Sorry Greta, India needs more coal to power growth

From The Times of India

October 13, 2019, 2:00 am IST SA Aiyar in Swaminomics | India | TOI

Greta Thunberg, the 16-year old Swedish girl who lectured the United Nations on climate change, is being touted as a possible Nobel Prize winner. She believes she and her white Swedish teenage friends have to save the world from us terrible oldies who created the oil and coal industries.

She will be appalled by the plea of India’s coal secretary, Subhash Chandra Garg, that India must urgently expand its coal production from 600 million tonnes a year to a billion tonnes per year to meet basic energy needs. Yet Garg is right. Thunberg made headlines by sailing to the US in a solar-powered-ship to avoid using fuel oil. Does she have any idea of the enormous electricity used to produce the solar cells in her ship?

India is a lower middle income country. Sweden is among the richest. Despite the green sermons, Sweden’s annual per capita carbon emissions are 4.5 metric tonnes, higher than India (1.7 metric tonnes), Pakistan (0.9 metric tonnes) or Bangladesh (0.5 metric tonnes). South Asians can double their carbon emissions without matching Sweden’s prodigality.

Widespread activist attempts to stop all oil and coal production are hypocritical. A total switch to solar and wind energy is impossible since these are produced only intermittently when the sun shines and wind blows, maybe 25% of the year on an average. For the rest of the time, India needs coal-based electricity. Maybe new electric storage technology will ultimately change that, but today India needs massive coal expansion for thermal power.

Current carbon emissions are just the tip of the iceberg. More than 90% of historical carbon emissions since the industrial revolution are the cumulative emissions of rich western countries and Japan. The share of developing countries, including India, is a tiny fraction. Sorry Greta, the problem is not that grown-ups like me have ruined your future but that rich Swedes are still emitting more carbon than coal-using Indians.

Economist Kirit Parikh once framed India’s policy as being “we will never emit more carbon per capita than the West”. This would allow India to raise its emissions six-fold or more without being worse than others. Modi has embraced renewables massively. Even so, for round-the-clock power, India will have to create much more coal-based capacity. If the West develops viable carbon-capture technologies, India will happily adopt those.

Full article here.

HT/Willie Soon

126 thoughts on “Sorry Greta, India needs more coal to power growth

      • I’ll betcha a cold beer that there was a “fossil fuel” burning electrical generator on board that “sailing boat” for providing heat, lighting, cooking and communications.

      • Hans Erren

        The boat had a diesel generator on board. While in the usa, she has been uaing fossil fuels daily. The eight people who sailed the boat there flew back, and four other flew back to the usa to bring the boat back to europe… How much co2 is the Co2 seeing child really save 😐 plus she uses a phone which is heavyly dependand on fossil fuels

      • Wind and/or solar is acutally the least relevant (in regards to “carbon footprint”) of her little cruise. Putting aside the “carbon intensity” of the production of that carbon-fiber and resin ocean faring vessel. Instead of Greta taking one trip by aircraft from Europe to America (or saving the trip all together and address the UN via skype), the crew of her ocean vessel all flew back from NY (let’s assume they all boarded the same plane, to the same destination) and another crew flew into NY in order to sail the boat back across the ocean (again, let’s assume they all came from the same location and flew on the same plane). That right there is (at a minimum) double the carbon foot print (two plane flights instead of one, more than two if any of the crews took separate flights) just to bring the CO2 seeing princess to NY than would have been had she just boarded a plane herself.

      • The article does not say it’s a solar powered boat.
        It said,
        “Does she have any idea of the enormous electricity used to produce the solar cells in her ship?”
        As for the “green” boat–
        Let them sail yachts: Why Greta Thunberg and the environmental elite hate you
        “…However, the young proselytizer will not cobble together a boat from upcycled oil drums and driftwood. Instead she’ll be traveling on the Malizia II, a 60-foot racing yacht.
        Its crew are also a far cry from the ragtag band of crusties you might imagine. The Malizia II will be captained by renowned yachtsman Boris Herrmann and Pierre Casiraghi, grandson of Monaco’s late Prince Ranier III and actress Grace Kelly. The boat, too, was once named the Edmond de Rothschild, after the financial baron and founder of a fleet of racing yachts. Its construction cost upwards of €4 million…”
        How much CO2 do you suppose was emitted in the building of that boat? I suspect large quantities.

        • Indeed. It’s made of carbon fibre – a material with a “carbon footprint” 14 times higher than that of steel. so considerably more than zero carbon. But put aside the emissions of making the vessel, the fact that the crew is flying back to Europe and a replacement crew is flying in to New York to sail the boat back makes Greta’s little cruise have a much larger “carbon footprint” than had she simply booked a flight for herself. How dare she!

      • While it is a sailing boat, it also happens to be outfitted with “solar panels and underwater turbines” to ensure it leaves “no carbon footprint” according to news reports. for example, from everyone’s favorite rag:
        While the wind propels it, the vessel generates the power for lighting and communication through solar panels and underwater turbines

        • I was trying to think along the lines that “She will never know what driving is!” is (Never know what snow ‘coz climate change) given in Sweden you can’t start to drive until you are 18, so only 6.5 years left (Because we have only 8.5 years left if we continue consuming “carbon budget” and fall over the tipping point of no return) for her assuming she passes when she is 18 and starts to drive. But I think I failed to be funny there…

    • Carbon Based Energy = Lifestyle

      Today we lead a lifestyle equivalent to owning 200+ slaves – this lifestyle grew from our ability to be more productive. This was initially accomplished by using animals to provide power (horses, oxen etc. and later water wheels and windmills) but only really took off with the advent of the industrial revolution and the use of coal to generate steam-power and subsequently electricity providing us with an economical method of distributing that power.
      Beyond that the use of oil and gas have provided us with transportable energy.

      The availability of cheap energy allows us to be 200 times as productive than we could accomplish without it.
      Think about this for a moment, every time you switch on a light (so you can work in the dark), use any form of machinery or motorized transport, buy any manufactured goods, or even take a hot shower or a hot meal (even a cold one for that matter) etc. etc. you are using energy – this is the energy that drives our lifestyle.

      Without it we will live in the dark, cold, hungry, filthy, smelly and shivering. An unhealthy and unhygienic lifestyle guaranteed to severely shorten your lifespan.

      A life that Hobbes described as “nasty, brutish and short.”

      To illustrate this, Africa derives some 50% of its energy from renewables (but that includes mostly burning wood and dung) and equates to the most impoverished place on the planet.

      In 1971, China derived 40 per cent of its energy from renewables and the bulk of its population lived in abject poverty. Since then, it has powered its incredible growth almost exclusively with CO2 “unfriendly” coal, lifting a historic 680 million people out of poverty. Today, China gets a trifling 0.23 per cent of its energy from unreliable “renewables” wind and solar.

      Past history suggests that the degree of renewable energy employed is an accurate barometer of poverty.

      {I concede that this is a grossly unfair analogy even though it is true – for data to date.}

      Do you for one moment believe that China could have accomplished this phenomenal feat of social engineering without using coal ?

      India is doing much the same thing…..

      India which has suffered an electrical energy shortfall for decades finally managed to produce a surplus in 2016 – it did so with coal fired thermal power stations and will continue to do so.
      Indian projected coal consumption of 1300 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) in 2040 will be 50 percent more than the combined demand of all 34 countries that form the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including the United States and Canada.
      Wowzers !


      And just to top off this lunacy, the carbon tax exempt third world tends to be rather lax in its clean air / pollution control requirements – so we end up exporting our energy intensive jobs at a cost of greater air pollution, not less – I mean real pollutants such as SO2, NOx etc. – not CO2 which in spite of all the demonising propaganda isn’t a pollutant – its plant food !

      History will judge the current crop of scientifically ignorant politicians rather harshly when the climate scam becomes universally recognised as one of the costliest blunders in human history – both economically, environmentally and cost in human lives lost to this phantasm.

      Most of the developed world is committing economic suicide with their energy policies which simply shift CO2 intensive (energy intensive) industries to the third world – China in particular.
      This in no way changes global CO2 output but does result in the developed world effectively exporting these jobs to the third world, and this at far greater cost to the environment in terms of real total pollution.

      One only has to look at the closure of steel manufacturing worldwide whilst China’s share of global steel manufacturing capacity has risen to 80% of world’s total capacity by 2016.

      The Western World’s fetish obsession with the climate change phantasm is going to drive us all to the poorhouse!

      You can have cheap energy or you can have cheap & impoverished labour – making energy more expensive will effectively force labour prices and standards of living down – the laws of economics are inexorable.

      I’ll be damned if I’m going to live a 18th century lifestyle in the 21st century to satisfy the fetish needs of alarmist “Greens”.

      From Paul Driessen “For countless millennia, our ancestors struggled to survive amid deprivation and backbreaking dawn-to-dusk labour, often on the brink of starvation – with the bulk of humanity living little better than their domesticated animals. Average nasty, brutish and short, life expectancy hovered in the low thirties.

      But then, suddenly and miraculously, in barely two centuries, health, prosperity and longevity began to climb. First coal, then oil, then natural gas paved the way, providing the fuels for transportation, communication, refrigeration, electricity and other incredible technologies that improve, enhance, safeguard and save lives. Incomes increased eleven-fold. Mass die-offs so confidently predicted by Malthus and Ehrlich never materialized. In fact, global life spans more than doubled, and today billions of people enjoy living standards that even kings and queens could not dream of 120 years ago.”

      Is this the “damage” done by fossil fuels ? – If so give me more !

      • “Ken Irwin October 14, 2019 at 12:34 am

        To illustrate this, Africa derives some 50% of its energy from renewables (but that includes mostly burning wood and dung) and equates to the most impoverished place on the planet.”

        You have to break the temptation in comparing Africa with China or India etc. China and India are not continents. Africa has many countries within the continent. Compare individual countries in Africa with China or India (No comparison, yet). Ethiopia is building the largest hydrodam in the whole of Africa, makes Aswan look like a toy, and that has some downstream countries a bit worried. Ethiopia now controls water downflows of both the White and Blue Nile rivers. That has a few backsides twitching.

    • How exactly are per capita carbon emissions measured? The per capita part is self explanatory, but what numbers are combined to establish total carbon emissions?
      I will conjecture that India, due to its impoverished nature, is generating far more CO2 via residential cooking and heating than would an efficient coal power plant producing the equivalent power, but are these values being included in the total CO2 emissions values? The population will burn what ever it has on hand to keep warm and eat.
      Merely addressing large scale sources misses the vast majority of the outputs.

    • In Australia, there is one, new Indian owned coal mine. There are several being developed by Australians, Chinese and others. Green activism with demonstrations, threats, sabotage and shareholder activism is targeting, only the Indian mine.
      Australian green activists are openly racist.

    • The little princess has no moral clothes, no intellectual clothes and no scientific clothes only her little kiddy nightie.

      But isn’t she cute when she throws a hissy fit, clenching her fists and stamping her foot? So was my daughter when she was 4.

      • Komrade, you have a perverse sense of the word cute. Where I come from hissy fits are described on a scale from ugly to possessed by evil spirits that only a loving parent could tolerate before calling for an exorcism.

    • “…if additional funding is available, its use is best determined according to the urgent needs and priorities of the poor countries receiving the funds and not according to the social and environmental concerns of the rich countries providing these funds…”

      And yet, as you indicate, “White man’s burden”, colonialist/missionary/resource-absconding efforts, have always been driven by the concerns of the rich countries “providing the funds”.

      I bet that in some candid moment the authors of the Agenda 21/Sustainable development goals coalition (the oldest fortunes behind petrol/chemicals/pharmaceuticals et al) would admit that their murderous campaign is more eugenically classist than racist though.

      James Corbett did a most informative series on this topic called: “Why Big Oil Conquered the World”:


      What is Sustainable Development:

  1. I’m not sure what the virtue signalling developed nations can do to prevent India’s increased consumption of coal.

    How big does a country have to be before it can become pretty much self sufficient? China is working on it. Brazil has been working on it for years. How self sufficient could India be?

    India has an advanced tech industry. For instance, it has a bunch of countries that make cell phones. link As far as I can tell, those brands are mostly sold in India.

    If India is self sufficient in most things, it can’t be pressured by trade sanctions. In other words, nothing the developed nations can do could pressure India to curtail its coal consumption.

    • From that article:
      “More than 90% of historical carbon emissions since the industrial revolution are the cumulative emissions of rich western countries and Japan. The share of developing countries, including India, is a tiny fraction.”

      I wonder why that bit was omitted?

      “nothing the developed nations can do could pressure India to curtail its coal consumption…”

      Hmm, one thing could do is to take responsibility for that 90% and pay India and other developing countries who are being asked to sacrifice their turn at accessing decades of cheap fossil fuel.

      • You make it sound like CO2 in the atmosphere hangs around forever. It doesn’t. And I wonder why you omitted this:

        “More than 90% of historical technological advances and developments since the industrial revolution, that have helped lift developing countries out of slavery and poverty, were brought about by the cumulative advances of rich western countries and Japan. The share of developing countries receiving the benefits of that largesse, including India, is a tiny fraction.”

      • Loydo

        And subject ourselves to penury?

        Why should we do that, because you project a virtue signalling guilt complex?

        Since the industrial revolution began we have never lived more peaceful, prosperous, healthy lives.

        In early-modern times, child mortality was very high; in 18th century Sweden every third child died, and in 19th century Germany every second child died. With declining poverty and increasing knowledge and service in the health sector, child mortality around the world is declining very rapidly: Global child mortality fell from 19% in 1960 to just below 4% in 2017; while 4% is still too high, this is a substantial achievement.

        But you would have the wealthy west regress. How many children do you have?

        No thanks. But then I don’t believe for a nanosecond that mankind’s 0.0012% concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere makes any meaningful difference to the climate whatsoever.

        • “Since the industrial revolution…” In the developed world yes, the countries that have had the benefit of decades of cheap energy and have outsourced the environmental costs to the future.

          “But you would have the wealthy west regress.” No of course not. I am one of the fortunates to have lived most of my life at this time in the developed world where I have lived like only royalty could have dreamt of 100 years ago. Who wants to volutarily abdicate that? No one thats who. There in lies the horns of the dilemma: how to phase out fossil fuel AND watch half the world’s population get their share of the good life.

          You can sweep it all under the carpet by claiming humans aren’t causing any problems but that puts you squarely in the D-team.

          But you believe that mankind’s CO2 can green up the world’s forests right?

          • China produces more steel in less than two years than the UK has done since the industrial revolution. I imagine the same is true for TV’s, computers, mobile phones, and virtually anything else. India won’t be far behind, so that argument doesn’t really stack up for the future with o ly the USA giving China and India a run for their money.

          • Are you calling NASA liars about CO2 greening the world?
            You arn’t suggesting that NASA could lie are you?

          • There are no environmental costs to CO2.
            The other environmental costs were localized and either are, or are being cleaned up in the West.

          • It is only a dilemma if someone accepts the first half of your sentence:

            There in lies the horns of the dilemma: how to phase out fossil fuel AND watch half the world’s population get their share of the good life.
            I for one, don’t.

            And your moral argument is the same silly Progressive meme that somehow I must feel guilty, and pay for the collective sins of my ethnic ancestors (even though they were peasants in central Italy). I don’t buy that one either.

          • There in lies the horns of the dilemma: how to phase out fossil fuel AND watch half the world’s population get their share of the good life.

            It’s only a dilemma if you are under the delusion that more plant food is a bad thing. Hint: it’s not. And since it not, there’s not valid reason to “phase out fossil fuel”, particularly at a time when there is no viable replacement for it (other than nuclear, but those same people pushing for the phasing out of fossil fuel consider nuclear verboten).

          • If you phase out fossil fuels, not only will half the population not get to see “the good life”, the other half that already has the good life is going to lose it.

      • or we could stop the crap re co2 and not pay anyone and let the asian etc mobs do what they need to progress?
        helping with cleaner tech if asked

      • You have to laugh at the lefties and the concept that we are going to pay developed nations anything, good luck with that 🙂

        Mind you that is the same group of fools that actually believed developed nations were going to stop using fossil fuels, the majority of people cared, emission were going to go down (FYI China’s emissions grew by 4% already this year).

  2. Please stop featuring Greta Thunberg.
    The fact is ——–there is no Greenhouse Effect !

    We have all been told that the Earth is warming because of the Greenhouse Effect that reflects the Earth’s emitted heat back towards the Earth surface.

    If that was so then that same effect would be reflecting the incoming Sun’s heat back out into space before it even reaches the Earth surface. The result would be cooling of the Earth NOT heating as there is twice as much heat energy (infrared) arriving from the Sun as there is radiating out from the Earth’s surface.

    Mention of this brings replies such as “short wavelength in, long wavelength out”. This is because the UN IPCC First Assessment Report, 1991, stated at page xiii, under ‘What natural factors are important’:
    “ One of the most important factors is the greenhouse effect, a simplified explanation of which is as follows Short-wave solar radiation can pass through the clear atmosphere relatively unimpeded But long-wave terrestrial radiation emitted by the warm surface of the Earth is partially absorbed and then re-emitted by a number of trace gases in the cooler atmosphere above”

    I believe this statement to be deliberately deceptive in order for the UN to achieve their aim of One World Socialist Government. Nowhere in the climate literature have I seen any mention of the Greenhouse Effect relative to the incoming Sun’s energy of which 51% is in the infrared spectrum. Why no one has contradicted the statement over the past 30 years is beyond me but there it is.

    • Bevan – Apologies in advance for short reply but I’m short of time: Yes there is a greenhouse effect, yes there is mainly shortwave in longwave out, but from there onwards the science has been badly corrupted.

      • Mike,
        51% of the Sun’s energy is in the infrared, that is, infrared is the dominant input (by a small fraction).
        If all of the Earth’s radiant energy at 288 deg.K ( 5.205 x10^-6 J/m^3 ) was to be absorbed and re-radiated by the atmospheric gases, less than one third may be directed towards the Earth surface, namely, less than 1.735 x10^-6 J/m^3. Of this only seven tenths could be absorbed by the surface due to the 0.3 albedo, that is, 1.215 x10^-6 J/m^3, and only one quarter could effectively increase the surface temperature, namely that part of the spectrum with a wavelength shorter than the 10.06 micron peak wavelength emitted by the Earth (we all know that only hotter sources, ie shorter wavelength, can increase the temperature of an absorbing body, don’t we ?)

        That amounts to an effective back-radiation of 0.304 x10^-6 J/m^3, almost one seventh of the supposed 2.006 x10^-6 J/m^3 from the 33 degree greenhouse effect making that effect not physically possible, especially after taking account of the small proportion of radiative gases in the atmosphere.

        • Solar IR is “shortwave” ie SWIR, 0.7 to 4 microns
          Earth IR is “longwave” ie LWIR, below 4 microns
          Two different things, with different properties.

          • bwegher
            Isn’t that splitting hairs ? The third most prominent absorption band for CO2 is at 2.68 microns so why ignore that band from the argument? Surely the comparison made by the UN IPCC is between short wavelength light and long wavelength infrared, ie longer than 0.7 microns?

            For a source at 288 degrees Kelvin, the Earth, Planck’s law determines that the 2.68 micron band has an energy density of 5.016 x 10^-11 Joules per cubic metre. For the radiant energy from a 5772 degrees Kelvin source at the Earth’s distance from the Sun as source, the 2.68 micron band would have an energy density of 7.104 x 10^-8 J/m^3. That is a factor of 1416:1 more back-radiation of the Sun’s energy relative to the Earth’s for the 2.68 micron band, contributing to cooling of the Earth if the Greenhouse Effect exists.

            As there has not been cooling as the CO2 concentration has increased, there cannot be any Greenhouse Effect. How else do we explain the fact that the comparison of satellite lower troposphere temperature relative to CO2 concentration shows that the temperature is independent of the CO2 concentration. Furthermore, the rate of change of CO2 concentration is determined by the temperature so it is impossible for the CO2 to cause temperature change as a rate does not determine a level. For example, a rate of change of 2 ppm in CO2 could be from a temperature of zero to 2 degrees or 34256 to 34258 degrees.

    • Maybe you don’t fully understand radiation into gases and absorption of radiation by surfaces.

      • jorgekafkazar,
        Are you suggesting that the incoming Solar photons know that they must not be absorbed by the radiative atmospheric gases and must deviate around them in order to reach the Earth’s surface rather than being reflected back into space or is it simply that there is no Greenhouse Effect ? Could it be that all of the energy absorbed by the radiative gases eventually becomes kinetic energy of motion of the dominant atmospheric gases ?

      • William, as you no doubt have read many times, the Earth has warmed naurally, i.e., no manmade greenhouse effect, since the Little Ice Age. That warming can not be dismissed as a cause, perhaps the cause, of any shrinkage of the ice cap. I am sure you have also read that the ice caps did not always exist before man lit his first fire. We have little understanding as to why they come and go. It has even been postulated that the ice caps are the lingering aftermath of an asteroid hit that sent Earth into a deep ice age, and it is now recovering to its natural state.

        Once temperatures are high enough to begin melting the ice, they need not go any higher; it need not get warmer.

        All of this is to say that with our level of understanding, the state of the arctic ice is very weak evidence of anything in particular, especially the greenhouse effect.

      • Arctic ice has been increasing for the last 6 years.
        The only thing crumbling away is the credibility of the alarmists.

  3. “..Greta Thunberg, the 16-year old Swedish girl who lectured the United Nations on climate change, is being touted as a possible Nobel Prize winner…”

    Greta did not win the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize. It was won by the prime minister of Ethiopia. I frankly don’t really understand how Greta’s scolding and sermonizing is doing much of anything for the world peace effort.

    • The ethiopian president actually did do something peace related (as in stopped the war between ethiopia and eritrea). Good to see the award doesn’t just go to useful idiots lol

      • He did in deed. I have been to Axum, which is a short trip from the border. The president in 2005 banned people from texting others over mobile networks to prevent “gatherings”. He was very much unliked and pretty much a dictator. And IIRC went AWOL for a while and then turned up dead somewhere.

        There is a lot of progress in Ethiopia, especially since they dropped their experiment with communism.

        If ever you get the chance to go there, please do. It really is quite a remarkable country.

    • One media outlet here in sunny Australia, claimed the Nobel Peace Prize Committee actually snubbed Greta.

      Yes SNUBBED her. How dare they?

      For my view, they awarded it to a gentleman who has actually achieved something along the lines of peace. You know like stopping a war.

    • CD
      According to Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize shall be awarded to the person who in the preceding year “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.
      Miss Thunberg does not qualify for a nomination given the condition above.
      Like most establishment awards the role of the Activist is getting the rewards as it is all about being entrenched in the Woke activist conformity club.

    • She is another dumb would be planetary savior, who like all the others are full of baloney.

      Her numerous hypocrisy points are easy to spot, how do you ignore them?

    • Just trying to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of those support and agree with her. It is much more fun to poke fun at the idiots who actually believe that a 16 year old, with self admitted mental and emotional problems, would be capable of teaching anyone anything about some very complicated science. Maybe parents should start giving their kids whatever they want for dinner,too! The old Ice Cream Thrice-a-day Diet.

    • ghalfrunt
      I am terrified at the mere mention of her name. It reminds me that Sweden…her home nation…gets 40% of its electricity from Nuclear power…and I know that all of them are gonna explode and annihilate Sweden.
      And take the rest of us out too…with Acid Rain…Nuke Winters…of 100 Fahrenhieut for months on end…Summer days hitting 50c at midnight and starving Godzilla like climate refugee Polar Bears escaping the totally ice free Arctic and causing havoc and feasting upon the hapless, soon to be extinct, Antarctic Penguins.
      Only Greta as Queen of the World and Extinction Rebellion as her standing army can save us….though raising a standing army is against the rules of The Nobel Peace Prize.

    • Actually, it’s more like that feeling I get in my stomach when constantly barraged by the media with the likes of people like Nicki Minaj and Lena Dunham. The best way I can describe it is “blech”.

  4. Wind and solar require large areas of land that does not exist in India. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not cumulative result of emissions of (industrial countries). Carbon cycle is more complex than that.

    • “CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not cumulative result of emissions of (industrial countries).”

      No one will disagree with you there GC, at least not around here it seems. Um, but out curiosity, where do you think the 600Gt of CO2 went?

        • Yeah and a fair bit has gone into the ocean, but there is still enough left over to increase atmospheric concentration to 414ppm. More that enough. In other words about half is till up there and in terms of human lifetimes – thats where its staying.

          • Up where? You do know the atmosphere is REALLY REALLY REALLY big, bigger than all water on this rock, yes?

          • We prefer percentages here Loydo, so we say forty-two thousandths of one percent. Yes, I rounded it up. Hmmm? No, “concentration” doesn’t sound right when we put it like that.

          • The half life for CO2 is a couple of decades or less.
            People sure don’t live long in what ever world you come from.
            PS: 414 is still less than a tenth what the levels were for most of the earth’s history.

          • Indeed, at 420ppm [rounded up, like the Shark did], to the nearest one-tenth of one percent, there is zero CO2 in the atmosphere [per the Mauna Loa readings, at least].

            Not a lot of the XR folk know that!


  5. The child as a propaganda piece will soon fade. LA Times has been running multiple full page ads every day using children as the literal poster child to hype gender equality in pay. Who’s paying for this? How long before people find out?

    • The reason behind what little “gender inequality” there is, lies in the choices of individual employees.
      Men on average, work more hours and in jobs that either more strenuous or more dangerous.
      Women on average, choose jobs that offer more flexibility and give them the opportunity to take months, sometimes years off from their career.

      • Indeed. when you do an apples to apples comparison (i.e. same job title, years of experience, industry, location, etc.) “gender inequality” pretty much vanishes (i.e. the “gap” becomes smaller than the margin of error).

      • And indeed, think about it. If I’m a business owner and I have two equally capable applicants to choose from, why would I ever choose one that would cost me more money to hire? So if the “gender gap” was as real and as big as claimed, no rational business owner would ever higher a male when then can hire a female and save hugely on wages and benefits resulting in bigger profits for their company.

  6. Anybody else see a facial resemblance between illegiteratii reGretable Thunberg and the enigmatic Mona Lisa?

  7. If Santa sent reGretable Thunberg 10,000 lumps of coal for Christmas, for being suuuucch a selfish, ignorant bad girl, do you think she would ‘get the message’?

  8. I personally dislike everything about Greta Thunberg and all those feeding her rubbish ideologies. The media have really caused the problem, by publicising all the crap floating around and the sooner all this ceases, the better for all of us.

  9. “…Sorry Greta, India needs more coal to power growth….”

    Um. Completely irrelevant.

    I watched some Extinction Rebellion interviews on the BBC. The interviewers pointed out that the scare stories touted by the activists were not in fact true. The activists just smiled.

    They pointed out that extreme language works. It’s not meant to persuade any of the ‘little people’, the ‘sheep’. What it does is give the activists a seat at the political table.

    Politicians are used to lies and exaggeration. They do it all the time. They are not interested in the truth – they are interested in how many followers you can get out on the streets. If you can get a lot, politicians listen to you. And will put your plans for a Socialist World on their agenda.

    No one is interested in whether the Indians or Chinese are burning more coal. They are interested in headlines. Which is what they are getting…

  10. Considered purely professionally, the PR company running Thunberg has done a very good job.

    Notwithstanding increased coal power, India hs also placed a block order for half a dozen of Rosatom’s 1200 MW nukes.

  11. This is incredible, how can 102 million people be more “dirty” for the earth then India, pakistan, bangladesh, and south asia. I cantam wait for the day that the co2 seeing puppet disappears back in to her little hole in the wall. Her followers need to learn some facts and to stop being sheep

    Sweden’s annual per capita carbon emissions are 4.5 metric tonnes, higher than India (1.7 metric tonnes), Pakistan (0.9 metric tonnes) or Bangladesh (0.5 metric tonnes). South Asians can double their carbon emissions without matching Sweden’s prodigality

  12. Whilst I have no issue with the buring of coal or atmospheric CO2 , I do have an issue with the debate on emissions per capita versus total emissions in terms of this blame game against western countries.

    What is totally obvious when it comes to CO2 emissions is that rich western countries that embrace capitalism get an added population brake as a bonus. The brake works due to people needing to balance the number of children versus the costs of raising those children which are born by themselves and generally families choose to limit themselves to 2 children on average, resulting in no net growth.

    However in a socialist communist state such as China where the state provides all housing and services, it is more beneficial to have more children as you will be provided with a bigger house, get extra income and have more children to look after you in old age. The result is a balooning population and massive emissions. Ironically, the green solialists want to replace capitalism with communism to cure the smaller emissions of western countries. In western countries that provide social assistance for the unemployed it is a noted statistic that single mothers and unemployed families have more children for exactly this reason, resulting in large unemployed ghettos on the outskits of cities. Socialism is a proven cause of more people and more emissions overall.

    In India the population ballooned due to the system of subsistance agriculture, where families saw more children as extra labour to work on the farms. As this system is gradually replaced with modern capitaism the birth rates will fall, but the damage is already done and it will take centuries to restore balance.

    The basic take out is that population controls emissions and western capitaism is the best cure for population management.

  13. The article is total nonsense, being written within the framework that “CO2 is bad for the planet”, when it is just the opposite. The salient point, about India needing more coal is a giant red herring. Of course they do, so then, why have they signed on to the Paris Sham-Wow? Because they are total hypocrites, and because there is no downside for them, that’s why. These are all the sort of asinine things they bring up at their COP gabfests.

  14. “…Sweden’s annual per capita carbon emissions are 4.5 metric tonnes,…”

    I think that per capita carbon emissions are a poor metric. The poorest most baren country’s have low per capita emissions but nobody wants to live that way (well, I know warmunists wouldn’t mind if WE lived that way. Not them, of course) . I’m thinking that carbon emissions per unit of value produced would be a much better indicator of efficiency. I mean, IF you’re actually concerned about such things.

  15. Sorry Greta/AOC

    Early Blizzard Wallops Vulnerable Crops
    Farmers who planted late after rainy spring face new threat from early freeze
    WSJ Oct 14

  16. If this little child doesn’t look like the anti-Christ, I don’t know who does. And I am agnostic on the whole God thing.

    • Surely you don’t mean Sweden’s contribution to the world…..after making war machinery for the Third Reich?

  17. Good news, Greta’s words are already having an effect-

    Almost entire Sweden with subzero temperatures
    October 4

  18. If Greta went to India on foot in order to share the plight of ordinary Indians not for a week or so but for the rest of her life, I would at least respect her. She would still not make any sense but at least she would put money where her mouth is. But she lives the life of a billionaire. Hardly 0,01% of all 16 year olds have this life, this luxury, this much fun and opportunities in life. Her life rocks and she is the one that wants to condemn the poorest on this planet to eternal squalor. How very arrogant …

  19. “Greta Thunberg, the 16-year old Swedish girl who lectured the United Nations on climate change, is being touted as a possible Nobel Prize winner. She believes she and her white Swedish teenage friends have to save the world from us terrible oldies who created the oil and coal industries.”

    Greta forgot / never learned about Swedish economic heritage:

  20. With all the photo ops from her posse can we expect a Christmas Book ? …. fossil free of course .
    They don’t have her running around without a marketing plan .
    There is still a bit of gold in the climate fraud industry .

Comments are closed.