Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The Kyoto Protocol is the quixotic attempt by some countries around the world to reduce each participating country’s CO2 emissions to their emission levels in 1990. Since CO2 emissions are a measure of the energy used, that seemed foolish to me, but hey, I was born yesterday. I figured nobody would be that dumb, and although the leaders might agree to such a goofy plan, people would find ways around the restrictions.
There are two very different groups of countries who have signed up to Kyoto to reduce emissions. One group is called the “Economies In Transition” (EIT) group. These are the Eastern European countries who were going from communism to capitalism. They are composed of Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine. They’ve done well at reducing to 1990 levels, since their 1990 emissions were all high, and have declined since after the fall of the Soviet Empire. They’ve reduced their emissions, but no thanks to Kyoto. Indeed, some signed on just so they could sell their carbon credits, because their countries were already below the 1990 levels by the time they ratified … and they did very well at the scam, too. Russia made big bucks from selling credits to the rest of the fools …
The other group, called the “non-EIT” group, is composed of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. This is the group of interest, as they are the group which is like the US—established democracies with generally mature industrialized economies.
I took this issue up because of the recent release of the newest CO2 emission figures for 2009-2010. These gave me the opportunity to investigate the question in the title—what difference has Kyoto made? How much has Kyoto affected the emissions of the countries involved? Carbon saved is carbon earned … Figure 1 shows the emissions of the US, and the emissions of the Kyoto non-EIT nations, from 1990 to 2010.
Figure 1. Annual Emissions of Carbon. Units are billions of metric tonnes of carbon (C, not CO2). “Kyoto Countries” is the total of all of the non-EIT countries, as listed above. Data Source Up to 2008 and 2008-2010 Photo Source
Hmmmm.
Other than the post-2007 drop due to the 2008 global financial crisis and ensuing world-wide depression, what can we see in this data?
Well, the most obvious thing I see is what’s not there. Looking at the pre- and post-ratification behavior of the Kyoto countries, I don’t see any change in the emissions due to ratification. The trend 1990-1999 is no different from the trend 1999-2007.
Curiously, it looks like the US on the other hand slowed down the growth in emissions over the period. Before ratification the US emissions were rising faster than the EU emissions. After 1998, they have changed pretty much in lock-step. This can be tested by fitting a 2nd order polynomial to the 1990-2007 data for both the US and Kyoto countries, as shown in Figure 2:
Figure 2. Same as Figure 1, with 2nd order polynomial trend lines fitted to the data up to 2007.
So to at least a first approximation, I’d have to say that the total amount of CO2 saved by the Kyoto Protocol to date is … well … not to put too fine a point on it, the CO2 saved by Kyoto seems to be approximately zero. There’s been no change in the rate of rise of the emissions by the Kyoto countries. No difference. Zip. Nicht. Zilch. The US reduced its rate of emission growth over the period more than the Kyoto countries did.
In any case, not to worry, the deus ex machina was waiting in the wings all along . What the Kyoto Protocol was incapable of achieving, the 2008 global economic meltdown had no problem doing. Figure 1 shows the total emissions of the Kyoto countries are now well below the 1990 benchmark … so I suppose the unfortunate citizens in the those countries are celebrating their great success, and hoping that the economic depression continues, no?
No?
w.
PS—It is obvious from this data that economic depression causes a reduction in CO2 emissions.
What has not been so obvious to the Kyoto folks is that the converse is true—forcibly reducing CO2 emissions comes at a cost to the economy.
Barry: “Carbon policies are about risk management. ”
No they’re not. Go read Agenda 21 again. They are not about risk management, they are about North-South transfers. The precursor to this was laid out in the Brundtland Commission report on Sustainable Development in the 1980s.
Your comment about predicting Australia’s future economy after implementing a $23/tonne tax is simply silly. As an exporting economy, Australia’s future depends entirely upon the costs of its exports relative to those of dozens of other nations around the world and a legion of economic factors. Within Australian alone, the $23 is only one of a host of economic factors affecting costs. If it’s accompanied by a massive corporate income tax cut, for example, the net result could be zero. We know better than to play your stupid ‘pin the tail on the donkey’ game.
The point you seem determined to miss is simply this. It is economically self destructive to add a cost to an essential when: 1, it is unclear that the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 has any significant harmful effects; and 2, it is unclear that increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has anything to do with human activity, given that natural sources exceed human emissions by many orders of magnitude and, as IPCC itself has noted in its expert reports, neither the natural sources nor the sinks are known with any degree of precision.
Speaking as a Canadian and hence a competitor to Australia in many of the commodities both nations produce, I’m delighted that Australia is going to be pricing itself higher in markets that Canadian companies and commodities want to move into. I love it when the competition blows bullet holes in their own feet.
Willis: “Yes, there are sure to be errors and inaccuracies in the CO2 emission figures.”
This is one of the great potential problems in all this. I’ve been working with energy and fuel production statistics for years. One of the biggest problems here is that while the production of raw fuel in all its various forms is well known, how much of it is converted into CO2 is another matter entirely. For example, we know rather well how much gas Russia produces, and the IEA has rather good tracking and reporting systems. However, I have heard some pipeline experts note that leak rates on Russian gas pipelines could be as much as 5%. Even in North America, there is a leak rate at some fraction of 1%. This is just an example to show that straight extrapolations from fuel produced to CO2 released is not that simple.
To my knowledge, the COP/MOP negotiators have still not resolved the problem of how countries are to measure and report their emission levels. Not that it matters any more, because Kyoto expires at the end of next year and there will not be a successor agreement. In one sense, the collapse of the Copenhagen conference makes this entire topic moot. Enviros like Barry can shout and scream all they want, but the international process has failed, finally and completely. The BRIC nations have said “no”, and that’s the end of it. International climate change initiatives died in a Denmark snowfall.
SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND POWER CRISIS
[SNIP: Dear Dev. Go away. Take your polemic with you. I’m happy if you post on-topic science or opinion. I am not happy with your cut and pasted rants. Stop them now, they are not wanted. -w.]
W, “What has not been so obvious to the Kyoto folks is that the converse is true—forcibly reducing CO2 emissions comes at a cost to the economy.”
Shouldn’t that be,
“What has not been so obvious to the Kyoto folks is that the converse is true—forcibly attempting to reduce CO2 emissions comes at a cost to the economy. While not reducing the emissions.
More Soylent Green! says:
November 10, 2011 at 6:31 am
Kyoto was just another little step towards moving us towards world governance. Results don’t matter. It doesn’t matter that the USA reduced emissions more than some Kyoto members, that many signatories didn’t make their goals, or that overall emissions were not reduced. All that matters is that the USA decided to make it’s own way, rather than going along with the herd.
BTW: Did you know President Obama never signed the Kyoto Protocol Treaty?
________________________________________________________________
Did you know President Obama won’t sign anything until after the 2012 election??
Colin says:
November 10, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Indeed. I did not mean to minimize the complexity of the calculations, and the fine judgements involved. My point was that there are a lot of bright folks like yourself working on it, so the numbers are not likely to be far wrong. Sure, there will be over and under estimates, but by and large, those numbers are well researched and cross-checked.
Dang, sounds like a bleak death, encompassed in a very poetic line. Nice work.
I suspect, however, that a number of efforts will be made to reanimate the corpse, and that when these fail, then the jackals will circle the kill and demand their rightful share of the climate bounty …
w.
I can’t find anything about what Canada has done to comply with its Kyoto commitments, except for this:
“The world is now turning the page on Kyoto…”
http://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/ed-es/KPIA2009/s1_eng.htm
The only other thing Canada has done is run commercials urging Canadians to take the One Tonne challenge, by turning off lights they were not using. I think those commercials blew the Kyoto compliance budget years ago.
Can anyone offer a suggestion as to why the Mauna Loa CO2 record (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full) does not reflect the drop in emissions in 2007 as shown by Willis?
CO2 is supposedly a well mixed gas and even if it takes some time to mix, is it reasonable to expect the Mauna Loa record to show at least a small downward blip by now?
Gary Mount says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:16 pm
I can’t find anything about what Canada has done to comply with its Kyoto commitments, except for this:
_________________________________________________________________________
Well, they are putting a few billion dollars into CO2 sequestration … read “enhanced oil recovery”. No spending on credits in Brazil, but there are credits for tree planting, no till farming, home energy efficiency upgrades to name a few … and the CO2 “sequestered” in oil bearing formations will allow more oil to be recovered from the formation. No different from what oil companies have been doing for years but by upping the scale and capturing CO2 from coal fired power plants, you get to claim credits for producing more oil … win win?
John Trigge says:
November 10, 2011 at 10:17 pm
John, please note that I’m showing a total of something around a third of the total CO2 emissions. In addition, these are from the nations hit hardest by the global financial crisis. If you want to compare the atmospheric CO2 to something, you have to use the global emissions.
That may answer your question …
w.
Wayne Delbeke says:
November 10, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Gary Mount says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:16 pm
I can’t find anything about what Canada has done to comply with its Kyoto commitments, except for this:
_________________________________________________________________________
Well, they are putting a few billion dollars into CO2 sequestration … read “enhanced oil recovery”. No spending on credits in Brazil, but there are credits for tree planting, no till farming, home energy efficiency upgrades to name a few … and the CO2 “sequestered” in oil bearing formations will allow more oil to be recovered from the formation. No different from what oil companies have been doing for years but by upping the scale and capturing CO2 from coal fired power plants, you get to claim credits for producing more oil … win win?
Well, no. “Enhanced oil recovery” with high-pressure CO2 in the bottoms of oil wells – when done to recover oil from known, under-production wells! – IS an economically viable way of using CO2.
But to arbitrarily extract, cool, compress, and pump very low pressure, very high-temperature CO2 from a power plant or cement plant exhaust to very high pressures and then pump it into into random-placed holes very deep underground wastes 28 to 32 percent of the power produced FROM that existing power plant.
barry says:
November 10, 2011 at 5:17 pm (replying to previous comments)
Both examples are flawed. Military expenditure has a direct, known and equal benefit for every citizen.
Not in dollar values. But you’ve missed the point.
And “carbon” policies are predicated on the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy: “Since we can’t think of any other cause, then CO2 must be the cause.”
You haven’t followed the conversation or the links. Many (maybe most) economic impact studies don’t factor in the cost of climate change, CO2-induced or otherwise.
If your argument is that the science is completely empty therefore carbon policies are needless, then fine. The logic is superb. Someone else may be interested in taking you up on that.
So, we are agreed that CO2 limiting government policies like Kyoto and Copenhagen:
A. Will not, and have not, actually changed the world’s CO2 emission levels.
B. That (attempting to) change the world’s CO2 levels will not change the future climate by noticeable amounts – that is, man’s CO2 releases will not change the world’s temperatures by a noticeable amount (3/4 of one degree) from natural, already-existing variations.
C. That a warmer world with more CO2 in it has led to a 17 to 28% increase in plant growth of all plants and seaweeds and plankton and the like.
D. That efforts to limit CO2 production by Pelosi in 2007 and 2008 DID lead to the (deliberate) economic catastrophe of 2008; and that recession in 2008 is continued by the subsequent democrat-socialists in the White House, EPA, DOE, NOAA, NSIDC, NWS, NASA-GISS, Penn State, CRU, etc and the world’s elite training grounds who DID succeed in destroying the world’s economies.
E. That worldwide economic troubles harm billions, and serve only the politicians at those governments who pay for self-serving “economic” studies by fellow politicians at such universities and foundations who get paid for producing such “studies” …
F. That controlling energy production worldwide will directly murder hundreds of millions through disease and poor nutrition and bad water and lack of sewage treatment and real pollution controls, while condemning billions to a short hard life of utter poverty and misery by limiting their food, fuel, heat, power, water, transportation, health and building needs.
G. That so-called “studies” of the “economic harm” from increasing CO2 are (deliberately) exaggerated and falsified by those who benefit socially and politically and economically and mentally (in the sense of their need for a superior “moral” Gaian-Utopia justification for their religious dogmas of CAGW) in order to justify such harm to the innocent poor worldwide. (Human = evil, prosperity or capitalism = evil, God = evil, earth = Divine)
Willis:
I will disagree with the logic behind a couple of your original graphes for CO2 trends before and after Kyoto, particularly with respect to the European community who did choose to “sign” the Kyoto Treaty limiting CO2 emissions, but who didn’t actually have to “implement” the carbon limits that the Kyoto Treaty required.
USSR. Burns very little natural gas (compared to its total and very poorly managed economy and energy production) but DOES export tens of millions of tons of natural gas and oil to Europe, who will be buying it and burnign it there. (Actually, Russia did strongly oppose the treaty because it would have limite Russian economic growth, but then their president (Putin at the time I believe) got bribed/convinced that the limits wouldn’t actually be applied/got told that carbon offsets (into this pocket and hhis supporters’ pockets) would make make up for the known economic penalties of carbon restrictions.
Former Socialist/communist countries in east Europe. They had little/nothing to gain from Kyoto’s restrictions, but were not strong enough to withstand the pressure to sign, and who felt that the international pressure to sign, plus the international condemnation of those who refused (witness Czech’s ostracism when its president refused to kowtow to the socialists!), plus the international “good will” they needed in terms of gains and development money made up the difference. (Obviously, none of the Kyoto benefits actually happened, and all of the penalties did happen, but “internatinal studies” of international pressure-ployed politics won’t ever “predict” failures, will they?…)
Germany. Convinced rightly that by setting the start time of Kyoto when there were hundreds of poorly-run inefficient coal-powered East German power plants going, and by setting the target time at a point when these plants were stopped and the West German power was flowing into East Germany to replace it, made the Kyoto limits without doing anything.
UK/Great Britain. Likewise. Was measured by changes from old coal plants into newer gas-fired plants and nuclear. Was a natural gas and oil exporter, as was Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Sweden (hydro-power exporter – a BIG winner in Kyoto) and the other North Sea production cartel.
Dev Bahadur Dongol :
“1# Energy is never lost nor created – law of conservation of energy.”
This is true, but also meaningless. It is energy gradient that creates work. The law of entropy tells us that eventually all energy will consist of heat at a uniform temperature everywhere – the so called heat death of the universe. The energy will still be there, but no work can be done. Life dies.
Hydro electric uses the potential energy that exists between water at the top of the dam and the bottom When you release this water, the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. When you place a turbine in the way, most of that kinetic energy is converted to rotational energy of the blades. Therefore the water has less kinetic energy. You could theoretically place another turbine lower down in the water flow, as gravity will speed the water up. But that water will have less energy than it would have had if the first turbine had not extracted it.
An analogy would be a man jumping from a 100ft tower. When he hits the ground he has a lot of kinetic energy to be dissipated – with disasterous results. If however, we arrange a series of platforms – 10 each of 10ft intervals – he is able to arrive safely on the ground. At each platform, 1 tenth of the kinetic energy of the first scenario is extracted. The conventional hydro turbine system is analogous to the first scenario. Your modification is analogous to the second scenario. Either way, the amount of energy that can be extracted is limited to the original potential energy of the water at the top of the dam.
To Vince Causey
[snip]
NB: I have been explaining this ‘theme and on climate change’ to the people in the street and various science departments, clubs and exhibitions since last 3 years. I have signature collection of over 1500 people. I have satisfied all of them and hope you are also satisfied. Please go to the blog: devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com for more details. There are three video clips to show practically that the turbines can be installed in series and number does not make any difference. You can do the experiment yourself and it is not costly. Please help me to disseminate this invention as much as you can. Can we be email friends? My email address is dev.dangol@yahoo.co.uk
[Please do no hijack the tread in this way with something very specific that is of only peripheral relevance. Please take your conversation off-line ~ jove, mod]
They’ve done well at reducing to 1990 levels, since their 1990 emissions were all high, and have declined since after the fall of the Soviet Empire. They’ve reduced their emissions, but no thanks to Kyoto
What has not been so obvious to the Kyoto folks is that the converse is true—forcibly reducing CO2 emissions comes at a cost to the economy.
============
Oversimplified and not entirely correct. For example, Oil furnaces last about 20 years. A US user who replaces a terminal case oil furnace with a natural gas furnace, will emit less CO2 per BTU, remove a tiny amount from the US current account deficit, etc. A bit of economic gain and a reduction in CO2.
Developing countries OTOH …. It’s amazing that the Kyoto folk never did even a cocktail napkin analysis of where future emissions increases were going to come from. But they didn’t. Many still haven’t.
Don K says:
November 11, 2011 at 7:26 am
You missed an important word in my statement, Don—”forcibly”. The guy replacing his furnace is doing so voluntarily, and so his situation is not relevant to what I had said.
It is when we are forced to reduce CO2 purely for the sake of reduction by e.g. a carbon tax that it comes at a cost to the economy.
w.
Damaging the economy cuts CO2 emissions; cutting CO2 emissions damages the economy. Perfect symmetry.
RACook: “….but then their president (Putin at the time I believe) got bribed/convinced that the limits wouldn’t actually be applied/got told that carbon offsets (into this pocket and hhis supporters’ pockets) would make make up for the known economic penalties of carbon restrictions”
Close but not quite. Putin was indeed bribed but by the EU nations. Putin was inclined against ratifying Kyoto on the grounds that the damage done to Russia’s oil exports would not be met by payment for hot air credits. This had become an issue because the COP parties were introducing increasing difficulty in having such credits recognized as emission reductions under the Kyoto Emission Trading Mechanisms. This occurred throughout the COP conferences in the period 2001-2003.
What turned the tide was that the EU got desperate and promised Putin admission to the World Trade Organization if Russia signed on.
Willis: “…so the numbers are not likely to be far wrong.”
That’s a reasonable statement as long as we don’t put too high a degree of precision on it. On a global basis the estimates are probably reasonable plus or minus several hundred million tonnes.
While we’re on the topic of Kyoto, there’s a central aspect that essentially everyone on this board has missed. Kyoto is and always has been about economic competition. This became very apparent at the COP conferences late in the 1990s. In fact this topic was quite openly discussed among the various EU delegates.
Quite simply it’s this. The EU has an average population density of about 500/sq/km. The US is about a tenth of that. In short, the US has enormous potential for future population, industrial and economic growth that Europe does not. With the rise of China starting in the 1990s, many EU economic planners have become greatly concerned that over the next century or so there will be a great shift in the world’s economic axis from North America-Europe to North America-Asia. Given the geographic constraints on Europe, sooner or later it becomes irrelevant to the overall global economy. Their concern over this has risen since the end of the Cold War. Europe no longer matters as much given the absence of the need to confront the USSR. Thus they saw, and still believe, that US interests will become increasingly distant from those of Europe over time.
The purpose of Kyoto from the perspective of the EU was to restrain US growth. Less dependent upon fossil fuel than the US, and with the starting bonus of using 1990 as a benchmark year, they saw and still see Kyoto as a means of keeping the US from overwhelming Europe in its relations with and trade penetration of China and the rest of Asia. In short, rather than try to run faster, they’re trying to compete by putting leg-irons on the runner beside them.
In related news…
Holyoke Peck School students learn ‘350’ is the stable and safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in the air
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/holyoke_peck_school_students_l.html
Colin;
Just another set of calculations that the Frack Gas boom has knocked into a cocked hat. The US, and the EU if it so chose, are now both de facto energy independent. China is likely to be. What that changes is almost everything.