Guest post by Willis Eschenbach
The upcoming Copenhagen climate summit, officially and ponderously named “COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009”, is aimed at reducing the emissions of the developed world. The main players, of course, are the US and Western Europe. There is a widespread perception that if the US and Western Europe could only get our CO2 emissions under control, the problem would be solved. Nothing could be further from the truth.
To see the gaping hole in this idea, it is only necessary to look at the historical record of carbon emissions. Here is that graph:
While in 1970 the US and Western Europe combined to contribute about half of all CO2 emissions, at present this is far from true. In the past 35 years, the combined emissions of the US and Western Europe have risen only slightly. Globally, however, CO2 emissions have risen steeply, with no end in sight.
So it doesn’t matter if Europe signs on to a new Kyoto. It doesn’t matter if the US adopts Cap and Trade. Both of them together will make no significant difference. Even if both areas could roll their CO2 emissions back to 1970 levels, it would not affect the situation in the slightest.
These are meaningless attempts to hold back a rising tide of emissions. Me, I don’t think rising CO2 levels are a problem. But if you think it will be a problem, then you should definitely concentrate on adaptation strategies .. because mitigation simply isn’t going to work.
Phil K (01:29:40), thank you for the question. You say:
The web link is the source of the data, not of the graph, which I made myself.
The “following link” you mention shows the US emissions from 1800 to 2006. My graph shows only 1970 to 2006, which of course is different.
RACookPE1978 (01:41:09), you ask”
Questions of this type are best addressed by going to the data source shown on the graph.
In this case, the following items are included in the accounting:
Gas Fuels, Liquid Fuels, Solid Fuels, Gas Flaring, Cement Production, Bunker Fuels
There are no other “fudge factors” in the totals.
w.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this whole thread is based on non-existent trends of first world carbon emissions that are irrelvant to the cause of climate change anyway?
“Read about some more references and arguments at this response from Climate Depot at allegations from PM Kevin Rudd who stated that skeptics are too dangerous to ignore and that we are holding the world to ransom.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3689/Australian-PM-warns-skeptics-are-too-dangerous-to-ignore-and-are-holding-the-world-to-ransom–Climate-Depot-Responds”
…Yes, I love the bit about “Rudd Claim: Skeptics “are a political attempt to subvert what is now a longstanding scientific consensus…” Seeing as I am in possession of a 49-page document from the IPCC which is the summary of their own scientific study which they commissioned to discover the true effects of releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It concluded that there was no measurable alteration in climate due to man-made carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide is a poor greenhouse gas, if it can be described as such at all. The IPCC got that report in 1999, so they have had proved to them with absolute clarity that man-made carbon dioxide does not alter the Earth’s climate, and they have known this for at least ten years.
Fredrick (01:54:55)
Quote; I live in France and the quality of life is higher than the US .
Now that is quite a statement coming from someone that lives in Franceastan, have you visited the suburbs of one of your cities lately???????
It does not matter, the politics has been settled. Reality for Obama, and Rudd; 1 term wonders if they agree (Obama won’t, that much is clear. Rudd is clueless, his wife wears the pants and Penny Wong is “maliable”) anything in Copenhagen.
The UN warned back in 1989 that we could reach the “tipping point” in 10 years.
“According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37AE6E96-802A-23AD-4C8A-EDF6D8150789
If the UN chap is correct then there would seem to me that Copenhagen meeting is pointless. If he is wrong then why should anybody believe any predictions made by the UN?
Have you noticed how ‘tipping points’ come and go, come and go?
Maybe he hasn’t realized it yet, but those activist hippies from the sixties and seventies are now in power. The silent majority let them in by vote.
But living in France is not the be all of life is it? Viewed from the other side of the Channel the thought of living amongst garlic chewing, cheese eating surrender monkeys doesn’t appeal to me. : )
Having also lived in the USA
and enjoyed their extraordinary generosity I am sure they will become more efficient as Barack Obama’s clowns raise the price of energy, based on idiotic concepts, rather than accept actual scientific records and encourage Nuclear Power and enlarge oil/gas production using the massive deposits available.
Expecting a snip or two…….
OT, but here in Australia we have the luxury of the MSM screening films like;
Inedendence Day (Nothing to do with AGW, but a good scare)
Deep Impact (Nothing to do with AGW, but a good scare, although we have more to “worry” about that sort of event than all of the CO2 induced AGW rubbish)
Category 7 (Big wind, nothing to do with AGW, but a good scare)
Adverts for “2012 The End of the World”. NO!!!! December 21st 2012 is just the end of the Myan calandar FFS.
Building up for the Crapenhagen tug-fest!
From the SeekingAlpha site:
“I read a report about a development that has received mysteriously little attention: according to numbers from the Energy Information Agency, greenhouse gas emissions fell sharply in 2008 (by more than 2 ½ %), are falling even more in 2009 (about 6%), and in the next few years are almost certain to remain easily below the levels of 2005. (See the chart below.)”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/171740-greenhouse-gas-emissions-are-down-in-the-recession-is-green-gdp-up
“[US] Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Projected carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels fall by 5.9 percent in 2009. Coal leads the drop in 2009 CO2 emissions, falling by 10.1 percent. Changes in energy consumption in the industrial sector, a result of the weak economy, and changes in electricity generation sources are the primary factors for the decline in CO2 emissions (U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Growth Chart). The projected recovery in the economy contributes to an expected 1.1-percent increase in CO2 emissions in 2010.
“A convergence of several factors has contributed to the projected decline in CO2 emissions in 2009 (see STEO Supplement: Understanding the Decline in CO2 Emissions in 2009). EIA estimates that the combined effects of the decline in consumption of coal and natural gas in the industrial, commercial, and residential sectors, the substitution of natural gas for coal in the electric power sector, and the forecast increase in non-CO2 emitting electricity generation (hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, solar, wood and wood waste) reduce CO2 emissions by 242 million metric tons, or 70 percent of the total projected 2009 decline. The projected reduction in petroleum consumption accounts for the remaining 30 percent of the decline in CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions from petroleum are expected to fall by 102 million metric tons in 2009, with over two-thirds of the decline attributable to economy-related reductions in consumption of jet fuel and distillate fuel oil, including both diesel fuel and home heating oil. Reduced petroleum demand in industry also contribute to the overall reduction in petroleum use.”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html#Carbon%20Dioxide%20Emissions
There are two crazy things about the AGW hysteria: 1) The unfounded assumption that several degrees F. of global warming would automatically be a bad thing, when history suggests just the opposite (civilization flourishes when the climate warms), and 2) the AGW fixes being offered is technically unserious in that there are no unequivocal reasons to think it would work. Just to give one example of what an AGW solution that was technically serious solution would look like — giant orbiting sunscreens continuously shading the earth’s surface could be built in orbit, reflecting away sunlight that would otherwise reach the earth. This is bound to cool things down, no matter how bad our understanding is of how the earth’s climate works; it is based on obvious physical principles; and it can be easily reversed if something starts to go wrong. As a bonus, if another ice age begins — and I understand another one is due, geologically speaking — the space sunshades can be re-oriented and repositioned to divert extra sunlight toward the earth rather than away from it. This is bound to heat things up, no matter how bad our understanding of ice ages and how they occur turns out to be. If we were serious about taking control of earth’s climate — which, as already pointed out, we obviously are not — this is the way to start thinking about the issue. All other technical fixes, such as limiting CO2 emissions, adding iron to the ocean, adding aerosols to the stratosphere, and on and on, are based on some group’s theory about what ought to happen if these changes are made, with no guarantees. Unserious proposals of this sort are really just grabs for government funding by various groups of engineering and research elites …
Frederick (01:54:55), you raise an interesting point:
The measure of “efficiency” in this case is usually called “energy intensity”. It is the amount of energy necessary to produce one unit of GDP. Before you start castigating the US, it is worthwhile to look at the actual figures. There is an Excel table of these here from the EIA.
