2018 Global CO2 emissions
The following calculations and graphics are based on information on worldwide CO2 emissions published by BP in June 2019 for the period from 1965 up until the end of 2018, below.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
The pie diagram above shows the proportion of CO2 emissions as of the end of 2018.
The previous post for the end of 2017 is available for reference here:
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/global-man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2017-bp-data/
The data showing the progress of CO2 emissions by 2018 in the Developed and Developing worlds can be summarised as follows:
Some initial points arising from the BP data:
- Having been relatively stable overall for the last 7 years, global CO2 emissions grew by ~2.0% in 2018. 2.5% of this growth was in the Developing world whereas 1.1% of the growth was in the Developed world. This growth of ~650,000,000 tonnes in 2018 was despite all the international “commitments” arising from the Paris Climate Agreement.
- The contrast between the Developed and Developing worlds remains stark:
- developing world emissions overtook Developed world CO2 emissions in 2005
- they have been escalating ever since the likely prognosis for their CO2 emissions that they will continue to grow and accelerate.
- Since 1990 CO2 emissions from the Developed world have decreased, whereas the Developing world has shown a fourfold increase since 1985. This change is mainly due to:
- the Off-shoring of major industries to parts of the world that have less rigorous environmental standards or who care less about CO2 emissions
- the use of Fracked natural gas for electricity generation as opposed to coal as in the USA
- the growing use of Coal firing for electricity generation in the Developing world supported by Chinese technology exports.
- Weather Dependent Renewables have made very little contribution to this CO2 emissions reduction, if at all, when looked at in the round, from manufacture to demolition they are neither CO2 nor energy neutral
- CO2 emissions in the Developing world are accelerating as the quality of the lives for people in the underdeveloped and developing worlds are progressively improving. Even so at least ~1.12 billion people in the Developing world still have no access to reliable electricity.
- As a result CO2 emissions / head for India and the rest of the world’s Underdeveloped nations (~53% of the world population) remains very low at ~1.8 tonnes / head, (~40% of the Global average) meaning that their state of serious human deprivation and underdevelopment is continuing but it is progressively being rectified.
- By 2018 CO2 emissions from the Developing world were some 62% of the global emissions.
- India and the underdeveloped world will certainly be continuing to promote their own development to attain comparable development levels to their other peer group developing nations.
- India’s growth in CO2 emissions 2017 – 2018 was by a further 7.0%
- China, (still considered here as a “Developing Nation”, according to its un-concerned attitude to the Paris climate accord), showed domestic CO2 emission growth of 2.14% in 2018. However China is also promoting the use of coal-firing for electricity generation domestically and across the Developing world with some 300 new Coal-fired generation plants currently in the pipeline.
- At 6.7 tonnes / head China’s CO2 emissions for its population of some 1.42 billion has now approached the average CO2 emissions / head achieved in Europe.
- China’s CO2 emissions / head was already higher than most of the EU Nations other than Germany.
Even as long ago as October 2010 Professor Richard Muller made the dilemma for all those who hope to control global warming by reducing CO2 emissions, particularly by means of CO2 reductions from Western Nations, clear: in essence he said:
“the Developing World is not joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor should it have any intention of doing so. The failure of worldwide action negates the unilateral action of any individual Western Nation”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5m6KzDnv7k
To bring the current but growing underdeveloped world population:
- up to the present Global average CO2 emissions at 4.4 tonnes /head will imply a further 6,643,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum or an annual output of 40,328,000,000 tonnes, an increase of +~20%
- up to the present Chinese and European average of CO2 emissions at 6.7 tonnes /head will imply a further 20,217,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum or an annual output of 54,000,000,000 tonnes, an increase of +~60%
Representation by Region
This analysis divides the world’s nations into seven logical groups with distinct attitudes to CO2 control:
developed nations: population ~1.19 billion – ~37% CO2 emissions.
- United States of America, now President Trump is rescinding many of Obama’s climate initiatives, including USA support for the Paris Climate accord: population 328m : 4.3% — 15.2% of global CO2 emissions.
- Japan, the former Soviet Union, (CIS), Canada and Australia, (JP CIS CA AU), are developed nations, ambivalent towards controls on CO2 emissions and not necessarily adhering to the Paris Climate Accord: population 356m : 4.6% — 12.6% of global CO2 emissions.
- The European Union (28), (including the United Kingdom): population 508m: 6.7% — 10.2% of global CO2 emissions., currently believing in action to combat Global Warming, and their governments are generally enthusiastic supporters of the Paris Climate Accord as the European Union. However it should be noted that the populace of the EU(28) is losing enthusiasm for Green agendas: subsidy support for Renewables is being curtailed and it is likely that many of the pioneering commitments of the past 25 years made to controlling climate change will not retain subsidy support and therefore will be abandoned in future.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/the-decline-of-weather-dependent-renewables-in-europe-2008-2018/
developing nations: population ~6.45 billion – 62% CO2 emissions
- China and Hong Kong: developing very rapidly, with no effective commitments under the Paris Climate Accord: population 1,390m : 18.6% — 28.3% CO2 emissions. China is responsible for the continuing development of its own Coal-Fired installations, multiple Coal-fired installations in the Third World and for the development Fracking for its own Gas fields. Although China makes empty gestures towards Renewable Energy and has benefitted from Solar PV manufacture, nonetheless its actions are hardly in accordance the Paris Climate Accord.
- India is developing rapidly from a low base with no virtually commitments under the Paris Climate Accord: population 1,368m : 17.9% — 7.4% CO2 emissions. India is continuing the rapid development of its own Coal-Fired installations. Although India makes gestures towards Renewable Energy its actions are hardly in accordance the Paris Climate Accord.
- South Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan, (KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW): the more advanced developing nations, still developing rapidly, with minimal commitments under the Paris Climate accord: population 900m – 12.0% CO2 emissions.
- Rest of World (~160 Nations), like India the remainder of the underdeveloped world is developing rapidly from a low base. These nations have no real commitments under the Paris Climate Accord other than the anticipated receipt of “Climate Funds” from developed nations: population 2,758m : 36.1% — 14.6% CO2 emissions.
These data are set out in tabular form below.
