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The well-developed nations Russia, Canada and Japan have already withdrawn support for the Kyoto accord.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


[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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
93 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bruce Cobb
August 8, 2011 7:42 am

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.

Ryan
August 8, 2011 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.
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??????

harrywr2
August 8, 2011 8:48 am

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.

August 8, 2011 9:56 am

Isn’t this a point Lord Monckton has been making in his lectures for years now?

kwik
August 8, 2011 10:18 am

None of this matters, according to Gordon Brown. Since we have passed his ridicilous deadline, all must be lost by now anyway?
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Brown-Fifty-days–to.5747301.jp

Bystander
August 8, 2011 10:24 am

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.

Edmh
August 8, 2011 10:26 am

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.
http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/screen-shot-2011-08-08-at-11-52-27.png
have a look and ask you friends if it is all worthwhile

Bystander
August 8, 2011 10:38 am

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….

August 8, 2011 10:42 am

@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?

August 8, 2011 10:51 am

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.”

Tad
August 8, 2011 11:50 am

I say go ahead and kick the dog if it’s biting you.

Brian H
August 8, 2011 1:06 pm

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!

August 8, 2011 2:10 pm

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?

Kev-in-Uk
August 8, 2011 3:04 pm

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.

Brian H
August 8, 2011 6:29 pm

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

August 9, 2011 3:44 am

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.

Dave Springer
August 9, 2011 10:41 am

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.