The energy intensity of the US is about 9.3 MJ/$. This means that in the US, it takes about 9.3 megajoules of energy to produce one dollar of GDP. The smaller the number, the less energy needed to produce a dollar’s worth of goods, the better the efficiency.
How does the US compare to European countries? Here’s the energy intensity figures:
Iceland, 18.2
Bulgaria, 14.4
Former Serbia and Montenegro, 12.6
Albania, 12.4
Macedonia, 11.6
Slovakia, 10.3
Norway, 10.0
Czech Republic, 9.7
Finland, 9.6
Belgium, 9.5
United States, 9.3
Romania, 9.0
Sweden, 8.5
Netherlands, 8.4
Poland, 8.4
Croatia, 7.9
Slovenia, 7.9
Bosnia and Herzegovina, 7.7
Malta, 7.7
Hungary, 7.7
Cyprus, 7.4
Luxembourg, 7.2
France, 7.0
Germany, 6.8
Spain, 6.6
Austria, 6.5
Turkey, 6.0
Greece, 6.0
Portugal, 6.0
Italy, 5.9
Denmark, 5.6
United Kingdom, 5.5
Switzerland, 5.4
Ireland, 4.9
So the US is about twice as energy efficient as Iceland, more efficient than Norway, Finland, or Belgium, and slightly less efficient than Sweden and the Netherlands.
France does better than the US, it is true … but then Greece and Italy and Germany are more energy efficient than France, and the UK and Switzerland do better than Greece and Italy and Germany.
So I fear your claim that the US energy efficiency is a “national disgrace” compared to the energy efficiency of European countries is simply not borne out by the facts. Heck, by Irish standards, we’re all wastrels …
w.
To see the breakdown in the global trend and more
http://climatechangepriorities.blogspot.com/2009/08/co2-emissions-thetop-fifteen-countries.html
The whole thing is the latest front for scams involving the loot and pillage of Africa and SE Asia.
Billions in ‘aid’ for climate change, and no doubt status quo for corporations looking for franchises.
When are people going to just reject this farce for what it is?
If Copenhagen won’t achieve anything – the why not cancel it and save the CO2 output.
“Willis Eschenbach (03:21:35) :
Frederick (01:54:55), you raise an interesting point:
The scandal here is the fact that a US with a population of 300 million is using about twice as much Co2 as Europe with a population of 500 million (and that’s just the European Union countries).
I am an AGW sceptic so I am not too bothered about the growth in Co2.
However I do hate waste and I am appalled at the MASSIVE energy inefficiencies of the US. And don’t blame it on quality of life. I live in France and the quality of life is higher than in the US due to the excellent health service and the lower disparity in incomes and I know this first hand because I lived and worked in Colorado for a time.
It would be good if you yanks did something about cutting your energy use. It’s a national disgrace.
The measure of “efficiency” in this case is usually called “energy intensity”. It is the amount of energy necessary to produce one unit of GDP. Before you start castigating the US, it is worthwhile to look at the actual figures. There is an Excel table of these here from the EIA.
The energy intensity of the US is about 9.3 MJ/$. This means that in the US, it takes about 9.3 megajoules of energy to produce one dollar of GDP. The smaller the number, the less energy needed to produce a dollar’s worth of goods, the better the efficiency.
How does the US compare to European countries? Here’s the energy intensity figures:
Iceland, 18.2
Bulgaria, 14.4
Former Serbia and Montenegro, 12.6
Albania, 12.4
Macedonia, 11.6
Slovakia, 10.3
Norway, 10.0
Czech Republic, 9.7
Finland, 9.6
Belgium, 9.5
United States, 9.3
Romania, 9.0
Sweden, 8.5
Netherlands, 8.4
Poland, 8.4
Croatia, 7.9
Slovenia, 7.9
Bosnia and Herzegovina, 7.7
Malta, 7.7
Hungary, 7.7
Cyprus, 7.4
Luxembourg, 7.2
France, 7.0
Germany, 6.8
Spain, 6.6
Austria, 6.5
Turkey, 6.0
Greece, 6.0
Portugal, 6.0
Italy, 5.9
Denmark, 5.6
United Kingdom, 5.5
Switzerland, 5.4
Ireland, 4.9
So the US is about twice as energy efficient as Iceland, more efficient than Norway, Finland, or Belgium, and slightly less efficient than Sweden and the Netherlands.
France does better than the US, it is true … but then Greece and Italy and Germany are more energy efficient than France, and the UK and Switzerland do better than Greece and Italy and Germany.
So I fear your claim that the US energy efficiency is a “national disgrace” compared to the energy efficiency of European countries is simply not borne out by the facts. Heck, by Irish standards, we’re all wastrels …
w.”
Stats = BS my friend. Homes in the UK are better insulated, therefore more “efficient” consumers of energy. Trouble is, energy costs in the US and the UK are not compareable (Meaning it’s cheaper in the US, and if you paid UK prices..well, there’d be French style riots in the US. Basically, you have no idea yet about energy costs).
And in the name of cutting emissions, we close factories in the West, ship them out to China, where they then put out ten times as much pollution.
That, is about as nonsensical as it gets.
.
“janama (03:37:32) :
If Copenhagen won’t achieve anything – the why not cancel it and save the CO2 output.”
Because it’s symbolic (And they don’t acer for their C02 output, we’ll pay for that).
Willis Eschenbach (03:21:35) :
I assume your table is different from a table that would show CO2 produced as a consequence of personal consumpsion by country eg in your table the UK is low but how does it look after factoring in the stuff we import from China. UK GDP is a lot of financial sevices so relatively low industrial production, House prices in the UK are in GDP as I understand it. Someone must have an absolute per capita measure that reflects CO2 effective footprint per capita. On an individual and country basis I bet it tells a much different story. Albeit a story that would still show how messing with with trade would screw up poorer countries’s GDP as they so depend on the consumpsion of others.
“Manfred (23:25:34) :
i haven’t heard anything similar from obama yet disuniting his country .”
Read his MIT speech of a week or so ago. It was chilling.
As usual, Rudd is just a pale imitation.
Humankind’s destiny is to burn all available fossil fuels. Enjoy it while it lasts. We live in wonderful times. I just hope I live long enough not to have to go back to coal furnaces. Dealing with clinkers is no fun.
Now Copenhagen is turning into an ‘enabling’ meeing, and the legally-binding stage is rescheduled for later …
For those who watch the way the EU works, this is no idle threat.
But what is really scary is the exposure of the fundamentalist mind-set of a thwarted AGWist:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/nov/06/religion-atheism
And, if you have the patience to get through the book-puffery, check out Gore’s suggestion that that ‘civil disobedience’; (aka Anarchy; aka Civil War) is justifiable ….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/07/al-gore-interview-climate-change
“… Children’s Climate Forum in Copenhagen”
Will these poor kids at least get the UK judge ordered comments where Al Gore is lying? MIs-use of minors in my eyes.
Gene Zeien (19:38:49) :
Thanks, that’s really interesting, I had no idea the per capita output has been so flat. I suspect it shows a lot of efficiency gains in home insulation, furnaces, and vehicles. Our station wagons in the 1960s got about 12 mpg. My Saturn SL2 gets over 30 and has 3X the miles the old cars got.
Of course, with a family size of 3 instead of 5, I don’t need a station wagon!
Raw data, btw, appears to be at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/region.1751_2006.ems
Also, try http://mercdev3.ornl.gov/cdiac/send/xsltText2?fileURL=http://cdiac.ornl.gov:8080/xml/cdp/metadata/Tom_Boden/Global_Regional_National_CO2_Emissions.xml&full_datasource=Carbon%20Dioxide%20Information%20Analysis%20Center&full_queryString=%20text%20:%20capita%20AND%20cdiacVariable:year&ds_id=Created%2020050809%20161320%20by%20160.91.18.40