Guest post by Ed Hoskins
Prof Richard Muller in a presentation made last October [1] made the dilemma facing the warmists abundantly clear:
The developing world is ‘not joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor does it have any intention of doing so.
So the whole warmist idea is a creature of a limited number of developed western nations whose governments have been persuaded by the control Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption agenda.
These notes using information on emission levels by nations published by the Guardian and Google [2] re-emphasize Professor Muller’s initial point.
Grouping Nations
Here 7 groups of major emitting nations are defined according to their attitudes towards CO2 control measures as follows:
Not Joining-in
China questions the role of man-made CO2 in determining climate effects and is now the largest CO2 emitter, having surpassed the USA in 2006, and is now greater than the USA by more than 40%. China completes a new coal-fired power plant each week. China has made the gesture of being willing to link the intensity of its emissions to be dependent on its GDP growth. In effect this is no concession at all [3].
India has set up its own climate institute to re-examine the claims and policy recommendations made by the IPCC and grew its emissions by ~9% in 2009. It too has said that it will comply with the intensity criterion. Also in effect this is no concession at all.
The well-developed nations Russia, Canada and Japan have already withdrawn support for the Kyoto accord.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia are the larger developing nations do not support action on Man-made Global Warming, and they will continue their rapid growth of CO2 emissions.
The “Rest of the World” (200+ Nations), ~19% of world CO2 emissions and ~40% of the world population, mainly consist of some 200+ underdeveloped or developing nations. They are not interested in limiting their emissions nor in restricting their slowly improving standards of living. But they are expecting to be the financial beneficiaries at the expense of the ‘developed nations’ of the ‘western Climate Change process’.
In the USA the Republican congress, is re-examining:
- the scientific inconsistencies of the Man-made Global Warming assertion
- the reliance of the Environmental Protection Agency on the reports of the UN IPCC
- and thus to terminate any USA response to mitigate Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
- The USA congress has just mandated that all support for “Green” international activities should be terminated[4].
A failure to commit by USA adds about 18% to the current world emissions not falling under the influence of any CO2 controls. The withdrawal of the USA would then mean that about 85% of world emissions and 92% of the world population were no longer involved in any action on controlling CO2.
Joining-in
An opt-out by the USA leaves the European Union, Australia and New Zealand isolated in their continuing adherence to the Man-made Global Warming assertion.
It is only in the EU, (including the UK, ~1.7% of World CO2 emissions or ~11% of EU emissions), as well as Australia and New Zealand where their governments have committed action on CO2 into legislation.
These isolated nations are about 8% of the world population and only~14% of the world’s CO2 emissions at present.
The failure of universal action entirely negates the unilateral action of any individual nation.
So the realistic apparent position based on current published CO2 emissions is shown below.
So these adherent nations have isolated themselves by their own self-emolliating actions on the basis that it is their duty to show an example to the rest of the world. However their actions alone can only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of world temperature.
Other dissenting nations may pay lip service to the efforts of the United Nations and the IPCC but they are certainly not going to change their attitudes and damage their economies in the same manner.
This is the stark reality of the majority of national attitudes, which are opposed to the present views of the United Nations as represented by the UN IPCC, the EU and Australian and New Zealand governments.
The real effect of the maximum feasible actions on CO2 emissions reduction that are being taken by this minority of nations and thus their influence on ostensibly on reducing temperature is to minimal effect. This becomes trivially clear just by comparing the current emission status against the most likely IPCC stated temperature rise from added emissions of 1.2°C by 2100 (1.8°C “Scenario B1” versus 0.6°C if all world-wide emissions stopped in 2000):
- only nations representing ~14% of the worlds current emissions (the European Union, Australia and New Zealand), are making any progress = ~ -0.0623°C
- even with massive disruption and damage to their economies the maximum they might achieve is a 30% emissions reduction = ~ -0.0187°C
- The UK contributes only 11% of the emissions in this active group amounting to ~0.00224°C by 2100.
- Australia contributes even less and its actions might amount to ~0.00177°C by 2100.
But growth of emissions from developing countries including China, India and other underdeveloped nations continues. China is predominant and India is following on probably at a greater future rate but to a lower absolute extent by 2100 [5].
According to the Guardian / Google data the following graph shows the emissions growth over the past 10 years.
And shown below are the percentage increases both for the last ten years since 1999 and also the annual rate of increase 2008-2009.
A further useful alternative perspective can be seen in the long-term CO2 emissions data recently published by BP up until 2010[6].
This clearly shows:
- the inexorable growth of past emissions from the developing economies since 1965,
- the rapid escalation of Chinese emissions since the year 2000 which still continues apace
- the recent accelerating advance of emissions from India, a nation which has very substantial potential for further emissions growth from a very low base.
This graphic also shows a leveling out of developed economies but with an uptick in 2010 as they recover from the recession of 2009.
The historic figures of CO2 emissions set out here show clearly that China, India, the “major developing nations” and the “rest of the world” are clearly not joining-in the action on CO2 emissions reduction. These increases in emissions will totally negate any efforts, however strenuous, of the developed world where emissions are already significantly stabilized, even in the USA. It is clear that the failure of worldwide universal action will entirely negate the unilateral action of any individual nation or groups of nations. Any effort is therefore a total folly and the sooner this is realized, in spite of the huge academic and monetary capital already invested, the sooner the western world can be released from its self-imposed economically destructive straightjacket.
[1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&NR=1
[2]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data
[2]https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOG0yWkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en#gid=1
[3]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hold-the-accolades-on-chinas-green-leap-forward/2011/04/19/AFLdZMEE_story.html
[4]http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/173601-gop-spending-bill-would-nix-international-climate-aid
[5]http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-10/global-warming/29642669_1_kyoto-protocol-second-commitment-period-second-commitment-period
[6]http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037130&contentId=7068669
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



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
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
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
Actually, I think “self-emolliating” would be self-softening, feminizing. Which also seems to apply.
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.
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!”
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?
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.
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…
@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.
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?
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.
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.
Thanks Ed,
Very good article; a dose of well-needed reality check.
If we’re all doomed I say we may as well be prosperous ‘cos there’s SFA we alone can do about it whatever view you take as to its cause
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.
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.
I made the relevant part of the presentation by Dr. Muller available some time ago if anyone is interested:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!
Michael Klein,
In case you haven’t noticed, the alarmist crowd is losing its Believers hand over fist. The worm has turned.