From the European Commission Joint Research Centre
Steep increase in global CO2 emissions despite reductions by industrialized countries
Global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main cause of global warming – increased by 45 % between 1990 and 2010, and reached an all-time high of 33 billion tonnes in 2010. Increased energy efficiency, nuclear energy and the growing contribution of renewable energy are not compensating for the globally increasing demand for power and transport, which is strongest in developing countries.
This increase took place despite emission reductions in industrialised countries during the same period. Even though different countries show widely variable emission trends, industrialised countries are likely to meet the collective Kyoto target of a 5.2 % reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 as a group, partly thanks to large emission reductions from economies in transition in the early nineties and more recent reductions due to the 2008-2009 recession. These figures were published today in the report “Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions,” prepared by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
The report, which is based on recent results from the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) and latest statistics for energy use and other activities, shows large national differences between industrialised countries. Over the period 1990-2010, in the EU-27 and Russia CO2 emissions decreased by 7% and 28% respectively, while the USA’s emissions increased by 5% and the Japanese emissions remained more or less constant. The industrialised countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol (so called ‘ratifying Annex 1 countries’) and the USA, in 1990 caused about two-thirds of global CO2 emissions. Their share of global emissions has now fallen to less than half the global total.
Continued growth in the developing countries and emerging economies and economic recovery by the industrialised countries are the main reasons for a record breaking 5.8% increase in global CO2 emissions between 2009 and 2010. Most major economies contributed to this increase, led by China, USA, India and EU-27 with increases of 10%, 4%, 9% and 3% respectively. The increase is significant even when compared to 2008, when global CO2 emissions were at their highest before the global financial crisis. It can be noted that in EU-27, CO2 emissions remain lower in absolute terms than they were before the crisis (4.0 billion tonnes in 2010 as compared to 4.2 billion tonnes in 2007).
At present, the USA emits 16.9 tonnes CO2 per capita per year, over twice as much as the EU-27 with 8.1 tonnes. By comparison, Chinese per capita CO2 emissions of 6.8 tonnes are still below the EU-27 average, but now equal those of Italy. It should be noted that the average figures for China and EU-27 hide significant regional differences.
Long term global growth in CO2 emissions continues to be driven by power generation and road transport, both in industrial and developing countries. Globally, they account for about 40% and 15% respectively of the current total and both have consistent long-term annual growth rates of between 2.5% and 5%.
Throughout the Kyoto Protocol period, industrialised countries have made efforts to change their energy sources mix. Between 1990 and 2010 they reduced their dependence on coal (from 25% to 20% of total energy production) and oil (from 38% to 36.5%), and shifted towards natural gas (which increased from 23% to 27 %), nuclear energy (from 8% to 9%) and renewable energy (from 6.5% to 8%). In addition they made progress in energy savings, for example by insulation of buildings, more energy-efficient end-use devices and higher fuel efficiencies.
The report shows that the current efforts to change the mix of energy sources cannot yet compensate for the ever increasing global demand for power and transport. This needs to be considered in future years in all efforts to mitigate the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions, as desired by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Bali Action Plan and the Cancún agreements.
The full report can be downloaded from: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php or http://www.pbl.nl/en
About the Joint Research Centre (JRC):
The Joint Research Centre (JRC) is the European Commission’s in-house science service. Its mission is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for the conception, development, implementation and monitoring of European Union policies.
The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) project uses the latest scientific information and data from international statistics on energy production and consumption, industrial manufacturing, agricultural production, waste treatment/disposal and the burning of biomass in order to model emissions for all countries of the world in a comparable and consistent manner. EDGAR is also unique in its provision of historical emission data for 20 years prior to 1990, the reference year for the Kyoto protocol.
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency:
PBL is the national institute for strategic policy analysis in the field of environment, nature and spatial planning in The Netherlands and contributes to improving the quality of political and administrative decision-making by conducting outlook studies, analyses and evaluations in which an integrated approach is considered paramount. Policy relevance is the prime concern in PBL studies, for which independent and sound research is conducted.
The Kyoto Protocol: Annex I Parties:
The industrialised countries listed in this annex to the Convention committed to return their greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. They have also accepted emissions targets for the period 2008-12. They include the 24 original OECD members, the European Union, and 14 countries with economies in transition.
Non-Annex I Parties:
Refers to countries that have ratified or acceded to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that are not included in Annex I of the Convention.
“CO2 – the main cause of global warming….”.
Proof, please.
Not to mention, what global warming?
“the main cause of global warming”
So, when did you stop beating your wife?
“Global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main cause of global warming – …”
I’m getting just a bit bored with assertions like this being rammed down our throats.
I think a good YouTube video on the failure of CO2 reductions is this one:
Dr, Muller shows how all of our cuts in CO2 are pointless, because China will increase their output even more.
I for one am glad–GLAD, I tell you, that Kyoto has failed.
I for one am glad–GLAD, I tell you, that CO2 is on the rise. (My plant friends are happy, too!)
I for one am glad–GLAD, I tell you, that there may be just an itsy bitsy ray of hope in averting the next Ice Age–but it probably will have nothing to do with CO2.
OMG we’re all gonna die. I love how the climate reality project has triggered a trotting-out of dismal forecasts, all in lockstep with a separate reality. They didn’t really think that China was going to stop growing to satisfy their little target, did they?
Only and idiot or someone living in a fantasy world (is there any difference?) could have expected anything different.
Certainly, at least for anyone who was paying even the slightests attention, the evidence of what was going on in India and China should have warned them that the Kyoto targets were not based on any realistic evaluation of the potential numbers.
Gore added that the world had a choice – it could go back to carbon based fuels or put people to work to make the transition back to a low carbon economy. But one step was needed to make this happen – a price had to be put on carbon.
“India and China have just announced a CO2 tax.”
Did I miss something ? When did India and China announce a CO2 tax ?
I don’t believe China. How are these numbers verified?
“India and China have just announced a CO2 tax.”
I guess this is another example of “emotional truth” then
Love the ‘per-capita’ tag on the map. I suppose if the USA had over a billion citizens it would be green and happy just like Communist China and India.
Dont worry there is no Infra red at 4.8 microns below 6000 meters above sea level coming from the sun. (Wikipedia) told me. Therefor it can’t be scattered by CO2.
Where did the radiation come from that the earth emits to space? It has no absorbtion bands.
Does this mean Gates will start saying 45% now, instead of 40%……..
..45% of nothing is still nothing
The whole ‘per-capita’ nonsense is just a tool to bludgeon the Australia voters into its carbon tax. Just a meaninless statistic. Per GDP would be better if you must use a comparator.
Well at least all that extra weight of CO2 has weighed down the oceans, which has allowed Obama to fulfill one of his many promises. See Climate Depot for details
Latitude says: September 21, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Latitude: Gates hasn’t said anything yet (today anyway). Why not wait until he says it before piling on?
Now which figures am i going to believe, Switzerland announcing that its energy creation/consumption went up 9% last year due to the cold or that he quotes a 12.5% INCREASE in nuclear capacity (“from 8 to 9 percent ) in the industrialised world, that doesnt include England does it ? or Germany, or CH or USA or … so maybe its france thats expanded by some 100% or so. trust EDGAR !!!!!!!!!
I did my bit by installing a really big wood burning stove to help, we are told its “CO2 neutral” hence excluded from the figures so its a super CO2 reduction (isnt it ?)
I need an Asprin.
Amazing to say, but the scientific brilliance of the European Commission is matched by its economic brilliance, as individual freedom has been identified as the cause of the financial crisis.
“Most major economies contributed to this increase, led by China, USA, India and EU-27 with increases of 10%, 4%, 9% and 3% respectively. The increase is significant even when compared to 2008, when global CO2 emissions were at their highest before the global financial crisis. It can be noted that in EU-27, CO2 emissions remain lower in absolute terms than they were before the crisis (4.0 billion tonnes in 2010 as compared to 4.2 billion tonnes in 2007).”
Check out page 13 figure 3.2:
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/C02%20Mondiaal_%20webdef_19sept.pdf
So, they are talking about million tonnes/person, okay so lets compare some numbers:
United States – (million tonnes/person)
1990 – 19.7
2000 – 20.8
2010 – 16.9
[Hmmm 16.9 used to be lower than 19.7….]
EU-27 – (million tonnes/person)
1990 – 9.2
2000 – 8.5
2010 – 8.1
China – (million tonnes/person)
1990 – 2.2
2000 – 2.9
2010 – 6.8
South Korea – (million tonnes/person)
1990 – 5.9
2000 – 9.7
2010 – 12
These numbers make no sense to the Conclusion/Analysis. According to the “numbers” it looks as though the United States and the EU-27 made their 10-10 goals (without the US trying). South Korea really missed their goal (really wasn’t trying), oh yeah, who is the Secretary-General of the UN? What country is he from? Let’s review the head man of the IPCC’s country:
India – (million tonnes/person)
1990 – 0.8
2000 – 1.0
2010 – 1.5
Does anyone have a clue of what these “goals” were supposed to be (other than the obvious wealth redistribution)? I got similar results using Oakridge data.
Warmist trolls, anyone???
led by China, USA, India and EU-27 with increases of 10%, 4%, 9% and 3% respectively. —– let me move this around a bit……
China 10%, India 9%, U.S.A. 4%, EU-27 3%…….
I can’t figure this out, we’re recovering? I showed a couple of brief comparisonsshowing unemployment and CO2 emissions for the U.S.
If the U.S. and the EU-27 wish to really recover, we need to start pumping energy. 4% won’t cut it.
So dumb question here; but when they measure these ’emissions’ how do they tell the volcanic contributions from the human ones?
the main cause?
The observed warming is clearly mostly due to natural processes
e.g. see
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
and some additional warming (on top of the natural warming) is caused by increased vegetation
Limiting CO2 (a natural non-poisonous gas) in the atmosphere is stupid
Robert E. Phelan says:
September 21, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Latitude: Gates hasn’t said anything yet (today anyway). Why not wait until he says it before piling on?
==================================================
Piling on??
…so how long have you been humor challenged Robert?
Gates is a big boy, he’s perfectly capable of laughing on his own and doesn’t need your permission.
It has already been mentioned, but how can it be determined how much is from human activity and how much from natural sources?
[REPLY: There is actually quite an extensive discussion of that issue invovling CO2 isotope ratios. A google search might prove enlightening. -REP, mod]
Neo says:
September 21, 2011 at 12:55 pm
‘“India and China have just announced a CO2 tax.”
Did I miss something ? When did India and China announce a CO2 tax ?’
That’s not the part that catches my eye.
“Gore added that the world had a choice.., [inane B/S] …put people to work …”
I couldn’t expect less from this lazy fat [expletive deleted] slob.
ldd says:
September 21, 2011 at 2:01 pm
So dumb question here; but when they measure these ‘emissions’ how do they tell the volcanic contributions from the human ones?
===================================================
I believe they are estimating based on our energy and fuel use as opposed to any CO2 measurements. For instance, if X amount of coal was burnt, then that = Y amount of CO2 emissions. Same for gasoline….etc.
Don E says:
September 21, 2011 at 2:19 pm
“It has already been mentioned, but how can it be determined how much is from human activity and how much from natural sources?”
“CO2 is not driving the Bus, Climate is driving the bus, and CO2 sits in the back of the bus.”
Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources
2nd Aug 2011 speaking Murry Salby (ex IPCC Reviewer)
Podcast 46min
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/
Natural variation of CO2 emissions is not included in climate models! (Satellite observations were not available when they started coding the models)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/#comment-712838
jo nova
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/
Roy Spencer:
“1. The interannual relationship between SST and dCO2/dt is more than enough to explain the long term increase in CO2 since 1958. I’m not claiming that ALL of the Mauna Loa increase is all natural…some of it HAS to be anthropogenic…. but this evidence suggests that SST-related effects could be a big part of the CO2 increase.
2. NEW RESULTS: I’ve been analyzing the C13/C12 ratio data from Mauna Loa. Just as others have found, the decrease in that ratio with time (over the 1990-2005 period anyway) is almost exactly what is expected from the depleted C13 source of fossil fuels. But guess what? If you detrend the data, then the annual cycle and interannual variability shows the EXACT SAME SIGNATURE. So, how can decreasing C13/C12 ratio be the signal of HUMAN emissions, when the NATURAL emissions have the same signal???
-Roy”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
HTH
Those who don’t look at the world through green-colored lenses know that so far, “green jobs” are nothing but tax-payer funded boondoggles and developing countries are the least able to afford most of the green technology being developed.
If you want to replace fossil fuels, develop energy sources that are just as reliable and no more expensive. Don’t artificially raise the costs of using conventional fuels. Make something that’s better and people will beat a path to your door to buy it.
Here in Australia we have the “world’s best practice” example of AGW lunacy.
The current Government is intent on a carbon tax leading to an emissions trading scheme. Its stated policy is that we will reduce emissions to ~ 50% of some level and use international “carbon credits” to cover the rest of our problems thus exporting billions of dollars from us to who really knows where.
Political commentators on the ABC and other AGW friendly media sites are trying to argue that it doesn’t really matter where the reductions occur as long as there are reductions – OK that seems a little odd but if reductions are called for then they’re right – it doesn’t matter where they occur the issue is that they do.
There is, however, one little piece of insanity that seems to escape comment – it is also Government policy to at least DOUBLE Australia’s output of COAL in the same time frame.
This will completely negate by several times any benefit Australia makes by cutting emissions and purchasing “credits” offshore. Already our coal exports amount to more than domestic consumption.
I am confused – if emissions need to come down lets stop digging it up.
In the rather temperate North Bay (SF)- Sonoma county reported their (MT CO2e/person) recently as 9.1. Most of which comes from the transportation sector (67%).
Sonoma County Carbon Budget and Economic Impact for 2010
Presented May 26, 2011 -http://www.sctainfo.org/pdf/carbon_budget_and_economic_impact_2010.pdf
CO2-levels follow warming, as we know fo a while.
Even when the world cools the coming years, CO2-levels may keep rising for another 800 years.
(Source: Vostok Ice Cores)
I think Gore and the warmists need to step up their game now or forever be considered pansies and failures. Protest for 24 days instead of 24 hours and on Tian’anmen square instead of the Interwebs. China won’t be able but to curb their CO2 terrorism in the face of such action!
Rosco says: “I am confused – if emissions need to come down lets stop digging it up.”
Don’t you understand? They need to “DOUBLE Australia’s output of COAL” to pay for the carbon indulgences. That doesn’t make sense if you believe that lowering emissions is their mail goal in all of this. But it isn’t. It’s just a convenient excuse.
Louis says:
September 21, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Rosco says: “I am confused – if emissions need to come down lets stop digging it up.”
Don’t you understand? They need to “DOUBLE Australia’s output of COAL” to pay for the carbon indulgences. ………………………
=================================================
Everyone knows coal burnt in China produces the nice CO2, not like the evil CO2 that countries like Australia and the U.S. emit when they burn the same coal!! Why can’t you deniers understand this simple stuff???
Well! I never thought I’d see the day when WUWT admits that AGW is real!
Best wishes for your further enlightenment!
What they won’t admit is that Kyoto was the direct cause of a large proportion of the CO2 increase.
This is because Kyoto forced energy intensive industries like Steel, Aluminium and Cement out of energy efficient developed countries and into energy inefficient developing countries.
It takes about 50% more energy to make a ton of steel in China compared to Germany or Japan. Add the additional energy used to transport the bulky raw materials and finished products increased distances and you are approaching a doubling of CO2 emissions for the same amount of Steel/Aluminium/Cement.
CO2 is just the narrative for the agenda:
Some interesting charts that relate to this subject:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Despite the demonization of “carbon”, more CO2 is a good thing. It is still a tiny trace gas. No one has been able to falsify the statement that more CO2 is harmless and beneficial. As Edenhofer candidly admits, the “carbon” scare is intended to bring about redistribution of wealth – with the UN in the middle, always taking its hefty cut.
Kelvin Vaughan says:
September 21, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Dont worry there is no Infra red at 4.8 microns below 6000 meters above sea level coming from the sun. (Wikipedia) told me. Therefor it can’t be scattered by CO2.
Where did the radiation come from that the earth emits to space? It has no absorbtion bands.
————
Look at a photo of the earth from space. It has colour therefore it has absorption bands.
Go outside look at the colour of the earth, the plants, the oceans. They all have colour therefore they have absorption bands.
Plants are green because their absorption band is optimal to collect energy from the sun.
So many wrong debating points, so little time.
mhklein says:
September 21, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Well! I never thought I’d see the day when WUWT admits that AGW is real!
Best wishes for your further enlightenment!
=========================================================
Only an alarmist could possibly interpret this thread as a confirmation of AGW. That must be some amazing colors of the sky where you live. But many, if not most, at WUWT acknowledge AGW and have for years, but, just not in the way some reality denying lunatics believe.
Rhoda Ramirez says:
September 21, 2011 at 1:30 pm
The whole ‘per-capita’ nonsense is just a tool to bludgeon the Australia voters into its carbon tax. Just a meaninless statistic. Per GDP would be better if you must use a comparator.
———–
No there is a fairness argument in play here.
Most people think that if something is a common resource and it is not being shared equally then that is not fair.
given most of the world is yet to develop, it is evident to anyone but a CAGW fantasist that emissions will continue to increase, which means the alleged remedies have nothing to do with reality or science.
more proof CAGW is just a name for turning CO2 into a commodity:
20 Sept: Big Pond: Abbott vows to scrap carbon scheme
As debate continues on the carbon pricing legislation in parliament, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has vowed to seize emissions permits bought by business…
‘During the fixed-price phase of the carbon tax (from 2012 to 2015) I think we can close it down, and we will close it down without incurring the billions in liabilities that the (government) is talking about,’ Mr Abbott told Macquarie Radio…
As debate continued in parliament on the clean energy legislation, a member of Mr Abbott’s coalition team on Tuesday argued against the science of climate change.
Former scientist Dennis Jensen, a Liberal MP, told parliament the planet was not warming and it was wrong for the government to use a ‘benign scientific theory’ as a basis to legislate for a carbon tax.
‘To put it simply, the carbon tax with all its regulatory machinations is built on quicksand,’ Dr Jensen said.
‘Take away the dodgy science and the need for a carbon tax becomes void.’…
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2011/09/20/Abbott_vows_to_scrap_carbon_scheme_663977.html
what a difference a day makes, and what a duplicitous bunch the Opposition Coalition Party prove themselves to be. Greg Hunt seems positively upset the carbon dioxide market is being delayed:
21 Sept: Herald Sun: AAP: Australia wants UN climate treaty by 2015
AUSTRALIA now believes a legally-binding global agreement on cutting carbon emissions should not be signed until 2015 – and the Federal Opposition says it is happy to work to that timetable.
In the interim, in a joint submission with Norway to the United Nations, Australia says countries should work towards establishing “a common international framework for mitigation targets and actions”.
“Common rules will provide transparency, promote a global carbon market and ensure the environmental integrity of any binding climate agreement,” the joint submission states.
“An important part of the outcome in Durban (in November) should be to establish rules and frameworks for accounting.
Opposition climate action spokesman Greg Hunt says the coalition is happy to work towards a 2015 binding agreement.
But he noted today things were moving much slower than originally anticipated.
“We would like to have an international agreement,” Mr Hunt said in Canberra.
“But what the submission notes is that there’s no realistic prospect before 2015 – six years after Copenhagen.”…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-wants-un-climate-treaty-by-2015/story-e6frf7jx-1226142775730
Smokey says:
September 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm
CO2 is just the narrative for the agenda:
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG3
………
====================================================
I’m just wondering at what point will the impoverishment be satisfied? Clearly, CO2 emissions correlate with economic growth. For those Malthusian, communist, greens in the U.S., any compromise in the entitlement system of the U.S. is laid a their feet. Hope they’re happy with Grams going hungry during the winter to pay for heating.
Lazy says:
“Most people think that if something is a common resource and it is not being shared equally then that is not fair.”
What “common” resource would that be? And who decides what is “fair”? Sounds like two coyotes and a rabbit voting on fairness. [Hint: you are not one of the coyotes, according to Herr Edenhofer.]
@James Sexton
I thought most of the argument here was that the majority of OBSERVED warming was natural variability with only a minor component man made (thus AGW). Of course we discuss the amount of each component rather vociferously, but don’t shout anyone down like some other sites.
If you were to say most of us say the temperature has fairly steadily increased since the LIA, then I think we (mostly) all are in general agreement with some quibbles over exact numbers (and whether those numbers mean anything). After that I think the “consensus” around here is the issue is unproven and not even close to explained. (i.e much more science is needed to form a conclusion) with as many pet theories to chase down as commenters on the board. That is one of the things I love about this site. Everyone comes at the problem from a slightly different background and perspective. I always learn something here.
From Pielke Sr blog:
3. Do you agree that continuing on our current business-as-usual emissions path presents an unacceptable (in your opinion) risk to the biosphere and to human society in general within the next century?
Pileke Sr. reply: “Of course. The emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, and its continued accumulation in the atmosphere is changing the climate.”
Man O man, what utter Bull!
“Over the period 1990-2010, in the EU-27 and Russia CO2 emissions decreased by 7% and 28% respectively, while the USA’s emissions increased by 5% and the Japanese emissions remained more or less constant.”
Stunning stuff. The old Eastern bloc shut down its inefficient and polluting industry, Russia did the same, the Japanese have a highly developed nation with a stable population and the USA had a non moribund economy for most of the period. The Euros also exported their “pollution” (CO2 is not pollution)production capability to China. Wow!
Who besides the scammers themselves
isn’t sick beyond words
of the CO2 scam?
pat says:
September 21, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Pat,
Greg Hunt is from the warmist, bleeding heart branch of the Liberal Party. He’s also a tool and a fool and hopefully will be relegated to the back bench of the next government.
I think the Libs know the international community will never get its act together so it is just noise for the consumption of “boganis australis vulgaris”.
Going back to square one.
Human beings will, from very primative human forms until today, change the environment of Earth and significantly so.
Is that bad as long as it benefits humans?
That is the question. Don’t beat around the philosophical/theological bush. Confront it head on. That is the deciding issue.
Be brave my fellow rational beings.
John
I guess Canada is in a good position with the ongoing cooling (economic and thremal).
It will be interesting to see what happens to the rest of you in comming years.
We have decided to use our energy to keep warm stay comfortable and to be productive.
Canadas Prime Minister sums it up…
“Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.”
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.”
“This may be a lot of fun for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa, but ordinary Canadians from coast to coast will not put up with what this will do to their economy and lifestyle”
“As economic policy, the Kyoto Accord is a disaster. As environmental policy it is a fraud”
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
>> LazyTeenager says:
September 21, 2011 at 4:20 pm <<
So the guy who generates 20 tons of CO2 in the process of building something useful is unfair compared to the guy who only generates 10 tons of CO2 doing nothing productive?
Nope. You have to compare CO2 to GDP, not population.
This is assuming you actually buy into the 'CO2 == bad' dogma.
Of course, if your goal is to redistribute wealth …
Owen says:
September 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm
@James Sexton
“I thought most of the argument here was that the majority of OBSERVED warming was natural variability with only a minor component man made (thus AGW). …………”
=============================================================
As a recent disgruntled, yet retired scientist recently intimated, the temps have been remarkably stable. Yes, most changes should be attributed to natural variation. But, as John Whitman points out, (September 21, 2011 at 5:38 pm) “Human beings will, from very primative human forms until today, change the environment of Earth and significantly so.”
It is what we do, we are continually battling the elements to make things better for humanity. When I stated we “acknowledge AGW” I wasn’t referring to CO2 emissions, rather, I was referring to our alteration of the landscape. The temps probably have changed a bit because of our land use and our tendency to gather together. (UHI) Fortunately, our world is a self-correcting, equilibrium seeking, mechanism. I believe most here would recognize UHI as a reality. Others, too, would believe our land use can effect local temps.
Of course, this is only my opinion.
James
Under the following scenario emissions reduction (base year 2010):
Assumptions: 1 – Emission calculated in ppm per country. 2 – current anthropogenic emissions in ppm estimated per IPCC at 105. 3 – scario valid fro 50 years and than reverts to 0% growth for all.
Growth Scenario
US – (-10%) PPM at 2010 levels 19
EU – (-10%) PPM at 2010 levels 14.75
China – (+2%)PPM at 2010 level 20.25
India – (+3%) PPM at 2010 level 6.00
Rest – (+3%) PPM at 2010 level 40.00
Total PPM of the world emissions 105.00
in 2030 PPM under scenario will be approximately 130 ie is a 30% increase from 2010
US – PPM at 2010 levels 2.3
EU – PPM at 2010 levels 1.8
China -PPM at 2010 level 44.20
India – PPM at 2010 level 11.00
Rest – PPM at 2010 level 71.2
in 2050 PPM under scenario will be approximately 228 ie is a over 100% increase from 2010
US – PPM at 2010 levels 0
EU – PPM at 2010 levels 0
China -PPM at 2010 level 80
India – PPM at 2010 level 20
Rest – PPM at 2010 level 128
So, US and EU are all dead that is economically (i have thrown is the idiots from Australia, NZ and Canada in as well for good measure). We will fence you in and occasionally drop medicines for humanatarian reasons.
I never imagined that white folks will commit mass suicide. What a sad end to the the land of visionaries.
James Sexton says (at 6:08pm) – “As a recent………….. ”
James,
I lived- was raised- in a subdivision built post WWII (starting about 1958 per my folks) outside of Cleveland, Ohio. All the streets in the subdivision (about 20 streets- each about 3/4mile in length) were paved with concrete. Sometime around 1980-1985 all the streets were repaved with asphalt. This rather small change in road construction, repaving with asphalt, has likely had more impact on the temperature in Northern, Ohio, then any other man made change to the climate. In fact, if one wanted to you could do a novel thing- and run a few experiments to determine exactly how much this change has effected temperatures.
oldseadog says:
September 21, 2011 at 12:16 pm
“CO2 – the main cause of global warming….”.
Proof, please.
Not to mention, what global warming?
—
It could be worse, oldseadog. The Associated Press loves to use the term “heat trapping gas” as its colorful label for CO2 (of course, I thought water vapor was also a heat trapping…ohh never mind…).
Headline correction: Kyoto success – CO2 emissions still going up.
CO2 is plant food, after all.
Green Energy = Green Poverty
Scarface says:
September 21, 2011 at 3:00 pm
CO2-levels follow warming, as we know fo a while.
Even when the world cools the coming years, CO2-levels may keep rising for another 800 years.
(Source: Vostok Ice Cores)
What was happening 800 years ago? Medieval Warm Period. For all we know, the CO2 released for the last century is because of that. It might go up for another 100 years. And there was a cooling that followed (LIA). Just imagine, perhaps around 2111 they’ll be complaining about falling CO2 while the Sun is in a slump like today. Yep, the Next Ice Age Hoax. Fortunately, I won’t be around to see it (unless medical nanotech makes us immortal before I reach room temperature).
What warming?
funny how the MSM have not picked up this story at all. no Revkin, Black, Monbiot, no anybody. this is it:
Steep Increase in Global CO2 Emissions – MarineLink – 13 hours ago
Global CO2 emissions rise to all-time high – PublicServiceEurope.com
CO2 emissions rising sharply despite cutbacks among industrialised … earthtimes.org
Developing countries driving CO2 increase UPI.com
the MSM does, however, have the following, despite “transport” being cited in the above report as being responsible for so much of the CO2 emissions:
AFP: GM bets on fast-growing China auto market
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jHmu-uTrWFtzHKu6a40eOTzYLHzw?docId=CNG.f2cfdb1d05ca721d3423a62eb79ab563.281
WSJ: Ford Sees Asia Pacific, Africa Comprising 33% of Sales By 2020
“We see tremendous growth potential in Asia Pacific and Africa region in this decade with India emerging as the third largest automotive market in the world by the end of the decade” he said, adding the company expects 60%-70% of its growth in this decade to come from this region.
“Right now, about one out of every six Ford customer is from the Asia Pacific region, but by 2020 it will go up to one out of three,” he added….
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904106704576582193344608536.html
never mind. CAGW was never about reducing CO2 emissions.
Rosco says:
September 21, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Here in Australia we have the “world’s best practice” example of AGW lunacy.
This will completely negate by several times any benefit Australia makes by cutting emissions and purchasing “credits” offshore. Already our coal exports amount to more than domestic consumption. I am confused – if emissions need to come down lets stop digging it up.
On the contrary, those that are exporting the coal hope to make a pile of $$ in return for exporting the CO2 rather than burning it in Oz, where it might create something dangerous like jobs to pay the Co2 taxes.
Smokey says:
September 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG3
When I see the likes of Edenhofer, Hansen, Gore, Mann getting rid of their cars and sending their wives out on the bus shopping and to pick the kids up after school I’ll take notice. Until then it is just so much hot air.
These folks are not talking about redistributing THEIR money. They are talking about redistributing YOUR money. Their money will come from skimming the cream off your money.
When the high priests talk about human sacrifice, you can be sure the last person they are talking about being sacrificed is the high priest. You are second on their list, right after the person they told you was the sacrifice.
Question for the people who actually read all these comments as I do-
Why doesn’t the Mauna Loa CO2 record reflect the 2009 decrease in global CO2 emissions?
If atmospheric CO2 ppm is driven by human emissions, then shouldn’t we see a flattening of the smoothed curve sometime around 2009?
Another way of asking the question, does anyone know if it has been shown that
2011 year end atmospheric CO2 ppm – 2010 year end atmospheric CO2 = human emissions(from burning fossil fuels and cement production) + small fudge factor
Has this been measured? Thanks in advance!
Matt
From the JRC report (pg6):
“After a 1% decline in 2009, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increased by more than 5% in 2010, which is unprecedented in the last two decades…”
Mauna Loa record:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
All according to plan, no doubt. They will now use Kyoto’s (intended) failure to justify more draconian measures, while also pocketing the billions of dollars that countries have foolishly paid over the years for exceeding their limits. It’s a win-win for them.
There is a major flaw in the premise over the measurement of CO2 emissions. Assessment of emissions should be based on consumption of goods not production. The main reason western Europe has had any success in limiting emissions (apart from economic stagnation) has been by effectively exporting them, by transferring high-emission industry to China and other developing countries. China should not be held responsible for emissions involving goods for export; those emissions should be sheeted home to the countries purchasing those goods.
Matt says: September 21, 2011 at 8:58 pm
“Why doesn’t the Mauna Loa CO2 record reflect the 2009 decrease in global CO2 emissions? ……If atmospheric CO2 ppm is driven by human emissions, then shouldn’t we see a flattening of the smoothed curve sometime around 2009?”
The global CO2 emission curve shows an annual (or monthly) amount, and hence is the “rate of emission”.
In the Mauna Loa graph, the emission rate is reflected as the “slope of the curve”.
Therefore, a year-to-year variation of CO2 emission causes a change in the Mauna Loa slope, which is always positive when smoothed, and would not flatten nor exhibit a negative trend.
This is my understanding. Anyone correct me where I go wrong.
Oddly enough, from “World Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels”, the US has an six year averaged, annual CO2 growth rate of about 0.4% yr (in 2006). That would rank it at about 150 (out of 186) and well below the World average of 3.4% yr.
In 2001 it was 0.8% yr (126th) and in 1996 it was 1.8% (36th)
Who need Kyoto, we are already pretty good at trashing our economy.
http://www.eia.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls
EU27: -7%
USA: +5%
These numbers need to be taken in context of:
1. Massive EU27 reduction due to collapse of the Soviet block after 1990
2. Massive population increase in the US due to immigration.
Considering both, the US was significantly more effective in reducing CO2 per capita without Kyoto than the EU27 with Kyoto.
Where did this idiot map come from and what is this idiocy of CO2 per person? This is pure junk. Fact – Canada is NOT its people, Canada is it entire land mass, period. Canadians live within Canada. How difficult is that to remember? Here we have Canada redder than China and the US – how mental is this? Canada has a total population of 38 million living inside the second largest land mass on planet earth – 9,984,670 sq kilometers. Canada as a whole only generates 0.02% of the entire world’s CO2 – go figure this map in the upper right hand corner. FACT – Canada uses approximate 2 million sq kilometers for its citizens which leaves approximately 7 million untouched wilderness of pure greenery, wetlands, etc.,
Fact – Canada contributes more CO2 sucking greenery to the planet than any other nation on planet earth, period. We suck up more CO2 than we will ever use in this lifetime and a thousand lifetimes from now. I can see more trees from my backyard than the all the trees in all the Arabs lands combined, period! I am outraged at this propaganda – the real mark of a nation is its land – that’s why the Israelis and Palestinians are at war. Land! There are 7 billion on this rock and China, India, The Muslim world hold almost 4 billion of that number and when combined with the third world that figure reaches closer to 5 billion.
7 Billion now and will double within 50 years. If we think 7 billion now use resources and a third are starving now or living on the edge today you ain’t seen anything yet. Just two bad years of food growth and we’ll see starvation on a monstrous scale unlike ever witnessed before in human history. And yes, cold nation do use more energy – Duh? ON the other hand us cold nations feed the world and provide almost every other modern innovation mankind has ever produced. And while I’m at it one more point that needs to be made and made over and over again – North America, the US and Canada are the two greenest nations on the face of the earth bar none!
Just recently I bought an HD-DVD player for may daughter, a scientific calculator and a tracker ball mouse, and just last week a pair of sports shoes with special heel padding (to ease the arthritis in my leg joints). All satisfactory buys and all made in China. Nuff said!
LazyTeenager says:
September 21, 2011 at 4:12 pm
“Plants are green because their absorption band is optimal to collect energy from the sun. ”
If it were optimal they would be black.
I don’t care what mass of CO2 we push into the atmosphere the important measure is the proportion that we put in compared to natural producers.
But all that verbalese from the Eu does not get round the fact that their energy policies are 100% wrong being based on a theory that violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Whatever the reason for the increase in Co2, it’s still a desperately sad statistic in many ways. It reflects a rise in non-environmental industry which has the possibility of blighting the lives of many, it demonstrates that governments are hypocritical about how seriously they take the idea of carbon emissions and is symptomatic of the way many countries continue to pollute their environment. While my own country is not entirely innocent, it has made progress and the joy at seeing trout and salmon return to local rivers which once held nothing but coal slurry and sewage can never be expressed, only felt.
I wonder if the CO2 reduction attempts matter all that much. We have the theory and supporting data that the planet warms up at times for various and little understood reasons; which has then been followed by increases in CO2. Data shows CO2 lags behind the warming and might continue to rise even after the warming has abated.
What if CO2 is going to continue to rise during our short life spans regardless of what the alarmist do? What if CO2 hits 500 ppm and we all still live? What if those cute and cuddly polar bears don’t mind more CO2?
I once was afraid that the alarmists would get their draconian programs installed and then the climate would cool (as a natural cycle) and then they would claim that was due to their anti-capitalist measures. Now it looks like warming abatement came without their measures and it looks like CO2 will continue to rise showing the populaces that it will not kill you.
LazyTeenager says:
Plants are green because their absorption band is optimal to collect energy from the sun.
===============
Ha ha ha. Wow.
Plants are green because all the other colours are absorbed by the leaf and the green colour is reflected (i.e. not absorbed) by the leave, and that is why it looks green.
Wil,
Excellent rant. I agree with everything you wrote. CO2 ‘per capita’ is just alarmist propaganda. What would actually matter [if CO2 mattered] is CO2 emissions by country. But the UN always twists things to blame the West for the world’s problems – while standing in line to take their cut of the wealth transfers.
Thieving bastards.
@ldd
In the atmosphere there are three types of carbon isotopes C-12, C-13 and C-14. C-12 is by far the most abundant. Plants prefer to absorb CO2 with C-12 in it.
As fossil fuels are made of ancient organic material, they have a relatively high amount of C-12 isotopes compared to the carbon present in the atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere.
An increase in the ratio of C-12 over C-13 has in fact been observed in the atmosphere. Together with the account books of fossil fuel companies, this is pretty straightforward evidence that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuels and not by outgassing from volcanoes or the ocean.
Also, parallel with this trend, a decrease of atmospheric oxygen levels has been measured. This also indicates that the oxygen has been used to form CO2 molecules.
The evidence clearly does not support a volcanic origin.
Wil. I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head. I very much agree with your rant!
economic recovery by the industrialised countries are the main reasons for a record breaking 5.8% increase in global CO2 emissions between 2009 and 2010…
what recovery?
what planet do they live on?
Maurice Strong said “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring about?”
C02 reduction was and is simply a means to an end, which essentially is world government. The fact that the U.S. Congress failed to ratify it was probably Kyoto’s biggest failure. The Organized Clime group, UNIPCC keeps the pressure on, though, continually threatening democratic principles under the guise of “science” and of “saving the planet”.
The USA could significantly reduce our CO2 footprint by only growing enough food to feed ourselves, or only refining enough gasoline and diesel for our domestic use (we export a great deal of gas and diesel) and by moving all our manufacturing to Asia.
“7 Billion now and will double within 50 years. If we think 7 billion now use resources and a third are starving now or living on the edge today you ain’t seen anything yet.”
No one is starving due to a global lack of food. They’re starving due to corrupt or non-existent government, and live in places where agriculture is poor.
Are they calling the US an industrialized country with CO2 on the rise? I thought most of US equipment, patents, and procedures were moved to the third world to escape taxes, EPA regulations and the evil of CO2 while taking advantage of cheap sometimes slave labor and making new customers for the US out of the third world because of their increased spending power. Un industrialized might be more accurate with fewer customers.
Wil says: 7 Billion now and will double within 50 years. If we think 7 billion now use resources and a third are starving now or living on the edge today you ain’t seen anything yet
Wil, I appreciate the sentiments, but get a grip. World population is NOT going to double in the next fifty years; in fact it is much more likely that it will top out at about 10 billion in the next seventy years and stabilize at about 3 billion in the next 200 years. One third of the globe is NOT starving. AS you so rightly pointed out, the U.S. and Canada are feeding the world – the hunger that exists is not because of a lack if food in the world but rather because of the lack if infrastructure to transport and store it (development, industrialization and modernization will take care of that…. if the Greenies will let them) and the horrific corrumption endemic to second and third world governments.
imo the data released by EDGAR should NOT be relied upon for much of anything. If you go to the details of how they put their emissions data together you will find in will have a very low level of accuracy. For individual countries EDGAR’s data is probably no more accurate than +/- 25%
To follow up on Wil’s points,
This chart could be more meaningful in many ways, but to just have it as CO2 per capita is silly. Everyone knows that China is the largest emitter of CO2 and it’s lead is increasing every day. The fact that they also have 4-5 times the population of the US makes them look “Greener” makes no sense. This should be a two or three part chart. The first being total emissions, second emissions vs sink ( This is where Canada would rank the best ), and the third emissions vs productivity. The third is the most crucial, since a large percentage of the US emissions results in benefits ( goods ) for the rest of the world the US value/ CO2 emission would be very high. Europe, on the other would have a very poor showing as very little of what they derive from their CO2 usage benefits anybody outside their borders. Europe also has a much lower emissions vs. sink character.
All that being said, that is still assuming that CO2 is bad which is dubious.
Tokyoboy – thanks for the answer
The Mauna Loa graph shows atmospheric CO2 concentration over time. The red curves shows the monthly mean value. I would think that if annual human emissions decreased, as they did in 2009, the red curve would flatten or go negative.
Since the curve does not flatten, what does that say about human impact on CO2 concentration? Either we’re so far above equilibrium we’d need to halve emissions to make an impact, or it doesn’t matter what we do because we’re not driving the change?
Matt says: September 21, 2011 at 8:58 pm
“Why doesn’t the Mauna Loa CO2 record reflect the 2009 decrease in global CO2 emissions? ……If atmospheric CO2 ppm is driven by human emissions, then shouldn’t we see a flattening of the smoothed curve sometime around 2009?”
The global CO2 emission curve shows an annual (or monthly) amount, and hence is the “rate of emission”.
In the Mauna Loa graph, the emission rate is reflected as the “slope of the curve”.
Therefore, a year-to-year variation of CO2 emission causes a change in the Mauna Loa slope, which is always positive when smoothed, and would not flatten nor exhibit a negative trend.
This is my understanding. Anyone correct me where I go wrong.
Okay, so why does the co2 record from hawaii look like a straight line, if co2 emissions are accellerating?
@James Sexton
I actually agree with 99% of your postings. We do change our surroundings, it is what we do. I was just worried about the AGW verbiage since that is the wording used by the alarmist (or is that formerly used by the alarmists – aren’t they on to AGCC or some such now – it is hard to keep all their hot-cold speak straight.)Thought the alarmists had gotten to you there for a minute.
On other things: I agree with Wil on the coloring of the map. North America in general has a great many carbon dioxide sinks with the abundant forests and wetlands. I often wonder how the densely packed parts of the world can stand living so close to one another. To say Canada is an evil CO2 producer is a bit misleading – though I bet the CO2 production is much higher in winter as folks try to keep warm up there.
The key to this study is not the amount of CO2 concentrations, but the per capita CO2 emissions by country. Europe, which has lost a significant amount of heavy industry in recent years (some people argue that they simply exported it to China) and China which has over a billion people, do better than the US by virtue of statisical analysis. The US remains the culprit. Mission accomplished.
But, what the study glosses over is the lack of corresponding warming with each uptick of CO2 emissions. Perhaps that is why the Alarmists now focus soley on Extreme Weather and polar ice variations. What is also missing is the last IPCC projections concerning CO2, population growth trends and global GDP trends. One wonders if the IPCC will continue to predict global economic and population trends at all. The current global finance crisis and attendent recessions will give policiymakers a good oppurtunity to verify thier assumptions. I do get the feeling that the UN IPCC has little interest in such things.
I find the following statistic amazing:
nearly half the coal produced in the world is burnt in China and the percentage is increasing by nearly 5% per year.
Any drop in emissions by developed countries is purely an illusion as we enter a post industrial phase with most heavy industry transferring to the developing world
Here in the UK we have been patting ourselves on the back for regulations that have given us back clean fish filled rivers, whats happened in fact is that not regulation but the dissapearance heavy industry from alongside their banks has returned to their former natural state
No doubt the ever increasing pain of green taxation (£40b pa and rising) will be justified by governments and givernment funded research bodies pointing out the above irrelevant events though!
thedocrock
Great point you made emissions vs sink. Then you followed up by goods the US gives back to the world – you can’t get any better than that. And that doesn’t even begin to mention it is the US who are there in times of crisis anywhere in the world – the ONLY nation on planet earth capable of delivering services and desperately needed help to any spot on the planet with the kindest most caring people in the 4+ billion year history of earth. Most people on the planet would kill to live in so well managed and green a nation as the USA. Same with my nation, Canada, regards to green and well managed and giving back. Yet neither of us get any credit for anything. What’s with that? What is with the environmentalist who constantly attack the US and Canada while giving the rest of the world a free pass? We need to challenge these guys on this point time and time again. I am personally sick of that kind of propaganda and will challenge anyone who
Robert E. Phelan
I used Mexico as my population scale for the third world birth rate – for instance with a 2010 rate of natural increase in Mexico of 1.4%, its population would be expected to double in approximately 50 years from its 110.6 million people now to some 224 million in 2059. Will it? No one knows for certain. Just a best guess that is within the realm of possible. That is IF conditions remain somewhat the same. NOT likely. I am fully aware entire nations can rise and fall within a fifty year time span. But possible. That is unless we do indeed get a number of cold growing years then all bets are duly canceled and wiped off the books. Also very possible.
Gary Mount says:
September 22, 2011 at 3:20 am
LazyTeenager says:
Plants are green because their absorption band is optimal to collect energy from the sun.
===============
Ha ha ha. Wow.
Plants are green because all the other colours are absorbed by the leaf and the green colour is reflected (i.e. not absorbed) by the leave, and that is why it looks green.
Chlorophyll creates the green colour, because it absorbs wavelengths in the IR and part of the colour spectrum. They don’t absorb green light wavelengths, it is reflected (which is why you can see it). There are other pigments other than just chlorophyll in plants which absorb at wavelengths that chlorophyl misses out because it reflects nearly all ‘green light wavelengths’ so to speak. The shorter the wavelength, the more energy it has, which is why it is ‘optimal’.
In plants, it’s pretty efficient considering their low energy requirements, but if you notice, there are no higher mammals which use photosynthesis for their primary energy source.
Thats the sunlit side. The night side looks almost black. Especially the oceans.
I note that the Wikipedia “Climate change opinion by country” shows that in Japan, 99 percent of the people are aware of this ‘problem,’ 91 percent believe it has been caused by human activity, and 80 percent view it to be a threat to humanity. For the U.S.A, the equivalent numbers are listed as 97, 49, and 63, and for China, they are 62, 58, and 21. Perhaps this is the result of daily news coverage of the proceedings of the Kyoto conference and the comments made by the distinguished foreign visitors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country
Owen says:
September 22, 2011 at 8:16 am
@James Sexton
I actually agree with 99% of your postings. We do change our surroundings, it is what we do. I was just worried about the AGW verbiage since that is the wording used by the alarmist (or is that formerly used by the alarmists – aren’t they on to AGCC or some such now – …….
==============================================================
No worries, and thanks! I understand the verbiage is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with. It seems now many words have a working definition and a separate connotation in how it relates to the CAGW/CC/AGCC/weirding…. whatever issue.
Openside50 says-
“Any drop in emissions by developed countries is purely an illusion as we enter a post industrial phase with most heavy industry transferring to the developing world.”
“Here in the UK we have been patting ourselves on the back for regulations that have given us back clean fish filled rivers, whats happened in fact is that not regulation but the dissapearance heavy industry from alongside their banks has returned to their former natural state.”
Openside- On this side of the Atlantic (next to the Pacific) we in California are use to the transfer of our industries to some other location. Yes we still buy all the products that we used to- we just don’t make them here anymore (i.e. closure of the joint venture between GM and Toyota- NUMI- pant in Freemont as one example). We are a bit concerned that even more of our business might leave the state (due to the high costs of doing business here) as we implement our CAP and Trade program (called AB 32 out here) hence we are going to try to minimize “leakage.” Which is defined by the California Resources Board as follows- ” Leakage means a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases within the state that is offset by an increase in emissions of greenhouse gases outside of the state.”
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/meetings/041309/presentation.pdf
The folks who provide electricity to the southern California (SCE) were a bit concerned about leakage and “competitiveness concerns.” as noted here- http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/meetings/041309/apr13pcsce.pdf .
I can see why the head of Exxon said it might be a bit more effective if the cap and trade program gets scrapped (due to high administrative costs and no transparency of costs) in favor a straight carbon tax approach to the perceived problem of excess CO2………………………..
Gary Swift says:
September 22, 2011 at 8:11 am
Okay, so why does the co2 record from hawaii look like a straight line, if co2 emissions are accellerating?
It isn’t a straight line. The emissions are going up slightly exponentially and as the increase in the atmosphere is a rather fixed percentage (the “airborne fraction”), it is going up slightly exponential too, but at a slower pace (and so do the sinks, as these absorb the difference):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
“Smokey says: September 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm “….This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG3”
Smokey, could you please lead me to the source (date & occasion) of this Dr. Edenhofer’s comment? Thanks.
“Andrew30 says: September 21, 2011 at 5:42 pm : Canadas Prime Minister sums it up…
“Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.””
Andrew, could you please lead me to the source (date & occasion) of this comment? Thanks.
I’m extermely interested in both ……..