Pressure Grows For Meaningful US Emission Cuts

Reposted from Not A Lot Of People Know That

By Paul Homewood

h/t Robin Guenier

 As Joe Biden rejoins Paris, the pressure grows for meaningful US cuts:

image

Thirty days after Joe Biden entered the White House, the US is officially back in the Paris Agreement.

On his first day in office, Biden signed an executive order notifying the UN that the US was rejoining the Paris Agreement. Now that order has taken effect, the US is expected to submit a new national contribution to the agreement, setting out an emissions target for 2030.

“It’s good to have the US back in the Paris Agreement, but sadly we have no time to celebrate. The climate crisis is deepening and this is the year we need all major polluters to step up and deliver stronger plans to deliver a safe, clean and prosperous future for everyone,” said Laurence Tubiana, head of the European Climate Foundation.

“The US needs to come to Cop26 [climate talks] with a strong commitment: the urgency of the crisis is clear, and this means a new US target of at least 50% GHG cuts on 2005 levels by 2030, ideally more,” Tubiana said.

A series of net zero pledges and upgraded 2030 emissions targets from major polluters – including China, Japan and the EU – last year has put pressure on the US to catch up.

The US is expected to announce its updated 2030 target ahead of a major economies climate summit which Biden will host on Earth Day, 22 April.

Climate Action Tracker previously told Climate Home that the US should reduce its emissions by at least 52% by 2030 through domestic action. Under Obama, the US committed to reducing emissions by 26-28% by 2025, compared to 2005 levels – a target which it is not on track to meet.

Tim Gore, head of the climate programme at The Institute for European Environmental Policy, said that the average US citizen has a carbon footprint ten times higher than the global emissions per capita needed to limit global warming to 1.5C. A 50% reduction by 2030 would not bring US per capita emissions down to EU levels today, he said.

195 climate groups signed a petition this week calling on Biden to ensure that the US contributes its “fair share” to limiting global warming to 1.5C, the toughest target in the Paris Agreement.

US Climate Action Network is calling on the US to reduce its emissions by 195% by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. At least 70% should be delivered domestically and the rest by helping developing countries to cut carbon faster, the campaign network said.

“Rejoining the Paris Agreement is the right move for the United States, but it’s just the easy first step. President Biden must follow through on his commitment to do more by centering environmental justice in his approach to the climate crisis globally,” said Karen Orenstein, climate and energy director at climate group Friends of the Earth.

“This includes the United States doing its fair share to keep global temperature rise to 1.5C and providing climate finance for developing countries in line with science, equity, and justice,” said Orenstein.

It is not widely understood how little Obama actually committed to in Paris, with a 26-28% cut from 2005 emissions by 2025. This compares to the UK’s pledge to cut by 49% from 2005 to 2030. The comparison with 1990 levels is even more stark – UK’s 55% compares to the US 14% – as US emissions rose sharply between 1990 and 2005, while in the UK they dropped:

image

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/pledges-and-targets/

Currently the US has only managed a cut of 10% from 2005 levels.

I suspect Biden will not take kindly to the sort of pressure from Tubiana, for instance, who demands cuts of 55% from 2005 by 2030.

Far from “healing the planet”, Obama barely cut emissions at all in his reign, and they have remained flat since:

graph-as-image-2

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/

So to get to that 55%, the US would need to cut would require a cut of 44% in emissions from 2018 levels. Even the wildest fantasies of AOC and Bernie could not find a way to do that.

Meanwhile, the looby loos think that Biden should cut by 85%:

image

Texans might not think that such a good idea!

And while all of this is going on, China’s carry on remorselessly rising, and are now more than double the US.

graph-as-image-3

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/

4.4 8 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
148 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John the Econ
February 23, 2021 2:10 pm

Shutting down the federal government would be a good start.

Scissor
Reply to  John the Econ
February 23, 2021 2:38 pm

As the joke goes, where would we bury the survivors?

Last edited 11 days ago by Scissor
Bryan A
Reply to  Scissor
February 23, 2021 6:42 pm

What he SHOULD do as President is tell COP26 the USA will match step CO2 reductions to match China. If China has Negative Reductions then any other nation can also have Negative Reductions. If China reduces by 10%, the U.S. will reduce by 10%

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
February 23, 2021 8:25 pm

Oh, and reducing emissions by turning off power to Ghost Cities doesn’t count as reduced emissions

Reply to  John the Econ
February 23, 2021 5:30 pm

Joey the Clown is going to let a million illegals pour across the border….Wuhan Covid?….not to worry….environmental problems? ….not to worry….Joey sez these people are not “illegals”….they are demrat voters…..and if they create more CO2?…..Joey don’t care ’bout CO2….Joey wants Hunter to collect the money for the Big Guy.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Anti_griff
February 23, 2021 6:58 pm

Yes, Biden is not going to let anything interfere with his import of new Democrat voters. Democrats think the illegal aliens will vote for them when they get a chance, and they are probably right.

griff
Reply to  Anti_griff
February 24, 2021 12:24 am

Hello cousin!

I assume you are my long lost relative from the Antipodes…

MarkW
Reply to  Anti_griff
February 24, 2021 8:10 am

AOC is upset that Biden is re-opening the child detainment facilities that liberals have spent the last few years describing as uniquely evil.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-biden-child-migrant-facility

Yes, these are the same facilities that were originally opened under Obama.

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
February 24, 2021 8:23 am

According to the MSM they are “migrant housing facilities”, not “cages” anymore, so it’s ok now.

Steve Case
February 23, 2021 2:12 pm

If climate science was settled, the IPCC wouldn’t have to 
put out a new report every six or seven years where all the 
numbers are changed to make it worse than previously thought

Pillage Idiot
February 23, 2021 2:13 pm

All U.S. jobs to China!

(You know, for the good of the planet.)

n.n
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 23, 2021 4:43 pm

Green front yards and Green backyards through shared/shifted responsibility. Perception matters.

n.n
Reply to  n.n
February 23, 2021 7:40 pm

More clearly: Green backyards and green front yards. Case matters.

Robert of Texas
February 23, 2021 2:24 pm

How about we start cutting AFTER China and India start cutting?

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 23, 2021 2:31 pm

How about just ignoring the blathering idiots?

griff
Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 24, 2021 12:25 am

Because then of course they’ll say ‘look, look America isn’t eating its greens, why should I have to!’

Ron Long
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 2:24 am

griff, the USA has already produced a decrease in the dreaded CO2 pollution. China has not followed suit, and in fact has turned to burning their own “dirty” coal after banning “clean” Australian coal imports. Did China follow the lead of the USA? No. Not going to either. Lucky China, they have a bunch of useful idiots to front for them.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 8:10 am

I see griff is still trying to pretend that energy poverty is good for you.

Vuk
February 23, 2021 2:28 pm

Yea, yea, Ask Texans to do their bit /sc

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Vuk
February 23, 2021 6:59 pm

Yeah, tell Texans they need to install more windmills so we can meet the Big Guy’s climate change goals.

n.n
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 23, 2021 7:41 pm

And electric motors for pipelines to complete the missing links.

February 23, 2021 2:31 pm

Like many other things the past month, Biden will likely over-reach. Paris has no bite, it is purely aspirational with a name and shame ‘enforcement’ mechanism. He cannot EO some ridiculous reduction; he likely cannot get one thru Congress as a law. So he will get named and shamed.

IMO there are bigger things right now in the US to worry about, like illegal immigration, 2022 election security, Iran, overhiking the minimum wage (guaranteeing 1.4 million lost jobs per CBO).

John the Econ
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 23, 2021 2:59 pm

When the economy finally crashes, nobody is going to care about the “climate crisis” much less the environment in general.

The worst thing for the environment is mass poverty.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 23, 2021 3:24 pm

No need to worry about 2020 US election security.
Secure US elections are a thing of the past.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
February 23, 2021 4:04 pm

Not on my watch. We got Florida ‘fixed’ after 2016. Brenda Snipes in my county (Broward) was fired for videodocumented incompetence. The Pa SOS just resigned for similar reasons over a PA constitutional amendment in the 2020 election. Just need to support similar moves in several other states, and support some existing lawsuits like the SP and ML defenses against Dominion. Discovery in those will go a long way toward fixing Georgia and Michigan (based on Antrim County.)

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 23, 2021 4:11 pm

I like your attitude.
It’s too tempting after what we have witnessed the past few months, to fold up camp and say the heck with it.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 23, 2021 5:43 pm

The Michigan vote injection that pushed Biden past Trump in 5am-6am period was blatantly obvious voter fraud. The other states like WI, PA, and GA were more subtle and much less statistically provable. No doubt the vote fraud team in MI got a talking to by the DNC.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 23, 2021 6:32 pm

I wrote a post with CtM rejected as off topic. There are three categories of provable stolen election fraud, all well documented. A very brief summary:

  1. Traditional indicia. PdJT won both FL and OH. He won both long indicatory counties in NM and OH. He won 17/18 shorter indicator counties. He won 27/27 tossup representative elections, showing coattails except for himself.
  2. Enthusiasm. Spontaneous rallies versus none for Biden. Voter turnout much greater than for any Pres including Obama in 2008.
  3. Actual court evidence. Video of Atlanta 4 suitcases of cheat ballots at 1130. Video of Detroit two van loads worth of 61 cheat ballot filled boxes at 0330, twice in a half hour. PA SoS website saying 1.8 mio (many illegal per PA absentee law, permitted illegally by PASC) were applied for, yet about 2.5 mio were received! And so on in WI, AZ, NV.
Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 24, 2021 12:00 am

none of that is actual evidence.

1)The traditional indicia have a population that is whiter and less well educated than the nation as a whole and so it is not surprising they voted for Trump. See
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-did-all-the-bellwether-counties-go/

2) Enthusiasm doesn’t matter. Trump voters attended rallies and subsequently died of COVID. Biden votes stayed at home and voted by mail. Increased voter turnout doesn’t matter either if your opponent turns out more voters than you. The percentage of people voting in 2020 was higher in any election since 1960 so again it is not surprising that Trump got a higher number of votes than any former president.

3) No evidence of election fraud has been upheld by the courts. There is no actual court evidence of fraud apart from isolated instances.

yirgach
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 24, 2021 5:53 am

There is no actual court evidence of voter fraud because no evidence was allowed to be presented.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 24, 2021 7:34 am

Trump voters attended rallies and subsequently died of COVID.

Got any concrete evidence for this wild claim?

MarkW
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 24, 2021 8:14 am

He heard it on the news. The MSM would never lie.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 24, 2021 9:37 am

Have a look at
https://siepr.stanford.edu/research/publications/effects-large-group-meetings-spread-covid-19-case-trump-rallies

Or just ask why Herman Cain was tweeting from beyond the grave?

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 24, 2021 8:14 am

I just love how progressives assume that everyone who disagrees with them is an ignorant racist.

Of course no evidence was up-held in court. No evidence was ever presented in court. It really doesn’t take much to impress you.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  MarkW
February 24, 2021 9:39 am

Mark,
It was Rud Istvan who stated “Actual court evidence”. At least we agree that he was wrong and no evidence was ever presented in court.

MarkW
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 24, 2021 8:11 am

Congress is working on a bill to outlaw all of those fixes, and many others.

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Robertson
February 23, 2021 4:11 pm

House bill 1, pretty much eliminates all vote security measures that have been past over the last few decades.

MarkW
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 23, 2021 4:05 pm

An increase of 1 penny, would be over hiking the minimum wage.
The only true minimum wage is zero, any attempt to boost the minimum wage above that point only results in poverty and unemployment.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  MarkW
February 23, 2021 5:38 pm

A zero minimum wage (none) only works when a nation strictly controls its immigration. Without legal immigration controls (as the Democrats demand there be none), then some minimum wage is necessary to stop job losses for legal resisdents and citizens. Otherwise it is a race to the bottom, as desparately poor people pour-in over the border willing to work for that $0.01/hr job. The only way that stops is like going back to the 19th Century when there was zero government safety net in the US society (pre-New Deal, ala FDR).

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 24, 2021 8:16 am

When immigrants suppress wages, that suppresses prices. Lower prices mean more demand and more economic activity, which pushes both labor rates and prices back up.

This country had completely open borders for most of it’s history, and labor rates were rising during all of that time.

PS: There was less poverty prior to the government creating a safety net. The private sector did a much better job of moving people out of poverty than the government ever could.

Last edited 10 days ago by MarkW
Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
February 23, 2021 7:05 pm

There shouldn’t be a minimum wage. Wages should be set by the employers and the free market.

Mandating a minimum wage is socialism. Government has no business setting wages. What do they know about it? Nothing!

The Amazons and the Walmarts like the $15 dollar minimum. That drives the small businesses competing with them out of business. Yes, they like that a lot.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 24, 2021 8:27 am

I constantly hear the argument that “business that can’t pay a “living wage” shouldn’t be in business”

So that basically means that the minimum wage proponents believe that only rich people and big corporations should be able to run businesses.

Oldanalyst
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 23, 2021 4:51 pm

i am not sure anything is bigger than their climate agenda in terms of its ability to wreak havoc on our lives. Of course. a 4 year flood of immirants can also do that.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Oldanalyst
February 23, 2021 7:06 pm

Two year flood, I’m thinking.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 24, 2021 7:35 am

Please, let us hope.

n.n
February 23, 2021 2:32 pm

They miss Trump? Or, more likely, hopes and dreams of redistributive change.

griff
Reply to  n.n
February 24, 2021 12:26 am

for or against Trump, it sure seems a lot quieter without him…. 🙂

Rockwa
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 1:30 am

Any chance of taking his lead?

fred250
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 3:09 am

Yep , the MANIC SQUAWKING and BAYING of the far-left troglodytes has stopped. !

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  fred250
February 24, 2021 7:36 am

Now they will be gunning for each other.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 8:08 am

Quieter? The quiet comes from the Leftwing Media no longer attacking the White House on a daily basis. It’s a lovefest down there now.

We shouldn’t equate quiet with “everything is going fine”. Everything is going fine for the Democrat socialists, that’s why it’s quiet, but that quiet is an ominous sign for those who are not socialists and who do not support a socialst United States.

I’ll take Trump and the noise anytime, over being ruled by a bunch of authoritarian Democrats.

When the Leftwing Media is making a lot of noise, that just means conservatives are over the target. Leftwing Media noise is a sign of good things to come because they don’t make noise unless they are losing the political battle.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 8:20 am

The progressives spend 4 years marching and torching.
They get what they want, and then proclaim that the new found quiet is a benefit of getting rid of the orange man.

beng135
Reply to  griff
February 25, 2021 5:47 am

seems a lot quieter without him….

Well, sure, numb-skull, now they’re back to destroying the country.

Joseph Zorzin
February 23, 2021 2:34 pm

The climate crisis is deepening”

Let’s see- “climate change” makes it either warmer or colder. What if it’s neither? Here in Mass. I’d say we’re having a “normal” winter. I guess that might not be an output from their models. So, where is the crisis deepening? Is the world now overcome with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, excess rain, coastal cities and small islands drowning? Well, it ain’t deepening here in Mass. I think what’s deepening is the lunacy in the minds of these climate change fanatics. I’ve mentioned it previously in another thread- but I came across a YouTube video of 2 climate scientists and Great Thunberg meeting on Zoom with the Dalai Lama.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9GXgOMMeTg&t=3977s

To me, that’s proof of the religious element of so called “climate science” as they seek the blessing of a religious leader. One of those scientists (PhD in chemistry) is Bill Moomaw, who lives here in Mass. He’s invented a concept called “proforestation”. He says just stopping 100% of carbon emissions isn’t good enough- so we’ll need to suck carbon out of the air- and the best way is to lock up the forests. Since he has a nice 4,000 sq. ft. wood home in elite Williamstown (where Williams College is), and nice antique wood furniture, and tons of books and other paper products- plus he’s pushing 80, then he has no further need for wood products. Future generations can live in cement homes like folks in the Middle East. They’ll have to do with plastic furniture and forget toilet paper. Of course I’ve tried dialoguing with him to no avail.

