Christopher Booker: Trump Took The Heat, But The Rest Of The G20’s Posturing Won’t Hide Their Rising CO2 Emissions

From The GWPF

  • Date: 15/07/17
  • Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph

China, the world’s largest CO2 emitter, is planning to double its yearly emissions. India, the third largest emitter, will treble its CO2 emissions.

Booker-15-JUly17

Golly, what excitement there was over President Trump’s refusal to sign the G20 communiqué backing the “Paris Accord” on climate change.  Trump was in a minority of one against all the other 19 governments (plus the EU) which supported an agreement that the world must phase out fossil fuels. We were even told that the US now stood alone against all the other 195 countries that signed up to that non-binding Accord.

But, just as happened at the time of Paris itself, everyone completely missed the real story. Before Paris, each of the 196 participating countries, as I reported at the time (thanks to that expert analyst Paul Homewood on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog), was asked to submit an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), setting out its energy plans for the years up to 2030.

China, the world’s largest CO2 emitter, is planning to double its yearly emissions

All the major “developing” nations, led by China and India, paid lip service to the conference’s intentions, showing how they would be investing in “renewables” such as wind and solar, so long as they were generously subsidised to do so by the “developed” nations out of a Green Climate Fund worth $100 billion a year.

But they then explained how, to keep their economies growing, they planned to build huge numbers of new fossil fuel power stations, which would lead to a massive increase in their CO2 emissions.

China, the world’s largest CO2 emitter, is planning to double its yearly emissions, by an extra 10.9 billion tons. India, the third largest emitter, will treble its emissions, adding 4.9 billion tons, All the other major “developing” nations, plus Japan and Russia, are equally planning to build more coal-fired power stations.So 13 of the countries which signed that G20 communiqué last week, intend to contribute to what the INDCs show will within 13 years be a 46 percent rise in global emissions.

The only G20 countries left committed to CO2 reductions (by 1.7 billion tons) are now those in the EU, plus Canada and Australia, between them responsible for just 11.3 percent of global emissions. Most of the remaining 88.7 percent is emitted by countries which plan to increase them. Is it surprising that President Trump wanted no part in such a grotesque display of international hypocrisy?

Full post

Advertisements

109 thoughts on “Christopher Booker: Trump Took The Heat, But The Rest Of The G20’s Posturing Won’t Hide Their Rising CO2 Emissions

  1. The correlation between rising International Hypocrisy and rising atmospheric CO2 level can no longer be ignored.

    I know, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but still…

    • I’ve done the structural equations analysis on this, and if you add ignorance and hubris into the model you are good to go

      • And after all the real world data comes in, against which you compare your model, don’t forget to factor in my “forgone conclusion calibration error” (FCCE), … forget the other errors that you have to subtract — just apply THIS one as a straight addition, in order to arrive at the desired outcome confirming your bias going in.

        Ah, the beauty of mathematics !

      • They will need to create massive piles of
        Forgone Emissive Calculation Estimation Statements though

      • RK, my AP high school physics professor, Hamorsky, delighted in teaching the ‘Hamorsky fudge factor’. Take your answer, divide it by the right answer, then multiply this Hamorsky fudge factor by your answer and submit for his tests. Only problem was, he never supplied the right answer. And thus was basic physics learned.

      • Don’t forget to calculate in the possibility of getting OPM (Other People’s Money) into those models, that always has a huge sway factor for corrupt bureaucrats.

    • The idea is that China and India should increase their standard of living. Nothing wrong with that, but how does a decrease of our standard of living help them? It would probably harm them.

      • I don’t understand how the US standard of living will decease by adopting low emissions technology. A small number of jobs are being lost in the production of coal yet thousands of jobs are being created in renewable technology. Coal industry workers total 49,800. Renewable energy sector 379,000. So we reduce the emissions by ridding the country of coal and employ more people in wind, solar and hydro. Iowa gets nearly 40% of its total energy use from wind …. yes 40%, few more wind farms please. How can employing more people reduce the standard of living, they buy more stuff improving demand and pay more taxes.

      • Steve – Look up Bastiat’s Broken Window, and you will see that the fewer jobs there are in energy production the more jobs there are in the total economy. Those renewable energy jobs are strangling the economy.

      • Germany had 35% renewable electricity in the first half of 2017. Not including nuclear.

        Its standard of living remains excellent – at or above US levels.

        How can renewable energy damage peoples standard of living?
        (Or the economy – Germany’s has grown as it adopted renewables)

      • Steve: I don’t mean to be rude but t’s kind of incredible that anyone can be quite so ignorant as to make the comment you just made. We could also stop using washing machines and make women do the laundry by slapping clothes on rocks down by the river. We could make flour by pounding the grain with sticks. Just think how much emissions we’d save and how many jobs we’d create!

      • For Steve,
        Come on mate, you are pulling my tit.
        Show me a major metal smelter willingnto invest in new plant driven by renewables.
        Tell me of any IT company preferring an intermittent power supply to a steady one.
        Show us how scientists working in climate change are progressing scientific quality. They seem to be diverting research funds from harder, more worthy causes.
        And so on, into the night. Geoff

      • >>Germany standard of living remains excellent – at or above US levels.

        Standard sine wave. If you are on the upslope, the inertia of your economy will allow continued growth for a while (a decade?) until you hit the downslope. And that upslope is assisted by German subsidy of industrial electricity (at the expense of consumers), which I thought was iIIegal under EU rules.

        But it you look at the German press, it is clear that there is a huge flight of energy intensive industries out of Germany – especially to the US, where energy prices are much lower. There is also a danger that the German grid will collapse, when there is an anticyclonic week with low cloud and no wind. Base-load supply in Germany is hopelessly inadequate. After the first few nationwide blackouts, expect the flight of German industry to accellerate dramatically.

        R

      • @ Griff – Germany has grown its economy Despite – not because of renewable energy – you should listen to German manufacturing industry lobbying government and pointing out that the energy costs forced by the use of renewables will force them to close down and or move manufacturing out of Germany.

        Listen to the German people and others throughout the developed world who are now in energy poverty – frightened to heat their home because the costs have been forced through the roof by renewables

        Why do you think that Germany has embarked on a programme of building new Coal Fired power stations – it knows that renewables are not and cannot be the answer if you want to keep industry, employment and living standards.

        The one thing that renewables have achieved in developed nations is the export of manufacturing and heavy industry, with resultant home nation job losses and GDP reduction, to countries that emit far more CO2.

        It is abundantly clear, from the Paris Climate Agreement that will see CO2 emissions rise very significantly obver the next 20 years and from the lack of concern amongst European politicians that their ‘renewable’ policies are increasing CO2 emissions elsewhere, that they actually don’t have any fear or care about increasing CO2 emissions.

        From that it has to be understood that the AGW scare is simply a political control mechanism for the redistribution of wealth and manufacturing from developed nations – various UN leaders have been very candid in admitting that and confirming that it has nothing to do with climate.

      • “I don’t understand how the US standard of living will decease by adopting low emissions technology”

        I’m sorry Steve, but stupidity can’t be cured.

      • “Its standard of living remains excellent – at or above US levels.”

        Griff, have you looked at the forced disconnections from the electricity system in Germany? Not a pretty sight. Also, in the UK, 20,000 people die from hypothermia each year because they can’t afford to heat their homes.

      • Goeff,
        “Show me a major metal smelter willingnto invest in new plant driven by renewables”
        Aluminium smelting, from wikipedia “This is an electrolytic process, so an aluminium smelter uses prodigious amounts of electricity; they tend to be located very close to large power stations, often hydro-electric ones,”

        Aluminium smelting has been powered by renewables for generations.

      • seaice1 July 18, 2017 at 7:41 am
        “Goeff,
        “Show me a major metal smelter willingnto invest in new plant driven by renewables”
        Aluminium smelting, from wikipedia “This is an electrolytic process, so an aluminium smelter uses prodigious amounts of electricity; they tend to be located very close to large power stations, often hydro-electric ones,”

        Aluminium smelting has been powered by renewables for generations.”

        seaice1
        1 Geoff probably references High Priest ‘Jerry’ Moonbeam Brown’s definition of ‘Renewable’ within the state of California – which explicitly excludes hydro-electricity.
        Geoff – and you and I – know that hydro is renewable. It is also limited – the rainfall and topography [not always totally independent] need to be OK. It certainly cannot be expanded in many parts of the world – without major civil engineering . . . . . . .
        In the UK, it was suggested, probably fifteen or twenty years ago, that the UK had already installed 95% [IIRC – and I may be wrong] of all (potentially? – IIRC, again)) viable hydro.
        No reference at all from so far back. Apologies.
        Yet, some more schemes are being built.
        Osney lock, on the non-tidal Thames, in Oxford, is one such; not very big – but it helps supply power.
        Should we be starving plants? Another discussion.
        2 ‘Geoff’ – most spell it that way [in the UK; the other side of the pond if is very often Jeff; but rarely Goeff, I think]. I tried to get your handle right – not seiace1 (so making you a very VERY good rorqual!).

        Auto

      • “Its standard of living remains excellent – at or above US levels.”

        Only because Germany has pauperised the Greeks and has nearly pauperised the Italians and Spanish and held back most of the other states in the EUSSR.

        To keep Germany’s standard of living where it is – and I assure you it will not last much longer – Greece and Spain have horrific unemployment figures, in excess of 50% for the youth.

        But that doesn’t bother the likes of you at all, as the number of pensioners and the sick dying of fuel poverty doesn’t bother you, nor the deaths of millions of birds and bats and not a few whales.

        Hey, who cares about all that when you can boast about how you’re “saving the Planet”, right?

        Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for slandering her yet?

        You’re a real piece of work, aren’t you?

    • It’s important to note the hypocrisy has no impact on climate based on any empirical evidence. Something that gets lost in the distribution.

      Sure they’re hypocrites but it doesn’t validate the CO2 impact claims in any form. That disclaimer should always be added.

  2. What these stories leave out is that fact that even if China and India double their CO2 emissions their
    CO2 emission per capital are still far below the average of the G20 not to mention the USA. Natural justice requires that China and India etc are allowed to raise their living standards to a level comparable to that of Europe and the US. The Paris accord does this and does it transparently.

    • Um? Natural Justice? I must have slept through that course.

      So let’s pretend a moment all the hype about AGW is correct, and CO2 is going to kill billions. An analogy would be the world-canoe has just been discovered to be sinking because the western nations, through the use of fossil fuels, poked a bunch of holes in it, and everyone in the canoe is going to drown if we don’t stop poking new holes and bail water out. But because of Natural Justice, we can’t ask others in the canoe to stop poking holes because they have a right to poke as many holes as the western nations did before the canoe was found to be sinking? Wow. Just…wow.

      Either you do not believe that CO2 is a problem in which case it doesn’t matter that China and India increase their emissions, or you failed logic 101. You can’t possibly believe that CO2 is killing us AND that China and India have a “Natural” right to increase their emissions. (Or can you?)

      • He’s a liberal – Rule One is that The US Is ALWAYS wrong, and must pay. Rule Two is that ANYONE outside of the US and Europe is ALWAYS right, unless they are US allies and then they’re wrong too.

        Other than that, Logic to a Liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman – it makes them shrivel up and lose the ability to speak in complete sentences, and they do everything they can to avoid it at all costs.

      • Hit the nail on the head there Robert. Your very simple analysis probably explains why Al Gore and the rest of the Climate Pharisees don’t like to do debates with the ‘awkward squad’ i.e. those of us on the planet who actually believe in common sense, logic, uncorrupted data and honesty and integrity in the scientific method.

      • Robert of Texas,

        Either you do not believe that CO2 is a problem in which case it doesn’t matter that China and India increase their emissions, or you failed logic 101. You can’t possibly believe that CO2 is killing us AND that China and India have a “Natural” right to increase their emissions. (Or can you?)

        That’s an excellent example of Geoge Orwell’s Doublethink, the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct.

    • At 5% of the world’s population, the United States produces 75% of the world’s grain exports. ‘Natural decency’ requires China, India, et al to say “Thank you, how can we help?”

    • Nobody is saying China and India cannot raise the standard of living for its citizens. By withdrawing from the Paris accord we are essentially saying we are not going to cripple our standard of living to pay for their benefits.

      • But that was the entire point of the Accord! The plan’s only true goal was to let the rest of the world do whatever they wanted to increase their economies, while forcing Uncle Sugar to restrict his and to fork over $3 Billion in cash to them, too.

        It can be accurately called the greatest Con Game ever attempted.

      • Meanwhile, back home on the ranch, China seems to be buying up half the world, investing in infrastructure, island conversion to military bases, military hardware infrastructure and mining etc. across the planet for the benefit of it’s long term profit.

        Why is America, and everywhere else, forced to fund China’s short term necessities whilst they embark on a global empire building mission with their own cash? Talk about insane. Trump seems to be the only world leader who has extricated his head from the arse of the climate cult and actually looked round at what’s happening.

        Seriously, this is socialism at its extreme wealth distribution worst. For all the money the US will shell out to developing countries for their commercial benefit, it would be far better for it to save the money and start up a National Health Service and piss the money up the wall with that. We Brits have a long history of wasting money on health provision, we could give the US some pointers!

        Wouldn’t that just shift 90% of the vote in Trumps favour in 4 years time!

      • Some clever lad put it nicely: “Take money from the rich countries’ poor people and give it to poor countries’ rich people”.

      • I think lots of people are HOPING that. Their propaganda push to people in the West is that “we will lead by example,” fully believing that when the magical benefits they imagine coming from the so-called green economy become evident, the developing world will all jump in and emulate us. That is their narrative, and they’re sticking to it. These beliefs go hand in hand with a belief in one’s own ability to direct a command economy with wisdom, equality and justice.

        These people are, of course, naive at best or idiots at worst. Of course the Chinese are willing to exploit our desire for green virtue signalling. They’re eager and willing to build the things that will give them sales and exports AND ALSO cripple our competitiveness and give them a relative advantage in the energy sector. Our Progressives are gullible and perfectly willing to believe stories told by the Communists about valuing green dreams. Likewise, they’re blind as to how their own naivete makes them (us) vulnerable to exploitation by autocrats. They can’t ever get it through their heads the ease with which autocratic governments can simply “change their minds,” and how they have tools to direct their media, and coerce their massive constituencies to accept (or at least not to object to) such changes.

      • Why does everyone insist on quoting “Per Capita” especially regarding a country that is more than 50% energy deficient and almost 33% energy impoverished? Ton for Ton China is still producing far more carbon emissions than any other country in the world … PERIOD!

    • CO2 emission per capital ??????????????

      What planet are you on? If that’s the case then Kuwait has them all beat…
      …is that the trick to it?

      • Now you and I both know that was an auto-correct, and/or bad proof reading mistake.

        We know what he meant. And we have all done it.

      • LOL…yep
        Then our solution would be to move all of our coal power plants to Mississippi

    • Geronimo:

      Per IPCC, atmospheric concentration of CO2 is the master control knob for climate. More atmospheric CO2 will cause more warming. Also per IPCC, CO2 is “well mixed” and “long lived”, meaning any molecule of CO2 emitted anywhere in the world will very shortly have exactly the same effect as a molecule of CO2 emitted anywhere else in the world, and for a long time thereafter.

      The inescapable conclusion of IPCC science is therefore that global warming can only be stopped by capping and ultimately reducing total CO2 emissions. Per-capita emissions are irrelevant unless total population also decreases. If this violates “natural justice” complain to the IPCC. Otherwise you must be a science denier.

    • So, is dropping the standard of living in the developed world what you call natural justice?

      I’ve been to India, China and other ‘developing’ countries many times and while there are certainly underdeveloped regions in all of them, they also have very highly developed regions and a massive concentration of wealth. If income redistribution is the answer they want, there’s a lot to redistribute among themselves first. Holding the developed world hostage to broken science is not justice of any kind can only be considered extortion.

    • I don’t think any of us have a problem with fair play for China and India. The hypocrisy is from those who pretend that it is necessary to cut back our emissions in order to save the planet.

      Clearly, to save the planet, if that were the real aim, it would be necessary to cut back global emissions and the greenies would be demonstrating outside the embassies of China, and India. They aren’t because, according to the liberal left, only white people are capable of doing anything evil. According to the liberal left, everyone else in the world is a victim of white people, no matter what! don’t read this unless you have a strong stomach

      According to the insane liberal left greenies, it’s fine if China and India cause global warming and the entire world’s population, along with all the cute pandas and dolphins, broils to death.

