Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
President Trumps great and defining global decision to exit the flawed and unnecessary Paris climate agreement has driven the climate alarmist mainstream media (MSM) over the brink with articles frantically supporting that only government dictated mandates should be used to establish how global energy demand and use must be controlled.
An L. A. Times article for example falsely implies that state governments lead by California (OMG!!) must take command of future U.S. emissions performance and deliver Obama’s ill-advised emissions reduction promise that President Trump has now wisely decided to abandon.
The emissions reduction leadership role for California championed by the L A Times is touted despite the fact that our state doesn’t have the foggiest idea of how it can achieve its SB 32 emissions goals nor does it have any idea of how many tens of billions it will cost nor care at all about how the state will end up dictating how all Californians must live their lives.
These seemingly panic driven articles by the MSM are completely devoid of any supporting emissions data and analysis for the U.S. and world for both present and future time periods.
Nor do they address the flawed and failed climate science built upon nothing but speculation and conjecture which is used to try and falsely justify the need for global government climate action emission mandates.
To read the biased and misleading MSM articles about the decision to exit the Paris agreement one would assume that U.S. emissions must be skyrocketing and represent a huge crisis.
In reality of course nothing could be further from the truth.
U.S. energy use data through 2016 clearly shows that our country has done an exemplary job in reducing emissions through free energy market changes with increased use of natural gas displacing coal fuel thereby reducing U.S. CO2 emissions by over 800 million metric tons since 2005.
EIA data shows 2016 U. S. CO2 emissions are 14% lower than peak year 2005 levels.
This significant reduction is of course hidden and concealed from public view by government mandate loving climate alarmists and the biased MSM.
Climate alarmist MSM articles attacking President Trump’s Paris agreement exit decision meticulously avoid any discussion of how free energy market outcomes brought about by use of fracking technology to increase natural gas supply at reduced costs have revolutionized energy markets and significantly reduced CO2 emissions without onerous and costly bureaucratic mandates from government.
The deception of hiding U.S. emissions levels is simply standard operating procedure for climate alarmist activists and the biased MSM supporting them.
Furthermore any mention of EIA data addressing future energy use forecasts for the U.S. and other world countries is also studiously avoided by climate alarmists and MSM because it so clearly exposes that their claims about the need to have government mandated reductions in U.S. emissions are completely unwarranted.
The 2016 EIA IEO report shows that future U.S. emissions growth has been curtailed because of the energy market driven increased use of natural gas.
Most importantly EIA forecasts future energy use in the U.S. is irrelevant to the continued increase of global CO2 emissions brought about by the increasing energy needs of the developing nations which EIA shows will increase global emissions by about 12,500 million metric tons by 2040.
EIA data clearly shows that free energy market forces are far superior for addressing global energy demand and use instead of politically driven government mandates which are based upon badly flawed and failed climate alarmist science speculation and conjecture.
President Trump was wise to exit the monumentally bureaucratic global government driven Paris climate agreement and his decision to do so is supported by free energy market innovation, creativity and benefits as well as the overwhelmingly flawed and failed state of climate alarmist science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Zombies are out for blood – fight back with real science…
Why don’t we start right here. There is a nice graph showing a 14% reduction of “energy-related” carbon dioxide emissions. Alarmists will counter that an energy-related CO2 is the same as transportation-related CO2 and they will want to see total emissions. We should show both, not just the number which supports our side. That’s the alarmist way. That’s politics, not science.
Yes, transportation should be included, and I believe there is a small overall reduction when it is.
Transportation is included of course under petroleum. The EIA website for 2016 emissions specifically provides graphs showing transportation and the other energy source areas. EIA notes that transportation was the only area that saw increased emissions during this period. To be clear the EIA emissions data for 2016 includes transportation and is total US CO2 emissions.
The EIA 2016 CO2 emissions data total for the U.S. is at:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30712
This data includes electric power, transportation, industrial, commercial and residential energy sector uses.
Transportation fuel is not “energy related”?
In any case, the bottom graph shows total CO2 emissions.
Why is this still about CO2 emissions?
The “science” says no discernible warming for 18 years! The science shows no evidence that observed changes since the little ice age are related to CO2 levels! Sure! Let’s use science!
It’s concrete that isn’t included. And for the US, our old concrete is absorbing most of the CO2 the newly made concrete is emitting.
Forget the science – the Green Blob doesn’t care other than a a fig leaf for their political aims.
The over the top invective and government-regulations-are-the only-solution messaging we get right now from the MSM are to a T what we got when the then Conservative government in Canada had the courage to walk away from Kyoto.
