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:
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:
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:
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%:
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.
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
The ones pushing for the cuts, are those whom the cuts will have the least impact on.
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.
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.
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
Evidence for this comment Griff?
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.
Polar bears are doing VERY WELL now that there is not such EXTREME LEVELS of sea ice
Please STOP LYING !!!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I’ve been saying this for a while. It’s the old boiling frog analogy – let’s turn up the heat.
Meaningful emissions cuts?!?!? More like, meaningless emissions cuts!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
The USA could shut down all its coal plants and not notice it…
Correct, if output and back up replaced with nuclear and/or gas
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.
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.
How many thousands would have died in Texas had they not had their coal plants to fall back on?
Good question? Maybe someone should ask Zhou Bai-den.
And what few nuclear plants we had running, too.
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.
Correct, so long as 10 to 15% of the population would be so obliging as to just die off for us.
And it would make ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to atmospheric CO2 levels or climate
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.
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.
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.