Last edited 11 days ago by Joseph Zorzin
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 23, 2021 3:00 pm

Forget the plastic furniture – it’s made from oil. You’ll sit on pillows on the floor. You’ll use clay fired plates and cups.

saveenergy
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 23, 2021 4:36 pm

” You’ll sit on pillows on the floor.”
Made from ? straw in hemp sacks ???

“You’ll use clay fired plates and cups.”
How you going to fire them ? cant use oil, gas, coal, wood, dung
because – CO2 & particulates

Tim Gorman
Reply to  saveenergy
February 24, 2021 7:19 am

Made from long stem grass weaved together into mats and filled with whatever is available. Used to do that on Boy Scout campouts.

Firing clay? Good question. Maybe carved spoons and bowls? Banana leaves may skyrocket in price for use as plates?

Richard M
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 23, 2021 4:14 pm

What if it’s neither?

Neither it is. In order to warm the planet the “trapped” IR radiation has to warm the surface of the planet. However, IR is extremely weak and CO2 is at such a low temperature it’s IR cannot penetrate either land or water. As a result when the energy hits a surface it is immediately reradiated into the atmosphere.

Now add in the IR that strikes vegetation and energizes into the food cycle.

If anything, the IR will cause additional evaporation when it strikes water which ends up cooling the water.

If the surface is not warmed by the IR then the energy radiates out to space every night and no warming occurs. Even if a little IR does manage to warm the surface, is it enough to make a difference? CO2 climate sensitivity is only 1.2 C. If only half of the energy fails to warm the surface then this drops in half.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard M
February 24, 2021 7:16 am

I always like to ask the “back radiation” crowd just what it is that they think the “back radiation” is warming? Silica and quartz, two of the substances that are widely found in the ground don’t absorb very much, if any, radiation at 14.97micrns. Green plants? Can’t find where they absorb much either. Asphalt maybe?

What really happens is that most of that CO2 back radiation gets reflected back to toward space by the Earth. Each time this happens a little more escapes to space and less gets sent towards Earth as back radiation. Graph this over time and it looks like a damped oscillation. This should be treated in the CGM’s as such. The only question then becomes what the damping factor is. And I have yet to have anyone even attempt to guess at what that damping factor might be.

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 24, 2021 8:24 am

What is it warming? It’s warming the atmosphere.

Tom in Florida
February 23, 2021 2:37 pm

And dictators are lining up to receive their handouts of U.S. dollars.

Last edited 11 days ago by Tom in Florida
Loydo
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 23, 2021 8:20 pm

Which ones?

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
February 24, 2021 8:24 am

All of them.

Mr.
February 23, 2021 2:40 pm

How come none of these 195 climate groups ever ask James Hansen (aka ‘the father of climate science’) what he thinks of the effectiveness of the Paris accord?
(or wind & solar power generation for that matter)

Herbert
Reply to  Mr.
February 23, 2021 5:59 pm

Mr.
You obviously know what Dr.Hansen thinks of the Paris Accord.
He is on the record calling it “a fraud” and “a farce”.
He wants a form of Pigovian tax with an exceedingly high carbon tax.
His views on Paris may be one of the few things that Hansen has got correct.

Loydo
Reply to  Herbert
February 23, 2021 8:06 pm

calling it “a fraud” and “a farce”

Bur not for the reason you’re suggesting.

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, “It’s just bullshit for them to say: We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

Its a farce because it’s so lenient and watered down.

Mr.
Reply to  Loydo
February 23, 2021 8:28 pm

I think in the end Hansen said – go nuclear, anything else is bullshit.

Herbert
Reply to  Loydo
February 23, 2021 8:36 pm

Loydo,
Thanks for pointing out what Hansen meant.
I have read the interview in question and know his reasoning.
So why are so few agreeing with his alleged solution and persevering with Paris if it is a “fraud and a fake”?

Loydo
Reply to  Herbert
February 24, 2021 12:34 am

I think he spelled it out fairly well in that video. Lingering layman fears of nookula despite the science having moved on.

Megs
Reply to  Loydo
February 24, 2021 2:24 am

Loydo science hasn’t moved on for decades in regards to politically driven, so called climate science.

More than fifty years of catastrophising and their fear mongering has come to nothing, yet fifty years down the track they are becoming firmly entrenched due to a relatively small number of elitists, and a corrupt MSM.

Greed, power and control Loydo that’s what it amounts to.

The science of climate has been reduced to dogma and propaganda. You will find more real climate science on this site than those spruking for the politicians. They are little more than marketing tools for renewables.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 24, 2021 3:17 am

Climate science has not advanced one tiny step in the last 30 years

It is STILL STUCK on the zero-science of warming by atmospheric CO2.

Even YOU know that there is no evidence at all for that bit of scientific farce.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 24, 2021 3:15 am

It is a FARCE, loy-dodo.

a) Its built on a scientifically unsupportable premise

b) will have no effect except the breakdown of western economies (the main aim)

c) Its all just virtue-seeking and political posturing.

d) yep, basically everything they say is bullshit.

e) It is built on a quicksand foundation of scientific FRAUD.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
February 24, 2021 8:25 am

It’s a farce because CO2 was never a problem. In fact more CO2 benefits everybody.

February 23, 2021 2:42 pm

Get us out of the UN and this misguided ,unconstitutional ,misguided agreement. They only exist to do harm to the US

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Chenoweth
February 23, 2021 7:10 pm

The Democrats exist to do harm to the US. They don’t like the Republic and want to turn it into a socialist paradise by destroying everything and starting over from scratch.

Rick C
February 23, 2021 2:59 pm

The UN/COP Parisites don’t really care how much the US actually cuts CO2 emissions. They just want the $Billions ($Trillions?) Biden is going to donate to their global slush funds. Money that we will barrow from China that will go largely to corrupt “developing” nation autocrats, oligarchs and crony-capitalists. The loans will either need to be repaid by future generations or the US will someday be foreclosed on by creditors like China. Advise your grandchildren to learn Mandarin.

Tim Gorman
February 23, 2021 3:03 pm

Jealousy, pure and plain. Europe has *always* been jealous of American freedom and lifestyle. All their claims of future disaster are coming to naught. The Earth is *not* turning into a cinder and it doesn’t appear that it ever will.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 24, 2021 4:16 am

Except that the original reports and most of the main drivers of climate change alarmism have been from the USA. It might be convenient for you to have that biased worldview but it is simply not true. Alarmism is widespread across the world, not some sort of European plot against the USA.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Page
February 24, 2021 8:27 am

I don’t see any indication that Tim believes AGW alarmism started in Europe. Just an explanation as to why they have latched onto it so fervently. Much more so than those in the US have.

TonyG
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 24, 2021 8:31 am

Are any of the EU countries committing to the same reduction?

February 23, 2021 3:06 pm

The entire climate change scenario is based on warming being started by CO2 increase. This graph demonstrates that did not happen. The human contribution to temperature increase (about 69% of the total) has been caused by water vapor increase. The Paris Accord will have no effect on climate.

TPW meas vs H4 T thru 2020.jpg
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
February 23, 2021 5:06 pm

Even High Climate Priest James Hansen said the Paris Agreement was meaningless for climate for the true believers in the CO2 GHG high sensitivity theory. The total emissions cuts directed by Paris INDCs, even if totally complied with, are effectively still in model noise till 2075, by which time it will be lot more clear what is happening,for even the high sensitivity theory.

Ack
February 23, 2021 3:23 pm

Gas prices are up $0.50/gal here

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Ack
February 23, 2021 5:50 pm

Oil is over $60/bbl. Putin and the frackers are happy. Joe can’t stop the Texas Permian Basin frackers and he is about to get a hard lesson on that.

The US Constitution forbids the Federal government from imposing a tax on a State’s exports.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

And no treaty nor any agreement with a foreign country or the UN can override the US Constitution on domestic issues.
US Federal Courts will slap down ole’ Dementia Joe and his Man-behind-the-curtain handlers if they try to stop Texas exporting oil by a tax.

And Texas can export its own oil and natural gas via the Houston Port and Sabine Pass LNG terminal. So F the Dems and their climate religion.
Don’t mess with Texas.

Last edited 11 days ago by joelobryan
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 23, 2021 7:13 pm

States will have their say in all this. States have rights. The Federal Government can’t just run roughshod over them. Not legally anyway.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 24, 2021 8:29 am

The courts have ruled that everything is interstate commerce and the federal government has primacy over interstate commerce.
The states are completely subservient to the federal government.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  MarkW
February 24, 2021 11:30 am

Not quite. Virtually everything, but there are still legal enclaves of intrastate commerce that SCOTUS has recognized over the years. And there is still that nasty little problem of Article I, Section 9, Clause 5.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 24, 2021 8:32 am

Not legally anyway

Unfortunately that’s the problem. It’s a distinction that’s been losing meaning.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TonyG
February 25, 2021 8:52 am

The States are going to fight back. Here’s a couple of headlines from an Oklahoma newspaper:

“State House to discuss legislation to ignore federal government”

And then there is this headline:

“Senators approve vote on bill to allow citizens to sue social media for censorship”

The Red States are not sitting on their hands while the Democrats attempt their socialist takeover.

Spetzer86
February 23, 2021 3:38 pm

So who takes this to SCOTUS as a improperly approved treaty?

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Spetzer86
February 23, 2021 3:56 pm

It’s a tax!

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
February 23, 2021 5:07 pm

Yeah, but this time Chief Justice Roberts won’t get to be the swing vote declaring it a tax.

Reply to  Spetzer86
February 23, 2021 5:22 pm

Durham will handle it…you know ….the guy working on the big investigation.

Bob Hoye
Reply to  Spetzer86
February 23, 2021 6:43 pm

SCOTUS is on sabbatical.

TonyG
Reply to  Spetzer86
February 24, 2021 8:33 am

Rejected for lack of standing.

February 23, 2021 3:48 pm

“….providing climate finance for developing countries in line with science, equity, and justice,”. But mostly equity and justice, ie. give money to dictators in third world countries.

n.n
Reply to  Dennis Topczewski
February 23, 2021 4:05 pm

The democratic/dictatorial duality for sustainable, renewable social justice and equity.

Elle Webber
February 23, 2021 4:08 pm

I have to say, I cringe when CO2 is called “pollution”. Yikes. It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Elle Webber
February 23, 2021 7:17 pm

If you hadn’t said something about it, I would have. It is incorrect to call CO2 pollution. It’s a delibertate pejorative meant to demonize CO2.

More attempted brainwashing by alarmists.

fred250
February 23, 2021 4:42 pm

Hey?

Shouldn’t the heading say ……… MEANINGLESS US EMISSION CUTS ??

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  fred250
February 23, 2021 4:51 pm

They are anything but meaningless. They will do exactly what they are intended to do.

fred250
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 23, 2021 7:27 pm

from a CO2 perspective, they will be totally meaningless.

Loydo
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 23, 2021 8:18 pm

They are somewhere between totally meaningless and anything but meaningless, it just shows how sneaky totalitarian socialists are.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 24, 2021 2:20 am

Your posts are always totally meaningless.

You are a DUMB marxist, and not the least bit “sneaky”

Sneaky implies some actual thought.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
February 24, 2021 8:31 am

I see Loydo has given up trying to make a difference.
Not that he ever did.

Carlo, Monte
February 23, 2021 4:45 pm

Dr. Shiva explains the Paris climate extortion scam:



Joel O'Bryan
February 23, 2021 4:46 pm

“Pressure Grows For Meaningful Economically-destroying US Emission Cuts”
corrected the title.

XOXOXO,
President Xi

Last edited 11 days ago by joelobryan
February 23, 2021 5:01 pm

ban private jets, skiing, and boats

MarkW
Reply to  billtoo
February 24, 2021 8:31 am

What, no bass boats?

Smart Rock
February 23, 2021 5:12 pm

Is this Tim Gore related to the other Gore, he of the allegorical algorithms?

H.R.
Reply to  Smart Rock
February 23, 2021 8:22 pm

Was that an allegory?
😜

Larry Hamlin
February 23, 2021 5:34 pm

Totally idiotic.The U.S. has cut CO2 by 900 million metric tons since 2007 while the developing nations have increased emissions by 7.5 billion metric tons with China’s contribution to this increase at 3.7 billion metric tons during this same period. Furthermore the developing nations dominate global CO2 emissions with 65% of all global emissions coming from these nations.
Any emission reductions by the U.S. are meaningless with global emissions continuing to climb no matter what the U.S. (or any other developed nations) does. Since 2007 U.S. CO2 emissions have declined at -1.3% per year average with this reduction achieved largely through use of natural gas to replace coal with these reductions exceeding CO2 emission reductions during this period by renewables by 60%. So the idiot Biden and the his Democrats attack natural gas fracking technology – can it possibly get any more stupid.

CD in Wisconsin
February 23, 2021 5:41 pm

Pressure Grows For Meaningful US Emission Cuts
****

It has become patently obvious that it it high time for the U.S. to start shutting down all of its power plants (or the fossil fueled ones anyway) and oil refineries. It is time for all of us Americans to starve to death (or die in the outbreak of rioting) in a collapsed economy as a confession and punishment for our evil sins against Mother Earth.

Many years after we evil humans are all gone in U.S., the Chinese (or maybe the Russians) can move in and take over what was our country and economy. They can tell the EU, the UN and everyone else in the alarmist camp what an incredibly noble gesture it was to sacrifice our economy and ourselves for the beloved environment and climate. The U.S. was truly an exceptional country and we were an exceptional people while we lasted.

And when the Chinese (or the Russians) have the economy on what was American soil up and running again and are emitting more CO2 than we did, the rest of humanity can say yes, those were the days….the days when a people and a nation made the ultimate sacrifice for the holy and beloved climate and the environment. God bless them. /sarc (in case anyone isn’t sure).

Rory Forbes
February 23, 2021 5:53 pm

Meaningful??? Did you say “meaningful”?

Relative to what? There’s no meaning in The Paris Accord. It’s nothing but non-binding virtue signalling intended to make the general public believe all those over paid bureaucrats are doing something important. It’s all meaningless.

Wanna cut emissions …. stick a cork in it.

Edward Katz
February 23, 2021 6:03 pm

Exactly from whom is this pressure coming from—consumers? businesses? industries?— all of whom would have to face higher costs and more restrictions, or is it from environmental alarmists, academics and peddlers of Green products who stand to profit from such action? Let’s face it: no one is going to make big lifestyle or operational changes to meet any climate targets, especially when they see countries like China and India, which contribute 35% of global emissions, getting a free ride on such cuts until 2030. And who’s going to do anything about it if those two or any other countries fall short of their pledges. Remember that the Paris deal is non-binding; i.e., there are no penalties for countries falling short of their emissions reductions goals.

MarkW
Reply to  Edward Katz
February 24, 2021 8:32 am

The ones pushing for the cuts, are those whom the cuts will have the least impact on.

Dr. Deanster
February 23, 2021 6:10 pm

I”ve been reading this same old crap for going on 25 years now …. and for some reason, we just got 16 in of snow, set cold records, the earth is still here, the population is growing not dying, the polar bears are doing fine, the arctic still has ice ….

… I mean really, what gives.

H.R.
Reply to  Dr. Deanster
February 23, 2021 8:32 pm

Dang! You’re a tough nut to crack, Dr. Deanster.

When will you ever allow baseless, irrational fear to strike your heart and stampede you into cheering for – nay, demanding – your own demise?

I believe you have flunked Sheeple 101 going on 25 years, now.

*sigh*… Sign up again for next year. Maybe this time they can convince you to commit economic suicide.

griff
Reply to  Dr. Deanster
February 24, 2021 12:28 am

but the Arctic has less ice and the ice is still declining… and the polar bears aren’t doing as well as some people like to make out

Rockwa
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 1:34 am

Evidence for this comment Griff?

fred250
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 2:22 am

Why are you DELIBERATELY LYING.

Arctic has FAR MORE SEA ICE THAN MOST OF THE LAST 10,000 years

And has been steady for the last 15 or so years.

Stop DENYING climate science.

fred250
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 2:23 am

Polar bears are doing VERY WELL now that there is not such EXTREME LEVELS of sea ice

Please STOP LYING !!!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  fred250
February 24, 2021 8:16 am

I’ve never quite understood why people say more sea ice is good for polar bear populations. All more sea ice does is expand the the area that has to be traversed by the polar bear (more energy expenditure) to find prey. I.e. for the same prey population more ice means less prey density in the hunting area for the bears. Where am I going wrong?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 8:33 am

There we go with griff standard lie. The arctic hasn’t lost ice since 2012.
Polar Bears are doing great and nobody has been able to find or manufacture any evidence to the contrary. Just more whines that the models say they should be dying, so therefore they are.

kzb
February 23, 2021 6:16 pm

Maybe the US is just more realistic than the UK. Here in UK we cannot buy a new ICE car or replacement domestic gas boiler after 2030. Thinking the infrastructure will be in place to achieve this is simply delusional. It ain’t going to happen. The UK will not meet its insane self-imposed emission targets.
This is a country that takes 18 months to install some traffic lights. The idea it can totally restructure its economy in nine years time is pie in the sky fantasy. Unless you count societal collapse as restructuring of course.

John Shotsky
February 23, 2021 6:16 pm

What the idiots don’t realize is that we could shut down ALL human emissions ON EARTH, and the earth would not even notice. Earth, by itself, produces over 95% of all the emitted CO2 (And absorbs most of it back.). That less than 5% that is human emitted amounts to just 20 PPM of CO2, and the idiots would have us believe that the 20 PPM is responsible for global warming. Climate change. Or whatever the F you want to call it. It is incredulous.
Let me repeat – if human emitted CO2 were reduced to ZERO worldwide, nothing would change climate-wise.

Larry in Texas
February 23, 2021 6:26 pm

In my opinion, if Biden intends to consider the U.S. Government to be making binding commitments to CO2 emissions reductions on the order of magnitude discussed in this article, then what Biden is “re-entering” into is in fact a treaty, which must constitutionally be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. The chief reason Obama temporized on emissions is this exact fact, coupled with the fact that nobody else in Europe or the rest of the world was taking these “goals” as either binding or serious. The rest of the world, of course, was looking to Obama to spend bundles of money on their behalf, i.e., lead with the chin first, but Obama was never going to do that. Trump realized what everybody else was expecting us to do and said, to heck with this noise, we’re getting out. Biden may actually do us a favor by behaving in ways that can be treated as the unratified “treaty” this garbage actually is instead of an “executive agreement.”

Senility can have its advantages.

Herbert
Reply to  Larry in Texas
February 23, 2021 7:18 pm

Larry,
Churchill once remarked, “If you’re going through hell, keep on going!”
I was reminded of this when you suggested that President Biden may be doing the US a favour with his ridiculous policies.
It may cause the whole nonsense to collapse if the US public see the truth:
.Paris doesn’t work for the 28 developed countries having to bear the cost of 165 developing countries which cause 65% of human emissions ( and won’t change despite meaningless pledges),
.There are no “ millions and millions of green jobs”as Biden and Kerry promise just hundreds of thousands of traditional jobs lost swiftly.
. The economy will deteriorate.
So let’s get to hell quickly and go through as fast as we can!

TonyG
Reply to  Herbert
February 24, 2021 8:37 am

I’ve been saying this for a while. It’s the old boiling frog analogy – let’s turn up the heat.

Chris Hoff
February 23, 2021 6:53 pm

Meaningful emissions cuts?!?!? More like, meaningless emissions cuts!!!!!

Larry Hamlin
February 23, 2021 7:53 pm

U.S. CO2 emissions peaked in 2007.

Since then U.S. emissions have declined by 919 million metric tons or about 16%.

China’s CO2 emissions have climbed from year 2007 levels by about 36% (an increase representing more than 1/2 all U.S. emissions levels) with total emissions now twice those of the U.S.

The developing nations CO2 emissions have climbed by about 35% or more than 5.7 billion metric tons with these nations now representing and accountable for 65% of total CO2 global emissions.

Since 2007 the developed nations reduced CO2 emissions by about 1.65 billion metric tons or about 12% with total emissions representing a minority amount of 35% of total global emissions.

The huge majority emissions developing nations have no commitments to reduce emissions under the Paris Agreement and will continue to drive global emissions ever upward regardless of what the minority emissions developed nations achieve.

Biden and the Democrats are completely misleading the American people with the help of the Democrat controlled media about the totally useless impact that the developed nations will have on stopping further global CO2 emissions increases by the developing nations other than to destroy the economies of the worlds developed nations.

Henry Keswick
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
February 24, 2021 12:13 am

Just to put some context into the UK figures. Our territorial emissions have Ben reduced but two main factors show that our total emissions probably have reduced at all.
Firstly we have exported a lot of our manufacturing overseas, principally China. We still want the goods so they are still manufactured and shipped round the globe to the UK. Those emissions don’t appear in the above data.
Secondly, there’s the climate scam of cutting down thousands of trees (mainly in North America) to make wood pellets which are shipped thousands of miles to the UK (mainly Drax in Yorkshire). As the trees are ‘renewable’ the emissions from this monumental scam (costing UK energy consumers c £1bn a year) are not counted. Wood pellets accounts for some 60% of the UK’s ‘renewable’ energy. What a joke!
If you correct for these two factors the UK’s cut in its emissions more or less disappears.

