Why we don’t need to be in the Paris Climate accord: While the world surges in greenhouse gas production, USA drops for third straight year

Newsbytes tell the story:

Global greenhouse gas emissions began rising again last year as the first pick-up in coal burning since 2013 overshadowed a record expansion in renewable energy, a BP report said. The opening of new coal-fired power plants in India and China drove coal consumption higher by 1 percent, highlighting the difficulties developing economies face in meeting demand for electricity while fighting pollution. —Reuters, 13 June 2018

Two years after 200 or so nations forged a new UN deal to protect the climate, the output of the gases blamed for global warming surged to a record. In the US, which intends to withdraw from the UN’s Paris accord, greenhouse-gas output fell for the third year. —Bloomberg, 13 June 2018

The biggest advances in CO2 emissions were in emerging nations, with a 4.4% jump in India and a 1.6% gain in China. Carbon dioxide output also rose in Brazil, Qatar, and Russia, while Turkey’s jumped by 13%. In the EU, home to the world’s biggest carbon market, emissions from energy use advanced 1.5%. Greenhouse-gas output also rose in Canada. —Bloomberg, 13 June 2018

Last week a team of researchers from the UK Met Office, the University of East Anglia, the University of Gothenburg, the University of Southern Queensland and the Sorbonne published in the journal Science Advances an interesting paper showing that the recent much debated and researched 21st century “slowdown” in global surface temperatures was real and could be explained by reduced solar activity and increased volcanic counteracting climate forcing from greenhouse gases. It achieved almost no media coverage despite being published in a high profile journal. —GWPF Observatory, 12 June 2018

Put out the NIMBY alert for Maryland. This very blue state is, of course, largely onboard with the entire “keep it in the ground” movement to abandon fossil fuels and embrace renewable energy. Unless, of course, you want to generate any of that electricity within sight of the state’s tony coastal communities. —Hot Air, 12 June 2018

h/t to The GWPF

Read the 2018 BP energy report here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 14, 2018 10:30 am

Gee, I don’t see this coverage in all the news outlets that I don’t rely on.

June 14, 2018 10:31 am

The Energiewende has worked out so well, the US should copy that approach./s

June 14, 2018 10:32 am

That chart is pounds CO2 PER MWhr. While it is a good to know figure, we also need to know the growth in MW over time (MWhr/day) and change in total CO2 per (day, month, or year).

S. Geiger
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
June 14, 2018 11:00 am

Yeah, I had the same question. How do the absolute numbers look…not just the efficiency (although its nice that the efficiency appears to be increasing). The post title is clearly misleading…at least with regard to the single graph that is shown.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
June 15, 2018 5:23 am

You can get BP’s data here:


In addition to the tab on CO2 emissions (towards the back) which shows that US emissions are now below 1993 levels and down from the peak 5881.4 million tonnes CO2 in 2007 to 5087.7 mtCO2 in 2017, they also have a raft of other interesting data on oil, gas , coal, hydro, nuclear, “renewables” and some key resources of the future – rare earths, lithium, cobalt, graphite.

It’s a great statistical resource – albeit like all such sources, it relies to some degree on sometimes dubious government statistics, and also contains its own often not fully revealed assumptions.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
June 15, 2018 5:58 am
James Beaver
June 14, 2018 10:34 am

Good thing CO2 is a beneficial trace gas that all life depends on. We need more of it.

June 14, 2018 10:49 am

IMO The underlying purpose for the Paris accord was never to reduce CO2 emissions although that reduction was lauded as its rationale.

Reply to  rocketscientist
June 14, 2018 11:09 am

“The underlying purpose for the Paris Accord was ” to reduce the Human population by destroying Capitalism !! IMO …

Reply to  rocketscientist
June 14, 2018 11:11 am

The underlying purpose for the Paris Accord was to rally all humankind to a common cause. Never mind that the cause was a myth. It’s the thought that counted most — the delusion, that is, to unite the world with a common ethic that transcended nationality, race, gender, etc., in order to distribute wealth from developing nations to undeveloped nations.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 14, 2018 11:21 am

Robert Kernodle

And install the UN as a global government under Agenda 21. Underpinned by the Club of Rome who are keen on reducing world population, by whatever means.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”- Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

Reply to  HotScot
June 14, 2018 11:35 am

Let us, then, unite against OURSELVES ! I am my own worst enemy. How efficient.

We are all sinners. It always gets back to seeming like a world religion, doesn’t it ?

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 14, 2018 11:48 am

That’s not what Dr. John Schellnhuber, CBE actually wrote. He is the great de-carbonizer, awarded by the Queen because he has openly published his population target – he will tolerate less than 2 billion. Not known how many the Queen tolerates, but Philip has often asked to be reincarnated as a virus for exactly that purpose. This is not fake news!

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 14, 2018 1:44 pm

and to hide the severe and irreplaceable drop in western (read: white/Christian) humans by 2065. Teaching us to off ourselves, stop creating ourselves, and abort ourselves while other needy nations grow healthy, strong and populous very soon. A 1999 Sierra Club “anti-pop. growth” speech, admiring post WWII Japan for wisely focusing on 1 child per (while creating a world technology jump) has resulted in coming elimination of all Japanese. (see: http://www.susps.org/ibq1998/discuss/jchristian.html)
Famous LAST WORDS: “In the late 40’s the Japanese realized that in order to compete with the West they would need to produce a generation of Japanese with superior health and a superior education. In order to maximize their limited post war resources, they would need to have a much smaller number of children. The media openly discussed this matter and Japanese fertility rates took a dramatic decline. Today, Japanese children are the healthiest and best educated children in the world, and the Japanese population is expected to shrink dramatically in the next century, which is a great gift to the world from a nation of high consuming people. <<<<YIKES! not sure if trading Pokemon and Hello Kitty for your whole culture was worth it.

June 14, 2018 11:07 am

The REAL NEWS — largely hidden from the American public by the simple process of omission from MSM headlines — is that US CO2 emissions have been dropping since the turn of the century and will continue to do so for reasons of the economies involved in electrical generation. Mainly the switch to abundant natural gas.

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 14, 2018 11:19 am

Also, I’d be interested to see how much of the decline in CO2 output is driven by consumption declines due to switch by business and home use of LED lighting , energy star appliances lower emission/ higher mileage vehicles, etc. and other smart ways to offset increases in demand without needing increases in supply. Couple that with the improvements in generation that you point out, and the effect can be dramatic, without crippling the economy.

Here in Maine, a 60 watt LED bulb costs 70 cents, thanks to subsidies, but that subsidy actually buys huge benefits for the consumer, vs. subsidies for renewables, for example.

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
June 14, 2018 12:00 pm

Last time I saw figures, a decade or so ago, lighting of all types consumed about 5% of electrical energy generation.
LEDs are already cost effective for consumers. Even more for places with insane electricity prices.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
June 14, 2018 1:02 pm

My biggest energy savings occurred when my daughter moved out last August. A 40% decrease!! I have the bills to prove it.

Reply to  Richard Patton
June 19, 2018 8:36 am


Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
June 14, 2018 1:32 pm

Taylor==> There are outfits that keep track of these things — and there have been gains in efficiency. Total US consumption of electricity rose steadily til 2008 and has been level since (with an odd downtick in 2012). See https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=81

Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 14, 2018 11:23 am


“No, No, No…….it’s wind turbines wot dun it all.”

At least that will be the clamour when it eventually comes to the public’s attention.

Reply to  HotScot
June 14, 2018 1:35 pm

HS ==> See
the renewable sector gained in most years, but still represents a small percentage of production. Note that renewables in the linked graph includes hydro and biofuels (as well as solar and wind.).

Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 14, 2018 11:45 am

The REAL NEWS — and Germany…..the posted child for wind and solar…..has been consistently increasing

Reply to  Kip Hansen
June 14, 2018 12:41 pm

Green Nightmare: Germany’s Clean Energy Flops While Global Fossil Fuels Boom…


Taylor Pohlman
June 14, 2018 11:08 am

The Science Advances paper cited above is an important one and deserves its own article. I took a look, and not only does it acknowledge and try to explain the 1910-1940 warming, it discusses the CIMP5 models failure to properly simulate it. Coverage is also there for “slowdown /cooling” after the 40’s, and the recent slowdown after 1998. They assume in their reconstructions a .17C/decade greenhouse effect and criticize the models use of a higher figure. Effectively they show that natural effects (ENSO, AMO, TSI, etc.) are at least as strong as Greenhouse gases, and sometimes (as in the 30 year cooling after the 40’s), more powerful. There are many refererences to the models’ failures to take these factors into account, and thus run hot or fail to properly simulate past periods of increase or decline in temps.

Well worth a read and wider exposure.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
June 14, 2018 11:27 am

That paper has a lot of handwaving.

For the 1910-1940 warm-up, they simply try to invoke lack of aerosols as causal during the period, along with the AMO. But then in 1976-2000 Warming they throw it all on GHG without similar natural variability.

Again, all they did was simply try to imply natural variability ceased as GHG emissions rose.

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 14, 2018 11:57 am

Ok, ok, so the paper’s not a pure repudiation of CAGW. However it appears to be a useful step toward sanity, compared to some of the other literature, and clearly points out model failings in a more direct way than I have seen – remember how hostile those folks got when Christy gently pointed out they were “running too hot”?

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
June 14, 2018 11:47 am

Natural variability rules during all intervals. There are natural warming and cooling cycles of about 30 years, laid over longer, centennial- to millennial-scale secular cooling and warming trends, such as the Holocene Optimum, Egyptian, Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, with intervening cool periods such as the Greek Dark Ages, Dark Ages and Little Ice Age.

The most powerful and long-lasting warm cycle occurred during the LIA, in the early 18th century, coming out of the depths of the Maunder Minimum. It puts both the early and late 20th century warmings to shame.

The fact that the dramatic cooling from the ’40s to 1977, when the PDO flipped, occurred despite rising CO2 during that interval, alone falsifies the CACA hypothesis.

CD in Wisconsin
June 14, 2018 11:11 am

“…The biggest advances in CO2 emissions were in emerging nations, with a 4.4% jump in India and a 1.6% gain in China….”.

This is hilarious. CO2 emissions are dropping in the U.S. while they are rising in China (and elsewhere). Nonetheless, because Trump pulled the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, the mainstream media has been selling China as the new leader in the climate change fight…..



And with China still having coal-fired power plants being built or in the planning stages, its CO2 emissions will no doubt continue to rise in the future. But China is still the good guy and the U.S. is the bad guy.

You can’t make this stuff up folks. George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty Four….lies are truth and truth are lies.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 14, 2018 11:27 am

CD in Wisconsin

“You can’t make this stuff up folks.”

They can. They made up the whole AGW scam. The rest is easy meat.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 14, 2018 11:27 am

Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) Honorary Chairman Bertrand Russell’s snow is black or any shade of grey , depending on cost of narrative.
Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, London, Allen & Unwin, 1952.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 14, 2018 11:54 am

The CO2 growth as a percentage must be the increase of that country because China’s raw figure increase dwarfs India. In 2017 China CO2 increase was 150Mt and the whole of Asia including India was only 75Mt increase.

I sometimes think there must be a very pro China press at play because they do seem to consistently present figures in a way that is kind to China.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 15, 2018 4:20 pm

CD, what the media is selling indirectly is government control over everything as they have in China. We knew it as National Socialism (aka fascism) 75 years ago. Convince the naive how wonderful China is doing and how much they care and then sell those same folks the style of government China has.

June 14, 2018 11:22 am

I am sorry to hear US is doing so badly in CO₂ production lately. Do people don’t care enough about the planet there? What’s your excuse this time? It can’t be Obama again.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Javier
June 14, 2018 11:41 am

Hey, you can’t expect CO2 production to turn on a dime. We’re working on it. Need more factories to come back from overseas, and need some nice modern coal plants to come back. A second Trump administration will surely help.

Reply to  Javier
June 14, 2018 11:50 am

I feel the hate from the world’s plants for our not doing our bit to feed them.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Javier
June 14, 2018 1:43 pm

Obama is doing his part. Since he left office he has been burning all the “Mary Jane” he can get his hands on. That’s gotta add some extra CO2 to the atmosphere!

June 14, 2018 11:57 am

“a record expansion in renewable energy,”

From 1% to 1.5%?

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
June 14, 2018 12:14 pm

An astounding 50% increase…

That’s Amazing

June 14, 2018 12:41 pm

The purpose of the Paris rot was not to reduce greenhouse gasses, it was to transfer money from one set of countries to another.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  shrnfr
June 15, 2018 1:16 pm

But to do so through the U.N., who will of course take a ‘small’ percentage for administrative purposes!

June 14, 2018 1:30 pm

“…This very blue state is, of course, largely onboard with the entire “keep it in the ground” movement …” Hummm, maybe they can also focus on the “keep it in your pants” movement and eradicate #metoo pollution? After all 5 DECADES of women’s liberation over 3 generations to learn to say NO and mean it hasn’t worked either.

Bruce Cobb
June 14, 2018 1:51 pm

We don’t need to be in the Paris Climate Circus for the same reason I don’t need another hole in my head. The fact that our CO2 emissions are down is pure happenstance. Still, it is a fun fact to torture the Carbonistas with.

June 14, 2018 2:28 pm

In my view, the main reason CO2 emissions from the US are down is because of Bill Clinton and the communist Chinese.If anybody remembers Chinagate, that is where the Clinton admin got caught receiving illegal contributions of which some were from the communist Chinese government.

How does this equate to lower US emissions? Simple. The US granted China PNTR (Permanent Normal Trade Relations) right near the end of Clinton’s last reign of damage.

Clinton (as did the Republican congress) granted the Chinese PNTR near the end of his term after having received (and then later returning after getting caught) those illegal contributions. If anybody understands politics, donations, and payoffs, PNTR is a classic textbook example.
As for Republicans approving PNTR, they weren’t recipients of this illegal China cash. They signed it for ‘free trade’ principles.

If one goes to the St. Louis federal reserve site and looks up the graph for (I think MANEMP), you’ll see the largest ever drop in manufacturing jobs in US history since we started tracking manufacturing jobs. Conversely, one can look up graphs of US vs China CO2 emissions and you’ll see a huge spike upwards in China’s emissions starting around 2000 (when PNTR was signed) and you’ll see that US CO2 emissions started declining at about the same time.

That rise in China CO2 emissions indicates massive increasing wealth and prosperity for China (as well as more happier trees and plants). It’s also a sign of the millions of US jobs that were lost as a result of Clinton paying off the communist Chinese by granting China PNTR.

June 14, 2018 2:29 pm

Wrong message. No country needs to be in the Paris Discord. Touting US reduction in CO2 output legitimatizes the need. The message should be that the agreement is a joke and nothing more.

June 14, 2018 2:40 pm

But, but, but, we aren’t part of the group. Isn’t that what is important? Being part of the group?

June 14, 2018 3:02 pm

Minor misunderstanding, I think.
Ahhh – probably on my part: –
“tony coastal communities”
[Last line of ‘Hot Air’].
Are those where the fragrant Tony Blair [of blessed memory for the International Confederation of Snake Oil Sales Persons] has a few of his many, many homes?

Or might it refer to very small communities?

June 14, 2018 3:10 pm

E Europe needs more ‘Trump” effect to assist in reducing its emissions, or alternatively Europe could concentrate on some of its real problems instead of fretting over harmless a trace gas that feeds plants.

Linda Goodman
June 14, 2018 4:35 pm

That can’t be good. Are forests disappearing?

June 14, 2018 7:13 pm

Ah, the People’s Republic of Maryland where the majority of the population lives in the Baltimore, Prince George’s County, and Montgomery County area and does not understand or care what goes on in Western Maryland. Carroll and Frederick Counties and further west are suspected of being total hicks, not to mention what one Governor called that “s#*t house of an Eastern Shore.”

As long as they can vacation at Deep Creek lake and buy dwindling farm goods while turning farm land into dormitory places for D.C. workers, they do not care what happens to the natural mineral wealth of Western Maryland. NIMBY indeed.

June 15, 2018 12:28 am

Go Trump
Better yet in the context of history and the spectacular failure of Copenhagen

Verified by MonsterInsights