    • Geronomio,
      Robert of Texas has nailed it, but I should add that your logic is flawed from the outset.
      If the point of the Paris Agreement is to prevent or limit increases in global carbon emissions to avoid a potential climate catastrophe, how can it be said that “Natural justice” allows China and India to imperil the world by (admirably) raising their living standards?
      The logical conclusion surely is that neither China nor India nor the scores of other nations given a free pass to increase emissions as developing countries believe the catastrophist message.

      • The point of the Paris accord was nothing to do with avoiding a climate catastrophe. It was all about the redistributive economics the UN has been pushing since its inception, largely because most of its members would be on the taking side and not the giving side of the redistribution. Climate reparations via the IPCC and UNFCCC just became the ‘holy grail’ mechanism to achieve their goal, actual science be damned and the IPCC did a thorough job of damning science for them.

  3. It is frustrating that this well-explained truth about the Paris agreement is ignored by much of the media, and therefor not easily understood by many of the public who are being led to believe the US is shirking it’s responsibility. The media for the most part seem not to care about truth as much as advertising. They also neglect that the US has substantially lowered CO2 emission while the sanctimonious Germany has struggled, continues to add coal fired plants and has even seen recent increases in CO2 emissions. This is the international version of the pot calling the kettle black. I don’t care what happens to CO2 emissions as I have seen no science that proves they are a concern, but rather substantial evidence that rising CO2 in the atmosphere is having beneficial effect. Those who claim to care, however should focus on where the real emissions are coming from and where they will increase over time and stop bashing the US.

    • Not ignored.
      The media have been setting the agenda for decades. The media is mainly liberal and left wing. They share the same world view as the activists. They have bullied western governments for decades. They do not care if AGW is true or not. All they care about is that it can be used as a stick to beat up the establishment and western governments.

    • “The media for the most part seem not to care about truth as much as advertising.”

      It’s not about the money, except in the case of a few CEO’s, but to the True Believers in the MSM and on the Left, it’s about the Left gaining and keeping political power. That’s why they do what they do.

  4. I am glad that we do not live in China or India. They can have their air quality standards. I also am glad that President Trump bowed out of the Paris Agreement. He will instead focus on air and water quality here in America. We can reduce our own emissions with Increased Energy Efficiency and Carbon Capture Utilization. We can do this without putting Billions into some world fund. President Trump will show the world that by following America, there are ways to improve the environment and the economy at the same time.

    • “We can reduce our own emissions with Increased Energy Efficiency and Carbon Capture Utilization.”

      The carbon capture bit is funny. No one really knows how to do that and the unintended consequences are so risky it’s silly.

      • sidabma
        July 17, 2017 at 1:19 pm

        …………………………. We can reduce our own emissions with Increased Energy Efficiency and Carbon Capture Utilization. We can do this without putting Billions into some world fund. President Trump will show the world that by following America, there are ways to improve the environment and the economy at the same time.
        Reply

        HotScot
        July 17, 2017 at 2:25 pm

        “We can reduce our own emissions with Increased Energy Efficiency and Carbon Capture Utilization.”

        The carbon capture bit is funny. No one really knows how to do that and the unintended consequences are so risky it’s silly.

        sidabma keeps referring to Carbon Capture as if it exists on a scale that is useful. The last time was just a few days ago when he was also called out on it.
        Hotscot is right, what has been tried is not scaleable and is also very risky.

        SteveT

    • The “carbon capture” scheme is & has always been a deliberate false-flag. Any savvy engineer knows it will never be done on a large scale — completely uneconomical and impractical.

  5. This isn’t about “going green”, it’s holding back the leaders in the race for the green.

    • Yes, its akin to handicapping a horse race by having the faster horses carry extra weight to slow them down.
      With most progressive strategies its not so much about bringing up the bottom as much as it is knocking down the top.

  6. CO2 emissions are not the problem, it is the air and ground pollution that comes with unregulated mining and burning of coal that will be the problem. I am NOT anti-coal, but it DOES pollute a lot more per unit of energy unless you clean up the emissions before they go out the smoke stack, especially the dirtier coals.

    Fortunately for many in the world, the heavy metal pollution will be mostly local to the coal burning facility. Unfortunately the soot and sulfur-compounds can travel great distances.

    If the world is going to use their coal reserves for energy, they need to be careful to regulate the pollution from it.

    I still think nuclear will make a comeback before coal is exhausted and will eventually replace coal.

    The Paris accord was an embarrassment. Only politicians could come up with such a worthless agreement (to do nothing but rob the U.S. of money). Germany is a perfect case-in-point, extremely high energy costs and their emissions are still growing. I really do not care what other countries choose to do, but I do care what my own country chooses, and I am glad we have chosen more wisely. For a while, Atlas is baring just a little less weight on his/her shoulders.

    • And modern day coal plants that continue to operate are almost all fully controlled for air emissions and are working on the water side. Any new plants, assuming that any are built, have that as a given.

    • German emissions from electricity generation are not growing year on year.

      and if their unit cost of electricity is higher, households use 35% less of it than in the US…

      • …. and u think this is a good thing? And besides it is an apples and oranges comparison if you look at the climate of the US southwest or North Dakota vs Germany.

      • Griff, Germanys CO2 output will surely rise when in 2022 alle nuclear plants are shut.

        For the last eigt years no recution, for the last two years rising. Can be found on the webpage oft the Ministry for Economics.

  7. Nicely done, sir. You have succinctly summarized the grotesque hypocrisy of these charlatans.

  8. the UK’s government ministers don’t even bother to mention the climate change, Paris accord or CO2 (CO2 what’s that?). They are far too busy plotting, back-stubbing or whatever …. while the ordinary citizenry gets on with on with their lives, long it may last.

    • UK politicians are deliberately not engaging in the climate change debate because they are waiting to see what happens. The country is conveniently distracted by Brexit, and President Trump is being used as a bellwether. Not only by the UK I might add.

      I have said this many times before, and I’ll say it again, with an addendum. If Theresa May lasts for the next 5 years of her parliament (that’s the addendum following her disastrous election result) and engages in another election, she will be a year behind Donald Trump running for his second term.

      DT will stoke the fires of anti climate change and (hopefully) America will be turning a substantial profit after his 4 years in office, at which point the climate change debate will have died a death. Ambitious UK politicians keen to make a name for themselves will have already been piling in, objecting to the gross wast of £14Bn a year (by then) spent on a myth, which could have been spent on the NHS, education, welfare, armed forces etc.

      In 2016 our NHS deficit was some £2.6Bn. Our wasted spending on renewable subsidies was in the region of 9Bn. How long will the British public tolerate that?

      • Probably indefinitely since everyone is totally brainwashed 24/7 into believing it. There are independent thinkers who don’t but the majority – even the intelligent ones – never have the time to look for themselves and go with the 97% lie.

      • cephus0

        I hear what you’re saying, but I’m convinced we are near the end of this climate change joke.

        A UN online poll of almost 10M people across the globe placed climate change concerns last, out of 16 important life events. At 15 was internet access!

        No one is interested because of the alarmist claims over the last 40 years made that have never happened.

        They shot themselves in the foot, and frankly, we sceptics have had to do nothing.

        Most people have a pretty good bullshit filter and the best thing we sceptics could probably do is keep our heads down and watch Al Gore and his barmy army self destruct.

        Easy Peasy.

      • all shades of UK political opinion (with a chance of being elected) back the Climate Act and Paris.

        The roll out of UK wind, solar, tidal, batteries, new grid connections continues and no political party will stop it.

      • Griff,

        please.

        All political parties will follow the prevailing wind. Trump has set his stall out, he doesn’t like the Paris Accord but has said he’ll renegotiate it, to which the Europeans said, no, the agreement is set in stone. The UN has admitted the climate change agenda is one of wealth redistribution; Americans don’t like socialism, so the AGW cause was doomed from the start. Trump walked away from Macron saying he’ll think about renegotiating. In other words, take a running jump mate.

        Brexit affords the UK little option but to trade with the USA, in my opinion a very good thing, therefore, attitudes will be adjusted accordingly within UK politics relative to Trumps, and America’s desires. And for a change, I also agree with that relative to the Paris Accord and trade relationships. Considering the vast wealth of resources available to us from both North and South America, I think we would be very wise to work with the US and employ it as an ally in the Brexit negotiations, not directly of course.

        When taxpayer subsidies for renewables are withdrawn, and you’ll see from my earlier post why that will happen, market forces will prevail and the industry will die a death. There are too many ambitious politicians out there to ignore the opportunity, presented by Trump, to target the wasteful spending on climate change over essential services.

        Like it or not Griff, Brexit and Trump are sounding the death knell of the AGW myth as we speak. Germany’s population is now recognising the cost to them of conforming to the renewable agenda, and they are saying it’s just too high. The country is already joining China and India in building new coal fired power stations because clean nuclear was deemed to dangerous. Yet apparently, climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity, so how can nuclear be more dangerous than that?

        There is an alliance of former Eastern bloc countries reacting to the EU’s crippling restrictive practises. They should be the last countries to object to the EU, but they are amongst the first.

        Brussels is rattling sabres over Brexit in the forlorn hope that the UK fails and goes down the Brexit pan instead of succeeding outside Europe. In the event that the UK is successful on it’s own, there will be a mass exodus from the EU by every member state. The benefits of Brexit to the rest of Europe, and arguably the world, haven’t even been considered.

        As for historical climate change tactics, the very campaign that has failed all dogma’s over history; that of outrageous claims, scare tactics and browbeating by the media is, once again dissolving before our very eyes. After 40+years, nothing devastating relative to climate change has manifested itself. In fact, quite the opposite, with greening of the planet the single empirical piece of evidence of the impact of increased atmospheric CO2.

        Global temperatures form satellite, balloon and terrestrial data are about to fall below the lowest predictions of the IPCC. What will happen to public opinion when the IPCC announces they are reducing their predicted temperature rise by another degree or so? Which is inevitable. Their credibility will be shredded, the public will be laughing and science will take the hit with ‘experts’ being derided once again. The AGW cause will be a distant, amusing anecdote recited at dinner parties in 10 or 20 years time.

        The public are tired of this Griff. A UN, on-line poll, of almost 10M people placed concerns over climate change last of 16 important life subjects such as food, housing, education and health. The 15th choice in the poll was internet access.

        There’s your realtime 97%.

    • They have repeatedly stated they back the Paris agreement and support the science of climate change. gove gave a radio interview on the subject…

      a new green growth plan is promised this autumn.

      • Wake up Griff. How naive can you be? The UK government is hanging back to see how things pan out and will of course pay lip service to climate totalitarianism meanwhile. In these sensitive Brexit times they are hardly likely to hand the Eurocrats a further stick with which to beat them – however bogus that stick actually is. The reality is that even the UK government knows by now that if you keep on fleecing the public in that way then sooner of later you are going to be exposed and it wouldn’t be pretty to watch the outcome of that. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=uk+cancels+wind+subsidie&rlz=1C1SVEF_enGB439GB439&oq=uk+cancels+wind+subsidie&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l2.6659j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=uk+cancels+wind+subsidy

      • Why are they hanging back now? where’s the evidence?

        The current govt is exactly as accepting of the science and Paris as all previous govts and still promoting renewable energy.

        Plus the majority of UK commercial enterprise firmly accepts the science and has green targets (look at M & S for an example).

        you are just projecting your opinions: no basis in fact

      • “Plus the majority of UK commercial enterprise firmly accepts the science and has green targets (look at M & S for an example).

        you are just projecting your opinions: no basis in fact”

        Give us the numbers on that one Griff, and I’ll not accuse you of “projecting your opinions; no basis in fact”

        And just to make it clear, provide the evidence that the majority of UK commercial enterprises accepts the science.

      • “a new green growth plan is promised this autumn.”

        Yes Skanky, and this is what it will look like!

        A new green growth plan is promised this autumn.

        The Trump administration will use its position as a donor to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to steer money towards coal-fired power plants and natural gas infrastructure, according to an unnamed White House official.

        President Donald Trump will do his best to use the Obama administration’s $1 billion donation to the GCF to “advance American-energy interests globally,” the official told Bloomberg.

        Trump will build on his G20 pledge to “work closely with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently,” and has already begun rolling back Obama-era restrictions on international financing of coal plants.

        Trump pledged to eliminate funding for UN global warming programs, but his administration still has a seat at the negotiating table, thanks to the $1 billion the Obama administration handed the GCF before leaving office.

        http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/14/trump-to-steer-un-global-warming-funds-to-coal-gas-projects/

        Good, innit?

  9. Tom Nelson‏ @tan123 20m20 minutes ago
    “no other branch of science in which such after-the-fact changes in data to fit politicized theory wud be greeted w. anything but contempt” https://twitter.com/tan123/status/887051850813460481

    Take away the adjustments and their is no global warming. And, going back hundreds of thousands and even hundreds of millions of years, there is ZERO evidence of CO2 causing any temperature change. Overlay this with the overwhelming leftist political motivation driving the believers and the whole thing turns into a total joke with absolutely no credibility. Trump did the right thing.

  10. Well, it was never really about emissions anyway. The plan was to bilk the US taxpayer out of $billions while the rest of the world does as it pleases. Of course all the “developing nations” voted for the huge handouts. Who ever votes against Santa Claus? All those “developed nations” that are supposedly still in the Paris Accord are looking at each other with the side eye wondering who is going to pony up now. Probably no one.

    Without the United States the accord is a toothless tiger. No money, no ticket.

    But the most laughable part is the statement by Governor “Moonbeam” Brown of California. He says he is staying in the Paris Accords! As if there were funds in the California State budget for anything like the yearly 100 billion dollar payouts. They don’t have the funds to keep their highway system repaired or reconstruct the water management infrastructure that they need to combat drought. Governor Moonbeam wants to spend any spare pennies on high speed rail. Not blind payouts to unaccountable international slush fund operations.

    I don’t think they really thought this one through. But the recriminations and virtue signaling will go on, until the subject gradually fades from view in the face of global cooling.

  11. I see there is no link in this post or by Booker to any source material on INDCs. They are summarised here. As far as I can see, the INDC plans were specified in terms of carbon intensity – ie emissions per GDP. China promised a 60-65% reduction, US 26-28%. It seems that Booker, or someone, gets the doubling and trebling by using some notions external to the INDCs; maybe some liberal guesses at GDP growth.

    • NS, again you dissemble. Xi promised nothing except emissions would peak ~2030. They can rise as much as they want until then. India promised to do something only if bribd by the GCF. Modi has been explicit. You really do ned to up your game here.

      • ristvan,
        ” Xi promised nothing except emissions would peak ~2030. “
        No. From the INDC:
        “China has nationally determined its actions by 2030 as follows:
        • To achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making
        best efforts to peak early;
        • To lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% from the
        2005 level;
        …”
        Just as I said.

      • and now the Chinese are saying they expect the peak to be earlier, in 2020.

        They have cancelled more coal plant since Paris and banned new applications for coal plant in nearly all districts of china. They are increasing their efforts beyond their INDC statement.

        so also India…

      • Griff – Once again, numbers please, not just newsprint. To the best of my understanding, there are 700 coal fired power stations planned by China in the pipeline.

        That doesn’t really represent a CO2 reduction, now does it? Or is it relative to their population? or land mass perhaps?

        Meanwhile, much like the Indians, the rest of the world is expected to pay them not to achieve climate change objectives the western world must conform to, whilst they occupy islands in the South China Sea for military purposes, build warships and fighter planes, and invest money in foreign empire building.

        Remind me again why the western world should be paying for this?

  12. All this nonsense reminds me of “The Mouse That Roared”. A comedy about a small European nation that declares war on the US so that they can get reparations after they are defeated. This is just as ridiculous but unfortunately not a fantasy.

    • 1956. They invaded NYC and accidentally captured ‘Quatrium’ — you know, the hydrogen isotope beyond tritium providing a super Hbomb–( for cold fusion/LENR buffs there are three jokes in that parens revealed in The Arts of Truth LENR example). So the US was forced to surrender.

  13. I can’t see why it is so hard to actually link to the original materials. China’s NDC is here. It’s in Chinese first, but scroll down for English. I can see nothing that could be interpreted as doubling emissions. There are estimates by third parties here. The BAU estimates imply doubling or more, but the estimates based on the actual proposed policies are a lot less.

    • India’s NDC is here. It is more detailed than China’s. They do envisage a GDP increase of 3.7 times, which with a 33% reduction in intensity would be about a 2.5x increase in emissions. However, in per capita terms, that GDP increase is from 1408 to 4205 USD/year. One can only say that such an increase is absolutely essential, and I hope they exceed it. US per capita GDP is about USD 55,000.

      • Do please answer Forrest Gardener’s question, which is a very simple one requiring a yes or no. If yes, it is utter nonsense to say that it’s OK for India (or anyone else, for that matter) to more than double their emissions. If no, then the whole CAGW meme is utter nonsense.

    • So Nick, if alarmists promise to reduce the rate at which each one farts per calorie eaten what will happen to the smell in the room? Does your answer change if they all undertake to eat more and more calories as the years go by?

      Do try to think things through before you focus on idiotic notions like emissions per unit of GDP. Is there an emergency or not?

  14. Why would the ECO Industrial complex want to sell out the USA ? Short term financial gain for the ring leaders who love milking tax payers and the globalist agenda to outsource the freedom of countries
    policies to UN globalists .
    The window for the global warming con game is closed . That’s why they don’t want to debate . What’s to debate . They pulled a con , it worked for awhile and now having been fed complete BS for 15 years the public isn’t drinking the cool-aid . All scams have a shelf life …even the earth having a fever .

  15. India next (INDCs submitted on 1st October 2015). Obviously, this one is rather more important than most of the INDCs I have looked at so far.

    They start with a lovely fluffy paragraph which makes all the right noises:

    “Yajur Veda 36.17
    {{Unto Heaven be Peace, Unto the Sky and the Earth be Peace, Peace be unto the Water, Unto the Herbs and Trees be Peace}}” And

    “India has a long history and tradition of harmonious co-existence between man and nature. Human beings here have regarded fauna and flora as part of their family. This is part of our heritage and manifest in our lifestyle and traditional practices. We represent a culture that calls our planet Mother Earth. As our ancient text says; “Keep pure! For the Earth is our mother! And we are her children!” The ancient Indian practice of Yoga, for example, is a system that is aimed at balancing contentment and worldly desires, that helps pursue a path of moderation and a sustainable lifestyle. Environmental sustainability, which involves both intra-generational and inter-generational equity, has been the approach of Indians for very long. Much before the climate change debate began, Mahatma Gandhi, regarded as the father of our nation had said that we should act as ‘trustees’ and use natural resources wisely as it is our moral responsibility to ensure that we bequeath to the future generations a healthy planet.”

    The immediately following paragraph, however, makes clear where they are coming from and what their plans are:

    “The desire to improve one’s lot has been the primary driving force behind human progress. While a few fortunate fellow beings have moved far ahead in this journey of progress, there are many in the world who have been left behind. Nations that are now striving to fulfill this ‘right to grow’ of their teeming millions cannot be made to feel guilty of their development agenda as they attempt to fulfill this legitimate aspiration. Just because economic development of many countries in the past has come at the cost of environment, it should not be presumed that a reconciliation of the two is not possible.”

    They definitely want international money, and lots of it (more on that at the end of this piece) and set out their stall early:

    “If the world indeed is concerned about its new investments to be climate friendly, it must consider the opportunity provided by a country like India where economic growth could be achieved with minimum levels of emissions by employing new technologies and finance for achieving low carbon growth. Developed countries can certainly bring down their emission intensity by moderating their consumption, and substantially utilize their investments by employing them for development activities in countries housing a vast majority of people barely living at subsistence level. The ratio of emission avoided per dollar invested and economic growth attained would be relatively more favourable in case of investments made in India.”

    The size of India and its population, and its anticipated growth, combined with the understandable desire to at least ameliorate, if not eradicate, poverty, make this a difficult circle to square:

    “India accounts for 2.4% of the world surface area, but supports around 17.5% of the world population. It houses the largest proportion of global poor (30%), around 24% of the global population without access to electricity (304 million), about 30% of the global population relying on solid biomass for cooking and 92 million without access to safe drinking water. The average annual energy consumption in India in 2011 was only 0.6 tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) per capita as compared to global average of 1.88 toe per capita. It may also be noted that no country in the world has been able to achieve a Human Development Index of 0.9 or more without an annual energy availability of at least 4 toe per capita.
    With a HDI of 0.586 and global rank of 135, India has a lot to do to provide a dignified life to its population and meet their rightful aspirations.”

    “Given the development agenda in a democratic polity, the infrastructure deficit represented by different indicators, the pressures of urbanization and industrialization and the imperative of sustainable growth, India faces a formidable and complex challenge in working for economic progress towards a secure future for its citizens.”

    Their then follows a table of “key macro indicators” which are truly problematic. Population projected to grow from 1.2Bn to 1,5Bn (that’s an increase of 300 million people, in case the use of billions lulls one into a false sense of small numbers) in just 16 years between 2014 and 2030. Over almost the same period (2011-2030), the numbers living in urban areas are expected to jump from 377 million to 609 million. Crucially, electricity demand (TWh)is expected to almost quadruple from 776 in 2012 to 2499 in 2030.

    These key numbers are then expressed in terms of the challenge they imply:

    “Almost all the macroeconomic models predict that anticipated needs in the future will be large. Rapid urbanization in the country will be one of the most dominant trends in the coming years. It is expected that about 40% of the population in 2030 would be urban as against 30% currently. As population expands and incomes grow, this shift will likely be realized alongside demographic changes that will exponentially increase the demand for urban amenities like housing, energy, transport, water, waste disposal. It is estimated that more than half of India of 2030 is yet to be built. In a way, India’s development process is doubly challenging. It not only has to complete the current unfinished development agenda, it
    has to strategise for future pressures that may increase the magnitude of this development gap.”

    It is hardly surprising then that the INDCs make no reference to GHG emissions in absolute terms, or even against a Business as Usual scenario, since on either basis, emissions are bound to increase exponentially. Instead they choose to talk about “reducing the emissions intensity of its GDP”. This is of course progress of a sort, but far from reducing emissions, will see them increase hugely, just not by as much as might otherwise have been the case. The extent to which emissions will skyrocket becomes clear by a quick look at some simple numbers. Their key macro indicators include “Per capita GDP in USD (nominal)”, 1408 in 2014, happily increasing to 4205 in 2030. That looks like a trebling, which it is, broadly, on a per capita basis, but bearing in mind that the population is set to increase by 25% over broadly the same period it represents an increase of GDP of c. 370%.

    Set against that is this INDC target: “To reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 from 2005
    level.” Maths was never my strong point, but even if that optimistic level of emissions intensity reduction was achieved, it still looks to me like close to a doubling of emissions by 2030.

    Not very impressive in terms of “saving the planet”, albeit it might be a major achievement, given India’s issues. But what will it cost? This is the really scary bit:

    “Preliminary estimates indicate that India would need around USD 206 billion (at 2014-15 prices) between 2015 and 2030 for implementing adaptation actions in agriculture, forestry, fisheries infrastructure, water resources and ecosystems. Apart from this there will be additional investments needed for strengthening resilience and disaster management. An Asian Development Bank Study on assessing the costs of climate change adaptation in South Asia indicates that approximate adaptation cost for India in energy sector alone would roughly be about USD 7.7 billion in 2030s. The report also projects the economic damage and losses in India from climate change to be around 1.8% of its GDP annually by 2050. Mitigation requirements are even more enormous. Estimates by NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India) indicate that the mitigation activities for moderate low carbon development would cost around USD 834 billion till 2030 at 2011 prices.
    India’s climate actions have so far been largely financed from domestic resources. A substantial scaling up of the climate action plans would require greater resources. A detailed and full scale assessment of international climate finance needs will be finalized at a later stage and would depend on the gap between actual cost of implementation of India’s plans and what can be made available from domestic sources. While this would evolve over time, a preliminary estimate suggests that at least USD 2.5 trillion (at 2014-15 prices) will be required for meeting India’s climate change actions between now and 2030.”

    Given that the USA seems to be expected to put up most of the funding, no wonder Trump decided to get out of the Paris Accords.

    As a postscript; next time someone tries to tell you that India is cutting down on its use of coal, this should enable you to put them straight. Their actual policy is this:

    “Clean Coal policies: Coal based power as of now accounts for about 60.8% (167.2 GW) of India’s installed capacity. In order to secure reliable, adequate and affordable supply of electricity, coal will continue to dominate power generation in future. Government of India has already taken several initiatives to improve the efficiency of coal based power plants and to reduce its carbon footprint. All new, large coal-based generating stations have been mandated to use the highly efficient supercritical technology. Renovation and Modernisation (R&M) and Life Extension (LE) of existing old power stations is being undertaken in a phased manner. About 144 old thermal stations have been assigned mandatory targets for improving energy efficiency. Coal beneficiation has been made mandatory. Introduction of ultra-supercritical technology, as and when commercially available is part of future policy. Besides, stringent emission standards being
    contemplated for thermal plants would significantly reduce emissions.”

    Jun 29, 2017 at 10:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

    • you should take a look at the progress India is making on financing and installing the 175 additional GW of solar and wind energy they plan for 2022.

      New solar is now much cheaper in India than new coal…

      • Which bit of “In order to secure reliable, adequate and affordable supply of electricity, coal will continue to dominate power generation in future” is so hard to understand?

      • The pattern of daytime Indian electricity use includes daytime air con use, suburban electric trains, commercial activity (all those computer call centres) and in rural areas, electric driven water pumping.

        So there is enormous demand in India for electricity during daylight hours and somewhere like Delhi has 300 perfect days for solar a year.

        Yes, they’ll need to use something else at night. wind power and batteries and biogas and demand management and hydro power and nuclear might help there – in all countries demand is lower for at least midnight to 6 am and possibly longer.

      • google it Stewart. It’s a multi million pound business in the UK.

        Perhaps they don’t have it in countries which aren’t keeping up with the latest tech, like the USA.

      • “Perhaps they don’t have it in countries which aren’t keeping up with the latest tech, like the USA.”

        The USA isn’t keeping up with the latest tech?

        Dear god, you’re a moron.

        Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for lying about her professional qualifications yet?

      • “New solar is now much cheaper in India than new coal…”

        When it’s paid for by internal government subsidies or external grants from compliant nations.

        Stop peddling the shit Griff, it’s nonsense.

      • Hey Griff,

        Siemens is shutting down a wind turbine blade manufacturing facility in Canada.

        I wonder why?

      • you should take a look at the progress India is making on financing and installing the 175 additional GW of solar and wind energy they plan for 2022

        .

        I’m not from Missouri, but show me anyway.

      • Griff: In 2030, India wiil need electric supply of about 2500 TWH. Your 17 GWH Renewables is a homeopathic measure.

        In Germany, we produce Coal electricty for 2ct/kWhr.

    • “India has a long history and tradition of harmonious co-existence between man and nature”. Yes, so much so that many Indians don’t have a toilet, not to speak of waste removal. The upper-caste politicians who talk grandly in expectation of western tax- and surcharge-payers’ money don’t care about the shit in the streets or around villages, as they don’t about many similar indices of inhumanity.
      What kind of mind have those who take the “climate-saving” talk of Indian politicians (or Chinese, or …) and other profit-seekers serious.

  16. As usual, a well researched piece by Christopher Booker. Unfortunately it would appear that he has had his wings clipped by The Sunday Telegraph, as his editor has now relegated his column to a much smaller space on the back page of a separate section of the paper, away from the news pages. It looks as if someone has got at the editor and persuaded him to gag the outspoken Booker. I have accordingly cancelled my weekly edition of the paper as his column was always the first I read before scanning the remaining pages.

Comments are closed.