Obama’s ideological war on coal unnecessary, is wasteful, costly, inept, and pure political theater.
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
China’s energy consumption is climbing so rapidly that it’s energy use, which already exceeds ours, will be double U.S. levels by 2040 as shown from EIA data below. (1)
Furthermore the astounding growth in China’s energy consumption is dominated by coal fuel energy resources.(2)
Coal fuel use provided more two thirds of China’s 2012 total energy consumption requirements.(2)
This massive growth in both energy use consumption and coal fuel resources have driven China’s CO2 emissions to the highest level in the world and far above U.S. levels with continued large future increases expected.(3)
Obama’s EPA proposal seeks to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions by mandating reductions in our use of coal fuel in the production of electricity. But the U.S. is already in the process of reducing the use of coal fuel for the production of electricity with free market energy forces driving the increased use of natural gas with declining use of coal to meet both our present and future growing needs for electricity as shown in EIA data below. (4)
This is not the case for electricity production in China where coal fuel is used in even greater abundance than it is used in providing total energy consumption. (2) In 2012 China’s electricity from coal accounted for 76% of the countries total electricity production.(5)
While the U.S. is expected to have little increase in future coal use (see EIA Figure ES-5 above) for electricity the same cannot be said for China. China is expected to see about an 80% increase in its 2012 level of coal fuel use for electricity by 2030 as shown below from EIA data. (5)
Compare China’s huge growth in use of coal fuel above with U.S. estimated coal fuel use (absent Obama’s EPA proposed schemes) shown in the EIA data below. (5)
This increased coal fuel use by China results in its CO2 emissions climbing from 2012 levels of 8,994 million metric tons to 14,029 million metric tons in 2030 (EIA data shown below) which is an increase of 5,014 million metric tons of CO2. The Obama EPA CO2 reduction proposal amounts to a maximum reduction of about 500 million metric tons of CO2 by 2030 which is overwhelmed by the China’s increase which is 10 times larger than Obama’s EPA proposed reduction. (5), (6)
![clip_image003[9]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/clip_image0039.png?quality=75 "clip_image003[9]"){kind=small}
Compare China’s growth in CO2 emissions above against the U.S CO2 emissions future profile from EIA data shown below.(5)
The EPA cost assessments for the costs of complying with its CO2 reduction mandates are erroneous. The EPA assumes that by 2030 U.S. electricity growth can be reduced by more than 11% from its present rate of growth. But the EIA 2014 AEO report estimates that to achieve modest GDP growth of about 2.4% per year means that electricity growth between now and 2030 needs to increase by more than 16%. The difference between the EPA’s 11% reduction in growth by 2030 versus the EIA GDP economic growth needed increase of more than 16% amounts to tens of billions of dollars of increase costs to electricity consumers. (4),(7)
While the climate alarmist press here in the U.S. provide erroneous and misleading stories claiming that China is going to agree to emissions reduction targets in the future (8) the reality is quite different. China is struggling to continue to grow its economy and the latest intentions announced by their government are that future emissions growth will occur consistent with achieving the desired growth of their economic objectives. (9)
The monumental climate impact futility of Obama’s EPA proposal is demonstrated by estimates of so called global temperature reductions which would be achieved by complying with the EPA demands even using flawed climate model projections which grossly overestimate global temperature impacts based on atmospheric CO2 emissions.
Estimates of the global temperature “benefit” from Obama’s schemes vary between less than a hundredth of a degree by 2050 and less than 2 hundredths of a degree by 2100. (10), (11) With the reality of global CO2 emissions growing hugely between the present and 2030, despite Obama’s EPA dumb CO2 reduction schemes, as demonstrated by the material discussed above even the trivial, miniscule, pathetic and grossly overestimated global temperature “benefits” suggested are completely wiped out.
Other nations from around the world are growing in number and rebelling against the absurd climate fear political ideology that is wasting massive national resources and pushing scientifically unsupported climate alarmist claims trying to falsely impose the need for measures to clamp down on reasonable future energy use growth, use of diverse fuel resources including fossil fuels and economic growth needed to create better futures for disadvantaged peoples. Countries engaged in this growing rebellion against misguided climate fear politics include Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India. (12)
Meantime the great global temperature “pause” continues with the RSS satellite global temperature measurements showing no increases in global temperatures occurring in 17 years and 9 months.(13)
(1) http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_07252013.pdf
(2) http://euanmearns.com/china-the-coal-monster/
(3) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/11/china-and-co2/
(4) http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/executive_summary.cfm
(6) http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf Pages ES-6 and ES-7
(7) http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf Pages 3-14 to 3-17
(8) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/china-denies-u-turn-on-co2-emissions/
(9) http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/09/uk-china-climatechange-idUSKBN0EK0QR20140609
(10) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/02/the-epas-political-futility/
(11) http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80456333/
One of the most bizarre aspects of Australian Warmism, is that its hand wringing exponents who carefully count ever gram of carbon that is emitted in Australia cheerfully ignore the millions of tonnes per annum of coal being exported to China. Their smug, sanctimonious attitudes are based entirely on either ‘denial’ or ‘hypocrisy’ got to be one or the other!
The irony, of course, is the U.S. as well will be shipping coal to both China and India to feed those new power plants there. Too funny.
Burn baby burn!!
MSM still desperate to prove China is serious about CAGW. like the last rubbish about China capping emissions, this one has not been confirmed by the Chinese Govt.
what next – capital punishment?
11 June: Reuters: China’s Shenzhen to punish firms if carbon targets not
met-media
by Kathy Chen and Stian Reklev
China’s Shenzhen will impose sanctions on companies that fail to comply with
targets under the city’s carbon trading scheme, an official said according
to a local media outlet, despite criticism about the rules.
The Shenzhen government, hosting the oldest of China’s six pilot carbon
trading markets, last week arranged a special CO2 permit auction to help
local emitters meet their targets for 2013 by the June 30 deadline.
But only around a third of the permits on offer were picked up, with some of
the 635 scheme participants saying they didn’t participate because they were
unhappy about scheme rules and planned to appeal to the government about how
their emission targets had been set.
Guangdong province faces a similar situation in its market, casting doubt
over China’s ability to enforce targets in its carbon markets…
“Non-compliers will be asked to pay a fine of three times the market value
(of each permit they fail to hand over to the government),” Zhou Quanhong,
head of the Shenzhen government carbon trading office, told a ***conference on
Tuesday, according to news service provider Crystal Carbon.
He said those who failed to pay a fine would be dealt with by the court, and
that violators would have their lending credibility downgraded and lose any
subsidies or preferential fiscal treatment they might receive.
***The government did not immediately respond to questions regarding Zhou’s
comments, but they were confirmed by several sources who participated at the
conference…
Zhou’s message was seen by market players as sending a strong message that
the government intends to ensure the scheme is properly implemented and
reassure traders that market regulations would be upheld…
But finding sellers could be a challenge for buyers, who only have 19 days
to get their books in order.
Liquidity in the scheme is poor with only a handful of thousand permits
trading each day. Some 12,000 permits changed hands on Wednesday…
The China Emissions Exchange, which hosts trading of permits in the Shenzhen
market, on Wednesday began offering trading of 2014 permits.
(LOL) Bids and offers opened far apart, with the first trade going through in the afternoon at 60
yuan, but only for a single permit.
The government has issued 33 million permits for 2014, according to the
exchange.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/11/idUSL4N0OS0XS20140611
***this is obviously the conference referred to above:
WALCC (World Alliance for Low Carbon Cities): Sixth Low Carbon City
Development World Forum; June 10-11, 2014, in Shenzhen, China
The event will host over 1,000 leaders from government, industry, investors,
academia, international organizations, business associations, and media from
over 40 countries…
Confirmed Participants include:
Graham Meadows, Special Advisor, European Commission
Mariana Fay, Chief Economist, Sustainable Development Network, World Bank
Travis Bradford, Director, Energy and Environment Concentration, School of
International and Public Affairs, Columbia University
Jonathan Woetzel, Senior Director, McKinsey & Company
http://walcc.org/index.php/material-bank/events/101-sixth-low-carbon-city-development-world-forum-june-10-11-2014-shenzhen-china
I was pretty surprised to hear that the USA aims to reduce CO2 emissions from existing power stations by 30%. What does that mean? Close down 30% of existing stations? Run stations at 70% of nameplate capacity? Or carbon capture and storage? CCS converts power production plants into power consumption plants. For coal about 25% more energy is required for the capture, compression, and sequestration of CO2. But at least in the USA you will probably use the CO2 in enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Capital cost of a CCS station is about double the normal. It increases the demand for coal.
Germany is building 12 new coal fired power stations and is in process of abandoning Energiewende. In the UK we took the wrecking ball to about 12 coal fired power stations this past 24 months for loss of about 12 GW generating capacity, preferring to be dependent upon Qatari and Russian gas.
Carbon Capture and Storage and 1984
Why does the concept of CCS exist?
Those who like my charts for China can find a similar set for the USA here and a list of links at the end of that article for several other countries including Germany, the UK, Egypt, Turkey, Nigeria, Russia etc.
America energy independence
Charles Nelson says:
June 12, 2014 at 12:09 am
There are those in Australia who want the Chinese burned Australian coal to be attributed to Australia.
The possessive singular of country is country’s. Countries is the plural of country.
lol
Is the EPA going to declare war on China or threaten to fine them? I don’t think so.
As Charles mentioned in the first response, a vast amount of Australian coal is sold to China & our country benefits immensely, being able to support a wide range of age, unemployment and disability pensions as well as programs for indigenous advancement, green initiatives and universal education and health care.
The opposition to this is very loud from the green and environmental groups but they have no guilty conscience at putting their hand out, wanting to say more than their fair share in any conversation and refusing to recognize that their own existence is just as valid as that that of every other person on the planet.
The logical conclusion, for the sake of Mother Gaia, is that saturation bombing of China should commence immediately.
After all, it’s a crisis and isn’t doing something better than doing nothing?
Redistributionist take note: you don’t “spread the wealth (energy)” the folks will make and spread it around themselves. For the Sophomoric Reasoning genuis of the Left and Greens, they’re simply making the pie larger and not making more slivers.
One note about India. Their recent elections put very pro-capitalist (MSM “conservative”, “right-wing”) in office. If they only slightly implement what they propsoed, India’s expansion of energy will be as dramatic as China. China and India recognize energy is life and plentiful, cheap energy is prosperity. Unlike the Sophomoric Reasoning of the Left and Greens, they also know if the pie isn’t made larger, redistribution will only result in equal shares of misery. And when they make the pie large enough, they’ll begin implementing some of the greenie stuff. China is using what some have labled “capitalist-totalitarian”; we’ll know in a few months the direction India chooses.
A comment I left at a warmist site:
What we need to do is get CO2 below 250 ppm. We don’t want to go below that or else plants will have a big problem. Which could lead to extinction. So the Ideal number for CO2 is between 250 and 275ppm. Has anyone notified the Chinese?
What we may need to do is take US CO2 production to zero to make up for what China is doing. Or maybe we could go to war with them to make them stop destroying the planet.
A World War would be totally worth it to stop planetary destruction don’t you think?
Having read current federal officials at the US Department of ED stating that China is in the ascension and the US in decline like it was no big deal, I do not think harming of the US via policy troubles our public class in the least. Plus CO2 moderation is the excuse for Regional Equity which takes the prosperity where it exists still and transfers funds to the Blue States and inner cities.
Called Metropolitanism now, the Low Carbon push is actually a means of fostering racial justice in the US as former federal officials like Van Jones have openly stated. It ensures “that people of color have equal access to jobs, schools, and housing throughout metropolitan regions.” The Obama Administration calls these areas Promise Zones and it is a major and increasing priority.
So when these CO2 policies seem to make no sense in light of costs and a Middle East in turmoil and the lack of factual support for the models, there is always the cui bono analysis to keep in mind. Especially since the policymakers have so openly proclaimed this as their rationale. I have sat in the audience and gasped at times at the forthrightness.
With all that growth in global CO2 emissions atmospheric CO2 levels do show any growth change associated with China’s output, it does not matter what rate our emissions are, atmospheric CO2 levels keep growing based on other factors.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1980/derivative/normalise/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1980/mean:3/normalise
The second essay in as many days on this subject, and once again not a single mention of the key concept surrounding emissions reductions: total cumulative emissions. The United States and its 300 million people have put 1.5 to 2 times more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than the 1.3 billion Chinese have up to now. Even with increasing Chinese emissions and flat to declining U.S. emissions, the Chinese won’t match the U.S. in total cumulative emissions until about 2030 on a nation-to-nation level, and likely never will on a per capita level.
That is why the developing world asks that developed nations which are responsible for the majority of excess greenhouse gas currently in the atmosphere (a situation that will remain for some time yet) need to take the lead right now in emissions reductions.
Looking only at annual emissions numbers ignores all this.
Leo Geiger:
Your post at June 12, 2014 at 5:07 am says
Your post rightly says this is “The second essay in as many days on this subject” but every other thing in your post is wrong.
“Cumulative emissions” are NOT the “key concept surrounding emissions reductions”. You made that assertion on WUWT yesterday hereand I refuted it here saying
Repetition does not convert untrue assertions into reality. Your assertions were refuted yesterday and you have not answered the refutation.
Richard
M Simon says:
June 12, 2014 at 4:13 am
“A comment I left at a warmist site:
What we need to do is get CO2 below 250 ppm. We don’t want to go below that or else plants will have a big problem. Which could lead to extinction. So the Ideal number for CO2 is between 250 and 275ppm. Has anyone notified the Chinese?
What we may need to do is take US CO2 production to zero to make up for what China is doing. Or maybe we could go to war with them to make them stop destroying the planet.
A World War would be totally worth it to stop planetary destruction don’t you think?”
___________________________
“I’ve been to one world’s fair, a picnic and a rodeo and that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard…”
–Slim Pickens, as: Maj. T.J. (King) Kong- “Dr. Strangelove”
ok, why wait any longer- i’ll just dive right into pre-traumatic stress syndrome- beat the rush, right?
because everything we do leads to disaster – in time
if it’s whirling down the vortex ever faster, then fiiiiiiine
i finally got it- it’s worse than we thought
it’s the biggest crisis of all time!
so fine, let it blow cuz it’s time to get it over!
i’m tired of it preying on my mind.
when the end of the world just won’t stop being nigh!
ya know, i think i’ll just go do whatever i usuallly do and wait for it…
hmm – what if the apocalypse came and went – and i never knew it?
i mean – what if armageddon happened… and i just sorta slept thru it?
hey- so wake me when oblivion is over- okay?
it’s hard to whip a fervor to a froth every day.
i’m not in any hurry, see- so please don’t try to worry me-
i suffer from catastrophe fatigue in a very big way.
so wake me when it’s over and done.
when it’s time for doing something new and fun.
a second coming’s nothing but another rerun
i’d like to give a fuck but i don’t have a free one-
so wake me when it’s over and the parasites are gone!
wake me when it’s over and done!
I have no idea who came up with these projections for future Chinese power sources, but they are pure BS with respect to nuclear, for certain, and therefore highy questionable for everything else.
The chart , which ends in 2012, doesn’t show any Chinese nuclear, nor does the text even mention same. That’s pretty strange, since just in the past 3 months the Chinese have completed and connected 3 nuclear plants to the grid, and are currently building 37 nuclear plants, all of which will go online within the next several years. And that’s far from the last- Chinese plans are for 600 nuclear plants by midcentury and 1600 by the end of the century. They will easily surpass U.S. nuclear capacity within the next decade. Recently China notified Westinghouse that they will shortly order an additional 25 AP1000 nuclear plants, to follow the 4 AP1000 plants they currently have under construcion. China can build, all by herself, nuclear power plants equal to our best technology – for example their CAP1000 and CAP1400, variants and extensions of the Westinghouse-Toshiba AP1000. They are also far advanced in their testing of fast reactors. The Chinese do NOT like burning coal and will be building facilities to allow importation of LPG to replace coal.
I have no idea who created these estimates of future Chinese power sources, or how dated they are, but everything I’ve read about Chinese energy programs tells me they cannot be taken seriously.
Lucky for us man-made CO2 has not changed the relationship between temperature and the AMO by any discernible amount.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1909/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1909/to/plot/esrl-amo/from:1909/to:1944/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1909/to:1944/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2010/trend/plot/esrl-amo/from:1977/to:2010/trend
The bad news is that negative AMO is very, very close.
Damages for cumulative emissions are a weakness in the negotiating position of the developed nations, which China intends to exploit to its advantage.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/climate-talks-walk-out-compensation-un-warsaw
Representatives of most of the world’s poor countries have walked out of increasingly fractious climate negotiations after the EU, Australia, the US and other developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015.
The orchestrated move by the G77 and China bloc of 132 countries came during talks about “loss and damage”
US EPA is overdue in releasing the NAAQS required under the CAA as a result of its 2009 Endangerment Finding regarding CO2. EPA could satisfy the President, his Secretary of State, his Science Adviser, Joe Romm, Bill McKibben, etc. by setting the NAAQS at 350 ppmv and then retreating to its secret bunker and monitoring the “fun”.
ferdberple @ur momisugly June 12, 2014 at 5:57 am,
I can hardly wait to review the official definition of an “extreme climate event” and the criteria for establishing that such “extreme climate event” was caused by AGW. The poor countries are demanding compensation now for “loss and damage” which exist only in the “modeled” future. They have no apparent interest the “gain and enhancement” which has resulted from the past actions of the developed nations. Interesting worldview.
@Leopold Danze Geiger: So, (1) “total CUMULATIVE emissions and (2) “per capita” emissions are your important points. Sigh, so many things to say about that but I’ll make it short. First, let me sum up your message:
(1) Cumulative Emissions: Guilt should govern our future actions. We must pay for past “sins”. A very common theme in current politics. Also known as LIBERAL GUILT. In what way does punishing people of today for past events in any area help anything going forward? How did Hillary put it? Something like “what difference does it make now”?
(2) Per capita Emissions: More guilt…. of course. However, having lived and worked in 3rd world countries, I can simply tell you that a day doesn’t go by that I’m not thankful I live in a 1st world country. And again, In what way does stigmatizing and penalizing people who live well help those who don’t?