Worldwide CO2 emissions and the futility of any action in the West

Guest post by Ed Hoskins

Prof Richard Muller in a presentation made last October [1] made the dilemma facing the warmists abundantly clear:

The developing world is ‘not joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor does it have any intention of doing so.

So the whole warmist idea is a creature of a limited number of developed western nations whose governments have been persuaded by the control Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption agenda.

These notes using information on emission levels by nations published by the Guardian and Google [2] re-emphasize Professor Muller’s initial point.

Grouping Nations

Here 7 groups of major emitting nations are defined according to their attitudes towards CO2 control measures as follows:

Not Joining-in

China questions the role of man-made CO2 in determining climate effects and is now the largest CO2 emitter, having surpassed the USA in 2006, and is now greater than the USA by more than 40%. China completes a new coal-fired power plant each week. China has made the gesture of being willing to link the intensity of its emissions to be dependent on its GDP growth. In effect this is no concession at all [3].

India has set up its own climate institute to re-examine the claims and policy recommendations made by the IPCC and grew its emissions by ~9% in 2009. It too has said that it will comply with the intensity criterion. Also in effect this is no concession at all.

The well-developed nations Russia, Canada and Japan have already withdrawn support for the Kyoto accord.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia are the larger developing nations do not support action on Man-made Global Warming, and they will continue their rapid growth of CO2 emissions.

The “Rest of the World” (200+ Nations), ~19% of world CO2 emissions and ~40% of the world population, mainly consist of some 200+ underdeveloped or developing nations. They are not interested in limiting their emissions nor in restricting their slowly improving standards of living. But they are expecting to be the financial beneficiaries at the expense of the ‘developed nations’ of the ‘western Climate Change process’.

In the USA the Republican congress, is re-examining:

  • the scientific inconsistencies of the Man-made Global Warming assertion
  • the reliance of the Environmental Protection Agency on the reports of the UN IPCC
  • and thus to terminate any USA response to mitigate Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
  • The USA congress has just mandated that all support for “Green” international activities should be terminated[4].

A failure to commit by USA adds about 18% to the current world emissions not falling under the influence of any CO2 controls. The withdrawal of the USA would then mean that about 85% of world emissions and 92% of the world population were no longer involved in any action on controlling CO2.

Joining-in

An opt-out by the USA leaves the European Union, Australia and New Zealand isolated in their continuing adherence to the Man-made Global Warming assertion.

It is only in the EU, (including the UK, ~1.7% of World CO2 emissions or ~11% of EU emissions), as well as Australia and New Zealand where their governments have committed action on CO2 into legislation.

These isolated nations are about 8% of the world population and only~14% of the world’s CO2 emissions at present.

The failure of universal action entirely negates the unilateral action of any individual nation.

So the realistic apparent position based on current published CO2 emissions is shown below.

So these adherent nations have isolated themselves by their own self-emolliating actions on the basis that it is their duty to show an example to the rest of the world. However their actions alone can only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of world temperature.

Other dissenting nations may pay lip service to the efforts of the United Nations and the IPCC but they are certainly not going to change their attitudes and damage their economies in the same manner.

This is the stark reality of the majority of national attitudes, which are opposed to the present views of the United Nations as represented by the UN IPCC, the EU and Australian and New Zealand governments.

The real effect of the maximum feasible actions on CO2 emissions reduction that are being taken by this minority of nations and thus their influence on ostensibly on reducing temperature is to minimal effect. This becomes trivially clear just by comparing the current emission status against the most likely IPCC stated temperature rise from added emissions of 1.2°C by 2100 (1.8°C “Scenario B1” versus 0.6°C if all world-wide emissions stopped in 2000):

  • only nations representing ~14% of the worlds current emissions (the European Union, Australia and New Zealand), are making any progress = ~ -0.0623°C
  • even with massive disruption and damage to their economies the maximum they might achieve is a 30% emissions reduction = ~ -0.0187°C
  • The UK contributes only 11% of the emissions in this active group amounting to ~0.00224°C by 2100.
  • Australia contributes even less and its actions might amount to ~0.00177°C by 2100.

But growth of emissions from developing countries including China, India and other underdeveloped nations continues. China is predominant and India is following on probably at a greater future rate but to a lower absolute extent by 2100 [5].

According to the Guardian / Google data the following graph shows the emissions growth over the past 10 years.

And shown below are the percentage increases both for the last ten years since 1999 and also the annual rate of increase 2008-2009.

