We pay to reduce our emissions, other nations hide theirs
By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun
First posted: Saturday, August 12, 2017 02:04 PM EDT | Updated: Saturday, August 12, 2017 02:06 PM EDT
One thing you learn on the climate change beat is that the best journalism is done overseas.
In Canada, too many in the media, not knowing the issues, are empty vessels waiting to be filled by Trudeau government propaganda, which they uncritically regurgitate to their audiences.
By contrast, in the UK, one of many examples of serious reporting is a new radio documentary by the BBC’s environment correspondent, Matt McGrath.
Called “Carbon Counting,” McGrath reveals how many nations that signed the Paris accord are inaccurately reporting and/or hiding their greenhouse gas emissions from the United Nations.
Reporting is done once every two years, but the accord doesn’t require independent verification of the numbers.
This “Cinderella world of carbon accounting”, McGrath warns, is a greater threat to the credibility of the Paris agreement – which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signed in Dec. 2015, along with the leaders of 194 other countries – than the U.S. withdrawal from the accord by Donald Trump.
Why should Canadians care? Because if global emissions are being under-reported and hidden, then the Paris accord is a fraud and carbon pricing in Canada, which raises our cost of living to reduce our emissions, is just a cynical government cash grab.
McGrath found “serious flaws in the way that countries measure and report their emissions…Potent greenhouse gases that are supposed to be banned are still appearing in the atmosphere and there’s evidence of blatant cheating in some national greenhouse gas reporting.”
Some countries, he said, are “simply ignoring the realities and making stuff up…leaving…gaping holes in national greenhouse gas inventories. There’s an awful lot of dodgy data…”
The last time China reported its emissions to the UN was 2012. It was 30 pages long. By contrast, the UK’s submission runs to several hundred pages, the size of an old-style telephone book.
This isn’t surprising. In China, environmental information is a state secret. China is also notorious for dramatically revising its emission levels after the fact by an order of magnitude as much as the size of Germany’s annual emissions, impacting global measurements.
In 2007, the Chinese government refused to recognize scientific documentation China had become the world’s largest emitter.
The entire global warming garbage is a total fraud. No surprise to me that I much prefer the BBC News to any of the crap that the American MSM spews daily. American ‘news’ equals lies and propaganda.
Well all I can do is sympathise with your poor North Americans who think the Biased BBC is worth listening to.
Over here we, are subjected to Mann made global warming propaganda in every programme that Stalinist outfit airs.
And the beauty of it is that every tv owner has to pay a tv tax.
The BBC are the biggest peddles of fake news.
They proclaim views, not report.news.
IMHO the issue with modern media is not as much fake news (more rightly called hyperbolic) as it is with the stories that are OMITTED. What doesn’t pass through the wickets of the editors is far more telling than what they publish and their obvious editorializing in what they call reporting. I try to read from several sources every day. I then begin to deduce what is not being said.
“Know thy enemy.”
richard verney
Plus a shed load.
Absolutely.
BBC – Bl00di£y Bia$ed C0rp)rat1on..
And I strive to be f=kind, but it has been captured by watermelons,
Auto
Many years ago, I read a story in the WSJ about British TV police, who went around trying to detect people watching TV who hadn’t paid their “TV” tax. It sounded like something out of Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany.
“Alan McIntire August 18, 2017 at 6:44 am”
Yes, the TV Police still do hunt down non-payers and take them to court. Some ~200,000 people are convicted of non-payment of the TV tax, and about ~200 actually go to jail every year. But hold on there. It’s not only to do with TV’s oh no. It covers mains powered radio and any device like smart phones and tablets etc that can receive live transmissions. You still have to pay even if you can show your TV cannot receive live transmissions or you watch only videos. I am serial!
Thank you. And I was wondering if the writer had glanced at any of the MSM’s propaganda outlets in the US in, oh, say the last two or three decades. Stopped reading when she cited the BBC media as a bastion of serious reporting on global war. . .sorry. . . climate change. She wouldn’t be the TV lady who reported–was it for the BBC, or another station? — that Building 7 at the World Trade Center had just collapsed when it could be seen still standing over her shoulder from where she was reporting? (Whoever, think that lady’s handlers had gotten the time zones or something mixed up and posted the prompter script too early.)
“Many years ago, I read a story in the WSJ about British TV police, who went around trying to detect people watching TV who hadn’t paid their “TV” tax.”
An imprisonable offence, believe it or not.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/599049/TV-Licence-jailed-England-BBC-fee-Scotland-fines
Not for nothing are they know as the Boy Buggering Communists.
Almost right – Bastards Buggers and Cant’s
British Broadcarping Castration.
The BBC is no better than the American MSM, just more subtle. But it hides behind it’s public funded independence, whilst riddled with the left wing elite.
But remember, it was the BBC that reported the collapse of Building-7 about 25 minutes before the building actually collapsed.
This proves that the BBC is always about 25 minutes ahead of our own MSM.
Must be because the UK is located in an earlier time zone.
Emissions’ lives don’t matter!
Now only if emissions mattered….
John, none of us can PROVE irrefutably our beliefs, regarding this purported AGW — or however else, in the various common ways, one wants to characterize it — however, we, as freeborn citizens, do understand what we are reading and experiencing … and we are using our common sense to fill in the “blanks”; where many of us are in your camp when you write: “The entire global warming garbage is a total fraud.”
Further, in view of this belief, many of us believe that this fraud is being perpetrated by national and “globalist” powers who are using this issue as one for their acquisition of global “command and control”. Simply stated, these are Napoleon-wannabes — ALL self-serving first and foremost — just on a broader scale.
Further, in particular, there are immoral and corrupt media centers — the primary culprits, which are agents of the megalomaniacal globalists, have been named already — in ALL Western-type 1st world nations … of which I have NO PREFERENCE for the propaganda of any one of these media outlets; where, rather, I see them as all part of the same lot … working to dupe and deceive the citizenry into believing that our only global existential hope is to cast our ballot for these despicable self-serving Bonaparte-wannabes. Just as with that monster from that past “romantic” age, I further believe that these present day monsters, should they realize some measure of success, will, sooner rather than later, on a global scale, take us down that path of suffering, destruction and untold human misery and premature death as has been never before witnessed. [Insanity: repeating the same … yet expecting a different result.]
Those of us that live with the British Bigotry Corporation see just an endless trail of lies and propaganda – and not only about climate. I watch it only occasionally in case it has been taken over by someone with integrity.
“Why should Canadians care?”
Interesting case of Canada where almost universally it’s understand that, as northern and as cold as it is, it would BENEFIT from any warming.
But the leftist ideologues that control much of Canada and the west don’t even care. They just see themselves as so intellectually superior for vowing to “save the world” even when it *obviously* goes against their own self interest.
As it is, Canada’s temperatures have been declining when, for their own good, they need temperatures to be going the opposite direction:
Thank you very much for this, sir. Out here in socialist Alberta, some of us are trying to make a difference but yes, it is like pushing a rope.
😉 when that rope freezes, it’ll push much better !
Please don’t call Alberta socialist. We are in the middle of four years of socialist government by colossal fluke/mistake that should be rectified in 2019. Hopefully the current crop of haters of industry and their carbon tax will be given the boot.
Newswire, Ottawa, Oct.4, 2016
Press release:
‘Twenty-Two Prominent Business and Civil Society Leaders Get Behind Canada-Wide Carbon Pricing Plan’
List is at:
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/twenty-two-prominent-business-civil-society-leaders-get-behind-canada-wide-carbon-pricing-2163818.htm
Barbara, that insanity. Are those Canadians asking for the same thing to happen to them that happened to South Australian? See:
See JoNova today: http://joannenova.com.au/2017/08/australia-denmark-germany-vie-to-win-highest-global-electricity-cost-its-the-nobel-price-prize/
Ecofiscal Canada, Formed c. November, 2014
Advocates for carbon pricing.
The people behind the Commission:
At:
http://www.ecofiscal.ca/the-commission/the-people-behind-the-commission
Cross-check list with the above list from the Marketwire press release of, Oct.4, 2016.
Department of Finance, Canada, March 18, 2016
Advisory Council on Economic Growth formed
Members list:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/16-031-eng-.asp
Dominic Barton, Chair.
Correction: http://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/16-031-eng.asp
The UK CET (Central England Temperature record) shows Cooling from 2000 to 2015 by ~ -0.5 C.
I understand that South Africa also shows cooling; China recently announced 20 years of cooling in eastern China …..
Full article is on Judith Curry’s blog here :
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/25/the-rise-and-fall-of-central-england-temperature/
That is the problem with the Paris and other international accords on almost any subject. Verification of actual compliance is something between difficult and a sick joke.
Any statistics coming out of the PRC is what the Party decides fits their internal goals, but the Chinese are not alone in using “kitchen table research”. As if one can really trust what comes out of NASA GISS or HADCRUT or the BoM on temperature.
Actually, the fundamental problem is this: you cannot vote in the people who rule you over this, and you cannot vote them out. Just like the EU, the UN is not only un-democratic, it is anti-democratic (rejects elections by citizens).
I for one reject their New World Order neo-feudal system where the ‘scientific-technical elite’ rule over the proletariat. Fork that !
I am sure that most people who comment on this site, share your view:
This is one of the dangers that comes with the politicization of science.
“The last time China reported its emissions to the UN was 2012. It was 30 pages long. By contrast, the UK’s submission runs to several hundred pages, the size of an old-style telephone book.”
Yes because the people who prepare these sorts of reports are lawyers or have a legal background where work is paid by the word. The Chinese don’t really care.
Sounds like the Chinese like verbose documents. Just imagine, 30 pages of wordy explanations just to say “Get Shtupped”
Bear in mind that the Chinese now get a free pass and are permitted to increase their emissions. They have no need to hide very much, and it matters not one iota if they now make up their figures.
“richard verney August 17, 2017 at 1:53 am”
Fake figures? Well the Chinese are good at creating fake stuff, even food. Been doing it for a few thousand years.
I see you missed the latest news from China on cutting back on coal plants
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/08/16/china-halts-construction-150-gw-new-coal-power-plants/
“China’s state-run news agency Xinhua has revealed that China has currently halted construction on new coal-fired power plants in an effort to avoid building over-capacity while simultaneously hoping to promote a cleaner energy mix.
The Chinese Xinhua News Agency reported on Monday that China had halted construction on a total of 150 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power generation capacity between 2016 and 2020 — the country’s 13th Five-Year Plan period. Xinhua reported on a statement released by the country’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), which stated that “New capacity will be strictly controlled” and that “All illegal coal-burning power projects will be halted.”
Further, not only is the Chinese government halting future development, the NDRC added that it will be eliminating 20 GW worth of outdated capacity, while nearly 1,000 GW of coal capacity will be upgraded to producer fewer emissions, use less energy, and better coordinate with future energy development.”
I did not consider that “news”.
China’s economy has slowed down. Therefore they don’t need as many new power plants as they originally planned.
This is old news Griffie baby.
Griff, how many times are you going to post the same misleading headline after you were corrected with facts every time.
Monday: I’m going to whomp Griff 700 times on the side of his noggin.
Tuesday: I’m going to cut back 150 whomps to Griff.
That probably still leaves too many whomps for decent comfort.
They still are building coal plants, increasing the total number, and of course they must also retire those that are producing REAL particulate matter causing visible and immediate health problems. And they are not going to slow down until 2013 when they will “consider” reductions in the total.
How does that compare to what Obama proposed for the US, or what Great Britain or Australia are foolishly doing?
2013 = 2030 of course
China wants to commit to not burning coal, who cares. Asia coal use is set to triple by 2035 and Australia is leading that charge. At least greenpeace realizes the same
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/blog/australias-coal-exports-industry-threatens-climate-crisis/
Even they realize we will still be exporting vast quantities of coal by 2030 something Griiff’s graph no doubt says shouldn’t be happening.
If one was cynical, one would wonder if the Chinese deliberately announced as part of their “future plan” 5 times as many coal plants as they actually intended to build, thus leaving them plenty of room to cut back and get the foolish foreign devils to give them all kinds of consideration in exchange – for them agreeing not to do what they never really intended to do in the first place.
Naw, the Chinese would never play any tricks like that, would they? They’ve always been completely honest and above board with everything, right???
Wednesday: I’m gonna tell the world that I decided not to whomp Griff 150 times on the side of his noggin and the world will cheer for the health of Griff and parise me for not giving poor Griff those whompings.
I like that analogy
Or if you prefer
名词
Yes, and let’s not forget China also have large reserves of coal.
One reason they buy so much from Oz is that they can’t dig up their own coal fast enough.
Griff
Interesting idea. However the rest of the world understands that there is no other cost effective method of supplying electricity on a grid system than that from coal fired generation. No unreliable power generation can out compete coal in terms of 24/7 cost effectiveness power delivery — NONE!
New coal fired projects — http://www.powerengineeringint.com/coal-fired/coal-fired-new-projects.html
07/05/2017 India’s state-run power utility, NTPC, is planning a $10bn investment in new supercritical coal-fired power plants.
08/09/2017
Energa is planning to build a new 1 GW coal-fired power unit at Ostroleka in northeast Poland.
07/13/2017
Myanmar, a country deeply troubled by poor energy planning and a subsequently underdeveloped electricity system, is planning a $3bn coal-fired power plant. Coal is seen as a strong solution with a proposal for a 1280 MW plant in eastern Kayin.
7/21/17
German group Clyde Bergemann has won a major contract related to two new 1000 MW high-efficiency units at the Tanjung Jati B coal-fired power plant in Central Java, Indonesia.
And then there’s Japan and China’s massive investment in a coal fire future…
They Myanmar plant sounds like just enough to power a Flux Capacitor enhanced time machine
My own CO2 report to the US government has several hundred pages of backup documentation and calculations. 40 CFR 98, the regulation on CO2 reporting, is at least a thousand pages by now, and they keep making it longer. To have the report be that short is criminal.
I still wonder why it took them 30 pages to say screw you
Or if you prefer
名词
and
Stick it where the sun never shines
把它粘在那里太阳永远照不
Don’t know why they needed 30 pages
The great Carbon Scam is morphing from Universal Financial Shake-down to Tragic Farce.
NT,
After half a dozen private business trips to China, fairly high level, I found that the Chinese folk I met were happy, tricky, enjoying the challenge of beating old democracies with Chinese democracy. A ten year old kid in a cafe challenged me at chess. He won, hands down, five games in a row. This I took as symptomatic. The business people seemed to start with a handicap, they played with a smile and they won the game far too often.
I find it more healthy to comment on China this way, rather than an unemotional, routine, follow the leader rubbishing. Like you just gave. Geoff
Personally, all I see is China doing what is in the best interest of China as they have tried to do for a couple of thousand years no matter who is in charge. China recognized long ago that the best way to deal with climate change, and they have been through several in their long history, is to be wealthy enough to adapt and mitigate. Paris and Kyoto were little more than transfer of wealth agreements, with the USA, if we had kept in the game, being the primary loser. While China may have delayed building new coal fired plants for the time they have built enough in China and are contracted to build more outside of China to continue China’s greenhouse emissions trend. Meanwhile, India just laughs and says basically if you don’t give us money we will worry about climate change when we are on equal footing with Western Democracies.
Geoff Sherrington,
It’s been decades since I was in China (on business). This was in the early 70’s when access was very difficult. With little English spoken there, the the only viable option we saw was to go in via Hong Kong. We had a HK business partner who took care of the language barrier.
But I agree. While the contrasts between China and the west were stark at the time, the people were seemingly very happy, but sure, dirt poor. I have fond memories.
Much more recently, I hear stories from a friend who often travels to China on business. He’s in the auto trade and he tells me that any time he stops to grab a coffee and soak up some ambience, he’s often besieged by locals who will happily pay for his coffee if he’ll just sit there and talk to them in English.
He said that these days, practically anyone could live in China and make a very decent living just teaching English; no particular qualifications required, even.
Make no mistake, the Chinese know exactly what they’re doing.
It should be mentioned that neither china nor india nor any other Non-Annex country has any emission reduction obligation under UNFCCC or Kyoto. To ask for and to accept INDCs from these countries is itself a form of corruption. Unfortunately for Christiana Figueres and her immense and inept bureaucracy these non annex countries are pretty darn good at playing corruption games.
“ignoring the realities”, “making stuff up”, “an awful lot of dodgy data…”
ROFL
The BBC should not be congratulated on plugging the climate change agenda. It is no longer a respected media source and has become a trendy leftie’s garbage outlet whose information cannot be trusted one bit.
It’s aim is to get action to pull these wayward nations into line not to expose the climate change fraud.
the size of an old-style telephone book.
OMG. I just realized our children won’t know what a phone book is.
Snow on the other hand….
+1
My phone book, for the entire county, is about 6×4 and half an inch thick.
There’s an app for that . . 😉
“My phone book, for the entire county, is about 6×4 and half an inch thick.”
And probably mostly yellow pages ads.
How do you back out of a farce this big without losing face, especially if you are a politician ?
Same with “Obamacare”.
You can’t back out.
Essentially the Left is forcing a direct society destroying confrontation.
You either go along with their lies, or you have to meet then head on and call them liars.
It’s a treble or quits gamble by the Left right now.
If they win, its a world government using politically correct ideology, mass deception and a mass control by propaganda, surveillance and police state. Which will disintegrate eventually.
If they lose, it’s by no means clear what will replace. A league of conservative libertarian nations perhaps?
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/Clitorall_hinny.jpeg
OMG – Hillary and I agree on something – the ease of manipulation and stupidity of the average Democrat voter – and half of them are stupider than that!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/06/aussie-liberal-press-notices-the-importance-of-reliable-electricity/comment-page-1/#comment-2573966
The Groucho Marxists are the leaders – they want power for its own sake at any cost, and typically are sociopaths or psychopaths. The great killers of recent history, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot. etc. were of this odious ilk – first they get power, then they implement their crazy schemes that do not work and too often kill everyone who opposes them.
The Harpo Marxists are the followers – the “sheeple” – these are people of less-than-average education/intelligence who are easily duped and follow the Groucho’s until it is too late, their rights are lost and their society destroyed. They are attracted to simplistic concepts that “feel good” but rarely “do good”. George Carlin said: “You know how stupid the average person is, right? Well, half of them are stupider than that!”
One can easily identify many members of these two groups in the global warming debate – and none of them are skeptics.
u.k.(u.s.)
That is one of the key questions – it’s all about losing face and I suspect it would be civil servants that would need to carry the can (and rightly so in my view).
Having run the calculations on the UK’s CO2 emissions from the planned switch to electric cars only by 2040 it shows an emissions increase over 2015 in the UK of from 19% to 37% by 2048 simply from the battery manufacture. The precentage increase spread is dependant upon how much renewable energy is used in manufacture, i.e. 50% to 0%. (link to Research paper on CO2 emissions from car battery manufacture is below).
I’ve put formal questions about this to Department for Transport [DfT], Department for Business, Energy Industry and Science [BEIS] which absorbed the Department for Energy and Climate Change [DECC] last year, and the Department for Farming and Rural Affairs [DEFRA] and am awaiting answers. They are due to reply in the next few days as they have 20 working days to respond.
As the Prime Minister is also my local member of parliament I have copied her in on the correspondence and asked for a meeting as one of her constituents to discuss this. I am also planning to give her a short note on the 46% increase in global CO2 emissions that COP Paris provides for and some graphs of temperatures, including raw data. I will let people know how this works out and what the response is.
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute report on CO2 emissions from Lithium Ion battery manufacture:
http://www.ivl.se/english/startpage/top-menu/pressroom/press-releases/press-releases—arkiv/2017-06-21-new-report-highlights-climate-footprint-of-electric-car-battery-production.html
Typo in DEFRA should read Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I am too used to thinking of it in the way that many country people in the UK did under the Labour government – the Department for the Eradication of Farming and Rural Activities ……..
I have mentioned this many times before. So many people are so heavily invested that roll back is nigh impossible. This is not simply a question of losing face.
This is a trillion dollar industry such that to try and pull back could lead to a financial crash as big as the one seen in 2008/9. How could central banks deal with such a crash given that they have already played all the cards in the deck (low tax, quantitative easing etc)?
Further, western governments collect and rely upon huge tax takes sold to the public as required green environmental taxes. If the politicians were to pull back on climate change, the public would want to know why these environmental taxes are not scrapped.
The US has low petrol/gas prices but in Europe this is taxed heavily. If petrol duty, road license taxes, air passenger duty and other green taxes scrapped, where would the government get revenue to replace this income stream?
Governments never cut back on spending money, so we know that the government will not pair back size and expenditure. No government can afford to scrap these taxes as the welfare state would lose its funding.
Whilst I am please to see some injection of common sense by President Trump, I am not optimistic that a pull back is possible, at this late stage, and if it still is, it will have to be done extremely slowly so as not to rock the boat, given the fragile state of western economies.
Slight error, I meant to say:
And a typo: “pare back”, not “pair back”. Blame your predictive software. I always do.
I can think of several government departments that could be scrapped along with the taxes. All the ‘Green’ parts of DECC subsumed but not cut should go for a start. All subsidies paid toward subsidy farms (wind and Solar) all payments from grid to domestic solar customers scrapped, all subsidies on electric vehicles removed and an immediate stop on all grants to academia for climate ‘science’. If you include repeal of the various acts of parliament that justified their existence by reference to catastrophic climate change, then the surge in productivity itself will generate more normal government funding taxation.
However, as a back stop if there are insufficient funds to pay for the bloated parasites in government then cut the establishment.
Fuel in the US gets taxed twice. Once by the federal government, and again by the states. There might even be a third tax by local municipalities.
It’s simply mind-boggling to think about how much Trump voters spoiled the enormous party that all of the important people have been working on the for the last 20 years. And now he’s shutting down his panels of brainwashed CEOs who were undoubtedly trying to force him to reverse course on their new multi-trillion dollar theft & trade scheme. This was the only election that they absolutely had to have; now solar minimum’s on the way and their entire project is going to disintegrate.
Glorious.
Please tell me what you are talking about – “their new multi-trillion dollar theft & trade scheme.” Panels of brainwashed CEOs? Wow.
China will be using CFCs and cheating with impunity on all fronts. It doesn’t believe in the dangerous CO2 baloney and believes it is taking advantage of fools. It is concentrating on the smog factor and particulates, though, since the summer Olympics as tourism became important. They will not compromise their need for cheap reliable energy.
Pres O cynically doesn’t really care either. He’s with the иеомаяхбяотнеяs in EU to bring down western civilization. The deal let China build coal until 2030, after which they’ll do ‘what they can’. They are busy building giant excess capacity in coal to carry them well beyond 2030.
Canadians didn’t used to be so stupid. I guess the designer-brained education is finally kicking in. I tell my friends and family the liberal party they’ve always voted for isn’t anything like it used to be other than in name.
As the vast number of people have been misinformed about the effects and uses of carbon, it is indeed heartening that Canada (and most nations) are cheating their reporting of the figures. As the Paris Accord has no repercussions for under reporting, hopefully long may it go on to the benefit of the planet and future generations.
I would’ve been shocked if the figures were reported honestly. These are the same countries that when there are funds pledged for international disasters they don’t deliver. Only idiot countries like Australia act honestly on the global stage.
Why does one need a 100 page document to detail CO2 emissions. Talk about socialist inefficiency and governmental waste.
Personally, I consider 30 pages at least 27 pages too long.
The larger the document the bigger the hiding place. If one wants to get to the truth keep it short and simple.
I am constantly struck by a question which seems to provide its own answer.
If wind and solar are as cheap as they are now constantly claimed to be, as competitive with fossil fuels as they are claimed to be – then why are developed nations paying the developing nations to switch from coal to renewables ? and bribing them to abandon plans for more coal fired generation ?
Why, if renewable energy is so cost effective and cheap is China building another 700 coal fired power stations and more than 1600 planned around the globe.
Maybe that’s a question to ask the next politician or eco-activist you meet who is spouting that renewable energy is price-competitive and cheaper than fossil fuels. If it was then these countries wouldn’t need bribes, they’d be rushing to install renewables rather than coal or gas.
Mann was on ABC News, Australia, today (I switched over rather quickly) but before switching he was talking about the fact we now have only 10 or 20 years to save the plane (Isn’t always 10 – 20 years away?) and he said China is doing more to reduce emissions by not building coal fired generation plants. He said that with a straight face too!
I’ll bet he didn’t say that the Paris Climate Agreement allows China to Double and India to Treble their CO2 emissions between now and 2030?
I’ll be he didn’t say that Paris allows a 46% ++ Increase in global CO2 emissions between now and 2030.
If CO2 is such a concern then why did Paris allow a 46% Increase in CO2 emissions?
To me that seems to show that the “97%” of climate scientists now know only too well that CO2 has little or no effecton on earth’s temperatures …. but the public hype must be continued to keep the grants flowing, the legislation and controls growing and the profits of renewable energy investors rising.
Of course not. He was talking about ski slopes in terms of reducing emissions. A rabbit slope down (In emissions) which we need to do now or if we don’t ACT NOW, in 10 – 20 years, we need to descend a black slope, meaning we need to cut emissions more drastically. I cannot afford to go skiing so I guess he’s right, he must know. But he was rather funny, and the ABC presenter was lapping up all that spat out of mann’s mouth!
No government seriously considers CO2 to be a problem since not one response (carbon tax, carbon floor price, carbon trading, wind farms, solar, biomass) reduce CO2 emissions on a global level by any significant amount.
Presently, ie., given the technology available to us, there are only 2 choices that will reduce CO2 emissions significantly, any are (i) to go nuclear for the production of electricity, or (ii) reduce energy consumption back to 18th century levels, and adopt an 18th century life style with every thing that comes with that eg., lower life expectancy, high infant mortality, a life of servitude toiling the earth etc.
Of course there are some things that could be done to slightly reduce CO2 emissions, such as (i) go hell for leather on fracking and replace coal powered generation with gas powered generation, (ii) scrap public transport save for rush hour commute to work, (iii) scrap bus lanes, cycle lanes and the like to get traffic flowing, (iv) rip up all traffic calming obstructions and get traffic flowing, (v) greatly cut back on the number of traffic lights and get these phased properly to maximise traffic flow, (vi) widen roads to allow better traffic flow, (vii) incentivize highly efficient small engined light weight vehicles etc
None of these things is being done, and it is clear from this that governments do not seriously consider that the greatest threat the world faces is rising levels of CO2. Of course, rising levels of CO2 is not a threat but a god send as it greens the planet. Now f only it would bring about some warming that would be a WIN WIN scenario.
Perhaps China is NOT building that coal power plant?
Latest news:
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/08/16/china-halts-construction-150-gw-new-coal-power-plants/
Perhaps pigs can fly?
It never ceases to amaze me how long Griff is capable of running with a lie.
Mark, you are free to look at the detail of what the Chinese news agency reported and explain to me which bits are a lie.
Until you do that, you are just throwing out snide remarks
China also says it is a free an open country and it says more than 40 nations back its claim on South China Sea. Easy to test both but start with the first Griff just fly then and mount a democracy march in tiananmen square and let us know how you get on.
Griff,
You do realize that the information comes from China’s state controlled media and they’re only going to publish what is officially approved and can’t be independently verified, don’t you?
Or do you just unquestioningly believe everything you read?
You are corret Griff,
Chila is not building THAT coal fired generating plant, just the 700 or so others worldwide
and Griff, you are free to believe any Chinese Lie or piece of propoganda you wish to, just don’t expect any of the multitude of learned people here to swallow the same pill
NT,
After half a dozen private business trips to China, fairly high level, I found that the Chinese folk I met were happy, tricky, enjoying the challenge of beating old democracies with Chinese democracy. A ten year old kid in a cafe challenged me at chess. He won, hands down, five games in a row. This I took as symptomatic. The business people seemed to start with a handicap, they played with a smile and they won the game far too often.
I find it more healthy to comment on China this way, rather than an unemotional, routine, follow the leader rubbishing. Like you just gave. Geoff
Don’t get taken in by McGrath, he’s just as much a watermelon as the rest of them at the Beeb
Indeed, witness the fate of Quentin Letts’s piece (down the memory hole).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3355441/QUENTIN-LETTS-vaporised-BBC-s-Green-Gestapo.html
That makes this article all the more fascinating.
When a member of the team, posts an article that’s critical of the team, it’s news.
Actually, there are natural source CFCs. link
Is it the ‘French Connection’ maybe?
Certainly was with Mad Cow Disease a little few years back.
Cows in the UK, when they became ill, got Bovninine Spnongiformed Encopahty – or some such veterinary medical horror and how the well intentioned do-gooders went to town on that.
It was just awful, politcal types even had to feed their children on burgers. How Bad Is That?
As the Rozbivs were so deliciously self flagellating, our Froglegz cousins found that something with nearly identical symptoms was affecting their cows. (at least while the hapless bovines were still alive)
But Les Bovines au Francais were simply treated to bottle of either calcium borogluconate or magnesium sulphate. Classic treatments for the long standing ailments of either grass for milk staggers.
Then they fed the affected bovine to both themselves and their children ASAP.
As a Rozbiv, I just had to admire the French bureaucratic response to the introduction of the Single Farm Payment.
UK farming types found themselves inundated with glossy A4 sized booklets, printed on the best card/paper available and creating a pile about 4″ thick initially. Updated annually with another 2″ pile.
(and on *every* page except the front/back covers, the word ‘penalty’ appeared at least once.
By contrast, the typical French peasant got one normal A4 sized letter, a single sheet about half covered in fairly large print to explain the new subsidy system.
Such is the English system, almost entirely paralysed by self-importance and concern for minutiae & trivia. Plus a truly desperate urge to tell everyone else how to live their lives all rolled up with manifold mechanisms to take money off you if you step even a tiny fraction out of line.
What maybe starts but certainly reinforces it?
Try watching UK television.
…..grass *or* milk staggers…..
Shortage of magnesium or calcium respectively. Normally get enough from what they eat. (grass)
And you thought plants only needed carbon dioxide didn’t you………..
NASA certainly does with their Global Greening (Garbage)
Funny but oh so true. When I had the chance to get out of the UK, and EU, I did so in 1995. Mind you, Australia catching up fast, may even have surpassed the UK in stupid! Let’s not talk about free to air TV here as it is sh…
BSE is a nasty disease which caused a number of horrible deaths.
It is not the same thing as whatever you think the French had, but a real problem, identified and eliminated by good science.
No created by people feeding bone and meat meal to a herbivore a practice outlawed in most countries except the USA and UK because it was obvious it was going to be dangerous. All the good scientists and authorities went missing in action.
You still have a massive problem that is going to bite the UK in the butt one day in that you allow the feeding of fish meal to chickens under your current laws
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/supplying-and-using-animal-by-products-as-farm-animal-feed
Your own government ran a study on the issue and didn’t see fit to act
https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mnt/drupal_data/sources/files/multimedia/pdfs/ACAF00106.pdf
Under item 16 it looks like you are also still feeding sheep fish meal … oh can’t see a problem there.
Australia chicken producers have a code of conduct that bans the practice and most would like to have it as law.
So when it all happens again in the UK please don’t tell us about your great scientists.
Among things banned in the Us but not in the UK/EU are growth hormones in beef, bovine somatrophin for milk production and GM soya. Also there’s a great fuss over here because we might post brexit be importing chlorinated chicken from the US…
US food safety standards and things allowed to be pushed into animals are widely regarded as unsafe in Europe.
Griff,
Fortunately you live in a country that Doesn’t “Force” you to consume any particular product or foodstuff. No one will tie your gonads to your chin until you eat that nasty USA produced chicken. you have too many other possible choices so you can avoid anything you wish and consume whatever remains.
“Griff August 17, 2017 at 8:11 am
BSE is a nasty disease which caused a number of horrible deaths.”
More misinformation from Griff. No human ever died of BSE. CJD on the other hand, yes. A few during that time. BTW Griff, it was BAD science that created the BSE problem itself. Who’d a thought that feeding processed waste from infected animals would, infect healthy animals!
Too figure out what countries are leading the way in economic self destruction, one just needs to look at electricity prices.
http://joannenova.com.au/
Tell me it’s just my dirty mind but the top three: South Australia is where Tesla is building the biggest battery, Denmark has the highest wind energy percentage, Germany boasts 35% of energy from renewables
Germany also puts a lot of tax on its electric.
and of course as a pioneer, its costs for renewables/subsidies required were quite high to start with – it now sees tenders for offshore wind requiring non subsidy.
However German households use less electricity – so their bills are lower than comparable US households.
