Developing nations latest decade of energy & emissions growth torpedoes alarmist global emissions control scam

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The UN has been pursuing global emissions policy for decades that are intended to provide for the establishment of global government schemes allowing it to control world emissions.

No fewer than 24 United Nations Climate Change Conferences have been held at various global locations since 1995 under its Conference of the Parties (COP) legal framework.

COP 21 which occurred in November and December 2015 in Paris resulted in the creation of the Paris Agreement that supposedly established global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit future global temperatures that the UN based upon projections from climate models that grossly exaggerate the impact of greenhouse gases on world temperatures.

The UN IPCC acknowledged in its AR3 climate report in 2001 that it is not possible to develop computer models that are capable of predicting future global climate and yet the Paris Agreement based its emissions targets intended for the future using these flawed computer models.

Three additional UN climate conferences have occurred since the Paris Agreement with the last conference being in 2018 in Poland. No success has been achieved in these three conferences in devising specific commitments for emissions reductions targets for the world’s developing nations.

Additionally the U.S. under President Trump wisely withdrew from the Paris Agreement in June of 2017.

Global energy and emissions detailed information for 2018 is now available which includes data encompassing the latest decade of 2008 to 2018. The world energy consumption data from the report is summarized in the graph below.


This latest decade energy and emissions data clearly demonstrates that the developing nations completely dominate global energy and emissions. This includes both present levels as well as future growth. These results also show that the developed nations play a minority role in these measures both presently and in the future.

The results for the last decade show that global energy use grew by 18.5% during the last decade with 98.5% of that energy growth accounted for by the developing nations.

The developing nations represented about 51% of global energy use in 2008 and ended the decade accounting for over 59% of global energy use.

Energy use growth by the developing nations during the last decade occurred at a rate 5.5 times greater than the flat growth rate that occurred in the developed nations.

The developing nations energy use growth during the last decade was met by significantly increased use of fossil fuels that supplied over 78% of this latest decades energy growth.

The developed nations reduced use of fossil energy by about 3.2% during the decade with the largest reduction being in the use of coal fuel that was largely offset by increases in use of natural gas.

Despite this small developed nation fossil energy reduction during the last decade world fossil energy increased by over 14.5%. Global energy consumption during this period saw coal use climbing by 8%, oil use climbing by over 12% and natural gas use climbing by over 28% as illustrated in the graphs below.




Despite reductions in coal use by the developed nations coal fuel remained by far and away the primary fuel for the world’s electricity generation.


Global renewable energy increased significantly during the last decade as measured from its very small starting contribution but represented only about 4% of total global energy in 2018 compared to fossil fuels that accounted for about 85% of total world energy use.


Renewable energy is more extensively used in the developed nations than in the developing nations where in 2018 it accounted for less than 3% of the developing nations total energy. In contrast fossil fuels provided 87.5% of the developing nations total 2018 energy. The developed nations used fossil energy for meeting over 80% of 2018 energy needs.

The insignificant global use of renewable energy occurred despite extensive government mandated use programs and despite trillions of dollars in global subsidy efforts in the EU and U.S.

The overwhelming growth of global fossil energy use during the last decade powerfully demonstrates that this fuel is clearly the preferred choice for meeting world energy needs.

EIA data shows that future global growth in energy is driven by the developing nations as was the case for the last decade.


The developing nations have clearly demonstrated and articulated that they will continue to pursue cost effective and reliable fossil fuels as their primary energy resource to meet their increasing energy needs. The developed nations also continue to rely upon fossil fuels to meet the large majority of their energy needs despite efforts by government climate alarmists to mandate use of costly and unreliable renewable energy.

The developed nations climate alarmists propaganda elitists have no ability to control the energy growth and fuel choice decisions made by the developing nations and have tacitly acknowledged that reality in the provisions of the Paris Agreement where the developing nations future energy and emissions outcomes remained unaddressed.

Three UN sponsored Climate Change Conferences that occurred since the 2015 Paris Agreement resulted in no progress being achieved toward the developing nations committing to specific emissions targets.    

Global energy use drives global CO2 emissions outcomes.

During the last decade of flat energy growth by the developed nations costly government driven unreliable renewable energy use mandate schemes were undertaken which partially resulted in CO2 emissions declining by about 1 billion metrics tons between 2008 and 2018 for these nations.

Of this developed nation total CO2 reduction the U.S. contributed about 570 million metric tons in reductions. This was achieved primarily by substituting cost effective, reliable and more efficient natural gas in place of coal. This cost effective and successful outcome is concealed from the public by climate alarmist propagandist media.

During the last decade significantly increased need for growing energy use and the preferred reliance on reliable and affordable fossil fuels resulted in the developing nations increasing CO2 emissions by over 4.5 billion metric tons. This emissions increase resulted in global CO2 emissions climbing by over 3.5 billion metric tons during that decade.

The developing nations increased energy use and resulting emissions completely overwhelmed the lower emissions by the developed nations conclusively demonstrating that the developing nations now totally dominate global energy use and emissions.

Global CO2 emissions will continue to climb driven by the developing nations need for increasing energy use as reflected in EIA data which projects increased global CO2 emissions by 2050 of over an additional 7 billion metric tons.


The developing nations are now accountable and solely responsible for about 64% of global CO2 emissions compared to only about 36% of global emissions being accounted for by the developed nations – nearly a 2 to 1 ratio.

The developing nations now dominate global energy use and emissions by being accountable for 59% of global energy use and 64% of global CO2 emissions with these figures projected to climb ever higher in the coming decade.

In the U.S. and Europe clueless government politicians, climate alarmist propagandist and supporting media continue to loudly demand increased government mandates for more costly and unreliable renewable energy use and “zero emission” government programs.

These kinds of politically driven programs are falsely proclaimed to be “fighting climate change” when in fact these costly government mandates have no worthwhile or meaningful effect on reducing global emissions.

A recent example of such an inane and purely politically driven climate alarmist propaganda program is addressed in a recent article regarding New York as shown below.


The outcomes from these and other climate alarmist politically driven propaganda proposals are irrelevant regarding global CO2 emissions because they represent just a relatively small amount of CO2 emissions.

In the case of New York its annual CO2 emissions are about 170 million metric tons which is totally insignificant relative to the scale of multi-billions of tons of global CO2 emission increases underway by the world’s developing nations that cannot be stopped by the developed nations.

The climate alarmist propaganda media knowingly make these false and phony claims about such proposals “fighting climate change.”

The climate alarmists propaganda claims of damaging impacts from such emissions are always grossly exaggerated because these claims are based on speculation and conjecture from flawed and failed computer models.

These climate alarmist propaganda schemes are driven by desires for increased and unjustified governmental political power and control over people’s lives by arrogant political elitists.

The world energy use and associated emission outcomes reflected by the last decades results have destroyed the fiction promoted by climate alarmism propagandists that the developed nations through the UN must mandate massive and hugely costly global government bureaucracies so that they can control global energy and emissions. That scam has been defeated and overwhelmed as a consequence of the developing nations of the world choosing to accomplish huge increased energy use by employing fossil fuels.

The rational supporting massive government schemes which were falsely justified based upon flawed and failed computer model outcomes manufactured to promote extreme and elitist political power and control over energy and emissions has been exposed as being invalid by the real world energy and emission outcomes of the last decade.

The global energy and emission reality exposed during the last decade will only be further reinforced by the outcomes of the coming decades.

The developing nations will continue to increase their global dominance of energy and emissions by employing huge increases in fossil energy use while the developed nations will likely continue to fabricate and manufacture scientifically unsupported climate alarmist propaganda to promote elitist driven costly and unnecessary governmental political power schemes under the completely false claim of “fighting climate change.”

These scams will continue until the public wakes up and demands a stop to these politically contrived shenanigans.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bryan A
July 23, 2019 6:56 am

A lot of this could go away IF there was a mandate that all renewable energy used by a state had to be produced within the state’s borders. It would eliminate the NIMBY aspect

Reply to  Bryan A
July 23, 2019 7:15 am

And that any taxes introduced for “carbon emission” control purposes be paid to a basket of charities selected by public referendum.

Reply to  Philip
July 23, 2019 9:34 pm

Good idea, but dedicated taxes are often just a scam. Baton Rouge supported libraries through the general fund, and wanted more funding. They got a referendum passed by dedicating the new tax to libraries (it was for the children, don’t you know). Within a year after passing, they simply reduced the support for the libraries from the general fund by the amount collected by the new taxes. The library got zero additional funds.

In Georgia, the gasoline taxes were once dedicated to new road construction and road maintenance. Of course, tens of millions of dollars were collected, but very little if it was being spent. An investigation revealed that not one dollar of the taxes collected was spent on anything other than roads. The INTEREST on the money sitting unspent, though, was going into a slush fund, since there were no restrictions on how it could be spent.

Whatever money government collects will eventually be spent however politicians want it spent.

Al Miller
Reply to  jtom
July 24, 2019 2:02 pm

I agree, here in British Columbia we had a “”revenue neutral” carbon tax” a few years ago. Now we have a tax for general revenue derived from taxing so called “carbon”. Nice idea, but to work would need to be enshrined in a constitution to keep the filthy political mitts off it. The scam is full on, yet with full media duplicity it still still has legs.

Reply to  Bryan A
July 23, 2019 8:07 am

It might also limit several states for even qualifying as they do not have enough available land space for renewables to generate the electricity the state uses.
I cannot believe Rhode Island could meet its needs.

Reply to  Bryan A
July 23, 2019 9:20 pm

It might go away quicker if the mandate were that no fossil-fuel produced electricity could be imported by a state that did not produce electricity using fossil fuel within that state.
Let’s see which state is ready to bite the bullet and really use only renewables, without sneaking fossil-fuel produced electricity over the border. California, I’m talking to you.

July 23, 2019 7:05 am

Tell us how you really feel.

July 23, 2019 7:10 am

A good, sensible article – thank you Larry Hamlin.

12. Fossil fuels comprise fully 85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change in future decades.

The remaining 15% of global primary energy is almost all hydro and nuclear.

Eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow and almost everyone in the developed world would be dead in about a month from starvation and exposure.

Despite trillions of dollars in squandered subsidies, global green energy has increased from above 1% to below 2% is recent decades.

Intermittent energy from wind and/or solar generation cannot supply the electric grid with reliable, uninterrupted power.

“Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, because they require almost 100% conventional backup from fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro when the wind does not blow and the Sun does not shine.

There is no widely-available, practical, cost-effective means of solving the fatal flaw of intermittency in grid-connected wind and solar power generation.

Hydro backup and pumped storage are only available in a few locations. Other grid-storage systems are very costly, although costs are decreasing.

To date, vital electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have increased greatly, and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to grid-connected green energy schemes.

Reference: “Statistical Review of World Energy”

Reference: “Wind Report 2005” – note Figs. 6 & 7 re intermittency.

Excerpts from
“CO2, Global Warming, Climate and Energy”
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng.

Johann Wundersamer
July 24, 2019 6:52 pm

ALLAN MACRAE July 23, 2019 at 7:10 am

A good, sensible article – thank you Larry Hamlin.

12. Fossil fuels comprise fully 85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change in future decades.

The remaining 15% of global primary energy is almost all hydro and nuclear:

: Eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow and almost everyone in the developed world would be dead in about a month from starvation and exposure.


Good point, Allen – dead in about a month from starvation and exposure.

But that’s a progress over time, and the first step is that people in needs are criminalised:

– electricity theft in usa:

– fuel theft in usa:

From welfare programs to criminalization to homelessness. Exit foreseeable.

Johann Wundersamer
July 24, 2019 7:20 pm

Depravation, criminalisation, eviction, game over.

Wasn’t that the way to 2008 “subprime mortgage crisis” World financial collapse too!

July 23, 2019 7:11 am

It’s obvious as the nose on your face that developed nation CO2 is irrelevant to global warming. I don’t know how the alarmists get around that one. They shouldn’t be allowed to continue ignoring the problem.

Why do we let them make us feel responsible for problems, like ocean plastic, that actually, by a huge margin, mostly occur in the third world?

Reply to  commieBob
July 23, 2019 8:36 am

It’s “the plan” so there’s no intent on making the developing nations toe the line.

July 23, 2019 7:14 am

I’m afraid we will not be able to halt the idiocy of subsidies in my lifetime.
I have children and grandchildren who refuse to let me even talk to them about “Climate Change”.
They have been successfully and thoroughly brainwashed by the media and the public school system. They are not taught critical thinking and the scientific method is quickly glossed over. I only hope that the few conversations I have had on the topic are remembered when they are digging thru dumpsters to find something to eat. The reality is very depressing.

July 23, 2019 7:22 am

“No fewer than 24 United Nations Climate Change Conferences have been held at various global locations since 1995 under its Conference of the Parties (COP) legal framework.”

According to my calculations, that’s just one UN conference a year.

With the world coming to an end in 12 years (Perfesser Alexandria Occasionally Coherent), or 18 months (Perfesser Prince Charles), the primary problem is NOT ENOUGH UN CONFERENCES.

With only 12 years to go, one UN conference a year creates the false illusion that the problem is not a crisis, and is way off in the future.

Better communication requires a major UN conference EVERY MONTH.

And those conferences should have appropriate names, such as “The United Nations 11 Years, 10 Months Left, Conference”.
It’s always interesting to me that the past 325 years of global warming was pleasant, and 100% good news … while predictions of future global warming are always a “coming crisis”, with 100% bad news.

And evidence of that coming bad news, is what has already happened to the climate in Alaska, since 1975: They are having warmer winter nights!

People living in Alaska are very upset.

If they wanted warmer winter nights, they would have stayed in the lower 48 states, and not moved to Alaska !

Reply to  Richard Greene
July 23, 2019 6:09 pm

The next conference will be at Prudhoe Bay. Provide your own transport please – and make sure it’s green.

July 23, 2019 7:23 am

fossils are not permanent , they will decrease and disappear , so renewable ressources are anyhow a must in the future whatever you can argue ! like other technologies, sustainable energy will be cost effective soon , next decade . Nuclear power already too expensive , and you don’t include health consequences of smokes in your equation ! Did you visit asian cities, like Delhi, where Sun is not visible during the whole day ? do you think that people can continue to live in such pollution ?
Coal is not the future, but solar energy for ever …

GREG in Houston
Reply to  Hubert
July 23, 2019 8:52 am

Sustainable energy will be cost effective in 10 years…. and always will be.

By the way, what does “sustainable”mean? You must have a definition before it can be attainable.

Reply to  Hubert
July 23, 2019 9:43 am

re. Delhi, Beijing, etc.

The answer is prosperity. Los Angeles used to have really bad smog. People wouldn’t put up with it. The government acted. link

Poor people have to put up with whatever they get. Prosperous people get a clean environment.

Interested Observer
Reply to  Hubert
July 23, 2019 9:52 am

“Sun is not visible during the whole day” + “solar energy for ever” = cognitive dissonance (a.k.a. too stupid to see the obvious).

Big Al
Reply to  Interested Observer
July 23, 2019 12:02 pm

Free beer tomorrow.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Hubert
July 23, 2019 10:01 am

You CAN’T EVEN BUILD windmills and solar panels without fossil fuels.

No fossil fuels = no energy. If you think ANYONE can live under THOSE circumstances, you are deluded.

James P
Reply to  AGW is not Science
July 23, 2019 2:14 pm

Mankind lived for most of our history using manpower, burning biomass, and later horses and other beasts of burden for energy. We can go back to those idyllic times before fossil fuels, though it’s unlikely many of us would be able to survive that way again.

