Concordia researcher shows which countries are most responsible for the cost of environmental damages from global warming — and the billions of dollars they could be owing.
From CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY
Montreal, September 8, 2015 — All countries have contributed to recent climate change, but some much more so than others. Those that have contributed more than their fair share have accumulated a climate debt, owed to countries that have contributed less to historical warming.
This is the implication of a new study published in Nature Climate Change, in which Concordia University researcher Damon Matthews shows how national carbon and climate debts could be used to decide who should pay for the global costs of climate mitigation and damages.
The countries that have accumulated the largest carbon debts on account of higher than average per-capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the United States, Russia, Japan, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia.
The U.S. alone carries 40 per cent of the cumulative world debt, while Canada carries about four per cent. On the other side, the carbon creditors — those whose share of CO2 emissions has been smaller than their share of world population — are India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil and China, with India holding 30 per cent of the total world credit.
“Thinking of climate change in terms of debts and credits for individual countries shows how much countries have over- or under-contributed to historical warming, relative to their proportion of the world’s population over time,” explains Matthews, study author and associate professor in Concordia’s Department of Geography, Planning and Environment.
“This paints a striking picture of the historical inequalities among countries with respect to their greenhouse gas emissions and consequent responsibility for climate changes.”
Calculating climate responsibility
To estimate differences in national responsibility for historical climate changes, Matthews first calculated carbon debts and credits based on fossil fuel CO2 emission and population records since 1990. It was around this date that scientific knowledge and public understanding of the dangers of human-driven climate changes began to solidify.
Since that time, the total carbon debt across all debtor nations has increased to 250 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. And it’s still going up: the increase in world carbon debt in 2013 alone was 13 billion tonnes, or about 35% of global CO2 emissions in that year.
So what is the monetary value of this debt? “According to a recent U.S. government report, the current best estimate of the social cost of present-day CO2 emissions is about $40 USD per tonne of CO2,” says Matthews. “Multiply $40 by the 13 billion tonnes of carbon debt accrued in 2013, and you get $520 billion. This cost estimate gives us an indication of how much we could be paying to help lower-emitting countries cope with the costs of climate changes, or develop their economies along carbon-free pathways.”
Looking at the total world carbon debt, the numbers are even more staggering: the 250 billion tonnes of debt accumulated since 1990, at $40 per tonne, represents $10 trillion USD. “No matter how you look at this picture, these numbers are really big — much, much larger than even the most generous financial commitments currently pledged by countries to help with the cost of climate adaptation and damages in vulnerable countries.”
CO2 emissions vs. degrees of debt
Matthews also calculated how much each country has over- or under-contributed to temperature increases as a result of a range of different greenhouse gas emissions. By this measure, the total accumulated world climate debt comes to 0.1 Ā°C since 1990, close to a third of observed warming over this period of time. Again the U.S. is the single largest debtor, and India is the largest creditor. Some countries, however, like Brazil and Indonesia, switch from being carbon creditors, to being among the climate debtor countries, as a result of the additional greenhouse gas emissions produced by deforestation and agriculture.
“This idea of climate and carbon debts and credits highlight the large historical inequalities with respect to how much individual countries have contributed to climate warming,” says Matthews. “The historical debts and credits calculated here could be a helpful tool to inform policy discussions relating to historical responsibility and burden sharing, by providing a measure of who should pay — and how much they might be expected to pay — for the costs of mitigation and climate damages in countries with lower emissions.”
What does this mean for the upcoming Paris meetings?
As countries continue to announce their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (or INDCs) leading up to December’s climate talks in Paris, it is becoming increasingly clear that these emissions pledges will not be enough to meet the international goal of limiting global warming to 2Ā°C (see related research by Matthews’ research group published last month in Environmental Research Letters). The idea of additionally accounting for debts and credits would of course increase the burden placed on countries with high historical emissions. “But these historical inequalities are real and substantial, and need to be fully acknowledged,” says Matthews. “My hope is that this discussion will help lead to a stronger and more meaningful global climate agreement.”
###
Related links:
Cited study in Nature Climate Change
Related article in Environmental Research Letters
Okay, bring on the Hillary carbon tax on women. Let’s see the proposal.
As the world’s farmers have greatly benefited from from US co2, the US should charge the rest of the world $50/ton. Fair is fair.
Britain gave the world the industrial revolution which has greatly increased wealth and health. We have also given it the rule of law, democracy, the English language, great inventions, great literature great art music and literature.
I reckon that puts us well into credit.
Tonyb
Tonyb, I was about to make the same point but also tie it to fossil fuel use.
We did those things – and abolished slavery too – because we had the wealth and power to do those things.
And that power was steam power. Steam made by coal.
The positive externalities of cheap energy far outweigh the negative externalities of the fossil fuels that make the cheapest energy.
So the paper in Nature Climate Change is fundamentally flawed.
But we could have guessed that from the “journal”, Nature Climate Change.
MCourtney, the UK didn’t abolish slavery because it had the wealth and power to do so. The UK abolished slavery because English society had developed an ethical outlook far superior to any other then in existence.
Plenty of other societies had sufficient wealth and power. France, Germany and Russia to name three. Not to mention 18th century China. None of them stepped up.
Scrap the Per Capita BS and go by strict production measurements and you discover that China is producing CO2 at a greater pace than Both the US and EUR combined.
2010 US 5,433,057 kt/yr
2010 China 8,286,892 kt/yr
2013 US 5,125,000 kt/yr
2013 EUR 3,750,000 kt/yr
2013 China 10,300,000 kt/yr
China is producing CO2 at a rate of Double USA. Their cost should be the same as ours.
At $40 per tonne, US debt accruing at $205,000,000,000; $205B per year
At $40 per tonne, China is accruing at $406,000,000,000; $406B per year
Per Capita is merely a measurement to allow a nation to “Pollute” more.
IF CO2 IS an environmental pollutant, then China is the greatest environmental polluter in the world
And all that energy was used to invent things like “the internet”. There will need to be a charge on all use of “innovation”. Sorry 3rd world, no leaping technology steps for you!
Yes! +10.
Pat Frank, yes and no.
Yes, we had the ethical outlook that led to abolition of slavery.
Yes it was superior, obviously.
But No. We had the ethical outlook since the Puritan Revolution of the late 16th century.
We needed the means of production to allow the will to manifest.
Pat,
Germany wasn’t a united country in 1833.
The Industrial Revolution gave Britain unprecedented wealth from c. 1760 to 1870, around which time other countries started to catch up. Suppression of the slave trade and abolishing slavery also coincided with Britain’s switch from mercantilism to free trade.
The UK was able to defeat Napoleonic France despite having half the population because of its greater wealth, thanks to industrialization. Britain bankrolled Napoleon’s continental opponents, too.
PS:
The French Republic abolished slavery in 1793-94, but Napoleon reinstituted it in 1802.
I believe that Mr Trump would at least double that $50 and demand immediate payment in Paris.
It’s just cultural Marxism trying to undermine today’s Western World culture.
The real problem is that capitalist democracy outcompete Marxism/socialism on economic results for most people involved. So we have rid ourself of capitalism.
Could not agree more
I meant the comment made by Ric Haldane, not the article š
I Hope this is the right place
Gloria Swonsong
Good reading of that era in Bernard Cornwell’s Sharpe series
Pat Frank
None of Germany, France, Russia and China had anything comparable to the Royal Navy with its ability to police the seas and interdict slave shipments.
