Climate Change: Science and Issues

[Robert Roaldi]

Robert, as I mentioned in my post #141 I have no problem if the moderators would delete all posts that are political and don't deal with science (or the lack thereof). However Alan G in post #144 said politics are covered under the "issues" flag in the title as politics determine the policy decisions being taken to respond to the science (or lack thereof).

I would be in favour of keeping it strictly scientific, however if the denyer side of the discussion start making political arguments I feel I have the right to present the other side. I'm not trying to derail or stop the discussion and believe I reacted in accordance with the latest guidance from one of the moderators of this discussion.

That's fair. I was just balking at having to read (I guess I don't really have to) another post by someone who denigrates the study of climate, offering only his personal opinion to that effect, which is an unconvincing argument at best. We've heard that many times before, it doesn't advance the discussion, and I questioned its purpose. And to the extent that what I wrote was itself off-topic, I apologize.

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

You seem to struggle with a couple of facts, the main ones being a misconception of what a "fair deal" is, and what the Paris agreement is about.

Let's try and solve these issues.
1. Fair comparisons
To simplify, let's look at the USA and China (together producing 44% of worldwide CO2 emissions), and for the moment forget the rest (the remaining 56% of worldwide CO2 emissions). Afterall, the USA and China are the world's largest polluting countries in the world (but they are also pretty large countries anyway). We could also include India if needed, but it has quite a different industrial dynamic going on.

China has approx. 1,409,517,397 inhabitants, and the USA some 324,459,463, as per UN estimates for 1 July 2017. To be fair, one could expect them to pollute by roughly equal amounts on a per Capita basis although China has many more Coal powered utility plants. Yet, despite their 4.3x larger polulation with mouths to feed and energy consumption to satisfy, they only are responsible for 2.1x more CO2 emissions than the USA. China produced in 2015 (latest numbers I have) some 10,641,789 kt of CO2, versus 5,172,338 kt for the USA.

So, the average US citizen produces (through consumption of goods and energy) twice as much CO2 per capita. And to add some perspective, the European Union with some 510,284,430 inhabitants, produces some 3,469,671 kt of CO2, even less per capita than both.

2. The Paris Climate agreement
There appears to be a huge misunderstanding about the Paris Climate agreement, especially in the USA, and the fact that some countries (like China) have projected to grow their emissions before they (can) start reducing them.

The Paris Climate agreement is a worldwide agreement (except for Syria, and the USA is pulling out) that aimed at limiting the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This was agreed, and deemed achievable (but not easy), after adding all projected emissions and economic development estimates, which obviously differ for already industrialized countries (like the USA and most of the EU) versus growing economies and populations (like China, India, and the African counties to name a few).

The only real commitments made were for each country to submit their "Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)", so that other countries could monitor the progress towards the common goal. The Conference of the Parties (COP) invited all Parties to communicate to the secretariat their INDCs well in advance of COP 21 (by the first quarter of 2015 by those Parties ready to do so) in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the INDC.

So much for the non-existing bad deal that the USA wants to pull out of.

Cheers,
Bart

China is a mature economy.  They are number two in the world, soon to be #1.  They aren't some back woods country with no impact on the world.  Currently grown to 30% of the world's CO2 and growing to a greater amount in the near future means they are a major, in fact THE major producer of CO2 becoming larger by leaps and bounds.  To give them a pass so they can continue to pollute in increasing amounts is short-sighted.  It's going to make reaching the Paris goals more and more impossible to meet, with or without America.  Americans see themselves as being punished for our success and are watching as a Communist dictatorship is trying to take over the world using their economic power.  With Xi taking full command over China, you should be as concerned as they are stealing your industry as well.  They will be a threat to European industry as well.  Already are.  America ha made a decision regarding what we will do and I support that stand.  If others want to foolishly support the Chinese, well that's up to you.

[pegelli]

Currently grown to 30% of the world's CO2 and growing to a greater amount in the near future means they are a major, in fact THE major producer of CO2 becoming larger by leaps and bounds. 

According to a study you referenced in the poofed thread China's CO2 emissions are at a plateau, I'm sorry I can't find the reference anymore and I hope you still can. It's the one that also showed Europe (as a combination of countries) going up marginally and the US going down marginally. You found it the first time

[Alan Klein]

According to a study you referenced in the poofed thread China's CO2 emissions are at a plateau, I'm sorry I can't find the reference anymore and I hope you still can. It's the one that also showed Europe (as a combination of countries) going up marginally and the US going down marginally. You found it the first time

I can't find the poofed article. But regardless, there are 1 billion more Chinese who want to be middle class. The CO2 production in China has to go up in the future as it's been going up over the last few years.  That's why they insisted on a pass until 2030.  They wouldn't need it if CO2 was going down. Xi wants to maintain his power.   It will only be done if the economy expands to allow the rest of the Chinese become middle class.   That means more CO2. 

[pegelli]

I found the graph, it shows the Chinese emissions of CO2 has remained constant in 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Nobody can predict the future, but all the talk of Chinese CO2 emissions skyrocketing at least hasn't happened for these 3 years, so while it might still go up in the future it's by far not as dramatic as some people want you to believe (in their quest to defend the "bad" deal the US got in Paris )

[Alan Klein]

I found the graph, it shows the Chinese emissions of CO2 has remained constant in 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Nobody can predict the future, but all the talk of Chinese CO2 emissions skyrocketing at least hasn't happened for these 3 years, so while it might still go up in the future it's by far not as dramatic as some people want you to believe (in their quest to defend the "bad" deal the US got in Paris )

Pieter:  It did go down, but it's a rather minor blip.  Maybe it was effected by the economy.  By the way, who provides these statistics?  The host countries?  How come the EU is going up (+1.4%) while America's is going down (-2.6%)? Are you guys cheating on the Paris accord? 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...however if the denyer side of the discussion start making political arguments ...

Then they need to be brainwashed. Or so says CA governor: "World needs ‘brain washing’ on climate change"

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article182789821.html

[Ray]

I also have no objection to the political and economic aspects of climate change being discussed, as long as they are discussed in a civil manner. After all, politics and economics are related to everything we do. To exclude politics and economics from the discussion would be to limit the understanding of the issue.

I'm reminded here of that notorious slogan used by Bill Clinton during his election campaign, "It's the economy, stupid."

When comparing the CO2 emissions 'per capita', between China and the rest of the world, there are different approaches which should be clearly defined. The most obvious approach is to  divide the total CO2 emissions within the borders of a country, by the total population. But this approach shows only a part of the problem.
For example, Australia exports far more coal than it burns within its own country. Should the total CO2 emissions from all the coal that Australia digs up and exports, be included in the 'per capita' emissions for the average Australian?

Likewise, most of China's CO2 emissions in recent years have resulted from the production of goods which are exported to the rest of the world. The CO2 emissions associated with the production of such goods should therefore be more fairly attributed to the populations that consume the goods.

Sweden has a very low 'per capita' emissions of CO2 within its borders, but that figure increases significantly when one includes the CO2 emissions associated with Sweden's imports from the EU, China and elsewhere.

[Alan Klein]

That's a good point Ray. I'm reminded of the fact that China intends to build 800 Coal Fired power plants in the next 10 years in countries outside of China. Should the CO2 that will be produced in those countries be counted against China?  How does the Paris Accord handle this?

[pegelli]

Then they need to be brainwashed. Or so says CA governor: "World needs ‘brain washing’ on climate change"

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article182789821.html

Aren't you (and others) trying to "brainwash" the opposite side as well with your posts.

For me these are "pot and kettle" type arguments that lead nowhere 

[pegelli]

That's a good point Ray. I'm reminded of the fact that China intends to build 800 Coal Fired power plants in the next 10 years in countries outside of China. Should the CO2 that will be produced in those countries be counted against China?  How does the Paris Accord handle this?

These are counted against the countries that they are built in. But since these countries are also part of the Paris accords (I don't think many of these are built in Syria or the US) they still fall under the emission pledges the countries made in Paris.

