This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
What If The World Can't Cut Its Carbon Emissions?
Submitted by Roger Andrews (of Energy Matters) via The Automatic Earth blog,
Many people, including more than a few prominent politicians, accept that global warming must be limited to no more than two degrees C above the pre-industrial mean, or a little more than one degree C above where we are now, to avoid dangerous interference with the Earth’s climate. Let’s assume these people are right, that the 2C threshold really does represent the climatic equivalent of a cliff and that bad things will happen if we drive off it.
So how do we apply the brakes?
According to the IPCC by limiting cumulative future global carbon emissions to no more than 500 gigatons, and even then we would have only a two-thirds chance of success:
To have a better than two-thirds chance of limiting warming to less than 2°C from pre-industrial levels the total cumulative carbon dioxide emission from all human sources since the start of the industrial era would need to be limited to about 1,000 gigatonnes of carbon. About half of this amount had already been emitted by 2011.
Here we will ignore the one-third chance of failure and use 500 gigatons as the “safe” emissions limit. Can we stay below it? Figure 1 summarizes the current position. The black line (data from EDGAR) shows progress, or lack thereof, in cutting global emissions since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) started the ball rolling in 1992. The red line is a projection of the black line. The blue line, which intersects zero in 2117, amounts to 500 Gt of future carbon emissions. I assumed a linear decrease for simplicity but other pathways are of course possible:
Figure 1: Current position on cutting global emissions to “safe” levels
Obviously the world is going to have to reverse course in a hurry if it is to have any chance of keeping warming below the 2C danger threshold. What are the chances that it can? Let’s look at which countries the emissions are coming from and see what the prospects are.
The world’s emitters are commonly divided into two categories – the “developed” countries, such as the US, UK, Germany and Japan, and the “developing” countries, such as Egypt, India, Malawi and Paraguay. We will look first at the developed countries, which presently emit a third of the world’s carbon. Developed country emissions for 1970 through 2012 are summarized in Figure 2:
Figure 2: Developed country emissions from fossil fuel burning, 1970-2012
The United States accounts for 16% of global emissions (the percentages given here are from 2012 EDGAR data). US emissions have been trending down since 2005 partly because of the shale gas boom and partly because of the 2008 recession. The Obama administration recently adopted rules designed to cut US emissions further but whether they will survive is uncertain, and even if they do the chances that Congress as presently constituted will agree to emissions cuts unless the developing countries follow suit are effectively zero. The 1997 US Senate rejected US participation in the Kyoto Protocol for this reason, and given the opportunity the present Senate would do the same.
The European Union accounts for 11% of global emissions. For some years the EU has been setting an example to the world by unilaterally pursuing ambitious emissions targets, although so far with little to show for it (the downtrend in EU emissions since 2006 is largely a result of the 2008 recession and the EU’s slow recovery). The realization that the EU can’t save the planet all by itself is, however, finally beginning to sink in, and as a result the EU has hardened its negotiating position, stating at the Lima climate talks that mandatory emissions targets must now be set for all countries, not just the developed ones.
Australia, Canada and Japan collectively emit 7% of the world’s carbon. All three are presently somewhat less than enthusiastic about emissions cuts and are unlikely to become greatly more enthusiastic in the foreseeable future. They won’t move unless everyone else does.
Now on to the developing countries, which emit two-thirds of the world’s carbon and are responsible for all of the growth in global emissions since the world embarked on its quest to cut them in 1992. Developing country emissions are summarized in Figure 3:
Figure 3: Developing country emissions from fossil fuel burning, 1970-2012
China, which now accounts for 29% of global emissions (according to EDGAR; other sources put the figure at 25-26%) is the key player. The UNFCCC exempts China and the other developing countries from emissions caps – in fact it encourages them to build more power plants in order to eradicate poverty – and China wants to keep it that way. China pays lip service to the need to combat climate change but considers economic development far more important, as illustrated in Figure 4. The total disregard for the “Spirit of Kyoto” is almost comical:
Figure 4: China’s emissions before and after ratifying the Kyoto Protocol
(The lip service consists of a) China’s 2005 commitment to reduce its carbon intensity – the amount of carbon emitted per unit of GDP – by 40-45% by 2020 and b) its recent commitment to make its best efforts to peak its emissions by 2030. Figure 4 shows what happened to China’s emissions after its 2005 commitment. Its latest commitment pretty much guarantees that its emissions will continue to rise for at least the next 15 years.)
India, with 6% of global emissions, makes no bones about where it stands: “The world must accept that India’s per capita carbon emissions will need to rise rapidly if it is to eliminate poverty, the environment minister said on Friday, as delegates meet in Lima for key UN climate change talks.” Economic development takes priority over the need to combat climate change in India too, as illustrated in Figure 5:
Figure 5: India’s emissions before and after ratifying the Kyoto Protocol
The position of Russia, which accounts for 5% of global emissions, is predictable. Under Kyoto Russia committed to keep its emissions below 1990 levels and its emissions are still well below 1990 levels (Figure 3). Putin has other things to worry about anyway.
The other developing countries, which collectively contribute 26% of global emissions, include some in a reasonably advanced state of economic development, such as South Korea and Chile, but otherwise are mostly poor. The poor countries are more than willing to limit their emissions provided the developed countries pay all the costs, and in 2011 the Green Climate Fund was set up to get the ball rolling. So far, however, contributions amount to only $10 billion – a negligible sum relative to the scale of the undertaking. We can safely assume that funds on the scale necessary to reverse the 3% historic annual growth rate in other developing country emissions will not be made available, or at least not quickly enough to do any good.
The bottom line is that the developed countries won’t commit to emissions cuts of the magnitude necessary to stay below the 2C threshold unless the developing countries shoulder at least some of the burden, but the developing countries aren’t going to sacrifice economic development on the altar of climate change, threshold or no threshold. The most they are likely to agree to is token measures that get good publicity but which don’t cut emissions, as China has already done. As a result the developed countries will again be left to go it alone, which as shown in Figure 6 is an exercise in futility:
Figure 6: Developed and developing country carbon emissions, 1970-2012
The conclusion is inescapable. However desirable it may be to protect the Earth from the dire consequences of a runaway climate the chances that the world will agree to cut its emissions quickly enough to stay below the 2C threshold are somewhere between zip, zilch and zero. (There’s also the question of whether cuts of the magnitude necessary would be politically, economically and technologically achievable if the world does agree, but we’ll leave it aside here.)
Now imagine that you are one of the prominent politicians – Obama, Kerry, Merkel, Ban Ki-moon, Hollande, Cameron, Davey, whoever – who have publicly and repeatedly stated that climate change is the greatest threat facing the world, that the world is in serious trouble if nothing is done to stop it but that a solution is still within our reach. What do you tell people when next year’s make-or-break Paris climate talks show that it isn’t?
»
- 17136 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Rising mortality rate, due to increasing lack of medical supply and food, will solve that enormous problem with enormous radicalness.
Over-population usually sorts itself out through disease, famine and war. We have the opportunity to try and find a more pleasant outcome, but few are willing to think about it.
You say Venus is hot because of GHGs to draw a comparison with Earth? Venus, which has a 96% CO2 atmospheric content and Earth, which has about 0.04% CO2 atmospheic content?
Is that the logical comparison you are trying to make?
The comparison between Venus and Mercury is the one that seals deal for me. It's made in the link or here is a better one;
http://www.universetoday.com/22111/temperature-of-mercury/
Too many humans there and they fuked up that planet too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Probably back in the stone age when they had the capibility of intergallatic flight........................
Good ol climate fear mongerers who in all theit supposed "science" forget that *gasp* the planet actually has natural changes and has throughout its history...but hey, only humans influence all things climate and especially humans of the last 50-100 years. What makes it even better is that they only use recent records since they have no true way to gauge temperatures of hundreds/thousands of years ago so they simply assume. That's great science!
The ego and hubris of the human species really struts it stuff when it comes to this and other natural things in the world. Humans who say this bullshit are basically saying the planet has never had natural things (volcanoes, changing climate, earthquakes) until humans came to be and mroe specifically untilt hey started driving cars.
There will be a time when the human species will look back on this period and the climate change/global warming "science" in the same mocking way we do to the middle ages and the stupid crap they did like witch hunting/burning.
Who cares? Al Gorean AGW is complete bullshit to begin with and the IPCC lost any shred of credibility years ago. (East Anglia Univ. emails anyone?)
Hide the Decline!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
Climate change/warming whatever the fucking socialists/globalists call it now is nothing more than another sham. Climategate exposed these assholes for what many people already knew they were, colluding liars pushing socialism. Fuck these evil fucks who prey on the stupid and gullible.
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://heartland.org/
Gasoline is a long-chain hydrocarbon composed mostly of carbon and hydrogen atoms. If it is incorectly oxidized (burnt) you can get a variety of chemcal compounds: acids, keytones, esters, alcohols, ect., before the final oxidation products of carbon dioxide and water vapor. The carbon dioxide and water vapor are harmless, and are used by plants to release oxygen. That is why it is called a carbon cycle. The earlier by-products can be harmful to human health but they have been drastically reduced in emissions over the years by technological improvements in engines and fuels. There is no danger from carbon dioxide and water vapor.
Christ.....give it a rest.
GHG based AGW is a FRAUD. How can anyone call this "science" when it fails to satisfy its own hypothesis?
We have been dumping TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere since this cargo cult started predicting Thermageddon WITHOUT a corresponding increase in global mean temperatures.
FAIL
(What if it doesn't really matter?)
With respect to the idea that humans are causing harmful changes to the climate at this very moment, I am waiting for some peer-reviewed papers that propose what the optimum climate is for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.
Strangely, nobody seems interested in this vital comparison. Not so strangely, the solutions that are frequently demanded in the most urgent voice, all converge on a socialist worldview: statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, even fewer people. That bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about "climate science".
AGW is basically a scheme which will be used at some point to stop 'developing' (read competing) nations from further development which keeps the kings of the hill pretty the same as they are today since the 'developed' nations aren't really increasing emissions much.
Coincidence that the nations most hurt by Kyoto would be BRICS nations, were they held to the goals somehow?
Absolutely. Amerika would quickly regain their position as an industrial powerhouse if the regulatory playing field was level.
Sans a plague or nuclear war there's gonna be more than 100 million MOaR people living on earth next year than last year, odds of them emitting less are less than zero, on the upside the senate just passed HR 83 a $1.7 B carbon tax propaganda bill, (I hope this is a paid article) so the GreeenEnergy movement isn't going anywhere.
If the enviros really gave a danm they would encourage oldgrowth logging in the northwest~!!!!
Reason being is that young trees are carbon pumps (back in the ground). But any forest over around 100 years old is just a wash...
It will put off as much carbon as it obsorbes....
In other words it is all bullshit even from Gore......
DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As soon as they pulled that, we all know they are just job robbing earth muffins that want to lock up the whole world from everybody but themselves so the govement can pay them to study bugs and fishes and polar bears and fly around in airplanes and drive around in big 4-wheel drive pickups and.... and....
Use more carbon than the average amerikan!!!!!!!!!!
What a fuking joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why just show CO2 charts? Why not graph the data which shows no average warming for close to 20 years? I mean, the bottom line is what the earth's temperature does, not whether CO2 is increasing or decreasing, right? So show the main terrestrial and satellite data sets.
Which terrestrial data set would you like ? The one, as recorded ? Or, the one "as adjusted" by the IPCC ? They both exist. You probably think I'm kidding; I'm not. The real bottom line is it was warmer in 900AD than it is now; this is the conclusion from hundreds of scientific studies globally; including, for instance, Antartica. Well, globally, including everywhere it's been checked. This is really all you need to know. That and the fact, under reported, for some reason, that the surface temperatures of Mars and Jupiter were also increasing during our little warming party in the 1990's. That's ceased too, now. The whole subject is just pathetic, really.
Whenever a family member, friend, acquaintance, or stranger I'm taking to asks me about "climate-change," I always ask them this: "Who do you think killed Kennedy?"
If they know Kennedy was killed in a coup, then I tell them that they already know all they need to know about "climate-change." If they do not know who killed Kennedy, I tell them to find out, as the answer will tell them all they need to know about "climate-change." If they say "Oswald," I just "smile and wave, smile and wave."
The banksters need to repay us.
Guillotine conundrum #2: Should "climate-change" schemers wait in line with other pols and crats or have their own dedicated guillotine?
I think it's a given that you will need more than a few guillotines. The real question is do we group them alphabetically like the DMV, or according to their particular role in this? Also, LIFO or FIFO?
Exactly. But most of them reply; wasn't it a guy named Lee Harvey ? And t hat is the problem.
We just turn down the Oak Ridge thermostat on these problems by nuking the shit out of North Korea or some other shithole place. Nuclear winter kicks in and voila!! No more counterfeit C-notes and the climate is saved instantaneously.
At the heart of all this global warming stuff is a desire to cripple US manufacturing and to transfer US dollars to emerging countries. That's it!
US environmentalists will cripple moderate but controlled polluting industries in the US - forcing those industries to China - where there is no environmental regulation - thus INCREASING total global pollution!
The US cannot pay its own bills without borrowing and is suposed to go further into debt to encourage polluting industries to open up shop or expand in emerging economies?
Dino scientists have speculated that the world was warmer and had more CO2 back in those days. Man was not around!!
If dinos could handle those conditions, why not man?
And if you believe in evolution, maybe some new species will create themselves in the new climate.
A lot of comments in this thread are pretty dismal, but I think you just reached the very bottom of the barrel.
Who me?
Couldn't be?
Then who?
No, you sit unchallenged on the bottom of the barrel.
And, interestingly enough, he has a point. Climate changes have led to the extinction of many species over the eons. Maybe it is time for man to evolve or leave quietly. Do you think it is either possible or necessary to create a static environment and essentially stop the evolutionary process so that man retains his status? Perhaps something better is waiting to emerge. Based on some of your comments, that bar is quite low.
Me likes you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know I am dead on when I get comments like that....
I am sure you are just like the folks that tell me that the discussion is closed and only idiots do not believe in global warming........................
Like at our universities and other liberal think tanks accross the US that want to control all of us peons or niggers or what ever you want to call us little people that are not politically connected.......
Once all the poor realize they are in the same boat... the elitists will loose their heads. It is coming.......
Nobody knows when....
We just know it is coming...........\
Kinda like predicting oil prices........
Good luck all you elitist know-it-alls your day is coming!!!!!!!!!!
When it does... us little people will dance on your graves............
Why is hillary loosing the white male???!!! Maybe because of the fact that the extreme enviro movement hijacked the democratic party.....
All people are realistic environmentalists... they just hijacked it and turned it into extremism like the stuff promoted by earth first or al franken... or any other sensationalist bull shitter snake oil salesman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And destroyed the good natural resource jobs and told 60 year old men and women to get a masters degree so they can compete///////////////
And bring on 100k of debt.............
These idiots need to be stopped, strung up and lynched!!!!!!!!!!!!
No other option if we are going to save the US lifestyle!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nice rant Mr. Logger!
Ever eat a brontisourious steak or backstrap............
Bet they are yummy...............................
Wonder if they will be tender...
Will my .300 mag kill them?
Serious questions that need answered to prepare us for the coming of armagodden...............
After I got beat up logging I work at a university now...........
Wonder what they will thik of a grant application for the aformentioned comment .......
Preparing us for climate change by researching how to harvest brontisouris rex or whatever it is called!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:)
Very tasty, but you need to run them off a cliff. Tenderizes the meat.
I attest that it was definitely warmer back in the day :)
So what, adapt or die.. Like humans have never adapted how did we adapt to leaving Africa ?? Shut your pie holes warmers, we will pay no more taxes to FIX a dynamic system you have PROVEN you cannot predict.
GW can't be killed... unbelievable!
First Noaa / Nasa has a hard time forecasting weather 3-5 days in advance so forgive me if I don't accept their 'factual' estimations for hundreds to thousands of years ago.
Then they lie just about everything. The hottest climate was during the 1920's before the so called industrial age really got going. Before that there was the mini ice age at a time when the entire planet heated their very leaky homes with anything that would burn
And surely the emails bragging about their lies haven't been forgotten?
Then to say a tax will fix it all, with a straight face, is about as stupid as it gets.
What really hyperventalites me is the amount of carbon released by their damn wars. Of course that's never mentioned.
And while they're building nuke bombs to eliminate all life, they're worried about a little carbon.
The only damn thing that may be heating up the planet is their big mouths always flapping.
Reading the posts here it would appear that the view held is that governments need to tax their citizens.
Has the peanut gallery been asleep for the last 10 years?
The governments doesn't need the coins from your cookie jars, silly- they can print their own.
Lot and lots of coins.
So there is absolutely no need to doubt the climate scientists. The arguments that you bring to bear on the subject of climate change, the Climate Catastrophe are farts against thunder.
Yeah Captain Obvious. the 25 year old arguments (the carbon tax, rebranding of 'global warming', not able to agree on the computer modeling, endless reports and conferences, it'll take thousands of years like these things always do, etc etc etc) were presented in James Burke's After The Warming, FIFTEEN years before An Inconvenient Truth.
Dr. Michel Jarraud knows. Radical Marijuana is assuring us the politicians will fuck it up and it's virtually impossible to disagree with him.
One more damn thing to worry about:
So, if Al Gore believes he can turn down the earth's thermostat by raising "carbon taxes", what if he raises taxes too much and causes an ice age?
We're screwed.
Time to call on Sir Fartmoar
This year the warmest year since recordings began and even before that (through measuring isotopes in artic layers), 13 out of 14 years of this century warmest ever recorded, the last two decades the warmest two ever recorded, droughts and floods all over the place but of course CC is not happening. Why? Because now it is cold everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere and that is proof that global warming is not happening. It is all a conspiracy!!1! Never mind that it is winter now though. Keep emitting and keep dreaming.
The world needs an energy revolution but since oil and gas are tied to the dollar and dollar hegemony is the only thing preventing the house of cards to come down that enery revolution will be put off. So the alternative is carbon taxing to make people emit less and to pay up for damages due to CC. But it won't be enough to cover for what will be in store.
The same people who are behind the greatest fraud known as central banking, are some of the same people behind the other great fraud, global warming. Coincidence? I think not. Just another great fraud to screw entire nations out of wealth, just like the central banking scheme. These SOBs can come up with more cons than a carnival barker!
So hard to know what to believe. One day NASA ses we went to the moon, a few decades later NASA ses we have global warming.Pick your truths.
I can't believe we're obsessing over CO2 when there is another gas that's MUCH MORE DANGEROUS! There is 100x more of this other gas than there is CO2, and a very slight change in temperature changes it from INVISIBLE to OPAQUE! Can you believe it??? And it happens at a temperature that's PREVALENT ON EARTH ALL THE TIME!!!
Opaque means IT BLOCKS OUT THE SUN!!! That's right--this gas will suddenly, INSTANTANOUSLY, become so OPAQUE that the SUN CAN'T EVEN BE SEEN!!!!!! ALL THE PLANTS ARE GONNA DIE!!!!!!! PLANTS HAVE RIGHTS TOO YOU ANTI-PLANT FUCKERS!!!!
Something else--another slight change in temperature--AND THE GAS PRECIPITATES IN HUGE QUANTITIES AND LAYS WASTE TO THE EARTH'S SURFACE!!!!! IT BRINGS DOWN FUCKING MOUNTAIN RANGES FOR GOD'S SAKE!
Then, it suddenly becomes ROCK FUCKING HARD, LIKE CONCRETE, and makes the surface of earth IMPERMEABLE!!!! How are the little fuzzy rats going to find their dens??? Where will the worms go????
OH MY FUCKING GOD EVERYTHING IS GOING TO DIE!!!! THE SKY WILL FILL WITH OPAQUE GAS, FALLING TO EARTH IN MEGATONS OF PRECIPITATE, THAT TURNS INTO THOUSANDS OF FEET OF SOLID, HEAVY MASS THAT SCOURS THE SURFACE OF ABOLUTELY EVERYTHING FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!!!
WE MUST GIVE UNRESTRICTED, ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING TO A FEW HUNDRED ASSHOLE SOCIOPATHS!!!! I DON'T KNOW WHY EXACTLY, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE BETTER THAN WRITING IN ALL CAPS AND BOLD!!!!!!!
IF WE DON'T REDUCE THIS GAS IT WILL CREATE ANOTHER LONG ISLAND!!!!!
fuck i need a drink of water....
The horror of dihydrogen monoxide.
THE HORROR!!!
I get great pleasure in watching the antics of the Manmade Global Warming Cult. First, they screamed about the planet getting warmer during a time when it got colder for 19 years. We are still in that period. Any current high school senior hasn't seen any warming in his lifetime.
Now they acknowledge this but claim Global Warming is making things colder. As if that didn't destroy what little credibility they had, wait until we reach the so-called tipping point when too much CO2 will cause everything to heat up uncontrollably. The rest of us will sit back and laugh at this, also.
They will have a comeback, though. It will probably be that too much CO2 is causing global Warming which is causing Global Cooling.
Shame on ZH for publishing this tripe.
I think it's funny. It's like blowing the shit out of a dog whistle inside an animal shelter.
I imagine lots of barking humans peeing on the floor.
Global warming and race issues. Gotta love the ensuing "debates"...
What ever happened to the Ozone Layer?
Al Gore wants to be a BILLIONAIRE!!!
This debate makes more sense when the emissions data for each country is plotted on a per capita basis.
Keep the argument simple, if you are in the global warming camp of scholarly beings then part of the solution is regulating/reducing cow farts.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/31/pruden-making-hay-with-burp/?page=all
People who cannot recognize a palpable absurdity are very much in the way of civilization.Agnes Repplier
Nothing will stop the increase in CO2 other than stopping population growth. Seems like China is the only country on earth that has had any success in doing that. Of course, we have our own bleeding heart "folks" killing 4 million fetuses a year, but at the same time importing millions of third world breeders, so that's a big fail. Face it, in our grandchildren's lifetime they will have more boatable inland water to enjoy.