Ethics and capability.
Santa Baby sez:
So we have rid ourself of capitalism.
And replace it with what? Theft?
Gloria, you’re right about the fractured state of the Germans. Nevertheless, several of of those states were rich and powerful, but made no particular effort to halt slavery. See Europeans and slavery.
For the rest, I don’t deny that it took military power to stop the global slave trade. But many states had power and did nothing. The distinctive trait is ethics. Only the UK had that.
The U.S. alone carries 40 per cent of the cumulative world debt
===============
The EPA endangerment finding leaves the US on the hook to pay the rest of the world for these damages. The US cannot now turn around and argue that it has caused no damage to other countries.
“The US cannot now turn around and argue that it has caused no damage to other countries.”
It can and ought to turn around and say, well, something that probably cannot be printed here š
Medicine, technology, liberty. Fought two world wars on your behalf.
They shoot, they score ……. an own goal.
Sharing the CO2 cost in this fashion is like a table of 5 school teachers splitting the check after lunch.
“But I didn’t eat the bread roll, and I only had a green tea, and no coffee.”
“And I shared my appetiser with you, so we have to take that into account”
Meanwhile, the waiter is thinking – “Oh, FFS . .. .”
Perfectly pur, Sir!
What an idiotic paper. I was wondering how much the world’s climate would have changed if all countries had paid up. I suggest zero.
Smoke and mirrors, part of every scam.
Zero, anyway! I’d like to know where all this “damage” is they think they’re calculating.
Agreed. The US may lead the world in psuedo-climate-damage, but Concordia U. leads the world in morons. And that’s not an easy call as hundreds of universities and think tanks are competing vigorously for that honor.
We need a tax on Gaea for her contributions to CO2.
Women are mostly made of silicon these days.
Well since the US is changing from a consumer to an fossil fuel exporter nation (often stupidly) we won’t be in debt for very long.
Lifting the ban on crude oil exports from the United States will boost U.S. economic growth, wages, employment, trade and overall welfare. For example, present discounted value of gross domestic product (GDP) in the high oil and gas resource (HOGR) case through 2039 is between $600 billion and $1.8 trillion, depending on how soon and how completely the ban is lifted.
I was mostly referring to coal exports, however if we continue on the current trend we’ll have to also export oil. Meanwhile we turn to expensive non fossil fuel methods including plug in cars.
“All countries have contributed to recent climate change, but some much more so than others.”
Anything that starts out with a false assumption as it’s first sentence is not worth our time.
Bingo!
Also the assumption that CO2 == pollution, which is everywhere in this “paper”.
— Bad News
I never hear these people talk about the CO2 they produce as humans. They certainly aren’t afraid of blaming cows.
Come on! Countries do not, repeat DO NOT, change climate. (Don’t give ’em an inch!)
Right. And a judgment on damages must show injury. Damon Matthews has failed to demonstrate any injury at all.
As others have pointed out, the only demonstrated consequence of increased atmospheric CO2 has been beneficial.
+10
Zero climate change in recent times, therefore no-one contributed and no-one pays.
āAll countries have contributed to recent climate change, but some much more so than others.ā
Or, as George Orwell put it: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
And what about the value of trickle down benefits? Medicines, technologies, entertainments, culture, etc, etc.
In what way is this a study or research? This is a SPECULATIVE OPINION piece. All it accomplishes is that it tells you just what kind of nonsense aggregator is the journal “Nature Climate Change.”
Dave, it also tells us what sort of stuuppid idiots Canadian academics are!!
That seems appropriate. I started reading – as a child – fairy tales. Then there was science fiction – and the Campbellesque tradition required a plausible and consistent system of physics. etc. When the arguments of what was fantasy and what was science began, psychological profiling became prevalent – enriching the genre. So when I see speculative opinion I place it squarely in line with what self identification came along to replace the sword and sorcery and space opera schism : speculative fiction : anthropogenic climate change
Climate debt is a state of mind and has no physical properties. What kind of idiot would have an accounts receivable category of climate debt?
If somebody really feels the need to pay it off then they should use Monopoly money as it has the same worth as the climate debt.
Canadian academics have no monopoly in the stupidity distribution business.
From each according to their means, to each according to their need……………..must I say more?
Karl Marx
I have principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.
Groucho Marx
“Concordia researcher shows which countries are most responsible for the cost of environmental damages from global warming…”
Just what damages to the environment from global warming have occurred?
I know of none.
No damages, no one to be made whole, no money owed.
Case closed.
Shouldn’t these researchers be first be made to prove climate change is actually happening, before setting out to determine what it may cause, or cost????
After they prove it is happening, they then are required to prove that on net, it is harmful.
So they are already two strikes down.
Gm. Global cooling climate change is already starting in Nthrn Europe. Cf. Gosselin’s blog.
Proving that climate change is happening is easy. Always has, always will. That’s a given. What they need to prove is that humans are responsible and it’s a net detriment. That they can’t do.
Everyone agrees that the climate is changing (more than 97% do) but that is because it is a dynamic system. And for this report to have any factual basis they need to prove that CO2 causes the change while the temperature remains static and CO2 increases.
Hadn’t you heard? “The “science” is “settled!” š
The old ‘per capita’ scam.
I`m with TinyCO2. Countries with high development necessarily have high CO2 emissions, but this development has benefited the whole planet. Once a fridge, a mobile phone or a cure to malaria has been developed, every country will eventually benefit from it. One cannot look at only one side of the ledger (the negative – assuming it is) and neglect the other side (the positive).
I agree with all comments so far. But this is what it is all about. This is what the UN is working towards. This is where Obama is headed. So better start digging deep, guys: the claims will never end, once the first one is won. Look at the mess New Zealand is in with claims for compensation from Maori. There have already been three ‘full and final settlements’, and still the demands come. (I’m a lefty, by the way.)
Step into the light son, the RIGHT will set you free !!!!
There have already been three āfull and final settlementsā, and still the demands come.
==============================
In effect the claim is “your ancestors did my ancestors harm, so you need to pay me”.
There can never be a “final” settlement, because the courts cannot settle a claim on behalf of as yet unborn children. Thus, each new generation has a new claim.
The same exact problem is now happening with CO2. People that are long dead are being held accountable for the cost of “pollution”, but they are not being asked to pay. Instead their children will be made to pay.
This is one of the great injustices of all time being created in the name of “fairness”. The sins of the fathers will be visited on the children. If a father commit murder, shall his children and his children’s children be put to death as punishment, unto the final generation?
Yes. We need to be punished. For an entirely non-existent problem we “caused”. The level of insanity increases exponentially as the Paris clownapalooza draws ever nearer.
Anthony….I don’t know how you maintain your cool or sanity with these never-ending ‘studies’ of BS. I would have succumbed long ago. I start reading and then I stop – these people have no conscience.
I agree !
They have NONE at all but I suspect that they NOW have a LARGE bank balance. (The Great Global Warming Gravy Train is simply bursting with dollars).
Regards,
WL
Actually, they do have CON SCIENCE.
Someone please tell me that this is satire by Concordia University researcher Damon Matthews.
Please tell me that this was not really published in Nature Climate Change.
Please tell me that my internet connection has been hacked and someone is playing a joke on me.
Someone please tell me that it this has really been published that Damon Matthews does not roam freely among us while unsupervised.
Wake me up Scotty, I may be having a bad dream.
Canada????? 36 million people living on the largest carbon sink on the planet! @ eysonu I think I am in the same really bad dream! And this from a Canadian University? They must have Maurice Strong as their saint!
I was thinking the same thing about Australia. Like Canada we have more forest/ocean/biosphere than many other countries that sucks up CO2, a small population (around 23 Million) and somehow we are the “climate criminals”.
“The social cost of carbon as determined by the Interagency Working Group in their May 2013 Technical Support Document (updated in November 2013 and July 2015) is unsupported by the robust scientific literature, fraught with uncertainty, illogical, and thus completely unsuitable and inappropriate for federal rulemaking. Had the IWG included a better-reasoned and more inclusive review of the current scientific literature, the social cost of carbon estimates would have been considerably reduced with a value likely approaching zero. Such a low social cost of carbon would obviate the arguments behind the push for federal greenhouse gas regulations.”
http://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/analysis-obama-administrations-social-cost-carbon
An Analysis of the Obama Administrationās Social Cost of Carbon
Patrick J. Michaels, July 22, 2015
Before the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources
and –
Mr. President, CO2 Is Not Pollution, Itās the Elixir of Life
By Craig D. Idso
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/mr-president-co2-not-pollution-its-elixir-life
Pure, unadulterated bovine excrement.
Carbon debts? All to bring the wealthy countries down to the level of the poor countries,by punishing the wealthy countries for “polluting” Gaia with CO2.
This “study” is beyond eye-rolling-it’s more like pound your forehead on the keyboard.
Pounding head on keyboard would most likely produce a “study” containing more factual findings.
Hopefully,the recent increase in similar “studies” and yet more BS based on computer models using falsified data means the climate change cult is circling the drain.
Your reply reminds of the thousand monkeys typing on a thousand keyboards and they would eventually write a Shakespearean type play. I have the feeling that it would take more than ten thousand “climate scientist” with ten thousand computer models and they still would not get it right!
Another view on CO2 emissions study can be found on http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/climate_changes_today.php. You can find there a nice graph about the emissions of CO2 in 1990, ordered by states. Also, there are some elements highlighted regarding the impact that the ocean and naval war has on climate change. I’m talking about oceans’ impact over climate since I’m wondering: by which proportion is man responsible for global warming? This issue has been the subject of ardurous debates for more than 20 years. And most of the claims say that modern civilization is responsible for the higher atmospheric temperatures, which were caused by man-made greenhouse gases. But I think that oceans play a much more important role than humans and the CO2 produced by us, don’t you agree?
We will find out the oceanic influence on climate over the next decade or so, as the AMO appears to be going towards a negative phase and the PDO may soon follow after this el nino is over. We will also be closer to knowing if solar grand minimums have climatic effects as history suggests.
The important thing is to observe and keep an open mind.
My understanding is that the half time of Co2 in atmosphere is around 5 years. There was something like that here recently.
So this debt is more like the one in Greece? It disappears over time with out tax payer involvement.
Ah yes, I agree with you, but the Warmistas believe that the evil human produced “carbon” has a half-life of 100 years.
GIGO
What a presumptuous and arrogant little bastard this Damon Matthews must be.
His so-called “university” would be better named the “CON” University and I dare say that their / his GRANT MONEY was plentiful too.
The ENTIRE basis of his nonsense is “carbon-dioxide” which he refers to as “carbon”.
The “report” is all complete bollocks but it is just what the “Parisites” want. Plenty of smoke and mirrors.
Such a shame that a publication known as “Nature Climate Change” CANNOT grasp the simple fact that “Nature” (alone) caused the “climate” to change on Tuesday; you know, that rather cloudy and RECENT Tuesday, about four and a half billion years ago.
At least we can eventually find out how much this little reptile gets paid for his twisted and evil vomit.
Warren, Concordia is/was an excellent institution in hard physical/natural sciences, but like many others has been contaminated by the āsustainability movementā ā I strongly recommend reading National Association of Scholars concerns about this insidious indoctrination of higher education (particularly tuition paying students i.e. Middlebury College ’nuff said). This will at least help us appreciate how ubiquitous this has become and realize that this guy is in Geography Dept. (social studies), not sciences:
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/NAS-Sustainability-Digital.pdf
discussed at:
https://www.nas.org/articles/sustainabilitys_war_on_doubt
I do sadly share your feelings about it and am thrilled that I have retired from higher education.
Congrats on your retirement! I’m glad to not schedule my activities around academic calendars anymore, too.
Such a good article, I am keeping it.
Dear Bubba Cow currently in Maine,
Many thanks indeed. Such a lot to digest in that attached link (impressive stuff) : I shall read it as soon as I can.
Regards,
WL
Oxfam have been pushing this in UK (& other countries’) schools for years.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/resources/climate-challenge-11-14
I now look at a charity and see its position on climate change before I decide to donate or not.
eg The Heart Foundation is doing its annual door knock, then I found the statement on page 8 of the following pdf.
http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Food-sensitive-planning-urban-design-full-report.pdf
They did not need to buy into this climate change nonsense at all.. but they did.
It’s strange that so many organizations/companies sign on with this nonsense. I guess they fear the repercussions if they don’t, so it’s a form of extortion.
They buy in , because generally they’re run by people of a Left leaning. One lass I know, very charitable – does stints in The Samaritans’call centre, cleans up a room in an abandonned cafe to make life better for the homeless who shelter there, is an avid warmist. Add the peer-pressure element & there you have it.
“… for the cost of environmental damages from global warming… ”
What damages? And why shouldn’t they pay us instead for putting fertilizer in the air that has already improved yields by 10%?
That is truly amazing. The predictions of those who always claimed the BRIC countries would naturally take the leading role in the world as economic super powers is now coming true.
Although, Russia is counted as a debtor, I am sure the Russians will not part with any of that debt until they have something of worth in return.
It is just amazing how BRIC countries are now going to take a leading economic role after this world tax and regulation on the US. Wow. I guess economics really is a science that can make predictions.
So does anybody know any countries like Brazil, China, or India that might want to buy some nice working Coal Plant Turbines with generators, very cheap?
These parts are crucial to the process, and kind of a pain to get right.
http://corporate.vattenfall.com/globalassets/corporate/about_vattenfall/generation/c2_coal_fired_power_plant.png
They might need them in order to become the economic super powers they were destined to become according to predictions by world empire UN activists. Perhaps the US can pay its climate debt by just sending our power production parts straight to the BRICs.
Maybe DC power storage will be more awesome than AC ever was, too.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Where have I heard this before? And how did that turn out?
What a crock. It demonstrates that humans, in spite of higher levels of education, continue to lack common sense and logical thinking. The emissions of CO2 are directly related to wealth creation and a tremendous rise in the quality of life. Would we have really been better off not burning fossil fuels and living as our ancestors did? Without CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels there would have been NO Industrial Revolution, NO Scientific Revolution, NO Medical Revolution and NO Information Revolution, A huge concern of government in New York City prior to the arrival of automobiles was what they were going to do with the increasing piles of horse manure and dead horses. The acreage devoted to raising hay for all the horses in Europe and America was counted in millions of acres. Thomas Malthus prediction that the human race was destined to always live at the edge of starvation would have proven to be brilliantly correct. That we owe a carbon debt because we, the developed world, made life far better than it has ever been for everyone, including the developing countries, and now the prospect that the developing world will build on this science and technology to attain development status, is just lunacy.