These graphs of total CO2 emission history show that up until 2018:
- there has been an overall reduction of CO2 emissions from most of the Developed economies since 1990.
- the USA, simply by exploiting shale gas for electricity generation, has already reduced its CO2 emissions by some 16% since 2005. That alone has already had a greater CO2 emission reduction effect than the entire Kyoto protocol.
http://www.oilandgasonline.com/doc/u-s-fracking-has-carbon-more-whole-world-s-wind-solar-0001
- CO2 emissions from the developed economies ambivalent about action on CO2 (JP RU CA AU) have hardly grown since 2005.
- the European Union, EU(28) has reduced its CO2 emissions by ~12% since 2005
However, CO2 emissions from the Developing world as a whole overtook the Developed world in 2007 and are now ~60% larger than the Developed world’s CO2 emissions.
There has been a very rapid escalation of Chinese CO2 emissions since the year 2000.
- China overtook the USA CO2 emissions in 2006, and Chinese emissions are now ~62% higher than the USA. After a brief hiatus till 2016 the escalation in Chinese CO2 emissions now continues. Chinese emissions have grown by +75% since 2005 and China continues to build coal fired powerstations to supply the bulk of its electricity as its industrial and domestic demands grow.
- India has accelerating CO2 emissions, growing from a low base, by +63% since 2005. India is building coal fired powerstations to increase the supply of electricity as ~25% of its population still has no access to electric power.
- there is inexorable CO2 emissions growth from the underdeveloped Rest of the World economies, from a low base, they have grown by +80% since 2001.
Recent CO2 emissions growth
The progressive changes indicating CO2 emissions growth can be seen in the graphic below.
Global CO2 emissions had previously plateaued. But since 2016 they have shown a significant uplift. Unsurprisingly the emissions growth has mainly occurred in the developing nation groups India and the Rest of World as their quality of life is progressively improving. After a fall in 2015 – 2016 in 2017 – 2018 the was a significant uplift in Chinese emissions. In spite of the Europe wide efforts EU(28) emissions have also been growing overall.
Notably the only Nation that had consistently reduced its CO2 emissions was the USA, however there was a significant uplift of USA emissions in 2018.
With increasing installation of Coal-Fired generation throughout the developing world it is now likely that Global CO2 emissions will continue to show significant growth thus entirely negating the objectives of the Paris Climate accord.
CO2 emissions / head
Possibly more significant than the total CO2 emissions output is the comparison of the CO2 emissions / head for the various nation groups. This measure represents the level of development of various Nations.
- In 2003 China overtook the world-wide average for CO2 emissions / head and surpassed the rapidly developing nations.
- China’s CO2 emissions / head have increased ~11 fold since 1965.
- China’s emissions / head have increased in 2018 to ~6.70 tonnes / head.
- By the measure of CO2 emissions / head China and the EU(28) have been closely aligned since 2014 at ~6.7 tonnes / head
- The EU(28) with active legal measures had reduced emissions until ~2013. Much of that downward trend is largely attributed to their declining economies and the displacement of industrial processes to countries with laxer environmental regimes.
- But recently the EU(28) has seen an upturn in CO2 emissions/head because of increased coal burning for electricity generation particularly in Germany.
- India’s CO2 emissions have grown by 4.7 times since 1965 and are now showing acceleration. That emissions rate is likely to accelerate continuously with increased use of coal for electricity generation.
- India and the bulk of the underdeveloped nations, (~55% of the world’s population), still remain at a very low level of CO2 emissions levels / head of about 1.80 tonnes / head, this level is about 1/9 of the level of the USA and about 1/4 of the level in the EU(28) and China. As a result these under-developed Nations have widespread poor access to reliable power.
- The USA has already reduced its CO2 emissions / head by ~20% since in 2005. This has mainly arisen from the substitution of shale gas for electricity generation replacing Coal. The reduction has not been achieved by the introduction of Weather Dependent Renewables which require ancillary fossil fuel back-up to compensate for their intermittent unreliability.
- Russia is actively involved in backing anti-fracking campaigns in Europe and in the USA via its support of various NGO groups. This is an obvious policy to protect the largest Gasprom markets for Russian Gas in the West. This maintains an energy stranglehold on Western nations, as was well demonstrated in the Ukraine. The export of Fracked gas from the USA to Europe and indigenous fracking for example in the UK may progressively break such a stranglehold.
- Russia, Japan, Canada and Australia have only grown their emissions/head marginally by ~1% since 2005.
European Union CO2 Emissions
- When the participating nations particularly in the environmentally active / Green aware EU are compared with Chinese CO2 emissions/head, an interesting picture arises, as follows.
- Average EU(28) CO2 emissions now approximate closely to China.
- EU(28) CO2 emissions overall have fallen slightly in 2018, notably in Germany and remarkably France.
- Chinese CO2 emissions at 6.70 tonnes/head for its 1.4 billion population are already ~51% higher than the worldwide average. China’s emissions/head grew significantly in 2018.
- China’s CO2 emissions/head now substantially exceed those in the UK at 5.52 tonnes / head.
- However China has no real commitment under the Paris Climate Accord to constrain its CO2 emissions till after 2030.
- The UK has seen a significant drop in CO2 emissions reaching 5.52 tonnes/head in 2018.
- At 8.78 tonnes /head, Germany virtually is alone amongst the EU(28) still substantially exceeds the CO2 emissions/head level of China.
- At 4.56 tonnes / head French emissions have increased beyond the world-wide average 4.44.
- Still at 4.56 tonnes/head, France, has the lowest CO2 emission rates in the developed world. This is entirely due to the long-term commitments by France to electricity generation by Nuclear energy. That fact makes President Macron’s stated intention to reduce Nuclear generation from ~75% to 50% particularly anachronistic. This is especially so as French CO2 emissions are now showing an increase from their previously low base.
- China’s CO2 exceeded France’s CO2 emissions / head in 2009 and are now ~46% higher.
- The EU(28) CO2 emissions / head now equate to China
- Germany, one of the largest CO2 emitters in Europe, has emissions/head ~100% higher than the worldwide average but it is only ~31% higher than China.
- Germany’s emissions / head have increased recently because they are now burning much larger quantities of brown coal to compensate for the “irrational” closure of their nuclear generating capacity.
- Following the Fukushima disaster, the German government position of rapidly eliminating nuclear power in a country with no earthquake risk and no chance of tsunamis is emotional, irrational and non-tenable.
The unique performance of France as a Developed country in limiting its CO2 emissions must question the logic of Green attitudes in opposing of Nuclear power. If CO2 emissions really were a concern to arrest Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming / Man-made Climate Change, these results, particularly from France, show starkly the very real advantage of using Nuclear power for electricity generation.
But even France’s commitment to Nuclear power is now being questioned. Green attitudes in the French government are thus now threatening to destroy one of France’s supreme national assets, i.e. its commitment to reliable Nuclear energy for economic electricity generation, which if it were an essential advantage, have no significant CO2 emissions.
The futility of Western de-carbonisation
It is clear that CO2 emissions a continuing to grow in the Developing World. This CO2 emissions growth should be anticipated to continue indefinitely.
Actions of the Western Governments in response to the Alarmist Green thinking have already caused
- gross risks to Western energy security by the imposition of unreliable and intermittent Weather Dependent Renewables.
- substantially increased costs for private energy users
- damaged the economics of all Western manufacturing industries.
- the effective elimination of Fracking as a technique for fossil fuel recovery in Western Europe
- self inflicted harm by “Green Virtue Signalling” have been to the financial benefit of Russia and China in the continuation of “a covert Cold War”
Western industrial companies are bound to seek more congenial energy / business environments, with laxer attitudes towards CO2 emissions to maintain the performance of their businesses. So the futility of the expenditure of vast resources on Green activities in Germany and throughout the Western world becomes clear.
By way of example, the UK was responsible for 1.16%, (391), million tonnes of the 2018 total 33,685 million tonnes of global CO2 emissions, and the UK government has committed to reduce CO2 emissions to net Zero by 2050 at an estimated cost of some £1.0 trillion.
The UK CO2 output will be rapidly overtaken by the growth in CO2 emissions from China, India and the other Developing Nations this growth alone amounting to 475 million tonnes in 2018.
Any attempt to reduce UK CO2 emissions at enormous costs would therefore seem fatuous.
Carbon dioxide is 75 times less effective as a Greenhouse Gas than water vapour and clouds. Any extra CO2 in the atmosphere just makes plants grow better and helps to feed the World. So the hugely damaging UK policy will address only 1/7500 of the problem of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
Any CO2 reduction policy should also be seen in a longer-term context:
- The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
- According to reliable Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial and the world had already been cooling quite rapidly for 3000 years, in fact since ~1000 BC.
- At 11,000 years old, our Holocene interglacial, responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from caves to microprocessors, is coming its end.
- The weather gets worse in colder times.
- The world will very soon, (on a geological time scale), revert to a true glaciation, again resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York.
The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something to be truly scared about both for the biosphere and for man-kind.
Spending anything, trying to stop something that has not been happening for 3 millennia seems truly stupid.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming/
An estimate of the additional 60 year lifetime cost commitment of some €2.6 trillion that has already been committed for the installation of Weather Dependent Renewables in Europe is given at
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/the-decline-of-weather-dependent-renewables-in-europe-2008-2018/
According to Bjorn Lomborg the ~€125billion German investment in solar power alone Western Europe, not including other Weather Dependent Renewable investments, could only ever reduce the onset of Global Warming by a matter of about 37 hours by the year 2100, if at all.
http://www.lomborg.com/content/2013-03-germany-pays-billions-delay-global-warming-37-hours
And more recently Bjorn Lomborg has produced evidence that the total effect of any agreement in the terms proposed in Paris could only control future warming in 2100 by less than 0.2°C.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/09/lomborg-impact-of-current-climate-proposals/#more-20393
In addition in their recent paper the prestigious French Société de Calcul Mathématique SA have clearly said:
“The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade”
http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_Global_Warming_Summary_2015_09.pdf
“It is clear that CO2 emissions a {are?) continuing to grow in the Developing World. This CO2 emissions growth should be anticipated to continue indefinitely.
Does anyone else have the impression that many people seem to believe that the US is the world leader in emissions, and is still growing emissions because Trump and deniers?
I know of zero warmistas who will even acknowledge that the US is the first country in the world, AFAIK, to reduce emissions to 1990 levels?
Was this not the language called for by one of the accords which the US refused to sign and other countries did, and we caught hell for it?
Meanwhile those other places have wasted astronomical amounts of money, impoverished their own people, done nothing substantive to reduce emissions, and all of that while they spew all sorts of crap at us?
And we did it while saving money and cleaning up our air, with no specific goal of doing so?
Of course, warmistas will dispute this, pointing to Obama’s years of costly regulations, but Obama was also against fracking, which allowed us to do what we did. In fact, all the so called greenies opposed fracking! It is the only thing that has made a dent.
Not that I think CO2 needs to be reduced, but facts are facts, and hypocrites are hypocrites, and ignorance of the facts is ignorance.
Last year US emissions rose. US citizens, as they have been for a hundred years, continue to be the world leaders in emissions.
There fixed it for you. Talk about hypocrisy and ignorance.
Oh! Per capita eh?
So you prefer death and disease?
The charts above clearly show the USA, overall, is NOT the world leader. China is the world leader, but nearly twice USA.
USA is the leader per capita, true, but USA also has 25 of world GDP.
So get off the internet, no social media for you, go preach instead in Bejing about how bad they are in killing the planet. If you are serious about CO2, then you should be going after the ones not just in first place, but clearly accelerating their lead into first place of CO2 production.
Hypocrisy indeed
it is not hypocritital to state truthfully that the US leads the world in CO2 emissions per capita, or per person. We do, and have for a long time.
What I’d like to see someone do is calculate some additional ratios and stats, such as tons of CO2 per dollar of GDP … or tons of CO2 per dollar of foreign aid granted per nation … or tons of CO2 per dollar of charitable contribution per nation.
Those are all real numbers that matter, are relevant too. All is fair as long as the stat isn’t intentionally misleading, or untrue.
“I know of zero warmistas who will even acknowledge that the US is the first country in the world, AFAIK, to reduce emissions to 1990 levels?”
