Looks Like Global Action On "Climate Change" Is Dead

From the Manhattan Contrarian

July 10, 2017/ Francis Menton

As a basic starting point, I suggest that on any story of political importance in the New York Times, the truth is probably exactly the opposite of what they report.  Consider that lead story on the front page of yesterday’s Sunday print edition: “World Leaders Move Forward on Climate Change, Without U.S.”   Scary!  The U.S. is getting completely isolated from the world community!

In a final communiqué at the conclusion of the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg, Germany, the nations took “note” of Mr. Trump’s decision to abandon the pact and “immediately cease” efforts to enact former President Barack Obama’s pledge of curbing greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.  But the other 19 members of the group broke explicitly with Mr. Trump in their embrace of the international deal, signing off on a detailed policy blueprint outlining how their countries could meet their goals in the pact.

You can definitely count on Pravda not to look into what these other 19 countries have promised to do and let you know if there is any substance to it.  So the hard work falls once again to the Manhattan Contrarian.  If you just Google the letters “INDC” (“Intended Nationally Determined Contribution”) along with the name of a country, you can find out exactly what that country has promised to do as part of the Paris Agreement.  So let’s take a look at what a few of the big countries are up to.

  • China.  We already know that answer from my post just last week.  China, through its companies, is planning to build over the course of the next decade or so well more than double the number of coal power plants that the U.S. has today.  Its INDC calls for its proceeding to increase carbon emissions as much as it wants through 2030, and only then (when everyone in China presumably has electricity and a couple of cars)  to level things off.  By that time its emissions will probably be at least triple those of the U.S.
  • IndiaIndia’s INDC openly admits that it intends to increase its electricity supply by more than triple between now and 2030, with no commitment whatsoever as to how much of that will come from fossil fuels.  Oh, they say that they plan to lower the “emissions intensity” of their energy generation, and greatly expand (useless) wind and solar capacity, as well as nuclear.  Whoopee!
  • Indonesia.   These things get more comical the more of them you read.  The first thing you learn in reading Indonesia’s INDC is that the large majority of its emissions come from burning down the rain forest (“most emissions (63%) are the result of land use change and peat and forest fires”) and very little from using fossil fuels for energy (“fossil fuels contribute[e] approximately 19% of total emissions”).  So they’ll promise to burn down less of the rain forest, and nothing whatsoever as to reducing use of fossil fuels for energy.  Their (completely illusory) “reduction target” of 29% by 2030 is not against a fixed amount of past usage (like the United States’ benchmark of 2005 emissions), but rather is against what they call a “business as usual” scenario of projected future emissions that are a multiple of today’s.
  • Russia.  What, you didn’t know that Russia was a member of the G20?  What is the chance that Russia would make an honest promise about emissions reductions?  Their INDC calls for reducing emissions by 25-30% below 1990 by 2030.  Impressive!  Wait a minute!  The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.  Then they closed down all that inefficient Soviet industry.  According to a graph at Climate Action Tracker here, by 2000 their emissions were down by almost 40% from the 1990 level, and they have only crept up a little from there since.  In other words, Russia’s supposed “commitments” again represent increases from today’s level of emissions.  Yet another total scam.
  • Germany.  Germany is part of the supposed EU commitment to reduce emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.  Oh, but now that Germany has gotten its electricity production from renewables up to about 30%, it seems that it has hit a wall, and its carbon emissions have actually gone up for both of the last two years (2015 and 2016), according to Clean Energy Wire.  Exactly how do they plan to meet their goal?  Excellent question.

See the full post here.

HT/Ronald Myers

Advertisements

88 thoughts on “Looks Like Global Action On "Climate Change" Is Dead

      • Oh goodness me, we are still not allowed to say “fami1iar” on this site. Please fix the friggin filters or remove them.

        If you want to filter the L-word in WordPress , put it in quotes with a space after it. I flagged this about half a century ago. You are currently putting a block on any word containing those four letters. L A I R.

      • Jeez , this gets worse , I try to point out the problem and my comment goes straight to trash without even getting a moderation hold.

  1. I.e. It was at best meaningless and at worst grossly unfair to those countries like the US and UK that normally play by the rules. If only May had the gumption and courage of Trump.

    • May will have a trump style in the future. There is to handle a great deal with Trump in the next few years. BG can better handle the brexit with the US and Trump and therefore, the AGW-scam is then a thing of the past.

    • May had the courage to call an election. Now she’s hanging on by the skin of her teeth. She can’t do anything that will cost her even one vote in parliament.

      Trump, on the other hand, can rely on the fact that the Republicans control the house and the senate. Apparently he can get away with anything.

      • dunno…..republicans are divided between the conservatives and rinos and liberals pretending to be republicans…and all of them career politicians that want to protect their s c a m at all costs

      • Yet the RINOs keep saying they don’t have enough of the senate. Your statement does not seem to be aligned with what the RINOs are actually saying and doing.

      • Latitude July 12, 2017 at 9:07 am

        dunno

        I have no doubt that some of them would turn on President Trump if they thought they could get away with it.

        Both parties have been operating against the interest of the majority of Americans. I have given up on the Democrats. There’s still hope that the Republicans will learn the lessons to be learned from Trump’s election. The minute the public realizes that one party makes them better off, that party will rule for decades.

        Not as off topic as it seems … There was this story on BoingBoing.com. The first thing to notice, if you hover the cursor over the link, is the title of the story seems to be “get-a-brain-morans”. I think we may have detected at least one moron. The story is that most Republicans think higher education is bad for America.

        I am coming around to the position that higher education, as it is currently practiced, is extremely harmful to western civilization. The postmodernists have taken over and they have indoctrinated our brightest and best to believe that the most arrant crap as being deeply profound. link

        So, what does this have to do with climate change? Belief in CAGW is based entirely on faith in theory and the experts who propound it. If education were more based on knowledge and less on analysis, we would be much better off because we would not be inculcated with such unthinking faith.

      • May is in a coalition with a partner, whose intentions are very conservativ. This partner was compensated for a breakthrough with several billion pounds for Northern Ireland. May has nothing to fear from this partner. On the contrary, the EU is concerned that Ireland will conclude a special agreement with Northern Ireland on trade and passenger traffic without asking the EU. What is possible in small border traffic. What May has more to fear is the same case as with Trump, globalization winners will by any means want to soften a hard brexit and also want to buy Tory deputies. May should always be aware of this danger; attacks on their lives are also possible in the event of the lack of sucess of political action by the globalisers. There is a lot of money lost for this Mafia in the success of Mays intention ..

      • “There’s still hope that the Republicans will learn the lessons to be learned from Trump’s election.”

        We will know the answer by the end of the year.

        Repubicans in Congress, *all* of them, even the good ones, are in danger of being characterized as “the Gang that can’t shoot straight”, if they can’t get their act together and get health care and tax cuts through this year.

        Next year will be an election year. Trump’s supporters are solidly behind Trump. The Republicans who want to stay in office better figure that out pretty soon.

        And Btw, repeal Obamacare, do NOT fix it. Otherwise, we will never hear the end of the Democrats taking the credit for the fix and telling us to look at how wonderful Obamacare is. All the Democrats are really interested in is keeping the name Obamacare. Then they can demagogue the hell out of it.

        Repeal Obamacare. Kill it dead and start over. Or we will never hear the end of it.

      • TA July 12, 2017 at 3:20 pm

        … Repeal Obamacare. Kill it dead and start over. …

        Obamacare is a miserable compromise. I agree, it should be killed. At that point I think you and I probably part company about what should happen next. :-)

      • ” At that point I think you and I probably part company about what should happen next. :-)”

        Well, maybe not.

        I know single-payer is unaffordable, which eliminates it. Bernie Sanders wants to provide “Medicaid for all”, but we can’t afford it. Liberal states have given up on single-payer because they have computed the costs and realize they can’t afford it. The federal government can’t afford it any more than can the state governments. We have to find a way to reduce costs, not increase costs.

        I think we should allow the health care market to operate fully, with competition across all state lines. Make the insurance companies compete for their customers. And there should be price transparency of all medical items and procudures, which will also force companies to compete with each other on price.

        Of course, there are powerful lobbying groups in the U.S. who will fight this tooth and nail, but I don’t see any other viable solution, so we are going to have to fight back. Fortunately, we have a fighter for a president.

      • @ Latitude July 12, 2017 at 9:07 am

        dunno…..republicans are divided between the conservatives and rinos and liberals pretending to be republicans…and all of them career politicians that want to protect their s c a m at all costs

        Right on, Latitude, ……… and that is the crux of the matter.

        They are like 95% dedicated and protective at preserving their elected position and job status ………. and only 5% dedicated to actually performing the job that they were elected to do.

        And as long as the House and Senate are permitted to make their own “on-the-job work rules”, ……. pay themselves whatever salaries and entitlements they desire, …….. individually choose their preferred “office hours”, ……. determine the number of days each week/month they want to be on the job ……. and to choose “when and how many” paid vacation days they deserve each year, ………. there is no way in ell to change the current “culture of malfeasance, nonfeasance and/or misfeasance” that is running rampant throughout the halls of Congress, …… as well as in most every State House and its controlling Legislature.

      • Dump all government-backed insurance and healthcare costs will plummet. Hospitals and other providers can only get away with obnoxiously high prices because they know the state will pick up the tab for anybody who can’t pay. Same reason why college tuition keeps edging upwards; the wealthy can still pay it, and the state pays for those who can’t.

        It’s our self-forged One Ring (among others) that needs must be cast into the Fire. It’s the right thing to do, but do we have the will to actually do it? (One of the main themes of Tolkien’s trilogy, in fact.)

      • “Best to forget it. There is no ‘W’ in “The New York Times”

        It’s okay, it was true for a while. They pulled all of them out of their keyboards (in unity with President Clinton’s staffers) after the 2000 election, but put them back after realizing the need to put “Warming” in every other article.

    • Yes, “The Monkeys Write.”

      I’ll even readily grant that they “type randomly”.

      But I’m still waiting for resulting “Shakespeare” that probability insists is a possibility.

      • According to one source, they’ve got as far as, ‘To be or not to be, that is the gazorninplat…’

      • They’re working on it. link

        Bob Newhart pointed out the problem that somebody would have to check the infinite monkeys. link It went something like:

        To be or not to be that is the gzortnimplaz

      • “It was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times?? You stupid monkeys!!” :)

  2. The notion of Paris was the US buying absolution for our green sins, not actually doing anything constructive. What the New York Times and the green blob despise is Trump not recognizing their moral authority.

  3. China’s emissions going to be triple those of the US by 2030: Not if China and US stick to their INDCs, and US emissions remain level past the last year in their INDC, 2025. USA’s INDC is to decease to 4.8-5 gigatonnes of CO2 per year by 2025, China’s is to peak barely above 10 gigatonnes/year in 2030.

    • P.S. I will be the straight man.

      Why do you predict that China CO2 emissions will not increase?

      Unlike the US, China has always had a China first policy. That is one of the reason why China has a $347 billion trade surplus (for the year 2016) with the US.

      China has the largest coal reserves of any country, in the world.

      What do you think will happen in the future?

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/03/forget-paris-1600-new-coal-power-plants-built-around-the-world/

      1600 Coal Plants under construction or planned in 62 Countries (2017 Data)
      But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.

      These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

      Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.

      • While I agree with your point in general, the notion of a trade surplus… well, we do get something of value in return, right? Just sayin…

      • “While I agree with your point in general, the notion of a trade surplus… well, we do get something of value in return, right?”

        Yes, but we just don’t get enough in return. In the past anyway. I expect it will be different in the future.

  4. When we eliminate all the countries that are in it for the free money and all those not required to do anything but increase their plant food emissions, we are left with EU, Britain, Canada and Australia. Between us few we will Save the World – just see if we don’t! We’ll show America, so there!!

    • Margaret Madeline Chase Smith
      … was a United States politician. A member of the Republican Party, she served as a U.S Representative (1940–49) and a U.S. Senator (1949–73) from Maine. She was the first woman to serve in both houses of the United States Congress

      Smith was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican nomination in the 1964 presidential election, but was the first woman to be placed in nomination for the presidency at a major party’s convention.

      An esteemed role model.

    • Please do. We’d love to see the climate change saviours in action. We’ll be watching intently to see how you are managing to save the world.

    • Britain doesn’t have a separate INDC, it is suborned within the the EU “average of all countries” which means we will pick up the tab for those less enthusiastic, of which there are several. We haven’t yet left the EU and there are massive forces at work trying to ensure we don’t.

    • Remember, foolish uneducated citizens are not qualified to speak on global warming because it’s too complex. Sure, if they don’t believe in it, funding might get cut, but the rule is “peer-reviewed” for the “true” answers, not citizens. (/sarc, if needed)

  5. Excellent article.

    Fake Polar Bears are a fitting mascot for the whole mess that one gets when logic, reason, and honesty are removed from politics and science.

    The facts (say an hour of research on the internet) supports the assertion that the Paris Accord is a pure scam agreement. The fake press must not have access to the internet.

    The scam Paris Accord was created to address a scam problem to force spending on scam green energy schemes that do not make economic, engineering, or environmental sense.

  6. The NYT have adopted a new corporate slogan. Instead of “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” it now reads “The Truth is News to Us.” Sad, but true.

  7. It is amazing what one can find behind those curtains. Nice job Francis!

    I can hear the retorts now. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! ;-)

  8. Here’s an illustration that might help reveal the “man behind the curtains”:

    This is my understanding visualized in a graphic that I just threw together. Is this the correct understanding that many people just can’t see? After a certain concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, there simply is NOT any more radiation available that the added CO2 can absorb? Earth is emitting all the radiation that can possibly be absorbed by CO2, and the amount of CO2 that can absorb this amount of Earth radiation is pretty much already here.

    This is my visualization of the curtains-over-the-window analogy that I just read, which goes something like: Cover a window with a curtain, and a portion of the sunlight is blocked by the curtain, while a portion of the sunlight shines through the curtain more dimly. Add another curtain, and more sunlight is blocked while a little bit of sunlight still shines through the second curtain. At some point, you reach a thickness where NO MORE sunlight can get through — it’s all blocked by the accumulated thickness of the curtains.

    In other words, think of CO2 as a curtain, and each additional curtain is an additional amount of CO2. This is the “saturation” argument, of course, but that word still seems to spark great debate over what seems to be a solid conclusion — that more and more CO2 canNOT cause more and more heating, after a certain point. And the amount of heating that the small CO2 additions have caused or will cause is simply insignificant.

    Why is this still in question?

    • Of course, you have to juggle some ideas by pretending that sunlight, IN THIS ANALOGY, is “earthlight” or the infrared radiation caused by the sun’s heating of earth’s surface.

    • How saturated CO2’s absorption of outgoing IR is not the only issue. As CO2 gets “thicker”, outgoing IR well within CO2’s absorption band gets absorbed, re-emitted and absorbed again an increasing number of multiple times, so a greater temperature gradient is required to achieve a given amount of radiative transfer from the surface to outer space. With more CO2, surface-reaching downwelling IR photons will on average be emitted from a lower altitude where it is warmer, so more downwelling IR reaches the surface.

      • Then why, with CO2 concentration climbing steadily like a homesick angel, has there been no warming in a human generation? No student graduating high school this year has lived a day in a warming world. But, don’t let mere facts curb your enthusiasm …

      • Brian, because the effect gets progressively weaker due to fact that it requires multiple absorptions. Pretty much, this is why the function is logarithmic, not an Arrhenius curve with a fixed asymptote. There isn’t an absolute maximum, but it does get progressively weaker as you increase concentration. This is why Venus is Venus. It’s enormously dense atmosphere has this effect. It’s also why we can’t have that effect, since our atmosphere isn’t dense enough for this to become a serious problem.

        Thanks for the concise explanation, Donald.

      • I want to focus on this statement:

        How saturated CO2’s absorption of outgoing IR is not the only issue. As CO2 gets “thicker”, outgoing IR well within CO2’s absorption band gets absorbed, re-emitted and absorbed again an increasing number of multiple times, so a greater temperature gradient is required to achieve a given amount of radiative transfer from the surface to outer space. With more CO2, surface-reaching downwelling IR photons will on average be emitted from a lower altitude where it is warmer, so more downwelling IR reaches the surface.

        Okay, you say, “How saturated CO2’s absorption of outgoing IR is not the only issue.”

        Now to speak of CO2’s absorption being “saturated” is confusing to me, because it seems like an awkward use of language. I think of “absorption” as a capability, NOT as a quantity to which we can apply the term, “saturated”. Do you mean that a particular band or bands of CO2 is/are saturated? (of course you do) and what does this mean, if not that all particular bands of every single CO2 molecule is/are saturated?

        If saturated, then how can MORE “outgoing IR well within CO2’s absorption band” get absorbed? Saturation means that no more can, let alone doing this over and over again, I thought. Consequently, your next sentence, “As CO2 gets ‘thicker’, outgoing IR well with CO2’s absorption band gets absorbed, re-emitted and absorbed again an increasing number of multiple times …” seems to contradict your first sentence.

        It seems that you accept the idea of saturation. But when CO2 gets “thicker”, the idea of “saturation”, then, somehow seems to disappear to allow MORE infrared radiation to be absorbed anyway. If the bands are already saturated, then how can there still be MORE to get absorbed?

        There always seems to be a twist of language in this explanation that causes me confusion over and over again, and I can never get a clear idea of how saturation allows for anything other than NO FURTHER EFFECT.

        Where am I going wrong?

    • There is one way that increasing Carbon Dioxide CAN increase temperature even beyond that point where the max absorption happens in your scenereo
      If CO2 were to actually increase atmospheric pressure, the pressure increase WOULD cause an additional rise in temperatures.

  9. A truthful headline would have been “19 Grifters vow to continue running the scam, even though the mark who was supposed to pay for it all figured out what was up and left them all high and dry.”

  10. Ummm… since the Larsen C ice shelf finally broke away from Antarctica, is this going to provide enough air conditioning to deflect any possibilities of future global warming?

    The prediction by the panic-attack-ridden press is a 200 foot rise in ocean levels.

    Just wondering, because I made another batch of ice tea this morning and with each ice cube I drop into it, I think of Algore.

  11. Germany. Germany is part of the supposed EU commitment to reduce emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Oh, but now that Germany has gotten its electricity production from renewables up to about 30%, it seems that it has hit a wall, and its carbon emissions have actually gone up for both of the last two years (2015 and 2016), according to Clean Energy Wire. Exactly how do they plan to meet their goal? Excellent question.

    Simple answer… East Germany was ABSORBED by West Germany on October 3rd 1990. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reunification This lead to the shutting down and or cleanup of much polluting East German industry. Merely shutting down East German factories was really “low hanging fruit” when it came to emissions reduction for the combined Germany.

    Not to mention East German cars. The Trabant was way ahead of its time in some respects… Duroplast body (Duroplast was recycled waste products), a transverse engine and front wheel drive and a monocoque body. But the execution was horrible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

    The engine produced very smoky exhaust and significant air pollution – nine times the hydrocarbons and five times the carbon monoxide emissions of the average European car of 2007.
    […snip…]
    Since the engine did not have an oil injection system, two-stroke oil had to be added to the 24-liter (6.3 U.S. gal; 5.3 imp gal) fuel tank every time the car was filled up, at a 50:1 or 33:1 ratio of fuel to oil.
    […snip…]
    Because the car lacked a fuel pump, the fuel tank had to be placed above the motor in the engine compartment so that fuel could be fed to the carburetor by grav
    ity; a trade-off of this design was an increased fire risk in front-end accidents.

    Using 1990 communist emission levels makes things easy for Germany, the EU, and even Russia, but not for the rest of the world. Notice also that the Kyoto protocol used 1990 as the base year for most countries… hmmmmm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

    Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol, their 2008-2012 commitments (% of base year) and 1990 emission levels (% of all Annex I countries)

    For most Parties, 1990 is the base year for the national GHG inventory and the calculation of the assigned amount. However, five Parties have an alternative base year:

    Bulgaria: 1988;
    Hungary: the average of the years 1985-87;
    Poland: 1988;
    Romania: 1989;
    Slovenia: 1986.

  12. The basic premise is ludicrous. “Emissions” should not be reduced.
    Adding CO2 to the atmosphere has no impact on global temperature, and is good for agriculture.

  13. “As a basic starting point, I suggest that on any story of political importance in the New York Times, the truth is probably exactly the opposite of what they report.”

    A *very* good rule of thumb. You should assume they are lying or at best telling only half the truth and spinning the rest for political purposes.

  14. “We’ll always have Paris” much like the Kellog Briand Pact of the 1930s outlawing war. Meaningless drivel but meant to restrain the idiots who plan to follow the rules. Thank you again Potus

  15. As a result of this Manhattan Contrarian’s post I have derived the First Law of Climate Mitigation

    To reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, the aggregate reduction in countries that reduce their emissions must be greater than aggregate increase in emissions in all other countries.

    It might be an obvious truism, but all the policy-makers seem to ignore it. Proposed emissions pathway is commensurate with 2°C of warming have become more extreme over time, yet there is no breakdown by country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s