The easiest people to deceive are the upper middle class. They have just enough education to be impressed by authority, but not enough to know they need to lift up the rocks and see if anything valid underlies it. They’ve also rejected religion but still have a burning need for holier-than-thou self-righteousness, and the AGW cult supplies all of this in abundance.
OK, so they are saying that they’ve come up with a way to calculate how much money rich countries should (for the sin of working hard and becoming rich) pay to poor countries (for the boon they have given to the planet through poor economic management and corruption and remaining poor). Oh wait, they said they were going to do this:
āOne must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worldās wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.ā
~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG-3
So there you have it. They said that’s what this was all about, now they are coming up with ways to calculate it. Problem being when you give a whole bunch of money to poor corrupt countries, a bunch of people become fabulously rich who buy palatial homes on the Mediterranean, leaving behind poor corrupt countires where nothing has changed.
dmh, Enormous amount of truth in your words. Poor countries are often poor because of corruption.
I am still waiting for someone to tell me exactly how the climate is worse than in the 19thC.
Indeed everything points to the opposite being so.
There is no debt.
Climate Changeā¢ is a proxy for capitalism; it has nothing to do with the environment.
The DC playbook says you start by ignoring “stupid Americans” according to Harvard consultants. Then you wrap the “complicated” carbon tax legislation in a “tax the rich” format that quickly reaches down to the average “stupid” American to raise enormous funds for whatever the playwrights want. Just do it from Paris and use as much executive orders as possible.
Just sit on it. Soon China and India will owe the developed world serious money.
“Fair share”. An all purpose PC phrase.
What is “fair” is generally determined by those who want take something from someone else.
They feel “entitled” to do so.
Did they do their “fair share” of the labour to get their share of the rewards?
Or do they just want the rewards at the end?
So stupid, it hurts.
Screw ’em, NO.
“The U.S. alone carries 40 per cent of the cumulative world debt … ”
But since the U.S. had provide 60% of the cumulative non-military foreign aid since 1946 I’s say you’re still up a few bucks …
BTW the UN and especially the IPCC owe us back rent on the UN facilities. 50 years X 10 million/square inch/minute.
The lesson here is that you need a large percentage of your population living in poverty to off set your carbon footprint.
Hedonics and Climate Change. I feel a bit ill.
The Illusions of Hedonics
JULY 29, 2005 Antony P. Mueller
The term āhedonicsā is derived from ancient Greek and basically means āpleasure doctrineā. It is also the doctrine which the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) applies when calculating the price indices and for the computation of the real gross domestic product and of productivity. 1 The idea behind hedonic price index calculation is to incorporate quality changes into prices. This way, a product may be on the market at a higher price, but when the product qualities have augmented more than the price in the eyes of the BLS, it will calculate that the price of this product has actually fallen.
Applying the hedonic technique to a host of goods and services means that even when prices were generally rising, but product improvement are deemed to be larger than the price increases, the calculated inflation rate will fall. With a lower inflation rate, the transformation of nominal gross domestic product (GDP) into real GDP will render a higher result. Likewise, given a constant labor input, productivity will increase. Hedonics opens the door to producing magical results: a lower inflation rate with generally rising prices, a higher growth rate although the economy may be weaker, and a higher productivity number, although productivity would have been declining without the hedonic imputations.
https://mises.org/library/illusions-hedonics
Real world studies of world CO2 flux has shown that Westernized countries are CO2 sinks and undeveloped countries are net producers. They owe us in the developed countries according to this people.
Willis did an article on this (probably within the last year) which showed, in general, the point you make is correct. It was surprising how many developed countries were carbon sinks (Australia being what of the largest net sinks).
Also the one picture released from OCO-2 9which covers only 1/4 of the year and seasonal variation) also leads general support to the point you make.
If one looks at the net position. it is the developing world that would be obliged to pay and carry most of the ‘debt’, but as others have pointed out, to date, their is no evidence of any damage, and future ‘damage’ is only a product of computer modelling which modelling has so far proved to be wholly inaccurate.
Scotland has had a cold wet Summer.
Do we get a rebate, please?
Never understood how Canada, which is mostly wilderness, can be carbon positive. Surely our vast expanses of forest and prairie must suck up far more carbon than we produce.
Been saying that to my warmist “friends” (I have lost a few over this debate) for almost 20 years. Our carbon sink has got to be the largest on the planet ( with a pop. of only 36 million, which is less than California and over an area third largest on the planet??
This study is absurd! No it is beyond absurd! People like this should be treated the same way as somebody that yells “fire” in a movie theater!!! JAILTIME. ( sorry about the yell)
Third largest or second largest?
I take a different view. there are two groups:
1. countries that created the false CAGW meme. they should pay for all mitigation and damages. it’s their baby.
2. countries that emitted the least amount of CO2. they should pay nothing, as they only went along with this meme because of the promise of $$$.
however, the first group has no intention of forking out the promised $100 billion annually, & the second group has no intention of signing on to an agreement that does not provide the money. stalemate. Paris flops. CAGW meme disappears and we can all return to the far more serious matters facing all countries at this time.
You left out the UN. It represents us all and wants authority to control….er….help us all.
(For our own good, of course.)
Just waiting for the day that the UN gets bulldozed into the East River!
The next progressive spin innovation will be to classify carbon remuneration to the UN as a stimulus funding scheme and pitched as economic development and world growth stimulus. The UN will be in charge of the tally for jobs created or saved on a global scale with the carbon tax spending effort.
If there are damages to other countries because of carbon emissions from countries that are responsible for most of the worldwide emissions, now and in the past, should there be compensation, that’s the question.
Damages? What damages? To many plants?
Some of those plants are food.
How much food should be eliminated to “compensate”?
Well, yeah, but there are no “damages” caused by carbon emissions. None. On the other hand, there are known benefits to the increased CO2 – namely increased greening, therefor more food, and a more vibrant biosphere. So the CO2 lagards owe us. Pay up.
š
There’s a phrase, “Great minds think alike.”
I don’t claim to be “a great mind”. (If I ever do, someone please give me a swift kick in the rear!)
But great ideas? They often occur to more than one.
The truly pathetic thing is that they still can’t document even one dollar of damage being done by CO2.
On the other hand, skeptics have already cataloged billions, if not trillions of dollars in benefit done by CO2.
Their attribution argument is total BS. The Lloyd study found that over the last 80 centuries the average deviation of temp was about 1C. But the HAD 4 data shows just 0.8C of warming since 1850 or the last 165 years.
So where is the impact from the extra co2 emissions????? And this comes after the end of the LIA ice age. These people are barking mad.
The above should read the average deviation per century. Lloyd study used ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland.
Have they taken into account the fact that everybody eats? Most food is cooked by fire. So whether you flick a switch or burn a piece of wood (or some dung) you are emitting CO2.
Perhaps it is not clear what a forcing is. When an oven is turned on, the temperature does not instantly increase to the set temperature. Instead, what is turned on is a heater and, as time passes, the oven heats up. The heater provides heat which is a forcing on the temperature of the oven. The oven temperature changes according to the time-integral of the net forcing.
If CO2 is a forcing on average global temperature, its effect on temperature must be determined by the time-integral of the CO2 level (or the time-integral of a function thereof). The CO2 level during the entire Phanerozoic eon has always been more than about 150 ppmv. There is no way that the time-integral of the CO2 level (or the time-integral of a function thereof) can consistently calculate temperatures unless CO2 has no effect on climate and the temperature change is caused by something else.
Proof that CO2 has no effect on climate and identification of the two factors that do cause reported average global temperature (AGT) change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (new update with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured AGT. This shows the near-perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900; R^2 = 0.97+). Use of V2 SSN changes some coefficients but has no significant effect on R^2.
According to NASA pics of CO2 dispersion around the planet, less CO2 exits from the East coast than enters from the West coast (prevailing W>E winds and all,) so that makes the US a net Carbon sink. Pay up.
The benefits far outweigh the imagined damages. Therefore, I think the developed nations deserve compensation. I, for one, would be satisfied with a handshake and a hearty “Thank you”.
A small disagreement.
The damages aren’t “imagined”. They are “modeled”. š
The Democratic Party will be ANNIHILATED if they impose a gigantic international tax on the voters. Period. Won’t exist anymore nor will Labour in England.
Wish you were right, but California is absolute proof that DEMS/Progressives can pass massive CO2 tax increases and fees on it’s citizens and there is no rebellion. The citizens of CA continue to vote them into office even though they are being financially bled to death.
By the way, the Japanese and Chinese and Russia already made it crystal clear they aren’t paying a pfenning to the global warming scam fund. And the GOP already said they won’t pay up, either.
They can pry my indulgences from my cold dead carbon life-form hands.
On all the similar issues, CO2, slavery and other historical debts, I am with commenters who point out that what has been given to the world outweighs such stupid debts – in my opinion many thousands of times. In the mid 1960s, when I was in Nigeria, either Ella Fitzgerald or Sarah Vaughan (can’t remember) was singing at the new first high rise in Lagos – The Federal Palace Hotel. It was too packed to get a seat. The next day in the newspaper, a story appeared in which she had been overheard saying to a band member “Thank God for slavery” after a tour of the city. Not very gracious but an idea that she wasn’t agonizing over her family having been taken to the US. This retribution, restitution chestnut is an old one and it was started, of course, by self-loathing white progressives.
I am particularly teed off that the UN, World Bank, IMF and the other controllers have a policy of preventing poorer countries from joining the prosperity club and fully benefiting and contributing to it. Had I a nice multibillion fund for good works, I would create cheap energy generating projects in the poorer sectors of the world and hire security to keep the ugly haters away.
I guess if we wanted to go with the logic of the elitist civilization destroyers all the way, we should all pass the debt on to Rome, Greece, Egypt, Babylon all the way back to Mesopotamian civilization as the real culprits. We were so happy living out our 25 year lifespan in hovels in the forest, hunting and gathering, starving and freezing, knocked down pestilence, wild aurochs and club combat with our neighbours until these damned civilized folks came along and turned our lives upside down.
Before we get to edgy about it, you should know that Concordia in Montreal is a joke and not an institute of higher learning like Universite de Montreal and McGill University.
The supposed damages are fictitious and have no demonstrable basis in reality, therefore, not a cent should be paid.
I noted the other day that 18% of the human body is carbon. Thinking about what we eat, they are largely carbohydrates, which means our bodies are made up of about 65% carbon dioxide – now that’s a sequestration project. One way to even things up is to grant to all countries the right to catch up using cheap fossil fuels. It is going to happen some day anyway and history may judge this evil withholding of fossil fuels as the second and worst colonial period. If third world people don’t get what is going on, then there should be widespread reporting on this until these people tell the neo Karl Ms to go and #@&*.
Carbon debts eh? How about offsetting the carbon debt against the foreign aid given by US, Canada, UK, Aust, NZ & others over very many years, it amounts to billions.
Whether developed countries (should) owe anything to developing countries because of the former’s greater contribution to CO2 emissions has been addressed previously in Climate Change: No Harm, No Claim. This was written as part of a “web debate” sponsored by the Reason Foundation with Jonathan Adler — a law prof at Case Western University — who claims that libertarians should support “reparations” to the developed countries because of global warming (see here.) Of course, his basic premise, that greenhouse gas emissions are a net negative is suspect and unproven. There were follow up posts, but I can’t locate them.
Thanks for the reference.
When I left school, I deliberately moved to a warmer climate. So if somebody accuses me of making the world warmer, I’ll say, “You’re welcome.”
Another scientist reluctantly joining the fray…
http://www.concordia.ca/faculty/damon-matthews.html
“Attention Media: Will speak on climate change related issues”
It is always remarkable how the far-left loons can make up catastrophe-on-demand by simply being endlessly dishonest. The claims are always made as if actual evidence exists when none does. The natural, constantly changing climate is completely ignored. The thought that humans can control climate is pure witchcraft. The so-called debt owed is that of the third world to the developed world for all the billions in aid that has been squandered and stolen. Until the principals of freedom and free market economics are adopted by the third world, they will never advance beyond destitution and darkness.
The NIEO (New International Economic Order) was all about redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor countries but Reagan helped put the end to it in the early 80’s. The socialists came back with the Brundtland Report, written by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a VP in socialistinternational.org. (By the way, after ‘conservative’ George W. Bush kicked out Saddam, guess who Iraq elected for it’s president… a person who is a VP in socialistinternational.org. How is i that we would sacrifice all of those lives and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to let them elect a socialist?… Think about that.)
It is imperative that we do NOT let the left win on this issue because if we do, it’s goodby freedom, liberty, and your high standard of living. Eff the left!
The only picture this paints is that of idiotic leftist nonsense. Typical CJW (Climate Justice Warrior)- insanity.
CAGW is a non issue: No need for carbon dioxide emission limits, there is no carbon dioxide ‘debt’, and there is no need for carbon dioxide limit trading if the Bern model assumptions are not correct.
Lead/lag analysis indicates that the majority of the recent CO2 rise is from the deep ocean rather than from anthropogenic emissions (see Humlum et al’s linked to paper.) The key issue is how much mixing there is of the deep ocean with the surface ocean. Do you remember the heat hiding in the deep ocean hypothesis? The heat hiding in the deep ocean hypothesis, if correct makes anthropogenic CO2 emissions a non issue.
The Bern model assumes there is almost no mixing of the deep ocean with the surface ocean. The heat hiding in the deep ocean hypothesis requires that there be mixing of the surface ocean with the deep ocean. If there is significant mixing of deep ocean water with surface water (this what the heat hiding in the deep ocean hypothesis requires) then the majority of the anthropogenic CO2 will be transferred into the deep ocean carbon reservoir which is more than 50 times greater than the atmospheric CO2 reservoir. The key logical point is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very, very, small compared to the super enormous, deep ocean carbon reservoir.
