People like Bill McKibben of 350.org make a big deal out of the “successes” of carbon divestment, where the 350.org organization bullies convinces some hapless organization to divest from coal and petroleum stocks in investment portfolios. Besides the fact that this has no real impact, since when one person or group “divests”, another one buys the shares up, this graph shows why 350.org, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, NRDC, and the whole lot of climate campaigners are just practicing an exercise in futility.
Dr. Roger Pielke writes on Twitter:
I’m preparing some slides for an upcoming talk (on climate policy, yowza!). The attached is an effort to show in a readily understandable way the mind-bending scale of the energy challenge associated with deep decarbonization. What do you think?
This graph of global fossil fuel consumption tells the true story: green efforts to reduce fossil fuel use have not succeeded with any impact at all. With a 57% increase in fossil fuel use since 1992, their efforts have been completely without effect.
Be sure to save this post URL and share it widely to those that think they have “made a difference”.
UPDATE:
Someone asked a “what if” question on Roger Pielke’s Twitter feed for this graph.
one q: if there had been no “climate diplomacy” how much would fossil fuel consumption have increased? // is there a comparison 25 years to compare it to?
Roger’s answer:
Great Q.
1980-1992 FF increased 1.6%/yr
1992-2016 1.6%/yr
But,but,but I recycle!
Well you’re OK then.
You are also OK if your a vegan.
You are also OK if your (what) is a vegan?
You are also OK if you are a vegan.
You are also OK if you’re a vegan.
In the end, it’s only abbreviation.
A totally thoughtless and non falsifiable claim since we have not measure of what that curve would have looked like without all the eco craziness. I think it is a fairly safe assumption that it would have curved had there not been 30 y of crying and shouting.
While many who have got suckered by the hype would probably have hoped that it would flatten off or even curve down will be very disappointed, the claim that “their efforts have been completely without effect” is stupid and brings no evidence to support the idea.
Another comparison would be to compare how much carbon dioxide is produced to produce a given unit of GDP.
The problem there is that the economy is getting more efficient. This is partly driven by govt diktat, but it has also been going on forever.
Blue light LEDs weren’t invented to save CO2, they were invented so that you could make the pits on CDs closer together so that you can pack more data on them. (The shorter the wavelength, the tighter the beam can be focused.)
It was a serendipitous side affect that blue light LEDs made white light LEDs possible, resulting in a sea change in lighting technology. (I can never remember if it’s effect, or affect.)
I remember building linear power supplies back in the early 90’s. Right about that time somebody invented a technique to flash cool the metal that was being used as the core for power transformers. The result of this process was a more efficient transformer.
When we designed version 1 of the PROM programmer, we used a transformer that weighed about 5 pounds.
For version 2, we were able to order a transformer that weighed only about 2 pounds and it ran cooler. As a result we were able to cut the size of the cabinet, reduce shipping weight and put in a smaller cooling fan.
We bought the smaller transformer because it saved us money, not because it used less electricity.
Now days, people use switching regulators and get rid of the transformer altogether. It also takes power supply efficiency from 30% to 90%. Once again, designers went with new designs because it saved money over older designs, not specifically for energy savings.
Energy savings also makes units run cooler, which is a big plus all by itself.
Markw, “Blue light LEDs weren’t invented to save CO2, they were invented so that you could make the pits on CDs closer together so that you can pack more data on them”
I once did a presentation on blue LEDs before they became commercially available, in my class at University. What you say is quite wrong. It may not have been “to save CO2” but you can be sure that the people working on it had lots of applications in mind for them apart from Blu-ray’s. Including, of course, both lighting and LED screens.
Bad news for vegans.
Public Health: For decades, the federal government has been telling people to cut fats and increase carbs in their diet, relying on supposedly settled nutrition science. A new study shows that the advice has been completely wrong….
…Incredible, indeed, since it turns out that Allen had it exactly right. That’s the conclusion of a massive new study published in Lancet that followed 135,335 people in 18 countries on five continents.
The study found that consumption of fat was associated with a lower risk of mortality, while consumption of carbohydrates was associated with a higher risk.
It found that the kind of fat didn’t matter when it came to heart disease, and that saturated fat consumption was inversely related to strokes.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/settled-science-just-got-blown-up/
Me too! And I really, really, really, really^infinity care about the planet.
Your efforts have paid off! In spite of the fact that the American economy has grown yugely since the 1970s, per capita energy consumption has not. link
In fact, America with the world’s largest economy is, on a per capita basis, only the ninth largest energy consumer. Congratulations conservers of America! Give yourselves a pat on the back.
Thanks for the link. Interesting.
Patting myself on the back and glad I insulated a lot. Doesn’t matter if it gets hotter or colder, my insulation has saved me money and keeps me comfy.
Except that this winter is stretching the ability of the New England part of the grid to supply enough energy when the weather is dangerously cold.
TRM, How many years did your savings from the insulation take to cover the purchase cost of the insulation and the cost of its installation?
Cheers
Roger
That probably is because America isn’t a manufacturing country anymore compared to the old days. The only increase in our carbon output is in transportation while we have greatly reduced what was output by industry. Serving meals at a restaurant or sitting at a telephone bank telemarketing hardly is likely to use as much energy as stamping out a fender. So the economic model shift takes the credit, and that wasn’t good for America nor the conservers, and be wary of the “pat on the back” that has a knife in the hand patting.
Yeah but do get those plastic bags at the grocery store?
Used by the trillions, those little suckers are a planetary menace, at least judging by how rabidly the Greenies want to get rid of them.
You have to use a canvas bag more than 130 times for it to be as “environmentally friendly” as disposable plastic bags, and that includes only the initial manufacturing impacts and not the impacts of washing the canvas bag (which you absolutely should do frequently).
