the contract marks another milestone in its expanding portfolio of subsea power and transmission projects across Europe. With operations set to begin in 2028, the Eastern Green Link 2 initiative represents both a major engineering challenge and a key enabler of the UK’s offshore energy ambitions, echoing a recent offshore wind power milestone in the U.S.

Related Articles

• World Electricity News

Rising Greenhouse Gas Concentrations drive climate change, with CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide surging; WMO data show higher radiative forcing, elevated pre-industrial baselines, and persistent atmospheric concentrations despite Paris Agreement emissions pledges.

Key Points

Increasing atmospheric CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide levels that raise radiative forcing and drive warming.

✅ WMO data show CO2 at 407.8 ppm in 2018, above decade average

✅ Methane and nitrous oxide surged, elevating total radiative forcing

✅ Concentrations differ from emissions; sinks absorb about half

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the increase in CO2 was just above the average rise recorded over the last decade.

Levels of other warming gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have also surged by above average amounts.

Since 1990 there's been an increase of 43% in the warming effect on the climate of long lived greenhouse gases.

The WMO report looks at concentrations of warming gases in the atmosphere rather than just emissions.

The difference between the two is that emissions refer to the amount of gases that go up into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels, such as burning coal for coal-fired electricity generation and from deforestation.

Concentrations are what's left in the air after a complex series of interactions between the atmosphere, the oceans, the forests and the land. About a quarter of all carbon emissions are absorbed by the seas, and a similar amount by land and trees, while technologies like carbon capture are being explored to remove CO2.

Using data from monitoring stations in the Arctic and all over the world, researchers say that in 2018 concentrations of CO2 reached 407.8 parts per million (ppm), up from 405.5ppm a year previously.

This increase was above the average for the last 10 years and is 147% of the "pre-industrial" level in 1750.

The WMO also records concentrations of other warming gases, including methane and nitrous oxide, and some countries have reported declines in certain potent gases, as noted in US greenhouse gas controls reports, though global levels remain elevated. About 40% of the methane emitted into the air comes from natural sources, such as wetlands, with 60% from human activities, including cattle farming, rice cultivation and landfill dumps.

Methane is now at 259% of the pre-industrial level and the increase seen over the past year was higher than both the previous annual rate and the average over the past 10 years.

Nitrous oxide is emitted from natural and human sources, including from the oceans and from fertiliser-use in farming. According to the WMO, it is now at 123% of the levels that existed in 1750.

Last year's increase in concentrations of the gas, which can also harm the ozone layer, was bigger than the previous 12 months and higher than the average of the past decade.

What concerns scientists is the overall warming impact of all these increasing concentrations. Known as total radiative forcing, this effect has increased by 43% since 1990, and is not showing any indication of stopping.

There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere despite all the commitments under the Paris agreement on climate change and the ongoing global energy transition efforts," said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.

"We need to translate the commitments into action and increase the level of ambition for the sake of the future welfare of mankind," he added.

"It is worth recalling that the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago. Back then, the temperature was 2-3C warmer, sea level was 10-20m higher than now," said Mr Taalas.

The UN Environment Programme will report shortly on the gap between what actions countries are taking to cut carbon, for example where Australia's emissions rose 2% recently, and what needs to be done to keep under the temperature targets agreed in the Paris climate pact.

Preliminary findings from this study, published during the UN Secretary General's special climate summit last September, indicated that emissions continued to rise during 2018, although global emissions flatlined in 2019 according to the IEA.

Both reports will help inform delegates from almost 200 countries who will meet in Madrid next week for COP25, following COP24 in Katowice the previous year, the annual round of international climate talks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News