Mixing of the surface ocean with the deep ocean explains why the lifetime for a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere based on the bomb test analysis is 5 to 7 years where the IPCC Bern ‘model’ assumes it is 200 years and a portion forever. I repeat the Bern model assumes a portion of the anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere forever. Storms cause massive, complex, deep waves in the ocean and hence cause complex deep mixing of the surface ocean with the deep ocean. Storms partially explain why there is no discrete ocean conveyor.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18208928/233408642/name/phase%2Brelation%2Bbetween%2Batmospheric%2Bcarbon%2Band%2Bglobal%2Btemperature.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm2_FClsSVBbTLdzlwJJytToRLHpNw&oi=scholarr&ei=N-SVUvKOD9PtoATG6IHgCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQgAMoADAA
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/the_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperatur/
The following is a good review paper of the history of CO2 atmospheric research and the history of the IPCC shenanigans. It is interesting that peer reviewed papers all contradict the IPCC’s Bern model assumptions.
The physical implication of the C14 bomb test analysis is the majority of the CO2 increase in the last 70 years was caused by the warming of the oceans rather than the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Truly fascinating!
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.pdf
Up here in the hills of Colorado the climate’s been cooling for 15 years, and we know where that cold air is coming from. So who’s to blame for climate change…
I know how you feel. Here in Vancouver we get our bad weather from Alaska.
Dear Richard,
In answer to your IMPORTANT question … ” So whoās to blame for climate changeā¦”, I attach here the splendid paper entitled Fallacies about Global Warming, written by John McLean exactly eight (8) years ago for the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI).
It may be helpful (at first reading) to view each of the eight headings and then skip to the LAST sentence of each section.
If you happen to know of anyone who could do better I should be pleased to know.
PS: there is only one person who may have done “better” but I believe that person is extremely busy right now making something which should rock the world to its’ senses. (I do hope so).
Regards,
WL
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html
And if the additional CO2 in the air is not equal to the CO2 added by man?
So, my children and grandchildren should be penalized for being born into an industrialized country that they had no control over or even a say in what happens because the climate zealots want us to pay restitution? This is wrong. F anybody who try’s to take our way of life away.
Idiots.
Would you all stop voting one star for this WUWT article? The title is, “Eye-roller Study.”
There is absolutely NO evidence of damages caused by the roughly 0.2C of CO2 induced warming.since the end of the Little Ice Age…
To the contrary, such a trivial amount of warming has been positive: more arable land in Northern latitudes, longer growing seasons, less severe winters, larger tree line, earlier springs, etc.
Moreover, the CO2 fertilization effect has increased crop yields by 25% and the “evil” petrol-chemical fertilizers have increased crop yields by 70% just since 1980….
Let’s take wheat for example. Crop yields for wheat are now around 7,000 kg/acre X 25% CO2 fertilization= 1,750kg/acre increase in yields x $0.17/kg wheat price= $297.50/acre net CO2 benefit.
Since the U.S. has contributed to 40% of this benefit, the world owes the U.S. roughly $119/acre for all wheat grown on earth… That calculation needs to done for all food grains, plus all lumber production worldwide and the net amount needs to be paid to all US oil, coal and natural gas companies based on their respective market shares in the industry.
The United States was the first country to use nuclear fission to produce heat and electricity on a large scale basis. That has reduced the US’s CO2 releases, and that of many other countries, notably France. Surely that reduces our debt by quite a bit.
I take it that they’ve not taken into account the fact that CO2 doesn’t hang around in the air forever?
In any case, this deserves to be stood on its head because CO2 is a wonderful gas for plants, and it may even have a slight warming effect on our climate in a few centuries, which would be an immense help to future generations, seeing how we’re in an Ice Age. Therefore, countries that haven’t emitted much CO2 owe the USA and immense debt for our contribution.
THE USA IS NOT EVEN IN THE TOP 10 !!!
The top 10 CO2 emitting nations, per capita, are: Qatar , Trinidad and Tobago , Kuwait , Brunei Darussalam , Aruba , Oman , Luxembourg , United Arab Emirates , Saudi Arabia , Bahrain
Data from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC/
The real tragedy is that the lowest per capita CO2 emitting countries are predominantly in Africa and are being denied access to large-scale cheap energy by Barack Obama and the World Bank. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/27/the-u-s-will-stop-subsidizing-coal-plants-overseas-is-the-world-bank-next/
The evil being done by this climate scam and its wilfully(?) gullible adherents is almost beyond belief.
Qatar has free electricity, cheap refined petroleum (~11 cents per liter), and every Qatari receives around $50,000 a year from the state.
That’s why they have the highest per-capita CO2 output on the planet.
The conclusion that “All countries have contributed to recent climate change” is unfounded.
Since there isn’t any recent climate change documented, I agree!
Having lived in Canada all my life I can tell you that a lot of what comes out of Universities can be taken with a grain of salt. First the per capita basis is totally useless when you look at what Canada produces for energy and why. We live with 6 months of winter and six months of bad skidooing. Our energy production is very high per capita but 80% of the energy we produce goes to our bigger neighbor to the south. We ship upwards of 5.0 Billion cubic ft of natural gas alone to the USA everyday. To get that amount to market it is removed from the wells, processed and pumped to the market points at the borders. If you look at the amount of energy that it takes to get a cubic ft of gas to market it comes out to about 1/2 of what is removed from the ground is used to get this gas to markets. A classic example is the Trans-Canada main line from Empress Alberta to the sales border points in Ontario and Quebec. 1/2 of the gas entering the system in Alberta is burned as fuel to get this gas to Eastern markets. At the Koyoto climate meetings the Finns were jumping up on the meeting tables and screaming at us poor Canadians “That we were the worst energy abusers in the world” on a per capita basis.
Sorry, but I think China and India would be higher on that list if the truth should be told…
These are the type of people you don’t want on your side.
Eugene WR Gallun
I was speaking of the chem trail people.
Eugene WR Gallun
[Close that topic please. .mod]
You can’t argue with idiots. they pull you down to their level then beat you with experience.
Australia has been through all this. Despite Australia being a net consumer of CO2, we are rated highly because we export coal. So they add the coal back to Australia’s account and let China keep raising their CO2.
Interesting that the Chinese discovered their gigantic aquifer under the desert is actually storing carbon. Apparently the CO2 trapped is greater than all the world’s plants, if the study can be verified.
Australia has the Great Artesian Basin under a lot of Queensland. Maybe it is performing a similar function, that is not accounted for in these nonsensical studies.
Really all the study is good for is to demonstrate how little is actually known about the planet’s storage of CO2. If more was known we would not have these farcical attempts at CO2 capture and storage, when plants and their roots are already doing it.
I have been right on many of the recent predictions. I just have a feeling (from what all I have seen) that the “Paris Climate Summit” will be a bust. Sorry to you warmers and climate change alarmists. Guess what – the sky is not falling.
I’m really hoping they’ll all be snowed in. No planes in or out due to a blizzard with all attendees stuck either on a plane detouring to – say – Spain, or on the ground in Paris and can’t leave. All looking foolish.
It WILL be cold.
My next favorite daydream is that no one will turn up. It won’t happen at this one (Paris), but one day… wouldn’t it be great?
My other fantasies aren’t so docile. Sometimes I fear this will only end when the ordinary man and woman on the street gets angry. These extremists still have time to step down, to turn around and maybe make good, but I just can’t see that happening. Something has to give. I hope I live long enough to see an end to this weird and sorry tale. Certainly as far as crimes go – this one is unprecedented.
On the demise of Chicken Little
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/09/06/tough-day-for-an-alarmist/
Somebody’s tax paid for this crap.
“……owed to countries that have contributed less to historical warming.”
Global welfare program for countries administered by the UN. What’s wrong with this picture?
I didn’t see China. Where is it hiding?
In equity courts there is the āclean hands doctrineā whereby āā¦ the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint ā¦ā (Wiki).
For instance the court is hardly likely to look favourably on a plaintiff arguing that the neighbourās furnace is causing a nuisance if the defendant shows that the plaintiff is installing a furnace of exactly the same type with the same issues but much bigger.
Of course the analogy works only if CO2 emissions are regarded as a net negative.
Foxtrot Oscar.
Astounding nonsense! Rather difficult to find words with which to respond to this. Even if it does turn out that burning fossil carbon is detrimental, it is still crashing, overwhelming nonsense. Who paid for it?
I have a nightmare image of kids playing a board game based on this, with squares around the edge representing nations, and little counters with various carbon credits or penalties which may be accumulated by countries on the basis of dice thrown to represent various government policies. And this game being used in junior schools to show our kids just what bad guys the western countries are, and just how much they owe the rest! Unless somebody thought of it already….
The terrible, nagging, dispiriting thought I have is that a significant number of the people that now rule us will take it seriously, so far from common sense has the climate debate now gone.
By the way, is there any precedent for reparations being paid for damages which haven’t yet occurred, and may never occur? I doubt even George Orwell’s imagination could have come up with this.
It matters how to look at the problem. Not only per capita. The surface of a country has to be included because it represents a part of the CO2 recovery. I made this calculations a year ago and with amazing results.
Global 233 Russia 100 Canada 49 China 984 Brazil 118 Australie 40 India 555 USA 594 Europe(EU)1567 Netherlands 5700.
The historical benchmark is around 100.
The best performers are Canada and Australie and just Russia.
Of course dense populated countries are worser off.
Look we can solve two problems at once and the politicians will get two sets of votes, make it so you can work off carbon debt on the basis of taking refugees from Syria. The only detail we need to work out what then is the rate per refugee so they can be traded on the new carbon refugee credit market we create. So you can then either pay your debt in money or take refugees a win win for any good left wing green type. The UN being the totally useless left wing green organization that it is should be able to get broad agreement on this with similar green left wing groups in time for Paris and solve yet another problem. I am trying to work out how I get the Palestinian and Jews into the plan to complete the package so please post any suggestions.
I like JJM’s surface area adjustment but a couple of penguins in Antarctica are going to get a big bill that I am not sure how they are going to pay it off except by taking a fair few Syrian refugees.
Now I do not mean to make light of Syrian refugees but there are some thought bubbles that probably should never get passed that point and much less published.
If one looks at the so-called average temperature over time, one sees that the Little Ice Age was not pleasant and that increasing temperatures were a good thing. There was no contribution of CO2 in this rise in temperatures and no one has been able to prove that CO2 has any positive effect on near surface temps at all. In fact, my reading is that CO2 has an overall small cooling effect.
The big fish in the pond is H2O in all its states. CO2 just does not matter. We have had epochs with far more CO2 than now in pre-industrial times. It is natural for the levels of CO2 to rise and fall. (most likely driven by temperature of the ocean)
I get angry thinking about the harm done to the poor worldwide by this mindless scam of CO2 as a magic molecule. F’ing mindless.
“All countries have contributed to recent climate change” This makes as much sense as the news media who keep banging on about carbon pollution. These people have become barking mad.
What “recent climate change”? The pause in temps predates Ally McBeal, and South Park.
Well I have seen climate change in my years. Used to live in England, usually cold and wet. 1976 summer was warm. Then I lived in Ireland, moist to wet but not too cold. Then Belgium…nah forget Belgium, but the frites and may was good, oh and the beer. Then New Zealand, not as cold as England, warmer usually with a sprinkle of earthquakes and volcanos and very windy in Wellington. Australia is cool in winter, mild in spring, hot in summer and cool in autumn. So yeah there you have it, climate change in two hemispheres in a nutshell!
Pat Frank wrote
“MCourtney, the UK didnāt abolish slavery because it had the wealth and power to do so. The UK abolished slavery because English society had developed an ethical outlook far superior to any other then in existence.”
This is of course largely erroneous The simple reality is that without British merchants and traders the international slave trade would never have got off the ground. The foundation of the British Empire was the Triangular Trade where ships traded British made goods to Africans in return for slaves, then conveyed the slaves to the Americas where they were traded for cotton, tobacco and sugar which were then conveyed back to the markets of Europe where the cycle began again.
The reason for the ending of such slavery was primarily economic. By the 1830’s when slavery was abolished in the British Empire it was simply cheaper to use the new steam powered machines to process cotton, tobacco and sugar than to employ slaves. The stoop labour in the fields was largely seasonal so employing freed blacks when needed was cheaper than having to keep them housed and fed all year and providinf the troops needed to keep them in a state of slavery. Slave revolts were frequent, dangerous and above all expensive. Even the plantation owners in the West Indies recognized that the system of slavery was unsustainable. None of this takes anything away from campaigners such as William Wilberforce but by the 1830’s they were pushing on an open door.
Even in the southern states of the USA the writing was on the wall with the introduction of steam powered cotton gins in the 1850’s reducing the need to employ the large numbers of slaves needed by manual gins.
There is no such thing as “climate debt”.
Our comments would mean something if we had some clout. The best we can hope for is another hoax a hagen.. a foot of snow and nobody agreeing to anything. Misbegotten Obama will probably show up to shore up the failings of this bad science, which I think most thinking people in power will pay lip service to, but don’t believe it either or is so far beyond anyone’s reach that it is meaningless. The US is still important, but we aren’t what we use to be. We are becoming a third world country with a 1st world military, and that maybe in doubt. When was the last time we did something that was successful? We have a lot of stupid leaders.
If Danegeld worked, I’d want us to pay $520B for them Shut Up. It’s cheaper than what we are doing now.
Danegeld never works. Billions for defense, not a penny for tribute.
Peter
When the climate STOPS changing , THEN I’ll start worrying !!!!!
So when warming is discovered to be a net positive, do the poor socialists of the world owe us money?
What then is this āCarbon Pollutionā?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes for growth, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution.
http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/
I e-mailed Damon[ Dr. Matthews] to provide me with proof that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is causing CAGW and here is the reply:
From: H. Damon Matthews [mailto:damon.matthews@concordia.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 6:52 PM
To: Al Shelton
Subject: Re: Where Is The Proof?
Proof is everywhere — you just need to be willing to see it.
Cheers
Damon
Ghosts are there too. You just have to be willing to see them.
And the zombies who are keeping this AGW “issue” alive!
Of course the overlooked concept of this entire article is that without the industrialized worlds historic levels of “carbon”, the rest of the world would be living under trees and remain hunter/gatherer societies with rampant poverty (far exceeding current levels) and widespread epidemics and famines. Ah, those pesky UN-intended consequences.
Frankly, this graph should be turned on its head and let the developing world know what they owe us for the advances in technology that sustains their hi population levels and increased standard of living.
I love Paris in the Springtime – the Winter – not so much……
What trees? Without fossil fuels, trees would be the go-to source for cooking and keeping warm.
Send in your carbon indulgence payments to NY today and receive a framed picture of Al Gore and the hurricane scare posted from the early years of carbon flim flam.
Can we please stop referring to carbon dioxide (CO2) as ‘carbon’. Since it comprises two atoms of oxygen (2×16) against only 1 carbon (12) it comprises only 27% Carbon, but 73% Oxygen. If it MUST be abbreviated, surely it would be more logical to call it ‘oxygen’.
I propose we all do this now, and confuse the hell out of the bed-wetters.
SimonJ
Dear SimonJ (with request here to Anthony),
I agree entirely !
Dear Anthony / Mod.,
May I suggest a new (easy-to-read in plain English) LIST of PLAIN EXPRESSIONS.
(Rather like the “Glossary” page under the WUWT tab “Reference Pages”)
Here’s my thinking on this, with just e few examples here.
Take for example some very “Misleading Expressions” : there are dozens and dozens of them but here are just a few which really get my goat …
“Misleading Expressions”
Greens – Environmentalists – Clean Energy – Fossil Fuels – Climate Change – Skeptics – Warmists – carbon footprint – carbon capture – carbon (when really referring to CO2) – tipping point – biodiversity – 3rd. world country(s) – climate scientist – global temperature !!!
Each of the above fifteen (15) expressions is BLIND; they are also meaningless, shifty, vague or just plain nonsense.
They have each been criticized before now in various WUWT threads but I really think that some form of WUWT “glossary” or list of PLAIN EXPRESSIONS would be a mighty powerful weapon to have, especially because the strength of WUWT seems to depend upon its’ writers and the way they use their words.
Reason for my Suggestion
Carbon-dioxide is the ENTIRE basis for a corrupted belief system within and without the EPA.
Their system depends upon money, other peoples’ money (OPM) which they use in order to “perpetuate the myth”; therefore, until such time that they are brought to a complete halt, the world’s most viewed site on global warming (WUWT) has the power, through its’ many writers, to cut through all the nonsense and give the world (including the shyte-hawks who are watching and reading here) a fresh way of thinking using PLAIN EXPRESSIONS.
Regards,
WL
To avoid confusion I suggest “carbonated oxygen”
The ‘developed’ countries do not have any surplus dollars and most certainly do not have trillions of dollars to send to the developing countries to be spent on green scams that do not work.
Green scams triple the cost of electricity and result in almost no reduction in CO2 emissions if the energy input to construct the green scams and less grid efficiency due to on/off/on/off/on/off operation is taken into account. All the pain for no gain. The only solution that significantly reduces CO2 emissions is nuclear.
Spending more deficit money on green scams locally or sending more deficit money to other countries to spend on green scams will result in less money to spend on the never ending list of issues that need addressing, health care, infrastructure, education, welfare, policing, parks, developing country aid, military, and so on.
P.S.
Global warming is coming to an end. Propaganda does not affect the sun which is the cause of cyclic climate change and cyclic abrupt climate change.
NOAA has been propping up the sunspot number, trying to hide the fact that sunspots are disappearing (large long lasting sunspots have gradually been replaced with tiny short lived pores and finally no sunspots) which is different than a slowdown in the solar cycle, this is a once in roughly 8000 year solar event.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
Last winter was a preview of what to expect. The warm blob off of the west coast will be replaced with a massive cold bob, same as is currently found in the North Atlantic ocean.
You ain’t seen nothing yet.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1856489/coldest-february-on-record-in-quebec/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/ccgs-amundsen-re-routed-to-hudson-bay-to-help-with-heavy-ice-1.3162900
William, a fairly spotless sun, but yet there are impressive auroras continuing to occur:
http://www.space.com/30489-astronauts-space-station-auroras-video.html
The auroras are due to solar coronal holes which produce a steady stream of solar wind bursts. The coronal hole wind bursts create a space charge differential in the earth’s ionosphere which in turn causes a current flow from high latitude regions to the equator. The current flow changes cloud properties at both locations which causes warming and inhibits the GCR modulation of cloud cover.
The coronal holes are gradually shrinking and/or moving to high latitude regions on the sun where they no longer affect the earth. When there are no longer coronal holes in low latitude positions on the sun, the earth will cool.
Maybe the QuĆ©bĆ©cois haven’t finished adjusting it yet.
Gloria,
The British also financed Napoleon via Barings Bank financing the Louisiana purchase for the US. The whole war on both sides financed therefore.
Well, let’s play the game, shall we? The USA built the Panama Canal. We should take credit for one trillion tons of carbon emissions, from all the fossil fuel that ship’s were able to save, by taking advantage of a shorter route. We’ve done our part, time for the rest of the world to catch up.
“Climate debt” sounds like a phrase straight out of Orwell. Next will be the creation of a Ministry of Climate Debt.
542 million years of life on land is proof CO2 has no effect on climate. http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
Oddly such approaches should be encouraged becasue the politicians of those with ‘debts’ know that the idea of given huge amounts of money to those with ‘credit ‘ its total vote killer , and there is NOTHING they like less than a vote killer .
So by all means try to enforce such ideas for they will nothing but harm to the ’cause of CAGW’ the author of this paper stands for .
The madder the ideas , the more fanatical the stance and the more extreme the claims being made the better it is for sceptics, for one of the short comings of the CAGW ‘faithful’ is their inability to give credit to the people in there ability to see and smell such total BS .
This is why people like Mann need to be kept in the public spot light and under-pressure, as they simply cannot stop themselves from taking aim at their own feet.
highbrow masochism.
delegated down as numerological compulsive neuroses:
return to sender.
Hans
it never was about ‘settled science’ since ‘science’ is a noword in the green universe: a taboo.
It was always connecting ‘deep feelings’ to financial interests – interests dominating feelings and taboos.
Hans
This is dumb. Australia is a net carbon sink. Natural processes across the continent more than compensate for any man made co2 emissions.
So let’s go to the president of Ethiopia and tell him he will be paid for the “social cost” of the 0.5C of warming. This will be calculated by regression analysis based on measures like food production, rain and GDP to temperatures. (Any correlation with be small.)
But he will owe us 18% of any crops. That’s the excess growth attributed to CO2.
Then we’ll see what the true social cost is – he would have no trouble taking the deal if CO2 is a net negative.
Incidentally, Addis Ababa is the “ground zero” of warming – just before Paris it warmed by 20C relative to its average. In mid winter, Bole Airport (at 3000m) now bakes with the temperature of a Bahrain summer. And being the only weather station, it accounts for a huge blob of record temp in the terrestrial datasets.
From India’s perspective there is additional eye rolling. Although India comes out as the least CO2 emitter Green plans for COP21 are to restrict exactly India the most to produce a bit more CO2, without giving it the needed money and/or free technology to do that. It basically means that the 300 million poor without (reliable) electricity have to stay in the stone age to enable others abroad to continue the digital wave. India needs cleaner coal burning installations, particularly for small particles IMHO.
PR China goes scot-free in Green eyes after its promise to maybe peak CO2 in 2030, whatever their actual CO2 emissions. Future Chinese projections are accepted as Gospel Truths. Autocratic China is the Green’s darling, specially in Australia. Indian Communists used to get money under the table from the USSR, I wonder if something similar is happening in Left Australia today reg. China.