And they support the level of renewable costs in their bills:
http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/germans-renewable-energy-energiewende-subsidies/
Griff we pay about 8.5 cent per kilowatt hour at my British Columbia condo and heat with electricity. My condo bill is about $300 for an entire year. I don’t understand why you want to pay more than triple what I pay … not the brightest crayon in the box I suppose 😉
I corrected for currency.
Knowing the price of everything may be to know the value of nothing…
“Griff August 17, 2017 at 10:17 am
Knowing the price of everything may be to know the value of nothing…”
Better than knowing nothing at all eh Griff?
“Knowing the price of everything may be to know the value of nothing…”
How much were the lives of the old and sick that died because the likes of you had placed the price of heat beyond their ability to pay, Skanky?
https://www.theguardian.com/big-energy-debate/2014/sep/11/fuel-poverty-scandal-winter-deaths
But in your book, they don’t matter, do they?
Do these numbers include government subsidies?. Or, in other words, would the cost be higher if undisclosed subsidies were factored in?
I’m thinking particularly about Norway on Finland, renewables strongholds where costs are still pretty low.
The REALLY BIG story that is hidden in plain sight in the above article appears to have been overlooked or ignored by most everyone is quoted n the following:
Excerpted from the above article, to wit:
Now I ask everyone, with the aforesaid chicanery running rampant with the reporting of “anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”, ………. how in the world is it possible for anyone to be claiming or calculating how much of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm during the past 50 years or so is truly anthropogenically caused?
Like I’ve been saying for the past 15 years or so, the avid proponents of CAGW have been employing “reverse mathematics” (aka: reverse engineering) for calculating humanity’s contribution to the atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities as defined/portrayed on the Keeling Curve Graph.
fossil fuel produced CO2 is isotopically different.
you just measure the proportion of CO2 with the fossil fuel isotope
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
So, fossil fuel produced CO2 is isotopically different, HUH?
So that means there are actually two (2) different types of CO2., ….. RIGHT?
YUP, there is both a naturally occurring CO2 molecule and a hybrid CO2 molecule that has a different physical property. The new hybrid CO2 molecule contains an H-pyron which permits one to distinguish it from the naturally occurring CO2 molecules.
The H-pyron or Human-pyron is only attached to and/or can only be detected in CO2 molecules that have been created as a result of human activity. Said H-pyron has a Specific Heat Capacity of one (1) GWC or 1 Global Warming Calorie that is equal to 69 x 10 -37th kJ/kg K or something close to that or maybe farther away.
Thus, said H-pyron is very important to all Climate Scientists that are proponents of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) because it provides them a quasi-scientific “fact” that serves two (2) important functions: 1) it permits said climate scientists to calculate an estimated percentage of atmospheric CO2 that is “human caused” ……. and 2) it permits said climate scientists to calculate their desired “degree increase” in Average Global Temperatures that are directly attributed to human activity.
As an added note, oftentimes one may hear said climate scientists refer to those two (2) types of CO2 as “urban CO2” and ”rural CO2” because they can’t deny “it is always hotter in the city”.
And there you have it folks, the rest of the story, their secret scientific tool has been revealed to you.
Yours truly, Eritas Fubar
Yes Samuel – you can tell the origin of CO2. There are different ‘types’
Here’s the science:
“Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.”
How are the air samples collected? Where?
So, If fossil fuels and plants have roughly the same ratio of 13C/12C isotopes, how do you determine the source is Fossil Fuel and not Plant Decay?
Griff:
**fossil fuel produced CO2 is isotopically different.
you just measure the proportion of CO2 with the fossil fuel isotope**
So, Griff, here is one you nor anyone else has answered?
How do you MEASURE the amount of warming caused by any CO2?
This is where the lies come in. And take note that you have been asked this question many times including at Realclimatescience. And predictably you have not replied. So I expect the same today.
“Griff August 17, 2017 at 8:04 am”
Griff quotes realclimate? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…if you had any credibility at all before, it’s totally gone now.
Griff – August 17, 2017 at 11:26 am
Griff, your plagiarized mimicry doesn’t impress in the least. What you cited as “science” is really “junk science”, …….. and to prove it was “junk” I suggest you read what I told Ferdinand Engelbeen months and months ago when he was touting the same “junk science” about the changing atmospheric ratio of 13C to 12C. So, please read all of the following and really try to understand/comprehend what is presented, ….. to wit:
Spreadsheets rule, OK. It is all theoretical anyway, absolutely impossible to have a finite meaningful answer and what about the stuff we all breathe out?
Griff, and the highest fossil fuel isotope CO2 is found over uninhabited forest?! WTF!
Isn’t there a satellite up there that’s supposed to be monitoring emissions?
Does it read CO2 levels low enough in the atmosphere to gauge which country CO2 is coming from?
There are also issues with natural sinks and sources.
Many images from the OCO2 satellite certainly do indicate a source of the greening gas
https://www.google.com/search?q=oco+2+satellite&lr&hl=en&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&imgil=3JNOt5GcNMU2fM%253A%253BzZOmo8u_x4tmBM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwattsupwiththat.com%25252F2015%25252F10%25252F04%25252Ffinally-visualized-oco2-satellite-data-showing-global-carbon-dioxide-concentrations%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=3JNOt5GcNMU2fM%253A%252CzZOmo8u_x4tmBM%252C_&usg=__xSGS9LaWhtMN-e17Mnir__1jkPQ%3D&biw=1902&bih=1100&ved=0ahUKEwiVmqfFmN_VAhUIjlQKHSRlA2oQyjcInQE&ei=zweWWdX2DYic0gKkyo3QBg#imgdii=ytVznbv89dH2ZM:&imgrc=3JNOt5GcNMU2fM:&spf=1503004632659
and in the OCO2 satellite videos, they are the stationary red spots that the red trails fly away from and eddie around
Forgot the youtube vid link
Yes, apparently it does. It was designed to measure regional sinks and sources. There was a thread on it on WUWT mbe3 a year ago.
BryanA, that graphic isn’t the OCO-2 data, it’s a 2006 computer visualisation by NASA to show where THEY think the C)2 is coming from.
Try this.
https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/nasas-spaceborne-carbon-counter-maps-new-details
Somehow, huge gaps in data and missing data in reports just seems totally appropriate when dealing with global warming.
Some countries, he said, are “simply ignoring the realities and making stuff up…leaving…gaping holes in national greenhouse gas inventories. There’s an awful lot of dodgy data…”
Sounds like the EU accounting system has been copied for other uses.
James Bull
>> the best journalism is done overseas <<
too many times – authors stretch for profound generalities to spice up the introduction to their stories – and snatch false generalities instead
Now talking about dirty little secrets lets talk about Germany. Supposedly they are decommissioning all there lignite burning coal plants only that isn’t what is happening. They are being sold to other close countries
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2016-04-18/vattenfall-agrees-to-sell-german-lignite-assets-to-czech-eph
http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2016/11/coal-news-today-s-energy-system-could-blow-paris-climate-goals.html
Who are continuing to run the operations and export the electricity but the emissions don’t count as German because of that 🙂
German exports of electricity have hit massive all time highs and the old lignite power stations continue operation as they always did. So it’s pretty funny when Germany says it doesn’t have any lignite power stations anymore.
” I am shocked- shocked- to find that gambling is going on in here!”
If it’s warmer today then 218BC try and take 38 elephants and 100,000 men across the Alps and see if even make it
let me try that again 😀
If it’s warmer today than 218BC then try and take 38 elephants and 100,000 men across the Alps and see if you can make it
It’s all fake news – but Donald Trump and Fox are of course exceptions.
Actually that’s not true – fake news is any news with which you happen to disagree or have an alternative unquantified but sincerely held belief
Fake news is any news that depends on advertising bucks.
Adversitising destroyed journalism
Journalism has to be funded somehow. Subscriber dollars don’t even come close. I’d rather have a multitude of advertisers pay for it than a single government with a political agenda.
Journalism, like most things, is an imperfect institution. The NY Times is very liberal because that’s the way its owners want it. Fox News is very conservative for similar reasons. Their advertisers are looking for the exposure, not a way to influence opinion.
Fake news, at least in the U.S., has nothing to do with advertising.
Here in Canada we are lead by a bunch of left wing nut jobs. In British Columbia the home of the lefty nut jobs and the leaders of the environmental movement in Canada. (BC was the first province in Canada to subject their populous to a forced feel good carbon tax). BC is suffering from the worst forest fire season in 50 years and has been since the start of summer. So how are they addressing this burning calamity and disaster to the forestry industry, not to mention the people whose lives are in danger and the massive property damage. They are fighting the fires in an environmental way. The use of fire retardant chemicals is frowned on and reduced to the point of useless. The biggest water bomber in the world the Martin Mars is sitting idle on Sprout lake on Vancouver Island because the government refuses to use it. Even if the Mars was to be used over the last 20 years the BC environmentalists have restricted the number of lakes it can actually use to pick up water or land on. I have heard and read a number of statements that modern coal plants must be banned for their emissions and the heavy particulate discharge from their stacks, Well if you want to see heavy emissions come to western Canada and see the smoke from these fires two provinces away. Some days there air quality warnings for people to stay indoors two provinces away. Meanwhile the mayor of Vancouver BC is trying to run the city without fossil fuels by 2030.
The only thing that stuns me about this article is that Matt McGrath is being held up as an example of a good journalist. He is so steeped in bias that even Roger Harrabin and George Monbiot have trouble keeping up.
“Reporting is done once every two years, but the accord doesn’t require independent verification of the numbers.” The fact that countries would sign on to an agreement that would not require verification indicates they know the whole idea is a scam. It can’t be a serious effort if there are no teeth in it. How they can try to sell this to the world is beyond me.
Agreed, I stopped reading the BBC and Guardian years ago, their bias is ridiculous.
About the BBC…I watched an “expert panel” debate the Trump effect and later Brexit. One panel member referred to Trump as “he who shall not be named” and that stuck with the rest of the panel members who went on to reject Brexit unanimously. So much for an expert panel debate.
Even then, nature takes very well care of CO2. Natural CO2 sinks are scaling extremely well with elevated atmospheric CO2 levels. With current emissions it seems unlikely we could ever get beyong 520ppm.
http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx10/Oliver25/Keeling%20vs.%20CO2%20sinks_2.png
Note: if CO2 emissions were underreported, that would only underestimate the effect of CO2 sinks.
Will someone wake up Griff.
There is a question to be answered:
Griff:
**fossil fuel produced CO2 is isotopically different.
you just measure the proportion of CO2 with the fossil fuel isotope**
So, Griff, here is one you nor anyone else has answered?
How do you MEASURE the amount of warming caused by any CO2?
This is where the lies come in. And take note that you have been asked this question many times including at Realclimatescience. And predictably you have not replied. So I expect the same today.
What the hell is going on in Australia ? Well at least they won’t freeze there like the 30,000 fuel poverty deaths per year in Europe . Despicable terrorists kill and maim people deserve to be wiped out yet
politicians impose absurd energy costs based on a massive fraud and no one even goes to jail .
Something ain’t right .
Really surprised Australians would stand for this crap .