A further useful alternative perspective can be seen in the long-term CO2 emissions data recently published by BP up until 2010[6].

This clearly shows:

  • the inexorable growth of past emissions from the developing economies since 1965,
  • the rapid escalation of Chinese emissions since the year 2000 which still continues apace
  • the recent accelerating advance of emissions from India, a nation which has very substantial potential for further emissions growth from a very low base.

This graphic also shows a leveling out of developed economies but with an uptick in 2010 as they recover from the recession of 2009.

The historic figures of CO2 emissions set out here show clearly that China, India, the “major developing nations” and the “rest of the world” are clearly not joining-in the action on CO2 emissions reduction. These increases in emissions will totally negate any efforts, however strenuous, of the developed world where emissions are already significantly stabilized, even in the USA. It is clear that the failure of worldwide universal action will entirely negate the unilateral action of any individual nation or groups of nations. Any effort is therefore a total folly and the sooner this is realized, in spite of the huge academic and monetary capital already invested, the sooner the western world can be released from its self-imposed economically destructive straightjacket.


[1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&NR=1

[2]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data

[2]https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOG0yWkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en#gid=1

[3]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hold-the-accolades-on-chinas-green-leap-forward/2011/04/19/AFLdZMEE_story.html

[4]http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/173601-gop-spending-bill-would-nix-international-climate-aid

[5]http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-10/global-warming/29642669_1_kyoto-protocol-second-commitment-period-second-commitment-period

[6]http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037130&contentId=7068669

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

93 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bystander
August 7, 2011 5:15 pm

So wait – just because the other kids are going to still keep kicking the dog that make it OK for you to do?
This isn’t science, and I’d argue it isn’t a morally valid argument either.

August 7, 2011 5:20 pm

Julia Gillard is a Hero! See here! She sacrifices her country’s economy to save the world! /sarc

tokyoboy
August 7, 2011 5:31 pm

Since 2005 when the Kyoto Protocol took effect, many people, including good-ole Mr. R. Gates, have been insisting “we have to do something.”
If the AGW theory is correct, the SOLE TARGET should be to change the time course of the atomospheric CO2 concentration.
However, for these six years already, I don’t see hide nor hair of any change, nada, zilch, in the time course of the CO2 curve:
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/MaunaLoaCO2.png
The upshot is NOBODY IS SERIOUS on this issue. The curve provides a clear evidence that the “environmentally-benign action” simply is an empty slogan.

Brian H
August 7, 2011 5:34 pm

I perdicks that economic reality is going to administer some very harsh, lacerating lessons to the EU, UK, Aus. group.
Vigorously enforced delusions at the level of national energy production and availability kill people, wholesale.

tango
August 7, 2011 5:35 pm

a birdy has told me that Al Gore has joined a asylium boat heading to Christmas island off australia

Paul Westhaver
August 7, 2011 5:41 pm

I doesn’t matter that CO2 concentrations are increasing. The globe stopped warming in 1998 just short of the temp and CO2 concentration needed to maximize crop yields in the arable lands of the earth. Now with the sun going into a snooze we are going to be regretting not having warmer temperatures.
Action to high CO2 if it meant warmer temperatures would be to cultivate at higher latitudes.
Ahhhh but the earth is cooling… so….we Canadians can only hope and dream about what could have been.
By the way… my city council spent 2.4 million dollars on 3 hybrid buses to save $0.95 in carbon in 17 months. Now the globe is cooling. Lesson learned…. wait and see.

Sun Spot
August 7, 2011 5:43 pm

Bystander says: August 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Before you can claim the moral high ground you need the science and since the science is NOT settled and you can’t state the scientific proof for CAGW, soooo what the &^*&%$# are you talking about ?
You just don’t get it that scientists in countries like India, Japan, China, Canada, Russia etc. etc. are not buying into the CO2 scary stories.

Kevin Kilty
August 7, 2011 5:45 pm

@Bystander, it is not moral to sacrifice one’s family, neighbors, and country in futile gestures either. Perhaps we should spend our time and other resources thinking about mitigation of the worst effects rather than mitigation of the emissions.

pat
August 7, 2011 5:47 pm

printing those offsets will save the planet no doubt!
5 Aug: Reuters: Carbon offsets near record low, worst performing commodity
A worsening global economic outlook has dented prices for
emissions permits which depend on a robust economy belching
greenhouse gases into the air, and has also impacted oil,
grains, coal and natural gas.
Carbon offsets have fared uniquely badly because a U.N.
climate panel continues to print new offsets, regardless of a
widening glut in emissions permits in the main demand market,
the European Union’s carbon market…
“If the European economy goes through a double dip
(recession) it could be a lethal threat for the carbon market,”
said Marius-Cristian Frunza, analyst at Schwarzthal Kapital…
Failure by countries to agree a new round of carbon caps
after 2012 under drifting U.N. climate talks, has further curbed
prospective demand.
The financial crisis has blown off course talks to agree a
global climate deal, which now seems years off. The CER market
had a traded value of $18.3 billion last year, down from $26.3
billion in its peak year 2008.
Adding to CER woes, the EU has banned from 2013 imports of
the most common type of offset, from refrigerant plants in
China, prompting investors to dump these.
Benchmark CERs fell as low as 7.4 euros on Friday,
down more than 7 percent on the day, fractionally above an
all-time low of 7.15 euros.
Prices are now at around cost price in developing countries,
squeezing margins for project developers such as London-listed
Camco , whose shares were down more than 10 percent at
midday, and by nearly 40 percent over the past month.
Rival developer Trading Emissions PLC last week
pulled a proposed sale of its assets because of falling carbon
prices. Its average CER costs are 7.5 euros per tonne…
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL6E7J50VS20110805

Daryl Bergmann
August 7, 2011 5:48 pm

@Bystander Problems with your analogy. The dog (warming) is already dead (since 1998). 85% of the world has stopped kicking it. Why are we still kicking it?

Latitude
August 7, 2011 5:48 pm

Bystander says:
August 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm
So wait – just because the other kids are going to still keep kicking the dog that make it OK for you to do?
This isn’t science, and I’d argue it isn’t a morally valid argument either.
=======================================================================
USA, China, India, Russia, Canada, Japan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia…….
…don’t agree with the science
Party’s over………………………….

Michael Jankowski
August 7, 2011 5:51 pm

Bystander, the problem is that curbing emissions in developed nations means generally that those industries shift to developing nations…and increase the emissions there. So there’s no net reduction to speak of…just a redistribution of emissions (and wealth). Tighter regulations and higher costs in developed nations just means more industry going overseas where the regulations are loose and costs are cheap.
Unless everyone were to be on the same page, having some countries participate while developing nations don’t means there isn’t going to be any significant improvement.
In your analogy, it would mean encouraging the other kids to kick the dog for you. What does that solve? How is that any better morally than doing it yourself?

DirkH
August 7, 2011 5:52 pm

The promoters of the AGW movement are
1) the German government. The Kyoto treaty is largely identical with a template penned by a commission of the German Bundestag.
( see http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/secret-history-climate-alarmism?page=1 )
2) Non-coal traditional energy suppliers.
For Germany, the advantage was that they only had to finish off the old GDR industries and were done with it while competing industrial nations to this day are forced to do the craziest things, see Huhne’s crazy policies or the Australian native vegetation schemes. This way, Germany was able to turn the run down heritage of the GDR into a competitive advantage.
The energy industries, namely nuclear and oil, saw the possibility of crowding out coal in a CO2-limited market.
For both of these players, the scheme worked whether or not developing countries participated, as they were mostly interested in the G7 markets.

Interstellar Bill
August 7, 2011 5:53 pm

That’s self-IMMOLATING (setting yourself on fire) – but that’s merely metaphoric, since they’ll actually be freezing themselves to death by fuel poverty
‘self-emolliating’ might mean covering yourself with an emmoliant (sun-block anyone?)

Dr David
August 7, 2011 5:53 pm

In the USA the Republican congress, is re-examining:…
The Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives. The Democratic Party has a majority in the Senate. The USA does not have a Republican Congress…

DirkH
August 7, 2011 5:53 pm

tokyoboy says:
August 7, 2011 at 5:31 pm
“The upshot is NOBODY IS SERIOUS on this issue.”
Wrong word, tokyoboy – all the players are dead serious, but none are honest.

J. Felton
August 7, 2011 5:58 pm

Excellent use of statistics and graphs Ed. You clearly outlined the differences, and the obvious results of what would happen if only the Western states, ( you know, the ones hated by the IPCC) were to be the ones shouldering the bulk of this economically damaging emissions control.
Why should we be paying when others have no intention to? We’ve already got enough financial problems. Wasting even more on problems that may or may not exist is a fools errand.
If everyone hasn’t already done so, I reccommend reading Bjorn Lomborg’s ” The Sceptical Enviromentalist.” A statiscian and teacher by profession, he uses excellent graphs and arguments to show the inaccuracies of such claims. The chapter on the useless Kyoto Accord, ( or Coyote Accord, considering it would have us all eating off the ground,) is especially impressive.