Larry Hamlin
Reply to  Henry Keswick
February 24, 2021 9:20 am

The 2000 BP statistical energy data clearly shows the U.S. CO2 reductions from 2007 are a direct result of fuel switching from coal to natural gas (60%) and increased use of renewables (40%). The U.S. total energy use remains relatively constant but the CO2 emissions are down about 16% since 2007.

Larry Hamlin
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
February 24, 2021 2:03 pm

There is a website called Our World in Data which claims to provide emissions data for all nations which addresses trade imbalances between countries and adjusts annual reported CO2 emissions for countries to address the trade imbalance issues between countries. For example China’s reported emissions are adjusted downward because of their high levels of exports whereas U.S. CO2 emissions are adjusted upward to address the high levels of imports.
The adjusted data has little impact on the trends of reported emissions. U.S. emissions as adjusted for trade imbalances show a reduction between 2007 (the U.S. peak year) and 2018 (the latest year with adjusted data) of 840 million tons of CO2 versus a reduction of 900 million metric tons through 2019 using BP 2000 statistical energy report data.
China shows an increase in adjusted CO2 emissions between 2007 and 2018 of 3.57 billion tons versus an increase of 2.26 billion metric tons using the BP statistical report.
Asia continues to dominates global emissions with an increase of 6 billion tons of CO2 between 2007 and 2018.
World CO2 emissions are dominated by Asia’s increase with an increase of 5.13 billion tons of CO2 despite reductions by the U.S. and Europe.
The CO2 emissions data that is revised to address trade imbalances between countries continues to support the same global picture presented in BP’s year 2000 statistical energy report. The hand waving arguments of those claiming balance of trade considerations have significant impacts on the global nations CO2 emissions picture is not supported by this data.

Kemaris
February 23, 2021 10:05 pm

And then there is the simple fact that, according to their own models, you could KILL every man, woman, and child in the US to zero out emissions and it would only make a difference of 0.01-0.03 degrees C by 2100. Either the models dont pay enough attention to India and China, or the models are programmed to run hot, or both (likely both).

griff
February 24, 2021 12:29 am

The USA could shut down all its coal plants and not notice it…

Rockwa
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 1:36 am

Correct, if output and back up replaced with nuclear and/or gas

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Rockwa
February 24, 2021 8:08 am

Coal plants contributed 23.4% of electricity produced in the United States in 2019, and though their contribution may have dropped some since, there is no way we could immediately do away with the rest without catastrophic consequences.

fred250
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 2:27 am

That’s because of GAS.

But you knew that didn’t you griff.

And only a complete moron would think you can shut 20% of your electricity supply, a part that is extremely RELIABLE, and not have any problems.

Last edited 11 days ago by fred250
MarkW
Reply to  fred250
February 24, 2021 8:36 am

How many thousands would have died in Texas had they not had their coal plants to fall back on?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
February 24, 2021 9:58 am

Good question? Maybe someone should ask Zhou Bai-den.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  MarkW
February 24, 2021 11:27 am

And what few nuclear plants we had running, too.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 4:13 am

Wrong as usual, Griff. But if we shut down all the expensive unreliable grid-busting wind and solar we’d notice that. Because things would be so much better.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 8:35 am

Correct, so long as 10 to 15% of the population would be so obliging as to just die off for us.

fred250
Reply to  griff
February 24, 2021 11:29 am

And it would make ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to atmospheric CO2 levels or climate

Caligula Jones
February 24, 2021 7:08 am

As I’ve said, if more people were better at math they’d be less concerned about most things and more concerned about fewer things….

This is true unicorn fart stuff. Guesstimates of measurements of probabilities.

Gordon A. Dressler
February 24, 2021 7:57 pm

From the above BS article: “Climate Action Tracker previously told Climate Home that the US should reduce its emissions by at least 52% by 2030 through domestic action. Under Obama, the US committed to reducing emissions by 26-28% by 2025, compared to 2005 levels – a target which it is not on track to meet.”

In rebuttal: “Most significantly the report showed that in the period 1990 through 2007 U.S. CO2 emissions had been growing at an average rate of 1.0% per year but that since then growth of CO2 emissions have been declining at a rate averaging 1.3% per year.”—source https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/11/biden-democrats-conceal-u-s-co2-decreases-of-3-4-billion-tons-from-natural-gas/

So, the same linear decreasing trend observed from 2008 through 2020 would, in fact, indicate that in the next 5 years (by 2025) the US will “be on a tract” to reduce its manmade global CO2 emissions from 2005 by (2025-2007) years*1.3%/year = 23.4%, a reduction close to the 26-28% desired by 2025.

Bottom line: the math and recent history of US manmade CO2 emissions does NOT support the asserted inability of the US to achieve targeted CO2 reductions.

Larry Hamlin
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 25, 2021 9:46 am

The ability to cost effectively and reliably continue CO2 reductions from 2007 depends on continued use of fracking technology to obtain increasing amounts of natural gas for use in replacing coal which is still used to provide about 11% of U. S. electricity.
Biden and his Democrats have decided to declare war on fracking and natural gas and push high cost unreliable renewables thus destroying the ability to continue the extraordinary success achieved over more than a decade of increased availability of lower cost lower emission U.S. natural gas.

%d bloggers like this: