Copenhagen is worthless
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarReuters reports:
Fifty-five countries, accounting for almost 80 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions, have pledged varying goals for fighting climate change under a deadline in the Copenhagen Accord.
“This represents an important invigoration of the UN climate change talks,” Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, said of the national targets for curbs on emissions until 2020 submitted by January 31.
It represents no such thing. As I said in NBR on Friday, the political tide has turned. Regardless of your views on the science, there is no chance of meaningful reductions in emissions. Even if the EU and Australia and NZ manage some reductions, 50% of the global total is basically China, India and the US.
What does India say:
Indian officials said they want the 1992 UN Climate Change Convention to remain the blueprint for global action, not the Copenhagen Accord.
That means they do not want to commit to any reductions at all for India.
And China:
China said it will “endeavour” to cut the amount of carbon produced per unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 from 2005. The “carbon intensity” goal would let emissions keep rising, but more slowly than economic growth.
Now even putting aside the fact China won’t agree to any verification of their emissions (ie they can simply make up their figures), what does their pledge mean.
Let us assume that their business as usual case is that emissions will increase in line with economic growth.
Now their GDP in 2005 was US$2.24 trillion. In 2020 it is estimated to be around US14.6 trillion. That is a 640% increase in GDP.
Now if their emissions intensity is 40% less, then the increase in emissions will be 385%.
So China’s pledge is they will only increase emissions by 385% by 2020.
Now their level of emissions in 2006 was 6,103 million tons. So China’s projected increase in emissions is around 23,000 million tons.
New Zealand’s total level of emissions is 30 million tons.
So we could go totally carbon neutral, and it would barely compensate for 0.1% of the increase from China.
In fact China’s pledge to reduce intensity by 40% means their total level of emissions in 2020 could be as high as 33,000 million tons.
And you know what. That is more than the rest of the world produces today. The world, excluding China, produces 22,000 million tons. With China it is 28 million tons
So the entire world could go carbon neutral, and China would still push world emissions up 20% from 2006.
As I have said before, you need to get an agreement between the major emitters first, and the rest of the world will then make sure they pick up their fair share.
And I would say there is no way China is going to agree to reductions beyond what they indicated at Copenhagen.
So regardless of what you think about the science, the fact is there will be no reduction in global emissions. Doesn’t matter what we do, what the US does, what the EU does.
Now I am not an advocate of New Zealand breaking away from the rest of the OECD, and saying we refuse to do anything, unless China comes to the party. We are too small to do that, without the risk of repercussions. But we should shy away from any emission reduction measures that significantly reduce economic growth, and focus mainly on improving technology.
China may change its stance over time – perhaps in ten years or so, if there has been clear evidence of rapidly rising sea levels for example. But for the next decade, global emissions will increase beyond doubt.
Related posts:
- China and climate change
- Important Questions on Global Warming
- Greens announce new emissions reduction policy – abortion
- World’s worst emitters?
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:13 pm
If the rest of the world agreed on economic sanctions/ disincentives it would have an effect.
There needs to be both carrot and stick. Or rather small stick and a bloody claymore.
China has grown off the back of exports to the west. If the US and EU put a direct carbon tax on all Chinese imports, whilst also applying carbon taxes to internally produced products, all of a sudden its game on.
The carbon taxes should reflect existing carbon limits and new carbon produced above the limits. New carbon should be punished with very high taxes, whilst existing carbon at moderate taxes. This provides an incentive to develop new non carbon intensive industries.
If the Chinese don’t agree to independent audits, then consider all their carbon to be in the high tax bracket until they do.
If we are serious about reducing carbon, we need to get serious about the incentives to change from a carbon based economy to sustainable development, otherwise we are just kidding ourselves.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Well, after reading the above, it makes me feel so much better than John Key decided to make New Zealand the world leader in
Vote:carbon reductions. I am so glad I am spending 1700 extra a year because dick head, oh, sorry, John Key decided to take up the torch from Helen Clark (after thrashing it as an opposition leader) and be a world leader. We can all smile at each other and say we are world leaders while the cost of living keeps rising and the economy productivity stagnates. Cool….(no pun intended)
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:16 pm
This is the best analysis of the real emissions situation I have seen. And despite what you say – and despite TIME magazine running a cover story last week ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1953692,00.html ) saying grass-fed beef and dairy cows may save the planet from climate change, Mad Nick Smith and his fellow travellers continue to insist that our grass-fed agriculture sector should be the only one in the world to face an ETS. Time for John Key to sack Nick Smith and send him off to the loony bin rather than having that psycho in charge of anything.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 2:22 pm
“China may change its stance over time – perhaps in ten years or so, if there has been clear evidence of rapidly rising sea levels for example.”
Clear evidence of rapidly rising sea levels doesn’t mean it’s caused by humans, neither does it mean that CO2 is the culprit.
[DPF: No but it would increase pressure on China from other countries, in the absence of other explanations for it. I am talking rapid increases, such as more 5 cm a year]
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 2:30 pm
BTW, Obama has high unemployment and a large deficit. Would it really be a bad move by the US to introduce carbon taxes on imports?
*Raise more tax revenue to pay off the deficit
*Stimulate local industries to employ people to make stuff locally, reducing unemployment
*New production in the US is incentivised towards green technologies by the presence of carbon tax disincentives.
“If China wont develop sustainably, then we will” should be the call. I can see Obama’s ratings go through the roof with such nationalistic rhetoric. What’s stopping them?
International cooperation has failed. Time to go Bush! (i.e unilateral
.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 2:35 pm
“Now I am not an advocate of New Zealand breaking away from the rest of the OECD, and saying we refuse to do anything, unless China comes to the party. We are too small to do that, without the risk of repercussions.”
Some cynics could say DPF is playing the over cautious spin game. Others might not be so kind.
If Copenhagen proves its useleness and the world has to wait many years to get China to come around and agree to curb emissions, why would New Zealanders be paying higher taxes almost immediately with National’s ETS? Why isn’t the ETS repealed now? Those are the fundamental questions.
Key and Smith will be guilty of damaging NZ’s economy if they don’t act with the urgency the situation demands.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Well here’s a good reason for the BBC to be pushing the AGW agenda: their pensions virtually depend on it:
Vote:http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/fingers-in-pies.html
The interesting part is this Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change has assets of around 4 trillion Euros. Follow the money!!!
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Yes RIGHTNOW Always follow the money and thats what some of us have been saying for years. the supporters of climate change all have a financial motivation in ensuring the world signs up to their loopy thinking.
All have a stake in promoting this evil fake snake oil hocus pokus.
We have explained who were what why and how much many times.
Its over folks AGW Climate Change et al is a load of BULL SHIT just like the earth is flat was a load of BULL SHIT.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 2:50 pm
I have an interest in the carbon intensity argument.
On the one hand, it sort of makes sense that if the US emits 1 ton per head per year, and China emits 1/10 of a ton per head per year, that that is unfair. Why should the Chinese hold themselves to a much lower carbon emission per head, and therefore almost certainly a much lower standard of living? On the face of it, I fully support the ability of the third world to get rich – it is better for everyone when they are rich.
On the other hand, push the argument back further. Take two countries 100 years ago, both have a population of 1 million. Today, one of them still has 1 million people, the other has 10 million people. Why is it fair that the country with the 10 million population should now get 90% of the combined output? Shouldn’t the country that controlled its population growth be allowed to keep the GDP per head that its natural resources now allow?
As with many political and ethical questions, the answers are much harder than they first appear. Some third world countries (not so much China) still have massive population growth, and I don’t see why they should get a free pass on emissions just because they’re choosing not to control that.
[DPF: carbon intensity is per unit of economic output, not per capita. And interestingly China has a higher intensity than the US.In other words China generates more emissions in creating $1,000 of economic activity than the US does.]
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Copenhagen is worthless……….Yep you are right it set out to justify a scam, but all it could present were more lies, deceit, and fraud………Still everyone had a jolly good time with their private jets and imported chauffer driven limousines. IWI representatives added to the value of the occasion.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Seven years ago I opened my paper “That Kyoto is a Fraud” of 2003 with the following:
I acknowledge that the city of Kyoto exists. Any claims to the contrary are fraudulent.
However, the protocol developed out of the IPCC conference in Kyoto is a fraud, because it is
based on fraudulent assumptions, fraudulent models and fraudulent manipulations of data.
First, a few key points:
• Climate Change is real. Claims that the climate is static and unchanging are
fraudulent.
• Claims that the burning of fossil fuels has released large amounts of carbon into the
atmosphere are not fraudulent.
• Claims that this carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” are fraudulent because carbon dioxide
is a benign gas which is also a fertilizer and necessary for the growth of plants.
• The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims a consensus
exists that global average temperatures may increase by 1 or 2 degrees by the end of
the century. This claim is probably not fraudulent in itself.
• However, most of the other IPCC assumptions, which have led to the Kyoto Protocol,
are fraudulent.
• This necessarily means that the Kyoto protocol itself is a fraud and that our
government is the victim of a major scam.
I shall now deal with the fourteen key fraudulent items which have been used to construct the
fraudulent Kyoto Protocol.
I then presented the arguments and closed with the following summary of the fourteen frauds.
I must start ticking them off.
The Fourteen Frauds of the Kyoto Protocol.
1. The Consensus Fraud: – It claims that we have certainty when there is none and
claims scientific consensus when there is none. Furthermore there is absolutely no
consensus on the economic inputs to the models.
2. The Averaging Fraud: – It translates global averages into local events.
3. The “Warming is Bad for Us” Fraud: – The benign period of the middle ages
was warmer than today and civilizations flourished.
4. The “Climate Change is Unnatural” Fraud: – the Kyoto protocol assumes that
climate change is unnatural, is caused by human action and hence will response to
human intervention, and used the Hockey Stick to support this argument. In reality
climate change is normal and natural, and the Hockey Stick is a fraud.
5. The Economic Inputs Fraud: – The IPCC models are driven by economic inputs
as well as climate change theory. The economic inputs are so wildly improbable,
and theoretically unsound, as to be fraudulent.
6. The Intergenerational Equity Fraud: – Future generations will be wealthy
beyond our dreams and will be able to adapt to climate change; poor people today
should not suffer today to improve the lot of the wealthy populations of tomorrow.
7. The Population Fraud: – The population implosion is well underway and will
achieve Kyoto type reductions in emissions at no direct cost.
8. The Energy Fraud: – The IPCC models assume fossil fuel use rates which deny
historical records and reject all known trends. Carbon dioxide emissions are falling
– not rising, as the IPCC fraudulently claims.
9. The End of Technology Fraud: – Technological changes and impacts, now under
way, will allow us to live wherever we choose and with greatly reduced
environmental impacts, and greatly reduce our use of fossil fuels.
10. The Gross Emissions Fraud: – The Kyoto protocol focuses on gross emissions
rather than net emissions. This makes the US look like “the great polluter” rather
than a net carbon sink – which it probably is.
11. The Roots not Shoots Fraud: – The Kyoto protocol focuses on carbon credits in
the trees rather than the carbon absorbed into soil organisms.
12. The Great Flatulence Fraud: – Our New Zealand farmers are the most efficient
ruminant farmers and should be telling others how to match our own performance
rather than being cast as the villains of the methane world.
13. The Inter- Generational Equity Fraud: – There are no grounds for requiring
people today to suffer on behalf of future wealthier generations. Wealth facilitates
adaptation and humans are uniquely adaptable.
14. The Hockey Stick Fraud: – Finally, the IPCC’s “Hockey Stick” is based on
fraudulent manipulation of the data. The graph attached as Appendix I below
shows that the medieval benign period and the mini-ice-age and the subsequent
warming all actually happened. The “Hockey Stick” is the greatest fraud of all.
I must start ticking them off.
I avoided any of the issues that demanded considerable knowledge of science.
I included the Hockey stick because other scientists had done the job and the
informed lay person could figure out that the Medieval Warm Period and LIA actually happened
without knowing any chemistry or physics.
The full paper is here.
Vote:http://rmastudies.org.nz/documents/Kyofraud.pdf
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:55 pm
PaulL: makes this excellent point:
Some third world countries (not so much China) still have massive population growth, and I don’t see why they should get a free pass on emissions just because they’re choosing not to control that.
It could however be argued that while China has a massive population for sure, it is a continent size country with many distinct regional areas. Afterall the EU is almost a billion people in itself. Political boundaries means that China certainly records a large population – but it could just as well have been many countries, and then each of these little countries would have commensurate population sizes. Same goes for India as well. So is a country overpopulated simply because it has a large population – of course not.
Another way to look at it is this. The Western world (ie whites) number about 1.2 billion people in the world. They enjoy an incredibly high standard of living -based of course on industrialization (and have contributed mostly to this CO2 problem – assuming of course Global warming is largely man-made – which it almost definitely is).
There are many more Western people in the world than Africans in absolute numbers, about the same number of Westerners as Indians and slightly less Westerners than East Asians.
What then would give Westerners the moral right to lecture other people about overpopulation, about the need to keep keep their own standards of living down, while Westerners continue to benefit from the cause of the problem in the first place?
Non-whites have been no more irresponsible in breeding than whites. Of course when whites had 6 to 10 kids per family, they had the Americas and Australasia to populate (at the expense of the people who were first there of course).
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 4:02 pm
I’m livid that traitorous Key and that dick Smith have sighed away our prosperity (and probably with a smirk on their crooked faces).
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 4:02 pm
THe other thing of course is you can simply not point to poor third world people and label them irresponsible for wanting heaps of children – that is what people tend to do when they are poor and social welfare is virtually non-existent. That is what Westerners were like in the past as well.
The answer of course is to raise their standards of living. East Asians use to have a lot of children – but the rich parts of Asia like Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore now have the lowest fertility rates in the world now – even lower then European countries. So much in fact that the Japanese government (and Singaporean) have to offer incentives for their people to breed.
Pointing to third worlders and expecting them to adopt the mindset of a rich Westerner who has access to public healthcare and pensions is absurd.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Maybe we will see wholesale trials for fraud and theft academia and politics after all.
We mustn’t let the Nick Smith’s of this wiorld hide behind, they told me wrong, they must take responsibility for driving it as well.
I don’t care how sincere he may be, this whole thing has been a fraud and needs to be dealt with as such.
It must be properly investigated and prosecutions must follow as well as sackings of anyone in academia whole fudged anything or aided and abetted anyone who did by staying silent when they knew otherwise.
That includes the highest eschelons of the universities admin and management as how can we trust them to be honest and use OUR monies saftly and fairly?
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/1/30_Global_Warming%3A_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5745566/by-the-waters-of-denial-they-sit-and-weep.thtml
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Copenhagen is nothing more than another example of a large group of pompous, overpaid muppets sitting around doing nothing but stealing oxygen. The UN as a whole is the world leader in this. They achieve NOTHING and never will. The UN response to Haiti is a prime example. John Travolta, a fucking scientologist achieved more in one day than the whole organisation managed in a week.
Vote:Key and Smith’s haste to sign us up to the forefront of this utter garbage stinks of something more sinister than a desire to “do our part”. They are following Clark in leading us to higher taxation – because that is all this is, another form of taxation. Why John? Why would you sign us up to something that is unproven and where the biggest players are refusing to play the game?
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:40 pm
yet more from another scientist in good standing on changes to reports without notification.
How much else is there going on?
If Niwa or others here are doing this we need to oust them before they destroy our academic standing.
Lets make all the info available for all to peruse.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 5:24 pm
So are we doing that? National cut the R&D tax credit when they assumed power. Is there anything to replace it?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 5:43 pm
It was not worthless.
They had to import prostitutes from other countries to meet the demand. So something came out of it.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 6:40 pm
KiKI; no,no,no; that’s not right. They imported the prostitutes so something could go in.
Seriously this whole thing has as Owen says been a fraud forever.
This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09. Although I have never ever met the author I was, after some difficulty, able to contact him by phone.
This is an excellent piece for my friends to send to their politicians or to anybody who needs to be educated about Australia’s Coal driven power houses.
Terry is now retired and is in excellent health at age 69. Nobody paid him to write the article which was, (to their credit), published by the local press.
Terry told me I could distribute his article as I saw fit.
Tom Ramsey
Written By Terence Cardwell <terrycar@iinet.net.au >
The Editor
The Morning Bulletin.
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made ‘carbon emissions’ which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don’t have the coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don’t have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem—It doesn’t exist.
Yes – there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a ‘base load’ because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the ‘believers’ the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world’s total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world’s total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous it that.
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller business.
T.L. Cardwell
To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Viking2 – how much CO2 is emitted building and installing a single wind turbine? More than the total CO2 emissions it prevents would be my guess (especially as NZ is mainly powered by hydropower), but I don’t know for sure. Can you or your mate help?
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 6:56 pm
The simple solution is: Repeal the ETS passed last year by the Muppets in Wellington, wait a week for Pachauri and his mates on the IPCC to be thoroughly rejected internationally, then simply get on with life.
Any other sane country has already commenced this course. And, give Nick the Boot, it is his advocacy which has got us here.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
So if Copehagen is worthless, why did John Key back it yesterday?
Vote:Or is that the point!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10623527
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Owen McShane for Prime Minister!
… wondering if he would stoop to enter politics (ACT Party?) for the sake of the nation?
Someone has to smash down all the climate change bullsh*t generated by our leftist politicians and media.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Things are getting more interesting in other ways, the latest item to surface from the leaked emails is that the 1990 paper by Jones and Wang, used by the IPCC (amongst others) to dismiss UHI as affecting temperature records, seems to be based on very bad data and very questionable ethics. Some of the emails reveal serious doubts by other scientists in the clique about the study. Wang was cleared by his University of scientific fraud in the paper, however contrary to the Universities own rules on investigations, the complainant was not allowed to see the report or comment on it. It has also been noted that Jones himself released a later paper claiming that UHI accounted for around 65% of all the warming in the Chinese records, a correction, BTW, not used in any of the current climate indices. Jones further claims that although the UHI effect in London and Vienna (examples) is indeed large, it hasn’t changed since 1900, a very interesting (and unsupported) claim. This has become so serious, that these stories are surfacing in Gruaniad and the Independent, two former absolute bastions of correct thought vis-a-vis AGW.
Further on this, I noticed an item in, I think, the weekend Herald by Jim Salinger of ex-NIWA fame, claiming that a few inadvertant mistakes in the IPCC reports don’t invalidate the great mass of data represented. Unfortunately the old Granny Herald will publish these sort of things without checking for veracity. The Himalayan Glacier “mistake” wasn’t, it was known by the IPCC from high to low that it was incorrect before publication but was published anyway for political reasons. Calling it a mistake is a deliberate attempt to minimize the fraud and deception engaged in, and in so claiming Salinger is complicit. A raft of other “mistakes” are emerging as the document gets more scrutiny. It is quite clear that the FAR and the other reports before it are unreliable as science and consists of a pastiche of some real science, plus hearsay and political activism. Which is which, I don’t think we can be sure, it is all contaminated by the deliberate deception involved.
Time top clean these stables out and, as I have called for before, establish what we really do know and with what certainty, in a truly scientific manner. I’d start by wanting to see an entirely reworked global temperature index, taking into account numerous possible contaminations of local records, with a proper study and inclusion of realistic UHI effects.
Vote:February 2nd, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Putting aside the IPCC, it’s a rational approach to also improve the energy efficiency of generating GDP, and China had a stated goal of reducing that value by 2010, which they met.
Using Total Primary Energy Consumption per $ of GDP using purchasing power parity ( 1000 BTU per US$ (2000) ), then the respective energy efficiency numbers for 1980, 1993, 2006 were:_
China 37.3, 19.5, 13.
USA 15.1, 11.6, 8.8
NZ 11.0, 12.3, 9.0
Note that higher numbers often correlate with undeveloped economies, but China’s drive to improve efficieny has been impressive.
Recognising that China has 70% electricity from coal, but with an extensive plan to reduce that, then additional carbon emission efficiency limits will appear in the next five year plan – due in the next year or so. The suggestion that China’s attitude to verification is to facilitate cheating is misguided. China’s opposition is because external verification is unnecessary.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 1:45 am
Great post. There is always the argument that it is important for everyone to pull their weight, but this shows just how meaningless it is for NZ to do anything other than be a follower on this subject. If we do become some leader with the moral high ground no one will care. They will just be able to use our subsequent stagnant economic growth and high unemployment as another good reason to do nothing.
Vote:February 3rd, 2010 at 9:08 am
On population size:
1. China is a huge country, India a little less so, Bangladesh not. And within China, there are areas with incredible population density. I’d be looking at average population density, and factoring that in as well as just unit production. My logic is that carbon sinks are largely correlated to land area – a country with large land area can support a large population.
2. I never suggested that poor countries were irresponsible in having growing populations. Just that their growing population shouldn’t necessarily entitle them to a growing share of world resources (including the resource of “carbon sink”)
3. I fully agree that wealth is the main way out of population growth. And that the western world doesn’t help with our trade policies that are designed more to keep the third world poor rather than to help them grow. The lip service we pay to foreign aid, which largely encourages corruption and further drags those countries down, is also shameful. Free trade with third world countries would be the best thing we could do to help them.
4. I’m not sure it makes sense to characterise this as “whites” v’s “non-whites”, and to point out that “whites” in Nth America, Europe, Russia, and Australia number 1.2 billion out of, what, 6 billion these days? That’s more than 1/5th the globe that we live in.
5. DPF, yes, China talks about carbon intensity per unit of production. Which in some ways is even worse. But talking about the gross emissions per country, or emissions per land area, would be very much to their disadvantage. My question is why we haven’t had a debate about which is most appropriate?
Vote:– We could just talk about gross emissions (every country, no matter how big or small, can emit 1 billion tons per year.)
– We can talk emissions per head. Everyone can be as rich as anyone else, no matter the birth rate
– We can talk about emissions per unit production. Rich countries can emit more per head than poor countries, but cunningly, if you get richer, you can emit more……so no actual cap there
– We can talk about emissions per unit land area. Frankly, this one makes the most sense to me.