Bottom political line is that without any of the US, China, India, Russia or Japan, any global climate initiative is hot air. They all know it – and note that all the lovey dovey rhetoric aside, there was no mention of sustained support for Paris in the joint EU-China communique yesterday.
The Cause isn’t science. Science is just a tool.
“Ay, there’s the rub”.
The masses don’t know science (understanding the science requires curiosity, persistence of study, skepticism and some amount of intelligence). The masses are lazy and mostly know only celebrity, ideology, peer bias and emotion. And, they have been conditioned to trust the media.
A grandstanding local politician has pledged that our county will abide by the Paris Climate Agreement as if he has such power and has the consent of the people. Who does he think he is? Barack Obama?
The problem is, Zombies do not understand and are completely unwilling to read real science.
This is more or less like an apocalyptic cult having prophesied the end of the world on Thursday.
On Friday they decide to live their lives as if the world could end tomorrow.
The failure of prophecy only increases the belief of the faithful. We are not dealing with science or policy. We are dealing with religious fervor, and that does not die when its prophecies are falsified.
They sound so over the top asinine that I have to believe most people with their feet grounded in anything resembling reality are tuning this out by now. Don’t forget, we’ve been listening to the same shi*t for over 30 years . . . and nothing at all is happening. Most people aren’t idiots–unless they’ve been “educated” to be.
You don’t know my college educated relatives. They simply ignore any information no spoon fed to them by NPR. Not kidding.
“Most people aren’t idiots-unless they’ve been ‘educated’ to be.”
This struck a nerve. After a conversation yesterday with a very intelligent lady who leans strongly toward the “left” or “progressive” or “activist” mindset, I realized that she had been taught to reason in ways that promote this mindset. What’s going on now in our Universities is disheartening. But then, I’ve also recognized over the past few years that the old style University model has been dying a slow death for some time, due most visibly to the sky-high cost of an education and with alternatives beginning to show their mettle. (MIT currently has approximately 25,000 enrolled worldwide in a series of on-line graduate level engineering logistics (supply chain management) courses in an experimental offering through edX.org.) We have a long way to go to develop effective alternatives, but I’m beginning to see some light at the end of a long dark tunnel.
The education system has a lot to answer for. When I was a kid, before a degree was necessary for any meaningful job, you went to university to learn to think.
These days … not so much.
I’m having trouble finding the link but it goes something like this: Obama was talking to a bunch of technical students and said something like, “You guys get jobs.” A university professor countered him and pointed out that her students learn to write essays based on very little evidence. In other words, she trains students to make up convincing BS out of whole cloth.
Henry Mintzberg points out that MBA students learn to make up convincing BS based on stuff they don’t understand when they do case studies. The result is that when they try management, they fail.
Educators worship Bloom’s Taxonomy. They think the goal is to get students to use high level thinking skills like evaluating and creating. They don’t see the point of actually learning facts. Apparently they have never heard of domain-specific knowledge.
What we have is a bunch of college graduates with poor thinking skills and a faith that experts can do things that experts demonstrably can’t do.
actually they have people who could only get jobs in education….teaching people how to only get jobs in education
Those who can, do. Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach teachers.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, or maybe it’s the educators who don’t understand Bloom, but the very first level is Remember, which in the Wikipedia article explains it as
That would seem to include domain-specific knowledge, and it’s the way I remember from first hearing about it in college in 1975. But one certainly can’t exercise Evaluation and Creation without first Remembering and Understanding. Sounds like educators today want to jump over those steps. It sure seemed that way when my kids were in elementary school back in the early ’90s, and the teachers wanted the kids to start writing sentences (Creating) without first knowing how to spell (Remembering).
You have it right.
Back in the 1950s educators began to denigrate rote memorization. By the 1970s, clear-eyed far thinking educators realized that there was no point teaching number facts because everyone would have a calculator. What crap. I really hate clear-eyed far thinking people.
The best math teacher I ever saw was Charles Ledger. His students routinely won national math awards. He began each class with the memorization and recitation of number facts. The kids weren’t allowed to use calculators until they were fluent with the number facts. Ledger covered the entire taxonomy every class. He gave the example of finding the roots of an equation. It’s about ten times as easy if you can factor numbers by inspection. Algebra is easy if you’re good at arithmetic. Calculus is easy if you’re good at algebra. Nothing is easy if you’re struggling with number facts.
Nor are we dealing with truly sane people. This is nutso because the proponents are nuts.
It’s just the latest fashion in stupidity. Something else will come alone to amuse their unthinking minds.
Kyle Becker’s review of 25 climate charts is the most concise and impressive pure science rebuttal I’ve seen:
http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2014/05/139936-25-images-prove-climate-changes-whether-man-anything/
Bob Dillon, M.D., Atlanta
It is good. It would be nice to update some of the charts.
The problem is that like water vapor’s >95% contribution to the greenhouse effect: >95% of the population have no ability to read charts accurately or understand what they are seeing in the charts.
I would add , perhaps ,
http://cosy.com/Science/WUWT1307ChicVsTotGW.jpg
to put the total Al Gore Warming in perspective .
I wouldn’t say that the increased use of NG was entirely market-driven. Some has been the result of 8 years of punishing coal in a supreme effort to kill coal. That is still going on, actually, and needs to stop.
Of course it was entirely market driven.
The closure of 5 coal plants has been announced since Trump took office, with cost being cited as the reason.
http://www.elp.com/articles/2017/05/fpl-closing-another-coal-fired-power-plant.html
“Florida Power & Light Co. filed a petition with the Florida Public Service Commission for approval to shut down the St. Johns River Power Park at the end of this year.
SJRPP is a coal-fired power plant jointly owned by FPL and JEA, the municipally-owned electric provider for the City of Jacksonville.
The nearly 1,300 MW plant has served customers of the two utilities well for many years, but the company says it is no longer economical to operate. The power plant’s retirement is expected to save FPL customers $183 million as well as prevent more than 5.6 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually.”
…that plant is closing because it’s been operating at less than 50% for years…and it’s age
Less than 50% does not pay to operate it
It’s closing because they don’t need it.
Gas, you idiot.jpeg)
try that graphic again
Here in Florida, FP&L has been advertising (virtue signalling) their new solar panel fields.
I’m sure their solar generator is not as cost effective as their gas plants.
But hey, they’re GREEN.
@AndyG55 That graphic is amusing since the green shaded section is natural gas. Took me a minute to catch that 🙂
Step 1) Punish coal for producing “evil” CO2.
Step 2 Reward renewables for not producing “evil” CO2, and give NG a pass, for producing less.
Step 3) Complain that coal is now “too expensive” to produce.
Step 4) Pretend that that is the reason coal is being killed.
Step 5) Bask in the glow that you’ve pulled the wool over without people realizing it.
Simples!
But technically, it was only the availability of inexpensive natural gas that allowed this displacement without disruption and/or drastically increased prices.
Never mentioned in the MSM articles is the fact that these emissions goals re in terms of “per capita”. That means that in gross numbers China and India have little if any actual reductions to achieve. Just some tweaking of efficiency.
As I have told several alarmists recently, the best way the US can reduce ‘per capita’ CO2 emissions is to STOP FEEDING HALF THE PLANET.
That’ll reduce things a fair bit.
Your plan’s results become indistinguishable from achieving the ultimate alarmist goal.
The Sierra Club concurs….
Alan, the alarmists want to get rid of a different half.
It is not generally understood that China’s per capita emissions are now the same as the EU’s. So the Paris proposal in fact envisages them rising well above the EU, per capita, and towards the US levels. Just as the US levels per capita decline.
This makes no sense at all if what you are interested in is lowering emissions. People who claim Paris does this on the one hand want China to carry on increasing from 10 billion now to the 15 billion or so they plan to get to in 2030. And at the same time raise their per capita emissions from EU towards US levels. And at the same time have the US drop its emissions by a couple of billion a year.
It makes absolutely no sense. Well, assuming what you are interested in is emissions and the climate. Whether it makes sense if your concerns are quite other…. probably.
You are obviously a racist. /sarc
Good point, usur. The AP article my local Sunday paper used Sweden as their per capita strawman. No mention of the nuclear plants or the extensive use of wood or of any other European countries..
Ah, I forgot to mention the hydro, as mentioned below.
How do these states plan “to keep the Paris climate accord intact”? It is illegal for them to engage in agreements with foreign governments.
Now they can say..”Hey, we tried, but Grumpy old white man Trump won’t let us” !!!!
They can ‘volunteer their taxpayers’ money, I suppose…
Good point, and one that we should pursue, along with the deceptive reporting addressed by Larry’s commentary. My contribution, appearing in this morning’s Pasadena Star-News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and Whittier Daily News:
The official website of the Green Climate Fund shows that as of May 12, the U.S, was committed to giving $3 billion and had already given $1 billion, or $9.30 per capita.
Comes now Gov. Jerry Brown wanting to subject California to a continuation of the Paris climate agreement provisions. One-third of that $3 billion having already been handed over by the Obama administration, there remains another $6.20 per capita. With California’s population around 39.5 million, that comes to almost $245 million.
Governor, how do you propose to fit $244 million more into California’s budget?
We need to bombard our local media with the facts that have gone missing.
Juan wrote: “Governor, how do you propose to fit $244 million more into California’s budget?”
For one thing, they will ask taxpayers in other states to pay for the $275 million to repair damage to Oroville Dam caused by lack of ongoing maintenance and repair. I am sure that additional means of transference will also be found by CA political operatives.
“How do these states plan “to keep the Paris climate accord intact”? It is illegal for them to engage in agreements with foreign governments.”
Primarily by just talking about it. California recently came to such an ‘agreement’ with the Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon, despite the fact that Scotland doesn’t have such authority either. I can’t recall the UK government even bothering to comment.
For laughs one might also ask California about how they intend to regulate electricity generation in surrounding states that supply enough electricity to help make up for California’s deficit.
I do not need to ask because I know. California will use smoke and mirrors, pixie dust, and magic wands. California is not alone.
When we lived in Richland, Wa; our electric bill show most of our power came from coal. Not the large nuke plant 12 miles north. Not the the many large hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers. Not the large wind farms in the area.
From this link, Griff would claim the PNW is 100% ghg free.
https://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.aspx
Of course if you come back and look on a cold winter night, or a hot summer day in a drought year, you will see why the old coal and nuke plants are still around.
The point here is that the mix of power on your bill depends on contracts. Unless you live off grid, do not travel by ICE, grow your own food, weave your own cloths, and do not use doctors, you use the same mix of fuels as everyone else.
Retired Kit P: So really your source of electrical power per your bill is just an accounting trick because it all goes into one grid. There is no way to distinguish where electrons come from.
They can declare themselves to be ‘Climate Accord Sanctuary Cities’!
That’s what ‘social(ist) justice warriors’ do….
Lawsuits, argued before corrupt Federal judges, LAWSUITS
The problem I have with this sort of argument is that the change in “emissions” was neither intentional, nor market-driven. If, for example, the technological change had gone in the other direction and coal, for whatever reason, had become much easier to obtain and cheaper to burn, a functioning free market would have seen both increased coal usage and increased “emissions.”
I put “emissions” in scare quotes for a reason. By focusing on CO2 as an “emission” that is, by implication, best minimized, we concede that it’s a pollutant that should be regulated. This was a ridiculous concept less than a decade ago, but now many fall into the trap of assuming it to be true without even realizing they’ve taken the bait. The issue isn’t whether CO2, routinely referred to as “carbon” by alarmists (and often by skeptics too, unfortunately) to make it seem even dirtier and more dangerous, is a pollutant (clearly it isn’t), but whether adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a steady rate for a century or two will lead to a catastrophe (i.e., CAGW).
That said, carrying the error in approach of the author even further, should nuclear power ever get the needed breakthrough that renders it cheaper, safer, and more readily available, that will likely have a far more lasting effect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere eventually, although the impetus behind the change in a market economy would be cheaper, more reliable, power, rather than reducing the overall level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Whether reducing atmospheric CO2 will be a good thing or a bad thing is still, to my mind, debatable.
@ur momisugly Rod Everson June 4, 2017 at 7:01 am
Well now, “sorry bout that”, but even a horrendous increase in the use of nuclear power generation would have no noticeable effect on the “ppm quantity” of atmospheric CO2.
@ur momisugly Rod Everson
The only way humans can force a “reduction” in atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities is to instigate, initiate and/or “trigger” a post haste “ending” to the current Holocene Period of Interglacial Warming so that the “cooling” of the ocean waters will start “sucking” great quantities of CO2 from out of the atmosphere.
@ur momisugly Rod Everson
It is NEITHER a “good thing” or a “bad thing” for humans to be accused of doing ……. simply because at the present time, humans are incapable of causing either an increase or a decrease in atmospheric CO2.
And “the proof is in the pudding” ……. because nowhere in any CO2 Proxy Records or the historical Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 Record ….. can there be found a “human signature” that proves, without any doubt, that human activities have been and/or are directly affecting changes in ppm quantities of atmospheric CO2.
Here is 59 years (1958-2017) of Maun Loa data ….. and no human signature, to wit:
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
And here is a graph with the plotted ….. 1979-2013 UAH satellite global lower atmosphere temperatures & CO2 ppm data ….. and no human signature there on either, to wit:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/1979-2013UAHsatelliteglobalaveragetemperatures.png
I believe it has been demonstrated though isotopic studies that atmospheric CO2 sourced from fossil fuels is increasing as a percentage of the total. However, I also believe that this increase is beneficial to life.
So, ……. you “believe” it has been demonstrated, …… HUH?
Do you also “believe” that it has been demonstrated that CO2 has been causing a warming of earth’s atmosphere during he past 130 years?
“HA”, me thinks you have been “snookered” into “believing” Ferdinand E’s ”junk-science” isotopic studies ……. wherein he claims and/or “demonstrates” a casual association between the “isotopic CO2 signature” of the atmosphere and the “isotopic CO2 signature” of the un-oxidized fossil fuels. And he doesn’t stipulate which fossil fuel. …. coal, oil or NG.
And many intelligent people accept the fact that …… “association does not equal causation”.
And worse yet, FE has no reliable or factual data on the “isotopic CO2 signature” of the CO2 that is being “outgassed” into the atmosphere as a result of microbial decomposition of dead biomass and/or the “burning” (oxidation) of both dead and live biomass as a result of forest fires, etc., etc.
And no reliable or factual data on the “isotopic CO2 signature” of the CO2 that is being “outgassed” into the atmosphere from the waters of the rivers, the lakes and the oceans that are situate on planet earth.
Cheers
I’m much more afraid of the consequences of an atmospheric CO2 decrease from 400 ppm to 150 ppm (life on Earth becomes extinct) than a slight increase (based on historical levels). Seems to me that ~1,000 ppm would actually be a logical goal rather than a catastrophe.
This is the point that never seems to get raised. We are much closer to catastrophic consequences from low CO2 than any “unknown” impacts from the slight increase.
Why hasn’t every one of these governors who signed on to the “pledge” banned CO2 enrichment for indoor farming?
This is a conscience process of burning fuel to increase CO2. Is there any more obvious case of “man-made” CO2?
Failure to act on this demonstrates that they are either disingenuous or moronic.
I can envisage a point long in the future, where low-impact and low-waste thorium nuclear is used to break down limestone to increase atmospheric CO2 to keep the planet alive.
According to the chart above, even if the USA cut it’s CO2 emissions to zero, worldwide rate of CO2 emissions would still increase.
I heard an great example of biased, dishonest reporting on emissions yesterday touting how Sweden or Switzerland, can’t remember which, had only one fifth the co2 emissions of the US. Note that either one has ony about 1/35th the population of the US. The left has been wrong about everything for so long, how can anyone listen to these people? Look at Europe. Disarm the populations then bring in the most dangerous possible group of immigrants. What a great plan. Yes only a small percentage are dangerous but they do not assimilate and their ideology makes them perfect for potential problems. Like the man said, here’s a bowl of m&m’s, only 5% are poison, how many do you want.
Not dishonest. The one fifth is a per capita number.
Not what the speaker said, but I looked it up and you are correct. Of course as a news caster he probably either got it wrong or did not realize what per capita meant.
And both of the SW countries are perfect locations for hydroelectric power, and Switzerland at least has extremely little heavy industry, so it’s not really comparable.
“Like the man said, here’s a bowl of m&m’s, only 5% are poison, how many do you want.”
Great question for all the “bleeding heart” liberals, Jim G1. …… I loved it.
LA Times :“ California led alliance of cities and states …..”
It is up to citizens of California and the warmangista cities who they wish to vote in the office and trust that their tax money will be spent wisely.
Democracy means if you are in minority however large you have to endure dictatorship of majority however small.
That is a sure recipe for a disaster. Governor Jerry Brown wants to remove cars from California highways by building a bullet train from Modesto to Bakersfield. Who will ride it, no one knows.
So far, the HST folks have blown through about $1B of my money doing their 0planning, and haven’t finished.
The latest plan I’ve seen has the train stopping about 10 miles north of Bakersfield – some problem with the right of way into the city. But, for just a few more 10s of billions of dollars, they’ll be able to finish the line from San Diego to Sacramento and San Francisco. Ooops, another hitch – the intent was to use a different bucket of money to electrify the line from San Jose into San Francisco, so that the commuters and the HST could both run that distance under the wires. However, some sane person in Sacramento killed that idea, so the HST folks will eventually have to pay for that electrification.
Meanwhile, the Brightline folks in Florida will start running high-speed trains between Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach this summer, all on private money. Now, not as “high-speed” as California is promising, but, then, they will actually be running.
Again trying to accomplish this at the sub-national level.
Who will ride the train?
Criminals.
Gangs.
Unemployed.
Destitute people who can’t pay their bills (small business operators/young people).
Who won’t ride it:
Journalists.
Politicians.
Academics.
Microsoft executive.
Google executive.
Facebook executive.
Media executives.
Wealthy liberals.
This should be fun to watch!
How will the unemployed and the destitute pay for their tickets?
Larry, you’ve come down a lot from the stance that the whole thing was a matter for debate and that we sceptics had to improve our strategy. You correctly show US decline in CO2 under (almost) free market conditions and innovation. However you still see reduction in CO2 as a virtue.
Since other nations aren’t endowed with such abundant hydrocarbon resources as the United States, are you suggesting that these poor saps MUST have government mandated emission reduction? I.e. they must continue to carpet and tuft their landscapes an seascapes with sun panels and windmills.
Larry you aren’t there yet. CO2 is greening the planet, reclaiming the deserts and, if geologic history is still considered evidence , we, through rapid expansion of phytoplankton and non organic precipitation, are initiating a new limestone generating epoch. Links to the latter phenomenon are not yet available! It’s a prediction you’ve heard here first! I suppose you could google ‘uniformatarianism’ in geology if you like.
All these dull sad people in the midst of glorious changes and abundances and a peaking of population and rising prosperity. How appropriate that it be an unlikely fellow like Trump to come and start draining, not only the DC swamp, but the global swamp as well. I hope the confused, frightened and deluded can find their way back eventually to help and enjoy this exciting real Nouveau Monde in the offing.
I believe that carbon dioxide is beneficial, not harmful. Still, “fossil” fuels are a non-renewable resource, and burning them results in a low efficiency imposed by thermodynamics. We should burn them sparingly.
George, “Still, “fossil” fuels are a non-renewable resource”, that is just a guess, not proven. Google “Oil is not a fossil fuel”,, or read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin.
And if coal IS a fossil fuel, Queensland, Australia, has enough coal to last the world, at current consumption rates, for the next 300 years, let alone what is available in New South Wales and Victoria.
I don’t think it is time to start worrying about running out of stuff.
Victoria in Australia’s has one quarter (yes 1/4) of the World’s economically recoverable brown coal reserves (37 billion tonnes minimum, but likely now with new tech in excess of 1 trillion tonnes). Victoria’s easily accessible reserves could power the whole of Australia for 1000 years + and then there’d still be a million years of energy to burn from the deposit. The main seam is the largest in the World; so large the full extent can’t be determined with accuracy. Brown coal currently provides most of Victoria’s electricity; however, the green lunatics (including AGL, a brown-coal generator) are looking to shut up shop and go fully solar and wind! These people are terminally insane . . .
Warren Blair, + 1. Victoria’s Labor Government is looney. It will do anything to save a few inner city seats from voting for the Greens.
We are far from entering a new limestone generating epoch. If you look at the history of CO2 in the atmosphere, we are actually near the tail end of life on earth as we know it. At the natural rate of decline, in a few million years, CO2 levels will be too low to support plant life on earth, and at that point all animal life will cease to exist as well. Earth has already experienced major climactic upheavals due to atmospheric gas concentrations changing, and this will just be another one.
Early in earth’s history there was no atmospheric oxygen at all. The atmosphere was primarily CO2 and nitrogen. The earliest life forms were anaerobic, and when photosynthesis evolved, it allowed life to begin to utilize the abundant CO2 that was available. Oxygen was a waste product of photosynthesis, and photosynthesis was such an evolutionary advantage that plant life exploded all over the planet.
A billion or so years later, O2 concentrations in the atmosphere reached the point that it began to poison the anaerobic life forms, which can now only survive on earth in specialized environments where there is no oxygen. However, all that oxygen in the atmosphere allowed another evolutionary adaptation to occur, and that was animal life – something that can use the waste product of photosynthesis.
All this life, though, depends on CO2. Corals use it build their reefs, and over the eons, most of it has been removed from the atmosphere and sequestered in vast deposits of coal, limestone, marble and corals. There is so little left that during ice ages, the CO2 level in the atmosphere already drops to the point that plant life on land cannot thrive.
In burning fossil fuels, we are adding a bit of that sequestered CO2 back into the air it originally came from, but that will have an insignificant effect on the long-term destiny of earth. In the end, all earth’s CO2 will end up sequestered at the bottom of the oceans and animal life will cease first, due to starvation, followed by plant life when the CO2 finally runs out entirely.
That will take millions of years, but it is the way we are headed.
Lots of animals aren’t dependent upon plants.
http://www.morning-earth.org/Graphic-E/BIOSPHERE/BENTHOS%20IMAGE/V-tubeworms575.jpg
Some plants can survive at very low levels of CO2.
Carbon dioxide has been this low before, during the Carboniferous-Permian ice age, and its levels bounced back when the world warmed.
Complex, multicellular life probably has not just millions of years left to run, but hundreds of millions. We’re only about halfway through the Phanerozoic Eon.
I’ll repeat what I said just above
I can envisage a point long in the future, where low-impact and low-waste thorium nuclear is used to break down limestone to increase atmospheric CO2 to keep the planet alive.
Lee: Subduction recycles carbonates and there is a large reservoir of carbononates in the upper mantle. Rifting generates carbonatites and high CO2 volcanoes. Also, probability favors a large bolide to recycle CO2 into the atmosphere again (and again). A new cycle of life will ensue. It is unlikely to include we clever creature but perhaps we have time to find other digs. We have large reservoirs of methane in the sea and in bogs, etc, that oxidizes to CO2 ; dying plants give off CO2 ; acidification may be a blessing that recycles CO2….
I believe a negative, pessimistic attitude atrophies the the scope of our thoughts. Don’t be a we will never fly or go to the moon or land on Mars or go to another solar system type of chap.
You might be thinking of Larry Kummer, not Larry Hamlin.
That reminds me, I have 4 months of WUWT articles i missed and should read after I took 4 months off from all news sources and the Internet after reading this Larry Kummer article :
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/18/britain-joins-the-shift-from-coal-taking-us-away-from-the-climate-nightmare/
Lies are all the Human Caused Globall Warmining religion has ever had, nothing new with any of this.
Why reduce CO2? It doesn’t harm anything, it doesn’t cause asthma, it increases plant growth. The ideal ppm for plants is 2,000 ppm, without any ill effects to humans.
Agreed. I fail to understand how people started thinking that CO2 would warm the planet and fry us all. Total delusion.
Maybe if the state of California wants to improve the global climate and regulate emissions of Carbon Dioxide, they might re-purpose the staff and funding of their “Air Resources Board” ( CARB) from taxing and suing furniture and flooring manufacturers who might possibly be using formaldehyde. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/compwood.htm
Either “Carbon” and climate change is the number one problem facing our society, or “formaldehyde” and indoor air quality afflicting poor workers and homeonwers with nasopharyngeal cancer is the priority. Either California can accept the Federal EPA guidelines on wood products or they can spend extra money writing and enforcing peculiar rules that apply to everybody in the world who might have products sold in their state. Either they can teach consumers to evaluate risks versus product prices, or they can sue (shake down) retailers such as “Lumber Liquidators” for millions of dollars in settlement and indulgences.
Or, they COULD do both, using the shakedown techniques learned from formaldehyde management to extract funds from a larger pool of industries.
I know and you all know, this has nothing to do with Climate Change or CO2 or Polar Bears,,, It is all about this, and you all know it..
Know what Chris?
Maybe Chris needs more effective tin foil hat.
Since Chancellor Merkel said that is what Paris Climate Treaty is about is she lying?
It seems like something is moving in Old Europe:
“GERMAN CONSERVATIVES CALL FOR RADICAL CHANGE OF GERMANY’S CLIMATE POLICY”
https://www.thegwpf.com/growing-unrest-german-conservatives-attack-angela-merkels-unilateral-climate-policy/
“EU climate laws undermined by Polish and Czech revolt, documents reveal”
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/29/eu-climate-targets-undermined-polish-czech-revolt-documents-reveal/
You must not be aware that methane is a WORSE GHG and can’t be filtered out by trees. Plus fracking brings water pollution in the form of benzene & radioactivity in waste water supplies to name a few.
Do those not concern you? This is the problem with the stupid focus on carbon emissions- which is essentially plant food. It’s an elaborate distraction from EVERY OTHER Type of REAL POLLUTION. Pollution that can actually kill you.
Masrdog,
BS on you.
There is literally no evidence at all that fracking puts benzene or radioactive materials into water supplies, waste or otherwise.
And methane is broken down quickly by sunlight, water and biological activity.
You are not only an idiot.
You are a liar.,
hunter, I suspect that Maddog thinks that all fracking involves this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gasbuggy
(Even the Russians don’t do this anymore.8-)
If he doesn’t believe that, then he must believe anything that comes out of California
Living here in western PA, where there is lots of fracking going on, the only reported ground water contamination is from idiots dumping equipment fuel(mainly diesel) from storage tanks or directly from equipment/vehicle fuel tanks. One instance of a small municipal sewage treatment plant holding reservoir being breached by heavy equipment activity too close to it was cleaned up.
The major problem we are having, water wise, is school buildings with LEAD in their plumbing. Mind you, these buildings are not old, most having been built during the last 20/30 years. And in Pine Township there has been quite the scandal because of contamination from septic systems in close proximity of the school’s wells which are used to supply drinking water testing positive for contaminates. Never mind that the 2 new school buildings have nice, new modern filtration systems which effectively remove the contaminates detected. No, the controversy is that the School Board did not send out multiple letters to parents detailing the contamination which is NOT getting to students or faculty because of the modern, new filtration system the buildings have. They just sent out one letter. Which, apparently, the majority of people did not bother to read. Butler County tested the wells, found contamination, sent out a letter and notified the local news papers, as they are required to, and the sh*t storm commenced!
Lends some new ideas to the phrase “Sanctuary Cities”!
The fact is that the utilisation of shale is decarbonisation, and very effective decarbonisation at that. This is borne out by the significant reduction in CO2 emissions that the US has achieved since 2005. It is noteworthy that the US achieved that reduction even though it was outside the Kyoto agreement, and was much pilloried for being outside that agreement.
The further fact is that the US is in a fortunate position, not enjoyed by other developed nations, that it has copious amounts of shale, and is energy independent. Even though the US is now outside the Paris Accord, just as it was outside Kyoto, the US will without having to curtail its energy demands, continue reducing its CO2 emissions because it will carry on exploiting its shale reserves, and utilisation of shale is decarbonisation.
Other developed nations do not enjoy this luxury, and are unable to effectively decarbonise without severely curtailing their use of energy. We know as a fact that the roll out of windturbines and solar panels, are not simply unreliable (being intermittent and non despatchable), but materially they do not reduce CO2 emissions to any significant extent. This is demonstrated by Germany which has been unable to reduce significantly its Co2 emissions these past 10 to 12 years. In fact last year, its Co2 emissions increased and they are likely to further increase as their nuclear plants are taken off line and replaced by coal powered generation. See:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Germany-2016-GHGs.png
The MSM are being very disingenuous in their reporting of this issue. Under the Paris Accord global CO2 emissions were set to significantly increase due to the fact that China and India were committed to increasing their emissions, not curtailing those emissions. The increase in CO2 emissions by developing nations would more than wipe out any reduction in emissions by developed nations.
The MSM are also failing to point out that even though the US is now out of the Paris accord, it will reduce its CO2 emissions more effectively than any developed nation that is still signed up to the Paris Accord. The US is portrayed as a pariah, and yet due to shale, it will be the only developed nation that reduces its CO2 emissions by a significant margin. The left do not like shale, so there is no prospect of the MSM honestly reporting this matter and extolling the benefits of shale.
Global CO2 emissions have flatlined for three straight years now (in Carbon in this chart). The US and China provided most of the decline to make up a flat trend for global emissions.
Bill,
From whence does this chart originate?
My understanding has been that China has been building coal fired power plants left right and center, they’ve invested heavily in coal mining in several countries in the world to secure coal supplies, and combustion engine use is certainly rising, not falling. So I am curious as to how China’s emissions could have dropped?
That’s averaged out. Real economic growth doesn’t exist in Europe or north America, and that’s 50% of the global economy. It’s same reason you have negative interest rates in Europe, and near negative interest rates in North America. It’s same reason you have the pension plans that are in trouble, and the same reason governments are going deeper and deeper in debt. It’s the same reason you an over supply of oil. It’s all tied together.
Some of China’s “new” coal plants are just cleaner / more efficient replacements for sooty old plants near the end of their lifetimes. Also, China may not be reporting the CO2 emissions from its coal-to-city-gas plants to the west of Beijing.
Does California really want to join the community of “third” world poor countries???
Deception for sure. The San Franciso Chronicle illustrates it with an article http://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Clean-energy-too-big-to-be-shut-down-by-Trump-11194036.php?t=7b81ffbee0, which compares unfavorably California per capita emissions with those of China and India. Let’s try to be more like North Korea!
Barack Obama signed the Paris Climate Accord
Which the United States could ill afford!
Our new President Donald J. Trump
Threw the Climate Accord in the dump,
While socialists ’round the world squealed like they’d been gored!
Unfortunately the “progressives” have changed the terminology. They have changed a beneficial trace gas into a pollutant by constant propaganda techniques and well placed bureaucrats in scientific organizations.
The only real carbon pollution occurring is from particulates that spew from outdated equipment.
Anyone know if the new power plants that are being built in China and India have modern scrubbers?
Have they improved their home heating and cooking equipment?
Does Mohammed eat pork and wash it down with a beer?
Only in private.
This approach has been shown to work, repeatedly. See a successful redefinition of “marriage” and “free speech”. A “pollutant” is no surprise, considering that progressives are not a carbon-based life form.
Of course, then there is the stupidity of asserting that CO2 effects the climate in any significant way. Where is the study that rejects the null hypothesis that: “Natural Causes Caused Almost All The Increase In Temperature Observed In The 20th Century” with a reasonable degree of significance. Never saw it, and probably never will. That null hypothesis is probably the correct hypothesis for the 20th century. The Warmistas are like the folks blaming the Jews for poisoning the wells during the plague years in the 1300s. That was not real either.