By Bill Scanlon, The Rocky Mountain News
Scientists have vastly underestimated the challenge of reducing greenhouse gases in a world where billions are boosting their carbon footprint, an important new report says.
The report throws ice water on projections that global warming can be slowed as energy efficiency helps poor countries develop in a more sustainable way.
China has a chance to do that. But nations such as Colombia, Argentina and Iran don’t have the wealth to convert to more efficient energy, even as their economies grow and their citizens demand more electricity and cars, says the report from Colorado atmospheric researchers.
The study by scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado is expected to be a hot topic of discussion at this week’s U.N. Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland.
“We always knew that reducing greenhouse gas emissions was going to be a challenge, but now it looks like we underestimated the magnitude of this problem,” said Patricia Romero Lankao, an NCAR sociologist who is the lead author of the study in this month’s journal Climate Research.
“There is simply no evidence that developing countries will somehow become wealthier and be in a position to install more environmentally friendly technologies.”
Technologically advanced nations such as the United States are under pressure to reduce their per capita emissions of fossil fuels. Developing nations are being urged to adopt cleaner technology.
Both goals will be very difficult to achieve, the authors say.
Poor countries are producing more and exporting more, but they’re not gaining enough wealth to convert to energy-efficient technologies, they say.
Consequently, the developing world is pumping more fossil fuels into the atmosphere as more people can afford energy-consuming goods for the first time.
And energy efficiency in technologically advanced nations isn’t coming close to balancing out the extra fossil fuels emanating from poor countries, the report says.
In fact, despite gains in energy efficiency, the developed world also is increasing its greenhouse gas output, said Lankao, who is with NCAR’s Institute for the Study of Society and the Environment.
Their economic growth is outstripping increases in efficiency as demand for more cars, larger houses and other goods keeps bumping up carbon dioxide emissions.
The goods demanded by the advanced nations often come from the Third World, where factories belch dirty coal.
Citizens of the poorer nations aren’t driving SUVs, but they are burning and logging their forests, which contribute to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s upper atmosphere.
“These countries are just now at the stage the United States was at at the beginning of the last century,” Lankao said. “They still have very energy-intense industries. The cement industry, for example, is moving from the U.S. and Europe to China and the developing nations.”
The current economic slowdown could make things worse, because with demand slipping for oil, and prices plunging, there is no longer an incentive to develop solar, wind and alternative energies that could help developing countries bypass their sooty coal eras, she said.
Researchers divided the world into three types of nations — technologically advanced ones such as the United States, the “have nots” such as Tanzania and Botswana, and the “have somes,” such as India and Thailand.
They found that the advanced nations comprise a sixth of the world’s population but account for 52 percent of energy consumption.
The have-nots, representing a third of the world’s population, consume only 2.8 percent of the energy.
In between are the crucial “have some” nations, which comprise about half the world’s population and use about 45 percent of the consumed energy.
In the 1990s, global emissions of greenhouse gases grew at a rate of 1.3 percent a year, the report said.
Between 2000 and 2006, that rate multiplied to 3.3 percent a year.
The authors examined population, wealth and the ratio emissions to unit of gross domestic product.
They found that the economic disparity between the haves and have nots has grown since 1960 and is likely to grow for at least two more decades.
The authors predict that even as the poor nations grow somewhat wealthier by producing more goods for the developed world, there will continue to be a hierarchy among nations.
The poor nations will adopt more environmentally friendly means to produce products, but at a much slower rate than projected by the International Panel on Climate Change, the group that won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.
The brightest hopes the authors see are the initiatives by cities around the world to impose emission restrictions, and the prospect that the Obama administration will push for a national strategy to develop green energies.
“We see prospects for hope, but we need to go deeper and go faster,” Lankao said.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“An NCAR sociologist who is the lead author of the study” – well that says it all. Meteorologists are not ‘climate scientists’ but a sociologist is? The rest doesn’t need a large grant to figure out; there aren’t many houses with central heating in Botswana..
Finally an NCAR report I can agree with. Clean energy and pollution controls are LUXURIES that can only be afforded by advanced, developed economies that produce more than subsistence-level existence.
The “have-some” economies represent about half the global population and consume about half the energy. Seems fair.
Developed economies represent about 15 percent of the global population and consume about half the energy. Seems fair, too. At least the developed economies know how to do productive things that actually enhance “quality of life”.
Who thinks the next big efficiency innovation will come from Madagascar? Bangladesh? Gabon? North Korea?
You have to be pretty pampered at NCAR to consider CO2 “pollution” when the natural world knows it as “fertilizer”.
What, by the way, has become of “global warming” in the last 10 years? I’m tired of shoveling snow in Colorado.
Developing economies would be a lot “greener” were it not for the fact that hydroelectricity and nuclear power have been strongly discouraged for the past several decades. The “green” flavor (issue) of the year just does not leave much room for continuity in energy generation, which, when combined with the decades required to build energy generation infrastructure, results in inefficient energy infrastructure. In order to know what to build to generate energy, one would need to anticipate what the energy politics would be 10 or more years into the future. It is hard enough just to forecast demand, as the recent drop in the oil markets demonstrates.
It is snowing in Houston.
Lankao is talking BS and the report from the “National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado”, expected to be a hot topic of discussion at this week’s U.N. Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland is… not worth the paper it is printed on. It’s a typical report form a “bought” read corrupt University that serves the UN Green Agenda for funding.
The findings are a disgrace and for the countries mentioned in the report it is an insult.
The article mentions: Quote:
“China has a chance to do that. But nations such as Colombia, Argentina and Iran don’t have the wealth to convert to more efficient energy, even as their economies grow and their citizens demand more electricity and cars, says the report from Colorado atmospheric researchers”. end quote.
First of all China will continue to burn coal and if the CO2 emissions would be a problem (which they don’t since CO2 causing climate change is a hoax and a fraud) the combined emissions of Iran, Colombia and Argentina
will proof to be insignificant. They will simply be dwarfed by the China emissions.
If we take a look at the individual countries we find the following remarkable facts.
Iran:
Despite years of economic isolation by the West, due to the US embargo,
Iran has managed to run a huge fleet of modern taxis converted to Natural Gas. Natural Gas is the cleanest of fossil fuels and the Government took up a National Policy Plan to clean up the air pollution in the big cities. Iran currently is one of the leading countries in the adaption of Natural Gas in transportation sector and the USA could learn from this example. Iran is also investing in a massive nuclear project to provide cheap electricity (and the nuclear bomb which is a the real problem).
Colombia:
Colombia is blessed with beautiful nature, fast streaming rivers and lots of oil and natural gas.
They will develop their resources in a responsible way disregarding the alarmist
findings and they will prosper.
As soon as the Farc Conflict and the War on Drugs (which causes most of the damage to the tropical forests due to the massive use of Agent Orange than) is finished, Colombia will see very positive development.
Argentina:
This is a vast country also blessed with beautiful nature and a wealth of resources including oil and natural gas.
The only threat posed to this country is caused by corrupt governments and a badly managed economy.
“This is what the CIA World Fact Book tells us about the country:
Argentina benefits from rich natural resources, a highly literate population, an export-oriented agricultural sector, and a diversified industrial base. Although one of the world’s wealthiest countries 100 years ago, Argentina suffered during most of the 20th century from recurring economic crises, persistent fiscal and current account deficits, high inflation, mounting external debt, and capital flight. A severe depression, growing public and external indebtedness, and a bank run culminated in 2001 in the most serious economic, social, and political crisis in the country’s turbulent history. Interim President Adolfo RODRIGUEZ SAA declared a default – the largest in history – on the government’s foreign debt in December of that year, and abruptly resigned only a few days after taking office. His successor, Eduardo DUHALDE, announced an end to the peso’s decade-long 1-to-1 peg to the US dollar in early 2002. The economy bottomed out that year, with real GDP 18% smaller than in 1998 and almost 60% of Argentines under the poverty line. Real GDP rebounded to grow by an average 9% annually over the subsequent five years, taking advantage of previously idled industrial capacity and labor, an audacious debt restructuring and reduced debt burden, excellent international financial conditions, and expansionary monetary and fiscal policies. Inflation, however, reached double-digit levels in 2006 and the government of President Nestor KIRCHNER responded with “voluntary” price agreements with businesses, as well as export taxes and restraints. Multi-year price freezes on electricity and natural gas rates for residential users stoked consumption and kept private investment away, leading to restrictions on industrial use and blackouts in 2007″. end quote.
Patagonia and the Pampas attract tourists from all over the world (8% BNP and rising).
The country is famous for it’s Pampa Meat and it’s a public secret that Argentina is one of the biggest exporters of Cobalt-60, a radioactive isotope.
If one should worry about negative effects on the climate we should have a serious look at the massive chain of volcano’s. Colombia and Argentina are home to the biggest and most active volcano’s in the world.
Iran, Colombia and Argentina have to deal with frequent earthquakes that are so powerful and devastating that they make it to the end of the Richter Scale.
In this light, the Colombia University report looks more like a message from space than a serious analysis of real world problems.
S don’t send your kids to this University and if you have a chance…shut it down.
Another hand wringer of a report from NCAR. I would suggest they not put too much stock in Obama. He’s about to contend with an uproar from the cattle & dairy farmers of the agricultural segment of the economy. The very liberal Sen. Schumer, here in NY, is already going to bat for the farmers who’ve heard about plans for a tax per head of cattle & dairy cows starting at around $85 and up to combat greenhouse gas emissions. Even the always politically correct news people are reacting as though this is an eye roller of an idea. When the rest of the numbers start rolling in on how much going green will cost across the entire economy perhaps some of these politicos will react in horror at the voter revolt that will develop. Perhaps someone will even suggest doing a little editing job on the Clean Air Act so that they’ll no longer be able to define CO2 as a pollutant. Even looney politicos aren’t so dense as to not being able to see the writing on the wall.
CO2 is Philostogen! I have just realised that Al Gore has proved Philostogen exists. How else would you account for the mesmerizing effect he has had on P.E. B. Obama? http://gorelied.blogspot.com/2008/12/video-wooden-al-gore-quietly-listens-as.html
Have there been any comparative tests as to the effectiveness of Gas-X versus Beano? Perhaps Dr. Pachauri has information on bovine grades of these supplements.
“where factories belch dirty coal.” – You’ve gotta love that line… It’s just so accurate.
“per capita emissions of fossil fuels.” I would think it would be a waste to emit fossil fuels, perhaps burning fossil fuels would be more practical.
“fossil fuels emanating from poor countries” poor countries are emanating fossil fuels!! no wonder they are poor. perhaps they should sell them or even burn them.
“the developing world is pumping more fossil fuels into the atmosphere ” emitting, emanating and now pumping, somebody got a thesaurus for their birthday.
“factories belch dirty coal” aaha belch that’s a good one but back to my original point would it not be better to burn coal?
“buildup of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s upper atmosphere.” CO2 builds up in the upper atmosphere???
“sooty coal eras” soot and greenhouse gasses are totally different issues.
“The brightest hopes the authors see are the initiatives by cities around the world to impose emission restrictions”
That sounds about right, but don’t let them get away with claiming electricity is emission free. Drive home to townies that there are people out here in the countryside too, and we object to being infested with bird-slicer farms and other daft ideas so that they can leave the lights on all night.
Nothing correlates with standard of living more closely than energy consumption. When someone suggests that we should cut back consumption by, say, 20%, ask him to go home and pull the big mains breaker in the fuse box for 3.2 hours each day. Gets pretty boring when the only thing working is the piano.
Slightly off topic
Economic realities are biting in Europe
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article5315057.ece
DaveCF:
Anyone who has spent a night in Botswana, or indeed many arid or semi-arid areas of the world, will know just how bitterly cold it gets after the Sun drops over the horizon.
The people there just wrap up in lots of blankets and get on with it.
From Leon Brozyna (23:47:11) :
plans for a tax per head of cattle & dairy cows starting at around $85 and
-end quote
Apparently they don’t understand that cows are not fossil fueled … What comes out one end was taken from the air by the plants that are put in the other… details details…
-quote
In fact, despite gains in energy efficiency, the developed world also is increasing its greenhouse gas output,
-end quote
And they are surprised by this? Someone needs to tell them about Jevons Paradox. We’ve been through all this before (back in the coal crisis of the 1800’s – they though coal was running out). Jevons observed that increasing efficiency of use resulted in more total uses; thus more total consumption of coal.
The notion that efficiency improvement will reduce aggregate fuel use is broken, and has been know so for a long time… yet it is a staple of the looney left greens. Sigh. Those who don’t remember their history are… what what that line? :=)
(Sidebar/disclaimer: Yes, efficiency is good. Yes we want more of it. No I’m not saying we ought to be wasteful and sinful etc. ad nauseum… but it’s good for reasons not related to aggregate demand. Yes I’m all for being green, just don’t shut your brain off when doing it.)
from Phil (22:57:54) :
The “green” flavor (issue) of the year just does not leave much room for continuity in energy generation
-end quote
Yup. And when the real goal is the deindustrialization of society then nothing is acceptable. Hydro damages watersheds. Coal, oil, gas, you know already… Nuclear: horror of horrors glow in the dark kids… All that’s left is wind and solar. But wind turbines are not visually acceptable and chop birds while solar is made with toxic chemicals (Oh my!). Guess all that leaves is growing fuel with natures plants? Nope. Land and food crisis! Destruction of rain forest!
On another thread was a posting that in England they were being encouraged to burn wood as a green solution, while here in California we’re being told NOT to burn wood for the good of the planet. I don’t know if it’s simple stupidity or a strategic effort at strangulation…
-Begin quote
“They still have very energy-intense industries. The cement industry, for example, is moving from the U.S. and Europe to China and the developing nations.”
-end quote
And this is a surprise? Isn’t that just what was said would happen with the Kyoto round? Even if the U.S. didn’t sign it, you don’t build a billion dollar facility with the threat of cap & tirade over your head. You go build it in the area that’s going to be exempt.
As long as China and India get a free pass on the CO2 express, any industry that uses lots of fuel or produces CO2 will be moving there. Steel. Coking. Burnt lime. Cement. Oil refining. Minerals refining. etc. There will be less pollution control and more stuff in the air. This is good?
From Mike McMillan (01:22:11) :
Nothing correlates with standard of living more closely than energy consumption.
-end quote
And nothing correlates with reduced childbearing and preservation of nature more closely than standard of living.
The fact is that the best way to ‘save the planet’ is to get everyone as rapidly as possible to a high standard of living. Population growth stops and folks have the money to fund nature preserves. Few on the looney left seem to get this, even though it’s well established in economics. (I’m not sure if the radical right gets it either, but at least they don’t go on tirades to destroy wealth creation and modernity.)
Sometimes I wonder who stands for the moderate middle…
I’m sure everyone will be watching CNN’s Fear Facto…oh wait….it’s Planet In Peril…sorry.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2008/planet.in.peril/
Anyone want to guess at what they’ve got to say?
JimB
Back in June, Vindal K. Dar published a paper in Right Side News that is worth reading for its grasp of economic geography with respect to energy.
=======================================
“The brightest hopes the authors see are the initiatives by cities around the world to impose emission restrictions”
Yes, that’s the ticket. Many states now are just beginning to see some type of Urban Renewel. That renewel would come to a halt if the total costs of living in a city skyrocket. Perhaps our Alarmists see Detriot as the model city. Forty years ago, Detroit had a vibrant urban culture. Today, people speak of the Urban Prairie when referencing Detroit. Entire neighborhoods are now gone, with only crumbling sidewalks and streets remaining. It’s gotten so bad, that some of the people who remain in urban Detrioit are taking up farming.
Reports, like the one you are referencing here, will be used by future historians who seek to document just how corrupt science was in the early 21st century.
OOPS,
Angela Merkel turns her back on green dream of EU, the German premier will insist carbon offsets are FREE until 2020 to safeguard German industry, UK Times 11th Dec 2002.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5321469.ece
My first reaction is that this report is meant to bolster the case for reducing all economies back to Stone Age levels. That’s hyperbole, of course, but realistically, the only way to meet this dubious goal is to cease the industrialization that sustains all developed countries. That will reduce populations, urbanization, travel, etc. to the point where human populations and their impacts are negligible. The journey will not be pleasant…
OOPS,
Angela Merkel turns her back on green dream of EU, German premier insists that carbon credits will be free until 2020 to safeguard German industry, with a further 10 years of cooling the Green dream is I believe unraveling.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5321469.ece
Here is something interesting related to controlling greenhouse gases.
The CO2 growth rate is affected by the temperature. As temperatures go up, the CO2 growth rate increases. As temps decline, the CO2 growth rate declines.
We know that oceans and plants are absorbing about half of our emissions, but the rate that they can absorb that CO2 goes down as temps go up. This is probably related more to the oceans than to vegetation.
Here is a chart showing the annual increase in CO2 compared to temperature back to 1959. The CO2 growth rate is impacted 5 months after the temperature change.
CO2 is still growing (there is only a few periods where temperature decline drops the growth rate to Zero) so we probably can’t rely on stable temperatures to keep CO2 down. Our emissions are getting higher and higher so CO2 will continue increasing even if temps stabilize.
It does indicate, however, it might be harder and harder to control greenhouse gases if temperatures continue increasing.
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/879/co2lagkz2.png
I’ld be willing to bet that coal is used in the US for electricity generation more than any other use. The push to electricity will likely result in more coal fired electricity generation. There are only so many places one can dam a river economically.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been increasing since ~1750, when emissions were ~ 0.0005 of today’s emissions levels. Human and domesticated animal populations were also much lower in 1750.
It would appear logical that, if atmospheric CO2 concentration increases are driving global average temperature increases, then CO2 emission rates would have to be reduced to below the emissions rate at which the atmospheric concentration began to increase; that is, a global emissions rate reduction of 99.95%.
A reduction of this magnitude would require far more than increased fossil fuel utilization efficiency, or even a total conversion to non-fossil energy sources. It would also require a global conversion to veganism (see PETA for details) and a serious global effort to halt and reverse population growth (see China for one suggested approach).
One wonders why the “Global Warmists” have been so reluctant to point this out. Perhaps it is because they are truly unserious about the issue; or, because they believe they can achieve their political objectives with far less draconian measures.
Enquiring minds want to know.