Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
JULY 24, 2021
By Paul Homewood
Latest news from G20:
NAPLES (Reuters) -Energy and environment ministers from the Group of 20 rich nations have failed to agree on the wording of key climate change commitments in their final communique, Italy’s Ecological Transition Minister Roberto Cingolani said on Friday.
The G20 meeting was seen as a decisive step ahead of United Nations climate talks, known as COP 26, which take place in 100 days’ time in Glasgow in November.
The failure to agree common language ahead of that gathering is likely to be seen as a setback to hopes of securing a meaningful accord in Scotland.
Cingolani told reporters that the ministers could not agree on two disputed issues which would now have to be discussed at a G20 summit in Rome in October.
“Commitments made today lack substance and ambition. It is now up to G20 heads of state and government to discard this document at the October leaders’ summit,” said online activist network Avaaz.
Italy holds the rotating presidency of the G20, and Cingolani, as chairman of the two-day gathering, said negotiations with China, Russia and India had proved especially tough.
Cingolani said that in the end China and India had declined to sign the two contested points.
One of these was phasing out coal power, which most countries wanted to achieve by 2025 but some said would be impossible for them.
The other concerned the wording surrounding a 1.5-2 degree Celsius limit on global temperature increases that was set by the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Average global temperatures have already risen by more than 1 degree compared to the pre-industrial baseline used by scientists and are on track to exceed the 1.5-2 degree ceiling.
“Some countries wanted to go faster than what was agreed in Paris and to aim to cap temperatures at 1.5 degrees within a decade, but others, with more carbon based economies, said let’s just stick to what was agreed in Paris,” Cingolani said.
The final communique, which had been due to be published on Friday, would probably not now be released until Saturday, he added.
Ahead of COP 26, environmental activists had hoped that the G20 gathering would lead to a strengthening of climate targets, new commitments on climate financing, and an increase in countries committing to net zero emissions by 2050.
“The G20 is failing to deliver. Italy’s G20 tagline is ‘People, Planet, Prosperity’, but today the G20 is delivering ‘Pollution, Poverty and Paralysis,” said Avaaz.
Cingolani said the G20 had made no new financial commitments, but added that Italy would increase its own climate financing for underdeveloped countries.
https://news.yahoo.com/g20-loath-commit-climate-meeting-132942460.html
Clearly China, Russia and India were never going to commit to give a date for phasing out coal power, as they know their economies depend on it. And while ever Germany carries on using coal, which they plan to until 2038, they will carry on saying get lost.
But more significant is the second sticking point – “Some countries wanted to go faster than what was agreed in Paris and to aim to cap temperatures at 1.5 degrees within a decade, but others, with more carbon based economies, said let’s just stick to what was agreed in Paris”
As we know, the Paris Agreement did nothing whatsoever to cut global emissions. While the 1.5C figure was “agreed” as the objective, the Agreement contained nothing to actually achieving it. On the contrary, developing nations were allowed to carry on increasing emissions, more than cancelling out emissions cuts by developed countries.
What Cingolani’s statement seems to indicate is that many of the G20 countries, even including developed ones, are refusing to improve on their Paris Nationally Determined Contributions, NDCs. These are the pledges made at Paris, detailing and quantifying emissions cuts up to 2030.
With money still a sticking point, any real breakthrough at Glasgow is as far away as ever.
“ aim to cap temperatures at 1.5 degrees within a decade”
Why not 1.4. or even 1.2?
It’s complete nonsense
It may well be, of course.
What is the error boundaries around this global temperature measurement? Does anyone really think we can measure it to an accuracy of 0.1 degrees?
In truth, we could have smashed that limit decades ago and nobody noticed.
I always say you can slice bologna as thin as you like, but eventually you’re no longer putting meat in the sandwich.
Whenever we do smash through that barrier, I’m pretty sure that nobody will notice.
I’m POSITIVE nobody will notice – if their “noticing” has to do with observations of the real world.
Unfortunately, for most they won’t be able to escape “noticing,” but only because the complicit “media” will saturate them with propaganda and hype about it day after day…
They originally said that we had to keep the world from getting 5C warmer.
When it became obvious that even if we did nothing, the world would never get 5C warmer, they started saying that we had to keep the world from getting 3C warmer.
When it became obvious that even if we did nothing, the world would never get 3C warmer, they started saying that we had to keep the world from getting 2C warmer.
They are now saying that 1.5C is the magic number that we have to avoid.
Yes, the dichotomy of their estimates of expected warming being reduced (as, even given all the data tampering, they can’t hide how wrong their propaganda has been) while simultaneously crowing about how “It’s worse than we thought” is always a source of amusement for those paying attention.
Yes, it always has been obvious that the countries doing the great majority of the emitting had no intention of reducing. In fact they show every sign of intending to increase as fast as they can. In China’s case both domestically and by sponsoring international building of coal fired stations.
So, as usual, you have to ask yourself why political leaders in the West insist that the West has to get to net-zero, when given the actions and plans of the major emitters this will have no effect on global emissions and therefore, even if the theory is right, will have no effect on climate.
It is like firmly believing that there is a crisis caused by over-use of antibiotics, and therefore refusing it for some particular person for whom one is responsible. The crisis is not a reason. The refusal may kill them, but it will have no effect on the crisis.
The large emitters apart from the ‘Western’ nations made it clear a long time ago that they intend to do what is best for them, and in their own time. Which translates to “probably nothing”. Meanwhile, the lame stream media continue to make claims about how on-board these other nations are with the foolish policies being called for, and implemented, in the West.
Many of these nations (or should I say “regimes”?), however, are quite content to say enough to encourage the Western nations to continue with their acts of self-immolation at the alter of global warming. This will yield large economic benefits, not for the Western nations, but for those who continue to use the cheapest available sources of energy. And who can blame them, even if they are not strategic competitors?
This, of course, is what Donald Trump meant when he said it was all a Chinese scam. They didn’t invent it, but are certainly happy to profit by it.
“…a setback to hopes of securing a meaningful accord in Scotland.”
History strikes again! 🙂
From the article: “Average global temperatures have already risen by more than 1 degree compared to the pre-industrial baseline used by scientists and are on track to exceed the 1.5-2 degree ceiling.”
That’s not true.
The high temperature of 2016 was about 1.0C above the preindustrial “baseline” according to NASA/NOAA, and the Earth has subsequently cooled from 2016 by about 0.6C so the claim that “Average global temperatures have already risen by more than 1 degree compared to the pre-industrial baseline” is not true, and the Earth is *not* on track to exceed the 1.5-2C degree “ceiling”. Instead, presently, temperatures are cooling, The G20 folks are describing a false reality and living in it, apparently. Governance falters when the leaders live in a false reality. They end up trying to solve problems that don’t exist like climate change.
“Average global temperatures have already risen by more than 1 degree compared to the pre-industrial baseline used by scientists and are on track to exceed the 1.5-2 degree ceiling.”
It just hit me, why are we using pre-industrial age temps as some sort of desireable benchmark? It was freezing back then and we were at some of the coldest temps since civilization began and people were literally starving to death. Why in the heck are these considered some sort of ideal temperatures which we must not exceed by too much?
If we were still having those temps, life would be extraordinarily difficult, if not catastrophic. Even Arrhenius thought warming due to CO2 and fossil fuels would be beneficial for Mankind. Can anyone explain the logic?
.KcTaz –
“It just hit me, why are we using pre-industrial age temps as some sort of desireable benchmark? It was freezing back then and we were at some of the coldest temps since civilization began and people were literally starving to death. Why in the heck are these considered some sort of ideal temperatures which we must not exceed by too much?
If we were still having those temps, life would be extraordinarily difficult, if not catastrophic. Even Arrhenius thought warming due to CO2 and fossil fuels would be beneficial for Mankind. Can anyone explain the logic?”
Well, some anthrophobes want a global population of perhaps 500-750 million – mostly serfs and concubines for the ‘E-leeet’.
So extremely difficult living appears to be – not a bug, but a feature.
For those who hate humanity . . .
Auto
There is no logic. It is merely a convenient cherry-pick; start during colder times, end in today’s warmer times, declare “catastrophe” if the masses don’t do as they’re told, which invariably consists of surrendering one’s freedom and, of course, money to our political class and wealthy “betters.”
OTOH, ultra super-critical coal fired power stations have been developed, which match the efficiencies of gas fired CCGT units & are being built around the world where access to natural gas is not available. Coal for these power stations is imported from Australia.
Read below (for hours), mark & inwardly digest, should, you so desire?
https://www.bpastudies.org/bpastudies%20/article/view/170/318
Well, no. The only USC in the US is Turk. It has a thermal efficiency of 41% using Powder River subbituminous coal in a 680MW single unit. In China, they have acheived (they claim) 45% thermal efficiency in 1000MW units using bituminous coal. That is credible.
CCGT at full load are about 61% efficient. At 80% they are still 59%, which is why the new Port Everglades station was sized at 2400MW replacing and old resid fueled 2000MW station. The new plant runs baseload 2000MW, and spools up in the afternoon to 2400, enabling FPL to shut down 4 old inefficient peakers. The new station works so well our power bill was lowered about 20%.
Not to (also) mention that unlike natural gas, coal can be easily and safely stockpiled, providing an uninterrupted source of energy during “supply” disruptions. A sizable amount of “base load” coal-fired electricity is highly desirable for this reason.
Phase out coal power world wide by 2025? That’s less than 4 years time!
China has hundreds of plants funded and under construction. After giving them until 2030 to CONSIDER leveling off in the Paris Agreement, these idiots expect India and China to say OK, we’ll scrap our plans and investments?!?
This is the right outcome of course. When governments get together to decide how the rest of us should live, and they have nothing in hand but unsupported beliefs based on dysfunctional computer models and pseudo-religious thinking, there should not be any conclusions reached that all can agree to, as there are no commonly understood and testable facts as a foundation for decision.
From the above article: “The other concerned the wording surrounding a 1.5-2 degree Celsius limit on global temperature increases that was set by the 2015 Paris Agreement.”
Hmmmm . . . what exactly is supposed to happen if the 2 °C increase “limit” of the Paris Accord is exceeded?
Does every nation that signed the agreement have to write out 1000 lines of “We should have tried harder” and then submit that document to the International Court of Justice?
Or would the penalty be something worse, or something more benign?
“The other concerned the wording surrounding a 1.5-2 degree Celsius limit on global temperature increases that was set by the 2015 Paris Agreement.” Now we have global elite government types talking about limiting global temperatures by consensus agreement. This is delusional talk on a global scale. Anyone who thinks that taxes and regulation will somehow change the global climate back to something we prefer is foolish. This is the illusion of power over nature. In reality, it is the attempt to gain power over people.
Save the planet, stop farts!