California (surprise) has a bill in the state legislature to out law plastic straws, with jail time for bartenders who issue them to paying customers.
@ Thomas Ryan January 29, 2018 at 6:05 pm
California (surprise) has a bill in the state legislature to out law plastic straws, with jail time for bartenders who issue them to paying customers.
——
It turns out the justification for this bill was a phone survey conducted by a then nine-your boy — I kid you not.
The totalitarian left in the US has lost the plot.
How can any sane, rational person support any of this?
Nature’s biggest mistake is that the San Andreas fault zone is a transform boundary.
Well there’s a strawman argument!
I’m old enough to remember when used to have paper bags for everything. Then the eco-loons decided we must “save the trees”. Now they are trying to ban plastic bags and we are going back to having paper bags ( which by the are made from farmed wood grown expressly to be used, not by chopping down virgin tropical forest in Amazonia. ).
Not ‘Carrier Bags’ again. Globally, more unnecessary plastic is wasted by not issuing just the salbutamol refil canisters to asthmatics. Each time an asthma inhaler is prescribed, it comes with the obligatory rigid blue plastic case which, although could easily be re-used, is discarded.
So, say someone has had asthma for 50 years – and gets through 10 x repeat prescriptions per year – that’s 1 x reusable case and 499 cases simply thrown away.
It is estimated there are 300 million asthmatics in the world. Now, that’s a lot of plastic.
Right up there with plastic straws. /sarc
Toby, I know a lot of people who recycle the plastic bags they get from the grocery store as trash bags.
That 9 year old boy found that Americans use 500million plastic straws per day.
I kid you not, every man, woman and child in the country uses an average of 1.5 straws per day. I know that I’m way behind on my quota.
Judging by how hard they are working to get rid of them, they probably aren’t a problem at all since the greenies never actually attack “bad things,” just “highly visible things.”
Plastic bags, when left in direct sunlight break down to nothing in a matter of months.
Since I live in a rabid-eco area, we have to bring our own bags to the grocery store. I bought 10 boxes of the thin plastic grocery bags on ebay, 10,000 bags in all. Probably a lifetime supply. Total was like $170. So I just keep a box in the car, then carry it in and put it in the top of the cart every time I go shopping. I could use 10 a week and have enough for almost 20 years. I don’t reuse them because, hey, they are cheap, I want clean bags every time, and the amount of plastic wasted is very small, even for 10,000 bags. Save a tree, use a disposable plastic bag.
MarkW wrote, “Toby, I know a lot of people who recycle the plastic bags they get from the grocery store as trash bags.”
That’s what I do. In fact, I modified my waste baskets to work better with grocery store bags:
http://sealevel.info/modified_waste_basket.png
I also keep a couple of those bags in my pocket when walking the dog.
http://sealevel.info/eliza_seadog_1yo_33pct.jpg
Ironically, grocery store plastic bags are made from ethylene, a waste gas produced from coal. oil and petrol combustion. Since the feed stock is a waste, it’s a heck of a lot more environmentally friendly to make bags from that as opposed to making them from PAPER production. And for all the clamoring about how plastic bags don’t decompose in landfills (as they WILL in sunlight, as someone already pointed out in this thread), neither does paper.
https://bizfluent.com/how-does-5035309-plastic-grocery-bags-made.html
To MarkW, re: 500 million straws per day:
Most of my acquaintances drink beer, a few drink wine. The teetotalers drink coffee.
Can you imagine how quickly the former two would get drunk drinking through a straw? We won’t even talk being ostracized by their friends and more genteel folk sitting around the bar/restaurant. Really – how many people have you seen drinking beer or wine with a straw? It was a sight gag when Steve Martin did it on Roxanne decades ago.
Something about that stat stinks. There can’t be that many children in America. Only 323 million Americans!
Oh – I was from California. Because of the never-ending drought (even during flood years) we never ordered water unless we were going to drink it. Here in Nevada… who drinks water? We have wonderful craft breweries!
When I asked my college students who are so deep into saving the Earth and believing in AGW, to specifically described what they personally do, without exception, the only thing they say is that they recycle. Big whoop!
y..you mean they don’t pray to Mutha Gaia?
godless savages. Only SheHe who accepts Gaia into their lives can Truly be at Peace with naytcha where all the animalsies live in happy harmony with one another nourished by sunshine and rainbows
(Gaia worship kit available from Amazon for a low monthly subscription fee of $129.95, comes with complimentary latte and an environmentally friendly, organic FairTrade, fully recycled couscous pizza hand made by wood sprites from locally sourced materials)
You’re excused then and you can have a shiny new cycle.
Check out Penn and Teller’s “Bull____” episode where they convince people to have four or five different recycling bins for everything, including used toilet paper (I think memory a bit fuzzy, but you get the point).
Yes, hard to convince people who think dimming their lights for a whole hour every year isn’t actually Doing Anything, Really.
But, this is 2018. Social policy is as easy as hitting “like” on a fake news meme…
They also have one showing that recycling in general is bull—
Reminds me of working on the shuttle project. A prime requirement was that the solid motors be recyclable. Resulted in heavier motors, and refurbishing that cost more than new ones. There were many reasons it cost so much to launch a shuttle. Congressional PC requirements were a major cost driver. And we all paid dearly for that silliness.
My typical “discussion” with a lefty these days:
Them: “You’re just a car loving fool who is causing Climate Cancer!
Me: Don’t own a car actually…
Them: Umm….
The drastic reduction of fossil fuel consumption requires drastic means.
The drastic reduction of course is only for the little people like you and me.
Not for Leo, or Algore, or Obama or his family, or any billionaire and their spawn.
Spawn? Is that the same as “the fruit of their loins.”
” Is that the same as “the fruit of their loins.” ”
Close, in their case it’s poison fruit.
Drastic means? Do you mean like stepping on some mtoes?
The drastic reduction of fossil fuel consumption, to succeed, would require a drastic reduction in population. Nothing else would get them to the numbers they want. Period. And that IS the point of the movement.
Yep, down to 500 million, all peons on the estates of the padrones.
Do you know what country/region/continent is responsible for the increase of fossil fuel usage you depict in your graph?
Well, the US and Europe have been near-constant in fossil fuel use in the past few years. Not a zero growth, but very little increase. Guess that leaves the people on earth who did NOT have reliable energy supplies before 1993-2003-2013 timeframes now being able to enjoy better lives …..
Well, the green effort has not been “completely” without effect: http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/melbourne-42000-homes-in-dark-no-fans-left-at-kmart-power-outages-due-to-secret-air-conditioners/
And then there is this “Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews says he will seek to compel energy companies to compensate tens of thousands of households and businesses that were left without power as the state sweltered through its hottest night of the summer.”.
From here, …http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/power-cuts-in-victoria-as-melbourne-sweats-through-summers-hottest-night/527429
Riiight – so Andrews will punish ‘energy companies’ (retailers or generators?) for power outages caused by a lack of base load power capacity caused by the crazy federal and state government energy policies. This will just further reduce the profitability of the ‘energy companies’, which will probably make outages more likely in the future. Sounds like socialist ‘progress’ to me.
Great news for the legal profession and insurance industry … money for jam
It wasn’t because of baseload they lost network connections. Given the amount the companies have been scamming to build the gold plated network it would seem only fair they be prosecuted .. one asks what happened to all the money they claimed for the network and put consumer tarrifs up to get.
Gold-plated distribution network?
The companies wanted money to upgrade their networks to meet future demand and were told they couldn’t have it. Now that there have been failures, you accuse them of gold-plating it? That’s the height of hypocrasy.
The first four words are right. But then, it becomes more complicated as network companies don’t necessarily have incentives to keep it up full 100%.
I trust that the government is to blame, since companies always optimize for profit.
Do you wonder if these people have ever read “Atlas Shrugged” or if there were certain parts they just really liked and wanted to perform in real life?
Look at Hillary’s performance for an example of what you point to. Also and ongoing, the former choir boy, former FBI head Comey had the gumption to play act indignation at the supposed attack against the entire FBI as the left leaning media declares that Trump has attacked the entire agency. Lies upon lies upon lies.
And the play is not over yet.
Put your money where your mouth is Greenies..Never going to happen…
“With a 57% increase in fossil fuel use since 1992, their efforts have been completely without effect.”
Don’t be so harsh, A. !!
It would have been a 58% increase without the trillions of dollar sunk into green investor pockets and hidden accounts.
1992 is the year the UNFCCC was established. What have they accomplished since 1992? Green groups will simply point a finger at the UN.
Trump’s fault. Hillary were healing the relative sealevels with a Nobel peace prize already.
Is the “equivalent” that the “e” stands for in “mtoe” energy-equivalent, or CO2-emission-equivalent? Because they aren’t the same.
All of the energy produced by burning coal is from oxidizing carbon (making CO2). But only a portion of the energy produced by burning natural gas (CH4) is oxidizing carbon (making CO2), with the remainder (nearly half) being produced by oxidizing hydrogen (making H2O).
Millon tons of oil equivalent
Thanks, Stephen & Tony.
Then I think that graph depicts the wrong thing. The alarmists demonize fossil fuels for the CO2 they release, not for the energy produced by them, and some fossil fuels release more CO2 than others, and some power plants are more efficient than others. So a graph showing the energy produced from fossil fuels is not really the right graph to prove the (in)effectiveness of their misguided campaign against CO2. A graph showing the CO2 produced by fossil fuels would be the right graph for that.
here is a comparison of the two (World CO2 emissions vs World primary energy consumption):
csens.org
It shows even better if you click “right axis” on one of them
/Jan
Thank you for that very useful link, Jan Kjetil Andersen.
Jan modestly did not mention that http://csens.org/ is his own web site, and he’s created some very useful tools there. Nice job, Jan! Check it out, folks!
Do not be fooled. Coal is not just carbon. It always contains water, ash and volatile hydrocarbons. CO2 is not the only product when burning coal.
Fly ash is used for concrete manufacture and captured sulfur dioxide for drywall/gyprock.
A VERY useful bi-product of electricity production,
Almost as useful as CO2. 🙂
Don’t forget the rare earth minerals contained in coal!
I’m pretty sure that the volatile hydrocarbons get burned along with the coal.
the term mtoe is energy equivalent. The term has been used throughout the energy industry since long before CAGW and CO2 were even heard of.
And H2O is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Potent or not, it is not accumulating due to emissions at the decadal scale in the atmosphere. CO2 has increased to somewhere near 410 ppm. Seas and vegetation don’t sink CO2 at the same decadal pace humans (China, US, Russia, EU, Saudis, etc) emit it.
Some people claim though that CO2 does cause a WV feedback that’s considerable. Looking out I see a mild winter there. No panic.
A trend of fossil fuel consumption vs life expectancy would be interesting.
Let’s show that the argument against cheap energy is a call for killing.
Funny you should ask!
The UN, talking out of both sides of it’s mouth, actually forecasts better than ever life expectancy rates at every opportunity, even in the face of the UNIPCC regular mantra of”climate catastrophe”….
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/
The argument against cheap energy is a call for killing. And it has been, since the day Maurice Strong implemented it.
Yup. The Eco-Fascist “Dark Side” that most of the deluded don’t own up to, or even DENY.
Toronto radio did a piece about homeless and excess deaths – related to the ‘unusually’ cold winter.
I must say I never hear about homeless excess deaths related to the ‘unusually’ warm summers.
I just sent a tweet to Leonardo DiCaprio, telling him to stop using his huge yacht so much. So, I’ve done my part.
that’s a half credit only. You’ll get the other half when you tweet the Incovenient Hypocrite himself. Since he did invent the internet.
Here is an interesting question:
Since Al Gore is going to claim credit for the internet,
how much energy consumption can be laid at the foot of the internet?
Every server farm, large and small exists because of the internet. Various estimates place internet electrical consumption from 3% (in 1999) to over 20% today. There is even an estimate that Bitcoin mining alone is consuming electricity at a rate of 45 Twhr/yr and growing fast: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption.
Certainly, some internet use can be seen to save energy in other endeavors. But as a net-net measure, the invention of the internet must have greatly expanded our use of electrical energy — still based mostly on coal.
Bitcoin’s electricity consumption is the best reason I know to outlaw crypto-currencies.
That, or relegate processing to a dozen old ‘386 machines and quit wasting valuable resources.
Careful that is a very slippery slope, the extension leads to banning of computer games and lots of recreational activities 🙂
Rocky you could argue does posting on a blog is wasting valuable resources .. just saying.
Posting on a blog takes far less resources than an old ‘386, LdB.
Where’s your argument now?
Those ‘386s would take more energy than modern hardware, remember.
You might want to consider how many people are reading and posting on the blog .. it’s probably not insignificant. The dark lords may deem that the science is settled and it doesn’t need to happen using your own example it’s a massive waste of energy 🙂
Things always cut both ways, be very careful suggesting things should be banned.
Ahhh, computers peaked with the Crummydore 64. Been going downhill ever since. 😉 😉
That’s the spirit. Be he gets right on it, and bicycles to the next climate conference.
The yacht is OK as long as his bartender checks if he wants a straw to his drink.
That graph needs some Karlization or similar adjustments.
Nice of Roger to so politely call it the era of “climate diplomacy” though.
1992 + diplomacy = UNFCCC
UNFCCCP
you need to edit succeed to read succeeded sorry volunteer editor here. nice graph.
You need to use some capitals, and more punctuation.
Volunteer volunteer editor editor….
Assistant to the volunteer editor…
Add another chart showing how little impact all of the investment in “renewables” has had on global temperatures.
The chart indicates how absurd the task is if “renewables” are the mechanism.
Since CO2 doesn’t drive the Earth’s temperature, that would be “zero.” But even if we ASSUME it does and that all of the alarmist claptrap is fact, it would still be not much above that (which is probably your point). I just never like to concede the first point, because it just encourages the Eco-Fascist faithful. ;-D
How many a time we have heard a skeptic (while hanging his head) say that the other side is winning. This graph just goes to show that the warmist side isn’t even close to winning. AND they’re never going to come close to winning. Let them talk all the alarmist trash they want. (cuz dey ain’t winnin’ nuthin’)…
Not on the CO2 front… the AGW is LOSING big time..
But that is not what its about.
They are still managing to decimate power supply infrastructure in some once-developed countries.
Trump has probably rescued the USA, but the anti-energy-supply agenda and the leftist anti-CO2 ideology still holds strongly in many other places.
It is this ideology that we have to erase somehow.
Sure, Andy, there are pockets that are suffering through this mess. But in the big picture, life is moving happily along. Hard for me as an american to gage just exactly what y’all are going through. (if nothing changes energy wise where you live, then you have no first hand experience to compare; just hearsay from what you read) i still hold out that your pain will ultimately be everybody’s gain. At full employment, more energy on the market means cheaper energy overall. And cheap energy is vital toward keeping inflation low (which in turn is vital toward maintaining economic growth). People don’t think that a paltry less than 5% green addition to energy supply means much, but it should be noted that the second oil shock of the 1970s resulted in a mere 4% drop in world oil production. Speculation matters. And just maybe, green energy is a step toward energy security on the (world wide) whole. Cause it ain’t nothin’ nice when energy markets get maxed out at full employment. (just ask george w. bush) So here’s hoping that all your country’s pain will soon be gain. Returning dividends of low inflation, high employment and economic prosperity for all…
If Trump has “rescued the USA”, and the USA actually starts exporting oil as well as LNG and coal, maybe some other developed countries will get the hint, “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”.
Probably there are a few European countries that don’t want to depend on Russian natural gas, and might want to buy LNG from a friendlier supplier like the USA.
But not all European countries hopped on the green bandwagon of wind and solar. France, for example, doesn’t have much coal, oil, or gas, but developed a large network of nuclear power plants which supply about 80% of the electricity needs of the country, far more than the USA gets from nuclear. France even exports the nuclear wastes for storage in…Germany, which has dismantled most of its own nuclear power plants. Most of the rest comes from hydroelectric power, which works well in the Alps.
It is also costing a lot of of companies big money for carbon credits. Some companies are going bankrupt because of having to buy credits. There are also so many carbon credit scams worldwide that Interpol cannot keep up with it. The EU is threatening Ireland with a big fine because they havent met their CO2 emission targets. The grant money for useless research on computer simulations regarding CO2 worldwide is crowding out grant money for other realms of real science that desperately need it. Many scientists are so scared of saying anything against the AGW theory that our research facilities and governmental organizations have become mouthpieces for the AGW crowd. AGW is being taught in almost every school around the world. What will be the cost to deprogram the misinformation and write new textbooks to replace the faulty AGM information that is taught in our schools? Dont forget some of these kids that are being fed this junk science will grow up to be politicians to perpetuate the myth. Im afraid the battle against this hoax has really only started. We have a long way to go and many hills to climb.
“actually starts exporting oil as well as LNG and coal”
Australia is one of the world’s top exporters of coal, and we STILL can barely meet out electricity needs, because there hasn’t been a major coal fired power station built in many years in the two main southern states.
The so-called “green” anti-CO2 agenda stopped them when the should have been built several years ago
They are in fact CLOSING old power stations that could still be quite operable, by making them uneconomic due to carbon tariffs etc. The 3 units of Hazelwood they still had operating, were running at 105% of nameplate for the last month or so before being shut down. They blew up the Adelaide power station !!!
The whole mess is a load of base-level stupidity brought about by one thing and one thing only,
….. that being the Anti-CO2, anti-society, anti-economy, AGW, greenie, left-wing agenda
So you’re telling me there’s a chance… YEAH!
Thanks for that graph, Roger. And thanks, Anthony, for relaying it.
I suspect we’ll hear some “yeah buts…” from the butts of our jokes.
Cheers.
Yeah, Nice graph , isn’t it 🙂
Oop, there it is, Oop there it is!! Ever body cabbage patch!!! Oop there it is!! Liars gonna lie, especially when USG is throwing money at them and ordering them to.
Can’t even predict snowfall in Michigan, wants to tax the hell out of us though… http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2018/01/what_the_heck_caused_the_snows.html#incart_river_home
“With a 57% increase in fossil fuel use since 1992, their efforts have been completely without effect.”
There is absolutely no evidence of this presented here. The only way you could say such a thing were if you had a comparison – how would emissions look if there had been no effort to curtail them?
Looks to me from the graph like there’s a deceleration in the emissions increase since about 2011. Is that meaningless?
K S
Of course its meaningless .The world is using 57% more energy from fossil fuel than was used in 1992 .
Cheap abundant energy is the basis of modern civilization .
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and industrial processes now nudge 35 billion tonnes per year .
All heat comes from the sun and trace gasses ability to capture heat is very much exaggerated and have very little effect on world temperature .
Someone asked a similar question on Roger Pielke’s Twitter feed.
Rogers answer:
Greg F – If anything this is evidence that attempts to curb FF have been successful, since populations are rising at an exponential rate and energy consumption along with it. However, it still doesn’t say anything about carbon emissions. It’s a rotten comparison, doesn’t address what I said.
Gwan – “All heat comes from the sun and trace gasses ability to capture heat is very much exaggerated and have very little effect on world temperature .” Not quite all heat comes from the sun, but close enough. Trace gases don’t affect world temp? Really? Wow. What’s all the fuss about then? You say it with such confidence, it must be true. And the vast majority of climate scientists are stupid/corrupt, I suppose, while you are the voice of reason and integrity.
Roger’s number are correct as is the graph above but it doesn’t answer that question. What actually happened was the developed nations all reduced FF consumption and China/India and Asia increased FF consumption to produce the flat line and the rather constant growth in emissions.
I suspect the answer is emissions would have been higher and FF use higher so now there are lots of questions that can be posed all with various political biases 🙂
the only reason that fossil fuel use flatlined in the West was that the world became one big marketplace and Walmart told every company that wanted to sell them a product to relocate their factory to China. Soooo what happened then? Within 20 years China CO2 output went to 30% of the world total with the US in 2nd place with 15%. Any country that produces that much of the worlds CO2 is obviously using the cheapest energy they can find. The Chinese are laughing at our naivete on AGM matters while we laugh at their pollution. The 2 are connected. We just have to forget about CO2 as the culprit and focus on real pollution especially treating the oceans as 1 big plastics garbage dump. What i want to see is a graph or table on who is dumping plastics in to waters around the world. The oceans are so laden with plastics that I would guess that any fish that you eat no matter where it is caught would contain at least some minute quantity of plastics. Check it out It really is that bad.
In what passes for your thought processes, the only reason why all those countries moved to China was because Wal-Mart ordered them to?
I had no idea that Wal-Mart had so much power over the decision making processes of so many companies.
Even the companies that don’t sell through Wal-Mart hopped to attention when Wal-Mart gives out orders.
Even companies that were already looking for ways to cut costs got on the fast track to China, just because Wal-Mart issued a new set of orders.
Alan, when you go to the store, do you buy the cheapest you can find, or the most expensive?
If you seek out cheap, then you are the reason why those stores moved to China, not Wal-Mart.
Perhaps if the U.S. showed global leadership in the move to curtail fossil fuel use (or even went along with it) the rest of the world might do more, too. Why should they change or make sacrifices if we won’t, even though we still beat the rest of the world in per capita emissions? We won’t assume responsibility for it. Too selfish. Too many Americans think we are entitled to risk the well-being of others so we can run our SUVs and heat/cool our McMansions.
“Chinese manufacturing has changed the economics of renewable power around the world, making solar generation cost-competitive with electricity from fossil fuels like natural gas and even coal.” (Nat’l Geographic; many many sources will say that China has been investing billions in renewable energy – China’s claim is $360 billion by 2020)
This is what the U.S, should be doing. There is a huge and expanding global market for renewable energy technology, goods and expertise. Shouldn’t we be a leader in this market?
Kristi Silber barking at America, a nation that actually REDUCED CO2 emissions while China soared.
U.S. Outshines Other Countries in CO2 Emissions Reductions
“According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. carbon dioxide emissions were 2.5 percent less in 2015 than in 2014. In fact, since 2007, when they peaked, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States have been reduced by 12.2 percent. According to the Washington Times, the United States has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than virtually any other nation in the world.[i] For comparison, the European Union, which has spent $1.2 trillion on support for wind, solar and bio-energy, increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 0.7 percent in 2015 over 2014 levels. The biggest increase was in Belgium, where carbon dioxide emissions increased by 4.7 percent.[ii]”
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-outshines-countries-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions/
Please take your boring anti America B.S, and stuff it!
It’s disingenuous to say “the only way you could say such a thing were if you had a comparison [with no curtailment of emissions]”. All one has to do is look at the amount of energy produced by all renewable energy during the time period in question, which basically amounts to an effective value of zero. Therefore, it’s perfectly logical to make a claim of “their efforts have been completely without effect” because no meaningful curtailment of either CO2 emissions or energy produced has taken place.
Everyone wants to save the world and let others know they are part of the solution but in reality they aren’t willing to really commit to a fossil fuel free life. Truth is they couldn’t today if they wanted to but don’t let that fact get in the way of virtue signaling. Looking at the Paris Agreement signatories CO2 reduction it appears no country is serious about their CO2 reduction goal. Once all the low hanging fruit for reduction was eliminated they stopped. No one is buying the economic suicide pact of CO2 reduction. Valid but not the primary reason and I’ll take a win anytime.
No one is advocating a fossil fuel-free life.
Many countries are making changes, even China and India. Changing the fuel economy of a country is slow. Give it time. The goals are just that – something to work toward. Probably won’t be met in many cases, but at least other countries have a goal and are trying. It’s not an economic suicide pact, that’s ridiculous hyperbole.
“Curtailing fossil fuel use” (as you put it above) IS an economic suicide pact. Replacing cheap dependable energy sources with expensive, useless energy sources IS an economic suicide pact. Particularly when there isn’t a scrap of empirical evidence that it is necessary to do so.
You’re trying to “sell” a (non)”solution” to a “crisis” that DOESN’T EXIST. News flash: It ISN’T SELLING.
So, apparently all we need to do to reach the Unicorn Stabilization Goals is to replace the fossil fuel equivalent of 14 million solar panels or 1500 wind turbines or 1.5 nuclear plants PER DAY, EVERY DAY, until 2050.
Sounds reasonable.
How many of those new and existing solar panels and turbines will have to be replaced during this period?
Are they organically and, of course, ‘sustainably’ produced or is there any fossil fuels or toxic pollutants involved?
How much area will be required for those solar panels or wind turbines?
Total insanity. But some serious profits for the solar panel and turbine salesmen.
Oops. I meant salespersons of course. I know the climate is very sensitive to that kind of thing.
(salespeople)…
I still think the female gender should call themselves “wopersons” if plural, “woperson” if singluar. That is, if they want to be completely consistent.
And the male gender should be restricted to using just the words “persons” (plural) or “person” (singular). To be completely consistent, of course.
Pretty nuts, huh?
Yes, nuts! Some day someone will be triggered by “human.” Have to be “huperson,” and definitely no more “huperson race.” I guess “huperson beings” could still be OK.
“woperson,” you sexist pig? Should be “woperdaughter.”
[Would depend on their ratio of whoppersons to woepersonally. .mod]
Pielke’s little box seems to assume these 1500 wind turbines are operating at nameplate capacity 24×7, but he doesn’t provide enough information to really determine that. If that is the assumption, then the number would probably be closer to 5,000 wind turbines, and there would still be some intermittency.
mtoe is dumb. Why not equivalent chickens?
How about units of Hiroshimas?
A much better term would be “dark energy”, if they could figure out how to do the conversion and explain what it all meant.
Because natural gas is easily converted to oil equivalents.
It all comes down to energy density. How much of a wallop is packed into a cubic meter of energy source. You don’t have to be a rocket surgeon to get a grasp. Just think of your personal car. It can barrel down a highway for 35 miles on a gallon of gas. Now think about a sailing ship. Look at those huge sails. Think of a wind turbine. Why is it so massive? Think of bio diesel. Why does it take a whole year to grow the stuff? How about a solar panel. On average one meter can power a 40 watt light bulb for 24 hours. This is the fundamental reason behind the graph. When it comes to the heavy lifting, only nuclear and fossil fuels are up to the task. Somehow, this all seems to complicated for our political leaders to grasp. In this regard, Trump is Einstein.
It used to be quite well understood in Western countries that the market was the best arbiter of value. I don’t believe this simple principle is understood at all by today’s college graduates. It is actively, even vehemently denied by the Left, which encompasses virtually all university professors in the Social “Sciences”.
If the Left were to ever concede this fundamental fact, the rationale for government involvement in the economy beyond the most minimal regulation would disappear and with it the reason for existence for all Leftist parties.
While we were putting up with the Ultra Liberal manifestations because we were oh-so-accepting they were taking advantage of our naivete and driving the stake deeper.
Exactly. When governments pick winners and losers, we’re ALL losers – except for the rich, politically connected scumbags who are positioned to profit from the market dislocation that comes with artificially promoting inferior products over superior ones.
Yup. And unfortunately most who support this Eco-Nazism do so while refusing to recognize their own hypocrisy, since they are all beneficiaries of the very fossil fuels they seek to demonize. Their blather on their social media platforms crowing about the supposed “need” for “action on climate change,” with all of the computers, servers, cell towers and the like required to support it, probably consumes more electricity than your average house does every month.
A few years ago I was having a “discussion” with someone on 350.org about the futility of mitigation attempts. Using various data available on line and some broad assumptions, I computed how long it would take to lower global temps by 1 deg F if the U.S. were to reduce its CO2 emissions to 0 today, all other variables remaining constant. I came up with about 300 years. I provided the links to the data and the spreadsheet I used and invited a rebuttal but never received one.
Did the same thing on Media Matters a bit later and received no rebuttal there either.
So for the sake of accuracy (and just for the fun of it), I’d like those willing to run the numbers and see if we can reach a 97% consensus on about how many years it would take to reduce global temps by 1 deg F if the U.S. were to reduce it’s CO2 emissions to zero today, all other variables remaining constant.
[For consistent results internationally, the mods recommend that be 1 degree C, not F. .mod]
For extra credit, compute the number of US residents that will perish to exposure and famine while we wait.
since F =9/5 C + 32 that would mean that you would almost have to double the number of years.
The target is no just USA, but all the western world. So you have to add ~EU and a bunch of other (Canada, Australia, etc.).
On the other hand, the target is not zero, but a division by four, per capita.
I guess you end up at ~1 century instead of 300 years.
Meanwhile, China, India, and even Africa race to build up the difference, so basically, you just transfer wealth from here to there.
Self deluding virtue signaling is all “reducing ones carbon foot print” is. Urinating in the ocean is another thought. Of course there’s money to be transfered isn’t there?
Thank God for Free Enterprise!
We are in the position of discussing (how-to, whether-to, if-we-can) replace a working electrical generation asset base with some preferred alternative mix.
Had we depended upon Central Planning to build an electrical asset base, we would be arguing over the allocation of less than half that generating capacity.
Except we would have to keep our argument quiet so we wouldn’t get arrested.
I find that gloating is a surprisingly soothing and enjoyable activity.
Dont gloat. See my posts about the true costs of this hoax and how much work we have to do to overturn this hoax. The battle has only started.
Unfortunately, you’re right. And ironically, the “studies” indicating that people’s minds about “climate change” being “made up” based on political affiliation rather than science is right, but the wrong way around – it’s the “true believers” that won’t consider scientific facts and are pig-headed about clinging to their *beliefs* in an almost religious manner, not the skeptics who refuse to accept the politicized propaganda being “sold” as “science.”
I would title it “Reality Graph”….and there are something like 1600 new coal plants planned worldwide over the next couple of decades…
Diplomacy? That’s friendly sounding. 🙂
OK you got me…. I use plastic straws when I drink to celebrate the earth has a fever implosion . That’s a lot of straws .
“I use plastic straws when I drink to celebrate”
Beer….. through a plastic straw…….. you can keep that to yourself 🙂
Then there is this
From 1980 to 1992 (12 years) the population went from 4.4B to 5.5B (+ 1.1B) people while
From 1992 to 2017 (25 years) the population went from 5.5B to 7.5B (+ 2B) people
And respectively population growth dropped from an average of 1.75% per year during the first 12 years down to an average of 1.25% per year for the second 25 years
I rarely hear mention (with the exception of the conversion of lighting to LEDs) to any serious effort to maintain current lifestyles, while reducing energy consumption. And my anecdotal observation is that there is a skyrocketing implementation of mundane technologies which consume additional energy. Seemingly every restroom now has “hands-free” towel dispensers, all electrically powered. Has anyone read anything on the potential for focused efforts to reduce consumption, while maintaining current lifestyles, versus the tragic destruction of base power generation which we are witnessing today? (It wasn’t all that stressful to handcrank towels out of the dispenser, back in the dark ages.)
What on earth makes you think that the climate activists actually want to stop burning fossil fuel?
Its never been about that. Its ALWAYS been about marketing, state capture (rent seeking) and profit and screwing the consumer for more whilst virtue signalling to grab more political power and reduce freedom and democracy.
No one cares whether the meme is true or not. Only that its believed enough to allow policy and profit to be built on its foundation.
With respect to the extremely competent and diligent scientists who post here, you are almost wasting your time.
The science is almost irrelevant to warmism. It is simply a tool of the corporate globalists who have decided to control as much as they can and suppress what they cannot control, because they know that the world is heading into a future that is not good, and which they probably cannot control, and they are desperate to avoid that.
The whole meme of social/liberal/politically correct/green/vegan moralism is simply a tool to help enslave the minds of the electorate into a framework where they can be sold the products that are available, and be kept diverted from the real issues that threaten the survival of the elites.
Whilst we are busy being distracted by LBGT, climate change, fox hunting, the real issues of underwriting energy supply, world debt that exceeds world wealth by a factor of thousands, and a world population that is completely unsustainable, and so uneducated that there is nothing for it to do except wander vaguely towards affluence and destroy it, goes unaddressed.
This is probably the end of civilisation as we know it.
What happens next and who keeps their droits de seigneur is the real issue.
I suspect that the survivors will be nations who separate from globalism, and fight like crazy to resits immigration and cultural flooding, and are ruthless and selfish in their defence of whatever common cultural memes are necessary to bind them into a coherent whole, and who have the skill and affluence to arm themselves against the hordes and the brutal realism to use them without thought.
That is what makes the likes of Isis so dangerous, and the Left. They are fully morally complete, in that they define a worldview in which, as in Nazism, they are the Übermenschen, the superior morally correct rightful heirs to the planet.
They can’t run it worth a damn of course – their ideology militates against that – So they will destroy it instead.
Ranged against them we have the cynical leaders such as Putin, and perhaps Trump, who need enough popular support to resist the flood of bovine excrement. And who actually dont give a damn and aren’t in the business of being morally superior, juts in resisting the onslaught.
Forget peak oil, this is the time of peak humanity. In 50 years the populations will almost certainly be a lot less than it is now.
What kills off the surplus in the meantime is the ‘interesting’ bit. Warfare, disease, famine, genocide … take your pick.
And ultimately the most depressing cause of this megadeath will be sheer human stupidity.
The lack of vision displayed by those in control of the process. The people who are in power simply do NOT know what to do with it except fight to retain it.
Now is the time for a new meme – a cultural world-view that is acceptable and lead towards a new arrangement for society. As yet no one has come up with one. We actually need a new religion, more or less, but politically correct green Marxism ain’t it.
Greg rants : “While many who have got suckered by the hype would probably have hoped that it would flatten off or even curve down will be very disappointed, the claim that “their efforts have been completely without effect” is stupid and brings no evidence to support the idea.” Well, I’d say that the yearly increases pre and post decarbonization efforts being equal constitutes evidence.
Change “their efforts have been completely without effect” to “there is zero evidence that their efforts have had any measurable effect.” Satisfied , Greg?
This is the Newcomen steam engine, the first steam engine built in 1712 that started the industrial revolution. It was powered by coal. 300 years later, we are still burning coal more than ever. Decarbonization? LOL
The 2017 EIA IEO report shows that global energy use between 2015 and 2040 will grow by about 161 quadrillion Btus. Of that increased global energy consumption about 2/3rds is forecast to be provided by fossil and nuclear and about 24% from renewable. Fossil, nuclear and large hydro are forecast to provide over 90% of total global energy in 2040.
A picture is worth a 1000 words.
Picture: a typical home in a modern country CO2 footprint (typical value)
Picture: a typical home in a poor country: CO2 footprint of where we need to go by 2050.
1st Class travel is wasteful. We are all in this together. Economy Class for all. Show your solidarity.
It helps to place the claims of the United Nations Environmental Program and the IPCC in context. In 1990, global carbon dioxide emissions were 21.5 gigatonnes (GT). Since that time, there have been a series of multilateral agreements to reduce emissions. In 1990 it was agreed to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels by 2000; in 1997, it was agreed to reduce emissions by at least 5% from 1990 levels by 2010; later, it was agreed to reduce emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Some European countries have agreed to reduce emissions by 40% by 2050. The IPCC and several environmental groups are arguing that it will be necessary to reduce emissions by at least 50% below 2010 levels by 2050, and to eliminate emissions entirely by 2100 if catastrophic warming is to be avoided.
Every multilateral target set to date has been missed. By 2000, emissions were 31.5 GT, by 2010 they were 31.5 GT and by 2016 they were 33.4 GT. So, between 1990 and 2016, global emissions increased by 11.9 gigatonnes, or about 55%.
How do present trends compare to the IPCC’s proposed targets? Reducing global emissions by 50% from 2010 levels by 2050 would mean reducing them to about 16 GT. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, one of the most authoritative sources of energy supply and demand analysis, projects that global emissions will be 43 GT in 2040 and go on increasing after that. In other words, according to a very authoritative source, global emissions will probably be close to three times as high as the current targets that the IPCC and Environmental groups are calling for.
Yet, tens of billions of dollars have been spent, especially by OECD country governments since 1990, to reduce emissions. The European Union countries alone have either spent or committed 3.1 trillion dollars on wind and solar energy generation. Have emissions been reduced from the path they would have otherwise followed? Of course. Has it made one iota of difference in terms of whether the IPCC’s emission reduction targets will be reached? No.
I don’t even think emissions have been reduced at all by EU countries. Considering the continued necessity of “baseload” power generation, and the emissions increased by the wasteful land clearing/construction/maintenance of essentially useless “renewables,” their emissions may well have been better off maintaining the status quo!
Leo Wrote: “With respect to the extremely competent and diligent scientists who post here, you are almost wasting your time.”
That probably true with most politicians and the main stream media, but not with everybody. If they are wasting their time, then there would not be the strenuous efforts to shut them up, and discredit them, or to deny them publication. I for one appreciate what I learn from them and I pass it on.
I haven’t read the previous numerous comments. So if my question has been posed, please delete this.
Actually, there is some additional information that would be helpful. An overlay of the actual ‘global’ temperature during this time period would demonstrate how little the temperature has changed while the use of fossil fuels ahs dramatically increased
Certainly their efforts vastly increased costs to consumers with the poor of the world suffering the most.
Yup! And although they won’t admit or acknowledge it, deep down the “greens” are OK with that, since, at their core, the “greens” are anti-human.
MarkW writes:
“The problem there is that the economy is getting more efficient.”
Yes.
An excellent example is the greenest company on the planet: Walmart. One of its (many) successful business models is that it constantly compelled its suppliers to lower their wholesale prices, on an annual audit basis. This of course compels suppliers to look for ways to lower their costs…and, in turn, their own suppliers to do the same.
The production and manufacture of raw material into “goods” is accomplished through the use of energy. Cutting costs therefore inevitably means cutting down on wasteful use of energy. So this vertical, down-the-line dictum that Walmart’s suppliers — and their suppliers — are constantly implementing policies to cut costs means less and less energy being consumed.
So Walmart’s motto — “Always Low Prices” — essentially means “Always Lowering Energy Consumption.”
Forget Walmart’s policy of putting solar panels on its roofs; this is only for publicity purposes. It is the greenest company in America because of (1) economies of scale; and (2) its policy of constantly yearning to lower prices.
Re: Pielke’s “One graph”
AGW enters a whole new phase: a change of coordinates from GtC to mtoe. That should make all the difference in the world.
Q: How many charts would it take to admit (1) average cloud cover, which mitigates warming (and cooling), is the dominant feedback in Earth’s climate, (2) Henry’s Law applies to ocean surface temperature to regulate the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and (3) neither is represented in the GCMs or in the AGW model?
A: 1.