Only Morocco is on Track to Meet Paris Climate Agreement

Only Morocco is on track to meet a 1.5C Paris Climate Agreement according to the Climate Action Tracker (CAT).

The US is critically insufficient and China is insufficient. India is on track to a 2.0C-degree level.

With the release of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 °C the CAT updated its benchmark emissions pathways in 2018 (for more info also see here) meeting the 1.5°C Paris Agreement goal and for comparing with the former 2°C Cancun goal.

The main effect of this update is that 1.5°C-compatible levels for 2030 are lower by about 3 GtCO2e/yr.

As of December 2018, a substantial gap remains between the levels of emissions in 2025 and 2030 projected in the NDCs submitted to the UNFCCC and the lower levels that would be consistent with the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.

The benchmark emissions from a 1.5°C compatible pathway are 41 GtCO2e in 2025 and 28 GtCO2e in 2030. Comparing these with the emissions from the pledges and targets submitted by December 2018, which results in total global emissions of 53–55 GtCO2e in 2025 and 54–57 GtCO2e in 2030 the CAT calculates a gap 12–14 GtCO2e in 2025 and 26–29 GtCO2e in 2030.

For comparison, the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5°C estimated 2030 emissions levels at 52–58 GtCO2e for NDCs, which compared to that Report’s 25–30 GtCO2e 1.5°C-compatible 2030 benchmark suggests an emissions gap of about 28 GtCO2e between the means of both these ranges.

The benchmark emissions from a 2°C compatible pathway are higher (47 GtCO2e in 2025 and 39 GtCO2e for 2030), and comparing these to the global emissions from the pledges and targets quoted above, the gap ranges between 6–9 GtCO2e for 2025 and 15–18 GtCO2e in 2030.

SOURCES- Climate Action Tracker

99 thoughts on “Only Morocco is on Track to Meet Paris Climate Agreement”

  1. Maybe, and stop me if this sounds completely insane, but maybe Europe could import millions of workers from Turkey, but encourage them to maintain their Turkish culture, Turkish citizenship, and hence allegiance to the Turkish government?

    Reply
  2. Did you know you can download a geiger counter app for your smart phone?

    Actually there are two sorts, there are fake toys that look like they are measuring something.
    But there are also real ones that use the fact that the CCD detector in the phone is also set off by ionizing radiation.
    The real ones require you to put black tape over the camera lens, for obvious reasons.

    I downloaded one (I think it was free, or $1.99 or something) and yes, it gives me a signal if I put it near the granite kitchen benchtops.

    Reply
  3. There is a page titled “IPCC global surface warming projections have been accurate” on that skepticalscience site to which you previously provided a diff link. It addresses your exact issue, i suppose it is one of the more popular climate myths out there to warrant a page.

    Their take:

    “global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales … The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 … the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections.”

    …This is after the much criticized “recalibration” of data

    I’m somewhat familiar with 2 issues regarding the correction of related data, one relates to taking temperatures near the engines of ships vs buoys and the other produced erroneous temps due to the decaying orbit of a weather satellite vs the time of day.

    That’s how science works, if you discover flaws you fix them and move from a state of less certainty to more certainty. Has any ever shown these adjustments to be scientifically spurious, something more concrete than the usual naysaying.

    That page also brings up a good point on “Ignoring the range of model simulations”, some tend to pick some upper or lower outlyer and pretend it’s representative. In science there are always some uncertainties, but that does not mean everything is uncertain.

    Reply
  4. 1) This whole discussion started with the claim of Mr. Goatguy that we are not seeing any sea level rise (as a result of global warming). This is not true. Somehow you now also require me to prove that sea level rise has already caused disasters… These are longterm (and hard to reverse) effects.

    Nevertheless, don’t you think that the expected value of the impact of any sea disaster (like the tsunamis in Indonesia (2004) and Japan (2011), or the Dutch flooding of 1953 for that matter) increases monotonically with base sea level, ceteris paribus?

    2) I’m not saying we should already spend trillions to build those dams. Again, longterm effects. On the other hand, avarice and dykes (or infrastructure in general) historically is a bad combination.

    3) I repeat, have a look at Antarctic ice loss (see eg https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095 ), and please give me your opinion on how fast sea level will rise as a result of it, within (say) a century or two. Do you believe we can just ignore that?

    Reply
  5. Of course, if the radioactivity of the coal ash is a health problem, emission rules regarding radio active ash should be put in place. But only after establishing that it is in fact a problem. A lot of people would be all to happy to ban anything radioactive just out of instinctive fear.

    Reply
  6. So we allow mercury emissions, but we must reduce the CO2 so that corals can soak up the mercury so that we can continue with mercury emissions. How about reducing mercury emissions instead?

    Reply
  7. It is really stupid to first choose the solution and then rationalize it afterwards. Don’t applaud yourself for belonging to this tribe.

    So, what you do is first to investigate what polutants are harmful, in what concentration and to what extent, and then lay out technology neutral rules. Say, every gram of mercury emission costs the producer X amount of dollars. Or, maximum SO2 emissions per produced kWh is Y grams. And so on.

    That way you would probably end up with a better solution, i.e. cheaper energy with lower emissions. Unfortunately, you and the greenies both agree to start with the choice of production method, which has resulted in counter productive policies of promoting wind and solar at the expense of nuclear and gas.

    If you don’t count CO2 emissions, then perhaps it is possible to use coal to produce electricity with acceptable emission levels.

    Reply
  8. OK, here is an example of the temperature rise that has actually occurred since 1970 [1]. Here, the greenies find a rise of about 0.7 degrees in about 45 years (note! This is after the much critizised “recalibration” of data). Equivalently: 0.16 deg / decade.

    The first IPPC prediction [2] in 1990 was 0.3 deg per decade for the business as usual model. So they overestimated the temperature rise by a factor of two. Pretty spectacular fail, if you ask me.

    (1)
    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-%E2%80%98hiatus%E2%80%99-just-artifact-study-finds

    (2)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report

    Reply
  9. 1) Dear Mr Phasetransition, you have yet to give a *single example* of how people have been displaced by sea level rise. Forget about the term catastrophic, how about just a single example of the thousands of people that you hint of?

    2) And how much do we need to build? Do you have any idea, or are we going to consider this a serious problem *regardless* of how much the building would cost? Also, are we in fact losing costal land to the sea, and if so, how much per year? You know, it’s nice to establish if this is actually a real problem before sounding the alarm and spending trillions of dollars to solve it… Just a thought….

    3) So we agree the sea level rise is not quite linear. So what?

    Reply
  10. I would need concrete examples of this, I’ve always depended on more competent opinions than myself that opine the IPCC do a decent job with their models. The only specifics I’ve seen were always criticisms of some parody of their published works.

    Raging against some parody of reality is the only viable pathway open to the average person in order to refute well supported science.

    Climate research of the 1970s was sufficiently established science for me, that action was warranted. Most cultures being what they are, I expect no major action will be taken to mitigate AGW. As usual, those with options in this world will do OK in an ever changing world.

    One almost have to work hard in a modern economy to not be in the top 1% with regards to global wealth and income, AGW does not overly concern me

    Reply
  11. Fine, I stand corrected “…water vapor(H₂O) is a more dominant green house gas…”

    My main point being, Goat’s concerns about H₂O is misplaced, all other factors being stable, H₂O will not inexorably increase all by itself year over year unless something drives up the temperature, something like CO₂.

    Reply
  12. 1) I have never claimed that sea level rise is or will be catastrophic (on the other hand, you did claim quite confidently that it is NOT catastrophic). The term “catastrophic” is just too subjective and ill-defined. Is it catastrophic if x people die in a preventable flood ? Is it catastrophic if y thousands of people need to leave their homes because their government was too poor or incapable to plan ahead and build proper dams? Is it catastrophic if we have to spend y trillions of dollars on extra dams, to prevent such deaths and relocations? From what values of x, y, z onwards?

    2) Sure, we can build such dams. We just need to build a lot, and we need to build them everywhere on earth, not just in places like The Netherlands. In The Netherlands alone, we spend more than a billion euros a year on dyke maintenance (0.35% of GDP). It’s doable but not cheap. The Dutch Deltaworks (the big project after the 1953 disaster) were designed to survive a once-in-5000-year storm. There is always a small probability that the dams don’t hold, and in that case you really prefer the sea as low as possible.

    3) Fair enough, I shouldn’t have suggested that your data indicates exponential growth, let’s just say it’s superlinear. Have a look at the measured ice mass loss on Antarctica in the past 30 years; there the acceleration is even more clear. Ice loss is expected to become a more dominant factor in the future, as opposed to thermal expansion, which currently is the dominant factor.

    Reply
  13. Now, if we only could get Germany to build some nuclear power plants. Oh, wait. They did…and then shut them down because they were afraid of tsunamis…in Germany. Brilliant.

    Reply
  14. This makes the third time I have replied to this comet. Can’t see why it is being blocked. Coral soaks up mercury in the ocean. Without it, mercury concentrations will rise. I gave a link to the Wikipedia page “Mercury pollution in the ocean”. I guess people will have to Google that.

    Reply
  15. So you want to list everything wrong with the world now? Good luck with that.

    I can’t help myself. Anything that smacks of “thought police” pushes my buttons.

    Reply
  16. Nobody is denying that there can be several negative effects of burning coal. What I am suggesting is that we just state the goals succinctly:

    Reduce emissions of mercury
    Reduce emissions of soot
    Reduce emission of ash
    Reduce NO2 emissions

    …and then let the solutions fall as they may without imposing a pre-selected set of solutions. Perhaps a fluid bed coal power plant can reach these goals, perhaps not….

    Reply
  17. Well, is the IPCC panel models sufficiently established science for you? If I remember correctly – I’m not 100% sure about this – there are enormous differences between what the IPCC has predicted and what came to be. And always, the IPCC predicted higher temperatures than what actually occurred.

    Reply
  18. Let me elaborate my previous answer with respect to water vapor and cloud formation….

    What about cloud formation? Well, about 67% of the earth is covered by clouds [1], and the clouds reflect about 17% of the incident light [2]. So if the clouds would increase with about 1% [67% –> 67.7%], another 1%*17%*1300W/m2 would be reflected to space, or equivalently 2.21 W/m2.

    The water vapor forcing is, apparently, about 75W/m2 [4]. A change in water vapor forcing of 1% would result in a change of radiative forcing of about 0.75W

    The total radiative forcing from CO2 was estimated to ~3.0 W/m2 in 2016 [3].

    So… Just by adding a 1% variation in cloud formation and water vapor forcing changes the *net* effect from +3.2 W/m2 to something between 0.1 W/m2 to 6 W/m2…

    The extreme sensitivity of the net effect on the feed-back mechanisms is also the reason why the different climate models are all over the place. Of course, few vary in the direction of low forcing, as this would cut of the modellers funding…

    (1)
    https://www.geolounge.com/how-much-of-the-earth-is-covered-by-clouds/

    (2)
    https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/energy-government-and-defense-magazines/clouds-and-reflectance

    (3)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

    (4)
    https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

    Reply
  19. You are wrong.

    The potential feed-back mechanisms are much larger than the *original* effect from CO2. The feed-back can change the net CO2 effect from very minute to extremely large…

    And, if the CO2 forcing is change dramatically by the feed-back mechanisms, then getting the *net* effect right becomes an exercise in estimating the feed-back correctly. Don’t you see?

    Reply
  20. Yes… glaciers are melting.

    The predictions of Gore et al are irrelevant unless their assertions are well supported.

    Coral is bleaching

    Does the fact bleaching occurred within the Holocene detract from the fact warming oceans are killing them now-No
    If the water stays warm enough for long enough less will survive and less will be given the time to recover. The more CO₂ builds up the warmer spikes will get and the warmer the averages will stay over time.

    Many things can cause the temperature/climate to change, but it’s excess CO₂ in this case. Existence of past climate optima/minima does not alter the cause and effect of the current warming.

    Glacial loss has been more formally quantified.

    doi: 10.1007/s10712-016-9394-y

    doi: 10.1007/s40641-018-0107-0

    …Analysis reaching back to 1900, for example, indicates that Greenland mass loss rose substantially during 2003–2010 (186.4 ± 18.9 Gt/year) as compared to 1900–1983 (75.1 ± 29.4 Gt/year) and 1983–2003

    (73.8 ± 40.5 Gt/year). These efforts confirm that we are now in an era of exceptionally rapid global ice loss…

    Reply
  21. Yes, atmospheric water vapor(H₂O) is a more potent green house gas than CO₂. What does that mean to you, does that detract anything from the CO₂ issue?-No.

    This is why H₂O isn’t a problem even though it’s the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect; H₂O does not control temperature because it is itself controlled by temperature. There is a maximum amount of H₂O the atmosphere can hold at a given temperature,
    if CO₂ levels remain the same the temperature will not increase. The only way to increase the levels of H₂O is to heat up the atmosphere like we’ve been doing by increasing CO₂. If you want to lower H₂O then you just need to lower CO₂.

    H₂O in no way changes the fact that over budget CO₂ production is the only problem.

    Reply
  22. Yes. Radioactivity is not a given. Some coal ash is, some is not. But they got a law in, that forbids the EPA from testing it for radioactivity. Obviously, there would be no reason to slyly get this law passed, if they had nothing to worry about.
    I suspect if you showed up at an ash dump sites with a Geiger counter in Tennessee, there is probably a good chance of being shot.
    I have had “Geiger counter” on my Christmas wish list for the last 15 years. So far, no one in my family can see why I would want the thing. But they think I would appreciate ratchet sockets when I have a 5 gallon bucket full of sockets. So many, they broke a hole in the bottom. Grumble…grumble…

    I used to collect rocks and minerals, having gotten an interest after taking a few geology courses. But I got nervous one day and decided they did not belong in my room and put them all outside…because I could not be sure none were radioactive. Kinda a bummer as I liked looking at many of these finds. I am pretty sure I had some uranium in there…but others might have been radioactive as well.

    My dad was into steam locomotives, so I got to see a little coal and ash…not much. And we did mess with it in geology, as we had to identify the different types. Amazingly light. California native, so limited experience. Honestly, I did not notice that much of a smell. The oil burning locos smelled stronger…similar to diesel but more greasy, less dirty smelling than diesel.

    Reply
  23. …but the degree to which it is happening is quite far from the predictions made in the 1990s and early 2000s

    Whose predictions are you/they questioning, predictions of the science or those of people on TV, magazines, politicians, random blogs etc?

    I rarely ever see people challenging the actual science beyond a percentage point or 2. More often than not, it’s some parody they are rejecting out of hand-especially on WUWT.

    Re: WUWT=”…which is the leading questioning-concensus-AGW-science weblog”

    You’re a far more generous person than myself.

    Reply
  24. What you say is true about coal, friend. I’ve had the chance in life to experience “coal” up hand and personal a fair bit.  

    First, I lived part of my life in Kansas … as a kid. Our Uncle’s farm was a couple of miles from Marysville, the nexus of several rail thoroughfares. Because of old farms, old practices, there was lot of hard (anthracite) coal delivered every so often; it was dâhmned cheap, and burned remarkably cleanly, all in all.  

    But it was only good for tightly sealed heating systems and even then with tall, tall smoke-stacks. You wanted to get the nastiness high enough so that turbulent mixing would dilute it to relatively innocuous nature within a mile or two.  

    The ash wasn’t particularly radioactive (I had a WW2 scrap geiger counter which like the geek I was, I carried around and tested evetyhing). But it was odd stuff: it couldn’t even be mixed in with the steer manure and pig manure to bring the pH down without creating something more toxic than it was worth. So it was carted to the town dump, where it was mixed with everything else. Or it was added to cement, when making bâhtches of concrete: endlessly useful on the farm. 

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  25. You’ve gone “meta-”, Drake. 
    No longer talking about the subject, but about my rhetorical stance of the subject.  
    Which isn’t worth two dead flies. 

    So…
    ________________________________________

    However, you also bring up WUWT — “Watts Up With That” (⋅com) which is the leading questioning-concensus-AGW-science weblog. As you have surmised, I have been reading it and commenting occasionally on it for just about as long as Next Big Future. I’ve been doing so in sympathetic parallel to my handle, GoatGuy … the “goat” part being “to challenge whatever-goes-for-status-quo”, in the scientific sense.  

    There are a LOT of actual climate, heliospheric, geologic, palentological, natural-philosophy and quite talented (and variously well published) scientists that lurk in the comment-space of WUWT. While it has clearly attracted its fair share of kooks, crackpots, blithering idiots and habitual nabobs of negativism, its “community” of positive spirits is well worth reading from time to time.  

    The bottom line couldn’t be made more clear — even at WUWT — that global climate change is a REAL thing, but the degree to which it is happening is quite far from the predictions made in the 1990s and early 2000s. Moreso, as time trudges along, the divergence between the climate NOW and the predictions made for it is widening.  

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  26. Yes… Sea levels are rising, just as they have been over the last 175 years, since the end of the “little ice age”. The rate has picked up a bit, but really far, far from the first hair-on-fire assessments of the 2050s based on 1995’s cherry picked rate and obnoxious CO₂ load inferences.  

    Yes… glaciers are melting. And some (but admittedly not many) are growing larger. There were signs posted at Montana’s Glacier National Monument (in the 1960s) that based on the rate of glacier retreat, predicted that they’d be gone by the year 2000.  That didn’t come to pass, but around 1995 & Gore, the signs were revised to 2020.  Still the glaciers aren’t coöperating, so now the signs are quietly being taken down entirely.  

    Coral is bleaching in the fairly-recently-much-reported Great Barrier Reef (and other equatorial tropical regions in the Caribbean to whit). Yet, paleo-coral-ologists (whatever the word is) have come to find abundant evidence of MANY waves of coral bleaching within the Holocene, just not when people were closely looking at it. The GBR recovers. Be amazed and amused. 

    I’ve been to Iceland (all over the thing, across the top), the Alps, Montana, to the Rockies and all over Canada. Glaciers and semi-permanent ice is definitely on the move. But in the Holocene, this seems to actually be a constant. There are mini-Ice-Ages, and there are mini-Climate-Optima. Take your pick. 

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  27. ⊕1 because yours was a well-thought-out response. The 1,500 character limit of comments here is stultifying in a sense. Especially for the few of us that have the time/patience/knowledge/heart to wax on-and-on in detail in reply to something-or-another. 

    But in any case, № 1 is far from as simply put as I penned it, as you guessed. Especially the quixotic effects of various kinds, densities, persistence and H₂O load. It has been the top-vexation of climate-and-weather modeling since the very first computer with more than 1 megabyte of memory was cobbled together.  

    Thing is — CO₂ just isn’t the Big Cheese, when it comes to infrared blanketing gasses. It is H₂O, ;present in the lower-to-mid troposphere in 5,000 to 30,000 ppm levels, and a potent IR trapper too. Compared to 400 PPM CO₂, well … H₂O dwarfs it. 

    You can especially feel this on the human scale when you go to any part of the world dominated by very-high nominal (say seasonal?) humidity. The sun sets, and instead of it getting colder, it just stays, and stays, and stays muggy-and-hot all evening. Compared to the desert, which can drop 80, 90 degrees from 4 PM to midnight. Remarkable what H₂O does.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  28. Not everyone is educated. Coral are a sink for mercury. Kill them and the mercury concentration will go up and kill lots of stuff. Mercury naturally comes into the ocean from volcanic activity, weathering of rocks on the land and vents. But we have greatly increased the amount of mercury in the oceans and that rate will continue to be high as long as we still use coal for power plants and use environmentally harmful methods to mine gold.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_pollution_in_the_ocean

    Reply
  29. Rational thought first! Towing the line and such is political BS. Unamazingly, when you burn ludicrous amounts of dirty fuel there can be more than one negative effect.

    Multiple reasons add weight: coal costs lives in mining (accidents, black lung and lung cancer from other nearby minerals).

    Coal costs lives when burned especially when burned in homes and in power plants where there is weak or nonexistent stack cleaning.

    Coal burning leaves an enormous amount of ash which is hazardous waste with nuclear radiation as well (but politically in the US the coal industry got it exempted from that designation).

    Coal releases mercury into the environment and is responsible for about 1/3 to 1/2 of the mercury in the ocean. After release into the environment it becomes methyl mercury which is very toxic.

    Coal makes much more CO2 per BTU when burned than oil or natural gas.

    You want to look at oil? Fine. Its use in electrical power generation is fairly low. It is a transport fuel primarily. That makes replacing it more of a technological problem than anything. If the battery in a Tesla cost only $500, weighed 300 lb, charged in 3 minutes, could be recharged 10,000+ cycles, had 550 miles range and any manufacturer could buy those, the vast majority of cars, trucks, buses, boats (though not necessarily ocean going ships), trains (even without telegraphs), even most light aircraft would be electric.
    Not enough lithium…need something cheaper and better.

    Reply
  30. If IPCC worked for the most life friendly global climate the change to a 3,5 C goal.

    The the global climate be as it was early in this interglacial, or a 4 C target to the more life friendly global climate during the interglacial before.

    Why not a 6,5 C target to take the global climate out from this 2,6 million ice age?

    The way to work for it is to pant forest in all warm desert thou desert is cooling with high temperatures differences.

    I wonder how many of you that know that the CO2-treat is scientific rejected?

    Try to find a study that compere earth out radiated spektra with the level of CO2 in the wavelength only CO2 act as greenhouse gas 15µm.

    That is simple to detect if it exists over 300 ppm.

    Climate activists or in reality, science denier give Trump a easy match, how can so many be so stupid?

    Reply
  31. How did you guess? I also love the fact that Putin is handling the gas tap for Europe! It improves Europs independence and makes us more likely to speak up when Russia invades the next small country.

    As you indicated, the best way for Europe is to be beholden to dictators and muslim royal fiefdoms. If only there were some way that Europe could be more dependent on the whims of Erdogan… Any suggestions?

    Reply
  32. Well, Mindbreaker, I hate to brake it to you (pun intended), but most people don’t think choral bleaching that big of a deal. Sure, it makes scuba diving less fun, but other than that.. It’s not like all fish would disapear from the oceans..

    Reply
  33. But, Mindbraker, fighting mercury polution and carbon dioxide are actually different things. Even if mercury reduction could be an advantageous by-product from banning coal power plants, it is not the same thing.

    Let us separate different environmental goals and discuss them stringently on their own merits.

    Reply
  34. (1)
    OK then, Phasetransition, please give me a local sea level rise that you do consider “catastrophic”. Give it your best shot.

    (2)
    How come I don’t think that 4 mm/year sea level rise (actually, it’s more like 3.3 mm per year) is catastrophic? You can build dams if necessary faster than 4 mm per year. Humans have coped with the flow and ebb of water that are *several orders of magnitude* larger than 4 mm per year, but on a day-to-day basis. Do I need to go on?

    (3)
    What makes you think that the growth is exponential? Please don’t tell me that the slight “bend” in the curve is proof that the rise is “exponential”. Not all non-linear curves are exponential… A no brainer, really.. And, if this would not convince you, what mechanism for an exponential water level can you imagine? The energy balance of carbon dioxide is *logarithmic* with carbon dioxide concentration – but magic happens – this turns in to an *exponential* melting of glaciers..?

    Reply
  35. Well, Jennifer, the question was not if pickup trucks are safer in *general*, but if they are safer when hitting small/medium sized animals compared to sedans. Do you understand the difference?

    Reply
  36. I don’t think sea level rise is caused by global warming but rather by suspend load of rivers mostly due to deforestation, sewage, and erosion of the land into the sea. Plate movement can also effect sea level. And the depletion of aquifers results in more water in the oceans

    None of these sources are ever given in the sea level rise arguments.

    There are much more serious ocean issues than sea level rise in my opinion: ocean acidification, elevation of mercury levels, ocean temperature rise, oxygen holding ability, potential methane hydrate release…

    https://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/parameters/water-quality/dissolved-oxygen/

    I am more concerned with the life in the ocean and the effectiveness of phytoplankton absorbing CO2 and releasing oxygen.

    Sea level rise argument is usually given to try to show that there will be some cost to humans, for those who do not otherwise value nature. If they can’t look beyond their own nose, forget them. They are never going to be any help. If they don’t care about the environment, they probably don’t care about future generations or people in other countries either.

    Reply
  37. Coral bleaching is not a theory, it is a fact. What is causing it? I suppose you can blame fishermen peeing into the ocean, or unknown radiation particles from outer space…if you want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching
    I think it is one of two causes: global warming or mercury getting into the ocean from…you guessed it…coal combustion. So either way, getting rid of coal burning should help.

    I guess when all the mollusks start dying because they can’t make shells because of ocean acidification from higher CO2 concentrations, we can invent some other cause…bicyclists…yeah that’s it…all that sweat on the pavement getting washed into the ocean.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

    Reply
  38. № 2 — well, that’s the jig. Doesn’t seem to be happening.

    You can choose to believe #2(actual and not the parts you made up) isn’t happening by pretending the thousands research papers that examine the effects of AGW doesn’t exists or are fake etc, but that does not mean that your beliefs are accurate.

    I believe your problem is, you see no difference between the stuff you read on whatupwiththat and validated scientific research published in respected peer reviewed journals. You always pick the junk you read on blogs, youtube etc, as a standin for climate science and then proceed to point out the fact those fantasies aren’t happening as cover to pretend over 100 years of publish climate research doesn’t exists while suggesting ~AGW has no known negative effects.

    Why is this the case, refuting the cartoon is accessible to everyone, but fighting the real thing(climate science) necessitates utilizing the scientific method and that’s may not lead to the desired destination.

    You appear amenable to the scientific method, except where it’s incompatible with the world view of your chosen peer group.

    Reply
  39. It’s been proven a long time ago that pickup trucks are less safe than ordinary cars in almost all aspects. They are simply behind in tech.
    Why did the truck drivers in that study veer to actually hit the animals on purpose?

    After watching some clips about pickup truck drivers, I’m wondering if the only solution may be that industrial scale Chinese gene editing project to increase general intelligence in the population.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K49Glyee2NU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYujLek60PQ

    Reply
  40. There is no such thing as an average temperature in thermodynamics. In other words, climate “science” is based on an easily proven fraud.
    A small amount of ice at zero degrees will stay at zero degrees until it has completely thawed. Because of the phase changes of water it’s possible to create any average temperature just be judicious placement of thermometers. Climate change is about trapping energy, but is touted by changes in temperature which are not correlated with changes in energy. The Paris accord is about keeping the temperature change to less than 1.5 degrees. The energy to change water temperature from 0 to 1.5 degrees is many times greater than the energy required to change water temperature from 1.5 to 3 degrees. Yet, these are treated the same in climate “science”.
    The simple act of dropping an ice cube in a glass of warm water simply demonstrates this.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion

    Reply
  41. 1.) The graph you link to describes the global <average> sea level rise. Locally, the changes are much bigger. All sorts of things play a role. Let me give an example. The gravity force exerted by land ice (huge masses!) on the surrounding sea ‘draws’ the sea upwards. Therefore sea levels are relatively high near land ice. Thus, when this land ice melts, the sea levels locally actually go down! But… the water has to go somewhere, so elsewhere on the globe the sea levels go up. In particular, melting ice on Greenland is not such a big problem for Europe and North America. Conversely, as soon as the (land!) ice on Antarctica starts to seriously melt, the sea levels in the northern hemisphere will start rising.
    By the way, melting sea ice (as on the North Pole) has no net effect on sea levels.

    2.) How do you conclude from the data that it is not catastrophic? This is very subjective, and personally I disagree, even though the effects are currently still very limited.

    3.) As you can see from the data you provided, the sea level rise accelerates. Since you frequent this futurist blog, I’m sure you are familiar with the long term consequences of exponential growth.

    Reply
  42. People who buy new vehicles don’t care about saving money. They think about how much truck or car they can buy…and what it sounds and looks like. If they cared about money, they would buy used. The people who buy used want efficient vehicles, but the only way that will happen is if government mandates more aggressive efficiency standards.
    Taxes just stifle economies. If the infrastructure is the problem, fix it. Taxes are like a narcotic for government, once they get used to getting that, it stays beyond any function it might have had.
    Taxes are also lazy. I want more for my tax dollar than a government trying to achieve everything by pushing tax buttons. I want to see physical change for my dollar. Roads, tunnels, more lanes, higher fuel efficiency, nuclear power plants. It would cost us nothing in taxes if the government suddenly required all new pickups to get 24 mpg real world gasoline and 28 mpg diesel.

    Just making everything more expensive is public abuse.

    Direct action is always more efficient. Taxes are too indirect and affects only those who it will actually bring pain to. The high income folks will continue to buy or use whatever, tax or not, just as they did before. They will continue to buy $70,000 guzzler trucks every other year and the used trucks will be those guzzlers that everyone else buys used for $15,000-30,000.

    Reply
  43. You are kidding yourself about fuel mileage. There is no hypermiling these things. Also, there is more oil in a gallon of diesel than there is in a gallon of gasoline (15% more energy in Diesel). And diesel soot is destructive to health.

    If there was breaking regeneration that was 70% or better, in these things, that would mitigate some of the negative effects of driving style.

    I have never intentional driven over roadkill. In fact, I don’t think I have ever hit an animal that was alive. I think I have accidentally driven over a few flat ones because I did not recognize what they were. When I see road kill it always make me very sad. So, yeah, my psychology might be a bit different. I suspect whatever the gene is that makes people (generally guys) want to make a lot of noise, is probably also responsible for this.

    But I also suspect the people who sign up for Fuelly and report their fuel usage are less likely to be these hyper aggressives. And the actual fuel efficiency of these vehicles is even worse.
    Average of most recent 5 years’ models:
    Ram 1500 17.7 mpg
    Ford F-150 16.58
    GMC Sierra 1500 16.3
    Chevy Silverado 1500 16.28
    Toyota Tundra 14.2
    Nissan Titan 13.92

    If you want to include the Honda Ridgeline it does manage 19.16 mpg.

    Reply
  44. No sense in punishing people because government did not build nuclear power plants, made boarding aircraft take forever compelling people to drive, failing to have even a single rail line from San Diego to San Francisco and only intermittently raised efficiency requirements for auto manufacturers (Republicans froze efficiency requirements every time they took office in the last few decades). And they should have shut down coal power plants just on air quality and mountains of toxic ash reasons alone. Never mind the mercury contaminating the oceans, and the CO2. Even half of our natural gas plants (simple cycle) should be replaced. These old plants are not even close to the efficiency of the newer combined cycle plants.
    We have now known for years that by feeding cows a small percentage of sea weed they produce almost zero methane…yet nothing has been done to require farms to do this. https://foodtank.com/news/2017/06/seaweed-reduce-cow-methane-emission/
    They have also failed to overturn the legislation that has crippled our rail since the depression…the creation of the RRB https://web.archive.org/web/20181227105956/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Board
    Someone gutted the Wikipedia page, so I have to give an Internet archive link. Clearly they wanted to hide how much retirement was being paid out “…the average annuity paid to career rail employees was $3,415 a month, compared to $1,370 a month under Social Security.”

    Reply
  45. It seems like you haven’t done the math yet on what a $20 per tonne tax means in terms of actual energy cost?

    16.7 cents per gallon of gasoline
    0.67 cents per kWh based on natural gas

    There is no shivering or privation at that amount – and the tax credit actually financially advantages the 70% of poorest workers in the USA.

    The tamping rate deters investment in durable goods. If in 7 years you know the gas tax will go up by 40% in real terms and affect the resale value of your vehicle, you might opt for the motor you need rather than the one that’s fast. And it would deter building new coal plants as well as encourage old ones to close early.

    And then casually mentioning more road infrastructure to save fuel…that doesn’t actually make any financial sense if you do the cost/benefit. This is why a GHG tax and rebate is a vastly superior price signal.

    Reply
  46. You are claiming that № 2 “doesn’t seem to be happening”.

    Whether it is caused by AGW or not is another question, but there is very clear proof that the ocean’s ARE rising, and it is accelerating. This does not happen uniformly across the globe though. For instance, along the North American coast, sea levels have seen rather limited rise or even went down in the past 30 years. Sometimes I wonder whether this is the reason why Americans are so skeptical about climate change; they don’t see it in their own backyard (yet).

    The other things you listed under № 2 are typically threshold phenomena; for a while things go fine and you’d think there’s absolutely nothing to worry about, but when a certain threshold is passed, you’ve got yourself a phase transition and all hell breaks loose. This especially applies to biodiversity. Many organisms are very sensitive to small changes in temperature, pH value, etc., and many other animals depend on them for their food. Think ‘financial crisis 2008’ but then in the animal kingdom. You may justly counter that I’m speculating here (I am not a biologist nor a climatologist) but as a physicist, I know how rapidly seemingly stable systems can suddenly change dramatically. Therefore “doesn’t seem to be happening” sounds rather naive to me.

    Reply
  47. № 2 .. well, sea levels are rising. Glaciers are melting. Coral is bleaching. Weather is getting more extreme. Go to Iceland, the Alps, Australia, you can see it for yourself. I did. It’s no joke.

    Reply
  48. I would just like to add that the first part of the theory, no 1, is actually not so straight forward as one could get from your comment. I am pretty sure you know this, but I would just like to clarify this anyway for other readers.

    The radiative forcing of the global temperature is strongly dependent on a lot of unknown feed-back mechanisms in the temperature equilibrium. If, for instance, a minor temperature increase increases the amount of clouds that in turn reflect sunlight back into space, then the net radiation forcing of increased CO2 in the atmosphere might be very minor.

    On the other hand, if the cloud formation would *decrease* as a consequence of higher temperatures – don’t ask me why – then the temperature increase would be much higher than expected.

    If I am not mistaken, most climate models assume a net positive feed-back mechanism so that the net effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere will be a higher temperature increase than what would be reached with only the effect of CO2 reflecting back infrared light to the earth… Meaning, the magnitude of the heating is actually not settled science….

    Reply
  49. Well, the answer is obvious. If you are in a large, safe car, you know that it can take the hit that comes from colliding with a small animal. In addition, having a high front means that a small animal won’t hit the windshield, which is otherwise a weak point. Put an elephant on the road, and the pickup truck drivers will be just as likely to veer as the mini driver.

    Please also note that this is a good thing. Veering also has its dangers; crashing into cars in the opposing lane, hitting a ditch or a tree at high speed are also risks… Being in a sturdy car just means that you have the option to accept a dent in the fender rather than go flip your car in the ditch…

    Reply
  50. There seems to be a special psychology involved when it comes to pickup trucks. Many owners don’t drive them because they need to transport heavy stuff. Try and visit a pickup truck web site somewhere and watch the comment field. The owners of their particular brand of pickup defend it like it was their children being attacked by nazi cannibals.
    I remember a study where they investigated the propensity of drivers to avoid wild life accidents. They put (life like ) models of different animals next to and on the road and observed driver behavior. There were snakes, birds, etc. all the way up to smaller mammals. They plotted the results and tried to find correlations to different things. The thing that stuck out the most if i remember correctly was that SUV and pickup owners preferred to run over the animals much more than owners of other types of vehicles. They didn’t try to veer and many times they even changed course in order to hit the animal.

    How is this relevant?
    Well, in order to solve the problem, one must understand it. It doesn’t seem to be only a transportation issue when it comes to pickup trucks.

    Technically, it is certainly possible to optimize fuel consumption of pickup trucks without any change in technology at all. I actually own a pickup truck myself. It’s a 2011 Diesel truck with large cab that is allowed to pull 2700 kg (6000 lbs) and load 750 kg (1700 lbs) on the bed. I manage to keep consumption between 5.8 – 6.5 liters/10km or 40 – 36 MPG (US)

    Reply
  51. Yes, though at least in the US this is often due to price competition against intermittent renewables that greatly distort prices over the course of a day.

    Maybe it’s time to expose consumers to at least hourly market-based rate variations, so people invest in things like intelligent thermostats or heat/cold storage, and demand starts to better follow supply.

    Reply
  52. We need vehicles to be efficient when moving slowly. All road vehicles should have high efficiency below 25 mph. That probably means some kind of regeneration…but I would probably leave it more open to the engineers to try whatever. Maybe a small second engine is more cost friendly.

    We need to build new well designed cities. That can also reduce the congestion in current cities…which may be cheaper than expanding highways in existing cities. New well designed cities can also have a wider variety of electric transit options and would be very resistant to damage from natural disasters.

    We need to get much more freight moved by rail. And overhead electric wires can power the trucks, buses, campers, on the highways that remain.

    We need all lawn/yard equipment to be electric. No more gasoline mowers, leaf blowers, chainsaws, hedge trimmers, or edgers.

    Semis and pickups should run on LNG. This is not strictly for low CO2. Mostly because we could export a lot more oil, and have a healthier economy that can more easily support major infrastructure construction.

    We need dozens if not hundreds of new nuclear power plants.

    We need to reward car companies for making and selling electric cars. Reducing the rebate after a number was produced was dumb. They should have increased it to accelerate the production of electric cars. Cars are infrastructure…as much as locomotives.

    Reply
  53. I am an anti-red tape guy. At least for individuals. Corporations have the people to maintain compliance with more complex laws.
    I also do not like rewarding people for suffering. I think that is just bad government. You don’t want people shivering at night in their homes, or going around in damp clothing because they don’t want to “waste” because they want to avoid a tax. And there are the snobs in newer more efficient homes eager to punish the people in less efficient older homes…AKA the poor.

    No, you want to make things just work more efficiently, and power to come from nuclear or hydro and some solar and wind to the extent it makes sense.

    We need to insist that car manufacturers make cars that actually get real world good efficiency…particularly the vehicles doing poorly now. Getting Prius to get 5 more miles per gallon makes almost no difference. Getting a Ford F-150 to get 5 more miles per gallon saves dramatically more fuel…even if there were the same number of each model.

    Compare how much fuel is saved when each gets another 5mpg in 15,000 miles:
    Prius 48.78 mpg 307.5 gallons…and at 53.78 mpg 278.9 gallons diff= 28.6 gallons
    F-150 16.58 mpg 904.7 gallons…and at 21.58 mpg 695.1 gallons
    diff= 209.6 gallons

    The truth is that they can make pickups that average over 30 mpg real world and give up no performance. But they must be compelled to do so.

    And adding more highways, tunnels, bridges and lanes can reduce congestion saving fuel and travel time.

    Reply
  54. “Insufficient” often seems to mean “doing relatively well, just not good enough to hit targets”.

    The two that got “1.5C Paris agreement compatible” actually substantially increased their CO2 production (they started way below and claim they won’t exceed their target).

    “In 2017, Morocco still relied heavily on coal (IEA 2018) and is expanding its coal-fired power generation, despite minimal coal reserves in the region”

    Reply
  55. Yes, that is literally what they said:

    ‘Based on its intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and hence annul its NDC, we rate the US “Critically insufficient.” However, if the CAT were to rate the US NDC commitment (26–28% below 2005 levels incl. LULUCF by 2025), it would be rated “Insufficient.”’

    Reply
  56. Your “simple questions” look like they are a summary and simplification of some sort of argument, but you’ve summarised it too far and now it doesn’t make sense to anyone not familiar with the original.

    Reply
  57. Morocco has a 2100MW power line that runs to Europe where they plan to sell solar energy. So Morocco being ahead of the curve should maybe be looked at Spain plus Morocco as one energy market.

    Reply
  58. OK, so reading the fine print, the USA is the same as China and Canada in terms of actual real emissions, but they got docked extra points because the Americans didn’t show proper respect for their betters and mouth the correct slogans.

    Reply
  59. You can laugh on Morocco all the way, but here is one developing country that has realize that building Solar in a sunny desert abundance land is a great way to save money and potentially a serious electricity export business to Europe in the mid term future.

    Reply
  60. A revenue neutral carbon tax would help a lot with that.

    Tax the GHG on a federal, and then refund 92% (8% for enforcement,measuring,research) amount back to taxpayers. Some prefer a straight payment per head (children count as half) or some as a credit on their FICA payroll taxes (so up to 12.4% of the maximum of $132,900 – this is for Social Security). That reduces the cost of labor, so could help create more jobs.

    A trillion gross was paid into Social Security in 2018. Start at the worldwide $20 per tonne or so. At around 5 billion metric tonnes that would cover like 9.2% of it.

    Crank the tax up as time goes on. Something like inflation plus twice GDP growth (so gets a breather in a recession year). It’ll double in real terms every 20 years or so.

    Reply
  61. Mirrors are weird things… they are excellent at reflecting an argument AND changing left-and-right. Remarkable. 

    For instance “just because you don’t buy AGW theory doesn’t it ain’t true” can just as easily (and correctly) be reflected as “just because I believe AGW theory, doesn’t mean its true”, too… paraphrased of course.

    Seriously. 
    AGW Theory is a theory.  (№ 1)
    The fundy theory is “More CO₂ → surface temp rises”.  
    More or less. CH₄, N₂O, CO₂, H₂O, C₂H₆, SF₆, CCl₂F₂, CHF₃, NF₃ too. 

    The “other theory” (№ 2) is that “→ surface temp rises” comes with death, extinction, destruction, famine, coral bleaching, infertility, unknown infectious diseases, rising oceans, dunked coastal communities, lost of reef-atol islands, decimation of at-risk indigenous peoples, species, lifestyles, pölïtical purpose; there is nothing that AGW cannot affect, so it would seem. 

    But that’s the “other theory”.  

    № 1 — (More CO₂ + kin → surface warming) is pretty much a given. Lab provable. Field … sort of provable. 

    № 2 — well, that’s the jig. Doesn’t seem to be happening.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

    Reply
  62. Lets be clear large scale carbon capture will NEVER be economically viable just on its own. It requires a GHG price (like $35-40 per tonne, equivalent to an increase in cost of 1.25 cents per kWh based on natural gas, about 32 cents per gallon of gasoline). Small scale to juice some oil well outputs yes no need to have a GHG price but that total demand would only be a relatively tiny amount.

    Reply
  63. Sorry, thought I included it https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_transportation#tab2
    The graph on the right.

    I have had problems with this page before. If it still does not work go here: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_transportation
    And then click on the “In Depth” tab.

    You can also see the abysmal fuel millage these trucks actually get here: http://www.fuelly.com/car

    The entry full-sized pickups get between 14 and 17 mpg.
    The next step up which is also very popular…the F-250, GMC Sierra 2500 HD… loose another MPG or two. http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-250_super_duty

    http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-350_super_duty F-350 level is not as popular but there are still quite a few. They are about the same as the F-250 level.

    And consider that the average truck is probably at least 10 years old.

    I averaged the fuel efficiency for 5 years. I skipped 2019 if there were less than 100 vehicles:

    Ram 1500 17.7
    Ford F-150 16.58
    GMC Sierra 1500 16.3
    Chevy Silverado 1500 16.28
    Toyota Tundra 14.2
    Nissan Titan 13.92

    Reply
  64. Worldwide 60% of coal plants are currently uneconomic (on an operating basis) and even in the USA at current gas prices gas plants will also be by a similar percentage in 2035, so things are actually looking pretty good to hit the 2.0C target. The 1.5C target does not seem feasible, though. By not feasible, I mean the data shows it just would not be worth the cost.

    Reply
  65. Is this extrapolation based on models? As I live in the Canadian sub-arctic, where warming is happening faster than elsewhere, it is based upon what I am seeing in my own back yard.

    Reply
  66. Unless they get busy and convert to clean-generated electricity. My vote is for small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).

    Reply
  67. Maybe the fact that “we pulled out of that ‘non-sense'” is why we are labeled “Critically Insufficient”. Oh, just because you don’t buy the AGW theory, doesn’t prove that it isn’t true. The captain of the titanic was slow to believe that his “invincible” ship was sinking, but all of this faith did nothing for his fate — except make the catastrophy worse.

    Reply
  68. Is there fuel use numbers somewhere among the links you gave? I only see counts of differ types of vehicles in that second link (the bts.gov link), and none of the other links seem to have anything about the types of vehicles. Am I not looking in the right place?

    Reply
  69. What about northern Canada or New Zealand or other CAT coordinates? (Here is pathway spelled backwards = yawhtap = YAWhTAP – omit the silence… Isn’t the data changing as we’re reading this in real time? 4:24-5-6 pm

    FUNDAMENTAL SOURCES OF UNPREDICTABILITY

    How can this be explained accurately:

    1:18:43                                                  
    No Dark Matter? – Documentary 2018 HD
    Reles Pukoas
    Published on May 28, 2018
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVYM7-RCfUk

    We’re now asking how the big things and the little things are being consistently imminent in formation by virtual strings theory.
    I still believe there is no way strings can (can’t adhere) exist without the (hierarchical influences) integument space, they would have to integrate 
    with space. What about toroids and fractals, configurations, strings, configurations. How could strings be any-thing other 
    than entropic?
    KARL PRIBRAM – A Holonomic Brain Theory – [figural perception]
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00554/full

    Reply
  70. Simple science questions: What is the average temperature of an ice cube and a glass of warm water? What is the average temperature after the ice cube is put in the warm water? Why are the average temperatures different?

    Reply
  71. hmmm.. there’s not much “promotion” if that’s the view shared by pretty much everybody who study in the field (you know.. science). Discussing the topic and considering possible technical solutions is nextbigfuture’s bread and butter.

    Reply
  72. Morocco’s secret is donkeys. Replace John Deeres with dear donkeys and the world will be a cool place again. Just don’t use donkeys for everything as that causes health issues.

    Reply
  73. Imagine a defendant in court who proclaims he doesn’t acknowledge the law, and the judge replying “Ok, then you are innocent”.

    It doesn’t work that way.

    Reply
  74. The large majority of ships or aircraft are not owned or registered by entities in the United States. The publications are strictly limited to information pertaining to U.S. statistics.

    Heavy ships and aircraft burn more fuel than any other category. For some reason class 8 trucks are missing as a category for consideration. Light trucks in the number quoted, consuming more fuel than the combination of all other vehicle types combined is absurd.

    Reply
  75. The fact that only one country is in compliance shows how worthless these agreements are. The real issue is what is actually being done about CO2 emissions.

    Transportation fuel is our biggest problem…as you can see in this graph: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38133

    There are many ways to reduce transport fuel use without interfering with people getting to their chosen destinations in a timely manner.

    #1 we have to do something about pickup trucks. Their fuel efficiency is incredibly bad…far worse than the sticker on the window. Despite their being a small fraction of the vehicles (54.9 million 2016), they use more fuel than: all the cars (192.8 million), all the motorcycles (8.7 million), buses (976 thousand), trains (27 thousand locomotives), boats and ships (12 million) put together. If that sounds absurd, that is because it is absurd. https://www.bts.gov/content/number-us-aircraft-vehicles-vessels-and-other-conveyances

    And that is actually understated. The government did not include pickups with dualies. These things: https://www.autobytel.com/trucks/car-buying-guides/8-best-used-dually-trucks-131213/
    There are probably 4 million+ of those in the US and they, of course, get even worse fuel mileage.

    We need to strongly discourage the use of these as commuter vehicles, insist on there being effective regenerative breaking, and require them to run on LNG, or electricity.

    This will make the largest reduction, but there are hundreds of things

    Reply
  76. The La Porte, Texas pilot plant of NET Power, LLC is tested, proven hardware for economically viable carbon dioxide capture with electrical generation.

    “NET Power Demonstration Plant Wins 2018 ADIPEC Breakthrough Technological Project of the Year”

    “In recognition of its demonstration plant in La Porte, Texas, NET Power, LLC, was awarded the 2018 Breakthrough Technological Project of the Year at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference (ADIPEC). ADIPEC is one of the world’s largest and most influential oil and gas events. NET Power’s 50MWth plant demonstrates the company’s low-cost, emissions-free, natural gas electric power system. It is the world’s first and only industrial-scale supercritical CO2-based power plant.”

    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/net-power-demonstration-plant-wins-2018-adipec-breakthrough-technological-project-of-the-year-300750163.html

    Reply
  77. Why is there so much promotion of AGW on this site?

    It should be obvious to anyone with a > room temperature IQ that’s it utter horseshit.

    Reply
  78. For China to transition to an economy involving domestic consumption of produced goods, rather than almost sole reliance upon export, they will experience more energy consumption with the environmental consequences.

    That would be true if a linear extrapolation were applied to current energy options. There are now excellent test results from a pilot plant which explored feasibility of total emissions capture for a natural gas fueled electrical generation plant. The work is in progress to expand the scope such that consumption of coal as synthesis-gas is also economical. Thank British chemical engineer Sir Rodney Allam for this accomplishment.

    Commercialization is viable in one to two year’s time frame for the first plant fueled with NG. Pure CO2 will be available for extended oil recovery, or direct sequestration in suitable geologic storage options.

    Reply
  79. Something tells me they hit the goal by accident and wished they didn’t. Especially since there was no legal obligation to.

    Reply

Leave a Comment