They won’t, because it isn’t the first, by a long shot. Even this article says:
“there has been an overall reduction of CO2 emissions from most of the Developed economies since 1990.”
And the graph above shows what happened. USA emissions went up from 1990 until about 2005, and then came back to about 1990 levels. EU emissions have been diminishing since 1990, with a pause around 2005, but are down from 4Gtons 1990 to 3.44 Gtons now.
And that is mostly because of fracking, and the great expansion in cheap natural gas fired power plants that the climate alarmists are so alarmed about.
One could probably worry about that if CO2 was really a problem, fortunately it is not, in spite of all the “expert” analysis.
The fatal flaws to the warming alarmists’ arguments are many – here are two:
9. Even if ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, the calculated maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is too low to cause dangerous global warming.
Christy and McNider (2017) analysed UAH Lower Troposphere data since 1979:
Reference: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf
Lewis and Curry (2018) analysed HadCRUT4v5 Surface Temperature data since 1859:
Reference: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
Climate computer models used by the IPCC and other global warming alarmists employ climate sensitivity values much higher than 1C/doubling, in order to create false fears of dangerous global warming.
…
15. Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. The real danger is not too much CO2 – it is CO2 starvation. Over geologic time, CO2 is ~permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks.
Plants evolved at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 2000 ppm and greater, and many grow best at about 1200 ppm CO2 – about 3 times current levels. That is why greenhouse operators pump 1000-1200 ppm CO2 into their greenhouses.
Major food crops (except corn) use the C3 photosynthetic pathway, and die at about 150 ppm from CO2 starvation – that is just 30 ppm below the minimum levels during the last Ice Age, which ended just 10,000 years ago – “the blink of an eye” in geologic time. Earth came that close to a major extinction event.
During one of the next Ice Ages, unless there is massive human intervention, atmospheric CO2 will decline to below 150 ppm and that will be the next major extinction event – not just for a few species but for ~all complex terrestrial carbon-based life forms.
“CO2, Global Warming, Climate and Energy”
pdf:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-june2019-final-.pdf
Excel spreadsheet:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-june2019-final.xlsx
Realistically the least significant measurement is CO2 emissiond/Head (per capita) as those nations that prefer this measurement are >30% energy impoverished. Total CO2 production per anum is what will have the greatest effect on global temps (provided their ballyhooed equation
isisn’t correct and CO2isisn’t the driver of temperatures)It doesn’t matter if you have 1 person producing 5% of global CO2 output or 2 billion producing 35% of global output. The 35% output has the greater effect
Yes, but equality.
This CO2 business has nothing to do with saving the climate.
Dang…I knew I forgot about something 😉
“According to Bjorn Lomborg the ~€125billion German investment in solar power alone (in?) Western Europe, not including other Weather Dependent Renewable investments, could only ever reduce the onset of Global Warming by a matter of about 37 hours by the year 2100, if at all.
Not to mention that all human sources of CO2 emissions in total amount to just 5% of annual total CO2 emissions on the planet. Which fact the climate alarmists NEVER utter.
Meaning that if humans totally eliminated 100% of man caused CO2, we’d still be left with 95% of what we have now.
And if the earth keeps on warming, as it has for most of the last 16,000 years, those natural emissions will continue to grow, due to gassing from the oceans. Not to mention weathering of CO2 containing rocks, where most of the planetary total CO2 mass resides.
Just the post, will read more thoroughly.
You are aware that “French Société de Calcul Mathématique SA” is a private company, not an academic institution. Calling it “prestigious” is a the classic “silk purse, sow’s ear.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20151208193742/http://www.scmsa.eu/presenta_e.htm
A private company gets paid by clients for delivering their results & satisfactory work.
Academic institutions – not so much.
A bit like an audit company, it gives you the results you paid for..
What academic would get the “wrong” result on a climate question? He would not remain an academic for long.
Read Judith Curry’s “Climate scientists’ motivated reasoning”. Very appropriate
Published academic research results tend to be influenced by the observed sentiments of the grant panels too Francois.
Try submitting a climate paper for publication that doesn’t tug the forelock to the “settled science” of agw.
Please remove me for up dates on this article.
Thanks
As if coming from academia is a selling point. You don’t GET more biased.
Just imagine what will happen when it is finally proven that CO2 is a result of climate change, not the other way around…
I can tell you already – denial.
That will only come about after imagining is allowed again and real science returns without obligatory statements required by climate priests.
They will simply move on to another crisis and deny they ever said CO2 caused climate change.
John, what do you think happened to the carbon in all that coal, oil and gas we’ve burnt? Do you think climate change caused that?
Loydo, please explain why Anthony’s CO2 jar experiment failed to show a temperature increase as PPM of CO2 was increased.
And the margins of error on these numbers is?
And the relative total anthropomorphic contribution and the total “natural” source contributions?
And the correct margins of error on each?
Now, in light of that uncertainty, what can you say with any confidence?
That CO2 as a driver for Global Warming is really just a bunch of Hot Air
The only applicable metric is the incremental GDP per ton of CO2 emissions as this is a measure of economic energy efficiency since CO2 emissions are roughly proportional to energy consumption. Minimizing CO2 is the wrong goal and it should be maximizing GDP per Joule of consumed energy. The absolute emissions have such an inconsequential impact on the surface temperature, they should be ignored.
Yes, it’s clear that the UNFCCC’s policy goals will do nothing to effect the climate, even if CO2 was the problem they claim, and the only result will be for the developed world to waste trillions mitigating a problem that isn’t even possible. If this insanity continues, the IPCC’s gross misrepresentation of climate science is being done knowingly and willfully based on their acknowledged receipt of my report as an official expert reviewer of AR6 where I identified the many serious errors in their assessment that comprise the sole support for the policy goals of the UNFCCC.
So what? Co2 is NOT a pollutant. Co2 is a trace element in the atmosphere. Don’t drink the koolaid.
Despie all you read and hear from the watermelons, and their co-religionists, to the nearest one-tenth of one percent, there is zero CO2 in the atmosphere.
This will remain the case until CO2 exceeds 500 ppm.
And that – even given the lifegiving emissions of the Chinese power stations – could well be twenty, thirty, even forty years from now.
Auto
Probably about 40 years, more or less.
Fine and interesting—as long as you don’t comp[are the relative contribution of human produced CO2 to the total amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere from all sources. It is only 3.4%—the entire remainder (~96%) comes from natural sources (the biosphere, ocean degassing, volcanoes principally).
And then you have to factor in that CO2 is only ~4% of all GHGs, with over 95% being water vapor, so the “climate change” effect of anthropogenic CO2 is actually trivial, if not negligible. (See the last graphic of WUWT https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/01/a-story-of-co2-data-manipulation/ ).
Going one step further based in the data of that article, the US emissions of 14.9% produces only 0.5% of total CO2 going into the atmosphere and 0.02% of all GHGs.
Somehow, I’m not going to lose sleep over it. And reducing out CO2 output by 20% is meaningless.
Climate Alarmunists are NOT loudly and desperately leaning on the developing countries about reducing emissions.
They are also not working desperately to rapidly ramp up international nuclear power production capabilities. TENS (10’s) of thousands of nuclear plants need tOo go online this decade, else emissions targets CANNOT BE MET. And since that cannot happen soon enough, I guess we are all doomed.
The only rational conclusion to draw from this: it’s not about avoiding an actual climate catastrophe. CAGW was always and was only a Trojan Horse strategy for the advancement of Socialism internationally. Alarmists are naked…to anyone willing to take an honest look at the numbers.
Developing countries are condescendingly considered “noble savages” by the eco-leftists. Their traditional primitive lifestyles are “better” than the mechanized, industrialized, nations. They believe the industrialized nations “owe” them something. It’s akin to affirmative-action for the savages. Cripple the developed nations, and enable the lesser nations. That’s the simple explanation. It’s stupid. It’s counterproductive to their stated eco-goals. But none of this is about science or the environment. It’s ALL about transferring wealth from the rich nations to the poor. It’s all about an artificial crisis to punish Western culture. To punish the human success of capitalism.
What’s the point in all of this? Since CO2 doesn’t cause global warming but is actually beneficial, are we to use these data to reward China for a great job done?
Please keep in mind that ~ 97% of atmospheric CO2 comes from natural sources. Human activity accounts for ~ 3%. Since the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule — about 400 PPM — humans produce 3% of that, or about 12 PPM. There is absolutely no way that + / – 12 PPM could have any significant effect upon the earth’s climate. Keep that in mind as you read the graphs in this article. The amount of CO2 produced by all human activity is tiny.
The ad hom and intellectually flaccid attacks on French Société de Calcul Mathématique SA by some are succinctly neutered by the Société declaration: “The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade”. If you want to ‘save the planet’ from whatever the faux-crisis du jour may be, take a look in the mirror at your own pointless crusade and decide to fix your irrational self. The first step is admitting you have a problem….
So on what basis is it called “prestigious”? Who or what is it? Who has ever heard of it?
Trolling again Nick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_math%C3%A9matique_de_France
Read the name again. They want to sound like such a society. But they are not.
Haha got to give them credit. Almost as slippery as how the Scott Trust which owned the Guardian suddenly isn’t a trust anymore … but don’t worry nothing to see here. The name “The Scott Trust Limited” is sort of the same tactic.
So if the economies of the developed world remain sluggish (EU), will that mean faster emissions growth from the developing world in its place? I guess it will depend on the success of ignoring debt levels, priorities, and all those other little trivial issues besides the Climate Crusade advocacy construct.
A clean, green lawn has been part and parcel of environmentalism and patron governments, corporations, organizations, and institutions.
The UN plan is working. Western industry/Capital is being stifled and cheap energy moving elsewhere to “redistribute the wealth”. That’s why they continue to make the West the scapegoat. The Western world needs more Trumps to maintain its’ standard of living if not just to survive.
Very interesting and comprehensive data!
It would be great if this could be combined with data on the growth of total CO2 ppm during the same period and get by year the fraction of total emissions that remain in the atmosphere and if there is a trend on this.
Richard, CO2 doesn’t “remain in the air”. It gets recycled en suite:
Carbon dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil), solid waste, trees and other biological materials, and also as a result of certain chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
fraction of total emissions that remain in the atmosphere:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
“Having been relatively stable overall for the last 7 years, global CO2 emissions grew by ~2.0% in 2018. ”
unless someone considers increasing…stable
…and 20 year ago a major leap up that’s continued
At least it’s not our problem
At the end of WW2, eventually the Japanese realized that it really was better to not commit mass suicide by continuing to fight a lost war. To continue was just not logical, Captain.
But global-warming fanatics are still impervious to the kind of logic that persuades almost every human on the planet.
“The contrast between the Developed and Developing worlds remains stark”
The stark contrast in the graph shown is the CO2/head. 10.67 for the developed world; 3.25 for the developing. And yes, the developing world is, well, developing. There is no way the West can say – we got there first, the would can only afford for you to emit a third of ours, forever.
Global warming is a problem for all of us. We all have to agree on something sustainable.
Nick, why do you think GW is a problem? What science are you looking at?
Why are we having these discussions about the piddling amount of CO2 from man’s endeavours while ignoring the contribution from the oceans?
AND let’s not forget that the oceans are emitting more CO2 because the planet is warming (and has been since the mini ice age). The warming since the mini ice age is independent of any man made influence – despite the horsesh*t being peddled by Mann, Gore, Stokes and other blind disciples of the hoax.
‘Nick, why do you think GW is a problem?’
You knew he wasn’t going to answer THAT question.
‘There is no way the West can say – we got there first, the would can only afford for you to emit a third of ours, forever.’
Well, I’M sure not saying that. In fact, I’m big on the whole ‘live and let live’ – ‘your life is your own journey’ thing.
THAT’S why I turned against progressives.
“your life is your own journey”
Yes, but it isn’t true that your atmosphere is your own atmosphere. We all have to share it.
Well talk to China then. If CO2 IS pollution then China is a gross polluter. China produces more CO2 per year than the USA combined with any other of the emitter classes in this graph
?w=1400
Excluding U.S. combined with “rest of the world”
AND
Any other combination of 2
“China produces more CO2 per year than the USA combined…”
Yes. And the USA emitted a lot more than UK, which emitted a lot more than Denmark, etc. The fact is that China has a very large population. As noted in the article, in 2018 USA emitted 15.3 tons CO2/head, China 6.7.
Half the population of China have no rights and don’t count so double there number? Hey at least given the date I am not running them over in tanks. Just kidding 🙂
And the United States is a very large country too – comparing it to the UK is ridiculous.
Hi Nick,
That’s chasing your tail a bit. Either the problem is CO2 or it isn’t. If it is, then one person putting out 5% is not as much a problem as 1Bn putting out 95%
Or natural sources putting out 95% of the total.
Canada produces approx. 1.6 % of the worlds CO 2 thru industrial and life style. With the worlds second largest country in land mass, it’s boreal forest absorbed all this CO 2 and more.
‘Yes, but it isn’t true that your atmosphere is your own atmosphere. We all have to share it.’
I’m not the one forcing my way on others – that’s YOU – based on some paranoiac end of the world prophecy – no different that any other end of the world religion – AND the crux upon which the environmental movement was seized – with just this specific control-freak, collectivist agenda in mind.
I reject your paranoia – you certainly don’t seem concerned about any of the consequences of YOUR side’s actions – the REALITY as opposed to your fears.
You’ve clearly made it your position that it ISN”T ‘our’ atmosphere – it’s YOURS – and have taken it upon yourselves to decide for ALL of us how to live in it.
And your pseudo concern for the third-world is just that – posturing sophistry.
And in case you missed Pat Frank’s post below, allow me to second it:
Pat Frank:
Alarmist Green thinking have also already caused:
* an increase in winter deaths from fuel poverty in the UK
* continued premature death from the effects of indoor smoke in developing countries.
* murder to protect green-virtue palm oil plantations
* https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/innocent-animals-suffering-at-the-hands-of-the-palm-oil-industry threat against large mammalian species due, again, to green-virtue palm oil plantations
Seems to me there’s a case for negligent homicide to be made against the green NGOs and their political supporters.
[Check link, not found as originally typed. .mod]
It’s just a couple posts below this one. It just seemed really appropriate so I cut and pasted it again.
Yes Nick,
and the sun is not your sun. Sol lucet omnibus.
is the CO2/head…yes, it is
like saying your neighbors can put more arsenic in the water because they have a bigger family
..or like saying global warming is a scam, and countries can increase their emissions because they got to the game late
No. Global warming is the norm, in all its chaotic fits and starts, during the continuing Holocene interglacial. It is not a problem for anyone with a modicum of adaptability. Adapt. Survive. Thrive.
Nor do ‘we all have to agree’ with the unsustainable irrational fears of catastrophic global warming paranoids. We have to deal with reality, not fear mongering projections.
Hence Nick, why emission control is never going to work and world emissions are going to continue to increase. See if it really was being taken seriously then developed nations have to stay at there current level and developed nations would have to drop to them.
It reminds me of skit so a group of people find themselves in a plane crash in a dessert and they decide they must ration the food and water. They then sit around to decide who had a big breakfast this morning and who had drinks on the plane because they should get less rations because they have historic consumption. None of them can agree on the how to account for the historic consumption and so in the end they die still arguing.
“because they should get less rations because they have historic consumption”
But the claim here is that they should have more rations because they have historic consumption.
No his claim was people can do whatever they like
>>>> “I’m big on the whole ‘live and let live’ – ‘your life is your own journey’ thing” <<>> Yes, but it isn’t true that your atmosphere is your own atmosphere. We all have to share it.
I am with Eamon above who said
Eamon>>>> That’s chasing your tail a bit. Either the problem is CO2 or it isn’t.
When you start rationing things fair doesn’t come into it, it becomes about what you can control and enforce and can get a majority to go along with. It is amusing watching socialist and the educated stupids try to implement things in the real harsh world.
Hence the collectivist ‘it isn’t your atmosphere’ comment.
It isn’t Nick’s either. And neither of us can regulate it, but Nick seems to think HE can by strangling me.
Joel,
+100!
Yep there are two views the socialist the world belongs to us all, and the realist you can only control what lies within your borders.
“Sustainability” is a chimera, since no one knows what it is or agrees on how it can be measured. Fifty years of “envoronmrntalism” and we have not advanced beyond calculating utilitarian trade-offs.
This data comes from BP?
Can we actually risk trusting it?
Who cares it’s climate change discussion which is a bit like discussions on sport and politics.
Alarmist Green thinking have also already caused:
* an increase in winter deaths from fuel poverty in the UK
* continued premature death from the effects of indoor smoke in developing countries.
* murder to protect green-virtue palm oil plantations
* <a href="https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/innocent-animals-suffering-at-the-hands-of-the-palm-oil-industry/"threat against large mammalian species due, again, to green-virtue palm oil plantations
Seems to me there’s a case for negligent homicide to be made against the green NGOs and their political supporters.
The emissions chart depicts the act of offloading goods production from developed economies to Asia. The same pattern would apply to a host of other chemical emissions from doing the same with other costly compliance processes of production with air and water emissions and related worker costs.
They use a decimal point to show they have a sense of humor.
To me some 90% of the materiel and labour costs involved in all this data collection is a waste of time. OK we we need to keep an eye on CO2 levels; but this is ridiculous.
Going back pre- industrial we were rather sparse on CO2 levels sufficient to maintain a heathy plant life; but generally OK for population prevailing at the time. Then subsequent gentle warming started to increase this fortunately (CO2 levels laging temperature) and we assisted this a bit with our fossil fuels.
No idea what the optimum CO2 levels should be; but natural climate processes will determine that, taking into account manmade contributions and humanity will adapt accordingly.
IMO there is no place in science for hysterical reactions.
McKibben should just give up on 350, because that is never going to happen. In fact, we’re going to tear through 450 like it wasn’t even there.
This excellent and realistic post says:
“The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.”
In the GWPF Briefing 24 Executive Summary Curry says.
“Climate models are useful tools for conducting scientific research to understand the climate system. However, the above points support the conclusion that current GCMs are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for predicting global or regional climate change on timescales of decades to centuries,with any high level of confidence. By extension, GCMs are not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy
systems. It is this application of climate model results that fuels the vociferousness of the debate surrounding climate models.”.
Bottom up GCMs are not fit for forecasting purposes but this does not mean that reasonably plausible projections of future climate cannot be made from the emergent properties of the complex climate system.
When analyzing complex systems with multiple interacting variables it is essential to note the advice of Enrico Fermi who reportedly said “never make something more accurate than absolutely necessary”. In 2017 I proposed the adoption of a simple heuristic approach to climate science which plausibly proposes that a Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity was reached in 1991, that this turning point correlates with a temperature MTP in 2003/4, and that a general cooling trend will now follow until approximately 2650. See “The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.” http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
See also the discussion with Professor William Happer at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/02/exchange-with-professor-happer-princeton.html
The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports, the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are thus founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991. All this is reasonably obvious using basic common sense and Occam’s razor.
The establishment academic science community exhibit an almost total inability to recognize the most obvious Millennial and 60 year emergent patterns which are trivially obvious in solar activity and global temperature data. The delusionary world inhabited by the eco-left establishment activist elite is epitomized by Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes science-based fiction, ” The Collapse of Western-Civilization: A View from the Future” Oreskes and Conway imagine a world devastated by climate change. Intellectual hubris, confirmation bias, group think and a need to feel at once powerful and at the same time morally self-righteous caused the academic establishment to delude themselves, teenage students, politicians, governments, the politically correct chattering classes and almost the entire UK and US media that anthropogenic CO2 was the main and most dangerous climate driver. The certainty with which this proposition has been advanced led governments to introduce policies which have wasted trillions of dollars in a quixotic and inherently futile attempt to control earth’s temperature by reducing CO2 emissions.
Curry says, “Climate models are useful tools for conducting scientific research to understand the climate system.”
No, they’re not.
Any more than the code used to produce the hotel-lobby explosion scene in The Matrix provides a useful tool for conducting scientific research into understanding physically real explosions.
With so much CO2 being produced naturally, how do we tell the
difference between Natural and the so called “”Man made”” variety.
If wood is burned in a human mad wood stove, is the resulting CO2 any
different to the CO2 produced when the wood from the same forest is
burnt in a naturally occurring bush fire.
Its a giant Scam, pushed by the United Nations and the other “”Useful
idiots”” for the short term benefit of the so called “Developing Countries”
” and long term for a world ((Communist) type government run by the
bosses of the United Nations.
MJE VK5ELL
Michael – June 19, 2019 at 3:41 pm
There are actually two (2) different types of CO2, ….. the naturally occurring CO2 molecule and a “manmade” hybrid or CO2 isotope. The new hybrid CO2 molecule contains an H-pyron which permits one to distinguish it from the naturally occurring CO2 molecules.
The H-pyron or Human-pyron is only attached to and/or can only be detected in CO2 molecules that have been created as a result of human (anthropogenic) activity. Said H-pyron has a Specific Heat Capacity of one (1) GWC or 1 Global Warming Calorie that is equal to 69 x 10 -37th kJ/kg K or something close to that or maybe farther away.
So the CO2 from a forest fire is different from a person building a fire in his fireplace? Better explain how the human version is detected; and why it is different.
Samuel, no one ever saw an H-Pyron. But reportedly Greta Thunberg often sees CO2.
That’s true, Johann Wundersamer, …… pyrons are too small to see, …… but the committed “warminists” can easily see the slight difference in the LWIR that is radiated from an anthropogenically released CO2 molecule. The “warminists” measure the amount of H-p/LWIR and that is exactly how they determine the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 that humans emit each year and/or is in the atmosphere at any given time.
And “HEY”, ……. I just betcha that Greta Thunberg was born with a mutant gene in the retina of her eyes that detects (sees) the same frequency of IR that is emitted by CO2, …….. just like some frogs and fish that can see LWIR.
Rumor has it that Greta can even spot the H-Pyron if she squints real hard. 🙂
(I just started this rumor, in case you were wondering)
Pretty funny skit there Mr. Cogar. That was a good riff. 😉
Unfortunately I have met people who are so falsely informed about their personal grasp of science and ignorant about the difficult task of physical and psychological inquiry, that your bit of fun either sets their hair on fire or inflates their egocentric ego’s virtue to dangerously psychotic levels without them ever knowing it until it’s too late.
This inflation leads to “charging” their psyche with even more extreme levels of delusion effectively creating cognitive dissonance that has explosive potential. An example of this can be seen in the Social Justice Warriors, Antifa, and those associated with them.
I enjoy your post here on WUWT, however please be careful when you are out in the world amongst those who do not possess your discipline and reason informed self control.
That being said,… Keep the humor that you share here coming. It lightens the load.
Thanks for your contributions.
Charlie Adamson, …… Thank You, …..for your kind words. A boost to my ego that makes my posting of actual factual science in response to the misnurtured, miseducated and/or intentional posting of non-factual, wrong or “junk science” that will surely be believed by many observers, viewers or readers of said “tripe n’ piffle”.
“Unfortunately I have met people who are so falsely informed about their personal grasp of science and ignorant of …. ”
My thoughts exactly about those that post their “falsely informed” commentary on/to this blog/forum.
“HA”, even when I tell them that something is “biological impossible”, …… they simply ignore it, …….. because they are no longer a student in school that need to be taught, …. and thus they cannot even imagine themselves being wrong about what they were nurtured to believe.
The basic claim that CO2 “emissions” are “bad” is based on the assumption that global climate will change for the worse due to the added CO2.
That claim has never been supported by empirical data. Global temperatures have been warmer in the geological past, with no damage to biology. Evolution will do the job. A snail could outrun the 2 mm/year increase in global sealevel. Coral reefs are expanding.
The return to a colder global climate is far more likely. Advancing ice sheets would be devastating.
More CO2 in the atmosphere is an observed benefit to global agriculture. That’s an iron-clad fact.
Atmospheric CO2 is the substrate molecule for all life on Earth. More is better. Ask any biologist.
That statement pretty much says all that needs to be said, except ……..
The facts of the matter are …….
Carbon dioxide — CO2 ——- 413 ppm ——- 0.0413% —— SHC – 0.844 kJ/kg K
Water vapor —— H2O – 10,000–40,000 ppm —– 1–4% —- SHC – 1.930 kJ/kg K
Thinking beyond the data presented, it is quite clear that:
1. Modern economies are dependent on fossil fuels and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
2. Given the ever rising demand for fossil fuels and growing impediments to their recovery, their prices are inclined to maintain an upward trend.
3. Weather dependent intermittents increase reliance on fossil fuels when used for grid scale power generation. There are some trivial off-grid applications where they may reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
4. There remains value in seeking out efficiency in use of fossil fuels; savings could easily offset fuel costs given the rising cost trend of fossil fuels.
5. Nuclear power remains a possibility to replace fossil fuels but the technology is yet to inspire confidence in the broad community. Nuclear’s linkage to devastating consequences through intent or accident remains a serious hurdle.
6. The early 21st century obsession with atmospheric CO2 concentration will be viewed by future generations as a massive waste of effort.
How do “they” measure these things with such precision. Is it not all derived/assumed?
Concerning Richard Muller’s highlighted statement regarding the Developing nations not joining in reducing emissions, the historical reason for this is outlined in Rupert Darwill’s excellent “The Age of Global Warming: a History”.
As long ago as the Stockholm Conference in 1970, the developing countries had little use for advancing the environment at the expense of their economic welfare.
As a result, prominent environmentalists, later climate activists with the arrival of the global warming dogma, sought to bring them on board by categorising development in Third World countries as “good”, while similar development in wealthy countries was stigmatised.
The so called “ bifurcation” issue was underway.
Fast forward to now.
Developing countries including China and India are effectively permitted to increase their carbon emissions under the Paris Agreement so long as they volunteer to limit them or peak the emissions at some future date (2030 for China).
Perhaps Maurice Strong, Barbara Ward and others did not foresee the dilemma they were creating or perhaps they did not care in their quest for a World Environment Agreement or World Carbon treaty.
I’m yet to see any sequence of WX events (climate noise) that’s outside of the range of natural variation, so I remain very unimpressed by the hysterically exaggerated fear of the EFFECT of the scale of the CO2 change measured over >100 years. It’s really hard to get too worried about what amounts to approximately nothing much over a century.
Especially once you discount the a-scientific ‘official’ tax-funded historical met-data corruption programs that are rolling out a colder past century, every other year.
And then there are clowns from University of Reading making “warming stripes” visualisations with the resulting met-pseudo-data CAGW propaganda BS.
Compelling!
Nick, Fifa is
The Fédération Internationale de Football:
Association (FIFA) is an association governed by Swiss law founded in 1904 and based in Zurich. It has 211 member associations and its goal, enshrined in its Statutes, is the constant improvement of football.
– the
French Société de Calcul Mathématique Sa, Algorithm e et Optimisation
is a software developer.
– Hells Angels and Bandidos are Motorcycle clubs.
Given what we know now, the Hells Angels and Bandidos are the more honest and openly transparant of the ones listed: FIFA, NSA, NASA-GISS, IPCC, UN, ….. And most software developers.
Haha and at least you expect to be robbed by the motorcycle gangs, the others are more subtle in muggings.
Just got new license plates for my car in Illinois.
It starts BP, then a space followed by 5 numbers.
Oh well, it has mostly outlived its usefulness.
The link provided says nothing substantive about their sources and methods.
I tried a number of years ago to find sources for Chinese CO2 emissions and found it an impossible task. How did BP come up with their numbers?
Their numbers for Japan and Germany are farcical. Japan shut down all their nuclear electricity plants after Fukushima and replaced them with coal. Germany did the same thing, with a year or so lag. How do these decisions show up as only minor blips?
I would be very interested in a credible analysis of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and how they compare to James Hansen’s scenario A – it seems likely to me that emissions have far surpassed predictions, but CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen more slowly than the worst-case scenario.
Extraordinary claims of impending doom (“We only have 12 years left….”) require extraordinary proof of impending doom. Nothing the Climate Change catastrophists have presented to date rises to the level of extraordinary proof. Nothing…..
Good on author Charles the Moderator to clearly distinguish India from China: they are on totally different paths. Until one or two years ago these two Asian giants were just treated as equally consuming and polluting by lazy people elsewhere even-though data showed differently. Imagine Asians equaling the US with Russia as both are big, Northic, white an developed.
Half a century from Malthusian Paul Ehrlich’s stupefyingly inane “Population Bomb” in 1968, going on ten years from the anonymous “Climategate” publication of chiliastic deviants’ back-story propaganda in November 2009, our 4.5 billion-year old Earth is (once again) due to deliquesce by AD 2030. Indeed, since late Pliocene times about 3.5 million YBP cyclical plate tectonic-driven Ice Ages lasting an average 102 kiloyears have regularly interspersed with median 12,250-year Interglacial Epochs such as the recent Holocene (which ended in AD 1350 with a 500-year Little Ice Age now rebounding over 140 years to c. 2030).
For the record, Australian researcher Robert Holmes’ peer-reviewed Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law (pub. December 2017) definitively refutes any possible CO2 connection to climate variations: Where Temperature T = PM/Rp, any planet’s near-surface global Temperature T equates to its Atmospheric Pressure P times Mean Molar Mass M over its Gas Constant R times Atmospheric Density p.
Applying Holmes’ relation to all planets in Earth’s solar system, zero error-margins attest that there is no empirical or mathematical basis for any “forced” carbon-accumulation factor (CO2) affecting Planet Earth. To say that commentators of all stripes have studiously neglected this definitive insight is an extreme understatement: When facts don’t matter, myths sow Cadmus’ dragons-teeth that spring up as armed men.
According to the Paris agreements, the developed world is expected to carry 100% of the carbon reduction effort. But it only causes a bit more than one-third of the emissions. According to the Paris agreement, rising emissions in countries responsible for the two-thirds are no problem to the climate at all while ever lower emissions in countries with the one third will kill the planet. Who else thinks that something is wrong here?
Canada produces approx. 1.6 % of the worlds CO 2 thru industrial and life style. With the worlds second largest country in land mass, it’s boreal forest absorbed all this CO 2 and more.