The 2050 Net Neutral Challenge
The UK will host the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow on. 1 – 12 November 2021.
The UN and the Paris Accord have set a net neutral target for 2050. The US, the UK, Japan, and the EU are on board.
Without China, forget about it. China says 2060. India has a more realistic assessment of the situation.
197 Counties Cannot Agree On Anything
It’s a lot easier for developed countries to do something about carbon emissions than developing countries.
In a pre-summit meeting of 197 countries, China did not show up, and India blasted the targets as “Pie in the Sky“.
Trying to lead 197 countries forward on the critical global issue of climate change is not a job for the faint hearted, as the UK is currently finding out. India, the world’s fourth largest emitter, doesn’t seem keen to join the club.
“2060 sounds good, but it is just that, it sounds good,” Raj Kumar Singh, India’s minister for power, told a meeting organized by the International Energy Agency (IEA).
“I would call it, and I’m sorry to say this, but it is just a pie in the sky.”
“You have countries whose per capita emissions are four or five or 12 times the world average. The question is when are they going to come down?”
“What we hear is that by 2050 or 2060 we will become carbon neutral, 2060 is far away and if the people emit at the rate they are emitting the world won’t survive, so what are you going to do in the next five years that’s what the world wants to know.”
“The developed world has occupied almost 80% of the carbon space already, you have 800 million people who don’t have access to electricity. You can’t say that they have to go to net zero, they have the right to develop, they want to build skyscrapers and have a higher standard of living, you can’t stop it,” he told the meeting.
“So my plea is to avoid the ‘happy talk’ and recognize that this challenge is global and never has there been a challenge that requires the unity of countries all across the planet than now.”
Can the Targets Be Met?
Perhaps. Technology can do wonderous things in the next 30-40 years.
But it will not happen without China, India, and developing nations in the Mideast, Africa, and South America in general.
Where is the CO2 Coming From?
CO2 Stats
- Please note that the US reduced its carbon footprint from 6.13 billion tons in 2007 to 5.28 billion tons in 2019.
- Meanwhile, China increased its footprint from 6.86 billion tons in 2019 to 10.17 billion tons in 2019.
- In the same timeframe, global output rose from 31.29 billion tons to 36.44 billion tons.
- In 2007, the US accounted for 19.6% of the total global carbon footprint.
- In 2019, the US accounted for only 14.5% of the total global footprint.
Even if you eliminate 100% of carbon from the US and EU, you don’t solve the problem.
That is the simple fact of the matter. And for pointing out the facts, I was accused of cherry picking the data.
Cherry Picking Accusation
Cherry Picking?
What the hell do you think is going to happen when everyone in China and India using mostly coal want higher standards of living?
You reaffirm the big problem ahead is totally outside US control.
Yet, Biden, AOC, etc. think the US can solve this with dollars
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) February 15, 2021
Racism
Emissions from China and India continue to grow. For mentioning this fact, I was also called a racist.
Excuse me for pointing out that unrealistic demands on India, China, African nations, etc., are what’s racist, not facts.
John Kerry’s Straw Man Climate Arguments
John Kerry is Biden’s climate czar.
He blamed 4 hurricanes on climate change as if throwing any amount of money at the alleged problem would have stopped the hurricanes.
For discussion, please see Kerry’s Straw Man Argument for Wasting Money on Climate Change
Government to the Rescue?
https://twitter.com/missydpr/status/1357096593720279041
A Word About Climate Change
Climate change on earth has been ongoing for billions of years and will go on for billions of years more, until the earth is swallowed by the sun, literally.
Roughly 5 billion years from now, the Sun will exhaust the hydrogen fuel in its core and start burning helium, forcing its transition into a red giant star. During this shift, its atmosphere will expand out to somewhere around 1 astronomical unit — the current average Earth-Sun distance.
The world will not end in 10 years or even 100 years if we do nothing.
Climate change is not the ‘Existential Threat of Our Time’ as Biden says.
Those who want to be taken seriously, best not to make absurd exaggerations as Biden, Kerry, AOC, Gretta, Al Gore, and countless others have done with predictions that have failed one after another.
What Happens if the Seal Level Rises?
Please note, Melting Ice Could Slow Global Temperature Rise.
The research, published in Nature, finds that the rate of ice-sheet melt in a high-emissions scenario could see the oceans cooled by the influx of frigid water. This could knock as much as 0.4C off global temperature rise, the researchers say, potentially delaying exceeding the 1.5C and 2C Paris temperature limits by around a decade.
Scientists not involved in the research tell Carbon Brief that while the results are intriguing, some caution is warranted given that the study relies on a single climate model. It also uses a speculative ice-melt scenario and focuses on a region – the Southern Ocean and Antarctica – which climate models can struggle to simulate accurately.
While climate models seek to include various different elements of the Earth’s systems, many are still limited in their modeling of changes in global ice sheets. While models include the role of ice melt on global sea level rise, they generally do not include the impact of the effect of meltwater from ice sheets and ice shelves on the climate.
The broader climate impacts of ice-sheet and ice-shelf melt are not included in the current generation of climate models – CMIP5 – and are not expected to be accounted for in the upcoming CMIP6 models either.
Hmm, it seems we have a major problem with the model’s, don’t we?
50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened
Let’s review 50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened
2014 John Kerry: “We have 500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos” discussed Sec of State John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabious at a joint meeting.
I list 21 predictions and what actually happened.
Also, please recall my January 2019 post Ocasio-Cortez Says World Will End in 12 Years: Here’s What to Do About It.
I am tired of this discussion.
Instead, let’s assume all but the extreme predictions from here on out are true. Moreover, let’s assume instead of the oceans rising 3 inches as scientists predict, let’s assume the oceans rise 6 inches.
Then cold water from melting ice rates to dampen temperatures, perhaps far more than admitted or realized.
But let’s assume no mitigating temperature impact of cooling waters.
What Do We Do About It?
How do we meet the 2050 targets with China not on board and India openly mocking even the 2060 target as “pie in the sky”?
With that question, let’s return to a comment I made above that is the key to the issue: Technology can do wonderous things in the next 30-40 years.
Technology and Innovation
Look at what we are doing on mars as an example of amazing technological feats: Search for Life on Mars Continues With a Tiny 4 Pound Robot Helicopter
Back on earth, I noted GM to Phase Out Gas-Powered Vehicles by 2035, Carbon Neutral by 2040
That’s one heck of a commitment given Tesla has about a 79% share of the 2% of total sales that are electric.
Believe what you want about climate change but fearmongering won’t change anything.
Nor will badgering 197 nations to agree to a plan that China will not honor and India labels “pie in the sky”.
If there is a solution, technology, innovation, and the free market will find it.
Per Capita Addendum
A reader asked why I don’t mention per capita carbon.
I have commented before. It proves my point so I should do it more often.
The population of China is 1.40 billion, India is 1.37 billion, and the US is 0.33 billion. It is precisely this reason India called the effort “pie in the sky”.
Q: What happens when the rest of the world wants a US standard of living?
A: The global carbon footprint will not decline, global standards of living will not rise, the US standard of living will fall dramatically, there will be a huge technology breakthrough, or some combination of the above.
Alternatively, expect war.
Mish
That is really nice to hear. thank you for the update and good luck, link to tonightsmakeup.com
amazing game! I like it. Also check link to cocpureapk.com
Net Nope, anytime soon
link to iea.org
Net Nope
link to iea.org
“China increased its footprint from 6.86 billion tons in 2019 to 10.17 billion tons in 2019.” — this should read 2007/2019
Globally, EV sales were 2.6% of car sales in 2020 (3 million), of which Tesla was about 17% (500K).
Climate change over billions of years is irrelevant, except that we know from the paleo records that changes can be sudden and can be catastrophic for life as we know it. Although we may not be able to precisely model all aspects of climate change (including especially tipping points of non-linear progressions), we do know the risks are extreme and unhedged. If sea levels were 200 feet higher (as they have been, not all that long ago), it would be catastrophic for a large part of the infrastructure and the population, who are no longer stone age hunters that will simply go to higher ground. And that is by far not the worst risk.
As for cold water fresh water lenses, these will not be cooling the climate system, but only the air temperature. Warming of ocean water would continue, but it would be more stratified. The cooling does not come from the cold water but from stratification, and it would likely cause far more severe weather events.
Tesla is at 23% counting only BEV sales.
The reason the free market is not up to protecting the climate or the ocean is that there is no one who owns it and is leasing it at discount rates that include the depletion of the resource, nor would the owner be able to price the value of the asset for “humanity”. A world full of money would yield a rather meaningless market in which one haggles over the price of the earth.
Lack of private property results in public irresponsibility. All property should be privately held by owners whose rights can be objectively defined and so defended through government. Most “tragedy of the commons” pollution problems go away if all property is private so that owners can pursue their property rights.
Amazing Post. I like it. If you want to see the post than click on link to thegbapp.com
There is! Stop supporting communist China and build things at home.
Mish is right on with this one. You want to stop communist China in their tracks stop buying their garbage. Start making things here at home. We are fueling the virus called communist China.
The Eastern US is more wooded than it has been since the white man appeared. When I grew up in Massachusetts, my dog Tex and I would raid the orchards for apples, or the blueberry swamps for guess what? Yep blueberries. All the farms are gone now. The farms were bought up for two acre suburban lots. Then the trees came back, and the deer, and the ticks. Watch what you wish for.
It’s useful to know how countries with a similar standard of living are competing on carbon emissions but the U.S. has more people than Germany or France. I wish there was a metric that could help solve that problem..
When it comes to carbon emissions reduction, China talks a big game but the reality is very different. While the rest of the world keeps reducing its reliance on the most dirty CO2 fuel – coal, China keeps increasing increasing its use of coal. It is the only country in the world which is increasing the amount of electricity being generated from coal.
China is also investing in solar, wind and hydro . The picture is far more complicated then.
For the record I’m not in favor of hydro in many situations. It might be OK in the Alps but it destroys rivers and ecosystems and harms wildlife
Mish, are you saying you believe in man-made climate change? Because I saved this quote of yours:
” “There is no “proof” of man-made global warming. There is data to support a THEORY, much of it fake, but some of it not. The time-frame analysis is clearly insufficient and there are thousands of factors. It is likely, we do not yet know the biggest cause of what’s happening. Moreover, as LaCalle pointed out, the free market will take care of this problem anyway, assuming there is a problem”
Johnson fits into a long history of prime ministers who are lazy charlatans link to unherd.com
Per Capita Addendum
A reader asked why I don’t mention per capita carbon.
I have commented before. It proves my point so I should do it more often.
Q: What happens when the rest of the world wants a US standard of living?
A: The global carbon footprint will not decline, global standards of living will not rise, the US standard of living will fall dramatically, there will be a huge technology breakthrough, or some combination of the above.
Let’s agree on the right stat first. Policy comes after.
We could do this easily if we weren’t so preoccupied with filling up landfills with the plastic crap we consume. We could have moon and mars bases now if we weren’t so preoccupied with enriching the ultra rich.
We’re a smart species with amazing potential that allows itself to be dragged down by morons.
We don’t allow it. We instead actively encourage it.
Everything the government does / regulates is designed to drag things down to the lowest denominator. A classic example of this is the ‘no child left behind’ policy in schools which drags the education down to the level of the slowest child so the brightest are bored instead of raising up the brightest and realizing the slowest aren’t going to make any breakthroughs. There are countless examples of similar things where laws are made to bring things down to the slowest/weakest etc forcing everyone down to that level.
This could wind up being really positive. Often it means conserving energy and looking at the energy bill and reduce footprints. Chillers and boilers may be using old equipment or not optimized. Are VFD’s being employed? Are fans operating at the right speed? Etc
I have commented before. It prove my point so I should do it more often.
What happens when the rest of the world wants a US standard of living?
NO idea what that means. Its either a more accurate statistic or its not
No! Hide the truth, use percentages.
Yea I think per capita, and noticed most of the stats tend to favor this The exception is for oil rich producing nations with few people. Then per capita breaks down
All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed (I. F. “Izzy” Stone, 1907-1989).
Everything that doesn’t fit in the democratic narrative is racist.
Per Capita the U.S. is an attoricious offender. Isn’t that how economists look at data?
CO2 emissions per capita are closely correlated to the GDP per capita or living standard.
A related measure is the cumulative emissions (over the last e.g. 200 years), which reflects better the stage of economic development of a country.
India’s climate is a disaster. They cut down all the trees and forests and as a result the teperature has skyrockete. While the average temperatures have only gone up a degree or two the hottest days have gone up more. The detruction of the environment is just one more reason why Indians emmigrate to the U.S.
That problem is very easily fixable. Very. Cut off H1 visas.
who said its a problem? We’re getting great talent
Sure, keep towing that corporatist line about the domestic talent pool being too small to justify needing cheap labor. “Great talent” at doing what? I’m a software engineer currently knee deep in un-clustering a total mess of a project that was entrusted to Indian ‘talent’. In my experience with Indian engineers over the years at best it’s a wash – what good is getting 10 for the price of 1 if you need 10 to do the job of 1 with a high degree of supervision?
… and I thought Mish was an offensive Demorat? Just a Rino, then ey?
If the U.S. and Europe were net zero now there would be 25b in carbon emissions instead of 36b. It’s not zero, but isn’t 25 better than 36?
It would be better if we are getting to net zero. But as you can see in the article below things like burning biomass(wood) for fuel is considered net zero even though it puts lots of CO2 into the air now (that will be removed in future decades/centuries by plants)
Also it assumes someone else (India/China/Developing Country) doesn’t replace our carbon with some of their own.
In 40 years (2060)m world population is forcasted to grow another billion or more so that means massive increase in carbon just from all the new people even if we managed to break even now.
It rained last night and left carbon/dirt all over my Tesla ewwwww.
No, it isn’t. Because, CO2 is not a problem. The problem is “environmentalists” who are trying, and unfortunately succeeding, in bleeding money out of governments who do not have a clue about science.
I’m an environmentalist and would say its the lobbyists…yah.