[pegelli]

I also have no objection to the political and economic aspects of climate change being discussed, as long as they are discussed in a civil manner. After all, politics and economics are related to everything we do. To exclude politics and economics from the discussion would be to limit the understanding of the issue.

I'm reminded here of that notorious slogan used by Bill Clinton during his election campaign, "It's the economy, stupid."

When comparing the CO2 emissions 'per capita', between China and the rest of the world, there are different approaches which should be clearly defined. The most obvious approach is to  divide the total CO2 emissions within the borders of a country, by the total population. But this approach shows only a part of the problem.
For example, Australia exports far more coal than it burns within its own country. Should the total CO2 emissions from all the coal that Australia digs up and exports, be included in the 'per capita' emissions for the average Australian?

Likewise, most of China's CO2 emissions in recent years have resulted from the production of goods which are exported to the rest of the world. The CO2 emissions associated with the production of such goods should therefore be more fairly attributed to the populations that consume the goods.

Sweden has a very low 'per capita' emissions of CO2 within its borders, but that figure increases significantly when one includes the CO2 emissions associated with Sweden's imports from the EU, China and elsewhere.

Good point Ray but it becomes awfully complicated that way. I think it's best to just stick with the country borders and the emission within. They burn the fuel and get the (economic) benefits from that, but also get the burden of dealing with the corrosponding emissions.

Given your example of CO2 from Australian coal, should all the CO2 from burning middle east oil be attributed to the countries that pumped the oil out of the ground?
I think it would be better to lay the burden of those emissions with the countries who burn that coal/oil. They can do something about it, make it more efficient or switch to other fuel sources. Nobody is obliged to buy that coal/oil, if there are no more customers the countries will have to stop producing them.
 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Good point Ray but it becomes awfully complicated that way. I think it's best to just stick with the country borders and the emission within. They burn the fuel and get the (economic) benefits from that, but also get the burden of dealing with the corresponding emissions.

I agree, it's also relatively straightforward to calculate the emissions as they are produced, instead of as stored fuel (like in strategic reserves).

But it's all about economics as well. Even with overwhelming scientific proof, different choices will be made based on short-term economics. That's why companies (like in the USA and elsewhere) switch their investments away from coal-powered utility plants in favor of Natural gas. They still produce CO2, but less (which will benefit the investors when Carbon taxes are introduced).

Also, since renewable energy production volumes are rising, the cost is coming down significantly, which makes them also a viable economic alternative.

Cost of wind keeps dropping, and there’s little coal, nuclear can do to stop it
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/economics-working-against-coal-as-cost-of-wind-solar-power-drops/

Some people complain about the cost of renewable energy, but that's not based on a fair pricing of fossil fuel (which is cheap to harvest but expensive in consequences). What's also forgotten is that there are lots of (job) opportunities involved in new energy (R&D, material science, preservation, production, and storage). In a little over a decade from now, new buildings in my country are supposed to be energy neutral, i.e. the produce as much energy as they use. Existing buildings will be improved to lower their need for energy (isolation, re-use of heat/cold, and if possible generating energy).

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... But it's all about economics as well...

Hallelujah!

Let me repeat it: "it is all about economics." It always has been and will be. It has nothing to do with global warming. Producing things cheaper has been the drive behind economics since the dawn of mankind. Nothing to do with global warming. That's why all this harping about it is so ridiculous. No one will sacrifice economic progress for the sake of some brainwashing theories. In return, the economic progress will take care of the "problem" by doing things cheaper, more efficient, less poluting, and less dependent on finite resources and primitive regimes.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hallelujah!

Let me repeat it: "it is all about economics."

Not only! Unless you want to monetize health, food security, mass migration, war, human suffering, etc., without accounting for the longer term effects. It's as much about psychology (e.g. cognitive dissonance), people avoiding long-term larger benefits for short-term gains that will cost more in the longer term.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

Good article in the New York Times by Eduardo Porter on the need to keep nuclear power in the equation.

[Alan Klein]

Good article in the New York Times by Eduardo Porter on the need to keep nuclear power in the equation.

Interesting article, Alan.  People are afraid of nuclear, especially since the Japan disaster and the high cost to build plants.  But I agree, it's a great alternative to carbon.  Maybe we can build them in the ocean and run back an extension cord.

The article is also interesting as it covers how carbon totals for the world hasn't really reduced despite the implementation of so much renewable alternatives.  The Paris goals won't be met.  Note that America is reducing its carbon footprint even though we've "pulled out" of Paris.  We're down 2.6% while the EU is up 1.4%.  See the graph on my post #165.  We're replacing our coal fired plants with natural gas which are cleaner and produces less CO2.   Some of the other problems are that carbon fueled plants have to be maintained because wind and solar are not always available.  The cost of electricity still has to cover their operating costs even though they produce less electricity. 

Extra jobs created for renewable installations sound good on the surface.  It is, for the workers.  They have jobs.  But the rest of us are paying in higher electricity costs as their wages are added to the cost to produce each KWH of electricity.  Wages are lower with carbon workers as fewer workers are needed.   So even the argument about more jobs is specious. 

[pegelli]

Pieter:  It did go down, but it's a rather minor blip.  Maybe it was effected by the economy.  By the way, who provides these statistics?  The host countries?  How come the EU is going up (+1.4%) while America's is going down (-2.6%)? Are you guys cheating on the Paris accord? 

The Paris accord was made in 2016, so all these data are from before. So this graph tells nothing about who is cheating and who is not. No need to raise FUD or conspiracy theories on that yet. 

Also I think long term trends as well as clear trend-breaks are more interesting then just focus on a small blip from 2014 to 2015.

What I see there is that the trend of Europe as well as the US is going down and that the very strong upward trend in China has stopped for 3 years in a row. All three are good signs and we can only hope they are sustained. By now the 2016 points should be available, but I haven't found them yet.

The graph comes from "The Carbon Project" I guess they have to base themselves on national reporting.

[pegelli]

Just found something on 2016 emissions, US and China are down, Europe is stable, the world as a whole stable.

IEA report on 2016 emissions

I think this provides a nice summary:

In 2016, renewables supplied more than half the global electricity demand growth, with hydro accounting for half of that share. The overall increase in the world’s nuclear net capacity last year was the highest since 1993, with new reactors coming online in China, the United States, South Korea, India, Russia and Pakistan. Coal demand fell worldwide but the drop was particularly sharp in the United States, where demand was down 11% in 2016. For the first time, electricity generation from natural gas was higher than from coal last year in the United States.

With the appropriate policies, and large amounts of shale reserves, natural gas production in the United States could keep growing strongly in the years to come. This could have three main consequences: it could boost domestic manufacturing, supply more competitive gas to Asia through to LNG exports, and provide alternative gas supplies to Europe. US and natural gas prospects will be explored in details in the next World Energy Outlook 2017.

In China, emissions fell by 1% last year, as coal demand declined while the economy expanded by 6.7%. There were several reasons for this trend: an increasing share of renewables, nuclear and natural gas in the power sector, but also a switch from coal to gas in the industrial and buildings sector that was driven in large part by government policies combatting air pollution.

Three remarks I'd see:
- The China plateau has sustained/improved another year
- I wonder what effects of Trump's Coal region support will show in 2017 and later
- Europe needs to get off it's butt and move back on the downward trend


Full report here (warning 166 page pdf)

[Alan Klein]

The report also stated: "While the pause in emissions growth is positive news to improve air pollution, it is not enough to put the world on a path to keep global temperatures from rising above 2°C. In order to take full advantage of the potential of technology improvements and market forces, consistent, transparent and predictable policies are needed worldwide." 

Also, I don't necessarily believe China's self-reporting figures as they lie a lot to make themselves look good.  Frankly, I think most countries are going to just let natural economic forces take over in this area.  It's hard for leaders to tell their people that they have to spend more to reach some arbitrary reduction especially since there are no enforcement penalties in the Paris Accord.  Good will only goes so far.