Jeff Alberts
August 7, 2011 6:01 pm

Bystander says:
August 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm
So wait – just because the other kids are going to still keep kicking the dog that make it OK for you to do?
This isn’t science, and I’d argue it isn’t a morally valid argument either.

With every keystroke you’re also “kicking the dog”. Why don’t you take the higher ground and give up all modern conveniences? The Amish lifestyle is waiting for you!

Lady Life Grows
August 7, 2011 6:04 pm

I call it the Kyoto Death Treaty because any reduction in CO2 means less photosynthesis and therefore less food for plants, animals and people.

August 7, 2011 6:11 pm

This is a dose of reality that the voters should consider when politicians espouse the “Green” platform. I have to inject here an additional reality about the so-called “science” of warming. Their fundamental premise is that carbon dioxide is warming the world when there is no evidence whatsoever that it is doing so or has done so in the past. It follows from the work of the Hungarian scientist Ferenc Miskolczi who studies absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations he has shown that the transparency of the atmosphere in IR that carbon dioxide absorbs has stayed the same for the last 61 years. At the same time carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. According to the IPCC it is absorption of infrared by this added carbon dioxide that causes the greenhouse effect. And since there was no absorption according to weather balloon observations it follows that there was no greenhouse effect. This also explains why satellite observations have not been able to detect any trace of anthropogenic warming for the last 31 years. All those fractional reductions cited above are thereby changed into nice round zeros. And monies spent to “mitigate” the imaginary warming are simply a criminal waste of public resources.

D. J. Hawkins
August 7, 2011 6:13 pm

Bystander says:
August 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm
So wait – just because the other kids are going to still keep kicking the dog that make it OK for you to do?
This isn’t science, and I’d argue it isn’t a morally valid argument either.

Your first point is correct, but the post wasn’t making that argument, so no gold ring there.
Your second point illustrates the fundamental element of debate strategy, “he who controls the definitions, controls the debate.” I flatly reject your moral equivalency. In my view the warministas are more like the grumpy neighbor insisting the kids are going to fill in the creek if they keep skimming pebbles across it. See? That makes it much easier to ignore. Laugh at, even.
And even if we granted that CAGW was true, nations that put themselves at such extreme disadvantage will certainly kill citizens now, as opposed to maybe, possibly, later if we can’t think of clever ways to abate the warming effects. Nations are constituted to protect the interests of their citizens, not anyone else’s. British and Australian politicos are about to find this out at dear cost.

oakgeo
August 7, 2011 6:14 pm

To Bystander August 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm
So gutting the economies of Europe, the UK, New Zealand and Australia – while the rest of the world continues emitting as before – is morally correct? That’s an amazing point of view. Moral relativism at its best.

oakgeo
August 7, 2011 6:15 pm

Damn, I fed the troll….

tokyoboy
August 7, 2011 6:16 pm

DirkH says: August 7, 2011 at 5:53 pm
tokyoboy says: “The upshot is NOBODY IS SERIOUS on this issue.”
Wrong word, tokyoboy – all the players are dead serious, but none are honest.
Thanks for your proofreading. I now understand my mischoice in wording.

CAGW-Skeptic99
August 7, 2011 6:16 pm

Bystander, it is simple arithmetic. When a course of action harms your country, and especially the poorest people living in your country, and can not make even a measurable difference in global climate for the next century, why would any responsible person recommend that course of action.
Limiting decision making to responsible persons removes most of the environmentalists from the discussion, because they seem unable to factor in the consequences of their actions.
You can say the ‘science’ supports the policy, but that is a stretch. Science of plate tectonics was quite ‘settled’ also, but was completely wrong. The climate science you implicitly accept is heavily influenced by large quantities of money, and it isn’t the oil company money. The money comes from mandatory taxes, increased prices for energy due to windmill subsidies, etc.
The science will likely fade as natural variation in climate is better understood, but the damage to the economies, and the people’s living standards who live there, will likely not fade for decades. Europeans have major economic disadvantages versus China and the rest anyway, and now they compete with one arm tied behind their backs because they not only pay much more for labor and benefits, they also pay much more for energy.

1 2 3 4