Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The stupendous display of global energy and emissions ignorance by the Democratic Party Presidential candidates on CNN’s climate alarmist gabfest was nothing short of astounding.
Before addressing some of these candidates ridiculous, totally useless and massively costly energy schemes its important to establish what is the global energy and emissions data status today and where is it likely to go in the future.
The Harvard Gazette recently published an article titled “One thing to change: Anecdotes aren’t data” that addressed the significant need for clearer delineation between facts and feelings regarding how leaders, politicians, journalists and academics attempt to assess the world through anecdotes and images rather than data.
An example related to energy is noted as follows:
“People are terrified of nuclear power (the most scalable form of carbon-free energy) because of images of Three Mile Island (which killed no one), Fukushima (which killed no one; the deaths were caused by the tsunami and a panicked, unnecessary evacuation), and Chernobyl (which killed fewer people than are killed by coal every day).
“They imagine that fossil fuels can be replaced by solar energy, without doing the math on how many square miles would have to be tiled with solar panels to satisfy the world’s vastly growing thirst for electricity. And they think that voluntary sacrifices, like unplugging laptop chargers, are a sensible way to deal with climate change.”
Looking at global energy and emissions data is absolutely required to facilitate rational and reasonable judgments regarding global energy and emissions policy.
Global energy use climbed by 18.5% during the decade between 2008 and 2018.
About 98.5% of that decade long energy growth occurred in the developing nations with about 78.5% of that growth obtained from increased fossil fuel use.
The rate of energy growth in the developing nations during that decade was 5.5 times greater than in the developed nations that saw little growth.
The developing nations consumed 59% of global energy use in 2018 accounting for 64% of global CO2 emissions that year.
Fossil fuels accounted for about 85% of 2018 global energy consumption with the developing nations energy provided 87.5% through use of fossil fuels.
Wind and solar accounted for 3% of global energy in 2018 that is staggeringly small given more than a decade of mandated use by government edict and trillions of dollars in global government subsidies.
In the decade leading to 2018 the developing nations increased CO2 emissions by about 4.5 billion metric tons completely overwhelming the developed nations that decreased CO2 emissions by about 1 billion metric tons led by the U.S.
About 67% of the developing nations CO2 huge emissions increase in the last decade was from India and China.
By year 2050 EIA projects that global energy use will climb by about another 36% from year 2018 levels with more than 85% of that increased growth coming from the developing nations that will then account for about 67% of global energy use.
The developing nations are projected by EIA to use fossil fuels for about 78% of their year 2050 energy with renewables accounting for less than 10% of year 2050 energy.
EIA projects that CO2 emissions will climb by over 8.8 billion metric tons by 2050 from year 2018 levels with the developing nations accounting for 92% of that increase resulting in these nations representing 70% of global CO2 emissions in year 2050.
To summarize the present and future energy and emissions global picture the world’s developing nations in year 2018 accounted for about 59% of global energy use and 64% of global CO2 emissions with those figures projected to increase to 67% of global energy use and 70% of global CO2 emissions in year 2050.
The developing nations are projected to account for 85% of future global energy use increases and 92% of future global CO2 emissions increases.
The world’s developed nations cannot stop the overwhelming and ever increasing growth of global energy use and emissions by the world’s developing nations with these nations unequivocally dominating the global outcomes of these measures both now and in the future.
The Wall Street Journal’s article regarding the CNN climate alarmist gabfest noted the following non-factual foundations regarding this purely politically contrived show.
“The Columbia Journalism Review’s “public editor for CNN,” Emily Tamkin, beforehand insisted that moderators should proceed “on the assumption that the climate is in crisis,” and limit themselves to calling for action and faulting inaction.”
“The blame obviously can’t be laid entirely at the feet of climate press. There is much else going on, in which journalists are but lockstep automatons. And here it is: With their decision to resort to a strategy of hysterical exaggerations, vilifications and hackneyed partisanship, the greens have now succeeded in convincing voting publics that any climate strategy must be catastrophic to their lifestyles, transferring trillions from their pockets to green special interest groups.”
The Democratic Party Presidential candidates schemes addressed in the CNN climate hype gabfest demonstrate that none of these candidates have slightest idea and are absurdly ignorant about the present and future global energy and emissions data driven factual reality that the world is facing.
Given the absurd ground rules for CNN’s climate alarmist propaganda show combined with the global energy ignorance of the Democratic candidates it is no wonder the “climate solutions” proposed during the show were idiotic.
Schemes proposed by these candidates including supporting bizarre proposals calling for eliminating use of all fossil fuels, the imposition of Green New Deal concepts costing 5 to 16 trillion dollars in the U.S. that are globally energy and emissions irrelevant, imposing tighter light bulb efficiency standards (unbelievable), rejoining the failed, flawed and useless Paris Agreement, etc. demonstrate that none of these individuals is qualified or should ever be permitted to lead the U.S. energy strategy by virtue of their monumentally unacceptable global energy and emissions ignorance.
The Democratic Party and its Presidential candidates are devoid of any understanding of global energy and emissions data that must be part of proposing rational and meaningful energy policy.