Charting the outcome of the Obama – China climate deal by 2030

Ed Hoskins submits this essay

In November 2014, to much fanfare, President Obama concluded an agreement with China on Climate. This was as a precursor to the major Paris climate conference in December 2015, where it is anticipated that a definitive and binding Climate agreement should be reached.  These notes follow through that 2014 agreement as far as it concerns future likely CO2 emissions up until the year 2030.

Essentially the agreement said that whilst Western Nations would be expected to reduce CO2 emissions substantially, China, India and the rest of the developing world would continue its CO2 emissions growth until at least 2030 to ensure that continuing enhancement of the living standards of their populations, and that only then China would limit further growth of its CO2 emissions.

The Obama – China agreement on climate will do nothing to stop the  escalation of CO2 emissions from the developing world, especially from China.  But continuing at current rates of growth will have little impact on improved development in most of the underdeveloped world, ~55% of the then world population.

The impact of growing CO2 emissions from the developing world was acknowledged by Professor Richard Muller in his October 2010 presentation here:

These notes simply take known data about world CO2 emissions and population as at the end of 2013 and carry out a straight-line extrapolation of that data forward to 2030 using the period from 2000 to 2013 as the indicator of rate of change. The source CO2 emissions data up to the end of 2013 is at:

This presentation refers to earlier analyses of the growth of CO2 emissions at:

The overall impact on the developed and developing worlds in terms of both total CO2 emissions and resulting likely emissions / head of population is shown below:

Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 11.32.35

Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 11.37.52

Both this and the former analyses divide the world’s nations into seven logical groups with distinct attitudes to CO2 control:

developed nations:

  • United States of America, attempting CO2 emissions control under Obama’s EPA and already achieving marked CO2 emissions reduction because of the growing use of shale gas for electricity generation.
  • The European Union and EFTA , (including the UK), currently believers in action to combat Global Warming and where environmental action groups are resisting the exploration for shale gas and the use of Nuclear energy.
  • Japan, the former Soviet Union, Canada and Australia are developed nations, currently rejecting controls on CO2 emissions.

developing nations:

  • advanced developing nations, still developing rapidly including:

South Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan: (KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW).

  • China and Hong Kong: developing very rapidly.
  • India: developing rapidly from a low base.
  • Rest of World (~160 Nations): developing quite rapidly but from a low base.

The extension of the trends between 2000 and 2013 to 2030 is shown below:

Screen Shot 2015-03-03 at 07.26.30

The following table outlines the straightforward basis for the extrapolation of data that could well result from the Obama – China climate deal.  In particular it shows the scale of the radical change 2000 – 2013 – 2030, with China moving from ~14% to 37% of all global emissions over the 30 year period.  The EU(27)+EFTA moving from ~17% to 7% over the same period.  The position of the USA is also diminished from ~25% to ~11% over the same period.

Screen Shot 2015-03-11 at 13.09.10


This article predicts the likely CO2 emissions picture by 2030 the possible end point of the Obama – China climate deal in 2030.  it uses the CO2 emissions development from 2000 to 2013 as the predictor to further CO2 emissions growth.

According to these straightforward calculations overall world CO2 emissions could grow by ~36% up to ~48,000,000,000 tonnes.  The Developed world, if it continues on its current track would see a reduction overall of ~711,000,000 tonnes over the 16 year period, whereas the developing world would see the substantial increase of 13,400,000,000 tonnes at the same time.  Only the developed grouping, JP RU CA AU, would see a marginal increase of CO2 emissions.

By 2030 the CO2 emissions of developing Nations could well exceed the developed Nations by some 2 1/2  times.

Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 11.41.33

The largest contributor to the growth in emissions is inevitably China at an additional ~8,020,000,000 tonnes, followed at a quarter of that level by the other rapidly developing economies, KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW.  India and the other 160 underdeveloped nations would grow significantly percentage wise but only modestly in absolute terms.  India will have grown to about 1/6 the rate of China and the other 160 Nations grouped together at about 1/4 of the China emissions.

China by 2030 will then be responsible for about 37% of CO2 emissions worldwide and even if China were by that time to limit its emission growth it would be likely to remain with that share of worldwide CO2 emissions whilst other developing nations increased their CO2 outputs to improve the development level of their own populations.

Screen Shot 2015-03-02 at 17.21.06

However more important will be the likely resulting CO2 emissions / head which give a significant guide to the level of National development.  The consumption figures for the USA and Europe will diminish by about 20% each whereas the other developed group, JP RU CA AU, may well advance marginally by ~+6%.  The  JP RU CA AU group could well exceed the emissions/head level of the USA.  China by 2030 would exceed the four other groups and could begin to approach similar levels of emission / head as the USA.

Screen Shot 2015-03-02 at 14.36.57

It appears that with growing populations in India and the developing world their overall CO2 emissions / head will remain fairly constant.  On the other hand some of the developing Nations will advance their CO2 emissions / head substantially with China approaching ~11.6 tonnes / head for its whole population by then of some 1.5 billion.  By 2030 this will be almost twice the value in Europe at 6.2 tonnes / head and is approaching the then 14.6 tonnes / head level in the USA,  The European level will level will be close to the other rapidly developing Nations, KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW.

Europe is likely to diminish its CO2 emissions / head to as little as ~ 6.4 tonnes / head.   This will then be close to the worldwide average and could even be overtaken by the rapidly developing nations, KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW.

It is not clear how much reduction of industrial capability will result from these reduced European  emissions but it could continue to cause detrimental economic damage to European competitiveness when compared to other markets in the developing world, which are less concerned about CO2 reduction to control  “Climate Change”.  It should also be noted that Germany, the major CO2 emitter in Europe, is currently adding to its CO2 output by increasing it’s use of coal for base load electrical energy production, so eventually European emissions reduction may not be achieved to the extent anticipated here over the coming 16 years.

Although the developing Nations of India and the Rest of World (160 nations) should see substantial growth (about +50%), but that will only be growing from their present very low  base.  As a result resulting from their population growth they will not significantly add to their emissions / head and thus an increase to their level of development.  They will remain at only ~2 tonnes / head, which would mean the provision of electricity for these 4.8 billion people by then about 56% of the  world population will still remain severely  restricted.

So there will continue to be substantial continuing demand from both India and the other 160 underdeveloped nations for more access to reliable electricity supply.  This demand could well increase CO2 emissions for these 4.8 billion people and thus the estimate for 2030 of ~48,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions overall may well be a significant underestimate.  This is particularly so as these developing nations all will have access to indigenous available coal reserves.  Just doubling of the CO2 / head for this underdeveloped population level to the modest level of 4 tonnes /head  would increase world CO2 emissions from ~ 48,000,000,000 tonnes by a further ~10,000,000,000 tonnes to the region of 60,000,000,000 tonnes.

Temperature Consequences

At a total of ~48,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions per annum by 2030 when compared to the total of CO2 in the atmosphere it amounts to about I/600 by weight.  But about half of that increased amount is quickly re-absorbed by the oceans and sequestered by improving the fertility of all plant life on the planet.

Current CO2 levels are ~400 ppmv but an apparent optimum for plant fertility, for example as used in greenhouses, is in excess of 1000 ppmv.  And past history shows that concentrations of CO2 can be at many thousands of parts per million with no ill effects on climate except for luxuriant plant life.

So at the rate of emissions at ~48,000,000,000 tonnes per annum, this would be equivalent to ~5 ppmv rate / annum, but with 50% absorption, it would take more than 200 years to add that extra amount of CO2 to the atmosphere to 1000 ppmv, if that were at all possible by burning fossil fuels.  In the 16 year period to 2030 a further 20-30 ppmv could be added to the world’s CO2 concentration.

According to the calculations of the logarithmic diminution of the effectiveness of CO2 as greenhouse gas, using IPCC figures, shown in:


This additional CO2 up to as much as 1000 ppmv could only add something between 0.4°C and 0.9°C to world temperatures in total, (this range assumes that water vapour and clouds are responsible for between 90% and 80% of the 33°C greenhouse effect).  And beyond 1000 ppmv any further CO2 additions to the atmosphere will have very little effect indeed on temperature because of the effect of logarithmically diminishing returns in terms of added temperature with further increases of CO2 concentrations.

With increased plant productivity, a slightly warmer climate and with greater areas available for agriculture this can hardly be seen as a world-wide catastrophe or an immediate global emergency.


All attempts to reduce CO2 emissions assume that any man-made warming of the climate is dangerous and that it could be controlled by reducing Man-made CO2 emissions mainly by the developed western Nations.  But by 2030 those developed Nations would only be responsible for some 30% of global CO2 emissions. And their likely reduction in emissions would be marginal because it could only amount to ~1/20 of the increased of emissions from the developing world.

In addition it is clear that even the continuation of current CO2 emissions growth associated with population growth in the rest of the underdeveloped world will do little to enhance the level of development for the larger part (~55%) of the then global population.

Western world opinion has conflated CO2 from burning fossil fuels, as a pollutant, with other real pollutants that can arise from burning fossil fuels (SO2, N2O, particulate matter, etc.).  World opinion has failed to understand that CO2 is currently close to an historically low level in the atmosphere and any real reduction of CO2 levels would jeopardise all life on earth by damaging the Carbon cycle by means of which all plants survive.

So it is clear that CO2 emissions will continue to escalate, no substantial temperature reduction or control of Climate Change can occur as a result of the Obama – China climate deal.  And in addition any escalation of CO2 levels would be beneficial to life on earth.

And any CO2 emissions reduction is unlikely to be useful to control climate.

From ice core records for our current benign Holocene interglacial it is clear that the previous millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest in the last 10,000 years, some 3.0°C lower than the Holocene climate optimum, ~9000 years ago.  At 10,000 years old our current benign holocene interglacial is now long in the tooth.  That would seem to point to a coming real glaciation either this century, next century or in this millennium.  That in combination with the current Dalton minimum solar characteristics means that real cooling as opposed to warming is more than likely to be imminent.

Any future cooling is likely to make any warming, whether man-made or not, that occurred in the late 20th century look wholly beneficial but trivial and entirely irrelevant.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
March 13, 2015 5:08 pm

And yet the US is the CO2 villain……

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
March 14, 2015 12:22 am

I though that India was the new target at COP 22 in Paris: a nice soft target unlike China and the US. Who cares about actual emission numbers: this is climate science and only projections count. India could easily double or triple its CO2 emissions per capita because it starts from a super low base line: 100%, 200%! increase, good scary stuff to convince Joe Sixpack, so also loved by the “Green” press and “Green” politicians..

March 13, 2015 5:10 pm

By 2030, China’s GDP will be around $30T per year and it will be the largest, most powerful economy on earth.

Reply to  Alan Poirier
March 13, 2015 5:22 pm

Not without democratic reforms otherwise it’s all going to end in tears..

Reply to  clipe
March 13, 2015 9:21 pm

all legally binding agreements between nations end in tears. at some point in time someone will insist that the treaty be honored. in blood if not gold.

Reply to  clipe
March 14, 2015 12:02 pm

China is growing at the rate of 7 per cent per year without any reforms. It’s all forced growth at the West’s expense.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  clipe
March 14, 2015 9:21 pm

This agreement has not, and will not, be ratified by the Senate. It is not binding on the next President, nor even the current administration. Congress could refuse to fund it, though with the present “leadership” on the Hill, that’s unlikely.

Reply to  Alan Poirier
March 14, 2015 6:34 am

In 2000 or so-ish, I predicted China would be *the* producer to the world, and it would be so quickly. This was all aided by emissions controls, economic controls, high wages etc, in the developed world, literally, forcing manufacturers to make stuff in China (No emission controls and cheap labour). My prediction was poo-poohed at the time. In about 2005-ish onwards, how right my prediction was. China is building the worlds largest army and navy. Encroaching in on disputed territories and waters. Building massive water transport canals, cities, hiways etc etc. A test thorium reactor this year, and reactors to come online in a few years after.

March 13, 2015 5:18 pm

obama wants to hobble our economy and deconstruct our society: China climate deal, flooding the country with illegal aliens, helping Iran get an islamic-bomb, weaponising the IRS, collectivising the Internet, and on and on.
He hates America.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
March 13, 2015 5:33 pm

Not true. He’s just trying to turn the US into the mightiest litter-box on the planet.
Can’t you be happy with that, Mark?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Max Photon
March 13, 2015 6:12 pm

I don’t know Max. By 2030, China will be outsourcing to US and EU because of the cheap starving labor.

Reply to  Max Photon
March 13, 2015 6:23 pm

To be clear, I agree with Mark (and at least one of the cats).
As for China, they float on a veritable sea of silver, and it is their destiny to reestablish a world silver standard. By 2030 they will have made their currency redeemable in silver, opened their Mint to the world to free and unlimited coinage of silver, and have a mighty laugh at the pathetic history of the irredeemable dollar debacle.
The cheap starving labor certainly won’t be at their end.

Reply to  Max Photon
March 13, 2015 7:47 pm

The biggest players are working on a one world currency with all other currencies pegged to it. The big Q is who will run it. But there may be so much collapse, political upheaval, civil unrest and war between now and then (2020-2030) nobody really truly knows.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
March 13, 2015 8:40 pm

He is the Manchurian Candidate.

tom s
Reply to  Mark and two Cats
March 13, 2015 9:44 pm

Indeed. It is blatantly obvious.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Mark and two Cats
March 13, 2015 9:57 pm

Exactly right Mark et al.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
March 13, 2015 11:33 pm

The Brzezinski’s appear to want out of the Mideast quagmire. Maybe to free up resources for a fight with Russia & China. That’s the drift I get from their statements.

Steve E
March 13, 2015 5:27 pm

The hypocrisy, it burns. Even if you take Obama, the EPA, Institutional Green, et al at their word this “deal” undoes their word. Either CO2-caused CAGW is dangerous or it’s not. Your projections prove they can’t possibly believe it’s dangerous.

March 13, 2015 5:28 pm

topical piece today from the BBC,,,, Global CO2 emissions ‘stalled’ in 2014

Man Bearpig
Reply to  Ben D
March 14, 2015 1:55 am

BIzarre, has anyone told those at Mauna Loa ?
Mind you there is a little downtick at the end of the chart, so that’s it folks, its all over.
One last comment, I guess there is a paper waiting to be written about an 18 year lag in temperatures and CO2 levels.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Ben D
March 14, 2015 1:57 am

Interesting – emissions may have stalled but the CO2 keeps going up. How will that be explained? Surely it is not because the rise was natural, right?
If emissions stalled this is a perfect time to watch the concentration slow, stall or decline according to the actual human contribution. It would be most interesting if the rise continued unabated. That would put two problems on the table – the temperature stall in the presence of a CO2 rise, and a drop or stall in human emissions with a continued rise in CO2.
I may need more popcorn. The broad claim is the that CO2 rise is either mostly or entirely human in origin. Then we should be able to very rapidly make it stop rising. The coming Depression will test this theory.
How many years of continued human output drop and continued rise in CO2 will it take to invalidate the hypothesis of AG CO2 rise? Five? Soon we will have 100 reasons to excuse the Pause and another 100 to excuse the Rise.
This is going to be funnier than I thought.

Michael Spurrier
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 14, 2015 3:44 am

This could be the new trick if temperature won’t go up massage the CO2 figures so it looks like bringing down human CO2 output is bringing down the temperature and thus they are saving the world……

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 14, 2015 8:21 am

The emissions stalled, but still are about twice the measured increase in the atmosphere… Natural variability may mask the effect of the lower/stalled emissions, so only if that remains for a decade or so, the reaction would be clear. But as the above scenario shows, very little chance that will happen.

Doug Proctor
March 13, 2015 5:30 pm

Nothing Obama and China talked about will change anything in the progress of CO2 in the atmosphere for more than 15 years. His legacy is that of a bobble-head in the back window of a late-model sedan.
When will the eco-greens point this out?

Reply to  Doug Proctor
March 13, 2015 7:00 pm

Only purpose of Obama going to China was to provide assurance that Obama was a stupid as he appeared to be. And I suppose there were some golf courses in China which weren’t covered in smog.
In terms of America policy, Obama is behaving in manner that invites future US presidents to overturn everything he did and as way to gain public support.
And Dems will run on platforms that they are not Obama.
So Obama will be like Jimmy Carter but who does not build habitats for humanity.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  gbaikie
March 13, 2015 10:05 pm

I wouldn’t count on that. The evidence so far is that the Republicans will do anything Obama wants while punishing conservatives of all types. With somewhere north of several 10s of millions of new Democrat voters from illegal immigration and legal immigration we will most likely have a one party leftist dystopian state. I believe this is likely unless someone shows me how we get out of our current mess.

March 13, 2015 5:35 pm

Lil ol’ England here. Thanks for the review Mr. Hoskins, your conclusion is one which I can fully condone.
Trouble is………..
In the UK, we contribute ~2% to world CO² emissions and are being strapped by a unilateral ie self imposed carbon floor price which is set to rise incrementally by a preset accumulator irrespective of what the rest of the world does.
De-industrialization = here we come.
For most sane individuals [there are a few left] in Britain – it passeth all understanding but VERILY it is happening. Cripes on a bike and all the mainstream political parties are fully signed up [in blood] as green loonies, nutters who are beholden to agenda 21 and turning a relatively prosperous first world country into a version of North Korea sur the western Eurasian shelf.

Reply to  Athelstan.
March 13, 2015 8:43 pm

I’ll say one word. Just one word. UKIP.

March 13, 2015 5:44 pm

To be honest, technological advances, in my opinion via molten salt nuclear reactors, make any assumptions beyond 2020 useless.

Charles Nelson
March 13, 2015 6:04 pm

Let’s try and get the rest of the world up to our levels of CO2 production a.s.a.p. so that we can start saving the Environment.

Gary Pearse
March 13, 2015 6:09 pm

I think linear projections may be okay for the slower developers but a certain ‘patience’ in development or belief in a program for some CO2 reduction has to be factored in to keep the rapid developers just linear. Also, your per head emissions being linear, means your cummulative graph has to add in another 2B people – not linear.

Michael Wassil
March 13, 2015 6:15 pm

I would like to see those CO2 numbers in ppm either rather than or in addition to tons; I’d find the numbers more meaningful and less confusing. Or a comparison to the total tonnage of the atmosphere to keep things in perspective: 5.5 quadrillion tons, which is still confusing due to the two definitions of ‘quadrillion’.
5.5 x 10¹&#8309 = 5.500,000,000,000,000
5.5 x 10²&#8308 (UK) = 5.500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Michael Wassil
Reply to  Michael Wassil
March 13, 2015 6:16 pm

Whoops! That’s:
5.5 x 10^15
5.5 x 10^24
Looks like I accidentally dropped the trailing ‘;’ on those two superscripts. Sorry!

March 13, 2015 7:07 pm

China is in the enviable position of having the western industrialized world expertise and experience to benefit from.
China is simply thinking differently and will not cooperate with the western world. They will only pretend to.
Meanwhile here is what they already have and will add on.
China has now and within their country policies and agreements with other countries, planning their future to have the absolute best ways to generate energy at the lowest cost depending upon specific situations in their own country. This will include supplying energy at the lowest cost, depending upon needs, locations and special demands and toward the end, reducing air pollution. They do not believe that CO2 is a pollutant. For them CO2 is not an issue, it is the only available gaseous fertilizer for all plants and as such desirable to have.
Air pollution (particulates, combustion gases other than CO2) is a huge problem in several areas and they will clean this, but not the way the western world did it, like in London, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, etc. They simply have the advantage that their air pollution “problems” have been seen before in the western world and they think about it as a necessary evil, as it was before in the western world, that will in time be reduced, just like the western world did.
So China now has a lot of background information and realize that their problems are not different than faced before by the western world, but their solution(s) are/will be different. They do not believe in cost/benefit analysis or environmental impact analysis.
What they have done is to diversify as much as they can, using different energy producing techniques.
Their approach is each technique has downsides, so why spend all this time on cost/benefit analysis for each unless there is an obvious detrimental effect, just like now coal burning is generating unbearable air pollution in some areas.
So, use the least detrimental energy generating technology, within each area of China they deem appropriate. In their view, the best way to do it is look at the area, the needs, and select the best way to generate energy at the lowest cost.
Very windy: use wind turbine, China is #1 in the world
Lots of sun: use solar, China is #1 in the world
Hydropower: use where we have water, China is #1 in the world
The above not available then use:
Coal burning, for now use when no other options but think of replacing such, will take a while
Shale oil/gas extraction: will be an option coming to replace coal
Nuclear energy: already started with agreements with Canada etc.
Energy for transportation, cars etc. huge problem, they don’t know how to solve this yet.
So China is looking at every possible type of energy production and instead of spending years on cost/benefit analysis, they select the best way for each situation, knowing that each has some deleterious effect but that the wider the mixture of energy production you have, you are spreading the risk and the different types of possible deleterious effects are reduced in their intensity.
Nice that they have all the documentation from the western industrialized world to make their decisions on the best type of energy production technology to select for each situation they face.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  rd50
March 14, 2015 2:42 am

Mostly I agree. This is a bit off: “They do not believe in cost/benefit analysis or environmental impact analysis.”
They certainly do! They have decided it is time to start cleaning up the massive pollution and contamination, just as the US did 40 years ago. I am sure they will succeed. Public awareness is the motivation and external pressure matters perhaps a whit or two, that’s all. The difference between when China does it and when say, the UK does it, is they value common sense and protection of the whole population above political correctness, provided it does not undermine party authority. Western countries bow to PC and a culture manipulated by guilt-mongering, as long as it doesn’t undermine the ruling party’s authority. Not much difference except in terms of who benefits. France, Germany, UK, USA, they punish the middle class and warehouse the poor and reward the already wealthy. Not to say it couldn’t work, but it eventually leads to revolution. Canada, Sweden, S Korea, tend to think more holistically largely because they are small. Things have been going well for China and they are not going to leave 800m people in rural poverty. Otherwise, revolution, again. For energy they are rapidly investing (and leading) in processed biomass, plus Thorium fluoride and coal-to-liquids plus an emerging move to far better coal combustion technologies (for efficiency and emissions reduction, not CO2).
In terms of people movers that run on electricity they have I think more than the rest of the world put together. There are huge numbers of electric scooters which in other countries would be using gasoline. They also use combined heat and power plants like Sweden, Russia and Mongolia. The system efficiency exceeds combined cycle coal-fired power plants which cost maybe ten times as much. Asia does lots of sensible things.
Oh, one more thing: those windmills are mostly idle in winter because the CHP plants are running and they can’t use unreliable wind for heating. Coal: dig they must during the transition to nuclear, planning to be like France and Ontario.
Guest Professor
College of Engineering
China Agricultural University, Beijing

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 14, 2015 10:36 am

I agree with you. I was looking for a better way than cost/benefit analysis. What I wanted to point out is that they do cost/benefit analysis in a “practical” way rather than a “political” way as done in many other countries.
Your comments about Canada being “small”. OK. In population. Yes it is an advantage, but I think that an equal advantage is the political system, provincial vs. federal power and independence, gives Canada more flexibility in trying different things in different areas.
I may be wrong but their electric scooters probably get their electricity from coal combustion.
Have a nice time in China.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 14, 2015 10:59 am

Thank You for the 1st hand perspective and insights!

Reply to  rd50
March 14, 2015 7:27 am

Pittsburgh’s air went from being very dirty to very clean via one mechanism only: transferring all steel making to Asia. Now, the city is dying and becoming an uncontrollable slum like Detroit which also has very clean air now, too, thanks to deindustrialization.
[Rational use of filters and precipitators helped – but steel production was shutdown in that city’s area. .mod]

Reply to  emsnews
March 14, 2015 10:21 am

Dirty Steel making transfer yes, but we still have steel making in this area certainly much lower production but now much cleaner plants by far. If you think having to have street lights on at 11 in the morning because the pollution was so thick, I have news for you.
However the city is not becoming an uncontrollable slum like Detroit. This is nonsense. Just go visit. Steel making has been replaced.

March 13, 2015 7:15 pm

I’ve never trusted any numbers coming out of China, and lately, I don’t believe any coming from the U.S.
So, what is the point of arguing ?

March 13, 2015 7:18 pm

“This additional CO2 up to as much as 1000 ppmv could only add something between 0.4°C and 0.9°C to world temperature…”
It is believed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increasing this greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lead to climate change. This is an assertion with absolutely no corroborating evidence. All these assertions are based on computer climate game simulations and is just old ‘plain and simply’ wrong.

March 13, 2015 7:42 pm

“This article predicts the likely CO2 emissions picture by 2030 the possible end point of the Obama – China climate deal in 2030.”
Wait, if 2030 is the end point of the Obama-China climate deal, then China is off the hook. Obama committed the U.S. to cuts in emissions way before 2030, but China’s part of the deal doesn’t even begin until 2030. They can increase emissions all they want until 2030, and then they committed not to increase emissions further. Does that commitment only last one year?

Reply to  Louis
March 14, 2015 3:29 am

Even better China gets to provide the ‘proof’ of their emissions , now can anyone guess what that will mean in pratice ?

March 13, 2015 8:02 pm

“Currently believers in action to combat Global Warming” my but aren’t they still brave.

jai mitchell
March 13, 2015 8:06 pm

I was wondering, what is the source of this graphic?
I looked through the source documents and did not see it. I have seen several projections of future economic growth and related CO2 emissions trajectories for China, including their own, and none of them show a straight line increase over the next 15 years as yours does.
Additionally, it seems that you attribute the reduced benefit of future emissions reductions based on this expansive emissions projection, coupled with an overgenerous attribution to saturation. It has been shown recently that the Doppler broadening of the absorption spectrum through the column of the earths atmosphere has a large effect that reduces the ability for CO2 to reach saturation. This has been physically measured in Oklahoma and Barrow, AK.

jai mitchell
March 13, 2015 8:07 pm

sorry, the graphic didn’t show, here it is:comment image

Reply to  jai mitchell
March 14, 2015 1:14 am

“These notes simply take known data about world CO2 emissions and population as at the end of 2013 and carry out a straight-line extrapolation of that data forward to 2030 using the period from 2000 to 2013 as the indicator of rate of change.
The source CO2 emissions data up to the end of 2013 is at:
Combine this with the classification of Nations used here and you get this diagram.

jai mitchell
Reply to  edmh
March 14, 2015 11:04 am

These notes simply take known data about world CO2 emissions and population as at the end of 2013 and carry out a straight-line extrapolation of that data forward to 2030 using the period from 2000 to 2013 as the indicator of rate of change.
have you seen this?

William Astley
March 13, 2015 8:07 pm

Interesting presentation. Thank-you
The scam has another level of complexity.
The developing countries want the developed countries to compensate them for the developed world’s past carbon emissions.
The developing countries have asked for $100 billion a year, as a place holder (there is commitment for a one time contribution of $10 billion, however as in the past the actual money provided is less than promised, there is zero chance the developed countries will come up with $100 billion/year). That number will grow to $500 billion/year to $1 trillion a year based on NGO calculations.
Remember the AGW scheme is not about stopping global warming. The objective of CAGW is income redistribution (redistributed by the UN) and stopping/reversing industrial growth.
At this point, there is all talk no stopping/reversing industrial growth. The schemes will result in further job losses to Asia. The public will push back when there are consequences for the madness.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  William Astley
March 14, 2015 3:01 am

Actually the developing countries did not ask for that money, they were offered it. The question is by whom? Who is asking and offering?
Read the Copenhagen agreement and trace the chain of authority. It is a tiny, self-appointed group that specifically answers to no one. The money raised will first be spent in-country as directed by a national committee that has a membership which is not accountable to the national government. Funding is obligatory. In the grand old tradition, it is taxation without representation. It is extraordinary to see the USA leading this charge. The Copenhagen agreement will be ruled unconstitutional in most countries. You cannot keep a snake in the house, as they say in Africa.
The $100bn is for ‘climate reparations’ where anything and everything imaginable is eligible. I have no problem with spending a well targeted $100bn on foreign aid and budget support but not through unaccountable committees who cannot be removed or disciplined and not on the pretext of ‘CAGW damages’. ‘Damages’ are awarded after proof of damage has been submitted to the court and there are no middlemen. CAGW is mostly about being a middleman.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 14, 2015 3:33 am

handing over $100bn to some of the worlds most corrupt regimes is only likely to make the manufacturers of Lear jets and other high end luxury goods happy and do nothing for the environment nor for the people of those countries. There already is too many multibillioner 3rd world leaders .

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 14, 2015 7:35 am

This tiny minority that offered the BRIBES to get third world countries to pretend there is global warming are people with a name: The Bilderberg gang.
They meet secretly every year at various resorts that are remote from cities. Long ago, people began demonstrating against this conspiracy gang and the military had to suppress the demonstrations like the huge one in Montreal.
So now they meet at mountain resorts or tiny islands.
They are the very very rich, the bankers,the power brokers and media owners. That’s who have decided we are roasting to death and need to pay a high CO2 tax to keep alive.

March 13, 2015 8:14 pm

When expecting a Carbon credit global economy, what would you expect? Redistribution can can take many forms. Just sayin

Mac the Knife
March 13, 2015 8:57 pm

Obama did not negotiate a ‘climate deal’ with china.
He doesn’t care what china does, from a CO2 emissions perspective.
He simply used it as a cover to further cripple energy production in the US of A…. and further constrain the tepid growth of the US economy.

March 13, 2015 9:12 pm

Yep, the whole concept is a “progressive” virtual tax. On the bright side it is a tax we are already paying, or have prepaid by demographic deceleration and regulation. On the dark side, it is an outright grant of hegemony to the Chinese. Apparently Barak is no historian.
When did the Japanese, Russians, Canadians, and Australians get smarter than us, anyway?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  gymnosperm
March 14, 2015 3:02 am

Around 1940.

tom s
March 13, 2015 9:27 pm

I am just so absolutely sick of this political nonsense. Absolutely sick of it.

March 13, 2015 9:47 pm

Not withstanding his degrees from Columbia and Harvard, his former position on the faculty of the University of Chicago and his current position as President of the U.S., Obama’s thinking on global warming climatology is emotional rather than logical or scientific. With luck our nation will survive this presidency and move on to a logical one.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
March 14, 2015 3:33 am

The British media are convinced that the Presidency is Hilary’s for the taking. I am unsure what her position on the global warming debate is however . Is it any clearer “over there” .

March 13, 2015 10:09 pm

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is beneficial to plant growth. There is no long term data that says CO2 levels have anything to do with temperature. There is some evidence from the ice cores that warmer temps cause CO2 to increase. The simple explanation is that the northern growing seasons lengthen and expand, causing soil to thaw. Then thawing soil allows bacteria to metabolize, releasing CO2. Large scale destruction of tropical forests also release CO2.
Current CO2 levels are extremely low in the history of global biology. Plants are evolving more efficient processes (C4) to extract atmospheric CO2, causing even lower CO2.

March 13, 2015 10:27 pm

Sooo, where does natural C02 fit in? Is the ratio between anthropogenic and natural C02 changing?

Reply to  nc
March 14, 2015 1:23 am

I’m not sure of your definition of natural. Regardless of that and whether there are isotope differences in the carbon and oxygen atoms. It probably makes no difference to the overall picture.
Its not as if you are dealing with levo-rotatory and dextro-rotatory proteins and various organic compounds.
Our bodies use levo things. If we ingest dextro instead; because the human body can’t use it , we would starve to death even though we were eating.

Reply to  nc
March 14, 2015 8:49 am

nc, human emissions increased a fourfold over the past 55 years. So did the increase in the atmosphere and the sink rate. That there are temporarily ups and downs in human emissions doesn’t matter much, as the average increase in the atmosphere is between 50-55% and averaged per year it is between 10% and 90% of the human emissions… The difference does sink somewhere in nature (mainly the deep oceans, the rest in vegetation and the ocean’s surface).

March 13, 2015 11:13 pm

The world’s economy has become interdependent. Limiting the emission of CO2 in the developed world will slow economic growth worldwide.
The US and EU cannot escape the fact that if limiting emissions were economically productive, their leading firms would have done it already.
The leaders of these countries are now making the mistake that the USSR made when it used central government commands to direct its economy.
The only ray of hope is that natural gas will be cheaper than coal and that the amount of gas is enough to drive the economies of the US and the EU.
This is conditional upon governments having the political will to permit fracking and coal mining.The EU seems on the verge of seeing the light, but the Greens may yet succeed in disrupting the EU economy.
The economies of the developed world will stagnate without cheap energy, coal or gas or both as production is transferred to the developing world.
Stagnation in the developed world will reduce the ability of rich developed-world people to import from the developing world. This will cause developing world economies to stagnate because we are now all inter-linked into a world economic system.
I put my money where my mouth is, as I have semi-retired in an Asian country that is keen on improving the living conditions of its people.

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
March 14, 2015 12:01 am

China will do what is in its best interests. The USA used to do that before 2008. Now it doesn’t.
In short the Obama-China agreement’ is a charade and nothing more. It is meaningless.

Bill 2
March 14, 2015 12:17 am

When can I expect this imminent cooling to begin?

Reply to  Bill 2
March 14, 2015 12:56 am

It has started now. It is dropping at the rate of 1deg per hour. I anticipate we will be at absolute zero in about 3 weeks.

William Astley
Reply to  Bill 2
March 14, 2015 1:42 am

Bingo, the wait is over. The ocean cooling has started. Solar activity continues to drop. From the solar end what we were waiting for is coronal holes to dissipate and/or to move to high latitude solar regions where the wind bursts they create no longer affect the distribution of ions in the earth’s atmosphere. The coronal holes have started to dissipated and move to high latitude regions. The coronal hole are the primary cause of cyclic solar wind bursts. The wind bursts create a charge differential in the ionosphere which in turns causes a movement of charge from high latitude regions to the tropical regions which affect cloud cover.
Ocean temperature anomaly January 1, 2015
Current ocean temperature anomaly March 12, 2015

Reply to  William Astley
March 14, 2015 1:53 am

Wow William! You answered that question as if the person was genuinely interested in your answer.

March 14, 2015 12:48 am

“Current CO2 levels are extremely low in the history of global biology. Plants are evolving more efficient processes (C4) to extract atmospheric CO2, causing even lower CO2.
I certainly agree with that assessment. We need two to three times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we have now. I remain unconvinced that man’s activities really puts very much CO2 into raising the ppm figure. I am afraid that mother nature handles it all and temperature leads CO2 concentration: but I am glad China is trying to put as much CO2 in the atmosphere as they can.
Upon looking at all the data and arguments for these past 30 years, I am convinced that CO2 has a net cooling effect and that effect may be so tiny that we can not measure it. (if it even exists)
This whole “CO2 will fry us” meme is crazy. It is just totalitarian politics coming from those that want to enslave you even more than you are now. I hope someday we will take an honest look at the physics of the atmosphere. (some day in the far future apparently)

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  markstoval
March 14, 2015 3:24 am

It is conclusively proven that an increase in CO2 causes, because of numerous negative feedbacks, a net negative response, do you think for a moment the fanatics would give up the anti-fossil fuel fight? Is it really about temperature? The Great Fear of the movement is someone will invent a cheap, infinite source of clean nuclear power. It is like fearing most of all, that the people around the world will wake up one morning and realise we all have to share this planet. A happy human family is very scary to nationalistic elites. Populations would refuse to be played against each other. An international currency would be agreed within days. The banks would be apoplectic.

Coeur de Lion
March 14, 2015 2:49 am

Hullo King Athelstan – another Brit king here. I’ve passed ‘complaints’ to the BBC about their recent warmist horror stories ‘Climate by Numbers’ and ‘Horizon’. Got a polite reply which inter alia said that warmist scientists outnumbered sceptics – I pointed the Beeb towards Global Climate Petition Project website with it’s 31,000 named American sceptic scientists and asked them to better that. Waste of rations?

March 14, 2015 3:44 am

The head posting is an important and first-class analysis that shows quite plainly the supreme irrelevance of any Western efforts to mitigate supposed future “global warming”, now that Mr Obama has unilaterally decided not to include China, India and other major developing nations in the new, dismal Treaty of Paris.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
March 14, 2015 5:02 am

Obama is not open for discussion. He has placed himself on a particular path and he will never, ever back down. He can be enclosed in a glacier and he will never change. Politics and human nature. I can never have a reasonable , logical discussion with a fanatic. My only weapon is my wit and an acid tongue. These people are beyond redemption and leave me the singular option of ridicule. I, frankly, don’t like to do it, but they give me no choice.

David A
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
March 14, 2015 5:03 am

It is very strange how this agreement was promoted, as if it meant anything. The only possible meaning is if the US actually followed Obama’s reduction plans. I do not think we will, nor do I think the US is bound to any such unilateral Presidential action.
Yet with oil at about $45 a barrel, the natural gas producers are struggling.

Reply to  David A
March 14, 2015 5:26 am

The amusing thing is that Obama was serious about it. He ‘forced’ a deal on the Chinese. The Chinese looked at him in a bemused fashion and agreed with his ‘harsh terms’. After Obama left they were rolling around the floor in fits of laughter.
Obama left the meeting proud and tall , waving a piece of paper.

March 14, 2015 4:38 am

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

In other words, it is impossible for the United States to do anything about it no matter how hard we try, no matter the politics, no matter the science. The fact is all of humanity will continue to burn everything that will burn until they all have ready access to inexpensive (for them) electricity for all their needs. (And the electric power must come from nuclear, or we are still burning fuel to make the electricity.)
Simple. Nuclear or burn. Global warming or not.

David S
March 14, 2015 5:26 am

I must admit that I hoped that the China deal would become a precedent that would be adopted . If all countries globally do what China has committed to ie keep increasing CO2 levels as fast as ever maybe in those 15 years we might finally have exposed the scam for what it is and not suffered from AGW inspired lunatic policies which threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 14, 2015 6:29 am

My favorite comment on the Obama/China
Climate Agreement is:

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 14, 2015 6:30 am
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
March 14, 2015 6:34 am
March 14, 2015 6:52 am

Ed, the CO2 emissions scenarios should be constrained by fossil fuel resources. It’s also important to keep in mind that US, international, and media misrepresent oil production figures. The typical approach they use is to use the term “liquids”. These “liquids” include biofuels, ethane (mostly used as a chemical feedstock), and other natural gas liquids.
Whatever source one uses to constrain the peak CO2 concentration should be documented, or the ultimate resource mentioned so it can be compared with other estimates. For example, if we use the BP Energy book figures as a starting base (they require some breakdowns bp doesn’t provide), the peak CO2 is about 630 ppm.
One key factor which seems to get masked, by the way these production figures are publicized, is the fact that crude and condensate production outside the USA and Canada has been on a near plateau for many years.
Thus we can deduce that, in spite of high prices, the rest of the world hasn’t been able to increase oil (crude and condensate) production. The gap between demand and supply has been covered by Canadian heavy, and USA light crudes from the so called “shales”. But both these sources require a high price, and the light oils lack components the refineries need. I suspect we are headed into an era of oil scarcity and this CO2 issue will mostly sort itself out because fossil fuel prices are going to increase beyond the reach of many.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
March 14, 2015 8:13 am

My understanding has always been that the higher prices were required in order to develop the technology. Those technologies have been developed, or mostly. Since those technologies are now in place, should lower oil prices matter?

William Astley
March 14, 2015 8:15 am

There are unintentional consequences of the developed countries volunteering for mutual assured CAGW economic destruction: Mandating the spending of trillions and trillions of dollars which they do not have (they are all running deficits) on green scams that do not work (do not significantly reduce CO2 emissions, do triple the cost of electricity, see German for proof of this assertion), to address CAGW which is not a problem as the planet has started to cool.
The real problem that the developing countries need to address is structural problems (say in addition to the mandated policies to waste trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work and economic destruction by stealth, the more than 3000 new EPA regulation created in 2014 to indirectly increase the cost of energy and stop/block development, the bureaucrats are true believers) which is one of the primary reason for the loss of jobs to Asia, which is the reason for the unsustainable deficits (less GDP to tax and more and more things to spend money on).
Rather than investing in green scams that do not work and that are an astonishing waste of money, China is planning to invest in 800 gigawatts of nuclear power which does reduce CO2 emissions.
We are losing the economic competition/battle with China. The Chinese GDP will exceed the US GDP by 2018. They have a plan, we have madness. Interesting the political/economic/military/rhetoric situation in Asia is similar to the situation before the start of the first world war.

China lashes out at US ‘pirate-style sense of insecurity’ Published March 14, 2015 Associated Press
BEIJING – China’s state news agency has accused the U.S. of having a “pirate-style sense of insecurity” in response to recent comments from Washington regarding Beijing’s territorial claims in the disputed South China Sea.
The Xinhua News Agency on Saturday took issue with remarks by U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki on Monday that Chinese land reclamation and construction work on disputed South China Sea outposts were fueling greater anxiety within the region.
Xinhua labeled Psaki’s comments biased and revealing of what it called Washington’s “pirate-style sense of insecurity.”

Paul in Sweden
March 14, 2015 3:09 pm

“Current CO2 levels are ~400 ppmv but an apparent optimum for plant fertility, for example as used in greenhouses, is in excess of 1000 ppmv.  And past history shows that concentrations of CO2 can be at many thousands of parts per million with no ill effects on climate except for luxuriant plant life.”
If we terraformed a planet we would likely want it to have a greater average temp and higher atmospheric CO2 concentration than our earth does today.

March 14, 2015 8:31 pm

Well the idiotic Obama “deal” expires with Obama (let’s hope for a competent successor). So this charting may need some major revision.

March 15, 2015 10:00 pm

Good analysis, Steven Goddard came to a similar conclusion immediately after this “deal” was announced.

March 16, 2015 1:51 am

Using CO2 emissions from 2000-2013 trajectory ignores the massive elephant in the room.
CO2 emissions did not rise in 2014.
A 1980’s standard air conditioner had a seer rating of around 6…the current US minimum standard is SEER 13…commercially available in the US is SEER 28.
Developing countries are not gong to be installing SEER 6 air conditioners so their energy consumption profiles are going to be different then what was the case in the US to achieve the same level of comfort.
The impact of the Obama deal with China is exactly nothing but making some climate advocates happy. The Chinese aready know that if they do absolutely nothing their emissions will drop in 2030 because their population will begin to drop in 2025. The biggest consumer of energy in China is the building boom and you can’t have a building boom and a declining population at the same time.

%d bloggers like this: