Donald Trump has sent his clearest message yet about his plans for reshaping US policy on global warming by choosing a chief environmental regulator who has questioned the science of climate change
But leading experts say the nomination of Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney-general as head of the Environmental Protection Agency and the policy he pursues, may have less effect than many imagine on global greenhouse gas emissions.
Analysis by PwC, the financial services firm, shows G20 countries need to reduce their carbon intensity — the amount of carbon dioxide they emit for every dollar of GDP they produce — by an annual average of 3 per cent to meet their Paris agreement targets.
Even if the US abandoned the deal it would have a limited direct impact on the overall G20 effort. If all other countries stayed on track to meet their carbon targets, but the US returned to business as usual, the average annual cut for the G20 as a whole would only fall slightly, from 3 per cent to 2.8 per cent.
That is chiefly because of market developments such as the US shale gas boom that has squeezed out coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, a situation some think unlikely to change no matter what Mr Trump does.
“The impact on the global emissions projection is pretty small even if the US shelves its Paris target,” said Jonathan Grant, a director of climate and sustainability at PwC.
He emphasised the contribution of market and technological shifts to tackling emissions growth adding “it’s doubtful that can be thrown into reverse by one country”.
- On November 10 the New York Times posted Donald Trump Could Put Climate Change on Course for ‘Danger Zone’
- On October 7, Paul Krugman asked What About the Planet?
Ridiculousness From Trump
As ridiculous as those positions are, this one by Trump is far more ridiculous.
My Four-Pronged Position
- The earth has gone through many periods of warming and cooling that have lasted 10s of millions of years or longer. The reasons are complex, far beyond greenhouse gas emissions. Background radiation from space, the sun’s position in the galaxy, and solar cycles that no one has any record of, all play a part. There are likely complex reasons we are not even aware of today.
CO2, in isolation, all other things equal (which they aren’t and never will be), will tend to warm the atmosphere. However, it’s questionable, at best, to presume greenhouses gasses account for the bulk of what’s happening.
Scientists have changed their model numerous times, and the data to match, to prove global warming. Models that said were were in a period of no warming for 15 years now suddenly state this is the warmest period ever recorded.
The amazing thing about all of this is how irrelevant it is. Breaking this down into 100-year periods when changes take place over tens of millions of years, for numerous, complex reasons is ridiculous.
- Nonetheless, let’s presume the scientists are correct, and I am wrong. The idea that government will do anything sensible about it is silly.
If Florida goes underwater, there is not a single change we could have made today, or 20 years ago, to save it. If global warming is happening, as described by the warm-ongers, it will still be happening 50 years from now, just at reduced rates of increases.
Al Gore floated an amazing plan to save the world at a World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: Spend $90 Trillion Redesigning All The Cities So They Don’t Need Cars.
You cannot make this kind of stuff up, but it is typical bureaucratic madness in action. Lest you think this was only former US vice president Al Gore, the former president of Mexico Felipe Calderon, also backed this preposterous idea.
“We recommend those cities should have more density and more mass transportation. Together with a program for reforming land use, and bringing deforestation to zero, the total cost of this plan would most likely be $90 trillion in future investment”, Calderon said.
The amusing part of Al Gore’s inane proposal is the sheer amount of fossil fuels it would take to implement. It never occurred to him.
- Let’s stop pollution, for pollution’s sake, not for misguided global warming reasons. China is poisoning the air and water to maintain growth, and killing killing or injuring millions of its citizens in the process.
I am strongly in favor of cutting emissions, especially in places like China which accounts for nearly twice as much greenhouse gas pollution as the US. Chinese cities have smog alerts nearly every day of the year.
Start worrying about people dying now, not 400 years from now, on a fool’s mission belief that man can control climate changes that happen over tens of millions of years.
- Technology will do far more than bureaucrats ever will in the battle against emissions.
Companies like Uber, Google, Apple, GM, Ford, etc are all working on technologies that will dramatically reduce the need for cars. The cars themselves will be electric. Autonomous trucks will drive the speed limit, in small caravans, not only reducing accidents, but reducing fuel consumption as well.
Uber should be embraced, but it’s banned or restricted in much of the World. The EU nannycrats want to reduce emissions but fight Uber and put huge tariffs on solar panels from China, limiting their use.
That chart is from 2011. I strongly expect China’s percentage rose in the last five years.
If we were to actually spend $90 trillion as Al Gore and former president of Mexico Felipe Calderon want to do, I am 100% certain it would actually increase emissions in the process.
People expecting government bureaucrats or economists like Krugman to do anything but make matters worse have a Bizarro World thought process.
Here’s a question that just occurred to me: How much greenhouse emissions would be released via Paul Krugman’s inane proposal to stimulate the global economy by pretending there was a space alien threat.
For further discussion, please consider Paul Krugman, Who Proposed Fight with Fake Outer Space Aliens to Stimulate the Economy, Now Worried About Quality of Trump’s Spending.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock