In December, another alphabet soup congregation on climate change will meet in Durban, South Africa to discuss efforts to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions. Durban may be a fine city. But if the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wants a dose of reality regarding carbon emissions, it should convene in Hanoi.
The reason: over the past decade, Vietnam's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 136%. That's faster than any other country on the planet. And Vietnam's explosive growth looks like it will continue for years to come. Indeed, the country where some 58,000 US soldiers died stands as a proxy for many of the countries in the developing world. And as those countries grow their economies, their energy use, and their carbon dioxide emissions, the hope for any hard cap -- or tax -- on carbon becomes ever more remote.
To be sure, Vietnam's energy use is a tiny fraction of that used by countries like China and the US. In 2010, Vietnam's 90 million inhabitants consumed about 900,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. That's a rounding error when compared to China's consumption of nearly 49 million barrels of oil equivalent per day or US consumption of nearly 46 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Even South Africa, which has about half as many people as Vietnam, consumes nearly 2.5 times as much energy.
But the latest data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, released last month, shows that Vietnam's huge appetite for energy is part of an ongoing surge in the developing world to escape energy poverty. Vietnam represents a whole class of fast-growing, populous countries where energy use is growing ferociously and that's resulting in more carbon dioxide emissions -- 33.1 trillion tons in 2010 alone, an increase of 28% over 2001 numbers.
Whether the issue is oil use, coal consumption, or electricity generation, the numbers out of Vietnam are stunning. Over the past decade, Vietnam's oil use jumped by about 82%, following only Qatar (202%) and China (86%). Vietnam's coal use has grown faster than any other country. Over the past decade, coal consumption in Vietnam jumped by 175%, outstripping the percentage growth in Indonesia (134%) and China (128%). And nearly all of that coal is being used to produce electrons.
Over the past decade, Vietnam's electricity generation increased by a whopping 227%, the fastest growth on the planet. Again, the total amount of electricity used in Vietnam -- about 100 terawatt-hours -- remains miniscule when compared to US consumption of 4,326 terawatt-hours. But the essentiality of electricity to modernity is incontrovertible. The countries that can produce cheap, abundant, reliable electricity can grow their economies, educate their citizens and pull their people out of poverty. And those that can't, can't. And that's why all of the past -- and all of the future -- meetings of the UNFCCC have and will result in failure to put a hard cap or effective tax on global carbon dioxide: the developing countries know that limiting their access to hydrocarbons will necessarily retard the growth of their economies.
Look at Asia. Even if we forget for a moment about the 2.1 billion people living in China and India, we can see countries like Indonesia, where electricity generation has increased by nearly 64% over the past decade. Or consider Thailand, where electricity use has jumped by 55%. Or consider Egypt, where electricity use is up 79%. That has meant big increases in carbon dioxide emissions. Over the past decade, Indonesia's carbon dioxide emissions increased by 40%, Thailand's jumped by 51% and Egypt's grew by 53%.
Need another reason for why the just-five-months-away climate meeting in Durban will fail just as all of its predecessors have failed? Coal use is soaring. Over the past decade, global coal use is up 47%. That's faster growth than what was seen in electricity generation (up 36%), natural gas use (up 30%), and oil consumption (up 13%). Environmentalists around the world love to vilify coal. But for countries like Vietnam, Pakistan, China, and others, coal keeps the lights on. That's certainly true here in the US, but over the past decade, domestic coal consumption has fallen by 5%.
Thus far, I've given you a lot of percentages. But focus, please, on these two: 27% and 28%. Since 2001, global energy use is up by 27% and carbon dioxide emissions are up 28%. Put another way, over the last decade, global energy use increased by about 51 million barrels of oil equivalent per day; that's equal to about six Saudi Arabias' worth of daily oil output. Energy use is soaring as more people from Hanoi to Hangzhou move into the modern world. And that means that huge cuts in carbon dioxide emissions -- by 80%, as Obama claims the US must -- simply will not happen.
Like it or not, the world economy runs on hydrocarbons -- coal, oil, and natural gas. And that will remain true for many decades to come. Energy transitions happen over decades or centuries, not years. Countries like Vietnam, China, and India, will never agree to any tax or limit on carbon dioxide. Nor does it make much sense at all to impose heavy levies on the US, and other developed countries. Why? Well, over the last decade, US carbon dioxide emissions fell -- by 1.7%.
Every once in a while, we need to focus on the numbers and put aside the hype. The scale of current global energy use -- about 241 million barrels of oil equivalent per day -- is the same as 28 Saudi Arabias of energy production. The great cities of the world, whether it's Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun, or Durban, run on highly processed forms of energy: electricity, ultra-low-sulfur motor fuel, and natural gas. And they need lots of it.
Global leaders should give up their fixation on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. Significant cuts will not happen voluntarily anywhere. Instead, leaders should be focusing on providing as much cheap, abundant, dispatchable power to their citizens as possible. And to make certain political leaders understand the need to eradicate energy poverty, the UNFCCC should hold its next meeting in Hanoi.
Follow Robert Bryce on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pwrhungry
Mindy S. Lubber: Economists Urge Honest Accounting of Carbon's True Costs
Boyd Cohen: Globally Resilient City Number 9: London
"As the global warming scam continues to collapse..."
Yawn.
National Academy of Sciences, 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels.
Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf
~~~~~
http://tinyurl.com/3c6u6qj
“Far from providing objective, expert proof of a global warming crisis, the NRC report provides objective proof that despite their grandiose sounding names the National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council are more interested in political agendas than objective, fact-based science.”
~~~~~
"...Unfotunately, the National Academy seems to have lost its way, and is morphing into a climate alarm propaganda organ of the U.S. government..."
"...A few years ago, the NAS shamelessly defended the thoroughly demolished "hockey stick" graph which claimed to show that current temperatures lack a historical precedent...And now it has allowed a badly flawed study in its flagship publication that effectively creates a blacklist, in order to delegitimize scientists who might disagree with a vague “consensus” position on climate-change science...Someone needs to publicly clean house at the NAS, washing the institution’s hands of public policy pronouncem¬nts and renouncing efforts to turn them into a propaganda organ for climate alarmists. The alternative will be declining trust in the NAS, and the further erosion of the public’s belief in scientific pronouncements in general."
http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/the-national-academy-of-blacklists/
As the global warming scam continues to collapse, the US government is so desperate to keep the scam alive that they are paying environmental groups to sue them...
"...Indeed, several environmental groups that have received millions in EPA grants regularly file suit against that same agency. A dozen green groups were responsible for more than 3,000 suits against the EPA and other government agencies over the past decade..."
"...Often the suits involve things the EPA wants to do anyway. By inviting a lawsuit and then signing a consent decree, the agency gets legal cover from political heat..."
"...He cites the EPA settlement of a greenhouse gas emissions suit as a good example..."
"...environmental policy is increasingly being "being determined by privately settled lawsuits and monetary payoffs with absolutely no input from elected representatives..."
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/577430/201107061817/EPA-Funds-Greens-That-Sue-It.aspx?src=HPLNews
You want to talk about scam? How about Willie Soon, someone you know well, perhaps?
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/
This is the sordid case of professional denier for hire Dr. Willy Soon. Soon has an extensive history of accepting payments from Big Energy interests, and in return he has a record of producing findings that are somehow favorable to the Big Energy postion on climate. That is, AGW has little merit, according to Soon. Soon cheerfully misrepresents the situation to a Congressional committee. Take a look at the greenpeace work. They did an excellent investigative workup on this. What a bunch of fine fellows the denier campaign chooses as their spokespeople. Soon is up there in a class with Monckton as a hoaxster who also misrepresents science to congress. No wonder Inhofe seeks these guys out.
Yawn.
National Academy of Sciences, 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations…
From a philosophical perspective, science never proves anything... In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7338/full/471265b.html
agwScammer again trying to smear the reputation of the U.S. National Academy of Science via cut-and-pasting substance-free anti-science propaganda from the anti-science "free market" "think tanks" the Competitive Enterprise Institute and/or the Heartland Institute; Scammer's alter-ego James Lakely just happens to be the Heartland Institute's Communications Director.
Now why would anyone respect an ecologically illiterate opinion on a matter like climate change? They wouldn't. So the denier movement is forced to repeat lies over and over and to project their own pathologies onto scientists, educators and environmentalists. The latter are unselfish and work on behalf of everyone, while deniers are utterly selfish and act in their own interests at the expense of other people and future generations.
The above post is intended to shift attention away from the real power and wealth behind denialism by lying about those who make deniers feel inadequate and ignorant. That is apparently easier than the self development required to get beyond greed and a disdain for the very world that makes their existence possible.
-Unlike you, we understand that freedom is what insures security and quality of life.
-It is the wamists who keep getting caught lying about everything...not the skeptics.
-Your entire cult is filled with nothing but greedy and unethical people lusting after money and power. You don't even care that its all a scam, you just want to use it to force everyone to live the way you decide they should live.
Notice how the arrogant warmist is unable to dispute anything about the disgusting conduct and abuse of the public trust detailed in the link provided - they never can. The truth always exposes them for the closed-minded fanatics that they are and their only recourse is another predictable attack on skeptics. The good news is that Its a clear sign of desperation spreading throughout the warmist cult and it will get more hostile and shrill as the scam continues to collapse. They have already been pushed off the agenda for every major newspaper and almost every mainstream politician in the world. They will lie, cheat and steal anything from anyone if it means making 'progress' in reviving the global warming scam. Don't let them, hit them while they are down with the truth every time they try to repeat another one of their ridiculous lies - they will not let all of this power and trillions of dollars go without a long and nasty fight.
Next million year Earth climate forecast = tiny cooling, as ice age glaciers on Antarctica and Greenland continue to grow and nothing melts to offset that on a planet with precisely no warming in either the oceans or the atmosphere
Flagged for repeated repetition of a repeatedly-debunked lie.
---------------------------------------------------
NASA: The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/416685main_20100108_Climate_1.jpg
- - - - - - - - -
Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE ...
In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
Actually, CO2 is the controlling greenhouse gas these years. It is the control knob on the system. As CO2 content increases, the temperature rises. Tyndall 1859.
Really ladairis, you should learn some of the fundamentals before you go and attempt to hijack a forum.
AGW is not a "mantra". AGW is a scientific theory, and it is the only scientific theory that not only predicted the observed global warming over recent decades but moreover explains it that has survived scientific scrutiny.
rda1911a1: "...you have to support increased nuclear power production"
At this late juncture, I agree. Specifically, I support the development of liquid fluoride thorium reactors. in conjunction along with with the development of increased energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.
Anyone with a brain can see that mankind needs to find an alternative to fossil fuels. There is a limited supply of them, and we need to use them for chemicals and non-fuel purposes. It is my belief that methane, natural gas, is NOT a fossif fuel and is being created as we speak in the earth's mantle. With every subduction earthquake, vast amounts of calcium carbonate and water are pushed into the mantle, where heat and pressure break them down and create methane, along with other compounds. This makes methane a "renewable energy source".
If we concentrate on making the delivery of electricity more efficient, we wouldn't lose haft the power generated through friction and heat during transmission. Wand the government to do something to solve the problem? How about a ten billion dollar prize for the first superconductor that would operate at the temperature of liquid nitrogen? That would double the amount of power available from EXISTING power plants. Then we wouldn't need the wind turbines (that kill endangered birds), or solar panels (that operate at about 20% efficiency), ethanol (which increases food costs and hurts internal combustion engines) or any of the other so-called "green energy" that cost more to build than the value of the energy they produce. (That is why they have to be subsidized.)
Billy: "When the people become aware of the hoax, . . . "
The only hoax is the PR campaign being funded by the Big Energy interests.
Billy: "It is my belief that methane, natural gas, is NOT a fossif fuel and is being created as we speak in the earth's mantle."
hooo boy, this is tin foil hat stuff
Billy: "With every subduction earthquake, vast amounts of calcium carbonate and water are pushed into the mantle, . . . "
Provide a technical reference for this, if you can.
Billy: "Wand the government to do something to solve the problem? How about a ten billion dollar prize for the first superconductor that would operate at the temperature of liquid nitrogen?"
The government sponsors a lot of research into superconducting materials. Your request for a liquid nitrogen temperature superconductor was granted back in 1986 or so.
Billy: "Then we wouldn't need the wind turbines (that kill endangered birds), or solar panels (that operate at about 20% efficiency), ethanol (which increases food costs and hurts internal combustion engines) or any of the other so-called "green energy" that cost more to build than the value of the energy they produce. (That is why they have to be subsidized.) "
Do you have an anti green agenda or something? That sounds just like something Big Oil would try to tell us.
WHERE DID YOU THINK IT WENT? WHAT DID YOU THINK HAPPENED TO IT?
And Obama will give it to them - cause he can, and because he's weak - so very weak
Of course, it would be silly to tell the poor in 3rd world nations to stop trying to become part of the middle class and enjoy the simple luxuries where just about everyone in wealthier nations take for granted. Instead of complaining about people in places like Vietnam, China, and India where the average person uses only a fraction of energy as an American or even Europeans, the people in wealthier countries should lead in technologies not only to reduce emissions, but to reduce emissions to a degree where the average citizen of a wealthy nation would produce less emissions than the citizen of a poor one. Unfortunately this will never happen because wealthier nations only want complain about the growing amount of 3rd world citizens wasting like those from developed nations, but cannot think of any way to encourage their own citizens to save energy/reduce waste so to match that of the average 3rd world citizen.
But you are correct, the issue is the development of the 3rd world, and they will not agree to remain poor, which means that they will burn a lot of coal. The United States and Europe could cut their CO2 emissions in half, and it would not make much difference.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/ns/technology_and_science-science/
"While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.
Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."
And when the tippy toppiest of the "top scientists" are faced with that issue, NO WARMING in the DATA, they always "choose" to FUDGE it to show "warming" in a "peer reviewed climate study."
Same thing done for
1. ocean temps - NPR admits no warming there either
2. ice - British Court certified Antarctic ice INCREASING
3. ocean rise - no rise except for cherry picking around Pacific Rim of Fire
So "hide the decline" and have a great Sunday...
Addressing one of LaDairis' many repeatedly-debunked lies:
LaDairis: "ocean rise - no rise except for cherry picking around Pacific Rim of Fire"
Lie.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed
Hint: the entire nation of France converted to this power source in a mere 20 years, and they enjoy 100% carbon-free electricity, and supply the same to half of Europe, and they have been doing this for decades.
If the rest of the world had followed France's lead, the world'e CO2 emissions would be half what they are today. HALF.
Norway says aims to go carbon neutral by 2030
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1766015320080117?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews
"But the Nordic country aims to begin burning natural gas for power generation in the future to satisfy growing demand.
The government wants emissions from such power plants to be captured and buried, a technology still under development.
"The agreement implies technologies that are not known yet," Stoltenberg told a news conference."
Ah yes, the magical fairy dust approach, a cornerstone of their plan is based on using technology that doesn't exist.
OK, I have a plan to make the US carbon neutral by 2029, a full year ahead of Norway, we'll just use technology that doesn't exist yet to fix it. We don't even have to reduce emissions or anything because it will all be fixed by the new technology in a few years. There, problem solved, we can all relax now. In fact, we can implement thermal management technology to set the temperature wherever we want it. I'm also thinking we should deploy tornado neutralizers as soon as possible.
Perhaps someone there can answer the following question...
Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the Arctic, is on average 30+ degrees colder than the Arctic, and calves 9 times the ice into the oceans (more than 40 times the H2O of the Mississippi River), all at the same time, on the same planet, with the same atmosphere, with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere???
Next question?
Now, does LAND MOVE?
If land moves tectonically, Earth, with its current atmosphere, could have
1. oceans in both polar circles
2. land in both polar circles
which would result in "climate change."
Scenario 1 would result in 80% less ice, higher oceans, warmer and more moist climate = Jurassic
Scenario 2 would result in 80%+ more ice, lower oceans, colder planet = cold "parameter" of Earth climate change
and minor fluctuations in CO2 that do not alter the temperature of the atmosphere have NOTHING to do with it...