UN: “Runaway Climate Change” if We Don’t Change Course After the Next US Presidential Election

António Guterres
UN Secretary General António Guterres. By DFID – UK Department for International Development – https://www.flickr.com/photos/dfid/30720847110/, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

More evidence that global climate cycles are aligned with US presidential election cycles.

‘Climate change moving faster than we are,’ says UN Secretary General

By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has said that if the world doesn’t change course by 2020, we run the risk of runaway climate change.

Mr Guterres said he was alarmed by the paralysis of world leaders on what he called the “defining issue” of our time.

He wants heads of government to come to New York for a special climate conference next September.

The call comes amid growing concerns over the slow pace of UN negotiations.

Mr Guterres painted a grim picture of the impacts of climate change that he says have been felt all over the world this year, with heatwaves, wildfires, storms and floods leaving a trail of destruction.

The world has the tools, and the ability. Renewables are cost-competitive with coal and oil, he said. By 2030, wind and solar could power more than a third of Europe.

But the lack of decisive political leadership was hampering everything, he said.

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45471410

My question – given the UN Secretary General’s assertion that renewables are cost competitive with coal and oil, why does he feel that so much “decisive political leadership” is required? Normally when something is price competitive the free market takes care of the transition, industrialists embrace the new technology of their own free will.

Update (EW): Full speech available here (h/t Nick)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
191 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
wws
September 10, 2018 8:49 pm

Time for Trump to kick this clown show out of NYC and stop funding them completely.

Kenji
Reply to  wws
September 10, 2018 9:34 pm

All the way back in the 1970’s there were billboards reading: Get US out of the UN. I recall seeing one in rural Oregon. We hippies laughed at those hick rednecks posting their HATE … only, it turns out those “hicks” were right. The UN is simply a front for worldwide Socialism. Worldwide climate fascism.

brians356
Reply to  Kenji
September 10, 2018 11:49 pm

Those signs were put up by the John Birch Society. My dad used to say “Those crazy Birchers see a commie behind every tree.” This was in E. Washington and N. Idaho.

Then there were those little blue and white signs “Eat at Tiny’s, Cashmere, WA” nailed to trees and fence posts along roads all across the country.

Tom Halla
Reply to  brians356
September 11, 2018 7:50 am

Some of my father’s cousins were Birchers, and gave me their literature. Which went over interestingly with my mother’s relatives, who were quite lefty.

Pameladragon
Reply to  Kenji
September 11, 2018 12:43 am

There were similar signs on the east coast also. I recall seeing them on I-95 driving to Florida.

Bemused
Reply to  Kenji
September 11, 2018 1:20 am

I remember “See Rock City” painted on barns when I was growing up. These days, if you drive I-95 in the Carolinas you can’t miss Pedro and South of the Border. Funny signs if you like really horrible puns. They help pass the time on a fairly boring drive. I hope Florence doesn’t take them out!

Reply to  Bemused
September 11, 2018 1:47 am

So do I… and Pedro goes back to the 60’s… Pedro says, Chili today, hot tamale… 😎

Sam C Cogar
Reply to  Bemused
September 11, 2018 3:55 am

I remember “See Rock City” painted on barns when ……

comment image

Neo
Reply to  Sam C Cogar
September 11, 2018 9:16 am

…and all those Stuckey’s signs

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bemused
September 11, 2018 4:59 am

Burma Shave!

MarkW
Reply to  Bemused
September 11, 2018 6:35 am

I actually visited Rock City once.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  MarkW
September 11, 2018 6:50 am

I tried to visit Eagle Rock but couldn’t find it.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Bemused
September 11, 2018 9:07 am

South of the Border was where all the high school kids in North Carolina went to get married. One story floated around both North and South Carolina was about the famous marrying judge that performed the weddings.

Before the wedding one young man went up to the judge and asked how much it was going to cost him? The judge replied that he should not worry about that now, he could settle up after the wedding. Immediately after the wedding the young man asked again. With the new bride present the judge looked at them both and replied: “How much is she worth son?”

Tom Judd
Reply to  wws
September 11, 2018 4:09 am

I think we need to get Mueller investigating the UN for attempting to interfere in US elections.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Judd
September 11, 2018 5:01 am

It sounds like the UN Chief is trying to insinuate his agenda into our presidential elections. Trump will probably have a few choice words on this subject.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Judd
September 11, 2018 6:37 am

At a Michael Moore speech in Canada last week. One of the guest speakers urged everyone in the audience to donate to the Democrats. (Even Moore was smart enough to quickly grab the mike away and remind everyone in the audience that it’s illegal for those residing outside the US to contribute to political campaigns.. (Makes you wonder why Obama turned off the feature that checks for foreign addresses on his official campaign donation site.))

marque2
Reply to  MarkW
September 11, 2018 7:26 am

David Hogg, the anti 2nd Amendment kid from the Parkland Florida school shooting. He was nowhere near the shooting at the time. He is overreaching and will disappear soon.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
September 11, 2018 11:57 am

” One of the guest speakers “

that would be David Hogg, once again showing the world his ignorance.

Neo
Reply to  MarkW
September 12, 2018 10:17 am

Yes, there will be endless Congressional investigations into forign tampering with elections and Canadian collusion

Donald Kasper
September 10, 2018 8:59 pm

Since China has a 2025 plan to dominate world trade, UN needs to complain to them for money.

David Paul Zimmerman
September 10, 2018 8:59 pm

As Bob Hope once said. Americans always thought the UN building was like a great finger sticking up in the sky. Now we know which finger it is.

Reply to  David Paul Zimmerman
September 11, 2018 7:34 am

WhatFinger.com. News site accumulator. If it’s prog lefty that’s noted.

michael hart
Reply to  David Paul Zimmerman
September 12, 2018 5:26 pm

…and it’s not just being inserted up in the sky.

Patrick MJD
September 10, 2018 8:59 pm

There are just waiting for the “right” PotUS, then the climate will calm and seas will stop rising. Or summat like that…another “messiah”!

Kenji
Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 10, 2018 9:36 pm

With Greek columns on each side of the anointed one …

prjindigo
September 10, 2018 9:00 pm

Psychotic political ignorance.

Latitude
Reply to  prjindigo
September 11, 2018 6:12 am

Liberals are all about “empowering” people….ever notice they are also the ones that claim every mental health issue know to man

September 10, 2018 9:05 pm

Former secretary-general of the Portugese Socialist party. Surprise!

Alexei
Reply to  john harmsworth
September 11, 2018 10:14 am

And President of the Socialist International from 1999-2005; then became UN High Commissioner for Refugees 2005-2015 when ” he was an outspoken advocate for a more coordinated and humane approach by European countries to the Mediterranean refugee crisis” (wiki).
Both issues advocate large transfers of funding from the West. Perhaps someone can connect the dots.

September 10, 2018 9:11 pm

“given the UN Secretary General’s assertion that renewables are cost competitive with coal and oil, why does he feel that so much “decisive political leadership” is required”

Those things are only consecutive in the BBC’s summary report. The text of the speech is here. He cites many cases of adoption of renewables. He does not say adoption is held back by lack pf political leadership.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 10, 2018 9:55 pm

“consecutive.” Did you mean Competitive?

Would you please tell us why adoption is held back?

One straight-forward answer, any time now.

Yes there have been many adoptions of renewables. Mostly, solar-powered signs in remote locations where running a power line would not be economic.

There are lots and lots of installations of wind turbines and solar cells/solar mirror steam stations which always, always end up costing the rate-payers a higher electric bill.

Somehow you never seem to mention this. Contradict me….

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 10, 2018 11:14 pm

Nick,
From the text of the speech YOU linked to:

So, not only would a shift to renewable energy save money, it would also

If they’re not competitive, can you explain how the h*ll they save us money?
The text of the speech contains so many blatant misrepresentations that debunking them all would make for a very long article. But as for the assertion that renewable energy is competitive, that’s what the man said. If it were true, the adoption would be instant, no person or industry uses any resource if another one that serves the same purpose will save them money.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 10, 2018 11:26 pm

David,
“If they’re not competitive, can you explain how the h*ll they save us money?”
Please explain your question. He said they are competitive.

“If it were true, the adoption would be instant”
Nothing happens instantly. Adoption is happening fast. Here is the plot from the 2016 BP review (see here). About exponential, doubling every five years (solar is much faster):

comment image

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 10, 2018 11:43 pm

Last week, my wife and I went to visit some friends in Tehachapi, California. There are several very, very large wind-turbine farms at the east entrance to Tehachapi Pass, just northwest of Mojave, California. It was interesting to note that almost none of the first-generation wind turbines* were turning. More than half of the second-generation wind turbines* were turning, and most of the most modern ones were*.

I don’t know how old those old ones were, but I’d be surprised if they were more than 20 years old. Failure on that scale isn’t what I expect in the power-generation industry. Even many of the second-generation ones were dead.

* The “first-generation” wind turbines were supported on girder/derrick-like structures, and were quite small in diameter. Those that were turning were turning fairly rapidly. The “second-generation” wind turbines were mounted on masts and were larger in diameter. They were turning more slowly. The “third-generation” ones were also mounted on masts, and were of very large diameter. They were turning slowly.

marque2
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 11, 2018 7:30 am

If they were truly cost competitive utilities would be all over themselves to build them, without government coercion. Maybe someday, in 2035 even this might be the case, but it is definitely not today.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 11, 2018 9:18 am

Hell, even if the total operating costs get down to a few cents per kWh, they won’t be price competitive until someone comes up with a cheap and reliable method of electricity storage.

manalive
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 12:19 am

“New renewables (wind, solar, biomass etc) continue their meteoric rise from a feeble base and still only represent 2.8% of the global energy mix (that excludes biomass used throughout developing countries) …”:
http://euanmearns.com/bp-2016-global-energy-production-at-a-glance/

dodgy geezer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 12:20 am

I don’t know exactly what that graph represents, but if it shows renewables being very successful, why on earth would Mr Guterres be complaining about the lack of renewable investment and calling for more political support?

Mardler
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 11, 2018 12:38 am

South Australia is the canary in the unreliable energy coal mine.

Someone tell Stokes that unreliable energy doesn’t work. It is only made possible by massive subsidies paid for by skyrocketing residential and business bills.

Adoption does not equal competitiveness.

Reply to  dodgy geezer
September 11, 2018 1:04 am

” Mr Guterres be complaining about the lack of renewable investment and calling for more political support?”
He says there is a lot of investment:
“The rise of renewable energy has been tremendous.
Today, it is competitive [with] – or even cheaper – than coal and oil, especially if one factors in the cost of pollution.
Last year, China invested 126 billion dollars in renewable energy, an increase of 30 per cent o
Sweden is set to hit its 2030 target for renewable energy this year – 12 years early.
By 2030, wind and solar energy could power more than a third of Europe.”

But he’d like to see more. Well, of course he would.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 11, 2018 2:41 am

He’s saying that renewables are competitive, growing rapidly, but emissions need to be reduced faster.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 11, 2018 6:45 am

Why is it that socialists actually believe that investing involves government seizing other people’s money, so that it can be spent on things the socialist approves of. (Usually things that financially benefit said socialist.)

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 4:54 am

Hi Nick,
If this is the case, should not the conference be held in Beijing? After all you don’t lecture Angels on the subject of sin…, You go speak with the devil

michael 🙂

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 5:23 pm

Reduce they are still going up we are globally at 6% this year and rising because the world really is listening 🙂

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 4:51 am

“Today, it is competitive [with] – or even cheaper – than coal and oil, especially if one factors in the cost of pollution.”
Ah, ‘externalities’. The made-up cost that doesn’t really exist, just so the renewables gang can claim windmills and sun-catchers are cost competitive.
What a scam.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 5:16 am

“…especially if one factors in the cost of pollution.” He means if, and only if you use the EPA’s manufactured death rate attributed to the 2.5 particulate pollution, deaths that are surmised by torturous manipulation of statistics. Added to the deaths are the costs of every conceivable sickness including childhood asthma, which Obama blamed on coal. Still no scientific proof and the whole “Clean Power” program has been pretty effectively debunked. Whenever someone talks about the “cost effectiveness” of green power they are quoting conclusions from some study or paper or article that has blindly accepted the EPA’s “cost of carbon” assertion. They aren’t lying (potentially) they have been lied to.

George Daddis
Reply to  Paul Stevens
September 11, 2018 7:14 am

Linear No Threshold (LNT) assumptions, not observed data, are at the base of most of these estimates.
….and don’t forget the silly discount rate used in the calculations of future “harm”

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Paul Stevens
September 11, 2018 9:35 am

“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” – attributed to Paul Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Propaganda Minister in Nazi Germany.

Jonb
Reply to  Joe Crawford
September 11, 2018 3:04 pm

Actually, Goebbels learned propaganda from the inventor of 20th century western propaganda, Edward Bernays, an Austrian born American, who was, not surprisingly, a “Freudian”, being a nephew of Sigmund Freud himself. Remember Freud and Marx were in the same Kaffee Klatsch back in Vienna. Bernays invented propaganda as we know it and had an avid pupil in Woodrow Wilson, one of the earliest “progressives”. One of their earliest uses of propaganda was convincing Americans to get into the “Great War”. Progressivism and Propaganda have been honed to a fine edge in these current times. The subjects and stated goals change, but not the endgame.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 6:44 am

Pollution from coal and oil have been almost completely eliminated.
CO2 production should be subsidized, not taxed since it is a net benefit to the environment.

beng135
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 12:41 pm

So Nick, why not stick a pinwheel up at your Aussie digs? You can watch it spin around occasionally, and eat the sparkly candy that comes out the bottom.

JohnB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 4:20 pm

And Nick, how much of the Chinese money is being spent on dams and hydro? That’s the real bait and switch, isn’t it? Take the amount spent on hydro and include it into the renewables (which it is) but make sure the pretty pictures only show wind and solar.

It happens all over and is a deliberate lie in an attempt to mislead.

Old England
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 12:42 am

Nick,
The European wind association has been lobbying for extended and new subsidies for wind farms where the turbines are reaching the end of their life. They need that because without it they cannot compete on price with conventional power generation.

If, as you choose to believe, they are able to produce electricity as cheaply as fossil fuels why do they need any further subsidy for an existing PLANT? If they were price competitive then investors would invest without wind energy needing subsidy.

Germany is switching back to coal and opening new coal mines because the extreme cost of renewable energy is threatening manufacturing. In Australia and throughout northern Europe huge numbers of people are being forced to make a choice between heating and eating – for the sole reason that renewables are so expensive compared to conventional that the subsidy (tax) is driving energy out of the financial reach of the poor.

Nick, for once be honest and admit that the b.s. about renewables being cost-competive with conventional power generation is simply propaganda with not the slightest basis in fact.

Hal
Reply to  Old England
September 11, 2018 10:21 am

They figured out you can’t build a Panzer with windmills.

beng135
Reply to  Hal
September 11, 2018 12:53 pm

The Panzerkampfwagen Tiger is especially difficult.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 2:01 am

Adoption is happening fast.

comment image

comment image

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
September 11, 2018 6:41 am

I’ve always been fascinated by how the advocates of wind and solar can in one breath, declare that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel, then in the next breath declare that without subsidies they can’t survive.

Cognitive dissonance isn’t a problem for those who have never engaged their minds.

SAMURAI
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 2:38 am

Nick-san:

A silly chart showing how Loony Leftist governments are wasting $trillions on expensive, diffuse, intermittent, unreliable, unattractive, bird-decapitating/frying, inefficient and economy-killing wind/solar/food-for-fuel “alternative” energies is not evidence of their efficacy, but rather irrefutable evidence that Leftists are clueless about….well…pretty much everything…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 11, 2018 5:16 am

Clueless about “pretty much everything” is correct! They are living on a different planet.

Old England
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 12, 2018 12:16 am

Ì wish ……..

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 5:03 am

That’s a disingenuous graph – I would expect better from you Nick. The growth might be “exponential”, but growth from a miniscule starting amount can still be tiny.
If you compare it to the global energy mix that includes fossil fuels, you’ll see that unreliables are an economic basket-case.

John Endicott
Reply to  David Smith
September 11, 2018 5:45 am

That’s a disingenuous graph – I would expect better from you Nick.

I don’t, disingenuous is what Nick is paid for.

Reply to  David Smith
September 11, 2018 6:04 am

Unicorn farts aren’t even rising as fast as energy demand, much less replacing anything…

comment image

Jim Whelan
Reply to  David Middleton
September 11, 2018 8:07 am

Thanks for then graph.It’s exactly what I wanted to see as soon as Nick posted his.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  David Middleton
September 11, 2018 10:23 am

Not only is Nick’s graph meaningless when compared to total energy demand and usage, as David Middleton has shown, but the vertical units are installed capacity, IOW nameplate. And we all know that wind and solar don’t actually produce anything near their nameplate capacity. So what’s meaningless divided by 4?

LdB
Reply to  David Smith
September 11, 2018 5:28 pm

Which goes to the other fact that world emissions grew by 6% this year so our saviour renewables aren’t even keeping up with growth.

william Johnston
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 6:05 am

And if we were to remove the obscene subsidies available in the U.S., what would the graph then show???? From what I read, only the U. S. continues to think wind energy is free.

Reply to  william Johnston
September 11, 2018 6:32 am

Well… Wind *energy* is free. It’s the wind turbines and other hardware that costs money… 😉

Joe Crawford
Reply to  David Middleton
September 11, 2018 10:02 am

Actually, I’m doubt we yet know enough about the climate to predict the effects on local climate of withdrawing any noticeable amount of energy from the wind. After all, they are trying to tell us that increasing the amount of CO2 from 0.04% to 0.05-0.06% is going to have dire consequences for the entire Earth.

Ron
Reply to  Joe Crawford
September 11, 2018 1:28 pm

Weren’t we told by Bill McKibben that we would face dire consequences if CO2 exceeded .035% of the atmosphere? All we have seen thus far has been beneficial.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Joe Crawford
September 14, 2018 4:11 am

Indeed. Amazing their supposed “concern” about “climate change” extends to a change of CO2 level that is well within natural variation, yet they want to extract poor quality and unpredictable energy from wind without the slightest consideration of how THAT might negatively affect the “climate.”

AGW is not Science
Reply to  David Middleton
September 14, 2018 4:07 am

Actually it’s not. Because you have to have REAL power plants running inefficiently on standby backing the wind turbines up when the wind isn’t blowing hard enough,or is blowing too hard. Plus the unpredictable “free” wind power being haphazardly added to the grid results in spikes and drops that cause brownouts and blackouts if not well controlled and managed. All this duplication of infrastructure and additional grid management work (and potential mishaps) are NOT free.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 6:43 am

To borrow an old phrase, twice nothing is still nothing.
Now Nick, let’s see that same chart as a fraction of all power produced?

PS: What would those numbers look like if you remove the subsidies and mandates?

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 7:48 am

If solar is so wonderfully competitive, it’s taking it a long time for it scale up to a significant commercial level against fossil fuels and nuclear power. The U.S. Energy Information Agency, as of last year, says that solar provided only 1.3% of our electricity needs here in the U.S.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3.

Not very impressive when one considers that the solar panel was invented 64 years ago in 1954:

http://energyinformative.org/the-history-of-solar-energy-timeline/.

The low energy density of solar and its intermittent nature might explain why this is the case, if nothing else does. From what I’ve read, solar requires a LOT more land area than traditional power plants because of its poor density.

And then there is solar’s “dirty little secret” which is the toxic waste that solar panels leave behind:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy/.

The toxic waste that solar (and wind) leave behind could very well lead one to conclude that there is really no such thing as “clean” energy. All of the energy sources we use now leave toxic waste and or pollution behind of some sort.

With current technologies, “clean” energy is a myth.

manalive
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 10, 2018 11:31 pm

An entertaining link, for instance:
“… Sweden is set to hit its 2030 target for renewable energy this year – 12 years early. By 2030, wind and solar energy could power more than a third of Europe …”.
According to Sweden.se, Energy use in Sweden:
“The reason for this low emission rate is that 83 per cent of electricity production in Sweden comes from nuclear and hydroelectric power. Cogeneration from combined heat and power (CHP) plants accounts for 10 per cent of the electricity output in Sweden, and these are mainly powered by biofuels. About 7 per cent of the electricity comes from wind power …
… Solar panels are still quite rare in Sweden. Only 0.09 per cent of Sweden’s electricity production came from solar power in 2016”.
As an aside I can imagine the outrage from the Greens in Australia if large scale nuclear, hydro dam construction and cutting down forests for biofuels were proposed.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  manalive
September 11, 2018 5:25 am

It seems that when windmills and solar reach about 30 percent of a nation’s capacity, the problems with these unreliable sources really start to show themselves.

Germany is nearing the 30 percent level and is having to rethink their energy strategy. I think South Australia is also about 30 percent unreliables. California will be getting there in the future. Three crash-test dummies for the rest of us to examine. After examination we will realize we don’t want to go where they are going: Higher energy prices and less economic activity.

David N.
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 11, 2018 7:13 am
Neo
Reply to  manalive
September 11, 2018 9:27 am

Considering about 1/5 of Sweden is above the Arctic Circle, I find it hard to believe that solar will ever be effective. Half the year, 1/5 of the country is in (near) complete darkness and the remainder has weak solar.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 1:50 am

So… What’s holding them back?

drednicolson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 12, 2018 9:45 am

The Nickpicker at it again.

John from the EU
September 10, 2018 9:13 pm

Geez, and this while the US emitted less CO2 than the rest of the world?

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 10, 2018 10:40 pm

Which belies the Climateers’ true agenda.

Reply to  John from the EU
September 11, 2018 2:45 am

“while the US emitted less CO2 than the rest of the world?”
Well, with about 5% of the world’s population, one would hope so.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 5:27 am

And about 25 percent of the world’s economic activity.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 5:40 am

[US] is ” about 5% of the world’s population ” – and a small percentage of that 5% produce over 75% of the world’s grain exports

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 5:57 am

And the largest reduction in globally compared output of CO2
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bpco2.png

Declines in CO2 emissions in 2017 were led by the US (-0.5% and 42 million tons, see chart above). This is the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world. This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was the smallest over the last three years.

Carbon emissions from energy use from the US are the lowest since 1992, the year that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into existence. The next largest decline was in Ukraine (-10.1% and 28.1 tons).

http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-in-2017-us-had-largest-decline-in-co2-emissions-in-the-world-for-9th-time-this-century/

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 11, 2018 7:24 am

That was a poorly crafted counter-argument Nick. Population has a lower effect on energy consumption than industry has.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
September 10, 2018 9:25 pm

UN agencies must change their attitude on global warming and carbon credit policy through which minting money. Recently, Indian media without fail reports on this topic, more particularly the statements of World Bank. Here is my comment on one such report reported by The Hindu daily newspaper. UN agencies must give top priority to minimise the pollution [air, water, soil & food] that menace to human health and destruction of natural resources availability to life forms on the Earth.

Cloudy forecast: on climate change on thehindu.com

Making hue and cry by some international agencies including World Bank is for the proposed green fund of $100 billion per year for five years. Everybody wants a share in this. The fact is that the so-called global warming is 0.15 oC per Century. So, even by 1000 years the impact is negligible. The fact is the observed [adjusted-mutilated data series] between 1880 to 2010, the trend is 0.6 oC/Century. According to IPCC more than half is due to greenhouse effect inwhich global warming is a part. Even if we assume it is 50%, then the global warming is only 0.3 oC/Century. However the satellite data shows half of this only [0.15 oC/Century]. As CO2 increases this reduces drastically non-linearly. So, by 1000 years it is still less than 1.0 oC/Century. The seasonal and annual changes are more than 5 oC. So, global warming component is insignificant.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Sara
September 10, 2018 9:26 pm

“… why does he feel that so much “decisive political leadership” is required?”

Simple. It is NOT cost-competitive. It is NOT cheap or free. And it is a quagmire of junk. Every program I’ve seen that involves a homeowner building a house that is partly powered by wind and/or solar resources is an individual effort, not a commercial project. Every single one of them.

It may seem as though he has bats in his belfry, but he’s simply looking for freebies and a generous handout of cash from the good ol’ USofA.

When this wall-eyed nonsense stops, I’ll be very happy. Meantime, Antony, no dice.

LogicalChemist
Reply to  Sara
September 11, 2018 4:24 am

I’ m quite conservative(mainly of my own money). I’d like to thank you all for paying your fair share to make the family electrical bill very low. Thanks to installation subsidies, solar renewable energy credits(SREC), and other subsidies we pay essentially zero in electric bills.

Your generosity is deeply appreciated.

p.s. renewable subsidies are a huge waste of money.

John F. Hultquist
September 10, 2018 9:29 pm

He wants heads of government to come to New York for a special climate conference next September.

Seems there is a climate conference every week.
Yawn.

Kenji
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
September 10, 2018 9:43 pm

You mean the “conferences”that ban all reporters, cameras, cellphones, and lock the doors? The double super secret climate priesthood practicing their secret handshake?

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
September 10, 2018 10:38 pm

As US President, Trump should attend and give a speech lauding coal, shale gas, and petroleum as the continued global answer to affordable energy. And give a big middle finger as he walks off the podium to all the tinpot dictators.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
September 11, 2018 5:33 am

I think California Governor Jerry Brown is having some kind of climate conference in San Francisco tomorrow. Climate conferences are an industry.

John V. Wright
September 10, 2018 9:39 pm

Guterres looks like your favourite uncle, doesn’t he? Probably good with the kids at Christmas?

So here’s the deal. He was Secretary General of the Socialist Party in Portugal and while Prime Minister of that country he became President of the Socialist International. He was succeeded as PM by Jose Manuel Barroso who went on to become President of the European Commission – (not now, of course…he’s moved on to become non-exec chairman at Goldman Sachs, natch).

Guterres is a One World Government proponent and a dyed-in-the-wool arch redistributor of wealth. Guess whose wealth he is keen to redistribute?

The CAGW scare is simply convenient for his political purpose. If it became a meme that bloodsucking pink fairies were the result of national self determination and growth by capitalism, he would be on his soapbox solemnly warning that the earth was rapidly approaching the PFTP (Pink Fairy Tipping Point).

Trump, like Thatcher and Regan before him, knows that these people are very good at running out of other people’s money. He’s at the UN because voters are a huge inconvenience to him and his cronies.

People like Guterres are existential threats to national sovereignty and democracy. He is an absolute menace.

September 10, 2018 9:39 pm

The next election for US President is Nov 2020. Who ever wins gets sworn in January 20, 2021.
Sorry Mr UN-Marxist wannabe, too late for you.

September 10, 2018 9:48 pm

“Renewables are cost-competitive with coal and oil, he said.”

If they were, he would not have to say anything, it would be happening by itself. Shaky understanding of Econ 101, Supply and Demand.

Who cares what he said?

LogicalChemist
Reply to  Michael Moon
September 11, 2018 4:29 am

Example: shale gas is displacing much coal and oil in energy production, producing a pronounced decrease in US CO2 emissions.

In many places natural gas is cheaper than oil. It’s often a waste product and simply flared off.

WR2
September 10, 2018 10:22 pm

Why should we care what he says? He’s not a ClimateScientist[tm]

Fred250
Reply to  WR2
September 10, 2018 11:53 pm

And if he was a “climate scientist™”, I would care EVEN LESS about what he said.

Ozonebust
September 10, 2018 10:29 pm

Run away warming after 2020, now that sounds exciting. Is that one degree C a month, a year, a decade, a century. Did the chief of the gravey train give any indication.

Whoo hoo the earth is going out of control. I can’t wait.
Regards

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ozonebust
September 11, 2018 5:41 am

The UN Chief seems to be saying 2020 will be a “tipping point” for the CAGW. He’s wrong. The tipping point has already happened, on Nov. 8, 2016. A little sanity finally entered the CAGW debate on that day.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 11, 2018 12:04 pm

one could even say a stable genius sanity 😉

ossqss
September 10, 2018 10:47 pm

Hummm, take out wood and dung as part of the renewable energy calculation and the renewable number pretty much is invisible in the global energy production totals. Stop the lies on renewable energy needs to be a hashtag! It is quite too common to blend the miniscule solar and wind input (Global energy demand wise) into that renewable number, then overstate/insinuate wind and solar are actually viable replacements. They aren’t. BTW, does anyone think massive deployments of wind and solar fields don’t have any impact on anything?.

comment image

High Treason
September 10, 2018 11:00 pm

All the shrill “sky is falling” – chicken little stuff. It is all a desperate appeal to make us believe flagrant untruths. Once we are sucked in to swallow the Kool-aid of the (UN) lies, we will be their zombies-emotionally blackmailed in to performing the most insane of acts, like destroying the energy based civilization that supports 1,000 times more humans than in Neolithic times just 10,000 years ago. Like the Pagans of old, we will become their slaves and find ourselves being participants in the most absurd behaviour. You know, like sacrificing virgins.

Reminds me of the scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom where Indiana is forced to swallow some liquid that turns those that swallow it in to zombies. Luckily, he was able to not swallow the zombifying Kool-aid, unlike most of our “leaders” who willing swallow the Kool- aid.

As the absurd narrative of “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” (you can just sense the warmists hyperventilating and flapping their little wings of indignation) unravels and people wake up that the whole lot was rubbish without any hard evidence, the rhetoric and shrill calls of imminent catastrophe will only become louder and ever more absurd. Always reminds me of some child chucking a temper tantrum, soiling their diapers in the process.

The Emperor is indeed wearing no clothes. Our BS meters must surely be ready to explode.

Desperate rhetoric and desperate lies to support a baseless assertion.

Leo Smith
September 10, 2018 11:28 pm

Normally when something is price competitive the free market takes care of the transition, industrialists embrace the new technology of their own free will.

Or work put how to use government regulations to suppress it.

I came up on this when researching companies who competed potentially with LCD screens.

The questions asked was ‘what would be the impact of a cheaper and better technology than LCD – for example OLED?’

The answer was a total loss of investment made in vast and massively expensive LCD factories in the Far East. Big money would be trashed.

Instead the big money would buy up the patents and sit on them until they had got their money back on LCDs.

mikebartnz
September 10, 2018 11:35 pm

Where is it running away to?

gringojay
Reply to  mikebartnz
September 10, 2018 11:59 pm

Wrong way on a 1-way track? /

MarkW
Reply to  mikebartnz
September 11, 2018 6:51 am

At less than 1 degree per century, that’s one of the slowest “runs” I’ve ever seen.

Alan the Brit
September 10, 2018 11:36 pm

Yes, yes, yes & all that, but Free Markets won’t produce a Globul Guvment paid for by Western taxpayers, coz the Indian & Chinese taxpayers certainly won’t put thier hands in their pockets!

Ve2
September 10, 2018 11:39 pm

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has said that if the world doesn’t change course by 2020.
Just like 1990.

MarkW
Reply to  Ve2
September 11, 2018 6:52 am

Yet another point of no return. I’ve tried to make a list of all of them, but I’m running out of room in my notebook.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  MarkW
September 11, 2018 8:16 am

You must have missed at least half of them. I’m sure they would fill more than two large notebooks by now.

John Endicott
Reply to  Jim Whelan
September 11, 2018 12:05 pm

When will we pass the point of no return for points of no return?

lee
September 11, 2018 12:41 am

“But the lack of decisive political leadership was hampering everything, he said.”

You are not taxing enough. Tax more. Please send the remittance to us. Our representatives are running low on funds.

Peta of Newark
September 11, 2018 12:59 am

He’s a complete muppet..
*Where* did he get the ‘runaway climate’ notion from – if not from advisers of some sort (climate scientists?) He’s a busy guy and cannot do everything. OK.

But surely surely *surely* he could at least ask them for why they say what they do, basically, what evidence or precedent is there?

If they tell him it is unprecedented, which they will, he’ll then be told that ‘the computer said so’
He will then also be pointed towards ‘The Media’ – a tsunami of information overload, sensationalism and fakery – fakery that he himself will have commented on.

And there-in is the problem. He has passed the buck. Twice, just to be sure of getting away scot-free.
1. To the computer, supposedly now= A Device for predicting the future. Take the Gold Medal for gullibility
2. To the media. Very lovely. Have another medal, this time in the Triathlon. (Naivete, Cherry-picking & Confirmation Bias)

Mister. You are The Boss. You tell us as much. Your minions tell us as much. We pay you a shed load of $$$ to be The Boss.
As The Boss, The Buck is supposed to stop with YOU.
With your age, education and experience, YOU are supposed to filter the junk that lands in your lap, be sceptical and wise and take robust decisions based on that. You are patently not doing that and are incapable.

Please close the door behind you on your way out.
thank you, have a nice day.

(Could have suggested he switch off the lights but I don’t think they were ever switched on)

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 11, 2018 8:19 am

You misunderstand his purpose and motivations. He isn’t “The Boss” in order to do any of what you suggest. The goal is one-world, socialistic control by any means necessary. facts be damned.

knr
September 11, 2018 1:17 am

It is just s shake down , the Un is once again out for cash . Obama spolied them and they hopping that post Trump those ‘good old days ‘ will retrun.

Dave Ward
September 11, 2018 1:46 am

“If the world doesn’t change course by 2020, we run the risk of runaway climate change”

Just another arbitrary “We’re all doomed” date. How many previous threats have come and gone without the world coming to an end?

climatebeagle
Reply to  Dave Ward
September 11, 2018 7:20 am
Billy
September 11, 2018 2:03 am

“Renewables are cost-competitive with coal and oil, he said.” (When heavily subsidized.)
The trouble is that the market value of the energy produced is negative. Look at Germany and Ontario paying to get rid of it.
Even if you were paid to take this equipment, it is not worth the land used and the cost of connection.
It doesn’t produce energy that fulfills demand.

SAMURAI
September 11, 2018 2:12 am

Leftists worldwide have gone completely insane with their Trump Derangement Syndrome.

How any rational individual can look at the empirical evidence vs. CAGW’s laughable predictions and conclude, “Global Warming is worse than we thought”, is either an imbecile, a liar or both:

comment image

(This chart is dated with the current UAH global temp anomaly at just 0.19C vs CAGW projections of nearly 1.2C)

The CAGW Ho@x is already disconfirmed, and the more Leftists continue to lie about its efficacy, the bigger the blowback will be against the Left once CAGW becomes an even bigger joke than it already is.

Derg
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 11, 2018 3:13 am

Samurai, what is the source for this chart?

SAMURAI
Reply to  Derg
September 11, 2018 4:24 am

Derby-san:

This was a chart Dr. Christy (runs the UAH Satellite database) prepared for his expert testimony during a 2016 US House EPA Hearing.

Bryan A
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 11, 2018 10:04 am

My guess would be that bottom model run, the one that so closely matches the Balloon and Satellite datasets would be called

Monkey throws darts

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Derg
September 11, 2018 4:25 am

Hello Derg, the origin of the chart is Univ of Huntsvelle Alabama. They are heavy into rocket stuff and high energy physics.
What MIT pretends to be.

michael

MarkW
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 11, 2018 6:53 am

Is there anyway to get an up to date version of that chart?

Jim Whelan
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 11, 2018 8:24 am

There is that one, lonely model that seems to be tracking the observations.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Whelan
September 11, 2018 9:13 am

Must be broken. /sarc

Bryan A
Reply to  Jim Whelan
September 11, 2018 2:27 pm

That one was produced by Monkeys throwing Darts and was only included for hoots /SARC

Peter Plail
September 11, 2018 2:18 am

From the speech
“We are experiencing record-breaking temperatures around the world.
According to the World Meteorological Organization, the past two decades included 18 of the warmest years since 1850, when records began.
This year is shaping up to be the fourth hottest.”
So not a record breaking temperature then.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Peter Plail
September 11, 2018 6:41 am

The other years of the past two decades were not record-breaking either. None of them were warmer than 1998, except for 2016, which was 0.1C warmer.

And then there is 1934, which was 0.5C warmer than 1998 and 0.4C warmer than 2016.

The “Hottest Year Evah! narrative is pure propaganda.

comment image

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 11, 2018 6:43 am

And the Hansen 1999 chart showing the relationship of 1934 to 1998:

comment image

Herbert
September 11, 2018 2:59 am

While politicians and elites denounce people who refuse to join the green express as deniers and worse,the truth is emerging.
The real obstacle to decarbonising the economy is democratic consent, or lack thereof.

Gary Ashe
September 11, 2018 3:17 am

Obviously the Don’s America first is very distressing for the international Marxist parasitic cancers.

2 yeats see and their NGO’s charities and assorted leeches are starting to feel the defunding pain……..

6 more years of Trump please god.

“It has a long history of watering down and undermining multilateral agreements. But, in leading the charge to block practically every discussion on finance for the Paris guidelines, the US administration is threatening the future of the agreement and multilateralism itself.”

Jones
September 11, 2018 3:23 am

“if the world doesn’t change course by 2020, we run the risk of runaway climate change.”

Is it my fevered imagination or do the goalposts keep shifting?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Jones
September 11, 2018 7:20 am

They put them on rails years ago. Makes it easier.

David Dibbell
September 11, 2018 3:24 am

Even NASA, career home to Dr. James Hansen, said something about the runaway concept in the web article “Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget.” It’s still in the agency’s web archives. The author was Rebecca Lindsey. Dated January 14, 2009. An excerpt follows.

“Temperature doesn’t infinitely rise, however, because atoms and
molecules on Earth are not just absorbing sunlight, they are also
radiating thermal infrared energy (heat). The amount of heat a surface
radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If
temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to
the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly
emits an increasing amount of heat to space. This large increase in heat
loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature—referred
to as radiative cooling—is the primary mechanism that prevents runaway
heating on Earth.”

And if you connect the dots and realize what is happening above us in the variable emitter powered by weather, you can see how fixating on a runaway scenario is just not good sense.

Rich Davis
September 11, 2018 3:32 am

“My question – given the UN Secretary General’s assertion that renewables are cost competitive with coal and oil, why does he feel that so much “decisive political leadership” is required? Normally when something is price competitive the free market takes care of the transition, industrialists embrace the new technology of their own free will.”

To a UN bureaucrat, cost-competitive means that the US still has some money left to be stolen, not that product X has a similar price to product Y.

September 11, 2018 3:34 am

Why don’t any journalists ask him how much this rise is, what it is expected to become, and how much of this is natural? He won’t know even that basic info. He talks total BS.