James Hein
Reply to  James P
July 23, 2019 3:26 pm

And you would need to wipe out about 75% of the current world population, handled in part by the above comment on people in developed nations (i.e. the ones pushing for it) being wiped out.

Who gets to make the choice on those that need to go after that?

Reply to  Hubert
July 23, 2019 9:40 pm

Something that is not sustainable, by definition, will end. So why are you worried about anything, particularly since you believe that renewables will be cost effective in ten years?
Seems like this is a problem that, by your logic, can be safely ignored.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Hubert
July 24, 2019 7:59 pm

Coal is not the future, but solar energy for ever … until sunshine is taxed.

Oh wait – don’t we have already the discrimination sunny sides :> living in the shadows.

Ron Long
July 23, 2019 7:24 am

This is a lot of BS from politicians who have been neither cold nor hungry. Great picture in LA Times of Dumb and Dumber.

Joe Crawford
July 23, 2019 7:39 am

I’d be curious to know how much of the increased energy use by developing nations is attributable to China, classified as a developing nation until something like 2030.

Larry Hamlin
Reply to  Joe Crawford
July 23, 2019 1:32 pm

China accounted for just over 49% of the developing nations energy increase. India accounted for 14%. So China and India represent 63% of the developing nations increased energy use from 2008 to 2018.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
July 24, 2019 7:39 am

Thanks Larry. Looks like the Paris Agreement is working as planned :<)

michael hart
Reply to  Joe Crawford
July 23, 2019 6:23 pm

Given the appallingly low EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of renewables I’d also be curious to know just how much of global increased energy use is attributable to the total integrated manufacturing processes for wind and solar electricity generation.

If the average global warmunist was then presented with how much extra carbon dioxide this created then they would probably suffer a prolonged attack of hiccups.

Reply to  michael hart
July 24, 2019 3:47 am

really good popint
the combined energy use to make solar n shredders from go to whoa would be very interesting reading
including repair maintenance and human hours per unit

TG McCoy
July 23, 2019 7:50 am

Oregon’s policy is:”Keep it in the Ground!”
And buy it from Idaho, Wyoming. Utah…

Steve O
July 23, 2019 8:36 am

“These climate alarmist propaganda schemes are driven by desires for increased and unjustified governmental political power and control over people’s lives by arrogant political elitists.”

The problem with using this as an argument is that it applies to such a small minority. Almost nobody who is advancing alarmist propaganda has this as their motive. I’ll bet that’s true even for politicians. They’re busy making calls to raise money, and going to dinners, and meeting with donors who want favors — all to stay in office. They’ve adopted the alarmist position because it will get them favor from activist groups and because it will earn them votes. And for many it offers a mechanism to raise taxes, or to redistribute income from a very small group of voters to a very large group of voters.

So, yes there is a cohort who see this as a way to “transition” political systems. They have a lot more influence in the Green movement than the greenies care to admit. It’s not that it’s not true, but I don’t see it as an argument that convinces anyone.

Utility companies are happy to invest money that earns them a return, although they don’t like an unstable grid that will earn them disfavor with ratepayers.

The UN in on board because they see alarmism as a mechanism to justify wealth transfers.

A grass-roots cohort is on board because they’re low-attention sheeple who will buy into anything that makes them saviors of the world.

Reply to  Steve O
July 23, 2019 1:32 pm

Governments/countries have high pension liabilities.
And, they are getting pressured to include “responsible” investing in their portfolio. As some or all of it.

So, governments / countries have a stake in keeping the “responsible investing” business market viable and lively.

They can do this by signing on to these cross-nation agreements.

Even sweeter for those that get in on the ground floor: invest in “responsible” investments earlier rather than later.

Fortunately, there is an investment firm that specializes in Very Large Investors, and Responsible Investments, for their pension funds. This firm is Generation Investment Management, LLC.

Co-owned by two guys, and one of them is: Al Gore.

Larry Hamlin
Reply to  Steve O
July 23, 2019 1:38 pm

Gov. Cuomo, Gov. Brown, President Obama and many many other global government political leaders from around the world clearly be representative of the statement in the article.

Reply to  Steve O
July 28, 2019 5:37 pm

Don’t forget the “clean tech” rent seekers aka Tom Steyer.

July 23, 2019 8:39 am

I think people are missing the full picture – just look at the new EU Commissioner von der Leyen’s speech on a full Green New Deal . This from a German Defense Minister, (who only go the job because of the Italian Defense Minister’s efforts).
After promising to turn the EIB into a multi EU-Trillion green bank : “To complete this work and to ensure that our companies can compete on a level playing field, I will introduce a carbon border-tax to avoid carbon leakage.”

Translated: I am going to put a super-tariff on China, which produces too much CO2. This is way beyond the Huawei warmup. Are there nuts even crazier than the neo-cons, who would declare a CO2 war? This makes Juncker look sober!

Is this why this Minister built up the Euro Defence Union?

Reply to  bonbon
July 23, 2019 9:33 am

I’ll believe it when it happens. Should it happen, the blowback will be catastrophic and put an end to the EU if not repealed.

Reply to  markl
July 23, 2019 12:17 pm

I suspect undeveloped countries will be exempted. There will still be blow back, but China won’t go ballistic.

July 23, 2019 8:56 am

There is a technical issue with the contribution of renewables, in particular solar PV, most of which is rooftop, and is not metered, it reduces the demand for metered electricity. To be fair to renewables, not that I want to, but accuracy is important, the demand reduction caused by un-metered renewables should be estimated and reported, along with the amount that is metered, such as from solar “farms”.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  climanrecon
July 23, 2019 9:16 am

So-called “renewable” energy isn’t worth as much though as it is intermittent and non-dispatchable, requiring backup power. I would guess it might only be worth about half.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 23, 2019 10:07 am

But it’s even worse than the “requiring backup power” issue; an unpredictable delivery of electricity to the grid makes the grid difficult – and much more expensive – to operate and keep functional. By the time all of those costs are considered, “renewables” are worse than worthless. They contribute nothing but cost.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  climanrecon
July 23, 2019 11:40 am

Not sure of your location, as I don’t know what Europe or Australia allows for solar PV metering.

Most US home roof-top solar installations are “net metering” aka “net electricity metering (NEM).”
Most US states require net metering for roof top solar. Some do not. In Idaho and Texas it depends on who your electrical provider is.

This article explains NEM and has a Table that shows US states don’t use it or allow it:

July 23, 2019 10:10 am

How well does that coal consumption chart match up with an arctic summer sea ice chart?

Joel O'Bryan
July 23, 2019 11:30 am

The GreenBlob in their genocidal quest wants to stop this:

India lifted 271 million people out of poverty in 10 years: UN

” India lifted 271 million people out of poverty between 2006 and 2016, recording the fastest reductions in the multidimensional poverty index values during the period with strong improvements in areas such as “assets, cooking fuel, sanitation and nutrition,” a report by the United Nations said.

The 2019 global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) from the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) was released on Thursday.

The report said that in the 101 countries studied — 31 low income, 68 middle income and 2 high income – 1.3 billion people are “multidimensionally poor”, which means that poverty is defined not simply by income, but by a number of indicators, including poor health, poor quality of work and the threat of violence.

The report identifies 10 countries, with a combined population of around 2 billion people, to illustrate the level of poverty reduction, and all of them have shown statistically significant progress towards achieving Sustainable Development Goal 1, namely ending poverty “in all its forms, everywhere”.

The 10 countries are Bangladesh, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru and Vietnam.

The report said that within these 10 countries, data shows that 270 million people moved out of multidimensional poverty from one survey to the next.

“This progress was largely driven by South Asia. In India, there were 271 million fewer people in poverty in 2016 than in 2006, while in Bangladesh the number dropped by 19 million between 2004 and 2014,” it said.

The report noted that of the 10 selected countries for which changes over time were analysed, India and Cambodia reduced their MPI values the fastest — and they did not leave the poorest groups behind.

India’s MPI value reduced from 0.283 in 2005-06 to 0.123 in 2015-16.

Noting the examples of pro-poor reduction, where the poorest regions improved the fastest, the report said that Jharkhand in India reduced the incidence of multidimensional poverty from 74.9% in 2005-06 to 46.5% in 2015-16. Mondol Kiri and Rattanak Kiri in Cambodia reduced it from 71.0% to 55.9% between 2010 and 2014.

Ethiopia, India and Peru significantly reduced deprivations in all 10 indicators, namely nutrition, sanitation, child mortality, drinking water, years of schooling, electricity, school attendance, housing, cooking fuel and assets.

In 2005-2006, the population in India living in multidimensional poverty stood at about 640 million people (55.1%) and this reduced to 369 million people (27.9%) living in poverty in 2015-16. India saw significant reductions in number of people who are multidimensionally poor and deprived in each of the 10 indicators over this time period.

India reduced deprivation in nutrition from 44.3% in 2005-06 to 21.2% in 2015-16, child mortality dropped from 4.5% to 2.2%, people deprived of cooking fuel reduced from 52.9% to 26.2%, deprivation in sanitation from 50.4% to 24.6%, those deprived of drinking water reduced from 16.6% to 6.2 %.

Further more people gained access to electricity as deprivation was reduced from 29.1% to 8.6%, housing from 44.9% to 23.6% and assets deprivation from 37.6% to 9.5%.

The trends in these 10 countries also shine a light on where poverty reduction has been uneven, despite the good progress overall, it said.

“In all 10 countries rural areas are poorer than urban areas. In Cambodia, Haiti, India and Peru poverty reduction in rural areas outpaced that in urban areas — demonstrating pro-poor development — and in Bangladesh and Democratic Republic of the Congo poverty fell at the same speed in rural and urban areas, it added.

The report also showed that children suffer poverty more intensely than adults and are more likely to be deprived in all 10 of the MPI indicators, lacking essentials such as clean water, sanitation, adequate nutrition or primary education.

Child poverty fell markedly faster than adult poverty in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Haiti, India and Peru. But children fell further behind in Ethiopia, and their progress—together with that of adults—stalled in Democratic Republic of the Congo and Pakistan.

Globally, of the 1.3 billion people who are multidimensionally poor, more than two-thirds of them—886 million— now live in middle-income countries. A further 440 million live in low-income countries.

Even more staggering, worldwide, one in three children is multidimensionally poor, compared to one in six adults. That means that nearly half of the people living in multidimensional poverty — 663 million — are children, with the youngest children bearing the greatest burden. The vast majority of these children, around 85 %, live in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, split roughly equally between the two regions.

The report underscored that the traditional concept of poverty is outdated, demonstrating more clearly than ever that labelling countries – or even households – as rich and poor is an oversimplification.

“To fight poverty, one needs to know where poor people live. They are not evenly spread across a country, not even within a household,” UNDP Administrator Achim Steiner said.

The report also highlighted a positive trend that those furthest behind are moving up the fastest.

Electrification and the access to affordable energy were the key factors behind all the other poverty measures improvements. A country cannot get large improvements in home nutrition, children’s health, attendance at school, clean drinking water, community waste water treatment and garbage handling without reliable access to affordable electricity. Getting children into productive classrooms in most of India requires air conditioning. Nutrition improvements requires refrigeration of food. Water treatment and safe delivery-storage requires lots of electricity.

Left the hates that. And the Paul Ehrlichman- John Holdren genocidal Malthusians really hate that.
And it makes impossible the GreenSlime’s effort to claim the US and Europe’s CO2 emissions matter so that they can destroy affordable electricity with their get-even-richer schemes of wind and solar power.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 24, 2019 6:28 am

Excellent summary which I can confirm, anecdotally in the case of india, having visited that country at least 30 times over the last four decades. India has come a long way but there is still a long, long way to go before there is air conditioning in classrooms. Alarmists don’t care about poverty. They have never seen it. They claim that their policies will alleviate poverty. But that is magical thinking. I am confident that practical thinking will prevail in poor countries and fossil fuels will prevail, despite token wind turbines in the Thar dessert.

Clay Sanborn
July 23, 2019 2:38 pm

Thru the IPCC, the UN is trying to set a global control precedent – gun control, global warming mitigation, carbon emission controls… something – that requires nations (i.e. the USA) to give up some sovereignty over something, anything really, so that a precedent is set whereby the UN has control over the US. Once that precedent is set, it is a slippery slope to the next one, and then we have world gov’t control over our lives. Next stop – antichrist.

Reply to  Clay Sanborn
July 23, 2019 9:51 pm

If anything like that happened, the UN will regret having its headquarters in a country with an armed populace.

July 23, 2019 4:28 pm

You could argue it’s part of a big plan. Or that solar and wind suck. And our contributions really don’t do much as far as preventing warming or SLR.

July 24, 2019 2:14 am

The UN global emissions policy has only one purpose, namely to gain control over nations and set up their One World Socialist Government, with them in control, of course. It certainly is not anything to do with Greenhouses Gases as there is no Greenhouse Effect other than in greenhouses.

Analysis of UAH satellite lower troposphere temperature and atmospheric CO2 data shows that temperature is independent of CO2 concentration.

How can this be ? Because the UN contrived 33 degree Kelvin Greenhouse Effect is not a property of the atmosphere but a measure of the bias inherent in their artificial model used to estimate the average temperature of the surface of an imaginary Earth. – see

Neale R Neelameggham
July 24, 2019 11:13 am

Neale R Neelameggham July 24, 2019 at 11:35 am MST
Thanks for this article. It will be worthy to note the carbon balance – based on British Petroleum’s data base kept since the 1960s..used by several groups including one associated with IPCC..These reveal that while the overall annual emissions of CO2 increased from 4.7 Gt in the 1960-69 period, it was 11.3 Gt per year in 2017, with atmospheric increase change is from 1.7 Gt to 4.6 Gt, the ocean absorption change is from 1 to 2.5 Gt while the terrestrial sink [plant growth +] is from 1.2 Gt to 3.8 Gt on a yearly basis. [Table 6 ESSD Global Carbon Budget 2018]. There is a logical explanation of larger increase in terrestrial sink which is described in the eBook ‘The return of manmade CO2 to earth, ecochemistry’ by the author. Very few talk about this moderation of CO2 increase with larger tonnage returning to earth.

July 24, 2019 1:47 pm

There is significant evidence that the climate crisis is a crisis of the UN’s growth and power ambitions.

Two links.

Johann Wundersamer
July 24, 2019 7:05 pm

ALLAN MACRAE July 23, 2019 at 7:10 am

A good, sensible article – thank you Larry Hamlin.

12. Fossil fuels comprise fully 85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change in future decades.

The remaining 15% of global primary energy is almost all hydro and nuclear:

: Eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow and almost everyone in the developed world would be dead in about a month from starvation and exposure.


Good point, Allen – dead in about a month from starvation and exposure.

But that’s a progress over time, and the first step is that people in needs are criminalised:

– electricity theft in usa:

– fuel theft in usa:

From welfare programs to criminalization to homelessness. Exit foreseeable.


Wished I had to say something more positive – Herr Kästner wo bleibt das positive!

Mr. Kästner, where is the positive:!&oq=Mr.+K%C3%A4stner%2C+where+is+the+positive!&aqs=chrome.

And then came WWII.

July 26, 2019 6:43 pm

Wasn’t life simpler when we had a IPCC skirt chaser and serial sexual predator to distract us from the con job
effort of the UN ?

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  Amber
July 26, 2019 7:48 pm

We got one of them as POTUS now

%d bloggers like this: