Reality Check: UN Climate Talks Stall Despite G7 Posturing

From the GWPF:

G7 Leaders Shift Decarbonisation Goal To End Of Century

Calls by the Group of Seven (G7) Monday to slash world carbon emissions did little to boost UN climate talks in Bonn, where frustration mounted over the snail-­like progress. Due to end on Friday, the 11­day Bonn talks are tasked with shaping a draft text for the November 30 ­December 11 UN conference in Paris, which must yield a global agreement. But after a week of wrangling, just about five percent had been shaved off a sprawling near ­90 ­page draft, mostly by removing glaring duplications, said delegates. —Agence France-Press, 9 June 2015

In a joint declaration from the G7 summit, leaders of the world’s richest countries called for a global phase-out of fossil fuels for the first time on Monday. That sounds great, but unfortunately, they’re talking about a lax timescale — “over the course of this century.” The leaders also committed to “doing our part to achieve a low-carbon global economy in the long-term,” though they didn’t announce any increased ambitions in cutting carbon in their own economies. –Eric Holthaus, Slate, 8 June 2015
Already in 2009 (L’Aquila summit), G8 made a similar announcement. How did it influence the Copenhagen climate summit? To sum up: G7 repeating UNFCCC + IPCC language and promising to go carbon neutral by 2099. —Oliver Geden, 8 June 2015
Trade union GMB has signed a landmark agreement with the fracking industry in a bid to accelerate the exploitation of shale gas and oil resources in the UK and boost local supply chains as the sector develops. In a move that is likely to anger environmental groups, GMB signed a joint charter with UK Oil and Gas (UKOOG) which argues that gas is “essential” to British industry and households and will continue to play a key role in the UK’s future energy mix. Gary Smith, GMB national secretary, said gas was a matter of national security. “Our homes and large parts of British industry need gas; any suggestion to the contrary is just not real world,” he said in a statement. —Jessica Shankleman, BusinessGreen, 9 June 2015
The lunatics have escaped their asylum and have taken over the entirety of this lovely and beauteous continent. They’re imposing import tariffs on cheap Chinese solar cells. This at the same time as vast swathes of public policy are devoted to the idea that we’ve got to have cheap renewable power in order to save our entire species from boiling itself. We’re also spending hundreds of billions to make such cheap renewables a reality. So, when someone comes knocking at the door asking if we’d like to purchase some cheap our answer is to try and tax them for their temerity? Seriously people, how did we end up with an entire continent, the cradle of modern civilisation, adopting such an insane public policy? –Tim Worstall, Forbes, 7 June 2015

Reality Check: UN Climate Talks Stall Despite G7 Posturing
Agence France-Press, 9 June 2015
Calls by the Group of Seven (G7) Monday to slash world carbon emissions did little to boost UN climate talks in Bonn, where frustration mounted over the snail-­like progress.

Delegates during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, Germany, June 2015  (AP Photo/Martin Meissner)

Groups of countries pleaded for greater efforts to streamline a draft text for a climate pact due to be adopted at a conference in Paris in just over six months.
“We are very concerned about the pace of negotiations,” said Amjad Abdulla of the Maldives, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) which are deeply exposed to climate change.

“We have not made the big jump forward that we need,” he told a stock­taking session. “There is clearly an urgent need to make more substantive progress and to proceed at a faster pace than we did last week,” said South Africa’s Nozipho Mxakatoc ­Diseko on behalf of the so ­called G77 and China group of developing nations.
Due to end on Friday, the 11­day Bonn talks are tasked with shaping a draft text for the November 30 ­December 11 UN conference in Paris, which must yield a global agreement.
The final document is supposed to enshrine the will of 195 countries to roll back climate change, spell out commitments to tackle greenhouse gases and provide aid to vulnerable economies from 2020.
But after a week of wrangling, just about five percent had been shaved off a sprawling near ­90 ­page draft, mostly by removing glaring duplications, said delegates. And there has been little serious talk about some of the many thorny issues that remain.
Full story

Delayed Until Further Notice: G7 Leaders Shift Decarbonisation Goal To End Of Century
Slate, 8 June 2015
Eric Holthaus
In a joint declaration from the G7 summit, leaders of the world’s richest countries called for a global phase-out of fossil fuels for the first time on Monday. That sounds great, but unfortunately, they’re talking about a lax timescale—“over the course of this century.”