Also why he thinks it will run away, when the interglacial perturbations out of ice ages into interglacials are stopped dead when they get to current temperatures after 7Ka of relentless rise, while CO2 is still rising rapidly, but increasing clouds from the warming oceans cool the surface and reflect the sun with 100 times more control than any little human effect. None of this is news. It is really very simple, the planet takes care of itself, a few Watts/M^2 p are not significant either way to our planetary scale climate control system, or the long term perturbations driven by the Milnkovitch cycles.

drednicolson
Reply to  Brian RL Catt CEng, CPhys
September 12, 2018 11:07 am

Heat from sunlight evaporates water.
Clouds are concentrated water vapor with a dash of various particulates.
Clouds reflect and/or diffuse incoming sunlight.

Therefore, more sunlight -> more heat -> more evaporation -> more clouds -> more reflected/diffused sunlight -> less heat

It’s a textbook directly proportionate, self-correcting negative feedback. The only times it temporarily “fails” (by working TOO well) are during sudden spikes of particulate density, like volcanic eruptions or meteoric impacts.

Steve O
September 11, 2018 4:28 am

Convincing people around the world to waste money on subsidized boondoggles that make electricity more expensive is just cover to keep the narrative consistent. The real objective is wealth transfers.

2hotel9
September 11, 2018 4:30 am

DJT is already taking steps to slash US funding for UN. Since he is going to have a second term in which to gut even more UN funding and foreign aid these hucksters had best find a new grift to run.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  2hotel9
September 11, 2018 10:39 am

From your lips to God’s ear.

Andy in Epsom
September 11, 2018 4:36 am

With the constant talk of renewables and especially wind I just have the same question in my head. As Europe was using wind power in grain mills and for raising water for a couple of hundred years before steam engines were available, why were they dumped so quickly by everyone. The only answer my simple brain comes up with was that they were a very poor means to do a job. I think that is still true today.

drednicolson
Reply to  Andy in Epsom
September 12, 2018 11:32 am

Better than doing those jobs by hand, but dropped with no regret when a more efficient alternative became available.

Mike the Morlock
September 11, 2018 4:39 am

So they want to come here in sept of 2020 and meddle in our election. This is what the Logan act (Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.) was intended to prevent.
We don’t need their interference. Gitmo has a few open bunks if I recall.

michael

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
September 11, 2018 10:42 am

Keep in mind that the Logan Act has never really been tested. There are many that believe it is unconstitutional.

drednicolson
Reply to  Paul Penrose
September 12, 2018 11:53 am

The SCOTUS does not hear theoretical cases, so for the constitutionality of a piece of legislation to be ultimately ruled on, someone must first invoke it or attempt to enforce it, and someone else must object to the same, thereby generating a “flesh-and-blood” case.

The line-item veto is a relatively recent example. It couldn’t be challenged in court until a President attempted to use it. Clinton finally did, and that kickstarted a real case that led to it being ruled UnCo.

michel
September 11, 2018 5:02 am

My question – given the UN Secretary General’s assertion that renewables are cost competitive with coal and oil, why does he feel that so much “decisive political leadership” is required?

Its a fair question, but I would ask a different one.

If we only have a small amount of time to start reducing global emissions in order to avert a catastrophe, why is the UN not urging the world’s biggest emitter, and the one doing over one third and rising of total global emissions, to reduce the 10 billion plus tons that it is putting out? Why are ‘we’ – whoever that is – not demanding that this country stop funding and building coal fired plants all over the developing world, when its the largest constructor? And reduce its coal use, when it mines and uses more than the rest of the world put together.

That is, China.

It makes zero sense. Why all this attention to the US, which is only doing around 5 billion tons and falling. Why all the attention paid to the developed West? The countries that are emitting two thirds or so of global emissions, and which are growing fast, are China, India, Indonesia and the rest of the developing world.

As for California, they want to go zero carbon. But there is never any account of what difference this would make to global temperatures, could they even do it. Because it would make none.

CO2isLife
September 11, 2018 5:16 am

It is truly shocking how there is absolutely zero science behind CO2 causing global warming or climate change. The physics of the CO2 molecule and the Greenhouse Gas Effect simply rule out CO2 as the cause of the effects the alarmists claim.
Source #1
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/09/10/quantum-physics-101-why-co2-cant-be-melting-the-glaciers-and-sea-ice/
Source #2
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/09/08/why-co2-is-irrelevant-to-the-earths-lower-atmosphere-you-cant-absorb-more-than-100/

There is a reason Climate Science doesn’t do experiments, the experiments will rule out CO2 as the cause.

ResourceGuy
September 11, 2018 5:33 am

Runaway UN budget demands after the next U.S. election.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  ResourceGuy
September 11, 2018 5:40 am

And Trumps a shoe-in anyway,…….

”its the economy silly”.

drednicolson
Reply to  Gary Ashe
September 12, 2018 12:03 pm

“It’s the economy, stupid!” Originally a quote by one of Clinton’s staff. Coming back to bite them now. Between that and near-daily TDS tantrums broadcasted on national television, I say the Dems will be lucky if Republicans don’t take enough seats for two-third majorities post-midterm.

(In a 100% just world, that would be three-quarter majorities of real conservative Reps and summarily proposing amendments to undo the century-old vandalism done to the Constitution by so-called Progressives. But that’s too much to ask, at least for now.)

Tom Abbott
Reply to  drednicolson
September 12, 2018 7:34 pm

The Democrats wouldn’t have a chance at the voting polls if we had a genuine neutral news media. The Leftwing News Media’s lies and distortions are the only thing keeping the Radical Left in the game.

MarkW
September 11, 2018 6:33 am

Run away? At best it’s a slow crawl away.

LdB
Reply to  MarkW
September 11, 2018 5:19 pm

Driven by statistical unicorns that are measured and randomly assigned blame to.

Tom in Florida
September 11, 2018 6:49 am

I say remove the U N building in New York and put up wind turbines on the land. Shirley a win-win for everyone.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 11, 2018 6:57 am

and then relocate the UN building to a country whose economic system is in-line with what the UN has been insisting is they type of economic system that the world should switch to in order to combat global warming/climate change, like Venezuela. They get what they want (a socialist economy) and we get what we want (rid of the UN globalists). win-win

MarkW
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 11, 2018 9:15 am

“and don’t call me Shirley”

Tom in Florida
Reply to  MarkW
September 11, 2018 9:27 am

Thank you 🙂

JimG1
September 11, 2018 6:50 am

God bless the Trumpster, orange hair, blue flame shooting out of hjs butt and all. Love him!

Tom Abbott
September 11, 2018 7:02 am

From the article: “Mr Guterres painted a grim picture of the impacts of climate change that he says have been felt all over the world this year, with heatwaves, wildfires, storms and floods leaving a trail of destruction.”

He couldn’t prove any of this was connected to CO2 if his life depended on it. Yet he speaks with such certainty. I guess that’s what makes a good liar.

September 11, 2018 7:14 am

Nick Stokes , as usual, exaggerates and misleads. He is making grandious claims for solar power in China,claiming it is the means of reducing pollution in Chinese cites,which he claims is due to coal burning. That is quite a lie, but that’s another “coal is dirty fiction” tale. As to solar, China did spend $126 billion on solar facilities in 2017, which accounts for practically all of the solar expenditures in that year worldwide ($160 billion). Nick failed as usual to mention that on
June 18th 2018, China announced a suspension of any new solar projects. Dead is their previous plan for 20% solar by 2030. Wind projects had been suspended a year or two ago.
As per usual, the main fiction from the renewable crowd is in the presentation of data. Typically they cite “installed capacity” (maximum possible output) not net capacity (actual energy produced)when comparing energy sources. A nuclear plant typically operates at (or
even above) their installed capacity, while onshore wind operates at roughly 20-25%, and solar varies – averaging roughly 20%. Nick produces numbers which sound impressive, until compared to other energy sources. The fact is that in 2017 Chinese solar generated 118 TWhrs. That is miniscule compared to the energy produced by the only reliable renewable, Chinese hydro, which produced 1126 TWhrs of power that year. Solar acounted for 1.8% of total power.
One single nuclear plant can produce roughly 12 TWHrs per year and China has on order or
in the immediate planning stage 150 new reactors, capable of producing 1800 TWhrs and another 300 reactors are planned, capable of producing 3600 TWhrs, or a total of 5400 TWhrs from
new nuclear construction. Solar power will hardly be more than an asterisk in future Chinese energy tables. A nuclear plant lasts for more than 60 years, often three times longer than solar or wind.
But, I’m sure, this buildout of conventional reactors is not what is going to happen : China is pushing development of molten salt nuclear reactors, which no energy technology can possibly compete with, from any standpoint . These nuclear reactors can operate in load following generators, eliminating the need for much peak energy fossil fuel power generation.
The Chinese have already demonstrated their ability to produce Gen 3+ light water reactors for less than $5 billion per GW. Does anyone realistically doubt that they will not do as well for molten salt reactors?

JonScott
September 11, 2018 7:53 am

Hahaha. Always in the future never now! Always planted just far enough ahead to give them time for the goldfish brains to forget. However this is different. An unacceptable political message from this over promoted mouthpiece. He should resign immediately for intrreferring in a sovereign countries democratic process as well as demonstrating an inability to tell empirical data based fact from politically motivated belief.

Joel Snider
September 11, 2018 8:02 am

And again, I ask, what exactly will be the impact that the UN provides in regards to the climate?
I can already tell you their solution will provide them with money and power.
My guess is that ANY impact on the climate will be indecipherable – except possibly eliminating people’s ability to live comfortably within it if you don’t happen to live along that particular latitude line where you don’t need heat or AC.
Caves, urine and bugs, remember.

Rich Lambert
September 11, 2018 8:26 am

Brings to my mind a song from the 60’s, Runaway by Del Shannon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S13mP_pfEc

Rob
September 11, 2018 8:43 am

The UN is a cesspool of socialist corruption and evil. With designs on being the world government and destroying the capitalist free market while murdering billions.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Rob
September 11, 2018 8:57 am

Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the next step is to proclaim Obama as the World Leader for Life. Hell, he’s already that in his own mind. Of course the UN delegates would vote on it to give it the appearance of a democratic decision.

Tim
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 12, 2018 12:21 pm

You really should not address him so abruptly as “Obama”. That is just a touch disrespectful don’t you think? His correct title is “His exalted Greatness Barack Hussein Obama the Anointed One, Healer of the Nations, and Calming Hand of the Rising Oceans”.

JBom
September 11, 2018 9:01 am

That suggests a definite and disastrous change in the U.N. (and E.U.) mind think: To avert “runaway climate change” destroy the United States of America.

I suppose that after which the U.S. Treasury would be come the property of the W.M.O. Green Climate Fund!

Ha ha!

John the Econ
September 11, 2018 9:55 am

Do the Democrats have to report the value of this endorsement as a campaign donation?

Jackson Ireland
September 11, 2018 10:05 am

The bbc also put out an article saying that eating less meat would be better for water consumption and the environment. They’re going all in on this, is there a climate conference coming up.

John Endicott
Reply to  Jackson Ireland
September 11, 2018 12:09 pm

There’s always a climate conference coming up. Those climate alarmists sure do like their little junkets to lavish resorts and exotic locales.

Paul Penrose
September 11, 2018 10:09 am

When he says “cost-competitive” he means AFTER additional trillions of dollars of subsidies, er, government “investment”.

H.R.
September 11, 2018 1:28 pm

The alarmists have drawn so many lines in the sand that it looks like a rumble strip going down the side of the highway.

When, when, when will they ever learn to make the drop dead date some time past the expected lifespan of the current crop of kindergartners?

September 11, 2018 3:44 pm

The only thing that’s “runaway” is runaway corruption.

Neo
September 11, 2018 5:07 pm

Yet another tipping point ? NO.

Thousands of bureaucrats will be pushed out of jobs if funding is not restored.

drednicolson
Reply to  Neo
September 12, 2018 12:17 pm

That’s the real tipping point. Their Tenga tower of bureaucracy is on shaky ground and Trump’s getting close to pulling out the right block.

Chris from Oz
September 12, 2018 12:43 am

Does he have some sort of proof for this assertion or is it a mere thought bubble?

Fredar
September 12, 2018 6:52 am

I thought we already passed the point of no return.

drednicolson
Reply to  Fredar
September 12, 2018 12:19 pm

As far as entropy is concerned, we’re passing a point of no return every nanosecond. 😮

huls
September 13, 2018 1:20 am

Very shrewd incoherent babbling form this career politician. He bamboozles the audience in a way that it looks like this: birds fly and a dollar can buy things, therefor bicycle. It is very hard to argue with that.
He is also wrong when tries to state facts instead of mere “beliefs” According to this: https://yearbook.enerdata.net/renewables/renewable-in-electricity-production-share.html
Europe is already on the 1/3 mark. What he actually means is all energy production not just electrical. The little cunning politician..

%d bloggers like this: