Introduction
Every June BP publish their statistical review of world energy.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
One element of their comprehensive set of spreadsheets is a table of CO2 emissions by world countries since 1965. For the purposes of this post, the CO2 emissions data provided by BP here is assumed to be correct.
That data is here and aggregated into seven Nation groups according to nominal state of development and attitudes towards controlling CO2 emissions, as follows:
- Developed
- USA
- JP CIS CA AU
- EU (28)
- Nominally Developing
- China HK
- India
- KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW
- Rest of World (~160 Nations)
The aggregate data of CO2 emissions growth is summarised from 1965 onwards are shown above. The marked differential between the Developed and nominally Developing worlds is shown below.
It shows:
- The virtual stabilisation of world emissions 2012 – 2019
- The continuing diminution of CO2 emissions from the Developed world from 2005 onwards
- The growing escalation of CO2 emissions from the “Developing” world, including China and India. This growth of CO2 emissions will inevitably continue and accelerate.
Contrasting the Developed and Developing worlds
Developing world emissions overtook Developed world CO2 emissions in 2005 and they have been escalating ever since. CO2 emissions from the Developing world are now ~900,000,000 tonnes higher than the Developed world’s emissions. The prognosis is for Developing world CO2 emissions to continue to grow and to accelerate further.
CO2 emissions in the Developing world are accelerating as the quality of the lives for people are progressively improving. This emissions growth will further escalate as the Chinese develop Coal-fired power stations at home and via the “Belt and Road programme” throughout the developing world. Even so at least ~1.12 billion people, ~15% of the global population, still have no access to reliable electricity.
Having been relatively stable for the previous 5 years, global CO2 emissions grew last year by about 2.0% and again in 2019 by ~+1.4%. All of this growth was in the Developing world, whereas emissions in the Developed world was reduced. In 2019 the overall growth was ~484,000,000 tonnes despite all the international “commitments” of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Since 1990 CO2 emissions from the Developed world have decreased, whereas the Developing world has shown a fourfold increase since 1985. This differential has arisen as a result of:
- to the off-shoring of major CO2 emitting industries to parts of the world that have less rigorous environmental standards or who care less about CO2 emissions
- the growing use of Coal-firing for electricity generation in the Developing world, particularly as supported by Chinese technology exports via its “Belt and Road Programme”
- the use of Fracked natural gas for electricity generation as opposed to Coal-firing as in the USA
- the earlier 1990s “dash for gas” policy in the UK.
On the other hand, Weather Dependent Renewables, have made very little contribution to CO2 emissions reduction, if at all. When looked at in the round, from their manufacture to demolition, they are hardly CO2 emissions nor energy neutral over their service life.
The use of Biomass for electricity generation, although considered to be “carbon neutral”, actually increases the immediate contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, producing almost twice as much CO2 as Coal firing.
Representation by Region
The pie diagram above shows the proportion of CO2 emissions as of the end of 2019. These 2019 data are set out in tabular form below.
The graph below of total CO2 emission history show that up until 2018 there has been an overall reduction of CO2 emissions from most of the Developed economies since 1990.
This analysis divides the world’s nations into seven logical groups with distinct attitudes to CO2 emissions control:
Developed nations: population ~1.19 billion – ~37% CO2 emissions.
United States of America, now President Trump is gradually rescinding many of Obama’s climate initiatives, including USA support for the Paris Climate accord: population 328m: 14.5% of global CO2 emissions.
Japan, the former Soviet Union, (CIS), Canada and Australia, (JP CIS CA AU), are developed nations, ambivalent towards controls on CO2 emissions and not necessarily adhering to the Paris Climate Accord: population 356m: 12.4% of global CO2 emissions.
The European Union(28), (including the United Kingdom): population 508m: 9.7% of global CO2 emissions., currently believing in action to combat Global Warming, and their governments are generally enthusiastic supporters of the Paris Climate Accord as the European Union. However it should be noted that the populace of the EU(28) is losing enthusiasm for Green agendas for example: the Yellow Vests reaction in France to increase of fuel taxes on grounds of combatting climate change and subsidy support for Renewables is being curtailed and it is likely that many of the pioneering commitments of the past 25 years made to controlling climate change will not retain subsidy support and therefore will be abandoned in future.
