While the COP23 climate conference is going on in Bonn this week, there has been renewed wailing and gnashing of teeth over President Trump’s withdraw from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord this past summer. There are lots of reasons why the US doesn’t need to participate, but looking at this one graph, it becomes clear that other countries aren’t leading the way, not one bit. The USA leads by a large margin.
This is the graph climate alarmists and tax revenue trough feeders don’t want you to see:
h/t to Robert Wilson via Twitter
Some BONUS Graphs:
In absolute terms coal use has fallen far more in America this century than anywhere else:
Most of the growth in CO2 emissions this century came from modernizing economies. And China and India dominated:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Brilliant
Thanks
This is one of the most absurd logics I’ve seen for a very long time. There might be a million real reasons to step out, but this table is clearly not one of them. As Nick Stokes said above, this just shows that US is a big country. But it does not seem to matter as long as it supports “our” narrative. What a sad state of “debate”
Emissions per capita in 2015 (similarly developed economies). EU – 6,9 tons, USA – 16,1 tons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
The whole argument is absurd, so look on this as parody.
I think the comments here are even more absurd than the argument itself and they do not seem to be a parody
Yep Sven, your comments are absurd. Sort of “non-comments.”
Sven, you own link clearly shows why the “Paris accords” was never going make that much difference.
Is this post about whether “the “Paris accords” was ever going to make that much difference”??
As I said ” There might be a million real reasons to step out” and you just named one of them – the accord is not going to make “that much difference” but it does not make this post any less absurd.
Sven, here is the post headline you missed:
“#COP23 In one graph, best reason ever why the USA doesn’t need to be in the #ParisAgreement”
Try again.
Now compare the headline to your statement
Try again
The USA does not need the Paris Accord.
The Paris Accord needs the USA.
It is a pointless piece of nothing without the USA, not even worth cutting into 10cm x 11cm pages on a roll.
Leftist countries like Germany, France etc will NEVER put in their fair share of fund.
Like defense, they expect the USA to carry everything.
DJT is sticking it to the ‘Green Blob’ bless him for that if he achieves nothing else. Beating the Greens with the Red Wedge (topical note!).
.jpg)
The Paris Climate Accord is a non-binding non-treaty. China and India demanded that every “shall” was replaced with a “will”. Where there is a will there is a way out of complying. China is notoriously building coal plants and exporting coal technology and claiming credits for cutting CO2. China has gamed the rest of the world in the WTO, and is gaming climate change in the same way.
Follow the money, as we cut the funding to these cultists they will curl up in the dustbin of history.
Switching from coal to the new combined cycle natural gas plants not only reduces emissions, but they are also cheaper to build, more efficient operationally, cheapest per Kwh electricity produced, can be built to any scale, can ramp-up and ramp-down easily, supply by pipeline is uncomplicated, nearby cavern storage allows purchasing to be strategic and/or cover a whole year.
And natural gas plants run in the night-time when solar isn’t around, run when the wind is gone and meet seasonal and daily electricity needs without a loss in efficiency.
And natural gas is now everywhere and essentially inexhaustible thanks to frackin’.
Just skip the crappy coal emissions, and renewable unpredictability and run on the absolute best systems there is now and ever was, combined cycle natural gas.
At some point even Nat Gas runs out. Nat Gas to transition to nuclear is the only way forward… that is unless global human population crashes by over 90% in the next 80 years. Which is what the greens want.
With coal gasification, natural gas could fuel global economies for centuries into the future. Wouldn’t hurt to use nukes to power the gasification process, however.
I sat through a briefing a decade or so ago where someone in the exploration game said that there is enough natural gas on the West Florida Shelf to last a hundred years or more.
There is easily 100 years supply basically everywhere.
Before that deadline, we will find a way inside the energy contained in atoms and basic matter which is not as dangerous as fission and not as impossible nor as radioactive as fusion. All the energy we will ever need is hiding right under your feet or right next to you in the wall.
Word to the wise: quarks!
‘Nuff said.
20 years before there was a working reactor that could produce electricity from its heat, the basic physics of fission were worked out.
The basic ideas how to create the conditions for fusing hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium were worked out during and immediately after the Manhattan Project.
No one still has figured out how to make a working fusion reactor that produces more energy than it consumes.
And now some magical energy source that no one has figured out the physics of is going to replace everything for power? Maybe in a century. But not the next 30 years. And anything beyond 20 years is policy irrelevant, and pure fiction.
Joel, Nat Gas doesn’t run out! Read Thomas Gold.
The bottom line: The more C02 a country emits the more they contribute to eliminating hunger
Anything else is just lies…
you didn’t offer any
evidence.
but the more co2 a country
emits, the more they contribute
to warming, to sea level rise,
to ocean acidification, etc.
Crackers, YOU just made a claim without evidence. It is wrong anyway since there is little additional warm forcing left based on remaining “fossil fuels” to bring up anyway.
Cracker the best of trolls do not attack others for having no evidence when they present none of their own. Again total historical emissions are not still floating around. They are tied up in rocks, trees, sediments, animals, etc.
Warming: Warmer is better. Sea level rise. Trivial and not out of historic amounts. Ocean acidification. The Oceans are basic. CO2 can reduce their alkalinity slightly, but not so as anyone would notice.
walter – all false, but i’m
not going to debunk them, because
i suspect you couldn’t care less
(and offered no evidence anyway)
“the more they contribute
to warming, to sea level rise,
to ocean acidification, etc.”
ROFLMAO.
What a load of UNPROVEN ANTI-SCIENCE AGW propaganda mantra,
as well as being total and utter BS. !
You really are proving to be one of the most USELESS trolls ever to grace this blog.
A non-science, nil-educated, mindless non-entity with a tourette syndrome fetish on his return key.
Get a life, preferable without all the fossil fuels you are currently consuming.
crackers-
I’m sure the reality of your life is the same as every other Lefty. Bitch and moan about those in power or who have money while talking a good game about the magic of sharing and how everyone will contribute equally in your shiny new world. While in reality still trying to get a leg up on everybody else while doing as little as possible to contribute.
Tear everything down until we’re all rich! Worked so well in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc.
So what? Who cares.? The whole thing is just a scam to pump money from US taxpayers to the riffraff of the third world. What ever CO2 the US emits is fertilizing plant growth all over the world. Be happy about it.
[(EDITED) MOD]
Anthony: Edit function please CO2 not CO@ur momisugly
walter: temperature rise counteracts any plant growth
from co2 fertilization. as well as a loss of plant
nutrition.
Utter garbage.
Temperature rise, if it were actually to happen, would greatly increase the bounty of the earth, by lengthening growing seasons and extending the tree line farther north.
There is no loss of nutrition whatsoever from more CO2. You really ought to keep quiet on topics about which you know absolutely nothing, unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself. Which if you’re paid to do so, then OK.
More CO2 means plants can make more carbohydrate, with less water. This increases the nutritive value of plants. What you appear to be trying out of sheer ignorance to assert is that the relative proportion of carbohydrate to amino acids goes down if CO2 increases without a concomitant rise in available nitrogen. Which is true. But if you also increase N, then plants will also make more amino acid under elevated CO2. The limiting input is N.
But it is an ignorant falsehood to claim that more CO2 means less nutrition. Without more N, you get more carbohydrate and the same amount of amino acids. Only relatively are there fewer amino acids, not absolutely.
This is the argument of an idiotic ignoramus. Better to keep your mouth shut than open it and let all know you’re a know-nothing falsehood spewer.
now that crackerboy is complete BS.
If you really believe that, you are truly ignorant.
You’re effing nutz. Do your homework. Talk to a biologist or horticulturist.
“…walter: temperature rise counteracts any plant growth
from co2 fertilization. as well as a loss of plant
nutrition….”
Ummm, even this 2017 paper admits that it isn’t counteracted http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3212?WT.feed_name=subjects_ecology , just that the growth is reduced under warmer than “average” temperatures (whatever that is).
joelb – what
does the science
say?
crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 7:01 pm
You’ve been shown the science. It doesn’t say what you so delusionally imagine it does. Not even close.
gabro: “Does a Warmer World Mean a Greener World? Not Likely!,”
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002166
gabro: “Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any supposed positives.” http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf
gabro: “Suitable Days for Plant Growth Disappear under Projected Climate Change: Potential Human and Biotic Vulnerability,” http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167
gabro: “We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.” http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/06/1415181112
gabro: “Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/10/crop-nutrition/2014
gabro: “Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres…. These findings imply that food quality will suffer under the CO2 levels anticipated during this century unless more sophisticated approaches to nitrogen fertilization are employed.”
— “Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.html
gabro: “For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
— “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,”
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002
crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:25 pm
As I said, utter garbage. In the case of this preposterous modeling exercise based upon temperatures that existed in the past, with no such effect on vegetation, but which won’t happen under any likely real scenario in the near future, I’ll add complete and total to the utter.
crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:25 pm
Already shown preposterous, as based upon modeled projections which won’t happen, and wouldn’t happen even if they occurred.
Sheer rubbish.
crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:26 pm
More ludicrous lies by Mora, et al, taking unphysical projections as gospel, then imagining unphysical effects therefrom.
The indisputable facts from actual earth history is that warmer means much more lush vegetation, from equator to pole. Facts are stubborn things. Agenda=driven models and projections are a waste of electrons.
Got any actual data?
crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:27 pm
More modeling. But even so, you failed to mention that increased precipitation offset the effect of warming.
Also, global warming doesn’t increase summer heat. It lowers winter cold, so none of this matters.
Winter kill is what destroys wheat crops, not summer heat, unless there be no rain.
gabro, you’re avoiding all the
science I cited.
crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:28 pm
Again, no data cites whatsoever.
More CO2 does not inhibit protein production. I’ve already explained to you what happens under CO2 fertilization.
All you have is an assertion by somebody attached to UC Davis in some way on a CACA site.
IOW, you’ve got nothing. Still.
crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:29 pm
Great. Now you provide a source for the assertion in your previous link, and guess what?
He says exactly what I told you. To say that more CO2 inhibits amino acid production is a flat out lie, but naturally that’s how it’s spun.
Bloom says just what I said, namely that the proportion of amino acids decrease. Why? Because there is more carbohydrate.
There is no inhibition. The same amount of amino acids are produced, but the ratio falls because more sugar is produced, ie plant food, and food for the animals which eat the wheat.
Thanks for providing a link supporting my accurate statement.
crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:44 pm
I avoided nothing. I showed that each of your links was not science, was patently false or supported exactly what I said.
As always, you’ve got nothing. You post links that don’t support your anti-scientific assertions.
gabro claimed “Bloom says just what I said, namely that the proportion of amino acids decrease”
no, bloom’s claim was about TOTAL concentrations: “Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres…. in “Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat,” Bloom et al, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.html
” you’re avoiding all the
science I cited.”
Because none of it is science.
It is agenda driven modelling
Pity you don’t have the intelligence to see or understand the difference.
“TOTAL concentrations”
Oh dearie me, crackpot
shows it doesn’t
understand the word
“concentration”.
In any sense of the word.
The study shows
that they are
incompetent, not
knowing how to
increase nitrogen release.
Things any farmer would
know to achieve..
So why crackers, does the world presently enjoy its largest ever surplus of grain in storage, despite a greatly increased population over the last 30 years? Where is the “Catastrophe” after 60 years of warming?
Hell, where is it actually detectably any warmer, other than the Arctic ( which is cooling again).
crackers345 November 7, 2017 at 8:55 pm
That portion of his finding is contradicted by all other research, to include that done just down the road from my former wheat ranch, where the miracle strains of soft white wheat have been bred, contributing to the Green Revolution which has fed the world during the past 50 years.
If water and N be held constant, more nutrition is produced under higher CO2. Period. Full stop.
All the modeled garbage you cite is shown false by the experiment of geologic history. The Pliocene was warmer, with higher CO2 than the Pleistocene, and plants flourished. The Miiocene was warmer, with higher CO2 than the Pliocene, and plants flourished even more. Most of the Oligocene was warmer, with higher CO2 than the Miocene, and plants flourished yet more. The Eocene was warmer, with higher CO2 than the Oligocene, and plants flourished the most.
Giant rhinos thrived in the lush Oligocene:
As earth cooled and dried out during the Oligocene Epoch and Neogene Period (Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs), grasslands replaced forests, causing horses to evolve from little woodland browwers into big, fast, open country grazers.
As CO2 fell from the mid-Eocene through the Oligocene and Neogene, C3 plants adapted by evolving the C4 and CAM pathways, but most crop plants and all trees are still C3.
More CO2 means more food and fiber from plants. Period. Full stop. A fact shown not only by geologic and paleontological history but by lab experiences and field observations.
AndyG55 November 7, 2017 at 10:23 pm
As with so much “climate change research”, rent-seekers simply assume the worst case scenario from worse than worthless models, then imagine the worst possible result from such unphysical assumptions and models, without reference to the real world.
This is not “science”, as Crackers claims, but shamelessly false advocacy, which has cost the world trillions in treasure and tens of millions of lives.
When you start the century as the world’s largest emitter of CO2 and your country is the self professed Saudi Arabia of coal there is a lot of low hanging fruit to harvest. Much like Europe picks 1990 to measure their CO2 reductions, America looks good if you pick year 2000. Still it won’t win the US much cachet at the COP23 parties because it’s all about the money.
what money?
The Green Fund monies .. no one is giving it and that is all the pacific islands care about.
LdB – I think you’ll find Germany just promised an extra 50 million euros
Well they can all fight over the extra monies, only we all know that all the money will be chewed out by administration costs 🙂
If you don’t know what I mean perhaps look at the budget 🙂
https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/490910/GCF_B.15_21_Rev.01_-_Administrative_Budget_of_the_Green_Climate_Fund_for_2017.pdf/a81747f5-e383-4ba9-b232-417482798098
They went from $30M to $41Mil in 1 year they will have all monies spent at that rate because you have to have severance pay contingencies … etc.
Oh and in case you were interested for the two years they spent $71M on administration they gave out $131.1M which is there own numbers.
Griff-=
Promises are like CO2! After all is said and done, meaningless!
Living in Australia, it’s disappointing that we do not appear on the first 2 graphs but are still suffering from ridiculous CAGW-created targets.
– not reducing our CO2 output (particularly galling as I live in SA with the most wind-generators of any state)
– not reducing our coal use (even after closing down a couple of major coal-fired generation plants)
All pain, no reward.
We aren’t on the graph because we actually emitted more than we ever have. The only way we got our numbers down is the use of some interesting accounting via offset credits.
CO2 is irrelevant. I advocate keeping our environment clean, especially against pollution from industry, traffic and waste. We should also ensure that the environment is not damaged by chemical substances (agriculture, fertilizers and pesticides). We should ensure that enough living space remains for the endangered animals. The whole global warming industry is a bogus debate and money wasting machine
I advocate keeping our political climate free and clean from all special interest groups who seek to co-opt the power and resources of government to pad their pockets and equip them with greater power to advance their interests over those of the common good.
From the article above:
Should India stop increasing CO2 emissions ?
2015 figures:
India’s CO2 emissions are 6.81% of world emissions & 1.9 T per capita.
Respective figures for U.S. are 14.34% & 16.1 T per capita.
Respective figures for U.S. are 29.51% & 7.7 T per capita.
I think it’s wrong to use the Leftists’ deluded assumption that CO2 is an “evil pollutant” that must be sequestered…
Overall, there are net BENEFITS to higher CO2 levels: 33% increase of crop yields per CO2 doubling, increased plant drought resistance, lower irrigation requirements, increase in global greening, slightly longer growing seasons, slightly earlier springs, slightly later winters, slightly less severe winters, slightly less crop frost loss, increase of arable land in northern latitudes, slightly higher tree-lines, slight decrease in desertification, etc.
A decrease in US CO2 emissions is nothing to celebrate, especially if we have to suffer FALLING global temperatures over the next 50~100 years from collapsing solar cycles, and the tiny amount of CO2 warming will help offset some of the coming solar cooling.
The “one graph(s), showing the best reason ever why the USA doesn’t need to be in the #ParisAgreement” is actually this one:
or this one:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/from:1996.6/to:2015.7/plot/uah6/from:1996.6/to:2015.7/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/to:2015.7/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/to:2015.7/normalise
A lot of words wasted in this comment column, responding to nonsense from Stokes, crackers, et.al.
The bottom line is:
We don’t need to be in the ‘Paris Agreement’ because CO2 is not a threat to the global environment.
No other specious arguments are needed.
The Paris agreement itself is a useless pursuit.
The reality is that the climate change we have been experiening is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. The “Paris Agreement” cannot have any effect on climate. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. Even if we could somehow stop the climate from changing, severe weather events would still happen because such extreme weather events are part of the current climate.
About this obsession with reducing C02,, it assumes facts not in evidence.
Very useful and snarfed. Obviosuly publicdomain. But compared to what basis? e.g USA was 25% of all global CO2 emissions. What is it now. Absolutes are better than % or differentials in terms of tonnes of CO2, etc. Obs. Ungrateful of Sunbury CEng.
US could announce the most drastic GHG emissions reduction plan in the world but would still get bashed because it isn’t paying $$$ to the pot.
If you live in a world where words speak louder than actions, you best find another world.
I just read an article that claims that we need a new climate measurement system because all past measurements are bad. If that is the case then the Paris Climate Agreement must be discarded along with all past climate research because it is based upon bad data. In terms of measureing climate change, once the new meausrement system is in place at least a thousand years of measurements will be necessary in particular so that weather cycles can be filstered out so that we are left with measurements of just global climate change. All funding of climate reasearch should be stopped until we have at least one thousand years of good data to work with.
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2015&sort=des9
How do these graphs square with this EU data? It shows the US as the second largest co2 emitter after China with emissions going up steadily over the years from 1990. I don’t feel strongly about it – just wondering.
US emissions have not gained steadily since 1990. In the data presented, ours have fallen since 2005 and are not much higher than in 1990.
China’s emissions, OTOH, have almost quintupled since 1990, and were over twice as high as America’s in 2015.
Country: 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 2014 2015, Ktons CO2 (Rounded)
China: 2,293,540 3,303,544 3,631,897 6,174,717 8,986,614 10,503,137 10,711,037 10,641,789
USA: 5,003,720 5,294,648 5,873,867 5,886,318 5,519,484 5,255,530 5,312,226 5,172,338
On the other hand, anyone not in the “headless chook” category will tell you there’s one good reason to keep the Paris Piffle afloat. It’s good for Prince Chump’s nice little (covert) earner.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41901175
Gabro
Yes I can see that now – thanks. It’s difficult to read the numbers without commas.