L. A. Times touts globally irrelevant Ca. AB 32 emissions target – ignores huge emissions growth from world’s developing nations

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The Los Angeles Times published a story touting California meeting its AB 32 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal in 2016 versus the target year of 2020 with this reduction amounting to lowering greenhouse gas emissions by about 65 million metric tons per year since the states peak year 2004 levels.

clip_image002

The story notes that the escalated emissions reduction target set by SB 32 of year 2030 emissions levels at 40% below 1990 levels will be much more difficult to meet requiring the people of California to accept major life style sacrifices for reductions in emissions in the transportation and industrial economic sectors in addition to continued reductions in the electric energy production sector.

What the L. A. Times story completely hides (some might say conceals) is any discussion of relevance or lack thereof of how California’s greenhouse gas emission reduction levels relate to the overriding and controlling picture of global emissions.

Energy Information Administration (EIA) data clearly demonstrates that the worlds developing nations (non-OECD) dominate global energy growth along with the associated growth in global CO2 emissions.

clip_image004

The majority of that developing nation global energy growth is occurring in the nations of Asia lead by China and India.

clip_image006

It is hardly surprising that the developing nations are responsible for driving significant global increases in global CO2 emissions as a consequence of their huge energy growth.

EIA projects that the developing nations, including China, will continue to dominate global CO2 emissions levels and growth in the future while the developed nations will see slightly declining CO2 emissions reductions in the future.

clip_image008

The CO2 emissions growth of the developed nations (OECD) has become relatively stable and has been slowly declining with the U.S. leading the way with decreases from its peak CO2 emissions year of 2006 of about 6 billion metric tons per year.

clip_image010

California’s AB 32 performance of achieving year 1990 greenhouse gas emissions levels by 2016 represents a reduction of about 0.15% of year 2016 EIA projected global emissions levels.

Between 1990 and 2016 global emissions of CO2 are projected by EIA to increase by about 12.9 billion metric tons of CO2 with over 90% of that increase from the developing nations lead by China’s increase of about 7.7 billion metric tons per year during that period.

In the period 1990 to 2016 China’s growth of 7.7 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions per year compares to California’s AB 32 reduction of about 0.052 billion tons of CO2 per year (CO2 emissions represent about 80% of Ca. greenhouse gas emissions). How this huge increase by China can earn the political admiration by climate alarmists here in California that China is “leading the fight against climate change” is preposterous.

California’s escalating emissions reduction SB 32 mandates a costly and highly bureaucratically driven target of achieving a 40% reduction below 1990 levels in greenhouse gas emissions by year 2030 with that escalated target reduction representing less than 0.4% of EIA projected year 2030 global emissions levels.

California CO2 emissions reduction targets are not only costly, inefficient and bureaucratically onerous they are completely insignificant at the global level given the huge energy and emissions growth being driven by China and other developing nations of Asia as projected by EIA.

EIA projects that year 2030 global CO2 emissions will climb by about another 2.3 billion metric tons per year above year 2016 levels with all of that increase from the developing nations including China.

EIA data documents that China’s CO2 emissions in 1990 were less than 1/2 of U.S. CO2 emissions but have now reached twice U.S. CO2 emissions levels.

EIA data shows U.S. CO2 emissions have declined by about 900 million metrics tons per year or about 12% since peak year 2006 CO2 emission levels based on the energy market driven increased use of low cost natural gas made available through fracking technology which resulted in reductions in U.S coal fuel use.

This energy market driven emissions reduction performance illuminated the need for costly, inefficient and bureaucratic government energy and emissions reduction mandates proposed by the Obama Administration through executive fiat.

clip_image012

In sharp contrast to U.S. coal fuel reductions China is now increasing its coal use again after declines in years 2014 and 2015 with the rate of increase in its CO2 emissions the highest its been in 7 years.

clip_image014

China continues to be the world’s largest user of coal fuel with its coal fuel use now climbing again with increased coal imports needed to meets its growing electricity generation.

clip_image016

EIA data presents the extraordinary scope of China’s huge continuing use of coal fuel compared to the U.S.

clip_image018

Additionally EIA projects that China will continue to dominate global coal fuel use and further that global coal use will remain at peak levels for decades as other developing nations such as India grow their energy production and coal fuel use needs.

clip_image020

In California Electric Vehicles are touted as playing a significant role in reducing future global CO2 emissions.

However EIA data shows Electric Vehicles continue to represent a very small market for total global vehicle sales and have less than a 4% market share of world vehicle sale markets.

clip_image022

The reality is that globally EV energy use represents lass than 1% of the transportation energy use sector which is completely dominated by use of liquid fuels.

clip_image024

California’s politically driven climate alarmism campaign touting the state and China as leading the global emissions reduction effort is a classic example of the deception, distortion and dishonesty of climate fear propaganda that is falsely portrayed by our politicians here and media supporters including the L. A. Times.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Marcus

So sell the coal to China and get “Frakking” !!

Edwin

I am certain Trump would love to sell coal to China and China would like to buy it. Problem is the greens have prevented terminals on the West Coast from being built.

Farmer Ch E retired

I’ll be impressed with California’s claim to lower greenhouse gas emissions when they decrease their dependence on coal by restricting imports from China and other “greenhouse“ countries. Otherwise, they are just hiding their true greenhouse emissions.

Rlu

Let alone the CO2 needed to produce the goods arriving at LA port. The west has offshored it’s pollution to places with more agreeable environmental, health and safety, labor and diversity regulations.

What use is it for the ‘progressives’ to create the perfect workers utopia if all those workers are unemployed? And what will China ask in return for swallowing the trade deficit?

Greg61

California – where it’s now against the law to hand out a plastic straw (in Santa Barbara), punishable with jail time, and all the plastic garbage in the ocean is also coming from Asia.

Edwin

Farmer, they are sort of like Germany they reduce their greenhouse emissions created inside the country while buying electricity produced outside.

California is big on hollow virtue signaling. No other state has as many hybrids and ev’s with a single passenger clogging the carpool lanes.

Alasdair

How does California calculate its emissions? Seems this is an area ripe for manipulation, absurd definitions, duff polling and graph machinations.

kakatoa

Roger Andrews talks a bit about how CARB looks at emissions in this post-

http://euanmearns.com/californias-progress-or-lack-thereof-in-cutting-its-emissions/

Yesterday was a Flex Alert day for the CA grid as it was HOT statewide. The CASIO max load was a under the all time high set 12 years earlier- when it was 110F at our house. We topped out at 103.6F yesterday.

My wife managed our load in such a way for our part peak and peak use from PG&E to be negative for the day. Wholesales prices were a tad high yesterday throughout the state.

yarpos

What!? you mean there is a world outside California? (and Manhattan of course)

Wiliam Haas

CO2 has little to do with total greenhouse gas emissions. The real culprit is not CO2 but rather H2O and the State of California is doing nothing significant to reduce H2O emissions and is hence having no significant effect on the entire global radiant greenhouse effect. So what California is trying to do is extremely expensive and in terms of climate change, extremely ineffective.

MarkW

They did drastically cut down irrigation in the Central Valley, in order to protect a bait fish.

old construction worker

‘SB 32 of year 2030 emissions levels at 40% below 1990 levels will be much more difficult to meet requiring’ And they are going to reach that goal by taxing consumers. And if that don’t work they will double down and tax more.

Darrin

Got to read further between the lines. They are going to further regulate businesses to force them into lower their emissions. At some point those businesses will flee the state to a more business friendly state like Texas. Workers will follow the employment or be out of a job, either way there will be fewer cars on the road so emissions from drivers will also drop. Soon California will have the super rich and super poor with no middle class. Only job to be had will be minimum wage jobs in the service industry so the super rich can have their cake and eat it too.

howard dewhirst

Ever wondered why emissions are given in metric tonnes?
Because it hides the fact that 33,500 mt CO2 = 9,100 Mt Carbon = 4.8ppm CO2 addition to the 410ppm already there. Not a lot really? And only half of that remain in the atmosphere, as the other half is sequestered in natural carbon sinks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_fraction

Johanus

California’s politically driven climate alarmism campaign touting the state and China as leading the global emissions reduction effort is a classic example of the deception, distortion and dishonesty of climate fear propaganda that is falsely portrayed by our politicians here and media supporters including the L. A. Times.

It is worse than that. Most of the world’s news agencies now have been infected by some strange political virus, which tries to depict our current world as the “worst of times”. But, compared to all previous epochs of mankind, I think we are living in the “best of times” that have ever existed. Not perfect, of course, but better overall than at any previous time.

In fact, if it were possible to resurrect those citizens of previous “Golden Ages” (Rome, Greece, China etc), and show them modern technology and accomplishments, I think that they would certainly believe that they were in some kind of Paradise.

Alan Tomalty

The situation on the climate change front is EVEN WORSE THAN THIS ARTICLE. In my home city of Ottawa Canada resides a part time professor at both universities named Paul Beckwith. He is a looneytune alarmist who says the earth is in an emergency and he wants to start geoengineering projects right now that will partially block sunlight and other measures to pull CO2 out of the air. I just finished watching a recent radio debate he had with another even loonier looneytune. This other guy was arguing that the US government had been secretly geoengineering all along for the last 70 years and that was the reason why the earth was in such “bad ” shape even though the other guy is also an alarmist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2u5EvQvxKg

The problem is that Beckwith doesnt operate in a vacuum. He talks to other alarmists around the world and they are a growing movement that wants to do geoengineering immediately.

1) The world doesnt need geoengineering. The planet is fine.
2) Any geoengineering done runs the risk of really screwing things up.

THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO BE STOPPED. This whole global warming hoax/tragedy/fraud you name it; has gone way too far and is now threatening our lives as well as our wallets.

RyanS

“threatening our lives”

That is being a bit alarmist my friend.

MarkW

Several thousand people died in Britain last winter because they couldn’t afford to both heat their houses and eat.

Alan Tomalty

Geoengineering on the scale that Beckwith wants done could block too much of the sun and take us into a nuclear winter. This is not to be trifled with. Geoengineering is the stupidest most dangerous idea on the face of the planet.

Stewart Pid

Alan – has Beckwith been fired from the uni’s? I am a U of O grad and looked on the universities website and he isn’t listed anywhere that I could find. I didn’t check Carleton since I didn’t know he was teaching there also.
Love the edit feature …. look on Beckwith’s Facebook page … the twit is begging for money / donations. That is what made me think the universities had canned him.

johanus

THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO BE STOPPED.

These crackpots have always been around in every society, and certainly can do a lot of harm when they’re in a position of power.

So, I think the best way to stop them (i.e., convert them into ‘harmless crackpots’) is to (somehow) get the media and universities to present our world more honestly, as generally a wonderful place to live in, but one that can always be improved.

John Bell

Beckwith is a nut on steroids and crack, he is depressed and wants to spread it, misery loves company.

Mihaly Malzenicky

As the world’s leading countries, we have a responsibility for our own air pollution as well as for the whole world. Therefore, we need to act in all directions, for example, to reach low prices for birth control pills, the gradual introduction of alternative energy sources, the introduction of new technologies such as fusion and LENR and the application of geoengineering at the same time.

MarkW

Lets spend lots of money we don’t have solving problems that never existed.

PS: We took care of our air pollution problem decades ago.

Mihaly Malzenicky

So is that the eighty people burned in Greece in the cradle of civilization are not a problem? Soon we, our children and our grandchildren will suffocate.

[????? .mod]

MarkW

The blazes in Greece had nothing to do with global warming.
More CO2 in the air is going to make people suffocate?

Alan Tomalty

Alarmists like you blame everything on CO2. CO2 is NOT pollution. The earth’s atmosphere needs more CO2 NOT less.

RyanS

“What the L. A. Times story completely hides (some might say conceals) is any discussion of relevance or lack thereof of how California’s greenhouse gas emission reduction levels relate to the overriding and controlling picture of global emissions.

Energy Information Administration (EIA) data clearly demonstrates that the worlds developing nations (non-OECD) dominate global energy growth along with the associated growth in global CO2 emissions.”

It must be remembered that the population of India and China alone is 8 times that of the USA, 65 times that of California. After 150 years of emissions and all the benefits I don’t think rich westerners should be wagging their finger at anyone.

Is there a greater dilemma? Hello horns.

Peter Plail

Plain, unadulterated virtue signalling.

R B

When the writer doesn’t even realize that Asia isn’t a nation, it makes me suspect everything else they say…

Greg Strebel

Perhaps you missed this part: “The majority of that developing nation global energy growth is occurring in the nations of Asia lead by China and India.” I think he knows this full well, and also that California is not a ‘nation’.

TheLastDemocrat

I suspect the same is true of the recently drummed-up ocean trash calamity: the trash is from places other than the U.S., but we will be the ones taxed and fined for it, and bankrolling world wide efforts to study it all.

Edwin

AH, but we don’t fully appreciate California (HA!). They truly believe they are setting an example for the entire world to follow. They believe soon China will follow their lead. Nope, I doubt that any of the California leftist leaders believe for a moment the world will follow their lead, if they do then they are dumber than even I believe they are.

This is sort of part of wealth redistribution plan just as the Paris Agreement was. By forcibly reducing California’s emissions it will allow “poor developing nations” like India, China, and third world nations to continue their rapid economic growth without filling guilty for “destroying the planet.” The Leftist leaders in California believe their population is naively stupid or not paying attention. If California is depending on the La Times for all their news, well—————

Marcus

Most of their population IS naively stupid or not paying attention. !! They vote for Democratic Socialists 97% of the time !!

Bryan A

Perhaps the $$ should flow the other way around with the Non-OECD Countries paying a premium per ton of CO2 Not Produced to the OECD countries for allowing the Non-OECD Countries to make use of the less costly form of energy. This could be used to offset the higher cost of energy being forced on the OECD Countries
It is, after all, our sacrifice for them. Shouldn’t they be compensating us for our sacrifice?

joelobryan

As California’s onerous taxes and regulations continues to strangle manufacturing industries and those jobs and other large companies moving out that pay good wages or investing else where, California will continue to reduce its CO2 emissions.

Bryan A

A Soylent point

Gordon Dressler

I’m just wondering if California’s AB 32 emission standards/goals take into account the fact that for every ton of cement produced, 1.25 tons of CO2 are released into the atmosphere.

Has California stopped or severely restricted building structures and roadways that use cement or concrete? One cannot see this happening based on the growth of housing, infrastructure and business in the state.

Is California now reducing/limiting in-state manufacturing of cement and concrete in favor or importing such from neighboring states, thereby effectively just virtue signaling?

Johann Wundersamer

“The Los Angeles Times published a story touting California meeting its AB 32 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal in 2016 versus the target year of 2020 with this reduction amounting to lowering greenhouse gas emissions by about 65 million metric tons per year since the states peak year 2004 levels.”
_____________________________________________________

OK. Now what publishes The Los Angeles about the target Year of Alaska.

WR2

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that their calculation also doesn’t factor in the fossil fuel electricity California bought from other states. But who cares, the goal is meaningless, the result is just spending more taxpayer money, and the liberal idiots here (I live here) can’t get enough taxes, so what are you gonna do.