Developing nations: population ~6.45 billion – 72% CO2 emissions
China and Hong Kong: developing very rapidly, with no effective commitments under the Paris Climate Accord: population 1,390m: 29% CO2 emissions. China is responsible for the continuing development of its own Coal-Fired installations, multiple Coal-fired installations in the Third World and for the development Fracking for its own Gas fields. Although China makes gestures towards Renewable Energy and has benefitted from Solar PV manufacture, nonetheless its actions are not restricted by the Paris Climate Accord. At the same time, China is advancing the development of new generations of Nuclear power.
India is developing rapidly from a low base with no virtually commitments under the Paris Climate Accord: population 1,339m: 7.3% CO2 emissions. India is continuing the rapid development of its own Coal-Fired installations. Although India makes gestures towards Renewable Energy its actions are hardly in accordance the Paris Climate Accord. At the same time, India is advancing the development of new generations of Nuclear power.
South Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan, (KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW): the more advanced developing nations, are still growing rapidly, with minimal commitments under the Paris Climate accord: population 900m: 12.2% CO2 emissions.
Rest of World (~160 Nations), population 2,758m: 14.8% CO2 emissions, like India the remainder of the underdeveloped world is developing rapidly from a low base of 1.8 tonnes CO2/head. These nations have no real commitments under the Paris Climate Accord, other than the anticipated receipt of “Climate Funds” from developed nations.
The USA, simply by exploiting shale gas for electricity generation, has already reduced its annual CO2 emissions by some by ~1,.000,000,000 tonnes since 2005. That alone has already had a greater CO2 emission reduction effect than the entire Kyoto protocol and the Paris Climate Accord.
http://www.oilandgasonline.com/doc/u-s-fracking-has-carbon-more-whole-world-s-wind-solar-0001
CO2 emissions from the Developed economies ambivalent about action on CO2 (JP CIS CA AU) have hardly grown since 2005.
The European Union, EU(28) has reduced its CO2 emissions by ~960,000,000 tonnes since 2005 since 2005
There has been a further rapid escalation of Chinese CO2 emissions since the year 2000.
China overtook the USA CO2 emissions in 2005, and Chinese emissions are now ~4,800,000,000 tonnes higher than the USA. After a brief hiatus in 2014 the escalation in Chinese CO2 emissions now continues. Chinese emissions have grown by ~3,900,000,000 tonnes since 2005 and this growth will continue as China continues to build coal-fired power stations to supply the bulk of its electricity for industrial and domestic demands.
India has accelerating CO2 emissions, it has grown from a low base in 2005, by ~1,200,000,000 tonnes. India is building coal fired power stations to increase the supply of electricity as ~25% of its population still has no access to electric power.
There is also inexorable CO2 emissions growth from the underdeveloped Rest of the World economies, from their low base, they have grown by ~2,000,000,000 tonnes since 2001.
Even as long ago as October 2010 Professor Richard Muller made the dilemma for all those who hope to control global warming by reducing CO2 emissions, by CO2 reductions from Western Nations, very clear. In essence he said:
“the Developing World is not joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor should it have any intention of doing so. The failure of worldwide action negates the unilateral action of any individual Western Nation”
By 2018 CO2 emissions from the Developing world were some 62% of the global emissions. India and the underdeveloped world will certainly be continuing to promote their own development to attain comparable well-being levels to their other peer group developing nations.
Recent CO2 emissions growth
The progressive changes indicating recent CO2 emissions growth can be seen in the graphic below.
Global CO2 emissions had previously plateaued. But since 2016 they have shown a significant uplift. Unsurprisingly the emissions growth has mainly occurred in the developing nation groups India and the Rest of World as their quality of life is progressively improving. After a fall in 2015 – 2016 in 2017 – 2019 the was a significant uplift in Chinese emissions.
Notably the only Nation that had consistently reduced its CO2 emissions was the USA, that reduction resumed again in 2019.
With increasing installation of Coal-Fired generation throughout the developing world it is now inevitable that Global CO2 emissions will continue to show significant growth, entirely negating the objectives of the Paris Climate accord.
CO2 emissions / head
Possibly more significant than the total CO2 emissions output is the comparison of the CO2 emissions / head for the various nation groups. This measure represents the level of development of various Nations.
In 2003 China overtook the world-wide average for CO2 emissions / head and surpassed the rapidly developing nations. China’s emissions / head have increased in 2018 to ~6.92 tonnes / head. China and the EU(28) emissions/ head had been closely aligned since 2014 but China has now surpassed the EU(28) at ~6.92 tonnes / head.
India’s CO2 emissions have grown by 4.7 times since 1965 and are now accelerating. That emissions rate is likely to grow continuously with increased use of coal for electricity generation.
India and the bulk of the underdeveloped nations, (~55% of the world’s population), still remain at a low level of CO2 emissions levels/head of about ~1.81 tonnes/head, this level is about 1/8 of the level of the USA and about 1/4 of the level in the EU(28) and China. As a result, these under-developed Nations have poor access to reliable power and substantial potential for further CO2 emissions growth.
The USA has already reduced its CO2 emissions/head by 1/3 since 2000. This has mainly arisen from the substitution of shale gas for electricity generation replacing Coal-firing. The CO2 emission reduction has not been achieved by the introduction of Weather Dependent Renewables, which will always require ancillary fossil fuel back-up to compensate for their intermittent unreliability. In addition their raw material requirements, manufacture, installation, etc. will always continue to need substantial fossil fuel input.
The EU(28) with active legal measures had reduced emissions until ~2013. Much of that downward trend is largely attributed to their declining economies and the displacement of industrial processes to countries with laxer environmental regimes.
Russia, Japan, Canada and Australia have hardly grown their emissions/head since 2005.
Russia is actively involved in backing anti-fracking campaigns throughout Europe and in the USA via its support of various NGO groups. This is an obvious policy to protect the large Gasprom markets for Russian Gas in the West. This has achieved an energy stranglehold on Western nations, as was well demonstrated in the Ukraine. The export of Fracked gas from the USA to Europe and the possibility of indigenous fracking might break such a stranglehold, if the local protests can be ignored.
CO2 emissions / head for India and the Rest of the World’s Underdeveloped nations (~53% of the world population) remains low at ~1.8 tonnes / head, (still ~40% of the Global average) meaning that their state of serious human deprivation and underdevelopment is continuing, even though it is progressively being rectified.
India’s growth in CO2 emissions 2018 – 2018 was by a further 162,000,000 tonnes. India has some 450 new Coal-fired generation plants currently under development.
China, (still nominally considered here as a “Developing Nation”, according to its un-concerned attitude to the Paris climate accord), showed domestic CO2 emission growth of 2.14%, 199,000,000 tonnes in 2018. However, China is also promoting the use of Coal-firing for electricity generation both domestically, (300 – 500 Coal-fired plants) and across the Developing world with some 300 new Coal-fired generating plants currently in the pipeline.
https://economics21.org/inconvenient-realities-new-energy-economy
European Union (28) CO2 Emissions
When the participating nations particularly in the environmentally active / Green aware EU are compared with Chinese CO2 emissions/head, an interesting picture arises, as follows.
Average EU(28) CO2 emissions / head are now exceeded by China by ~6%. EU(28) CO2 emissions overall have fallen slightly in 2019, notably in Germany and remarkably further in France The UK has seen a significant drop in CO2 emissions reaching 5.46 tonnes/head in 2019.
At 4.26 tonnes/head, France, has the lowest CO2 emission rates in the developed world, below the global average. This is entirely due to the French long-term commitments to electricity generation by Nuclear energy. The French experience shows that comparatively low CO2 emissions can be achieved in a developed country using consistent Nuclear power supplies. Nonetheless they are unlikely to be met using unreliable Weather Dependent Renewable Energy technologies.
The unique performance of France as a Developed country in limiting its CO2 emissions must question the logic of Green attitudes in opposing of Nuclear power. If CO2 emissions really were a concern to arrest Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming / Man-made Climate Change, these results, particularly from France, show starkly the very real advantage of using Nuclear power for electricity generation. So, President Macron’s stated intention to reduce Nuclear generation from ~75% to 50% is particularly anachronistic. Green attitudes in the French government are now threatening to destroy this unique French national asset.
At 8.78 tonnes /head, Germany virtually is alone amongst the EU(28) still substantially exceeds the CO2 emissions/head level of China and the EU(28) average, in spite of its major costly policy of “die Energiewende” with record power costs. Germany, one of the largest CO2 emitters in Europe, has emissions/head about twice the worldwide average but it is only ~21% higher than China. Germany’s emissions / head had increased recently because they are now burning much larger quantities of brown coal to compensate for the “irrational” closure of their nuclear generating capacity. Following the Fukushima disaster, the German government position of rapidly eliminating nuclear power in a country with no earthquake risk and no chance of tsunamis is emotional and should have been non-tenable.
The United Kingdom Example
The UK was responsible for 1.1%, 387,000,000 tonnes of the 2019 total 34,169,000,000 tonnes of global CO2 emissions, and now the UK government has committed to reduce CO2 emissions to net Zero by 2050 at an estimated cost in excess of some £1,000,000,000,000.
The total UK CO2 emissions output 391,000,000 tonnes was overtaken in 2018 by just the growth in CO2 emissions from China, India and the other Developing Nations; that growth alone amounted to ~475,000,000 tonnes in 2018.
Any attempt to reduce UK CO2 emissions at enormous costs would therefore seem entirely fatuous.
The futility of Western de-carbonisation
It is clear that CO2 emissions are continuing to grow in the Developing World and can be anticipated to continue indefinitely.
Western industrial companies will seek more congenial energy / business environments, with laxer attitudes towards CO2 emissions to maintain the performance of their businesses. So, the futility of the expenditure of vast resources on Green activities in Germany and throughout the Western world is clear.
But the self-harming actions of the Western Governments in response to Alarmist Green thinking have already caused gross risks to Western energy security by the imposition of unreliable and intermittent Weather Dependent Renewables, with substantially increased costs for private energy users, in addition to damaging the economics of all Western manufacturing industries.
The effective elimination of Fracking as a technique for fossil fuel recovery in Western Europe is self-inflicted harm by “Green Virtue Signalling” have been to the financial benefit of Russia and China in the continuation of “a covert Cold War”.
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2019/the-plot-against-fracking/
Some conclusions
Any CO2 reduction policy should also be seen in a longer-term context.
- According to reliable Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial and the world had already been cooling comparatively rapidly for 3000 years, in fact since before Roman times ~1000 BC.
- The modern short pulse of beneficial Global Warming stopped some 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
- At 11,000 years long, our congenial Holocene interglacial, responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from living in caves to microprocessors, is coming its end.
- So, the World will very soon, (on a geological time scale), revert to a true glaciation, again resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York
- The weather gets worse and Man-kind’s survival more difficult in colder times.
The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something to be truly scared about both for the biosphere and for man-kind.
Spending any effort, for solely emotional and childish reasons, without true cost benefit analysis and without full engineering due diligence for any proposed technical solutions, let alone at GDP scale costs, trying to stop the UK’s 1% or the EU’s 10% of something that has not been happening for 3 millennia has to be monumentally ill-advised.
An estimate of the additional 60 year lifetime costs of some €2.6 trillion that has already been committed for the current installation of Weather Dependent Renewables in Europe is given at.
EU28 Weather Dependent Renewables in 2018 and indicative costs
According to Bjorn Lomborg the ~€125billion German investment in solar power not including other Weather Dependent Renewable investments, could only ever reduce the onset of Global Warming by a matter of about 37 hours by the year 2100, if at all.
http://www.lomborg.com/content/2013-03-germany-pays-billions-delay-global-warming-37-hours
And more recently Bjorn Lomborg has produced evidence that the total effect of any agreement in the terms proposed in Paris could only control future warming in 2100 by less than 0.2°C.
Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals
China and the developing World are doing their best to supply the raw products that the plant World craves. This could be described as a Win-Win situation.
“China And India Will Watch The West Destroy Itself – OpEd”
China And India ARE WATCHING The West Destroy Itself. There corrected that link title.
Great detailed overview Charles.
Part of China’s emissions are transferred from EU(28).
An example:
A year ago I ordered PCB (Printed Circuit Board) from my home country Sweden.
A week ago I ordered PCB from China instead, where I get them for a third of the price and delivered in the same time span.
No excuse for the timespan, Carl, but are you really happy about the reason why Chinese PCBs are one-third of the price of Swedish ones?
Two possibilities here — linked and equally unpleasant.
1. The Chinese are using slave labour (or near-slave labour) because the “mandarins” don’t give a rat’s for the peasants.
2. The Chinese are undercutting western prices because (a) they don’t give rat’s for the peasants AND (b) by extracting our industries from us, with our connivance, they build up a very large trade surplus with which they then proceed to buy as much of the rest of our industry as they want — using our own money!
Are you happy with that arrangement? If not, the cure is in your own hands — or to be more precise, in our hands collectively. Regrettably we have been completely brainwashed into the idea that China is a developing country and must therefore be given a free pass to the carbon emissions game while we hedge ourselves round with ever more stringent restrictions on our freedom to manufacture (not to mention freedom simply to continue living a civilised existence) which do — as somebody phrased it the other day — “the square root of naff all” to reduce CO2 emissions, even assuming they need to be reduced which is itself very dubious.
Not one of those PCBs represents a reduction in CO2 emissions. In fact they probably cause an increase because apart from being made in a country that doesn’t care about its emissions (and still less about the state of the “environment”) they then need to be shipped halfway round the world instead if just down the road.
The western obsession with reducing CO2 emissions at any cost is not going to end well and for the useful idiots among the eco-nuts (which is to say, most of them) there will some day be a very rude awakening.
Newminster, I agree with you a long way. But, on the other hand, most of us would like free trade. Sometimes I am ordering components from the US, instead of the nearby EU.
Remember, in the EU(28) we tax ourselves to death. In the US there is considerable less tax in general. Here in Sweden and Denmark, we pay about 35% income tax, 25% VAT and many hundred percent tax on tobacco and strong alcohol. If that wasn’t enough, we pay very high Green tax on electricity, fuel and meat.
Don’t you have to pay import duty and VAT on purchases from the US?
Just so you know… if you look at that Swedish made board, the actual COMPONENTS on that board are not from Sweden. China is likely the major supplier of those. China, Thailand, Indonesia ….
The religiosity of climate alarmists, clearly has no logic or bounds to its virtue signalling intentions. The lack of any scientific reasoning within the “let’s destroy reliable clean energy” movement headed up by the Greens, troubles them not at all. Their stated objective to destroy advances enjoyed by past generation must be presented at the high alter of alarmism in fact any alarm will do, not just climate, it would appear. The anti energy movement/religion is given a voice and action by Russian financial support using XR rebellion activities. The term useful idiots, could not be more appropriate, when considering what to call these modern day Luddites.
I would quietly be going insane with frustration, living in this present world, if it were not for one simple unavoidable truth. The natural ability of humanity to eventually see through the false messages provided by the “believers”, will ultimately ensure we do return to a more sensible balanced and fairer society. The only unknown, is how bad life will get for the next generation before they turn the corner, leaving the route to anarchy behind, and head back towards sense and reality.
Thank god the developing world is putting out the fertiliser needed to feed their expanding populations.
Chaswarnertoo – at 3:09 am
Thank god the developing world is putting out the fertiliser needed to feed their expanding populations.
CO2 is more than mere fertilizer, it is an integral component in the basic photosynthesis process that you learned about in your sixth grade science class. Carbon dioxide plus water and sunlight produce the basic sugar that green plants then transform into among other things, the food we eat. Every carbon atom in your body without exception was once present as CO2 in the atmosphere. It is an absolute necessity that it be there. With respect to life sustaining qualities, more CO2, much more than is currently in the air, is better.
Exactly, the whole premise should be how much CO2 can we pump into the atmosphere. We should consider recommissioning our coal plants to just make CO2, dont even bother to hook up the power lines.
Jean Parisot,
And I thought I was a crackpot.
Steve, the rabbit hole can go much deeper than this. I always wondered who did the environmental impact study that allowed early plants to sequester away all the atmospheric carbon up to the point of almost shutting down the carbon cycle. Some people like to criticize humans for profligate consumption, but we have nothing on green plants (not even counting the mass extinction and fire hazard caused by their unregulated release of dangerous free oxygen). If there was a Gaia, she certainly created humans to undue the damage done during the Carboniferous. Free the carbon, save the Earth!
Need to flip the tables, it seems if you don’t go to the extremes – no one cares.
No need to change your self-image….
Different shades is all. Jean a little darker gray and you a little lighter grey. But that doesn’t change anything; gray is still grey and there is seldom any reason to discriminate between the two.
The Paris promise of China to reduce their “carbon intensity” is met, as they slightly increased their percentage of renewables and lower carbon electricity generation. Despite that, their total CO2 emissions increased a lot, including coal use… That shows that until 2030, they have no obligation to reduce their CO2 emissions, even may have a 2-3 fold increase, as long as they increase their renewables just as much as the rest of the energy production…
Or how the Western countries committed to economical suicide in the Paris agreement…
They can build anything they want, but there are no reliable stats on how much energy they actually produce.
In the west it is a fraction of nameplate, where the foolish are really trying hard. In china i would best assume a fraction of a fraction.
Chinese green energy is just the most modern potemkin village example that we have.
Three things: China is clearly the winner, the virtue-signaling by western cultures in converting to wind/solar has no “carbon” effect whatsoever, and the next glacial cycle is coming, so Go, China, Go! (but stop all of the bad behavior like state-sponsored hacking, etc!).
Could you add one more graph showing these emissions against all CO2 emissions so we have some context please.
Great point. While they are at it, show on the same graph the uncertainties in each known source and sink.
The real insanity is that so many mainstream politicians in Europe accept the futile carbon reduction and windmill policies promoted by the greens with no examination. Here in Ireland the two main centre parties have agreed to a form a coalition government with the greens with 7% pa reduction of CO2 emissions and ban on importation of fracked gas as two main policies, as well as regressive carbon taxes and subsidies for windmills.
These two main parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, now unquestionably accept the new green religion in the same way they in the past (20’s-70’s) unquestionably accepted the rules of the catholic church.
The Irish are the race that God made mad for all their wars are merry and all of their songs are sad-GK Chesterton
Some conclusions
…The modern short pulse of beneficial Global Warming stopped some 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
So sciencey, so comforting, so confirming, so WUWT.
So unsciency, so divorced from the real world of data, measurements and observations , so “missing the point” , so patronising , so Loydo
So…Loydo…perhaps you could tell us why it is exactly, as you have proposed many posts in the past, IF Renewable energy sources are SO CHEAP compared to Coal, AND China produces the cheapest solar panels and wind turbines worldwide, that China isn’t powering developing countries or themselves exclusively with the least expensive, most reliable source of energy?
So true.
Loydo
When have you ever contributed anything ‘sciency’?
…a word she/he/xer/it learned from us. Absolutely canonical troll behavior.
BTW I’m well aware that insults have no effect, since to this sort of person any attention is inherently good. They have no genuine human emotions, which is why they usually fail in all areas of life, particularly relationships. No friends, no lovers, no family – just the Internet. The results are plain to see.
This is a zombie masquerading as a human being, and that’s why our natural reaction is revulsion; we know instinctively that something is seriously amiss with anyone who makes a point of showing up where they’re not welcome and making a spectacle of themselves day in and day out. They why of it is the interesting part, and they really ought to be studied by professionals. Way better use of funds than looking for solar cells light years away. 🙂
Douchebag.
Two can play the ad hominem game, ‘Roid-o.
Sorry, that was rude. Let’s try again.
Narcissistic preening sociopathic attention whore.
Much better.
Why does reality upset you so much Loydo?
Will Greta Thunberg be making a speaking tour of China HK?
Never. Has she ever even mentioned China, except perhaps in glowing terms?
“Cultural Revolution, that sounds exciting!”
Narcissistic little swine.
oh the cold is coming – winter is coming and it wont be pretty – we have had the coldest wettest half year for the last 20 years in Victoria. The last time it was this wet was when I was building my first house in the Kinglake Ranges – which burned down 9 years later in the 2009 fires – I rebuilt a fireproof house – but it seems I am now burning tonnes of wood just to keep warm and dry (5 tonnes so far and counting and we are only half way through the winter!). We had snow at the beginning of May – unprecedented! – snow season starts now – 2 weeks early – “Our children wont know what snow is!” or – “if it rains again it wont fill our dams” – surely time for a rethink and stop listening to the profits of doom (yes and I meant the pun)?
Environmentalism, Green [blight]: shared/shifted responsibility, redistributive change, an out-of-sight and out-of-mind (“privacy”) quasi-religious and socioeconomic system.
Another nicely-presented (if no sh!t, Sherlock!) paper.
Does Professor Lomborg’s paper basically suggest that even if we all k!ll ourselves, the predicted outcome on global temperatures is essentially zilch? He’s like ‘our’ mole within!
One wonders for how much longer this green delirium can last. For as long as the Totalitarians aren’t exposed, presumably. It’s time they were.
Who is going to expose them? They own the almost totally unified press.
+100
Well, the last time around the Berlin Wall fell, so never say ‘never’.
That was after total economic ruin, mind.
Can we not skip the latter bit?
Lomborg’s 0 2° by 2100 is based on inaccurate projections. Paris actually does nothing, which is OK because the Climate Crisis has nothing to do with the Climate.
Just like the current race riots have nothing to do with Police hunting down people to kill all the time…which is also not happening.
If they were true, both have simple solutions. Gen V Nuclear and don’t resist arrest…All Fixed! But solutions aren’t even desired by the elite, because the Climate and the riots are just tools…tools that they designed and built and are now throwing at us.
Both are engineered efforts to by the Globalist Socialist Elites to grab illegitiimate unelected power.
Off topic but …
XKCD‘s comic for today features an explanation of the difference between empirical studies and modelling studies.
The creator of XKCD, who believes in CAGW, but nevertheless has correctly noticed that modelling studies hide problems that empirical studies deal with up front. The result is GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out). When I was a teenager, and mainframes were very new in business and government, GIGO was one of the first concepts I learned. It’s as old as computers and yet modellers everywhere act like it doesn’t matter.
I wonder if the XKCD guy knows that his epiphany undermines his beloved CAGW.
Extrapolating the developing world CO2 emission trend ten years to 2030, their total emission would be roughly equal to the current whole world emissions. Thus, to stabilize emissions at the current level would require the developed world to get to zero emissions within 10 years. That would result in two classes of countries – the current developing countries with increasingly industrialized economies and the formerly developed countries (US, EU, JP, AUS, etc.) which by then will all most likely be in a state of civil war.
Frankly, I cannot imagine the people of any developed nation tolerating the economic damage that trying to implement a “green agenda” will cause.
It appears that the developing world countries are going to increase their emissions until the developed countries pay them enough to be able to afford the ‘less expensive’ renewables.
“…Even as long ago as October 2010 Professor Richard Muller made the dilemma for all those who hope to control global warming by reducing CO2 emissions, by CO2 reductions from Western Nations, very clear…:
You can go back to the time of the Kyoto Protocol and see the same sorts of common sense.
My question relates to wood chip burning in power generation.
We know that it gets a gold star for being carbon neutral but any person with triple figure IQ knows that the real number is likely approximately the same as coal.
Does BP allow this fraud to prevail in their numbers.
“The USA, simply by exploiting shale gas for electricity generation, has already reduced its annual CO2 emissions by some by ~1,.000,000,000 tonnes since 2005. That alone has already had a greater CO2 emission reduction effect than the entire Kyoto protocol and the Paris Climate Accord.” And the USA is the bad guy. Wouldn’t want this information falling into bad hands …. like the people.
Okay, so now let’s see the estimated rate and timing of exportation of emissions to China and India. They did not do it all at the same time and same rate.
Excellent set is data for *HUMAN* CO2 emissions. But how do these compare to emissions from *natural* sources? The biosphere, ocean degassing? Bottom line: What is the *relative* amount of CO2 human activity emits, in terms of %?
The most recent set of data I’ve seen (published here in WUWT) was 3.4%, hardly enough to get excited about. This amount is up slightly from data I was first referred to from the IPCC AR4 report, which was 2.9%.
So – for whatever influence CO2 has on global temperatures, us humans might affect it only to the smallest incremental degree.
And, we haven’t even begun to discuss the overriding effects of water vapor…
I assume that BP = British Petroleum.
Not defined anywhere that I could see.
– JPP
The great irony of the emissions data versus the political situation is that as the developing countries have ramped up emissions to a point where they now totally dominate the global % and emissions from developed countries are still falling from their 1980 level and represent no risk, the alarmist finger of blame and reduction target is pointed even more violently towards the developed world, with no regard to emissions from the developing countries.
In the case of China, it would appear that being the biggest emitter @30% will guarantee unilateral support from the left-wing protest mob, who ramp up attacks more each year in the countries that have not been the cause of rising emissions for over 40 years and will make no difference to future rising emissions.
It costs money to reduce emissions , starting with particulates that actually cause problems .
Energy produces income .
Underdeveloped countries priority is income, not emission control .
Foreign aid should contribute to low particulate energy provision .