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

Guest post by Ed Hoskins

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

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

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

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

Grouping Nations

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

Not Joining-in

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

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

The well-developed nations Russia, Canada and Japan have already withdrawn support for the Kyoto accord.

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

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

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

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

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

Joining-in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This clearly shows:

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

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

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

93 thoughts on “Worldwide CO2 emissions and the futility of any action in the West

  1. So wait – just because the other kids are going to still keep kicking the dog that make it OK for you to do?

    This isn’t science, and I’d argue it isn’t a morally valid argument either.

  2. Since 2005 when the Kyoto Protocol took effect, many people, including good-ole Mr. R. Gates, have been insisting “we have to do something.”

    If the AGW theory is correct, the SOLE TARGET should be to change the time course of the atomospheric CO2 concentration.

    However, for these six years already, I don’t see hide nor hair of any change, nada, zilch, in the time course of the CO2 curve:

    The upshot is NOBODY IS SERIOUS on this issue. The curve provides a clear evidence that the “environmentally-benign action” simply is an empty slogan.

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

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

  5. I doesn’t matter that CO2 concentrations are increasing. The globe stopped warming in 1998 just short of the temp and CO2 concentration needed to maximize crop yields in the arable lands of the earth. Now with the sun going into a snooze we are going to be regretting not having warmer temperatures.

    Action to high CO2 if it meant warmer temperatures would be to cultivate at higher latitudes.

    Ahhhh but the earth is cooling… so….we Canadians can only hope and dream about what could have been.

    By the way… my city council spent 2.4 million dollars on 3 hybrid buses to save $0.95 in carbon in 17 months. Now the globe is cooling. Lesson learned…. wait and see.

  6. @Bystander says: August 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    Before you can claim the moral high ground you need the science and since the science is NOT settled and you can’t state the scientific proof for CAGW, soooo what the &^*&%$#@ are you talking about ?

    You just don’t get it that scientists in countries like India, Japan, China, Canada, Russia etc. etc. are not buying into the CO2 scary stories.

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

  8. printing those offsets will save the planet no doubt!

    5 Aug: Reuters: Carbon offsets near record low, worst performing commodity
    A worsening global economic outlook has dented prices for
    emissions permits which depend on a robust economy belching
    greenhouse gases into the air, and has also impacted oil,
    grains, coal and natural gas.
    Carbon offsets have fared uniquely badly because a U.N.
    climate panel continues to print new offsets, regardless of a
    widening glut in emissions permits in the main demand market,
    the European Union’s carbon market…
    “If the European economy goes through a double dip
    (recession) it could be a lethal threat for the carbon market,”
    said Marius-Cristian Frunza, analyst at Schwarzthal Kapital…
    Failure by countries to agree a new round of carbon caps
    after 2012 under drifting U.N. climate talks, has further curbed
    prospective demand.
    The financial crisis has blown off course talks to agree a
    global climate deal, which now seems years off. The CER market
    had a traded value of $18.3 billion last year, down from $26.3
    billion in its peak year 2008.
    Adding to CER woes, the EU has banned from 2013 imports of
    the most common type of offset, from refrigerant plants in
    China, prompting investors to dump these.
    Benchmark CERs fell as low as 7.4 euros on Friday,
    down more than 7 percent on the day, fractionally above an
    all-time low of 7.15 euros.
    Prices are now at around cost price in developing countries,
    squeezing margins for project developers such as London-listed
    Camco , whose shares were down more than 10 percent at
    midday, and by nearly 40 percent over the past month.
    Rival developer Trading Emissions PLC last week
    pulled a proposed sale of its assets because of falling carbon
    prices. Its average CER costs are 7.5 euros per tonne…
    http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL6E7J50VS20110805

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

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

    Party’s over………………………….

  11. Bystander, the problem is that curbing emissions in developed nations means generally that those industries shift to developing nations…and increase the emissions there. So there’s no net reduction to speak of…just a redistribution of emissions (and wealth). Tighter regulations and higher costs in developed nations just means more industry going overseas where the regulations are loose and costs are cheap.

    Unless everyone were to be on the same page, having some countries participate while developing nations don’t means there isn’t going to be any significant improvement.

    In your analogy, it would mean encouraging the other kids to kick the dog for you. What does that solve? How is that any better morally than doing it yourself?

  12. The promoters of the AGW movement are
    1) the German government. The Kyoto treaty is largely identical with a template penned by a commission of the German Bundestag.
    ( see http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/secret-history-climate-alarmism?page=1 )
    2) Non-coal traditional energy suppliers.

    For Germany, the advantage was that they only had to finish off the old GDR industries and were done with it while competing industrial nations to this day are forced to do the craziest things, see Huhne’s crazy policies or the Australian native vegetation schemes. This way, Germany was able to turn the run down heritage of the GDR into a competitive advantage.

    The energy industries, namely nuclear and oil, saw the possibility of crowding out coal in a CO2-limited market.

    For both of these players, the scheme worked whether or not developing countries participated, as they were mostly interested in the G7 markets.

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

  14. In the USA the Republican congress, is re-examining:…

    The Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives. The Democratic Party has a majority in the Senate. The USA does not have a Republican Congress…

  15. tokyoboy says:
    August 7, 2011 at 5:31 pm
    “The upshot is NOBODY IS SERIOUS on this issue.”

    Wrong word, tokyoboy – all the players are dead serious, but none are honest.

  16. Excellent use of statistics and graphs Ed. You clearly outlined the differences, and the obvious results of what would happen if only the Western states, ( you know, the ones hated by the IPCC) were to be the ones shouldering the bulk of this economically damaging emissions control.

    Why should we be paying when others have no intention to? We’ve already got enough financial problems. Wasting even more on problems that may or may not exist is a fools errand.

    If everyone hasn’t already done so, I reccommend reading Bjorn Lomborg’s ” The Sceptical Enviromentalist.” A statiscian and teacher by profession, he uses excellent graphs and arguments to show the inaccuracies of such claims. The chapter on the useless Kyoto Accord, ( or Coyote Accord, considering it would have us all eating off the ground,) is especially impressive.

  17. Bystander says:
    August 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    So wait – just because the other kids are going to still keep kicking the dog that make it OK for you to do?

    This isn’t science, and I’d argue it isn’t a morally valid argument either.

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

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

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

  20. Bystander says:
    August 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm
    So wait – just because the other kids are going to still keep kicking the dog that make it OK for you to do?

    This isn’t science, and I’d argue it isn’t a morally valid argument either.

    Your first point is correct, but the post wasn’t making that argument, so no gold ring there.

    Your second point illustrates the fundamental element of debate strategy, “he who controls the definitions, controls the debate.” I flatly reject your moral equivalency. In my view the warministas are more like the grumpy neighbor insisting the kids are going to fill in the creek if they keep skimming pebbles across it. See? That makes it much easier to ignore. Laugh at, even.

    And even if we granted that CAGW was true, nations that put themselves at such extreme disadvantage will certainly kill citizens now, as opposed to maybe, possibly, later if we can’t think of clever ways to abate the warming effects. Nations are constituted to protect the interests of their citizens, not anyone else’s. British and Australian politicos are about to find this out at dear cost.

  21. To Bystander @ August 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm

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

  22. DirkH says: August 7, 2011 at 5:53 pm
    tokyoboy says: “The upshot is NOBODY IS SERIOUS on this issue.”

    Wrong word, tokyoboy – all the players are dead serious, but none are honest.

    Thanks for your proofreading. I now understand my mischoice in wording.

  23. Bystander, it is simple arithmetic. When a course of action harms your country, and especially the poorest people living in your country, and can not make even a measurable difference in global climate for the next century, why would any responsible person recommend that course of action.

    Limiting decision making to responsible persons removes most of the environmentalists from the discussion, because they seem unable to factor in the consequences of their actions.

    You can say the ‘science’ supports the policy, but that is a stretch. Science of plate tectonics was quite ‘settled’ also, but was completely wrong. The climate science you implicitly accept is heavily influenced by large quantities of money, and it isn’t the oil company money. The money comes from mandatory taxes, increased prices for energy due to windmill subsidies, etc.

    The science will likely fade as natural variation in climate is better understood, but the damage to the economies, and the people’s living standards who live there, will likely not fade for decades. Europeans have major economic disadvantages versus China and the rest anyway, and now they compete with one arm tied behind their backs because they not only pay much more for labor and benefits, they also pay much more for energy.

  24. As an Englishman living in the USA and looking back at the UK from afar, it just seems to be a very expensive JOKE perpetuated upon the British population. The CRAZY politicians must have some idea that what they are proposing will not have the slightest effect upon the world let alone the UK.
    Looking in from the outside it is very sad to see the “Great British Isles” being bankrupted by FOOLS ………… Spending these millions on mad cap windmills WAKE UP …….. The money would be far better spent on preparing for the next twenty years of severe cold winters which are coming down the pipe from the lack of sun spots.

    Any UK residents that read this wonderful blog should make there voice heard SOON ……………..Before you are TAXED into OBLIVION

  25. here’s a novel suggestion:

    8 Aug: Australian: Chip Le Grand: Studying the climate? Then get out of the lab
    CLIMATE researchers should spend less time in front of computer screens building predictive models and more time in the field observing and interpreting “hard or real data”, an internationally recognised coastal science expert and publisher has warned.
    Charles Finkl, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Coastal Research, which published a peer-reviewed study by NSW researcher Phil Watson that rekindled a fierce debate about sea level rises, said modelling was necessary but should be taken with a grain of salt.
    He accused the CSIRO of refusing to consider questions raised by Mr Watson’s research for its modelling, predicting a worst-case scenario sea level rise of up to 1.1m by 2100.
    “The CSIRO more or less agrees with Watson but does not want to admit they have have not got it quite right previously,” said Professor Finkl, geosciences professor emeritus at Florida Atlantic University….
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/studying-the-climate-then-get-out-of-the-lab/story-fn59niix-1226110506742

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

    Bystander, even you must recognise that this analogy is pathetically wrong. Firstly there is much argument about the level of harm caused by human co2 emissions if any. Some extra co2 may even be beneficial. Secondly we know for sure that reductions in co2 output will definitely harm the economy and therefore people. So you are happy to harm people and achieve nothing for the environment for a symbolic gesture.
    Your analogy…………………fail
    Your moral argument……..fail
    Your science…………………fail

  27. Interstellar Bill says:
    August 7, 2011 at 5:53 pm

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

    Actually, I think “self-emolliating” would be self-softening, feminizing. Which also seems to apply.

  28. Don’t be so sure that the US is doing nothing to curb emissions. Witness the recent move to tighten vehicle fuel economy standards, the ongoing efforts of EPA to apply the clean air act to CO2, and the actions of individual states (Western climate initiative and RGGI). The greenies know there will be no nationwide legislation until the congress changes. My bet is that they shift the focus to the state legislatures.

  29. To use a quote I heard some where:
    “We didn’t come out of the stone age because we ran out of stones.
    We just got smarter!”

  30. A man said to the universe:
    “Sir I exist!”
    “However,” replied the universe,
    “The fact has not created in me
    A sense of obligation.”

    S. Crane
    *****************************************************************************************
    Is it necessary for me to state the point?

  31. pat (Aug. 7, 2011 at 6:25):

    Your understanding that climate researchers build predictive models is mistaken. Their models do not make “predictions” but rather make “projections.” “Projections” differ from “predictions” in the respect that the latter but not the former make falsifiable (refutable) claims. That the claims made by the climate researchers’ models’ “projections” are not falsifiable has the significance that the work being done by these researchers is not scientific, by the definition of “scientific.” Climate researchers pretend to be scientists but the pretense is not matched by the reality.

  32. Tom wrote:

    My bet is that they shift the focus to the state legislatures.

    And in reality, they just need one State – California. Get CA to adopt tougher emissions/fuel consumption laws and all carmakers will adopt those standards – you cannot overlook 11% of the US market. Rather convenient that CA is also the center of the environmental movement…

  33. @Bystander..

    the dog is but an effigy, a pinata, a hoax, anyway.. if we stop kicking it, it gives room for China et al to have a better swing at it,

    But the pinata is crumbling anyway, it was always just paper mache, after all.

  34. Bystander says:
    August 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    So wait – just because the other kids are going to still keep kicking the dog that make it OK for you to do?
    ******************************
    I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that because 30 or so countries have decided to impoverish themselves and their people, that is being used as an argument to justify that the rest of the world should to the same?

  35. Bystander, kicking the dog is the wrong analogy. The Kyoto Treaty is more like smoking.

    In certain circles, smoking is cool; you have to smoke to fit in. However, it gives you cancer and kills you. Most people don’t want to smoke and don’t recommend anyone else do so either.

  36. This is ridicules!
    A new peer reviewed study just published by Dr. Murray Salby, Chair of Science at the Macquarie University in Australia states that CO2 sources per year are as follows: 90 Gigatons from the seas, 60 Gigatons from earth, and 5 Gigatons from burning fossil fuels. In other words, only 3% of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere is a problem which needs an extremely costly solution?
    Dr. Salby actually found that the rest of the CO2 97% is controlled by the temperature of the air, not vise versa, which if true makes the whole question mute.

  37. OK, the real world with the exception of Europe, NZ and Oz is refusing to commit economic suicide to prevent CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming).

    What a shame that academia is still feeding at the CAGW trough.

  38. gadl,
    Salby is saying that temperature drives CO2 rather than the reverse. This is clearly the case if you believe the ice core record.

    Is it true today? I doubt it as the ice cores show a 600-800 year lag so we should be looking for temperature rises in 1200-1400 to explain the modern CO2 rise. Ooops! Is Salby saying that the MWP is causing CO2 to rise today!

    One of the strong arguments for the CAGW contention that mankind is responsible for the rising CO2 concentrations is the “Fingerprint” of oxygen isotope ratios. Salby claims that the observed ratios could result from natural processes but we only have his narrative without any of the supporting graphs.

  39. I made the relevant part of the presentation by Dr. Muller available some time ago if anyone is interested:

  40. Bystander says:
    August 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm
    So wait – just because the other kids are going to still keep kicking the dog that make it OK for you to do?

    This isn’t science, and I’d argue it isn’t a morally valid argument either.

    Of course it isn’t about the science. It never has been. The “science” has always been merely pretext for the proposed “solutions” that even those most strongly agitating for them have freely admitted are mostly futile empty gestures which will do next to nothing about the climate even if we immediately fully implemented every last one of them. Go back and look at the projections put out by the proponents of the Kyoto Protocols for what would result from their full implementation. I don’t have the numbers at hand, but as I recall they expected an improvement in GAT of 0.01-0.02 degree Celsius.
    I would recommend you acquire a basic Economics text for yourself. I generally prefer Thomas Sowell’s, but there are many good ones. Spend some time on the chapters related to cost-benefit ratios and particularly opportunity costs, the costs of all those things you can’t accomplish if you invest hundreds of billions of dollars in projects whose only prospective benefits are negative and whose costs are massive.

  41. Patience! We global warming alarmists don’t (or shouldn’t) expect results overnight. This is going to take a long time, but eventually, we’re confident we’ll get everybody on board. It’s just a question of letting the evidence build.

  42. The 1965-2010 graph is hugely important. It’s not just co2 emissions, it’s also a complete and tragic economic history.

    Leaving out offsets from initial conditions, the trends divide neatly into three categories.

    The lower three lines (green, violet, brown = most of the world) are sane enough to avoid both kinds of “self-emolliation”, from CO2 policies and economic bubbles. Just steady and slow upward.

    The self-emolliators (red, blue = the formerly rich countries) have let themselves be strapped down and stripped by suicidal regulations and voracious bankers, losing their manufacturing ability over the last 30 years and then willingly throwing their pitiful remaining wealth into the Swiss accounts of the speculators in 2008.

    China stands alone. Everything we lose, China gains.

  43. Bystander says:
    August 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    So wait – just because the other kids are going to still keep kicking the dog that make it OK for you to do?

    This isn’t science, and I’d argue it isn’t a morally valid argument either.

    Therefore, Bystander, please tell us what you are doing in your own personal life to reduce your own “immoral” CO2 production. But if, as an admitted bystander, you most probably haven’t stopped kicking the dog while you urgently lecture others on what is really only your own rule – which, after all, you should certainly follow yourself – can’t you at least stop spanking the Monkey?

  44. What the graphs demonstrate to me is how a financial catastrophe causes a reduction in CO2 emissions. I suspect the the opposite is also true, that a global reduction in CO2 emissions will cause a financial catastrophe.
    Is this a negative feedback that will lead to a potential tipping point? I fear it might.
    Has the IPCC modelled the impact a AA- credit rating will have on global temperature projections?

  45. We need to impose proper import taxes and protect/rebuild *our* jobs and industries and forget all this Climate Change BS. We are *dying*, our economy is based on lies and deceptions. We desperately need to employ *our own people* to make the goods we currently buy from China. it is not about trying to compete with China – let us get out of the “race to the bottom” Impose an import tax and support our own people already!

  46. Michael Klein,

    In case you haven’t noticed, the alarmist crowd is losing its Believers hand over fist. The worm has turned.

  47. In Australia one of our biggest alarmists has bought himself two waterside properties and admitted there will be no problem in his lifetime and probably not even to 2100.

    This was revealed a few months after he spent time trying to scare the bejeezus out of us all with predictions of 8 storey high walls of water inundating the coastal inhabitants – apparently he forgot to mention these things may happen on a 50,000 to 100,000 year time scale.

    Like all CAGW the man is a fraud. I often wondered if they were stupid or involved in a scam – now I think both ’cause history will judge them harshly when the jig is up.

  48. We are hoping that German manufacturing becomes less compeditive, American electicity more expensive and that the carbon dioxide trading industry in Europe remain corrupt.

    Bring your knowledge, skills and innovation to Canada, we have everything else you will need.

    PS.
    “Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.”
    “As economic policy, the Kyoto Accord is a disaster. As environmental policy it is a fraud”
    “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.”
    Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada.

  49. Ed
    Any chance of calculating the NZ % figure to join the dot points on how much the UK and Australia will drop temperatures by.

    Thanks Margaret

  50. Michael Klein says:
    August 7, 2011 at 8:36 pm
    Patience! We global warming alarmists don’t (or shouldn’t) expect results overnight. This is going to take a long time, but eventually, we’re confident we’ll get everybody on board. It’s just a question of letting the evidence build.

    ============================

    What evidence? Seriously. WHAT evidence?

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  51. As an Australian the statement “even with massive disruption and damage to their economies the maximum they might achieve is a 30% emissions reduction = ~ -0.0187°C” hits hard because our Beloved Leader wants to go for a 80% target.

  52. Wow, what an onslaught! The question should perhaps be, is it morally valid to keep kicking Bystander?

  53. Emission is increasing much more than predicted on Kyoto conference; that will increase the temperature by 2060, by 5-6C. Top instigators are realizing that the temperature is not changing; they are looking for backdoor exit. Lots of tax dollars have being laundered to prevent the phony GLOBAL warming. Money collected should be kept in trust account; for when reality sinks; when my proofs are known to the world – with those money need to build lots of big new jails for the Apparatchiks. Crime shouldn’t pay. The truth: CO2 is not a GLOBAL warming gas. There is no any GLOBAL warming, or GLOBAL cooling. Only warmth and coldness constantly shift places and always will. Get all the solid proofs on my website http://www.stefanmitich.com.au and keep collecting evidences from the protagonist; for when ‘’the truth and reconciliation’’ comes. Don’t let them of the hook. Help me spread the solid proofs / facts to the society. Lies don’t change the truth. Oxygen and nitrogen are controlling the temperature, by expanding when warmed – shrinking when cooled; not IPCC and the shonky climatologist.

  54. Lady Life Grows says:
    August 7, 2011 at 6:04 pm

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

    A friend of mine calls it the Coyote Treaty, because it’s very Wile E. Both of you are right.

  55. There is a sort of warmist argument to be drawn from these figures. If you make a ratio of %emissions against %population, then the West is producing more than it’s fair share of deadly, toxic, CO2. Unfortunately, empirical evidence suggests that CO2 has vastly less impact on planetary warming than warmist models predict to the point where 10 years of CO2 increase has coincided with 10 years of global temperature decline. Oh, and trees and plants are growing more quickly and crops are producing heavier yields.

  56. “So these adherent nations have isolated themselves by their own self-emolliating actions on the basis that it is their duty to show an example to the rest of the world.”

    Hmmm is that treally true? World leaders in wind-turbine technology in Germany in Denmark. World leading CFL lamp technology in Holland and Germany. World leading nuclear energy technology in France. High efficiency diesel car technology in Germany and France. Dependent on gas imports from Putin’s Russia, oil imports from the middle East and coal from Africa and Australia.

    Fact is that Europe intended to save a lot of money in imports and export a lot of high tech equipment on the back of this band-wagon they created. Anybody that ever goes to the European Parliament in Brussels will be left in no doubt that it is in the hands of big business and the green energy business is the key talking point right now.

  57. Rosco – good point . . . how many of these alarmists are trying to scare the population away from beach view homes to force coastal house prices down so they can clean up . . .! In this cynical, manipulative world, almost anything is possible . . .

  58. Hi Interstellar Bill
    You are dead right my spelling is definitely in error I apologise. Now I have looked it up in Webster’s it seems particularly apposite.

    Definition of SELF-IMMOLATION

    : a deliberate and willing sacrifice of oneself often by fire
    — self–I’m·mo·late

  59. Energy use is not going to be emissions-driven.
    It’s going to be efficiency-driven, and that’s an economic issue and a resource issue.
    Emissions are going to be a particulate/pollution issue (soot, NO2, SO2), and much has already been/is being accomplished along those lines. The harmless byproducts (water and CO2) are not a concern.
    Therefore, the AGW mantra is a dead horse, and those that beat it (EU, AUS) beat thier own economic horses in a gesture of futility.

  60. What if CO2 did not drive climate? Would we then need to spend all these trillions of $,£ etc. on this useless climate change mitigation?

  61. The EU’s policy is quite obviously futile. But futility sometimes has a place. Some may recall this sketch from the 1960s British comedy “Beyond the Fringe”:

    It opens with Peter Cook, in the uniform of a senior RAF officer, entering to the sound of airmen singing heartily around a piano.

    Cook: Perkins! (Jonathan Miller, dressed as a Pilot Officer, breaks away from the singing) Sorry to drag you away from the fun, old boy. War’s not going very well, you know.

    Miller: Oh my God!

    Cook: …war is a psychological thing, Perkins, rather like a game of football. You know how in a game of football ten men often play better than eleven?

    Miller: Yes, sir.

    Cook: Perkins, we are asking you to be that one man. I want you to lay down your life, Perkins. We need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war. Get up in a crate, Perkins, pop over to Bremen, take a shufti, don’t come back. Goodbye, Perkins. God, I wish I was going too.

    Miller: Goodbye, sir – or is it – au revoir?

    Cook: No, Perkins.

  62. @Bystander: The others stopped trying to ride the dead horse.

    But our governments insist on hitting our children (they will have to pay the bill for all of the useless anti-climate-change projects).

  63. Gallopingcamel,

    My first point is that a minor change in natural emissions, equals a major change in anthropogenic emission, even doubling the current emissions, so there is no point in trying to mitigate anything.

    My 2nd point is that if Salby is Correct, than the reasons for the rise in CO2 concentration are changes in air temperature, weather they occurred now or 800 years ago as you claim, but not burning of fossil fuel.

    You are correct in stating that the supporting material of Salby’s research is not yet available, but nobody is challenging his claim regarding my first point.

    I limited my argument only to the subject of Ed Hoskins’ article, there are many other strong reasons for doubting the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming.

  64. Nearly all energy on our planet originates from the sun and is stored in the oceans and atmosphere. AGW theory states that humans are/would be causing a temperature rise due to our activities, impinging on the climate.
    So, we humans are causing a rise in the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans. Let’s do some simple math.
    The total weight of the oceans is 1.39 x 10^18 metric tonnes
    The weight of the atmosphere is 5.28 x 10^15 metric tonnes
    Total combined weight of hydrosphere and atmosphere is 1,395,280,000,000,000,000 metric tons.
    Total weight of live human beings is 6.5 billion x 70 Kg =455,000,000 metric tons

    Ratio of mass of (atmosphere+ hydrosphere)/mass of humans = 3,066,549,450

    So, for every ton of live human beings there are 3 billion tons of water and air,
    or
    for every human being there ares 233 million tons of water and air.
    How can I, 70Kgs of me, affect 233 million tons of water and air? I just wonder.

  65. D. J. Hawkins said:
    “In my view the warministas are more like the grumpy neighbor insisting the kids are going to fill in the creek if they keep skimming pebbles across it. See? That makes it much easier to ignore. Laugh at, even.”

    That is a far better analogy than kicking a dog, but the kids have a much better chance of filling a creek with pebbles, or at least changing the creek’s flow, than the chance humans have of changing Earth’s climate or ocean chemistry by altering CO2, or kicking dogs.

  66. Tokyoboy says:
    “However, for these six years already, I don’t see hide nor hair of any change, nada, zilch, in the time course of the CO2 curve:
    http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/MaunaLoaCO2.png

    So true. If you sum the curves of CO2 emissions since about 2003, there should definitely be a noticeable acceleration of CO2 rise in the atmosphere, after taking into account the “mixing period.” To my eye, doesn’t seem to be happening – hockey stick emissions, no hockey stick in the atmosphere.

  67. ango says:
    August 7, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    a birdy has told me that Al Gore has joined a asylium boat heading to Christmas island off australia
    ===
    laughing…hope he likes asian food, that where all the boat arrivals are now to be sent.

  68. Ryan says:
    August 8, 2011 at 1:54 am
    “World leaders in wind-turbine technology in Germany in Denmark.”

    Are economically unviable without continuing subsidies; are intermittent; require all the old infrastructure to keep grid alive when no wind; change the microclimate, making it hotter and drier, make surrounding area unusable for human settlement.

    “World leading CFL lamp technology in Holland and Germany.”

    Don’t get me started on my EU noddy lamp. Need replacement Halogen lamps URGENTLY.

    “World leading nuclear energy technology in France.”

    That has more to do with Charles De Gaulle’s ideas and less with the AGW scare. And it is exactly NOT about efficiency – electricity in France is abundant and costs a third of German prices. So they use it and export it to ‘leccy-starved UK and Germany.

    “High efficiency diesel car technology in Germany and France.”

    One of my cars was a Ford Escort Turbo Diesel and just as good as a comparable German car. Extreme taxation of Gasoline and to a slightly lesser extent Diesel in Germany makes it economical to spend more on a more complex, more efficient engine. It’s the usual tradeoff, nothing more.

    “and the green energy business is the key talking point right now.”

    They have an enormous amount of lobbyists, as they live primarily off taxpayers and ratepayers money. So no wonder that everybody in Brussels talks about that. Nevertheless, those Green energy companies are tanking, due to cheaper competition from China, and increasingly emptied public purses.

  69. But we’ll feel better about ourselves! Don’t you want to feel better about yourself? Wouldn’t you like to feel morally and intellectually superior to those who don’t want to reduce carbon emissions? Why wouldn’t you want to go along with the program? Don’t you care about anybody else’s feelings?

  70. ‘So these adherent nations have isolated themselves by their own self-emolliating actions on the basis that it is their duty to show an example to the rest of the world.’

    Quite right! I would like to show an example in neighborliness and trustworthiness, so I’m going to leave all my doors unlocked from now on. That’ll work, won’t it? /sarc

  71. Notice that China et al only “question the role of manmade C02”, but don’t rule it out, saying that even if man’s C02 is responsible, it is the developed nations who have both been mostly responsible for, and profited by their additions to C02 levels. That way, they get to eat their cake, and have it too. Convenient, that.

    @ Bystander. You’re barking up the wrong tree. No! Bad Bystander! This particular post isn’t about the science, or rather, lack of science warmistas have. Even if we were talking about some other planet where somehow C02 managed to drive climate, the complete folly of a few committing economic hari kari would, hopefully be self-evident.

  72. Chris D. says:
    August 8, 2011 at 5:56 am
    “A similar theme was struck here in Feb:
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-futility-of-trying-to-limit-co2-emissions/

    Yes you are right – Ed first sent me a very long and complex presentation that was eventually edited down to that post. Since then Ed has been refining his calculations. Tonyb became interested and as a result of their exchanges Tonyb posted on Judith Curry’s site: http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/ Since then I’ve been privvy to discussions between Ed, Tonyb and Max (‘Manaker’), checking and refining Ed’s calculations. Ed has now produced this – the first in a series of more focused and refined articles, which sets out the issue very clearly.

  73. By the way I notice that the emerging economies of India and China (population between them of about 2.5billion people) are expected to need to consume 90billion tonnes of carbon within a generation according to this graph. At the present time the whole globe is only consuming 9billion tonnes.

    You do have to wonder what India and China are planning to do with all that energy they will be creating, 5x as much per head of population than we in the West??????

  74. Richard Bell says:
    August 7, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    As an Englishman living in the USA and looking back at the UK from afar, it just seems to be a very expensive JOKE perpetuated upon the British population.

    Substitute the words ‘energy Independence’ or ‘energy security’ and the result is almost the same.

    If CO2 isn’t a problem some of your more ‘left leaning’ politico’s would be more then happy to power your entire country on Russian Oil, Coal and Natural Gas. Since being ‘environmentally concerned’ and ‘leaning left’ has a tendency to go together the way to convince your ‘left leaning’ politico’s that burning Russian Oil, Coal and Natural gas is bad is to make up some environmental reason why burning Russian Oil, Coal and Natural Gas would be bad.

  75. @ Kevin Kilty and Bruce Cobb – you are assuming that doing our part is “hari kari ” – but that isn’t a given.

    The personal sacrifice of being smarter about how we use energy (we cut our heating/cooling costs 30% just through using shade smarter and new windows), using more efficient light bulbs and all that related stuff isn’t hard to do and doesn’t negatively impact our standard of living. Come on folks – it is that hard. Heck – do it out of greed of not throwing money away.

    You could argue that moving away from a decreasingly available resource controlled by people in an areas of the world where Western democracies aren’t wildly popular is a pro-economic security move as well, but that is a whole other kettle of fish.

  76. Hi Margaret in NZ just for you

    This little table put the New Zealand contribution in perspective.
    Never forget these levels of temperature reduction only apply if 100% of any the Nations’ CO2 emissions are utterly eliminated.

    have a look and ask you friends if it is all worthwhile

  77. snout_in_trough says “Firstly there is much argument about the level of harm caused by human co2 emissions if any. ”

    Not by mainstream science….

    snout_in_trough says “Some extra co2 may even be beneficial. ”

    Let’s see the scientifically valid proof for that assertion – snort. If you guys here aren’t totally biased and actually interested in real science you’d have jumped all over that statement. Yet – silence. Hmmm….

    snout_in_trough says “we know for sure that reductions in co2 output will definitely harm the economy and therefore people.”

    Oh stop already with the sky is going to fall stuff. Be specific and qualitative otherwise it is hand waving. If you guys here aren’t totally biased and actually interested in real science you’d have jumped all over that statement. Yet – silence. Hmmm….

  78. @Bystander says: August 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    ‘So wait – just because the other kids are going to still keep kicking the dog that make it OK for you to do?’

    millions of people dying for lack of safe drinking water, decent food, some medical services in this world. Atleast some of those countries are trying to provide for them. You are equating that effort to “kicking the dog”?

    What kind of monster are you?

  79. As I’ve often pointed out, if it weren’t for psychological projection the alarmist crowd wouldn’t have much to say. Case in point, Bystander’s statement: “Oh stop already with the sky is going to fall stuff.”

    That is preceded by Bystander trying to turn the scientific method on its head by demanding proof that more CO2 is beneficial, rather than trying to show that it is harmful. But in fact, there is ample proof that CO2 is beneficial:

    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5

    I challenge Bystander to post proof of global harm from increased CO2. Not model-based conjecture, but solid empirical evidence of global damage traceable directly to anthropogenic CO2. And as Bystander says: “Be specific and qualitative otherwise it is hand waving.”

  80. barrelling bactrian;
    “the MWP is causing CO2 to rise today!”. It’s logical, sensible, and I don’t know why I never thought of it before. Thanks!

  81. Ryan says:
    August 8, 2011 at 8:43 am
    “By the way I notice that the emerging economies of India and China (population between them of about 2.5billion people) are expected to need to consume 90billion tonnes of carbon within a generation according to this graph. At the present time the whole globe is only consuming 9billion tonnes. ”

    Which graph? were you planning to attach a link and forget?

  82. I see Bystander has not responded? wonder why? perhaps he/she is off licking the wounds from this kicking?

    Countries whose governments are enforcing the self deprecation or self flagellation type effects of green taxes are those who need to be quickly deposed. I cannot imagine how annoyed their countrymen are going to be in a few years after being saddled with yet more debt to feed the green monster.

  83. Ryan’s confuzed. There’s no “90” there. And “consumed” is meaningless. It’s “emitted”.

  84. The main point here is that CO2 has no bearing on AGW climate change debacle. So putting in a Carbon tax etc., or carbon trading (allegedly failing financially) is a rouse to boost investment in so called clean energy and carbon trading. While coal fired generation renovations to existing plants in Australia is much cheaper and will cut emissions by 30%. Black coal, ie. nutty slack even more! We will not change the climate by cutting carbon emissions, period, or not eat meat as was advertised by green advocates. Including Pachauri of the IPCC a Hindu, who is a vegetarian.

    It’s just been announced that proposed geo thermal projects in WA have been axed. I wonder why? Lack of funding or because geo thermal is an untested reliable source of electricity generation. Tested in Cornwall in UK, it found the geo thermal sources closed up due to gravity.

  85. It’s been known since Kyoto this is just a wealth transfer scheme from “developed” (read “western”) countries to “developing” (read non-western) countries. We’re taking advantage of the poor natives again… as usual the politics of guilt has the gullible left it’s all their fault and they need to make reparations.

Comments are closed.