[Plantagenet]

China CO2 emissions rise to a new record in 2017

China-CO2-Emissions-Rise-New-Record

China is already the largest CO2 producer on the planet and their CO2 emissions keep going higher.

China is a signatory to THREE separate climate treaties. China signed onto a bilateral climate change treaty they negotiated with Obama in 2014, and China is also a signatory to the 2016 Paris Climate Accords. Just recently China signed a climate agreement with California.

But none of those three "climate treaties" actually put limits on China's CO2 emissions. China is free to increase their CO2 emissions---and thats just what is happening.

What a total farce. What is the point of these phony "climate treaties" that make global warming worse? The plethora of photo ops and useless press releases eraising Obama and Gov. Jerry Brown for their "leadership" on climate change for signing deals with China allowing them to increase their CO2 emissions make me nauseous.


China's CO2 emissions hit a new record in 2017-----and its all OK under the totally useless Paris climate accords.

CHEERS!

[dohboi]

Financial Times is paywalled for me. Any chance you could cut and paste some significant portion of the article for me?

[Plantagenet]

Sure...no problemo.

But would you first please answer the question I posed to you yesterday? (its in my post on the prior page of this thread).

Thanks!

[dohboi]

Sorry, I thought I have made it very clear that I am very upset that Paris didn't go further and very disappointed in Obama on a number of fronts. I pretty much share Kevin Anderson's views on these things. But Obama is no longer in charge, and Bush jr and Trump are both even more horrendous than Obama on these issues. It just seems...odd...to me that Obama seems to be about the only American you ever pick out for blame...curious.

(ETA: Though 'disappointed' is perhaps the best word for my feelings about Obama's performance on this and other fronts, it is actually harsher in some respects--anger--and milder, in a way too, because I never really had as high hopes as some other on the non-far-right (there is no real 'left' in this country to speak of) that Obama would ever be anything other than a business as usual corporate Dem...so he pretty much fulfilled my very low expectations for him.)

[Plantagenet]

Sorry, I thought I have made it very clear that I am very upset that Paris didn't go further and very disappointed in Obama on a number of fronts.

Good to hear it. Thats a rational response to the fraud of the Paris Accords.

The news that CO2 emissions are continuing to grow in China is just another data point showing that the Paris Accords just aren't doing enough to mitigate global warming.

PS: FT is blocking me this am as well, but here is the same news from the prestigious scientific journal NATURE

world-s-carbon-emissions-set-to-spike-by-2-in-2017

Humanity’s carbon emissions are likely to surge by 2% in 2017, driven mainly by increased coal consumption in China, scientists reported on 13 November1–3.....

Researchers with the Global Carbon Project, an international research consortium, presented their findings at the United Nations climate talks in Bonn, Germany. Countries there are ironing out details of how to implement the 2015 Paris climate accord, which calls for limiting global warming to a rise of 1.5–2 °C. The projected jump in the world’s greenhouse-gas output underlines the challenges ahead; if the latest analysis proves correct, global carbon dioxide emissions will reach a record-breaking 41 billion tonnes in 2017.

“We were not particularly surprised that emissions are up again, but we were surprised at the size of the growth,” says Corinne Le Quéré, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, and co-author of the work, which was published in the journals Nature Climate Change, Environmental Research Letters and Earth System Science Data Discussions. To Le Quéré, the question now is whether 2017 is a temporary blip or a return to business as usual. “If 2018 is as big as 2017, then I will be very discouraged,” she says.....

The latest analysis projects that CO2 emissions in the United States and the European Union will continue to decline — by 0.4% and 0.2%, respectively, in 2017 — although at a slower pace than in recent years. And emissions growth in India is set to slow, rising by just 2% this year, compared with an average of 6% per year over the past decade.

But the picture is very different in China, which produces nearly 26% of the world’s output of CO2. This year, the country’s emissions of the greenhouse gas are expected to surge by 3.5%, to 10.5 billion tonnes. The main causes are increased activity at the country’s factories and reduced hydroelectric-energy production, the Global Carbon Project analysis finds.

Cheers!

[asg70]

...the Paris Accords just aren't doing enough to mitigate global warming.

That's right. It's just a policy problem. How convenient, huh? You just keep beating on that drum to make it seem you care.

Maybe you flying off on another frivolous plane trip will help?

[Plantagenet]

...the Paris Accords just aren't doing enough to mitigate global warming.

That's right. It's just a policy problem.

Bad policies usually lead to bad results.

Obviously the Paris Climate Accords are failing to reduce global CO2 emissions---in fact global CO2 emissions went up a significant amount in 2017, largely because of increased emissions from China. If CO2 emissions continues to rise it means that the heartfelt pledges by Obama and other politicians to limit global warming to 2°C are bunk.


Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

The Paris Accords are now officially toast.

Global Warming has accelerating over the last few years, increasing by 0.43 degrees from 2014 to 2016. When you combine this with the 1.6°C that planet had already warmed since 1900, the planet has warmed by 2.03°C----more than the 2 degree limit the lying bastards who put the 2015 Paris Climate Accords claimed they were setting.

global-temperatures-+2.04°C

What an utter farcial way for the UN climate treaty process to go.......a climate treaty that doesn't mandate CO2 reductions and sets a limit on global warming that is exceeded one year after the so-called climate treaty is signed.

The utter mendacity and stupidity and incompetence of our so-called leaders is appalling.


fie on thee, ye lying clowns who claim the Paris Accords will limit global warming to less than 2°C

[Newfie]

Oh now quit beating around the bush and tell what you reall think.

Yeah, I get it, we are lying to ourselves. Most addicts do.

[dohboi]

Posting a longish bit from Bill Henderson on Managed Decline, among other things. It's post number 247 at in this month's 'Forced Responses' section at Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... /#comments

Fighting climate change? We’re not even landing a punch
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/busi ... hange.html

2018 is the 30th anniversary of the Toronto Conference on global warming

Specifically on the issue of global warming from greenhouse gases and climate change, the conference reached a consensus on the likelihood of a rise in the global mean temperature of between 2.7-8 degrees F (1.5-4.5 degrees C) by about 2050, but not on whether such warming has begun. The conference statement called for a 20 percent cut in present (1988) levels of global carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005, about half of which could be achieved through conservation, leading to an eventual cut of 50 percent. This statement was possible as a result of the participation of governments that voluntarily committed to cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by the year 2005. This became the so-called “Toronto target” for greenhouse gas emissions and went beyond the emissions targets recommended by most later international conferences, as well as the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the core goal of Kyoto. http://what-when-how.com/global-warming ... l-warming/

Three decades of international negotiations and agreements signed onto by virtually every nation state GHG emissions continue to rise – from under 40GT (eq) in 1988 to over 55GT today. Three decades of emission reduction failure.

“If you visit the website of the UN body that oversees the world’s climate negotiations, you will find dozens of pictures, taken across 20 years, of peopleclapping. These photos should be of interest to anthropologists and psychologists. For they show hundreds of intelligent, educated, well-paid and elegantly-dressed people wasting their lives.

“This process is futile because they have addressed the problem only from one end, and it happens to be the wrong end. They have sought to prevent climate breakdown by limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that are released; in other words, by constraining the consumption of fossil fuels. But, throughout the 23 years since the world’s governments decided to begin this process, the delegates have uttered not one coherent word about constraining production.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-change

“Researching Don’t Even Think About It, which I see as the most important book published on climate change in the past few years, George Marshall discovered that there has not been a single proposal, debate or even position paper on limiting fossil fuel production put forward during international climate negotiations.

“From the very outset fossil fuel production lay outside the frame of the discussions and, as with other forms of socially constructed silence, the social norms among the negotiators and policy specialists kept it that way.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... r-everyone

2018 must be the year that a managed decline of fossil fuel production is agreed to and begun. We are already deep into climate change; 1C not 1.5 or 2C should have been precautionary ceiling; and three decades of failure means we are looking at a 3-4C rise without an emergency government implimented production decline schedule and greatly accelerated transition to renewables; given the emerging science there is no carbon budget left to stay under 2C and we may/probably have crossed over tipping points to civilization threatening warming already.

Trump, the Right and the immense power of business will not even consider managed decline – it is fundamental heresy – but those that stymied effective emission reduction over the past three decades have left no option in economic and governmental BAU.

Managed decline:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/ ... l-industry
http://priceofoil.org/2017/11/01/whats-the-plan/
https://countercurrents.org/2017/07/03/ ... -jones-mp/

[Newfie]

Reading a bit about LBJ. I find some consistency in approach between those two and the Green Power movement. The basic MO is to sell people on a proposal not because the proposal itself is good, or because it helps the down trodden, but it in a way that the haves see a way to get more.

LBJ did this with a tax cut bill (Democratic trickle down) and again in selling his War on Poverty. He sold it not so much for how it would help the poor, but that by enriching the poor they would contribute more to the overal society and the the haves would have more.

I hear this same argument over AGW. We can’t tell folks the whole truth, they will reject it. We have to seek them on wind and solar, on economic growth and full employment based on alternative energy production.” We don’t care about our future generations or disadvantaged people, we will act solely in our personal short term self interest.

Their approach may be the most effective, it is also very cynical. If humans are that stupid then we probably really do need to go through a winnowing process in order to evolve into a cognizant species.

[dohboi]

LBJ did this with a tax cut bill (Democratic trickle down) and again in selling his War on Poverty. He sold it not so much for how it would help the poor, but that by enriching the poor they would contribute more to the overal society and the the haves would have more.

Sounds more like 'trickle up' to me!

What is that you're reading about LBJ? Would you recommend it? (Looking for a good read, myself.)

In general, I heartily agree with your point. Selling people on GW or some other environmental issue by appealing to their own selfish interests is the proverbial losing the war in order to win a battle.

[Newfie]

Dallek is the author

2 volumn set, 700 pages each.
Lone Star Rising - birth to 1960
Flawed Giant - 1960 to death

Available on Google Play

I would highly recommend. It’s giving me a new perspective of politics. I also see some strong similarities with Lenin. I both case a single driven man who thinks he will change things when he gets to the top.

[onlooker]

Not to sound cynical but does anybody here get the sense that this IS the year that masses wake up and start this Managed decline that Dohboi references above?

Because I certainly don't. With regards to us in the US we are going backwards with Trump. Look I wish I could say I see a some bright spots in our collective trajectory. But I would be lying if I say I did. Since I have been on this site, the stark realities get ever starker. But I never lose hope. But false hope is NO hope

[Plantagenet]

Liberal Ds are starting to figure out that the Paris Climate Accords are a fraud

the-paris-climate-accords-are-starting-to-look-like-fantasy

Global CO2 emissions are up 1.7% in 2017, and none of the nations in the Paris Climate Accords are meeting their emissions targets----Not a single one.

Wow. First Obama derails the Copenhagen COP meeting in 2010 and stops the draft Bali climate treaty with mandatory CO2 emissions cuts from being signed and instituted there and instead argues for ending the 20 year push at the UN for a binding treaty to reduce CO2 emissions and instead pushes through a climate treaty in Paris in 2016 based on voluntary participation.....and just two years later not a single nation on earth is meeting its voluntary target and CO2 emissions are rising rapidly.

Sooooo prise Sooooooo prise.

What a farce. What a waste of time. What a fraud..

Sheeeesh.


Lets make CO2 reductions VOLUNTARY! What could go wrong?

[ROCKMAN]

P - This recalls the initial days of the PA when the Rockman was repeatedly blasted for his post on the matter. The PA essentially required politicians to ask their voters to agree to reduce their economic growth by reducing activities that produced GHG. Or to collectively spend many $trillions on alternative energy sources.

Of course politicians would be more then eager to throw themselves on that electoral sword. LOL As was said: what could go wrong with that plan. But part of the plan worked: President Obama was reelected and he got crowned the "greenest POTUS in history". It all pairs nicely with his Noble Peace prize that preceded the later escalation of military activity in the ME he ordered.

As it says in that song: "You don't count your money at the table". IOW you collect your goodies and get out of town before your cheating is discovered. LOL.

[Plantagenet]

President Obama was reelected and he got crowned the "greenest POTUS in history". It all pairs nicely with his Noble Peace prize that preceded the later escalation of military activity in the ME he ordered.

As it says in that song: "You don't count your money at the table". IOW you collect your goodies and get out of town before your cheating is discovered. LOL.

Hahahaha! You are so right.

On the war side we are still trying to clean up the mess Obama made in Syria, Libya and Iraq.

And on the climate side the mess clean up hasn't even started yet. It will take at least a decade for the UN to reverse course and abandon the voluntary approach taken in Paris Accords and go back to the original idea of having treaties that actually require reductions in CO2 emissions.

Cheers!

[KaiserJeep]

Just how praytell, can the UN "require" anything? It has no military branch of it's own, so-called "UN troops" are the armed forces of the member nations, and are only present when the national interests of that particular member nation coincide with a UN resolution to send troops.

It would be interesting to see the UN "require" the USA to reduce emissions, even if every other member country voted for such a resolution. The USA is a UN Security Council member and could veto such a resolution. Not to mention that the USA, in addition to being the second greatest carbon emitter after China, is also the major financial support for the UN and provides the majority of troops.

Yeah, that'll work. NOT.

[Plantagenet]

Just how praytell, can the UN "require" anything? It has no military branch of it's own.....

???????

International treaties aren't based on the UN militarily forcing other countries to do things. There are a good number of successful UN international treaties on a wide range of topics. There is no reason there couldn't be a successful UN treaty to reduce global CO2 emissions as well.

IN 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established. In the UNFCCC countries agreed to try to find a solution to global warming. In 1997 the UNFCCC negotiations led to the Kyoto Protocol---a treaty wherein countries agreed to voluntary reductions in CO2 emissions. The plan of the UNFCCC was that the Kyoto Accords would be a "practice" treaty where nations would start the process of trying to reduce their CO2 emissions. The UNFCC then planned for the Kyoto Accords to be followed by a "binding" international treaty wherein countries would commit by treaty to reduce their CO2 emissions, and would be legally "bound" to face sanctions or penalties if they failed to do so. The post-Kyoto treaty was negotiated and settled on in Bali in 2008, and everything was on track to have the world start reducing its CO2 emissions when world leaders gathered in Copenhagen in 2010 to sign it.

But then Obama was elected, and unfortunately he started a diplomatic squabble with the Chinese at the Copenhagen meeting that ultimately derailed the treaty signing. Unfortunately 25 years of slow progressive work by UNFCCC towards a treaty to reduce global CO2 emissions was lost when the international treaty with "binding" commitments was not signed into being in Copenhagen, and Obama directed the US delegation to the UNFCCC to abandon support for the Bali Treaty and instead negotiate a new Treaty Accord based on purely voluntary commitments, essentially repeating the mistakes of the unsuccessful Kyoto Accords of 20 years earlier--.

The USA is a UN Security Council member and could veto such a resolution. Not to mention that the USA, in addition to being the second greatest carbon emitter after China, is also the major financial support for the UN and provides the majority of troops.

Again, you're assuming the US strongly opposes reducing its CO2 emissions and would have to be forced to do so by military action. I don't see it that way. The US under the Bush Administration played a leading role in drafting the Bali treaty, and fully supported its adoption and signing. Yes Obama screwed things up, but he claimed he wanted to fight climate change. And even Trump has said he isn't opposed to participating in a climate change treaty---he just wants it to be fair.

Cheers!

[KaiserJeep]

Actually, I am assuming that Trump and his cronies will not only reverse any progress you perceive, but denounce the treaty as a job-killer.