Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In the run-up to the next-to-last big meeting of the UNFCCC (United Nations Frequent Climate Change Carnival) held in Copenhagen in 2009, I showed the following graph under the title “Why Copenhagen Will Achieve Nothing”
Figure 1. Carbon Emissions 1970-2006 by Region, and Global (red).
At that time it was clear that if the entire industrialized world cut back to 1980 emission levels, the climbing global emissions would scarcely change.
We are now coming up on the 17th UN Climate Change Carnival … so many clowns … so few circuses. This Carnival will be held in Durban, South Africa. How have CO2 emissions evolved since the Copenhagen Carnival? The latest figures are just in. Many electrons are being sacrificed in anguish about the numbers. “Record High 2010 Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Combustion and Cement Manufacture Posted on CDIAC Site” shouts the headline from … well, that’s actually the self-referential headline on the CDIAC page itself. The CDIAC site says that the CDIAC site says that the CDIAC site says that a record …
Our friends at the UK Guardian newspaper enthuse that “Greenhouse gases rise by record amount.” Elsewhere the hype rises roughly proportionally with the distance from understanding what the numbers actually mean.
So how did we set this new record for carbon emissions? Figure 2 shows the information from the CDIAC site.
Figure 2. Changes in emissions from 2008 to 2010.
Hmmm …
In interpreting these numbers, it is useful to remember that carbon emissions measure what is generally called “development” —access to all of the good things that energy brings to the citizens of the country. Medicine, and food, and shelter from the sun, and heat when its cold, and transportation, and communications, and refrigeration, and farm tractors … the list is long. It’s development, and it runs on and is synonymous with energy.
So when the developed world asks India and China and Brazil and Indonesia to cut back on carbon emissions, we’re asking them to cut back on developing their country’s health and well-being and infrastructure and manufacturing … good luck selling them that line of what my step-grandpa used to call “bull-dust” …
Remember that the Kyoto Protocol expires soon. The dream of the carbon alarmists is to extend Kyoto. They want to see a new set of global binding restrictions on the increase in carbon emissions. That is to say, they want to see binding restrictions on the increase in energy use in the developing world.
Me, I think that is one of the most inhumane proposals ever floated. The great masses of India and China and Brazil and the rest are finally clawing their way out of abject poverty, and the carbon alarmists want to put binding restrictions on their access to energy?!? Get real! The good news is, they will never, never agree to that. That carbon is what is fueling, quite literally, their rise out of the mire.
In addition, consider that agreements like Kyoto keep energy use from increasing. That approach sounds reasonable, at first blush. And for the developed countries, that’s not much problem, our use is plenty high already. But for China and India and the like? It means we’re saying they can’t ever catch up with us. I can assure you that they see the rank hypocrisy in that approach.
So if Kyoto is thankfully dead in a global sense, what does that leave? Well, I hate to be crass and crude about it but the bad news is that just leaves …
Money. Euros. Greenbacks. Simoleons. Follow the Benjamins.
What will happen in Durban is that the developing countries will pull out all of the stops to convince the developed world to give them money. We’ll hear endless heart-wrenching stories of climate refugees and dying reefs and ecological zones being uprooted and moved polewards without so much as a by-your-leave. And not forgetting, people in polar bear suits. Can’t have a UN Climate Change Carnival without polar bears.
And if history is any guide, in all probability, the carbon activists and quiche-eaters and Eurotrash we have representing the developed world will be unable to bear the guilt of actually being developed, and they will cave in to the demands and promise some money some time down the line … and then, thankfully, most countries likely won’t honor the promises, leading to diplomatic complaints and strongly worded protests.
(As an aside … Dear US Congress-Persons … can we stop funding the IPCC? They’re giving away the taxpayers’ money and getting nothing in return. That’s supposed to be your job, could you at least get rid of the competition? — TIA, willis.)
I leave it to the reader to consider further implications of these numbers. The sun is shining. I’m going outside to build something.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ray Tomes says:
November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Ray, go live for a year on the average energy consumption of someone in say Mali, and come back and tell us how it’s rubbish. Three quarters of the people in Mali live on $2 per day. Give that a try before lecturing us about energy costs.
Certainly there is waste energy, and there are many measures to reduce that … in the developed world. But there is little waste energy at the bottom of the pile. The world’s poor are living on a few dollars a day. They are not running their lights too long, or taking long trips in their cars, or keeping their 3,000 square foot houses too cool in the summer and too hot in the winter …
So I don’t buy your emotional argument, that 1950 New Zealand equals the current situation of the poor of the world. Most of the world’s poor would kill to have now what you had back then. You’re living in a white-man’s fantasy about what “poor” means. Go live on two dollars a day for a year, and then tell us how much it’s like when you were a kid in New Zealand.
Finally, when you jack fuel prices around the planet by e.g. nixing coal fired power plants, the fuel cost goes up for everyone, rich and poor alike. However, the rise hits the poor the hardest, because they can’t do what you say and just reduce their fuel use. All it does is jack the price of every good that they buy.
You may find it acceptable to be jacking up the price of energy for the world’s poor based on your fear of some future imagined catastrophe.
I find it inhumane.
w.
Jay says:
November 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Go for it, report back with what you find.
( … I post the source of the data so people can do the analysis that they want done. Despite that, they often seem to want me to do it … )
w.
From markinaustin’s excellent link;
“So on Friday the Obama administration stopped fighting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and released documents showing that Hansen was paid $250 an hour by a Canadian law firm for testimony against developing Alberta’s oil sands; income which Hansen does not appear to have disclosed.”
Doh! The Hansen-Homer likeness continues.
Poverty lines for the US, one person, ~ $11,000 per year.
Poverty line for India, one person, rural, ~ $240 per year.
Poverty line for India, one person, urban, ~ $300 per year.
Just sayin’ … as someone once remarked, “No matter how poor you are in the US, when you step off the plane in Africa, you’re a rich man.”
w.
Latitude says:
November 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Latitude, the graph does not measure how developed they are. It measures the change in energy use, so it is measuring how fast they are developing, not how far they’ve gotten.
And TomB, yes, the US emissions dropped more than the next three combined.
w.
“The IPCC has never produced anything of value.”
Well, once could say that they have “produced” interest and funding for climate studies. In theory, this should have given us knowledge of what causes major changes in climate, at the very least. You know, major changes like little ice ages, medieval warm periods, dark ages, roman warm periods, etc. Heck, go all the way and at least be able to tell us why major full scale ice ages and the interglacials in between exist, right?
But wait, they are only interested in climate changes that might be caused by CO2, something humans produce. They are primarily interested in that because the richer a person is, the more CO2 they produce. Naturally, the IPCC wants to go after that because that’s where the money is. Thus, research into natural climate changes, the biggest and most important kind, is discouraged. You know, big stuff like that full scale ice age scheduled to start right about now, that could wipe out the bulk of us if it sneaks up on us. You know, fairly big stuff like little ice ages, which won’t wipe out the bulk of us but can kill many millions if it does sneak up on us (assuming that it does not trigger wars and revolutions, which it probably would). You know, natural climate changes that make for warming and cooling, the kind that we must understand if we are to have any hope of understanding the effect of CO2 on that natural climate.
On second thought, not only has the IPCC never produced anything of value, they have gone out of their way to make sure that no one else does either.
RiHo08 says:
November 8, 2011 at 3:52 pm
“In the recent past, we have an illustration of an attempt at reverting to a simpler and less complex society, Cambodia. Pol Pot imposed his Paris inspired ideal of an agrarian society living in harmony with nature, 18th Century Voltaire if you will….”
Surely you mean Rosseau, not Voltaire.
Don’t panic. The dreaded carbon pollution problem has been solved. Here in Australia we now have the Carbon Tax, so All Will Be Well.
We’re saved!
Eric Anderson says:
November 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm
OK, but it is still based on CO2 emissions, right? IOW, take CO2 emissions and then subtract out the O2 (roughly)? Or are the figures looking at some other form of “carbon” emissions besides CO2?
========
Not an expert, but I’m pretty sure that Carbon emissions are computed based on amounts of fuels used, and the Carbon content of the fuels rather than on measured CO2 output. I think (again not an expert) that’s OK. It looks to be very difficult to measure CO2 emissions directly. And I think that almost all the Carbon in the fuels is eventually going to end up as CO2 even if the initial product of combustion is Carbon Monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons or something weird.
Ray Tomes says:
November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Well I was a kid in New Zealand in the 1950s. Were we living in abject poverty then? I don’t think so. The majority of energy is used to quite literally produce rubbish.
Aha! The New Zealand Progressive’s Garden of Eden, found. Ray, you sound quite emotional about saving the world from development. So are we still to assume that you really haven’t ate the apple yet? But if you do still have no “rubbish” to ever dispose of, no electric car, no power brakes, modern medicine, or will accept no joint replacement or emergency services, etc., then whose computer are you using?
JPEden, my argument is not emotional. I merely point out that 50 years ago we managed without today’s high energy use without ever feeling that we were in poverty. I do have some rubbish to dispose of because so much stuff comes wrapped in pointless packing, but I do my best to avoid these. Also I avoid as much modern medicine as possible. And I often walk to the shops about 1.7 km away and further. My computer is an old XP one that I have no plans to replace. What has any of this got to do with high energy use? We live in a society driven by marketing of things that no-one needs nor wants in order to boost the economy. It makes no-one happy and so called developing nations are foolish to copy it.
And Willis, thanks. I had long since figured out that developed world carbon emissions were pretty stable and that the developing world was going to pay zero attention to Kyoto et al. (I can’t think why anybody might think otherwise) But it is nice to see the numbers.
BTW, I personally think that CO2 emissions will start to decline when the world starts to run out of fossil fuels to burn and not before. My guess is that will happen toward the end of this century as projections of x-hundred years of fuel y are based on current usage. By mid century, those vast deposits of heavy oil, coal, natural gas, etc are going to be drawn down at a much higher rate than most folks now expect.
How much CO2 will we end up with in the atmosphere? Who the hell knows? Maybe 1000 ppm? How much warming? who the hell knows? Maybe 3-4C above 1900? Are we all gonna die? Most assuredly. But probably not from global warming.
HS says:
November 8, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Did you mean Rousseau?
“Do I dare set forth here the most important, the most useful rule of all education? It is not to save time, but to squander it.”
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Willis: Latitude, the graph does not measure how developed they are. It measures the change in energy use, so it is measuring how fast they are developing, not how far they’ve gotten.
===================================================
Willis, that’s why I want you to look at the JAXA
It seems to me they are saying that China, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc are emitting more CO2 and the developed countries are absorbing more CO2……net gain to the undeveloped countries….net loss to the developed countries
If it’s true….then undeveloped countries are emitting more CO2 than developed
Your brain is better equipped for this…….I want to know what you think
Joann has most of it on her blog, but no one has really picked it apart like I know you can……..
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/co2-emitted-by-the-poor-nations-and-absorbed-by-the-rich-oh-the-irony-and-this-truth-must-not-be-spoken/#more-18671
To,
IPCC, UNFCCC, GREEN PEACE, NSF, CARNEGIE Instituion of science and others; looking forward to hearing from all of you!!!!
Chair person IPPAN, Kathmandu
Copy to the director ICIMOD, Nepal.
Dear Dr. Pachauri and Mr. Algore,
Challenge to IPCC / UNFCCC, SHAME ON YOU
Solution to CC and Power Crisis
Please give me either one scientific reason/ theory that justifies CC is due to gases OR STOP ACCUSING GASES for CC. Just accusation is not science. CC by gases is impossible. Man has disturbed the ‘rain cycle’ causing the ‘climate change.’ No gas can be ‘green house gas.’
I have also explained that applying the property / theory of standing still water column to the running water condition is the blunder being done in the ‘Hydropower Engineering’ and, its correction can give us unlimited hydropower.
Please visit devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com for solutions to ‘CC and power Crisis.’
Summary is attached for your convenience.
Challenger,
Dr. Dev
Email: dev.dangol@yahoo.co.uk
“Already sent to the addressees, green peace and many others throughout the world”
Latitude says:
November 8, 2011 at 6:15 pm
… JAXA
It seems to me they are saying that China, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc are emitting more CO2 and the developed countries are absorbing more CO2……net gain to the undeveloped countries….net loss to the developed countries
If it’s true….then undeveloped countries are emitting more CO2 than developed
=======
I think that the numbers you want to look at are Carbon emissions per capita — emissions divided by population. They should be around somewhere on the internet. I have some similar five year old numbers handy for energy production (BTUs) per capita and they clearly show developed countries way above developing countries in energy consumed per person — which should correlate fairly closely to Carbon per person. Willis’ numbers show the gap to be closing. Since there are many more people in the developing world than in the developed world, total Carbon emissions will almost certainly increase substantially in future years. Sure hope I’m right about the quality of climate science, cause in the unlikely event those dudes are right, there are a lot of people who should be building arks.
At some time in the future, and not too far into that future, we’ll all
be thanking China, India, Brazil, etc. for putting all that CO2 up there
in the atmosphere. The progress since AR4 has been hugh.
Let’s not forget that this entire circus has as its purpose DOING SOMETHING HARMFUL – namely reducing the availability of plant food and therefore human and wildlife food in turn.
@Don K
Not an expert, but I’m pretty sure that Carbon emissions are computed based on amounts of fuels used, and the Carbon content of the fuels rather than on measured CO2 output.
I’m not an expert too, but I think the word “used” is fallacious here. It should be “burned”.
Lots of fossil fuels are not burned but used for other products, like plastics or pharmaceutical prodicts.
Curiously those non-emissive amounts, surely not few, are not subtracted from the total emissions. At least, I haven’t found any source for that and the official numbers don’t include them explicitely.
So I think, the numbers for the total carbon emission are not quite correct.
*****
Latitude says:
November 8, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Willis, we’re still talking about CO2/carbon….but no one is talking JAXA
*****
The JAXA map would be more meaningful if broken down into equal areas. In fact, it would be a good thing to have several equal area maps , each differing in the size of the area displayed.
Don K says:
November 8, 2011 at 6:50 pm
I think that the numbers you want to look at are Carbon emissions per capita — emissions divided by population
===============
Don, thanks but that’s exactly what I don’t want to look at…..
JAXA is showing the flux of CO2…..CO2 that is emitted….and CO2 that is absorbed
Emissions per capita would not show adsorption
Ray Tomes says:
November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Well I was a kid in New Zealand in the 1950s. Were we living in abject poverty then? I don’t think so.
***
In the 1950s, New Zealand was considered the richest country in the OECD. What are you trying to say?
Paul Deacon asks me what I am trying to say. I am saying that energy use in NZ in the 1950s was very much less than today. It cannot be argued that it was poverty however. The modern waste of energy is not required to eliminate poverty.
Actually the great masses of India, China, Brazil and the rest are not finally clawing their way out of abject poverty they received Western technology, equipment, procedures, jobs and Western markets as a gift. The return we get for the transfer of technology and wealth is our own economy in free fall.
I hope everybody sees that PR China emits 3x as much as India does: they are in a different league.
And yes, these countries do need energy to develop.
If the various government departments and elected officials *claim* to believe the IPCC, then what happened in Australia yesterday is a preview of what will happen in Durban or in the next two years:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/carbon-tax-arrives-australia-senate/#comment-665597
They have to take the taxation excuse soon before it becomes obvious to everybody that the tipping point warming scare is a scam without basis in current observation.
However if they believe the scientific method has not been properly applied to the IPCC consensus view, or if Big Oil has somehow managed to outspend Big Green and Big Money on lobbying over the last 12 months, then delay or dismissal of CO2 pricing is more likely.
It is ironic that the Australian economy was doing relatively well – so it was one of the few that could afford to utterly waste so much money on a futile exercise.
Greetings from Australia, where now unfortunately science is six feet Down Under and democracy is upside down. 🙁
“The CDIAC site says that the CDIAC site says that the CDIAC site says that a record …” In order to understand recursion, you have to understand recursion.