476230778-president-of-the-european-council-donald-tusk-japanese

The leaders of the world’s richest countries wave goodbye to any urgent or binding climate targets on June 7, 2015 at Schloss Elmau near Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.

The leaders also committed to “doing our part to achieve a low-carbon global economy in the long-term,” though they didn’t announce any increased ambitions in cutting carbon in their own economies. Reports from the two-day meeting in Germany indicated that bolder statements were considered, including a call to decarbonize the G7 economies by 2050, but they were ultimately dropped, likely under pressure from Canada and Japan.
Though today’s statement is bold, the focus on the very long-term is disappointing. The G7 meeting was billed as a showcase for Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, to assert leadership on climate change in advance of key negotiations in December, when world leaders will gather in Paris and are expected to sign the first-ever global agreement on climate change. Expectations for an ambitious outcome in Paris have been waning in recent months, and today’s G7 statement doesn’t help things much.
Full story

G7 Business As Usual: Plus Ça Change, plus C’est La même Chose
Oliver Geden, 8 June 2015
German policy wonk Oliver Geden sums up the lame G7 climate statement in two tweets.
Oliver Geden ‏@Oliver_Geden
Already in 2009 (L’Aquila summit), #G8 made similar announcement. How did it influence Copenhagen #climate summit?
Embedded image permalink
Oliver Geden ‏@Oliver_Geden
to sum up: #G7 repeating #UNFCCC + #IPCC language and promising to go carbon neutral by 2099
https://www.g7germany.de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/G8_G20/2015-06-08-g7-abschluss-eng.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5 …

Advertisements

64 thoughts on “Reality Check: UN Climate Talks Stall Despite G7 Posturing

  1. The notion of committing unborn generations to such folly is laughable. They will do what they will when their time comes. If the greatest document ever written is being trampled on (the US Constitution) then what chance have the delusions of these men and women and their policies of ignorance? None.

    • This looks a lot like the scenario in Vernor Vinge’s Across Realtime: A world government suppresses progress worldwide (or, not only progress, but even ordinary economic activity) and itself becomes sclerotic in the process while those who won’t be suppressed continue clandestinely – until the technology developed by them is so far advanced that the regime is toppled. Giant with feet of clay.

      The G7 look like they are just making themselves their feet of clay.

      • The ultimate goal is a global vegan commune, run by some subset of the tinpot despots represented in the UN General Assembly. We will all be required to learn to “love Big Brother”. Resistance is futile.

    • Also realize the unintended consequences of no fossil fuels by 2050. Since ships and trains last well over 35 years, all new purchases stop now. Airbus sales stop about 2025. Large trucks about the same time (kiss off Daimler Truck division and Volvo trucks). Now investors look ahead, so crash of their stocks about 5 years earlier.

      Cars in the USA are being kept for longer than a dozen years now (by someone) so auto sales cra sh about 2035 with auto stocks crasing circa 2030…

      • E.M.Smith commented: “Also realize the unintended consequences of fossil fuels by 2050. Since ships and trains last well over 35 years, all new purchases stop now. Airebus sales stop about 2025. Large trucks about the same time (kiss off Daimler Truck division and Volvo trucks). Now investors look ahead, so crash of their stocks about 5 years earlier.

        Cars in the USA are being kept for longer than a dozen years now (by someone) so auto sales cra sh about 2035 with auto stocks crasing circa 2030…”

        What makes you think they are “unintended consequences”? To the useful idiots they are just collateral damage but to the drivers of AGW they are intended purpose IMO. The Greens are a convenient ally that will be tossed under the bus when the time comes. It remains to be seen though whether or not they can pull it off…..I think not. Those consequences….lack of energy and economic suicide will be strong enough modifiers to force people into alternatives and the easiest one will be proving AGW is wrong.

      • I will be selling off my shares in industries associated with refrigerated food storage and transportation in the near future. You can’t have cold stores running hot and cold according the vagaries of Mariah.

      • Gasoline used to be a by-product considered waste before Henry Ford created a market for it. I wonder what they propose to do about that waste going forward. If those hydrocarbons end up in another fuel formulation then the net result will be zero reduction in hydrocarbon fuel. I have seen nothing that suggests any plan results in less crude production which is the greenie’s only measure of success in this senseless war against wage earners.

  2. I do hope that somehow the Republicans will find a way to torpedo Obama’s objective to sign up USA to a binding agreement by stating up front that no funds will be autorized. In addition I also hope that Inhofe will speed up his investigation into the homogenization that has been carried out on the surface data sets by GISS/NOAA as well as the satellite records of sea levels that are more than a mm higher than sea level gauges. Japan, Canada and Australia need help from USA to stop this nonsense.

      • I’ve read Agenda 21 offers a way around senate authorization. Either way, the current senate seems to want to give O anything he asks for of late.

      • spetzer86: No President, on his action alone, can obligate a future President. Unless Agenda21 has been made part of the Constitution, it can’t either. According to a an unreliable source, “Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.[” (wikipedia).

        There is an interesting debate that a treaty could usurp the Constitution (treaties seem to be given equal weight with the Constitution at the end of that document), but most legal experts agree that nothing can amend the Constitution other than the ways specifically ennumerated. If a treaty attempted to do so, that part of the treaty would require a formal amendment.

        An interesting exclamation point to the limited power of the US President: he plays no formal role whatsoever in the process of amending the Constitution. All he can do is stand on the sidelines, bribe, threaten, and armtwist. He has no vote, no formal input.

      • That’s only true if you care, or even both to think about, the Constitution. I haven’t seen much evidence of that from this POTUS.

    • Really? It’s, the USA that needs the help. And just because the little “o” squeaks loud and a lot, doesn’t mean anyone is actually taking any notice of him.

    • Perhaps the top leaders of the industrialized world are actually beginning to look at the data and see the truth that a small number of people are attempting to hi-jack their economies and with it their autonomy. Reality and Truth will finally rise to the surface and simple logic will prevail rather than the dictates of a few.

      • “Reality and Truth will finally rise to the surface and simple logic will prevail rather than the dictates of a few.”

        This will coincide with a systemic collapse; as the regime is so corrupt it cannot afford anymore to hire honest people. It has progressed too far down that line and will be completely replaced (or made subservient as a whole, with follow-up purges).

  3. How does this square with the fact that China today is burning 45% of all coal burned, and is set to triple it by 2030 after which they will level off? India and the developing countries would like to increase their electricity production using coal, not to mention cooking fuel and other necessities for life.

    • Make that over 50% of global coal consumption, according to the BP annual statistical review just released a few hours ago.

  4. That beauteous continent is just not poor enough or financially defunct enough to come to its senses. Sovereign debt can be a wonderful tonic. Can a whole continent become a guesthouse for Chinese tourists?

  5. We are very concerned about the pace of negotiations,” said Amjad Abdulla of the Maldives, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) which are deeply exposed to climate change.

    Cloaked in his wording was the urgent need for funds to support the building of airports and hotels. Not the rising seas.

    • And if we offered to build the defences against the rapidly rising seas there would be screams of “No, No, just give us the money”

  6. Talk about vague;
    “over the course of this century.” The leaders also committed to “doing our part to achieve a low-carbon global economy in the long-term,”
    So if you can keep the funding going, why not shoot for the next millennium? That way you could on-sell your trough-slops Futures- Now that is a concept all at the Paris AGW JunketFest could appreciate!

    • Just a thought, but have these people ever heard of tele-conferencing? The very act of flying hordes of troughers to these junkets is exacerbating the problem they are allegedly trying to fix.

  7. Clink! rattle-rattle-rattle-bump-rattle-rattle

    Hmmm… sounds like the I’m-gonna-unilaterally-kill-my-economy can just got kicked down the road… again.

    • Hmm, watch the old movie Shape Of Things To Come on youtube. For now, everything works to the Fabian’s plan that was revealed in the movie. With a few hickups, like the destruction of England by Atlee.
      The EU in its current demonic form was planned in 1925 by Coudenhouve-Kalergi. See his book Praktischer Idealismus, free on the Internet.

    • The link was a good read, but the G7article above and the link was not about predictions; it was about the elite with an agenda stupidly believing they should impose on the citizens how they should live 35 and 85 years from now. Donna could not have been more clear.

  8. There is no agreement that any government can make that a new incoming government can’t dump!

    What amuses me is the total lack of ‘terror’ displayed by those running the scam for the horrors of ‘climate change’ and the lack of change in their lifestyles. This is a major giveaway.

    Tipping points have, it seems, disappeared. Except perhaps one – the point at which scepticism passes the point where it becomes unstoppable. Paris may indeed be the Last Chance.

  9. And what do the real leaders in the world think?
    Global warming: so totally over that not even Bilderberg will touch it
    “The key topics for discussion this year include:

    Artificial Intelligence
    Cybersecurity
    Chemical Weapons Threats
    Current Economic Issues
    European Strategy
    Globalisation
    Greece
    Iran
    Middle East
    NATO
    Russia
    Terrorism
    United Kingdom
    USA
    US Elections”

    Don’t see any “climate change” or “global warming” on that agenda though I guess it could have been included under any one of several different categories listed.

    • “Don’t see any “climate change” or “global warming” on that agenda though I guess it could have been included under any one of several different categories listed”

      Most likely under “globalisation…. how to !!”

    • That’s a curious agenda.
      It has the UK but not China, Germany or Japan.
      Are you sure of its accuracy?

  10. Talk about an expensive exercise in futility. The talks have become a nimby discussion, As for the island nations, they need to remember Nature is resilient and if coral reefs adjust to sea level by growing with a sea level rise (recent paper by Kench et al, 2015, Geology, June issue), maybe the problem is less severe than they think. Moreover, the Chinese have expertise in raising elevations in reefs and would gladly help out for a fee paid for by a loan with interest..

    Overlooked by the Bonn negotiators is the $46 billion loan by China to Pakistan to develop a large coal field and build eight new coal-fired power plants, basically swamping any carbon cuts made by the West courtesy of the UN.

    As for deferring cuts to the “end of the century,” perhaps by then, climate will have become colder almost of “little Ice Age” proportions if solar radiation continues to be minimal.

  11. 9 June: Andalou Agency: Canada, Japan block strong greenhouse gas targets at
    G7 summit
    TRENTON, Ontario: Canada and Japan on Monday blocked strong commitments on
    greenhouse gas emission targets at the G7 summit in Germany, but did agree
    to reductions.
    Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel had pushed for the goal of reaching zero
    carbon emissions by 2050. But a ban on fossil fuels by that date fell short,
    and the leaders instead agreed to a full ban by the end of the century…
    A source told the Canadian Press wire service thatCanada and Japan threw up
    roadblocks to more stringent language and reduction targets.
    “Canada and Japan are the most concerned about this one,” said the source,
    who spoke on condition of anonymity. “These two countries have been the most
    difficult on every issue on climate. They don’t want any types of targets in
    there, so I think they are trying to make it as vague as possible at this
    point.”
    Japan uses coal-fired energy plants while the Canadian economy depends
    heavily on so-called dirty oil from tar sands in Alberta. The federal
    government is reluctant to go along with any environmental measures that
    could interfere with oil production…
    Environment Canada data shows that emissions were 3.1 percent below 2005
    levels two years ago, but had risen for four years in a row after a global
    downturn in 2009, the CBC reported.
    ***Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Merkel met Sunday but did not
    discuss climate change, Harper’s office said…
    http://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/533823–canada-japan-block-strong-greenhouse-gas-targets-at-g7-summit

    • Good, realistic strategy. Canada and Japan know they have no hope of stopping this monster. Pulling as many teeth as possible will be their service. Kudos GK

  12. So they get their act together, “Decarbonise” the economy and the CO2 levels drop back to 280 ppm, but they overshoot and cut another 120 ppm off. Co2 at 160 ppm is not compatable with C3 plant life – rice, wheat, potatoes, soya beans, peanuts, rye, barley etc.. 95% of plants die, crops fail and animals including humans die of starvation and by 2100 there will be mass extinction.
    Precautionary principle needed

  13. It’s obvious they are hedging their bets. The “Pause” is having more impact than most people here believe. This is equivalent to the “China Climate Agreement”. Lots of verbiage touting solidarity with AGW but actions that speak otherwise. “We are planning to completely phase out fossil fuels” is the message they want conveyed but what they are really saying is “we’re not placing our political futures on something that may not be true”.

  14. All of the developed countries are deeply in debt with high unemployment and no or slow growth. To fight climate ‘change’ they are proposing tripling the cost of energy to export the remaining jobs to China, in addition to sending $100 billion a year to developing countries for absurd green scams.

    The question is not if the madness will end but rather when it will end (we are going to run out of money to spend on everything, the public will notice the massive increase unemployment caused by climate change policy madness, and the public will notice significant planetary cooling) and how much economic damage will be done before it ends.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/06/the-ipcc-has-become-to-science-what-fifa-is-to-soccer-time-to-axe-both/

    The IPCC has become to science what FIFA is to soccer (Time to axe both)

    We have reached a global warming paradox. “The science is weak (William: the science is weak nonexistent) but the idea is strong ,” writes Darwall. “Global warming’s success in colonising the Western mind and in changing government policies has no precedent.

    The developing countries are racing to achieve the economic success of South Africa.

    The Economist, May 30th
    South Africa’s economy, Dark Days ahead, Africa’s second-largest economy is in a mess
    There is little in the way of bright news about the South Africa’s economy – and not just because power cuts are plunging neighbourhoods into darkness several times per week. …. Unemployment is soaring. Even using a narrow definition, it stands at 26.4%, the highest since 2003. …
    Power shortages under Eskom, the failing state utility, have dampened manufacturing, … Rating agencies have warned that South Africa is dangerously close to junk status …
    Joblessness is particularly worrying. The expanded rate, which includes “discourage” workers who have simply given up trying to find a job, rose to 36.1% in the first quarter of 2015..

    P.S.
    There is now observational evidence in both hemisphere of high latitude cooling.
    http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

  15. Strange, the fools who want to stop burning carbon are the worst offenders, traveling around the world irresponsibly wasting tax payer money and contributing more to adding carbon personally than 99% of the populace. They should stop burning carbon fuels immediately as an example of their committeemen.
    My rule is that the politicians should live under any new rule they create for a test period of 5 years before it applies to the masses. That would eliminate all of the nonsense coming out of Washington.

  16. “Decarbonization of our economy”? “Carbon pollution” ? Good grief, this so called debate is getting increasingly scientifically illiterate by the day.

  17. I would like to refer to a peer-reviewed paper by Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski, MD, PhD, DSc., titled “CO2: The Greatest Scandal of Our Time” (ERI Science 16 March 2007) and a statement he made in that paper in relation to the IPCC’s 2007 report’s ‘Summary For Policymakers’:

    “The first ‘Summary for Policymakers’ statement on the man-made increase of CO2, is a cornerstone of the IPCC report, and of the global warming edifice. This statement is a manipulation and a half-truth. It is true that CO2 is ‘the most important anthropogenic [trace] greenhouse gas’, but a much more important greenhouse factor is the water naturally present in the atmosphere, which contributes some 95% to the total greenhouse effect. This basic fact is not mentioned at all in the ‘Summary for Policymakers’. Also not mentioned is the fact that 97% of the total annual emission of CO2 into the atmosphere comes from natural emissions of the land and sea; human beings add a mere 3%. This man-made 3% of CO2 emissions is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse effect, probably close to 0.12%. Propositions of changing, or rather destroying, the global energy system because of this tiny human contribution, in face of the large short-term and long-term natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, are utterly irresponsible.”

    He was so right, God bless him.

  18. In the last year I have tried to explain to those who are purportedly renewable subsidy friendly and EU friendly, that the EU is quite specifically working to impede the natural price-location mechanism in the solar panel market, by imposing vast taxes/tariffs/fines on importers of competitively priced panels.
    When you explain this, the recipients of the information seem either to not believe you, or to imagine that their must be some higher purpose.
    I suspect that both they and their beloved EU masters have no real interest in the roll-out of renewable energy at all.
    They are really only in love with state control, and state hand-outs.
    In this instance hand-outs to relatively wealthy solar array owners are preferred over allowing market forces to push down the price of solar PV for everyone.
    Here in the UK, many solar farm owners are currently being paid about 10 times the wholesale market rate for the electricity that they deliver to the grid.
    The whole thing seems to have turned into a massive price-fixing scam.
    It seems strange that so many people have become convinced that the roll-out of renewable capacity is aided by forcing the costs upwards.
    I remember a time when, if you wanted lots of units of something, and were constrained by a finite budget, then you attempted to ensure that each unit was purchased as cheaply as possible.
    All that changed, obviously. At least it did in the new world of gullible idiots pleading for more state micro-management.

    • If Governments truly believed that CO2 was the devil it is claimed to be, they would not impose import tarriffs on cheap solar panels.

      In Spain, they are reeling back all the subsidies because of abuse such that now if one goes off grid, the government even charges the lost VAT which the government would have got had the occupier been on grid and bought electricity from the few energy suppliers and paid VAT on that supply.

      It is madness and a scam.

  19. indefatigablefrog

    You say

    Here in the UK, many solar farm owners are currently being paid about 10 times the wholesale market rate for the electricity that they deliver to the grid.
    The whole thing seems to have turned into a massive price-fixing scam.

    No. You have misunderstood. Nothing has “turned into a massive price-fixing scam”.

    The UK renewables programme was deliberately established to be – and continues to be deliberately run as – a massive price-fixing scam.

    Richard

  20. The climate talks are this: a bunch of representatives handing knives around and explaining how other countries other than their own should go about cutting their own throats.

  21. Thanks, Anthony.
    The UN has been trying to become an unelected world government since its beginning.
    I hope the USA doesn’t abandon its Constitution to embrace the UN Charter.

  22. They know the central theory of catastrophic AGW is utter balderdash. They also know that however much they’d like to switch to ‘renewables’ it simply isn’t going to happen within the limitations of current technology, hence the ‘no fossil fuels by 2100’ line is simply part of their self-protecting rowback.

    There won’t be a binding Paris deal because the whole climate change bandwagon is going nowhere, fast.

    • But why would any one wish to switch to renewables unless there was no other option.

      Given that there is enough coal for many hundreds of years of energy production, it is inconceivable that man, well before the time coal runs out, will not have come up with a cheap and efficient alternative form of energy production.

      There is no point in employing wind or solar (in high Northern Latitude countries) as a stop gap/filler. They don’t work, they do not reduce CO2, and only increase costs all round.

  23. Am I the only who sees the concept of “decarbonizing the economies” as being absolutely absurd? Not to mention impossible. Or senseless. Or against the interests of humankind? How can anyone advocate such a concept and maintain a straight face. I can see that nonsense coming from minority fringe eco-nutbar elements, but the idea of heads of govt seriously considering this idea and actually agreeing to such an ridiculous idea is mind blowing to me.

    I seriously think we need to shut down the United Nations and all these off shoots like the IMF and IPCC and UNFCCC, etc etc.

  24. Seriously people, how did we end up with an entire continent, the cradle of modern civilisation, adopting such an insane public policy? –Tim Worstall, Forbes, 7 June 2015

    Something will have to give. The UK has commited itself, by law, to reducing CO2 output by 80% over the next 35 years. What most people haven’t realised yet is that this is all sources of CO2. Industrial, domestic heating, transport… All of it will have to be powered by electricity.

    At this very moment Wind is providing us with 5% of current demand, not the kind of demands placed on a future grid once all the other sources of demand have been added in.

    I see only two options. The program will be dumped once the electorate realise its full implications and no politician would be electable while defending it or we find a new source of energy eg Fusion.

    • Yet when you hear a politican on TV they frequently state that wind is already providing us with more than 25% of our electricity. I think that is because they confuse nameplate capacity with real world average output which is coming in at about 22% of nameplate capacity.

      So [your] 5% contribution is about the typical contribution that wind makes.

      However, the problem is that wind does not reduce CO2 emissions because of the need for backup by conventionally powered fossil fuel generation.. Whilst wind produces on average about 22% of its nameplate capacity such that one might at first sight expect that that results in a reduction of about 22% CO2 emissions, that is not the case.

      Although conventionally powered generators may be running for only about 78% of the time they produce about 95% of the CO2 that they would produce had they been running 100% of the time. This is because they have to be [operated] in ramp up/ramp down mode and this is very fuel inefficient. It is akin to driving a car in urban conditions compared to the fuel consumption achieved if driving at a steady 60mph on a motorway. Urban fuel consumption (because of the start/stop nature) uses about 25% to 30% more fuel compared with motorway/freeway fuel consumption. The same is so with power generators.

      So the madness of all this is not simply are we creating an unreliable energy network which produces electricity at a very high cost (on shore wind is about 3 times the cost of coal) it does not reduce CO2 emissions to any significant extent, especially when one takes into account the amount of CO2 that is emitted in erecting the windfarm and coupling it to the existing grid.

      The politicians will be in for a shock when they find out that renewables such as wind and solar do not reduce CO2 emissions to any significant extent and therefore will not help them attain the 2050 goal.

      Presently, there are only 2 ways to reduce CO2 emissions, either go nuclear, or cut energy usage. It is as stark as that.

  25. The incredible arrogance of the G7 Clique is flabbergasting.
    The reality is that they are pushing for another bank bail out by pushing for a Global Carbon Tax.
    The fact is these morons are destroying our entire social and economic structures.

    They fail as serious and responsible politicians just by the politics they make.
    Time for a fresh wind and the restoration of empirical evidence in science instead of consensus based corruption.

  26. The most important obstacle to a binding greenhouse gas emission reduction agreement in the past has been the inability of the parties to resolve the demands of the developing countries that the OECD pay for the measures they were asked to take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This can be viewed as one of the largest shakedowns in history, involving the transfer of hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars from the industrialized countries to the rest. Alternatively, it can be viewed as only logical that the less developed countries not impair their economic development prospects, and their chances to raise billions of people out of energy poverty, to address an alleged climate problem the effects of which will only be felt a century hence. Regardless of how one describes the disagreement, it is central. So far, there have been no reports in the media as to what progress, if any, has been made in resolving this issue. Meanwhile, in the developed countries, the willingness of leaders to commit notionally to 70% reductions in emissions from 2010 levels by 2050 should be taken as remarkable. If one calculates what that target would mean in terms of actual emission reductions, and then examines the changes in consumption and lifestyles that would be needed to achieve it, it quickly would become clear that the target is unachievable in economic, technical and political terms. It would require either returning to a pastoral lifestyle typical of the mid-19th century or complete electrification of the economy along with construction of hundreds of nuclear power plants – all within 35 years! Of course, there exists a possibility that governments will take the cynical course and commit to targets and financial transfers that everyone knows cannot be implemented, based on the now well-established principle that there is no political downside to promising to reduce emissions, only in actually doing so.

Comments are closed.