Developing nations surging energy use shatters UN & California’s climate alarmism crusade

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

California has updated its GHG emissions data for year 2017 showing a decrease of about 5 million metric tons of GHG emissions since 2016.


The results of the states latest emissions assessment exposes significant problems regarding the state’s future and unrealistic emissions reduction goals as well as further establishing the overwhelming irrelevance of the state’s inane “fighting climate change” political propaganda dishonesty.

An L. A. Times article touted the tiny emissions reduction and hinted at future larger problems that lay ahead that are addressed in detail later in this essay.


More significantly based upon year 2017 global energy consumption and emissions data the Democratic Party driven CO2 emissions reduction mandates in California were completely annihilated by huge increased energy use and emissions growth by the world’s developing nations clearly demonstrating these nations sweeping dominance of global energy use and emissions outcomes.

This extraordinary disappointment for California’s climate crusade has occurred despite tens of billions of dollars being filched from the state’s residents through California government politically driven carbon taxes, higher electricity rates and subsidies for renewable energy mandates.   

Based upon EIA data California’s energy consumption has declined by about 5.2% since the state started its emissions reduction schemes in 2006 with energy data results through year 2017.


The U.S. and  EU have both seen reduced energy consumption during this same period amounting to 2.6% lower energy use in the U.S. and 9.35% lower energy use by the EU between 2006 and 2017.

In sharp contrast to the reduced energy use by the developed nations during this period the world’s developing nations have seen huge increased energy use growth during this period amounting to a whopping 42% increase in consumption.

The EIA graph from their IEO 2017 report clearly illustrates the complete dominance of global energy consumption by the world’s developing nations. The great majority of this energy increase is supplied by fossil fuel energy growth – predominately coal fuel.


China’s energy use increased by a staggering 58% during this period also supplied by increased fossil fuel – primarily coal. The overwhelming use of coal fuel by the developing nations is clearly reflected in the graph below which demonstrates the continued reliance by China and other developing nations on coal fuel both now and in the future.


The developing nations energy consumption in 2017 dominated all global energy consumption and exceeded that of the developed nations by over 41%.

Increased energy use growth by the developing nations is forecast by EIA (use the link under the Publications and Tables window to get to the EIA IEO 2017 report detailed data) to further climb through at least year 2050 with the developing nations energy consumption exceeding that of the developed nations by nearly a factor of two by year 2050. 

These huge increased growths in energy consumption have driven resulting CO2 emissions by the world’s developing nations to levels that overwhelming dominating all global CO2 emissions. 

California claims that it reduced 2017 GHG emissions by 5 million metric tons from 2016 levels with virtually all of that reduction achieved in the electricity sector.


This amounts to about a 1.2% reduction from its 2016 total GHG emission levels with that reduction on a global scale being an incredibly insignificant and meaningless reduction.

For clarification purposes CO2 represents about 83% of the states GHG total emissions.


This reduction brings California’s total CO2 emissions to 351 million metric tons versus the rapidly growing world’s developing nations 2017 CO2 emissions that totals 20,889 million metric tons with that level of emissions bing 68% higher than all CO2 emissions from the developed nations.

The developing nations CO2 emissions are forecast by EIA to climb through 2050 (use the link under the Publications and Tables window to get to the EIA IEO 2017 detailed data) by an additional 8,770 million metric tons to a total of 29,660 million metric tons with that emissions level being 2.26 times greater than all CO2 emissions from the developed nations forecast in 2050.

The EIA graph of global CO2 emissions from their 2017 IEO report illustrates the overwhelming dominance of the world’s developing nations in controlling global emissions.


California’s CO2 emissions are claimed to have declined by 68.7 million metric since the state’s emissions reduction program began in 2006 through 2017. 

However, the world’s developing nations increased their CO2 emissions by an enormous 5,377 million metric tons during this period with this increase clearly demonstrating the astounding insignificance and irrelevance of California’s “fighting climate change” propaganda campaign.

The world’s developed nations have decreased CO2 emissions by 1,153 million metric tons during the period 2006 through 2017 with those reductions overwhelmed by the increased CO2 emissions from the developing nations by some 4,224 million metric tons.

The U.S. CO2 reductions during the 2006 through 2017 period were 757 million metric tons with most of that achieved through increased use of low cost, higher efficiency and reliable natural gas that replaced coal fuel.     

China, which California politicians bizarrely characterized as being the state’s partner in “fighting climate change”, increased CO2 emissions during the same time period by over 2,552 million metric tons driven by huge increases in coal fuel use.

In summary global energy and emissions year 2017 data establishes that the world’s developing nations dominant all global energy consumption and emissions present levels with the developed nations having reached relative stability in energy growth.

Additionally future global energy consumption and emissions growth through 2050 will continue to climb ever higher with the developing nations becoming even more dominant in controlling future global energy and emissions outcomes.

The world’s developing nations control present and future global CO2 emissions and completely obliterate emissions reductions from the developed nations.

Furthermore the complete absence of any commitments toward emissions reductions by the developing nations in the inept Paris Agreement establishes that future global emissions will climb significantly upward in concert with growing energy use. The Paris Agreement is simply globally irrelevant.     

The UN climate alarmist government propaganda driven campaign to control global energy and emissions future outcomes has failed with this failed reality concealed from the public by alarmist media.       

Notwithstanding the complete irrelevance of California’s climate campaign the state’s energy use and emission results through year 2017 driven by its climate alarmist 2006 AB 32 law demonstrate that the state is struggling with trying to achieve emissions reductions across all of its economic sectors.  

The electricity sector accounts for less than 15% of California’s total CO2 emissions and yet has contributed more than 61% of California total CO2 emission reductions since 2006 when the state started its phony “fighting climate change” propaganda schemes.


Natural gas fuel provided the electrical energy at 35.6% of the state’s total electricity needs.


Wind and solar provided about 22.6% of the states total electricity.

The state touts that “zero emission” energy resources providing about 50% of California’s total year 2017 electricity but the majority of that energy is from large hydro and nuclear energy resources that the state’s environmentalist and anti-nuclear activists denigrate.

Furthermore large hydro and nuclear energy resources receive no support or backing from California legislature Democratic Party politicians regarding increasing these resources future contributions.

The year 2017 was a good large hydro year for the state but that changed in 2018 that has 30% less large hydro availability than 2017 making additional emissions reductions in 2018 more difficult.

California is still dependent on imported electricity and in 2017 the state imported about 28.4% of its total electricity.

The transportation sector dominated the state’s GHG emissions at just over 40% of total emissions with higher emissions in 2017. Over 90% of the transportation sectors GHG emissions are from passenger and truck vehicles.


For the climate activists that believe EVs represent some possible solution in reducing CO2 emissions in the transportation economic sector it should be noted that EVs are not zero emission vehicles.

California GHG emissions also climbed in 2017 in the residential sector with an off setting decrease in the agricultural sector.

The state’s GHG emissions in the transportation, industrial, commercial, residential and agricultural sectors represent about 80% of the state’s total emissions.

The graph below demonstrates the relative contribution to California GHG emissions reductions from the state’s various economic sectors.

The majority of the state’s GHG emission reductions are obviously provided by the electricity sector that dominates reductions to date with the lack of reduction contributions from all other sectors that represents over 80% of the state’s GHG total emission totals clearly displayed.


The extraordinary lack of progress during the last decade in making meaningful GHG emission reductions in the great majority of California economic sectors presents significant problems for the state regarding the ability to achieve ever lower emission outcomes required in 2030 by SB 32.

The state cannot achieve its SB 32 emissions requirement of total greenhouse gas emissions being 40% below1990 levels by 2030 without significant reductions from other than the electricity sector which thus far shows little likelihood of happening.

There are not nearly enough emissions remaining in the state’s electricity sector to achieve the SB 32 2030 emissions requirement.

The “zero emissions” electricity mandate in SB 100 cannot be achieved in the electricity sector because the use of costly and inherently unreliable renewables dictates that fossil fuel power plants must be operating to sustain electric system grid reliability.

The “zero emissions” mandate in SB 100 is technically and fatality flawed

The state has no idea how it can achieve “zero emissions” as required by the Democrats SB 100 law that was rushed to passage by energy and emissions ignorant politicians who took no rational steps whatsoever to evaluate the provisions of this ludicrous bill.

As if these outlandish climate alarmist schemes aren’t bad enough the state’s incredible many decades long failure in managing forestlands as documented in detail by the state’s Legislative Analyst Office has led directly to increased wildfires that are increasing CO2 emissions that were originally assumed as being carbon neutral.


The state ignores these increased wildfire emissions that are estimated to be 36.7 million metric tons of CO2 in 2017 that would have resulted in increased year 2017 total emission levels.


Even if the estimated wildfire emissions are off by a factor of 3, which the state claims is the largest level of uncertainty in this assessment, this results in increased emissions of about 12.3 million metric tons of CO2. This would mean year 2017 emissions actually increased.

Year 2018 wildfire CO2 emissions are estimated to be even higher than 2017 as noted in the chart. Using the same factor of 3 estimate for the uncertainty value means that wildfire emission increases contributed 15.1 million metric tons of CO2 growth during year 2018.

Despite all the hype by California Democratic Party legislative dunderheads about “fighting climate change” EIA data shows the state relied upon fossil fuels for more than 80% of its year 2017 total energy use.

While California was continuing to inanely pursue and spending tens of billion of dollars on its politically hyped renewable energy and emissions “fighting climate change” shenanigans the rest of the world was sending a powerful and crystal clear signal saying “get lost.”

Global energy use climbed by 18.5% during the last decade with 98.5% of that growth occurring in the developing nations.


More than 70% of that growth was achieved through the increased use of fossil fuels – predominantly coal.

Since California commenced its climate change nonsense in 2006 the world’s developing nations have increased global CO2 emissions by about 5.4 billion metric tons driven by huge increases in fossil fuel use – primarily coal.

California cannot achieve its SB 100 year 2045 “zero emissions” electricity nonsense because of the inherent unreliability of renewables.

California’s decade long failure to achieve meaningful emissions reduction progress across all the state’s economic sectors demonstrates that future emission reduction goals provided by SB 32 are unrealistic as well as being unnecessary, costly and globally irrelevant.

The world’s developing nations have abandoned California and the world’s developed nations climate alarmism crusade with their unstoppable, totally dominant and growing use of all fossil fuels (with resulting emissions) that are allowing them to achieve their desired increased economic growth.

This definitive outcome establishes that the UN worldwide “climate wars” crusade has failed and become irrelevant and incapable of providing its politically contrived, hugely costly and unnecessary mandated outcomes.

Climate alarmist and media propagandist will continue to pursue the scientifically unsupported and purely politically driven “climate wars” crusade.

The world however will be controlled by the continued dominance of the developing nations use of fossil fuels to meet their growing economic needs that benefit their huge populations.

The politically driven “climate wars” crusade pushed by the arrogance and elitism of the developed nations alarmists has been lost.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kevin Balch
August 22, 2019 6:42 am

How is buying an imported manufactured item from China that used coal generated electricity get accounted for in CA’s GHG emissions?

Reply to  Kevin Balch
August 22, 2019 7:34 am

They’re not. Very convenient. Also applies to goods manufacturered overseas.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  c1ue
August 22, 2019 9:32 am

Emissions are exported or ignored or burning wood in DRAX.

William Astley
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 22, 2019 3:09 pm

… also ignored is the energy input and CO2 emissions to construct the green scams (wind turbines, solar panel, transformers, copper wire, electrical poles, and so on) and the loss in grid efficiency due to the increase in power supply start/stops.

Also ignored is the transmission line losses to purchase power from Canada (30%). Very long distance transmission of electrical power does not make sense.

It is all a silly fantasy game when the CO2 savings ignores the reality CO2 increases.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 22, 2019 8:25 pm

so imported coal is also zero emissions

Reply to  c1ue
August 22, 2019 12:08 pm

Irrelevant. The countries are emitting it. Why they are emitting it has no effect one way or the other. The same people who say they are only doing it to export, so its our fault, recoil with horror if you then propose that we should just ban all imports from them.

Because all of a sudden, when it comes to the developing world and China (which is already part of the developed world) the argument ceases to be about the supposed catastrophic effects of a given tonnage of emissions on the climate and human civilisation, and becomes…. fairness…. or whatever….

This is one reason why you have to conclude that the alarmists do not actually believe that emissions have the effects claimed. If they did, they would want them lowered, no matter who is emitting or why.

Its simply grotesque hypocrisy. China could stop emitting tomorrow. No-one is making it export. Wake up!

Reply to  michel
August 23, 2019 3:51 am

they didnt even mention the powerplants chinas building in sth africa…because the UN and IMF wouldnt help them

Reply to  Kevin Balch
August 22, 2019 10:04 am

This is OT.
But much more important. Look at Russia and China power coming:

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  rd50
August 22, 2019 3:46 pm

That’s a hoot. Being concerned about “a floating nuclear power plant.” What do they think the Arktika was? It was the first surface ship to reach the North Pole, and was a nuclear-powered icebreaker. The Soviet Union, and now Russia, has built 10 civilian nuclear powered icebreakers, and is continuing to build them.

And every fleet ballistic missile submarine and CATOBAR aircraft carrier the United States operates is nuclear-powered. In fact, we park them off of coastal regions which have had some kind of disaster impacting their electric power supply, and use the power plants to supply emergency power.

These anti-nuke activists are lunatics.

Reply to  Kevin Balch
August 23, 2019 2:35 am

While we are at it, what about the 28% of energy imported? I presume most of that is fossil generated.

August 22, 2019 6:48 am

Of course China, India and the rest of the developing world pay lip service to the climate crusade in the hope of squeezing money out of the developing countries. And watermelon greens give them a pass since their real goal isn’t reduced CO2 emissions, but political power.

Reply to  Lancifer
August 22, 2019 7:17 am

For the naïve… “Watermelon” means green-like-environment on the outside, and red-like-socialists/communists on the inside. The real deplorables. GoatGuy ✓

James Hein
Reply to  GoatGuy
August 22, 2019 3:18 pm

I like Monckton’s analogy of traffic lights: “Greens to Yellow to admit they are Red”

Reply to  Lancifer
August 22, 2019 7:44 am

They use what works. Just as everyone else does.

August 22, 2019 6:50 am

Why the use of 2017 data, 2018 and some 2019 data is available?

The numbers continue to increase in 2018 and 2019 just for the record.

Larry Hamlin
Reply to  LdB
August 22, 2019 5:01 pm

2017 was used to include specific California emissions data.

2018 global CO2 data climbed by +648 million metric tons including developing nations at +596 million metric tons, China at +200 million tons, India at +162 million metric tons and developed nations at +53 million tons.
It does not matter which year data is selected. The ship has sailed on any attempt to reduce developing nations fossil fuel use or emissions.
The developed nations have lost their dishonest crusade to control global governments by falsely blaming climate change as the reason needed for this political campaign.

August 22, 2019 6:51 am

I can’t find any comment by Saint Greta about this. Since she seems to be intellectually incapable of hypocrisy, I assume she doesn’t know about it. I would love for her to become aware of the CO2 emissions of the developing world. Either her brain would explode or she would start a campaign against third world emissions. In the latter case, the greenies would drop her like a hot potato. They are fully capable of polished hypocrisy.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  commieBob
August 22, 2019 7:36 am

commieBob –

I read your phrase:
“CO2 emissions of the developing world”
CO2 omissions of the developing world

Subtle and amusing mis-read, but perhaps inadvertently revealing?

Reply to  commieBob
August 23, 2019 3:54 am

hmm, didnt i see a mention somewhere shes had a webpage setup?
might be the “nice” thing to do to send her this link?
so she can have her meltdown at seas with her (hopefully) serious seasickness

Reply to  commieBob
August 26, 2019 5:56 am

Another WUWT post summed this up perfectly.

16 years old, doesn’t attend school. Why is she the go-to world expert on ANYTHING?

Her five minutes of fame should be long past.

Let’s ask Jane Fonda for military strategy.

Robert Davis
August 22, 2019 6:58 am

I like your analysis Larry Hamlin. But please quit referring to the “Democrat” party as the “Democratic” party. Your not alone in making this mistake. The Democrat party has perpetuating this falsehood for many years. They don’t even practice democracy within their on party.

Reply to  Robert Davis
August 22, 2019 7:26 am

I personally prefer the Libtård Party, somehow deliciously encapsulating lıberal and retard(ed).

Having been geopolitically aware now for more than 5 decades, it is the one new term that I find usefully descriptive, cheeky and mildly offensive in one go.

While my parents, and almost all of my West Coast Jewish friends are Democrats, and to varying degrees also buy in to the lıberal narrative, even when it flies in the face of their inner, older, upbringing-instilled ethos, none of them are Libtårds.

No evidence of mental retardation so wormed into their being that they cannot join in lively dinner debate, wine induced, of course.

This makes them delightful sparring partners.

I hand out the weapons, and away we go.

Everyone laughs at the end, has dessert and decaffeinated coffee, and off they go to their warm beds.

An awesome word.
GoatGuy ✓

Roy Martin
Reply to  Robert Davis
August 22, 2019 9:09 am
Thomas Englert
Reply to  Roy Martin
August 22, 2019 3:51 pm

It’s Democrat Party, not “Democratic Party.”

August 22, 2019 6:59 am

HGWP = halocarbon global warming potential, I believe.

Halocarbons are things like Freon R–22, etc. Halon (fire extinguishing material), and the whole panoply of chlorinated and brominated hydro/fluoro-carbons used to ‘blow’ (inflate) foam rubber, and so on.

SF₆ or sulfur hexaflouride is the odd bird. A very inert super-dense gas, used mainly as a tracer test gas, easily detected in very low concentrations. Its inertness also means it is nontoxic. Also, that it doesn’t break down for hundreds if not thousands of years.

GoatGuy ✓

Gerry, England
Reply to  GoatGuy
August 23, 2019 5:50 am

SF6 is used in high voltage switchgear to replace air to make flashover less likely. Has a lower conductivity than air.

August 22, 2019 7:15 am

From the article, “The state has no idea how it can achieve “zero emissions” as required by the Democrats SB 100 law…” is not a bug its a feature. Remember, the state also mandated an aspirational low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) more than 10 years ago presuming that cellulosic ethanol would be commercially viable. It’s not. This has caused the LCFS credits to hit their maximum price which the state collects through higher priced fuel sales. By demonizing fossil energy California is already getting away with collecting billions of dollars from motorists annually. Those new “zero emissions” targets that won’t be met are a huge, regressive revenue opportunity that California politicians can feel good about.

August 22, 2019 7:21 am

something about that doesn’t jive though…

around 2000…China, India, and the rest of the developing world….spiked their emissions…..a over 500% increase in the amount of CO2 they were putting in the air

comment image

..and yet, measured CO2 in the air shows no acceleration in the increase at all…it still maintains the same linear trend

comment image

…unless they are saying the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is so small…it doesn’t matter

Reply to  Latitude
August 22, 2019 9:55 am

You forget other countries start reducing emissions because they signed onto Koyoto

Try looking at the world emissions as a total number it’s a very linear trend. It is almost the same today despite all the emission control pushing

Reply to  LdB
August 22, 2019 12:47 pm

nope, I didn’t forget anything…the amount that was reduced is a piss in a thimble….compared to the amount that was increased

Reply to  Latitude
August 22, 2019 10:06 am

“Global energy use climbed by 18.5% during the last decade with 98.5% of that growth occurring in the developing nations.”

…and everything I’ve found…says 100% of the growth in emissions came from developing countries

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Latitude
August 22, 2019 11:44 am

Latitude – August 22, 2019 at 7:21 am

..and yet, measured CO2 in the air shows no acceleration in the increase at all…it still maintains the same linear trend

comment image

…unless they are saying the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is so small…it doesn’t matter

“YUP”, its been maintaining the same steady & consistent “upward” linear trend for the past 61 years, except for a few “bumps” than can be directly attributable to an El Nino, La Nina or volcanic eruption.

But no beeps, bops, “bumps”, decreases or increases that can be attributable to an anthropogenic source or cause.

“Click” to view the Complete monthly Mauna Loa Record – March 1958 thru July 2019

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
August 22, 2019 12:53 pm

exactly Sam….around the year 2000 it started a major spike…developing countries jacked up their emissions by at least 500%
…and measured atmospheric CO2 did not even budge

Someone could take those numbers and make a very good argument that human produced CO2 has no effect at all…..and that would be the most sane argument

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Latitude
August 23, 2019 8:17 am

Latitude – August 22, 2019 at 12:53 pm

Someone could take those numbers and make a very good argument that human produced CO2 has no effect at all…..and that would be the most sane argument

Right you are, Latitude, and here are some of those “numbers”:

I compiled the following statistics via reliable sources, to wit:

Increases in World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade

year — world popul. – % incr. — Dec CO2 ppm – % incr. — avg increase/year
1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm est.
1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 11.1% ____ 310 ppm – 3.3% —— 1.0 ppm/year
[March 03, 1958 …… Mauna Loa — 315.71 ppm]
1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 18.9% ____ 316 ppm – 1.9% —— 0.6 ppm/year
1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 21.9% ____ 325 ppm – 2.8% —— 0.9 ppm/year
1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 20.1% ____ 338 ppm – 4.0% —– 1.3 ppm/year
1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 18.5% ____ 354 ppm – 4.7% —– 1.6 ppm/year
2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 15.2% ____ 369 ppm – 4.2% —– 1.5 ppm/year
2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 389 ppm – 5.4% —– 2.0 ppm/year
2019 – 7,714,576,923 – 11.7% ____ 412 ppm – 5.6% —– 2.3 ppm/year
Source CO2 ppm:

Based on the above statistics, to wit:

Fact #1 – in the past 79 years – world population has increased 235% (5.4 billion people) – atmospheric CO2 has increased 37.3% (112 ppm) 37.3%

Fact #2 – human generated CO2 releases have been exponentially increasing every year for the past 79 years (as defined by the population increase).

Fact #3 – the burning of fossil fuels by humans has been exponentially increasing every year for the past 79 years. (as defined by the population increase).

Fact #4 – a biyearly or seasonal cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently occurring each and every year for the past 61 years (as defined by the Mauna Loa Record and Keeling Curve Graph).

Fact #5 – atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently increasing at an average yearly rate of 1 to 2 ppm per year for each and every year for the past 61 years (as defined by the Mauna Loa Record and Keeling Curve Graph).


Given the above statistics, it appears to me to be quite obvious that for the past 79 years (or the 61 years of the Mauna Loa Record) there is absolutely no direct association or correlation between:

#1 – increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm and world population increases:

#2 – the biyearly or seasonal cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 and world population increases;

#3 – the biyearly or seasonal cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 and the exponential yearly increase in fossil fuel burning;

#4 – the average yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 of 1 to 2 ppm and the exponential increase in fossil fuel burning;

#5 – there is absolutely, positively no, per se, “human (anthropogenic) signature” to be found anywhere within the 61 year old Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 Record.

Reply to  Latitude
August 22, 2019 2:39 pm

No, the Keeling curve does show an acceleration, upward curvature over time.

Now, it is probably nor proportionate to the amount of CO2 added, because the biosphere takes most of it up. The increase the the difference between the sources and sinks.

And the sources can’t quite keep up, hence the upward slight curvature of the keeling curve.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  a_scientist
August 23, 2019 4:38 am

a_scientist – August 22, 2019 at 2:39 pm

No, the Keeling curve does show an acceleration, upward curvature over time.
Now, it is probably nor proportionate to the amount of CO2 added, because the biosphere takes most of it up. The increase the the difference between the sources and sinks.

“DUH”, your noted “upward curvature” is the “same linear trend” that Latitude spoke of, and it hasn’t been nor is it ”accelerating”.

Given the Keeling curve CO2 data, ……. the “source” and the “sink” is the same. It is the ocean water, with the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere ocean water being the “driver”.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  a_scientist
August 23, 2019 8:16 am

Of course, if a former sink (oh, let’s just say, for example, the world’s oceans) became a source, perhaps because CO2 solubility in ocean water decreases with warming ocean temperatures, the Keeling curve would not reveal this fact.

The Keeling curve shows atmospheric CO2 content as a function of time. When it is compared with any other single parameter also plotted as a function of time, one should always be mindful that correlation does not equal causation.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
August 24, 2019 4:27 am

Gordon Dressler August 23, 2019 at 8:16 am

….. perhaps because CO2 solubility in ocean water decreases with warming ocean temperatures, the Keeling curve would not reveal this fact.

Gordon Dressler, …… it is obvious you neglected to ALSO state that …… “because CO2 solubility in ocean water increases with cooling ocean temperatures” (Henry’s Law), ….. the Keeling curve reveals this fact via its bi-yearly (seasonal) cycling of an average 6 ppm of CO2.

one should always be mindful that correlation does not equal causation.

Shur nuff, Gordon D, ……but when there is ONLY one (1) naturally occurring “event” that could possibly be the cause of the observed/measured effect then the “correlation” is undeniable.

The effect of the changing of the equinoxes is self-evident via this copy of the Keeling Curve Graph w/equinox lines

Fact #1 – a biyearly or seasonal cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently occurring each and every year for the past 61 years (as defined by the Mauna Loa Record and Keeling Curve Graph).

Fact #2 – atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently increasing at an average yearly rate of 1 to 2 ppm per year for each and every year for the past 61 years (as defined by the Mauna Loa Record and Keeling Curve Graph).

August 22, 2019 7:37 am

With such a large portion of GHG emissions coming from the Transportation sector, perhaps CA should look at improving the efficiency of its roadways (I say this after a commute back from Santa Clara to Sacramento that included an extra 75 minutes lost in traffic; think of the scale of this every day across hundreds of thousands of vehicles). Our Ken-doll governor could arguably make everyone happy by launching an infrastructure project to improve roadway throughput. Step 1 is to kill the HOV lanes; Step 2 might be to improve driver education, as this state is simply nuts in that realm.

(OT–Are we seeing the return of The Blob?comment image)

AGW is not Science
August 22, 2019 7:42 am

Excellent post – this needs to be shouted from every rooftop and into the face of every Eco-Fascist spouting about “climate change.”

THEY CAN’T FIX THE ALLEGED CRISIS, EVEN IF IT WERE REAL – which it is NOT. “Developing” nations will ensure that CO2 emissions will continue rising, no matter what “developed” nations do.

The only “catastrophe” regarding “climate change” is their prescribed “solutions.”

August 22, 2019 7:47 am

The cabron emissions from Latin American countries alone dwarf any cabron-mitigation gestures the rest of the world will ever perform.

Dan Hawkins
Reply to  Brad Keyes
August 22, 2019 8:25 am

Si, pero hay muchos cabrones aqui tambien.

Reply to  Dan Hawkins
August 22, 2019 12:11 pm

I don’t denialize that for a second, Dan—but the crucial difference is that in developed economies, we have sufficient resources (and respect for the rule of law) to make cabron capture and secuestración a viable strategy. Of course, whether we have the political will to defy the wishes of the cabron-rights lobby is a whole nother question.

Reply to  Dan Hawkins
August 22, 2019 12:30 pm

I think you got his goat.

(to those who don’t understand, I suggest Google Translate)

Dan Hawkins
Reply to  mcswell
August 22, 2019 9:15 pm

Yeah, well “goat” is one translation. Some others are a mite less wholesome.
Cabron secuestracion is indeed good policy.

Lance Flake
Reply to  Brad Keyes
August 22, 2019 10:10 am

They aren’t talking about “carbon emissions” – that’s called soot.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
August 22, 2019 10:13 am

You think Latin America is bad try China they have hit 10.3B tons of a world 30B ton total that is 34%.

Even if you use the green socialist stupid idea of fair per capita emissions they are only 18% of the World population. However according to green socialists the developed nations need to go on a guilt trip and give the worlds second largest GDP nation a get out of jail free card until 2030. So we can’t talk about China emission because they promised they would reduce them even though vague on when.

How our little green socialists think China is ever going to get that number down is one of lifes great mysteries that will just happen in green unicorn dreams.

August 22, 2019 7:52 am

The entire global warming scare industry is financially and politically motivated .The earth is now entering a cooling phase lasting until about 2650. See
Here is the abstract:
“This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”

August 22, 2019 8:28 am

It is really, really hot in parts of India. Once richer the people start buying air conditioners.

Dr. Bob
August 22, 2019 8:31 am

What reports like that from California do not tell people is the great length CA has gone to to skew the data. For example, CA will not claim GHG emissions for all the imported renewable fuels used by the state as they are from biological sources despite the fact that they emit GHG’s. California imports 250 million gallons of hydrogenated vegetable and animal fats from Singapore and essentially all their ethanol from the Midwest. They allow cow manure derived (renewable) natural gas to have a carbon intensity far below conventional NG and take GHG credits for RNG at something like -300 gCO2e/MJ. Here is a quick summary of the RNG situation:
Anaerobic digester projects using livestock manure in particular should gain traction. The CI of RNG generated from these digesters, based on the Legacy California Bioenergy LLC value established in 2016, is approximately negative 272.97 gCO2e/MJ because it displaces traditional fossil fuel use, while also mitigating business-as-usual emissions from agriculture. Biomethane in general is rated as a very low CI fuel under the LCFS because it is treated as a byproduct of existing activities, meaning that little additional energy or resources are typically used for its production. While RNG produced from livestock manure offers the highest LCFS credits, there is also high value in producing RNG from landfills, wastewater treatment plants and other agricultural activities. (

To put this into monetary returns to a biodigester operator, California LCFS credits for this Carbon Intensity are $9.35/gal diesel equivalent. There are 7.785 gallons of diesel fuel equivalents in 1×10^6 Btu of NG. So for a product that is incredibly cheap and abundant, California subsidizes production to the tune of $72.79/MMBtu. The real incredible thing though is all you have to do is inject RNG into a pipeline system anywhere in the US that has a line of sight (physical connection) to a pipeline that COULD bring NG to California. So dairies in Indiana produce RNG from Cow Poop, inject it into a local NG pipeline, and get $72.79/MMBtu for their efforts for a product that has actual value of $2/MMBtu.
Now that is really efficient use of California Taxpayer’s money. All to save the plant form CA GHG emissions to the tune of 5% of their total GHG emission.
Must be nice to own a dairy right now.

August 22, 2019 9:02 am

Meanwhile large population centers in California (and other ‘woke’ CC states) have become human cesspools and the trend is growing. Priorities?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  markl
August 22, 2019 1:57 pm

Many places require that you pick up your dog’s poo.
The dogs only have to walk in human poo.

August 22, 2019 9:40 am

A lot of fuss over irrelevant ghgs. The only ghg significant to climate is water vapor. It made the planet warm enough for life to evolve. Human activity caused WV to increase slowly for centuries. Around 1960 the rate increased dramatically, precipitating the mistake of naming CO2 for the temperature increase.

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
August 23, 2019 3:28 pm

Dan Pangburn
That’s what I’ve wonder about. Huge clouds of water vapor from coal-fired power plants, visible on cool days.

Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
August 23, 2019 4:18 pm

DS, I wondered about the same thing so I did a little research which produced this:

Water vapor source………………………..…..E13 kg/y
Transportation fuel………………………..…..0.4
Fossil fuel for electricity generation………..…0.4
Cooling towers, etc. for electricity generation…4.0

Click my name and look at Section 9 for the analysis and links to the source data.

Corrupt de Lion
August 22, 2019 11:44 am

It’s going to be interesting to see how this works through to the CO2 level – posts above talk about a generally linear trend but one would expect an acceleration. If this doesn’t happen then it’s not man made to any great extent. If it does and is man made then we have a fun fun situation where Western middle class alarmists try and throttle back the Third World and fail. ( think impoverished children on telly?) and everyone looks for extreme weather or accelerated global warming and it doesn’t happen! I wonder what August’s UAH will say.

August 22, 2019 12:48 pm

If the California wanted to do something that would actually reduce global CO2 emissions, there’s one thing they could do: pay for research to discover an inexpensive and scalable way to produce electricity out of some readily available renewable (by “readily”, I mean to exclude hydroelectric and corn, etc.).

Examples of what could be revolutionary sources of electric power that would satisfy these criteria might include nuclear fusion (preferably by small-scale inexpensive reactors), or much more efficient ways to convert solar energy into electricity. The latter might not involve solar cells, e.g. it could use sunlight to produce steam in a closed system, where the steam would turn turbines; or a way to use sunlight to efficiently convert water into hydrogen (and oxygen). Or possibly a safer method of building nuclear fission plants, while dealing with the radioactive byproducts (which “is known to the State of California to cause cancer”–although in this case, they’re actually right).

Such an electricity source could also be used to recharge electric cars. I just paid $500-something for a repair to my daughter’s car’s gasoline system, and it looks like that didn’t fix it, so there will be more $. I’d be very happy to get rid of IC cars for the repair costs alone.

California has many scientists who could do this kind of research (and engineers to weigh in on the practicality). The state budget might of course be stretched. But if successful, and if the results were freely licensed, such a research program would result in what I think all of us would recognize to be a genuine benefit.

Gary Pearse
August 22, 2019 1:13 pm

Larry, I think there is a great opportunity for wagering on things emission and climate. Perhaps an internet fund of some kind to hold sceptical capital for wagering. Sceptics could buy shares and be commensurate beneficiaries of wagers won. Big bets, even declined, would at least identify those not walking the walk.

August 22, 2019 2:28 pm

California will just have to enjoy the virtue aspects even though they are a fly speck in terms of CO2 emissions. The good news is that it all does zero to impacr climate, so little harm done if you arent Californian and even less of you arent American.

Douglas Brodie
August 22, 2019 3:18 pm

The UK government is fully caught up in climate change hysteria and has just passed legislation for the “net zero emissions” policy demanded by the UN IPCC in their 1.5º Special Report.

A few simple back of envelope calculations shows how utterly impossible this would be but these politicians are in such a fervour that they don’t bother with such banality.

I have written to the responsible minister to suggest that they need to reconsider, see Can’t wait to see their reply.

Dennis Sandberg
August 22, 2019 5:15 pm

We’re not doing great here in the Peoples Republic of Cali with our pointless climate fight, and it won’t get any better when the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant shuts down in a few more years. The good news is the voters that suffer the most from these painfully stupid liberal democrat policies are the same people that voted for this waste of tax dollars. Too bad the 30% or so of us responsible conservative republicans residing here get sucked into this liberal sewer. But hey, the climate is wonderful! Golf year around! Love it!

August 23, 2019 12:39 am

When Trump suggested Climate change was a hoax orchestrated by the Chinese doesn’t look so implausible when seen in the context of this article. The fact that the Chinese are classified as a developing nation for the purposes of the Paris agreement is a joke. The Chinese has the largest economy in the world and the greatest influence. They must be bemused at watching Australia, Europe, and Canadian politicians acting the same as the Californians to see who can destroy their economy the quickest. Australia as a provider of energy for the rest of the world I think has been the worst vandals but I think the Uk are not far behind.

August 23, 2019 8:27 am

CBC never misses a cue…
But this one is among the most ridiculous…

The Big Picture: Bhutan, the only carbon-negative country
To reach the targets of the Paris climate accord and work toward a low-carbon economy, governments are looking at ways to not only reduce their emissions but also find viable methods for sucking carbon out of the air. Bhutan, a kingdom nestled in the Himalayan mountains between India and China, has achieved a rare feat among the nations of the world: It actually has negative emissions. In other words, it absorbs more carbon than it produces. Bhutan has achieved this through a system of initiatives, from aggressive tree-planting to strong conservation efforts to charging tourists a “sustainable development” fee.

Sure a negative carbon footprint… Especially when:

The Royal Bhutan Army is Bhutan’s military service. It includes the royal bodyguard and the Royal Bhutan Police. Membership is voluntary and the minimum age for recruitment is 18. The standing army numbers about 16,000 and is trained by the Indian Army.[80] It has an annual budget of about US$13.7 million (1.8 percent of GDP). Being a landlocked country, Bhutan has no navy. It also has no air force or army aviation corps. The Army relies on the Eastern Air Command of the Indian Air Force for air assistance.

But not on the CBC cheery picked infomercial that passes for news.

August 24, 2019 7:47 am

Larry thanks for all the details!

A meeting is going to be held shortly on SB 100-

“The California Energy Commission (CEC) will jointly conduct a workshop with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to kick off the process for developing the joint-agency report required by Senate Bill (SB) 100, the “100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018” (de León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018).
The CEC Chair David Hochschild will jointly conduct this workshop with CARB Chair Mary Nichols and CPUC Commissioner Liane Randolph. A quorum of commissioners may be in attendance, but no votes will be taken.

Thursday, September 5, 2019
10:00 a.m.
California Secretary of State Building
1500 11th Street, Sacramento, California 95814
First Floor Auditorium

You can get updates on various aspects of the plan(s) here if your interested-

%d bloggers like this: