From the INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS and the “uncertainty monster hits both ways” department:
Under the pledges made by countries under the Paris Agreement on climate change, greenhouse gas emissions could range from 47 to 63 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e) per year in 2030, compared to about 52 GtCO2e in 2015, according to a new analysis. That range has critical consequences for the feasibility of achieving the goal of keeping warming “well below 2°C” over preindustrial levels, according to the study published in the journal Nature Communications.
The pledges, known as National Determined Contributions (NDCs) lay out a roadmap of how individual countries will reduce their emissions, with the intention of adding up to a global emissions reduction sufficient to achieve the Paris targets. Yet the new study shows that these individual maps leave out key details that would enable policymakers to see if they are headed in the right direction.
“Countries have put forward pledges to limit and reduce their emissions. But in many cases the actions described in these pledges are ambiguous or imprecise,” says IIASA researcher Joeri Rogelj, who led the study. For example, some pledges focus on improving “emissions intensity,” meaning reducing the emissions per dollar of economic output, but assumptions about socioeconomic growth are often implicit or unknown. Other countries focus on absolute emissions reductions, which are simpler to understand, or propose renewable energy targets, which can be expressed in different ways. Questions also remain about how much land-use-related climate mitigation will contribute, such as reducing deforestation or preserving forests.
The study finds that the emissions implied by the current NDCs can vary by -10 to +20% around the median estimate of 52 GtCO2e/yr in 2030. A previous study, also led by IIASA, had found that that the emissions reductions set out in the NDCs would not put the world on track to achieve the Paris targets.
The new study confirms this finding. It shows in a quantitative way that in order to keep warming to below 2°C, countries should either increase the stringency of their NDCs by 2030 or consider scaling up their ambition after 2030 by a factor 4 to 25. If the ambition of NDCs is not further increased by 2030, the study finds no pathways for returning warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century.
“The new results allow us to more precisely understand what is driving the uncertainty in emissions estimates implied by the Paris pledges,” says Rogelj. “With this information at hand, policymakers can formulate solutions to remediate this issue.”
“This is the first global study to systematically explore the range of emissions outcomes under the current pledges. Our study allows us to identify the key contributors to the overall uncertainty as well as potential clarifications by countries that would be most promising to reduce the overall uncertainty,” says IIASA Energy Program Director Keywan Riahi, a study coauthor.
The researchers find that uncertainty could be reduced by 10% with simple, technical clarifications, and could be further reduced by clearer guidelines for countries on building their NDCs. The study highlights the importance of a thorough and robust tracking process of progress made by countries towards the achievement of their NDCs and the Paris Agreement goals as a whole.
###
Reference
Rogelj J, Fricko O, Meinshausen M, Krey V, Zilliacus JJJ, Riahi K (2017). Understanding the origin of Paris Agreement emission uncertainties. Nature Communications. [doi: 10.1038/ncomms15748] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15748
How are they measuring emissions? Trusting self-reporting by the Chinese?
Right, important to note that China and other “developing” countries refuse to have any oversight or external control of their reported emissions data.
How loud does a dead rooster crow? The war against CO2 cannot survive the U.S. pulling out of the Paris treaty, the pathetic growth rates we are “achieving”, the betrayal of the poor via ruinous power costs and the steady erosion of credibility of the “science” in a world that refuses to warm.
The fight isn’t over but the tide is turning. Suddenly, it is possible to question the settled science. The ball is starting to roll a little off the top of the hill.
It’s a pretty good bet they will not OCO2 data, as it doesn’t quite fit the narrative!
Anyone else notice how you can’t find CO2 emissions data for 2015 yet? One might think they are trying an avoidance tactic there!
It takes a while to analyze the data.
It takes longer to fit it to your needs.
Just ask Germany, how they do. Just say any number and the achieve ZERO.
Great is the ENERGIEWENDE and Mutti Merkel is its prophet!
uncertainty could be reduced by 10%….LOL and that leaves you with 90% uncertainty
This whole thing is a joke…
In a nutshell, yes. But they have to pretend something, so that their salaries will still get paid.
Yep, take away the gold and they all disappear as well as the catastrophic alarmism, and the unprofesseional mean spirited antiscience attacks.
Michael
‘Emoluments’, please.
No mere salaries for our Nature-fixing heroes.
Salaries implies membership of the ‘salariat’, when our role-models are far, far, above that.
Do they not fly to immensely important conferences, on all six continents [Not Antarctica, though . . .]?
Did they not have the undivided attention of the Nobble Laureate [whose Citation included ‘has promised many gold things . . .’ I have been told], Barack H. Obama?
Do they not converse with the ethereal spirit of Maurice Strong himself?
Auto
Mods – do note there may be pure, 24 carat, /Snarc in this post.
Possibly.
Let’s simply leave it behind.
Wondering how long this farce can continue off of the billion that Obama gave them of our money ????
You ask a very good question. I would think that the shakier things get the faster they will burn through the money with studies like this one.
And the faster the corrupt bleed off the funds.
Only one? The UN green fund says the US has contributed 3 billion dollars, though they don’t say that all this has beeen actually paid, only “pledged”.
http://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/contributors/resources-mobilized
Obama and Kerry pledged 3 billion, but only 1 billion of that was actually paid before Trump announced that he was taking us out of the accord. One of Obama’s last acts in January was to make his second payment of $500 million to the fund.
There’s a big difference between pledges and actions. I expect that America’s 1 billion will be the biggest real contribution they get. That’s also a cricitcal flaw in this article, as it assumes that the pledges will be kept, an assumption that is unlikely at best.
And now “emissions gap”, yet another new term to grapple with. I was just getting used to “thigh gap”. 8-}
Just call it “factory air”…
When information like this comes out it only amplifies the view that this “Accord” was all politics and zero science. I am sure the goals were developed like this to encourage maximum participation. Everyone entering knew it was for show especially when it was all volunteer with no penalties. For Democrats, all they are out is the loss of pride for Obama’s claim of success in agreeing to this deal.
Let’s forget about the word “accord” and call it what it is , an AGENDA
An ATTACK on America’s Pocket Book.
Fixed it for you.
Auto
With renewables contributing a paltry 2.6% of the world’s energy needs, I can’t see how any of this can fly. Just take a look at the tens of thousands of 18 wheelers moving goods along our highways and ask yourself “How is this going to be done in the new green Nirvana?”
A crucial and most pertinent question that you will never hear them answer. Because there is none. There are no renewable technologies that can replace that. Nor ships and trains. Modern civilization would collapse.
Trains can certainly run on renewable electricity…
European trains do so at about 156 mph faster than US trains
Griff, quite frankly, who cares about passenger trains? Those are unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
All of Europe’s cargo trains are still diesel. There’s no more efficient way to more material than by the quarter-million pound railcars.
Pipelines are better than rail cars at moving liquids.
Boats are better than rail cars at moving anything.
“Pipelines are better than rail cars at moving liquids.”
And when it comes to hazardous liquids, they are about 4.5 x safer, too. Nevertheless, I bet most pipeline transfer pumps run on diesel.
Electric motors are more common:
http://www.keystone-xl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Keystone-XL-Pump-Stations-Fact-Sheet-Oct-2013-FINAL.pdf
http://www.energyeastpipeline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Energy-East-Pipeline-Pump-Stations.pdf
btw, this brings up another point. Has anyone stopped to think what will happen if the gas pipeline network is interrupted due to some black swan? Gas-fired electrical plants will go down immediately and not come online again until the gas feed is restored. Coal plants don’t have the same concern because they have a feedstock buffer onsite that can keep them running for a while. So in this respect coal is much better from a national security standpoint.
Marc S Johnson- the main reason that pipelines use electric pumps is that the EPA mandates them. The second reason is faster, easier control and data logging.
Regardless, the pumps require backup power that is readily available when the electric power is down for whatever reason.
“How is this going to be done in the new green Nirvana?”
Simple enough. Green Utopia has us doing everything within just a few miles of home so no shipping of goods will be required. Of course to accomplish this we’ll also have to grow our own fruit/vegetables/grains within our government approved, postage stamp sized apartment. No meats allowed, growing meat harms the environment and is cruel to animals.
Yes, kill all carnivores agenda. Gee, that leaves all the goats and cattle and sheep. …and no fish!
And your cooking utensils will have to be beaten out of your car [no use for that!] fender or hood [bumper or bonnet for speakers of British English (Is that not an oxymoron?) I can understand Singapore English – Singlish – or French English – Franglais – and Kiwi English, and all the other variants around the world, but “British English”???]
Auto
“Electric motors are more common:”
Makes much more sense. Diesel for backup. Lost that bet…
No doubt, a UN committee will be set up to study what tunes angels dance to on the head of this pin.
At some point soon before the German elections, Merkel will have to do a “Lord Whorfin” to her GDR Comrades. Ha ha
And do not try to tell her anything different! [snicker snicker]
[This is gonna be good!]
Merkel’s party seems to be doing pretty good:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/14/angela-merkel-christian-democrats-beat-social-democrats-schulz-germany-state-election
The CDU/CSU is the conservative party in Germany, although they are a considerably more liberal version of the Republican Party. Merkel is what we would call a RINO. The Social Democrats are the socialists, who you and the other warmists would identify with much closer than the CDU. So those election results do not quite support your agenda.
This is what happens when you pile assumptions upon assumptions upon models upon breathless prognostications of doom upon corrupt data, etc.
And view it through your own rose-tinted glasses . . . . .
Auto
So with the truth slowly coming to light above all the hype we have problems? Who’d have thunk?
It’s all about virtue signalling anyway. Ambiguous pledges allow countries to become members of the club without actually having to do anything to reduce emissions. All they have to do is figure out how to present their data with a little creativity.
Let me make a prediction. When it becomes obvious that the overall goals of the Paris accord are not being met, all fingers will point at the United States. Even if the U.S. lowers emissions more than anyone else, it will still get the blame. That’s because, as a non-member, it is not paying its protection dues and is not redistributing its wealth to help other club members meet their goals. After all, that’s the main reason they wanted the U.S. in the club in the first place.
So…is “weaseling” a virtue? That’s the signal I get.
By definition, nope. lol
highflight
But, in fact, weaselling is a virtue, big-time, if you get someone else’s money for – next to – nothing.
Survival of the species through doing down others [Or similar].
Auto
“scaling up their ambition after 2030 by a factor 4 to 25”
If you pledged to cut emissions by 10%, after 2030, you need to make it 40% to 250%. Sounds reasonable.
Of course, all of this is really non-binding, so the outcomes have a 0% of confidence.
I don’t get why nations that have no intention of complying with a treaty feel the need to flock together in a big circuis and not comply together. Can’t they just go their own ways and not comply?
It’s so the “Consultanting Class” can network and spend other people’s money.
Bingo. It’s all about the money.
I’ll just leave this here…
https://youtu.be/dxbb5RcqpZM
Would it be better phrased as androgynous pledges?
I think they are “heterogeneous pledges”. They swing both ways.
In Australia we have an expression “pissin’ (urinating) into the wind”.
The ridiculous concept of the Paris Agreement that it was a “Master Plan to Save the Earth” was nothing better than a group of drunks around a fire who decided to “piss into the wind”.
Time to start a headline that goes along the line that 98% of Scientists / People don’t believe 97% of Climate Scientists.
Those 98% believe the 3% that tell the truth.
“‘I see’, said the blind man as he pissed into the wind. ‘It’s all coming back to me now.'”
All these CO2 reduction pledges can be ambiguous – the treaty was never about climate or temperature, it was all about a way to insert the UN into national governments, national governments slowly conceding control to the UN and the transfer of wealth from the western nations to the kleptocrats of the third world. CO2 control was just window dressing.
Where did the 2 degrees come from, eh?
“”Where did the 2 degrees come from”
I think it might be based on a somewhat wild guess (based on polar ice cores, marine fossils and plant fossils?) that the Eemian Interglacial 120,000 years ago might have peaked 2 degrees C warmer than the present and the world didn’t end. Don’t have a reference for that. Can’t even remember where or when that notion came to me.
PS. Before posting this, I spent 15 minutes trying to find an estimate of CO2 levels in the Eemian. Couldn’t.
“97.3% of all statistics are made up.” I’ve always loved that quote. I believe it is where the 2 degrees originally came from. I’m 97.3% sure of it.
Rectal extraction
In Perpetua.
It was “invented ” by a guy at Pottydam.
Shellenhummer or something like that.
It has absolutely ZERO point of fact.
I was wondering about that too. And about how they know the precise amount of CO2 which will cause a 2 degree, as opposed to a1.5 degree, rise in temperature. AND how they can quantify the cost / benefit of half a degree difference 80 years from now.
They rely on the models, which according to them are 100% accurate, despite not being able to hind cast worth a darn.
Oh don’t worry it was 2.0K above pre-industrial temperatures, I’m not sure if we are even up to the Medieval warm period temperatures yet.
Coeur de Lion,
Love this question. Jer0me and AndyG55 are essentially correct. This is my standard response whenever this question comes up.
Origin of the 2°C Limit Comment
Whenever I see Schellnhuber’s name in a post, I always like to remind people where the dreaded and dangerous 2°C limit comes from (hint: it’s pulled from a place of darkness).
Please read the whole thing at:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html
Back in the 70’s activists were whining repeatedly about the huge number of hungry people in the US. If I remember correctly, the number 3 million was tossed about regularly. Where did this number come from? It was made up on the spot during congressional testimony, according to the guy who was giving the testimony.
IMO they come up with unrealistic figures like that by redefining “hunger” as “food insecurity”. Google that scam. I’ve personally come to the conclusion that an obese man would be considered food insecure if he was concerned about not being able to eat 7000 calories per day. There’s not any rigor in how they define that term.
Bernard Nathanson, a white male, and a prolific abortionist and abortion advocate, abortion-advocacy partner with white male Larry Lader, later turned pro-life, after becoming pro-life, admitted he and his fellow pro-abortion advocacy travellers made up the “data” on back alley abortions, when advocating in the 1960s and into 1970s for legal abortion:
“It was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the “morality” of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws [against abortion] eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”
Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, 1979, p 193.
–Frankly, there are no good data on number of abortions annually before legalization, although the underground “network” of abortionists, at least fairly well noted in white male Garrett Hardin’s book, Stalking the Wild Taboo (describing his efforts to de-taboo abortion through development of rhetoric) can give a sense that illegal abortion occurred with some regularity.
Although Schellnhuber claims it, it was first mentioned by economist William Nordhaus in 1975:
CAN WE CONTROL CARBON DIOXIDE? William D. Nordhaus June 1975 http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/365/1/WP-75-063.pdf
(A working paper for IIASA)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_for_Applied_Systems_Analysis
“As a first approximation, it seems reasonable to argue that the climatic effects of carbon dioxide should be kept well within the normal range of long-term climatic variation. According to most sources the range of variation between climatic (sic) is in the order of ± 5 °C., and at the present time the global climate is at the high end of this range.
If there were global temperatures more than 2 or 3°C. above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.
Within a stable climatic regime, the range of variation of ± l °C is the normal variation: thus in the last 100 years a range of mean temperature has been 0.7°C.”
We are told that current “warming” since pre-1850 is l °C, so we are within the range of natural variation, according to Nordhaus in 1975, yet we are told that this is all due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2.
In 1977, Nordhaus expanded on his theme in Discussion paper 443 for the Cowles Foundation at Yale:
“Strategies for the Control of Carbon Dioxide” http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d04/d0443.pdf
In this paper he repeated a lot of his IIASA paper, including the seminal paragraph: “If there were global temperatures more than 2 or 3°C. above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.”
However, he changed his figure for the range of variation within a stable climatic regime “such as the current interglacial”, from l°C, to 2°C and said that in the last 100 years a range of mean temperature had been 0.6°C, rather than his earlier 0.7.
In 1990, the UN AGGG (United Nations Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases), was asking for no more than a 1 degree rise in global temperature. That in turn traces back to the Villach Conference of 1986, and the subsequent Bellagio Conference in 1987, when some of the main proponents of the AGW meme were present, and have been driving it ever since. That then morphed into 1.5 degrees and again into 2 degrees. After Paris, 1.5 degrees is the new mantra for the activists.
In 1995, John Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute (and Climate Advisor to the Pope), promoted 2 degrees via the German Advisory Council on Global Climate Change, of which he has been alternatively Chairman and Vice-Chairman for many years. He has claimed 2°C as “his” ever since. It was essentially based on the simplistic logic of Nordhaus and in 1996, it was adopted by the EU.
The WBGU’s recommendation: A maximum of 2°C warming is acceptable. The WBGU reaffirms its conviction that in order to avert dangerous climatic changes, it is essential to comply with a ‘climate guard rail’ defined by a maximum warming of 2°C relative to pre-industrial values. As the global mean temperature has already risen by 0.6°C since the onset of industrialization, only a further warming by 1.4°C is tolerable. A global mean long-term warming rate of at most 0.2°C per decade should not be exceeded. This climate window should be agreed as a global objective within the context of the UNFCCC process. The European Union should seek to adopt a leading role on this matter.”
Richard Tol also examined the 2 degree target in 2005, here: “Europe’s Long Term Climate Target: A Critical Evaluation”
http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/twodegreeswp.pdf, with a later version in 2007:
https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v35y2007i1p424-432.html
His conclusion was, “This target is supported by rather thin arguments, based on inadequate methods, sloppy reasoning, and selective citation. Overall, the 2°C target of the EU seems unfounded.”
The EU’s own defence of it in 2008, is here: http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/uploads/2C_EU.pdf. Full of quotes from AR4 and modelling projections.
“This paper outlines the scientific background for the EU climate protection target – the 2oC limit – established by the EU Governments in 1996 and reaffirmed since then by the Environment Council 2003, and European Council, 2005, 2007. The paper also identifies how this target may be achieved through global action.”
dennisambler,
Wow, thank you for that information and background. I generally post my comment whenever anyone asks where the 2 °C limit came from (with reference), but I didn’t know the rest of the background. Looks like Schellnhuber is an egotistical, self-aggrandizing plagiarist who doesn’t want to give proper credit and reference to where the idea initially originated. But then, he is a “climate scientist.”
I’ll have to take more time to go through your references and revise/update my comment (or just copy yours, with proper acknowledgement). 🙂
37.5% of all statistics are fabricated-on-the-spot. 😉
97% of the time… lol
Coeur de Lion
I have for many years had a huge appreciation of three degrees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Degrees
Even my future sovereign lord, Charles, liked them.
Auto
Rojelj and Meinshausen were contributors to the following whilst working at Schellnhuber’s Potsdam Institute in 2010.
(Meinshausen is a “Keep it in the Ground proponent, former Greenpeace and WWF. Responsible with Myles Allen for the “Carbon Budget” idea, “Towards the Trillionth Tonne”)
COPENHAGEN ACCORD MEETING 2°C TARGET
2 February 2010
“Only 2 out of 10 developed countries’ reduction targets submitted to the Copenhagen Accord qualify as ‘sufficient’ to keep global temperature rise below 2°C, finds the update of the ’Climate Action Tracker´ (www.climateactiontracker.org). The reduction targets of all countries currently associated with the Accord lead to a striking inconsistency with the 2°C goal defined in the very same Accord. The current pledges
leave the world heading for a global warming of over 3degC above pre-industrial levels by 2100.”
ROJELJ 2017:
“Countries have put forward pledges to limit and reduce their emissions. But in many cases the actions described in these pledges are ambiguous or imprecise,” says IIASA researcher Joeri Rogelj, who led the study.
The study finds that the emissions implied by the current NDCs can vary by -10 to +20% around the median estimate of 52 GtCO2e/yr in 2030. A previous study, also led by IIASA, had found that that the emissions reductions set out in the NDCs would not put the world on track to achieve the Paris targets.”
This is yet another movable feast as they continue to torture the spreadsheets with “what if’s”. All the emissions stuff is self-reported and often several years late. Accuracy is difficult to assess and in any case what difference do these figures make to global weather patterns?
The aim of the Agreement is stated in one paragraph, the rest of the 25 pages is basically filler text:
“Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change; ”
Unless one knows the relationship between CO2 and temperature, there is no way to determine what global CO2 level has to be targeted Does anybody know the magic formula? Why isn’t it part of the agreement?
How are natural temperature variations taken into account?
What is the value of the reference temperature against which the 2°C are compared? Which day of the year is the reference day? Is there one single value and if yes, why isn’t it stated?
The Paris Agreement requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs). It is impossible to quantify an actual result in terms of global ppm CO2 and even less in terms of °C from all these pledges.
Lets take the example of Tuvalu, an archipel in the Pacific Ocean, with a population of 10’000. Tuvalu gets 100% of its electrical power from diesel generators. The diesel is imported by ship.
In its intended NDC, Tuvalu states:
“Tuvalu commits to reduction of emissions of green-house gases from the electricity generation (power) sector, by 100%, ie almost zero emissions by 2025. […] Base year, 2010, emissions ≅ 20 Gg C02 eq”
What will be the impact on the global temperature (“climate”)?
Tuvalu states:
“Tuvalu’s emissions are less than 0.000005% of global emissions, one of the lowest from any Parties, negligible in the global context.”
Zero impact, but what will be the cost? Tuvalu asks for 36 million USD from the Green Climate Fund to finance the conversion from diesel to solar energy. That’s equivalent to its GDP.
http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/PublishedDocuments/Tuvalu%20First/TUVALU%20INDC.pdf
ReTuvalu
Its called greenmail cousin to blackmail
I recall seeing some data on Tuvalu that showed no sea level rise any on else recall that
“Zero impact, but what will be the cost? Tuvalu asks for 36 million USD from the Green Climate Fund to finance the conversion from diesel to solar energy. That’s equivalent to its GDP”
Obviously, it makes little difference wrt planetary salvation whether Tuvalu — population 10000 — switches to renewables. But it might be simply a nice thing to do to help them reduce their dependence on hydrocarbons they don’t have and can’t afford just as soon as renewable technology is ready. Seems like a terrific place to proof wind and/or solar before inflicting them on larger populations. It’s not like the Tuvali have a lot to lose (As long as they don’t scrap their diesel generator(s)).
Note that wind failed dismally on Pitcairn Island (population 60) and doesn’t seem to be doing all that well on El Hierro in the Canary Islands. http://euanmearns.com/tag/el-hierro/ One wonders how well Denmark and Germany would do if they didn’t have less green neighbors to fall back on when their wind farms and solar arrays falter.
“El Hierro”…. population about the same as Tuvalu….10,000+ About $50M start up cost for each to go all renewable sun/wind (some hydro for El Hierro planned but that’s a long shot). You don’t need to see if it works or not because that’s not the problem. Do the math and extrapolate for larger populations/states/countries and there isn’t enough money available to finance it even if it did work. From an economical and emissions perspective it’s a stupid move.
Don K
You say “…But it might be simply a nice thing to do to help them reduce their dependence on hydrocarbons…”;
I say: go ahead & send them as much of your money as you wish to “donate”. I have higher priority things to do with mine.
The biggest piece of total unreality in all this is the assumption that emissions can be estimated based on today’s soon-to-be-obsolete energy and transportation technologies – i.e. fossil fuel power plants and gas powered cars. The entire business is a fool’s mission to reduce emissions by expensive and inferior “renewable” technologies, while revolutionary new technologies that are superior and cheaper are on the near horizon,
and will reduce emissions in the course of time.
benpal,
It’s worse than that. that’s the initial capital cost. Replacement and maintenance costs over the next 30 years are estimated to be net 87 million USD.
To me, the whole irony of the Paris accord is, the only country which met it’s Kyoto protocol/treaty non binding targets was the only country which was not a part of it. The U.S congress shot it down when put to vote and yet, the U.S. still was able to bring down it’s emissions through natural gas use. I think we need the Paris accord like we need an economic hole.
The Paris Accords were not an agreement between the US and the UN, but an agreement between the UN and Obama. The accords didn’t have the consent of the governed, and in reality was nothing more than one man agree to an international set of protocols.
The Paris accord obligates huge amounts of money from the richest nations to the poorest in return for “pledges” – no real substantial actions required. IOW, this is simple extortion (piracy) on an international scale by entire governments.
A relevant point – the U.S. is already halfway to the Paris climate goals without any government action whatsoever.
LEDs and other efficiency improvements are greatly reducing electricity demand in the U.S. Swapping natural gas in for coal reduces carbon dioxide emissions in half for electrical generation. Factor in a few solar panels, electric cars, geothermal, hydro improvements…we will easily meet the Paris climate goals. Add in a few other potential developments – cheaper energy storage, supercritical carbon dioxide generators, improved solar panels, nuclear, higher mileage cars, more wind…we will easily exceed all the goals. Probably by a substantial margin. It is all baked in the cake already.
Which calls for a reexamination of the Paris treaty – what was it’s purpose exactly?
I have a somewhat off-topic question, hoping someone here can help me understand. As I was watching John Oliver bash our President’s decision to leave the Paris Climate Agreement (yeah, I know he got the majority of his fact wrong, but his show is usually funny to watch), Mr. Oliver presented a bar chart regarding the annual CO2 emissions of the world. The chart is sort of irrelevant but it got me thinking, CO2 has a half life in our atmosphere of roughly 5 years based on the sources I have read.
If we were to stagnate our CO2 output across the entire globe, would we reach an equilibrium of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere after 5 years or so?
In other words, does the PPM measurement of CO2 continue to go up each year because humans continue to put more CO2 into the atmosphere than the year prior?
Sisyphus was punished for his self-aggrandizing craftiness and deceitfulness by being forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it come back to hit him, repeating this action for eternity. Let’s hope the Anthopongenic Global Warming hoax is hit hard enough by reality such that the hoax does not last for eternity.