[Tanada]

In a global capitalist economy where there is no conservation, where a global population with 85 pct not part of the middle class want to become part of the same, where the remaining 15 pct are counting on the rest to become part of the middle class in order to earn, where 60 pct lack one or more basic needs, where much of manufacturing and mechanized agriculture heavily dependent on oil, and where a financial elite has control of much of money supply and only want more production and consumption of goods to keep the value of money propped up, it is likely that emissions will continue to increase.

Until it can't. Every bubble eventually collapses and some outright burst leaving only scrap behind. Global fiat currency is the biggest bubble humanity has ever manufactured. From time to time many countries have had their fiat currency inflated until it lost value, but this time around its not one or two countries. The USA and all the currencies tied to the USA dollar are being pumped like mad to keep the economy staggering along, but such a system never lasts forever. I am honestly surprised that we have managed to print this much money this fast without popping the bubble. I don't know what will finally pop the bubble, but I know sooner or later something will.

[ROCKMAN]

Tanada – “I am honestly surprised that we have managed to print this much money this fast without popping the bubble.”. I’ve wondered about that also. I understand enough global economics to follow the discussions but that’s about it. But I wonder if we’ve reached a point where the govts and global financial institutions have developed a “don’t pop my bubble and I won’t pop yours” philosophy. I’ve seen many folks vehemently argue “the system” can’t maintain this process. But what if the system will do whatever it can to hold to BAU? Kinda like lying about lying…works OK until someone starts telling the truth. And if a few bursting bubbles lead to a global bubble burst? Might be many times worse than individual pops. I’ve seen a number of folks that argue Japan had eventually done itself more damage by supporting their system then if they had just taken that initial big hit.

[SeaGypsy]

If the money printed had been flowing right through the system, inflating everything right down to menial wages- things would be different- but they haven't. The money is being concentrated in corporations, banks and the top few percentile. (Who are putting it where it still grows- increasingly offshore)

[ROCKMAN]

SG - Good point. I'm envisioning a closed loop system. Those in the inner circle continue to support each other because each needs the support of the others in the circle. Sorta like the old joke of the blonde terrorist holding a gun to her head and saying: “Don’t move or I'll shoot". Maybe that explains the relatively slow economy despite the amount injected into it: most of the world isn’t in that circle and thus those gains are invisible to them. Each of TPTB are in a big circle holding a gun to each other’s head and saying: “Don’t stop or I’ll shoot”.

[Tanada]

If the money printed had been flowing right through the system, inflating everything right down to menial wages- things would be different- but they haven't. The money is being concentrated in corporations, banks and the top few percentile. (Who are putting it where it still grows- increasingly offshore)

There in lies the rub. Wages have been stagnant for several years now in everything but a few select career fields, but at the same time fossil fuel costs have not been stagnant. Petroleum is averaging over $100.00/bbl when you look at all the oil consumed by the world every day. In 2007 the average oil price was $64.20 and people thought that was crazy. When the housing bubble popped in 2008 the price fell by half, but only for the end of 2008 and start of 2009. Since then we have had a steady increase in Oil price year over year. I got a 3% raise in 2008 because it was contracted and they couldn't get out of it, but it was effectively the last raise I ever got. Sure I got token, and I do mean token raises in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. I don't believe any of them exceeded 1% and most were .05% or less. At the same time my taxes went up, my fuel expenses went up, my maintenance expenses went up. I am far from the only one in the USA who was losing ground in the last five years, if anything the situation has become chronic. How long will this keep happening before there is a break down in peoples ability to prop up BAU for the elites? I am fortunate to have a spouse making good income, not everyone is so lucky.

[cephalotus]

Germany isn't "leading the world."

we lack an efficient climate policy, that's true and so I doubt that we should suit as a role model. I do not know any country with an efficient climate policy.

Germany is building more coal-fired power plants---while building coal-fired power plants may help the climate according to your twisted logic, most scientists believe that building more coal-fired power plants with their huge CO2 emissions is absolutely the worst possible thing Germany could be doing.

We are shutting down plants and we are building some more. Not efficient climate policy, but far from "doing the worst" either.

Instead of locking at small parts have look at the whole picture.

here are the CO2 emissions of Germany, US and China compared:




And this is the coal consumption of the three country:



that's already including switching of 8 out of 17 nuclear reactors in 2011

Why not face facts? No single country can reduce global CO2 emissions by itself.

Of course. If we leave our coal and gas in the ground nobody else will burn it. If we do not burn our gas imported from rissia someone else will be able to burn it sooner or later, this is true.

What is needed is a GLOBAL climate change treaty to reduce CO2 emissions, because it is a GLOBAL problem. Countries like Germany and China need to be brought under an international climate treaty to convince them to stop acting like climate criminals and force them to stop building new coal-fired power plants.

Ähm, someone from the US is telling China and Germany to start action on a global CO2 cap??? Hello??? What about a reality check??? It's mainly the US why the world does not have any global climate policy.
You know, the American way of life is not negotiable... Stuff like that...

... in the big polluters like Germany and China who are still building new coal-fired power plant after coal-fired power plant so they can shamelessly dump their CO2 in the atmosphere to F-up the whole planet's climate.

What does count is the emission per country or per head. How the singly country uses this emissions is in their own...

And stop blaming it on other countries, that's nothing but cynical when your emission per capita is two to three times ahead compared to Japan, Europe or China.

Btw, this is one reason why Germany currently is not so interested in efficient climate policy. It's nonsense as long as the US and China go ahead as they do. We have to transform our energy sector anyway, depending heavily on imports, so we decided to put priority in reducing imports, minimizing risks and costs (phasing out nuclear) and developing technologies to export in the future. If it reduces CO2 emissions, that's fine.
If the world can get together to negotiate a climate roadmap for every country we will be among the first to sign in (as we did in the Kyoto protocol or for the 20/20/20 targets of the EU).
But it's the US that has to move first, noone else. Because it's the US that has a history of ignoring any climate actions. After the US comes China / EU / Japan, after those India, Russia, Brazil, OPEC and then the rest...

If the US has no interest in an effective global climate policy (and you don't have shown any interest so far) nonone else will go ahead. Simple as that.

Isn't it how you like it, when the world walks in your steps?

We will do our own, because changing the energy mix is in our own interest. But as long as the US is not showing any will in reducing their ridiculous high CO2 output noone else will do.

Germany will survive a +4K world.

we already have several politicians that argue that putting money on climate adoption will serve us much better than putting money at CO2 reduction, which doesn't help us anyway...

[cephalotus]

Germany is shutting down nukes (which keep the lights on and release zero CO2) and building coal-fired power plants to replace them. The net result is a huge INCREASE in German CO2 production.

Here is your "huge increase": We switched of 8 nuclear plants in March 2011



Keep in mind that in 2012 our electricity exports( sic!) hit an all time record and that this year was quite cold.

[ralfy]

Until it can't. Every bubble eventually collapses and some outright burst leaving only scrap behind. Global fiat currency is the biggest bubble humanity has ever manufactured. From time to time many countries have had their fiat currency inflated until it lost value, but this time around its not one or two countries. The USA and all the currencies tied to the USA dollar are being pumped like mad to keep the economy staggering along, but such a system never lasts forever. I am honestly surprised that we have managed to print this much money this fast without popping the bubble. I don't know what will finally pop the bubble, but I know sooner or later something will.

Keep in mind that there are several asset bubbles forming:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/ ... arket.html

But basic needs remain, and with that resource requirements to meet those needs. The implication is that what will ultimately not allow the rise of a global middle class won't be bubbles popping but biocapacity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _footprint

coupled with the long-term effects of global warming and environmental damage.

[ralfy]

There in lies the rub. Wages have been stagnant for several years now in everything but a few select career fields, but at the same time fossil fuel costs have not been stagnant. Petroleum is averaging over $100.00/bbl when you look at all the oil consumed by the world every day. In 2007 the average oil price was $64.20 and people thought that was crazy. When the housing bubble popped in 2008 the price fell by half, but only for the end of 2008 and start of 2009. Since then we have had a steady increase in Oil price year over year. I got a 3% raise in 2008 because it was contracted and they couldn't get out of it, but it was effectively the last raise I ever got. Sure I got token, and I do mean token raises in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. I don't believe any of them exceeded 1% and most were .05% or less. At the same time my taxes went up, my fuel expenses went up, my maintenance expenses went up. I am far from the only one in the USA who was losing ground in the last five years, if anything the situation has become chronic. How long will this keep happening before there is a break down in peoples ability to prop up BAU for the elites? I am fortunate to have a spouse making good income, not everyone is so lucky.

FWIW, oil and energy consumption (including per capita) have been rising for the rest of the world even with higher oil prices.

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/pe ... e-problem/

Ultimately, consumption will drop because of peak oil, but I think problems involving the climate and environmental damage will remain.

[kublikhan]

If the US has no interest in an effective global climate policy (and you don't have shown any interest so far) nonone else will go ahead. Simple as that.

Isn't it how you like it, when the world walks in your steps?

We will do our own, because changing the energy mix is in our own interest. But as long as the US is not showing any will in reducing their ridiculous high CO2 output noone else will do.

The US has led the world in co2 emission reductions, even absent a climate policy. China's increase in Co2 emissions has completely dwarfed US efforts at reducing emissions. They are almost up to double the US's co2 emissions(5.2 vs 9 billion tons). The US has made radical progress in the last few years in reducing it's coal power fleet. Meanwhile China has radically expanded it's coal power fleet. We really need China onboard if we are to make real progress on the co2 front.

In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years. Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide.

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming. "There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources"

Government and industry experts said the biggest surprise is how quickly the electric industry turned away from coal. In 2005, coal was used to produce about half of all the electricity generated in the U.S. The Energy Information Agency said that fell to 34 percent in March, the lowest level since it began keeping records nearly 40 years ago.

Coal and energy use are still growing rapidly in other countries, particularly China, and CO2 levels globally are rising, not falling.

The International Energy Agency said the U.S. has cut carbon dioxide emissions more than any other country over the last six years. Total U.S. carbon emissions from energy consumption peaked at about 6 billion metric tons in 2007. Projections for this year are around 5.2 billion.

China's emissions were estimated to be about 9 billion tons in 2011, accounting for about 29 percent of the global total. The U.S. accounted for approximately 16 percent.

Mann called it "ironic" that the shift from coal to gas has helped bring the U.S. closer to meeting some of the greenhouse gas targets in the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming, which the United States never ratified. "The trend is good. We like it. We are pleased that we're shifting away from one of the dirtiest sources to one that's much cleaner," said Janice Nolen, an American Lung Association spokeswoman. "It's been a real surprise to see this kind of shift."

Bentek says that power companies plan to retire 175 coal-fired plants over the next five years. That could bring coal's CO2 emissions down to 1980 levels.

CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low

[Plantagenet]

We switched of 8 nuclear plants in March 2011

Yes.

The coal-fired power plants that Germany built to replace them are opening now.

Coal-fired electrical power plants release much more CO2 then nuclear electrical power plants.

[cephalotus]

The US has led the world in co2 emission reductions, even absent a climate policy.

please explain this to me. Your emissions today are much higher than they have been in 1990 and your per capita emissions are much higher than those from average European countries, Japan or China.
Currently you can hide behind Qatar, which has higher per capita emissions than you.

And this is from a country with a huge trade deficit and therefore lots of CO2 emissions you have just dislocated to other parts of the world but belong to your own consumption habit.

China's increase in Co2 emissions has completely dwarfed US efforts at reducing emissions. They are almost up to double the US's co2 emissions(5.2 vs 9 billion tons).

Don't try to hide behind China. They have much more people than you and they have a right to develop their country. It's the US who has to make the first step.

The US has made radical progress in the last few years in reducing it's coal power fleet.

You are using coal in your power fleet because natural gas is cheaper at the moment. There is no "progress"... If coal will be cheaper than gas you will just switch back again. This has nothing to do with climate policy, don't hide behind it.
there ARE example of US climate policy, i.e. emission limits to the car fleet that you can use as an example, but don't call me stupid and tell me that switching from coal to gas has anything to do with CO2.

Btw, afaik the climate effect of shale gas is still unknown, some say that the leakage of methane can be as high as 5-105. I'm not expert on this and will not call that a fact.

But what you do with fracking is not reducing CO2 to the atmosphere, but putting a new CO2 source into the game. As long as you don't leave your own coal or tar sands, etc... in the ground al the shale gas is an additional(!) CO2.

If the world will avoid climate change, lost of our fossil fuel have to stay in the ground. Only the known conventional and cheap reserves of oil and gas will produce enough CO2 for a +4K warming (+/-).
Any coal, shale gas, deep sea oil, tar sands, etc is ADDITIONAL to that.

The US is one of the main driver in exploring unconventional resources.

Why? Even with the conventional resources and coal the world will get unliveable hot. Do you think that we should use Canadian tar sands and American shale gas and deep sea oil instead of easy oil and gas from Saudi Arabia or Russia?
Why? It make zero sense from any environmental viewpoint.

Meanwhile China has radically expanded it's coal power fleet. We really need China onboard if we are to make real progress on the co2 front.

we need them on board, this is right. Bit its the US which is blocking. NOBODY expect China to make the first big step, why should they?
It either the US or nobody.

...In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years...

This sounds better than it is. In reality its absurdly high and it's not from sustainable forces...

If it would be a sustainable development, why don't you accept binding international laws on CO2 reduction with the option of heavy financial punishment for those that do not reach the targets negotiated.

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide.

And if the shale gas boom is over and gas gets more expensive you will switch back to burning coal again.

You are celebrating and "achievement" that is just based on a side effect.

You really want to stop climate change???

This is a mode to keep the chance of a +2K world at 50%/50%.

It calculates a leftover budget of 550 bil. tonnes of CO2.

If you give every person on the world the same amount of CO2 to emit (no matter how much they emitted in the past) you will get the following situation:

group 1 countries are like Europe or Japan, the US does not even fit on that scale!!!

group 2 is like China

group 3 like India

If you have a CO2 trading system you could buy emissions from poor countries and use them as your own. Including huge CO2 tradings gives us the thick line.



In my opinion this is impossible to achieve for group 1 countries like those in Europe or Japan.

we don't even have to talk about the US, because your are already so far outside any sustainability that a "fair" model incl. the US is completely impossible if you want to achieve +2K.

you switched of some of your coal power plants because your fracking gas is cheaper? So what? You will switch back as soon as the numbers change. Meanwhile yo are selling your coal to others. Reduce your emissions by 50% and we are talking about European level and we do still waste HUGE amounts of energy. Reduce them by 90%(!) or at least show plans to do so by 2020 (or by 2030 and paying India & Co for their emissions!) and than you can start to talk to me about sustainability.

I doubt that this has _any_ realistic chance.

So tell me, what are the US plans for a +2K world?

Bomb the entire planet with nuclear warheads and hope for nuclear winter?

Maybe you have plans for a +4K world? How would you achieve this? Surely not with deep sea drilling, fracking and tar sands...

The chance to stop climate change has already been lost some years ago. It's to late. we now seam to have the just between very bad or catastrophic climate change, but the data about a +4K world and beyond are very insecure. Our oceans will get acid anyway.

[cephalotus]

The coal-fired power plants that Germany built to replace them are opening now.

If we switched of our nuclear reactors in 2011 and replace them with coal power plants "now", how do you explain that Germany has had record electricity exports in 2012?

Don't try to educate me on the German power plants, because the topic is much more complex. I doubt that explaining the complexity (incl. the relevance of cheap hard coal, low CO2 prices and the EEG system on the merit order of gas and coal plants) has any relevance to this thread except that you like to use a few new coal power plants in Germany (that mostly replace old ones btw) to hide your huge own CO2 juggernaut behind it.

In the end the argument also is nonsense. Sure the pipe emissions of coal power plant is worse than gas power plant, that's trivial and not even worth discussing (starting at the well could be another story using fracking gas), but in the end the CO2 emission per capita is the relevant number that counts and while Germany has at least made some emission reductions since 1970, the US hasn't. You have a small tiny drop down from your HUGE emissions during the last 2-3 years to still huge emissions and you are celebrating this as a climate policy?

Do you think that the rest of the world is stupid?

I'm happily willing to keep our lignite in the ground if the US/Canada keeps the deep sea oil, the shale gas and oil, the tar sands and the coal in the ground. We already decided to keep our hard coal and our shale gas in the ground (for other reasons than climate change, so I do not expect any applause on that, as I said Germany does not make any efficient climate policy, no country in the world does)

If we want to keep the temperature below +4K we are only allowed to burn the easy and cheap conventional oil and gas, but no coal and no unconventional resources.

Keeping the temperature below +2K is impossible now (expect a global disaster)

I'm sure that the US is not willing to negotiate burning their own resources and this is why here will NEVER be an effective climate protocol with the US.
In contrast to people from Japan, Europe or China common US people are not used to the concept of limited resources and not willing to even thin about limits.

More than 50% of the American people (voters) do not even believe that their is anthropogenic climate change.

From a German viewpoint:

We should develop renewables, we should pay the higher prices that comes with it (for now), we should try to become less dependent on imports and we should put lots of money in climate adoption.
Most likely a +4K world will harm us, but will not doom us. We will still have green forests, we will still be able to walk outside during hot summer days, we most likely will not get huge hurricans and tornados, maybe some burning forests, maybe we have to adopt to dry farming concepts in the northeast, most likely we will have to prepare for bigger floods and so on.
I don't think that we should burn our coal, and think that we should keep it for making raw materials out of it in a time when oil will be scarce.
I think that we should reduce our emissions to 2t CO2e/capita and I'm willing to pay for that. Just to show that it can be done.

But negotiating a climate protocol now? Why?
Because some people in the US tell us how great they are with their 18t CO2e/capita emission?

We may be quite irrelevant, but we are not stupid.

Show me an American path to 2t CO2/capita incl. the political agenda for the next decades and I'm showing you ours (amazingly our government has made this goal for 2050, but I doubt that we will achieve it)

You have a two party system and both parties are big supporters of burning everything they can get their hands on, no matter how dirty, risky and polluting it might be. You have built and finance an army so far ahead of any other to be able not only to burn your own resources but get your hand on those resources that do not belong to you and you are willing to fight wars to get them, no matter the cost.

You have a population that does not even believe that there is a threat because of climate change, but believe that you are gods own country and that it is your right to do what you want. Negotiating is for others, but not for an US American. You are celebrating your "achievements" instead of hiding in shame on that topic.

I believe in a global climate policy if the US make a significant(!) contribution and currently this is so far from reality as peace in world.

Today we had the first hot summer day this year. Wasn't so bad leaving office early and having a bath. We expect high frequency of "super hot summers" like summer 2003 (relative to our normal summers of course) as soon as 2040.
I hope/assume that I'm still alive then and I assume that I/we will be able to adopt to a hotter world.

Other countries? I don't know...

Peak oil? Maybe peak water is a much higher threat to most?

Who will be to blame?

[kublikhan]

Whoa there cephalotus! I think you need to tone it down a few notches. You can make your point without all of the hostility. It's doubly bad when you are all fired up about a position when you are completely off base.

First off, I never said you were stupid. I said flat out, the us achieved its co2 reductions without a climate policy. See:

The US has led the world in co2 emission reductions, even absent a climate policy.

I never intended to imply that the US has some great internal co2 policy driving it's co2 reductions. I even bolded the section of the article talking about market forces driving the change. See:

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming. "There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources"

There is more than one way to skin a cat. The end result of achieving co2 reductions is the most important goal here, wouldn't you say? I think that making alternative, low to zero co2 power producing technologies affordable is another way to fight co2 emissions. Yes, this is a different approach than a global coordinated policy, more like a bottom up approach instead of top down. That doesn't mean that it is some type of fairy land approach that does not exist in reality. The reality has shown that this approach is actually producing GREATER results than the "can't we all just get along?" approach.

Secondly, your speculation that as soon as natural gas prices rise, we will switchback to coal. This misses out on another development in the US: there are new environmental regulations in the US that makes building coal power plants difficult. Note that it was not that easy to build new coal power plants in the US to begin with. That's because clean air laws require new plants to have expensive scrubbers that scrub out pollutants like co2. Exceptions were made to the clean air act for existing co2 coal plants. It was thought that these older plants would simply be upgraded to cleaner technology. However power producers found that if they did that, they would have to spend a pretty penny on new pollution control technology and so simply decided to simply keep these older plants running. These old, legacy coal plants are responsible for a vastly oversized share of US carbon emissions. Because they are so old, they are very inefficient as well. Now with low gas prices combined with new clean air laws, it is these old dinosaur plants that are the ones being shut down. However, even if natural gas prices rise, these new EPA regulations will still make building new coal plants an expensive proposition. Both the coal industry and the EIA do not share your prediction that there will be a massive switchover back to coal once natural gas prices rise. They feel the new regulations will hinder the progress of the coal power industry. I am inclined to side with the EIA and coal industry on this one and call bollocks on your prediction cephalotus. Sure there will be some expansion of coal power, but that will come from cleaner, more efficient plants that produce more power with less co2 emissions. And gone are the days when the US generated 50% of it's power from coal. Maybe we might get back up to 40%.

The coal industry may be catching a break, as coal-fired power generation has been on the rise due to rising natural gas prices, according to government energy projections. But the industry believes this “coal renaissance” will be short-lived as looming environmental regulations make it impractical to build a coal plant in the U.S. The Energy Information Administration expects that coal will be used to produce 39.1 percent of the country’s total electricity generation in 2013 and 2014, up from 37.4 percent last year. This is due to rising natural gas prices.

Despite the bump in coal-fired power generation, pending environmental regulations could derail coal’s comeback.

“This change, however, will not be a coal renaissance in the electric power sector since new and pending regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will ensure no new coal-fired plants are built and older coal-fired plants will find it uneconomic to continue operating because of increasingly-stringent EPA regulations,” according to the Institute for Energy Research. “Lower‐than‐projected natural gas prices along with the industry’s response to future environmental regulations could cause the coal share of total generation to fall below this forecast,” EIA administrator Adam Sieminski told Congress.

New regulations promulgated by the Obama administration make it uneconomical to build a coal-fired power plant. Plants will have to upgrade their pollution control technology if it makes economic sense, switch to burning natural gas, or shut down.

According to the the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, more than 280 coal-fired generating units are slated to be shut down partly due to stricter EPA regulations. “Regrettably, the number of coal units being forced to close continues to grow,” said Mike Duncan, president and CEO of ACCCE.

Comeback in coal-fired power generation may be short-lived

Reduce your emissions by 50% and we are talking about European level and we do still waste HUGE amounts of energy. Reduce them by 90%(!) or at least show plans to do so by 2020 (or by 2030 and paying India & Co for their emissions!) and than you can start to talk to me about sustainability.

I doubt that this has _any_ realistic chance.

So tell me, what are the US plans for a +2K world?

Bomb the entire planet with nuclear warheads and hope for nuclear winter?

Maybe you have plans for a +4K world? How would you achieve this? Surely not with deep sea drilling, fracking and tar sands...

The chance to stop climate change has already been lost some years ago. It's to late. we now seam to have the just between very bad or catastrophal climate change, but the data about a +4K world and beyond are very unsecure. Our oceans will get acid anyway.

And the world would still be in the position you describe if the US emissions fell by 100% to ZERO. Rising co2 emissions in developing nations would more than offset declining emissions in the US. I am not "hiding" behind China or others by stating this. I am trying to point out your solution seems to me seems akin to plugging fingers in a dam that is springing leaks. Sure, China has a right to develop it's country and burn all the fossil fuels it can get it's hands on. Well, that right is going to drag the climate into the crapper.

[cephalotus]

And the world would still be in the position you describe if the US emissions fell by 100% to ZERO. Rising co2 emissions in developing nations would more than offset declining emissions in the US. I am not "hiding" behind China or others by stating this. I am trying to point out your solution seems to me seems akin to plugging fingers in a dam that is springing leaks. Sure, China has a right to develop it's country and burn all the fossil fuels it can get it's hands on. Well, that right is going to drag the climate into the crapper.

It's much easier for the developing countries to hide behind the US than the US trying to hide behind developing countries for their emissions they MIGHT release in the future.

The developing countries are not even able to put as much CO2 into the atmosphere per capita as the US has already done in the last 100 years. There are not enough fossils fuels left to do so and if we would burn what is available nobody could predict the world we would live in after that.

If the US is not able to understand and accept that they are already the biggest problem no matter because of what you have done during that last years and that is your part to make the first (big!) step then there will be no negotiations on climate change.

Nobody will accept that the US is emitting 20t CO2/ capita or 15t CO2 or 10t CO2 / capita. Tell us about your plans of 2t CO2 / capita soon(!) and MAYBE the developing countries will listen.

International climate policy of the US today looks like:
- we will not stop digging out our coal (including mountain top removal)
- we will use our oil
- we will drill wherever we can
- we will use shale oil and shale gas no matter the environmental impact
- we will use tar sands
- we will use agricultural crops for fuel no matter their environmental impact or any ethical problems
- we use billions to finance an army to take fossil fuels from other regions

to be fair you also brought the world the development of interesting technologies:

- I'm not sure if Tesla will be successful in the long end, but at least they improved the image of the electrical car very significantly. Just the existence of the model S is a driving force also for the German "luxury" car makers which used to say that e-cars are nor sexy and only suitable for smallish cars

- you have been a driving force in solar and wind power 20 years ago.

I'm sure that you will also develop other interesting technologies in the future.

[kublikhan]

cephalotus, it sounds to me like you are more interested in playing the blame game than actually moving forward with solutions from here. I don't think this attitude is productive. It's like saying "You raped the earth for 100 years, now we should be able to do it too!"

Yes, the US has cumulatively released the most co2 emissions. However saying developing nations should now release as much co2 as they want in the name of fairness is shortsighted. We need to deal with the situation we are in now, not point fingers. And by having the developing world sit on their collective thumbs until the US ushers in a new era of fusion energy free of all the nastiness of fossil fuels or whatever utopian nonsense you had in mind is not going to cut it. The US did lower it's co2 emissions by a considerable amount and yet globally co2 is still rising by record amounts.

Developing nations do not need to follow the same model the US followed. Did you know many developing nations have skipped installing the old copper wire phone networks and leapfrogged directly to mobile phone use? Leapfrogging past traditional development stages the US went through saving much time, energy, and capital in the process. And it's not just a simple tech transfer from developed to developing either. Many nations are adding their own unique contributions to the mobile revolution like low cost chargers, mobile payment plans, etc. I am not saying it will be just as easy to do the same with energy and co2. Not even the developed nations have gotten that right yet. But sitting back and saying "you first!" is not going to accomplish anything. We all need to get working tackling this problem, not point fingers.

Cellphone use in the developing world has climbed to nearly 5 billion mobile subscriptions, and three-quarters of the world now has access to mobile networks. This technology is reshaping the way individuals and communities manage their finances, monitor weather, engage with government, and earn a living. “People are going from zero to 60. It is huge to go from no phone at all to a cellphone. The rapid penetration of cellphones in developing countries is changing lives dramatically.”

“The challenge now is to enable people, businesses, and governments in developing countries to develop their own locally relevant mobile applications so they can take full advantage of these opportunities,” said Rachel Kyte, vice president for sustainable development at the World Bank.

Already many mobile innovations, including low-cost recharges and mobile payments, originate in poorer countries and spread from there. As developing countries continue to play a leading role in mobile-device subscription and innovation, the development of mobile applications targeted at rural communities with limited access to health services or banking could gain a broader international reach. And as some applications gain success and are tweaked and replicated, their presence in developed countries could multiply as well.

Developing countries lead the way in deploying mobile technology

In the U.S., the public is bombarded with messages about climate change. One may get the impression that if we only stop the next pipeline and slow down the growth of Canada’s oil sands, we are one step closer to victory. But this is really akin to fighting a small local skirmish while a war rages on the other side of the globe. But the skirmish does not change the outcome of the war.

The graph shows that the growth rate in emissions over the past decade is faster than that of previous decades — indicating carbon dioxide emissions have accelerated in recent years. Prior to 2002, the incremental annual increase had never reached 1 billion new metric tons of carbon dioxide. Since 2002, 1 billion incremental tons have been added three times: In 2003, 2004, and 2010.

In fact, 2010′s addition of 1.58 billion new tons globally is the largest annual increase on record. The incremental increase over the past decade was at least 0.87 billion new tons on 4 other occasions. Only once during the decade — in 2009 in response to recession — was there a measured year-to-year decrease.

One reason I think climate change advocacy has been so ineffective is that most advocates are misinformed about the present mixture of global carbon emissions. global coal consumption is the largest contributor to rising carbon dioxide emissions. Asia Pacific is the source of 45% of global carbon dioxide emissions, and is on a growth trajectory to reach 50% by the end of the decade. In the U.S., coal consumption is on the decline because new supplies of natural gas are displacing coal in power plants. The change has been so dramatic that since 2006, the U.S. is the world leader in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

One question that often comes up concerns the historical U.S. contribution to the atmospheric carbon dioxide inventory. Developing countries will point to historical U.S. emissions and argue that these emissions enabled U.S. development. They don’t believe it is in any way fair to restrict their development since developed countries have already emitted huge quantities of carbon dioxide.

There is truth to this argument. From 1965 through 2011, U.S. cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide were 255 billion metric tons. As a region, Asia Pacific has added even more cumulative carbon dioxide than that since 1965 at 287 billion metric tons. EU countries added another 203 billion tons. But as far as countries go, the U.S. has by far the highest cumulative emissions since 1965. China is in 2nd place at 133 billion tons, but no other country even breaks the 100 billion ton barrier.

While we can acknowledge our historical emissions, and recognize that we still emit a lot of carbon dioxide per person, how exactly does this help the developing world? One answer I sometimes hear is “We have to provide the blueprint.” It is one thing to imagine that developing countries could develop without increasing their use of fossil fuels, but the reality is that even the developed regions have not shown that it can be done. We are so accustomed to our way of life and the high carbon emissions that it entails that we can’t begin to imagine how to show a country that emits 1/10th of what we do how to improve their standard of living without increasing their emissions.

Developing countries seek the same modern conveniences—dishwashers, televisions, computers, and cars—enjoyed by the developed world and which are currently powered mostly by fossil fuels. We can imagine that they can improve their standard of living without increasing their fossil fuel consumption, but what do we have to point to in order to show that it can be done? Even Iceland — which many believe to be a country that is largely running on renewable energy — has carbon dioxide emissions in line with the rest of the EU, and far above those of the developing world.

Conclusion
It is a quandary, and I not only see no easy answer — I see no viable answer period that doesn’t involve shutting down development in developing countries. This is why I am extremely skeptical that carbon emissions will be reined in. I might feel differently if there was not such a wide gap between the developed world and the developing world, but I believe over time that gap will close as the developing world’s emissions continue to increase. Given that overall emissions from the developing world are already much higher than those of the developed world, small increases in the standard of living have the potential to hugely increase global carbon dioxide emissions.

Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions — Facts and Figures

[Plantagenet]

From a German viewpoint:

Most likely a +4K world will harm us, but will not doom us.

Why take the chance?

Its risky for Germany to be gambling with the climate of the earth by INCREASING their CO2 production by building new COAL-FIRED ELECTRICAL PLANTS when the US and much of the rest of the world are trying to close down coal-fired plants because they are absolutely the biggest CO2 polluters you can get.

Germany is a clear example of why the world needs a binding global climate change treaty. Germany (like China) thinks it is so rich and powerful now it can get away with going rogue and building new coal-fired electrical plants and burning coal to save a few pfennigs while polluting the atmosphere and ruining the climate for everyone else on the planet.


We will now burn more coal and emit more CO2, because from a German viewpoint, we think most likely a +4K world will harm us, but will not doom us.

[Graeme]

Wow. I didn't expect this thread to develop as it has with cephalotus passionately arguing the German case. And I have some sympathy for his arguments. He is right. The US is dragging us all down. We don't have a global climate treaty, which the US negotiators have been delaying for years. For example:

The US has been vocally against effective action on climate change due to its reliance upon fossil fuel for its economy. Being a producer of oil and coal, they feel more threatened by action on climate change.

Look at recent developments regarding export of coal from US ports in the NW.

U.S. won’t look at NW coal’s impact on climate

The Army Corps of Engineers announced Tuesday at a congressional hearing that it will not consider the climate effects of burning U.S. coal in Asia as part of its review of proposed coal export terminals in the Pacific Northwest.

The Corps of Engineers’ decision appears to be a setback for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber. In a March letter to the Obama Administration, the two governors sought to have a federal review of climate impacts of coal exports to Asia before approving permits for Northwest export terminals.

In the Pacific Northwest, the coal export terminals have emerged as some of the most controversial industrial development projects of recent decades, generating tens of thousands of public comments to the corps.

In Washington state, terminals are proposed at Longview and Cherry Point, near Bellingham. In Oregon, a smaller terminal at the Port of Morrow would ship coal on barges down the Columbia River and load it onto freighters bound for Asia.
But the decision was questioned by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who said it was “a big mistake.”

“There is not bigger threat to navigable waters than climate change,” Waxman said. “Those impacts will include sea level rise, more intense storms, increased flooding. Those impacts will all adversely impact navigable waters. It is the responsibility of the corps to protect the nation’s navigable waters. The corps cannot meet its responsibilities by ignoring these climate impacts.”

seattletimes

platts

And the Chinese are not happy with Americans from Heartland Institute either.

Chinese science academy slaps down climate-denying Heartland Institute

Well, that was embarrassing.

The Heartland Institute — the right-wing group best known for its Unabomber billboard — recently boasted on a blog about successfully spreading its message of climate denial to the Chinese:


When the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) got wind of Heartland’s blog post, it was not pleased. It put out a statement harshly condemning the post:

The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false. …

Since there is absolutely no ground for the so called CAS endorsement of the report, and the actions by the Heartland Institute went way beyond acceptable academic integrity, we have requested by email to the president of the Heartland Institute that the false news on its website to be removed. We also requested that the Institute issue a public apology to CAS for the misleading statement on the CAS endorsement.

Heartland then offered up a weak non-apology apology and the offending blog post was deleted. Oops.

grist

Ten Nobel Peace laureates have written a letter to President Obama asking him to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. What will he do?

[cephalotus]

Why take the chance?

Because a +2K world is impossible, not matter what we do.

For a +4K world we must keep our lignite in the ground and the US has to keep all the shale gas, shale oil, hard coal and tar sands in the ground.

Is the US willing to do that? I doubt it.

Its risky for Germany to be gambling with the climate of the earth by INCREASING their CO2 production by building new COAL-FIRED ELECTRICAL PLANTS when the US and much of the rest of the world are trying to close down coal-fired plants because they are absolutely the biggest CO2 polluters you can get.

I have already shown you the data and graphs. Afair Germany is the only country within the 10 biggest CO2 producers that has reached the Kyoto goals. As long as we do that why do you care, how we do it?
The US not even signed the Kyoto protocol any your emissions have been rising from an already absurdly high staring point.

Germany is a clear example of why the world needs a binding global climate change treaty.

we have tried that for 20 years and I assume that we still would be one of the first for a new one.

We already have a climate policy that aims for a 80-90% CO2 reduction until 2050 and our starting point is currently around 10t CO2e/person*a.

I expect the US to have a 90-95% CO2 reduction from the current level to an equal level with ours up to 2050 and I want to see a plan how you would do that and we need both Americans parties in agreeing on that plan (the German concept is available to the public and 4 out of 5 parties more or less agree on it.
-90-95% CO2 reduction is EASILY doable in the US because you have much better resources of wind, solar, wind and biomass power in your country than we do have.
If you want to use nuclear, feel free to do so, too.

Even this is not enough for a +2K world, but it could be enough to avoid a +4K world if other countries would also try their best.

The German climate policy is not good and I assume that there are better plans out there (i.e. Sweden), but we are miles ahead of the US. Most countries are miles ahead of the US, even China has a much better climate policy.

Germany (like China) thinks it is so rich and powerful now it can get away with going rogue and building new coal-fired electrical plants and burning coal to save a few pfennigs while polluting the atmosphere and ruining the climate for everyone else on the planet.

I wonder if your really believe that. So far you have non climate policy at all (except maybe for cars, but you are starting at an absurdly high level reagrding CO2 emissions from traffic anyway) or did I miss something?
The last thing I remember about international climate policy was the US and China trying to force the EU to stop a planned CO2 tax on air travel.
THIS is US climate policy.

The only thing why you switch some of your coal fired power plants to gas is, because gas is cheaper _now_. If it gets more expensive again in some years you will switch back again.
So in the end fracking gas will not reduce CO2 emissions, but just add even more to the atmosphere. Fracking gas/oil will make thermogeddon a possible threat, in combination with other unconventional fossil fuels.
The only climate friendly thing about fracking gas you could do would be to leave it in the ground.

On the other side Germany had 61% wind and solar power during 16th June. Of course only for a short moment, but still quite an achievement for an industrial country (btw, many "experts" said that having more than 50% wind+sun in the grid is impossible)

I doubt that we will switch of these renewable power plants and we have the political will to get up to 90% renewables in the electricity sector, independent from any global climate agenda.


PS: Thanks for the very helpful picture on the topic...

You do not need to agree with me, you do not need to believe me.

I just tell you my viewpoint that is quite similar to many people here who do make climate policy. We tried quite hard during the last 20 years to get an international climate policy, we are the only one left from the 10 big Co2 emitters that reached the Kyoto targets (with the help of the collapse of the East German economy, to be fair, but we also had significant improvements after 1995, too)
Germany invested around 100 billion US$ in photovoltaic and wind power, when both have been expensive and triggered (together with other countries) a market that made those technologies an economical option for other countries.
new Photovoltaic is now cheaper than new nuclear in most countries.

We still have our own and very ambitios climate targets for 2020, 2030 and 2050 and are willing to improve them, if the rest of thee world does, too...
I'm sure that we also would be willing to make a fair share of a remaining CO2 cap and we are willing to pay other (poor) countries for their CO2 share, no matter the cost. (A fair share would be in my opinion to give every current living person the same amount of CO2. So for those with high population growths this is their problem, for those with high CO2 consumption now, this is also their problem)

At least I'm willing to do so.
But of course only when other countries will agree.
Do you think that an American will pay lets say 70US$ per t CO2 to India? That's more than 1,000US$/capita and year.
I am willing to do that and I would expect CO2 prices in that range, maybe even higher if we would try to keep temperatures below +4K.

But policy has to accept realities and the reality is, that the US has not interest in climate policy and so the world has no chnace for a climate policy. As simple as that.

So we have to prepare our country not only for peak oil, but also for a hotter world. We would be stupid if we would close our eyes for both problems or believe in a "magic solution" or "god will save us" nonsense...

[cephalotus]

Developing nations do not need to follow the same model the US followed. Did you know many developing nations have skipped installing the old copper wire phone networks and leapfrogged directly to mobile phone use? Leapfrogging past traditional development stages the US went through saving much time, energy, and capital in the process.

The problem is, that this example does not fit.

They decided to use wireless technologies, because it has been the cheaper option.

If you ignore the climate costs coal is cheaper than reneables for China, India & Co. ICE cras are cheaper than electric cars.
That's way developing countries use them.

The situation would be different if you would include climate costs, but the problem is, that you have to pay for the technology alone, bit costs/benefits are shared.

The US must show the will to share the costs and than the developing nations may be willing to pay for the technology

What you want is to keep the American way of life and telling others not to have it because it is bad. But you are not willing to pay for it, but ask others to do so.

This obviously does not work.

We will have international climate policy as soon as the US makes a SIGNIFICANT and believable move (fracking is the opposite). China will follow very soon, they are already way ahead of the US in long term climate policy.
If the US continues what it does now the rest of the world will burn all of the coal, oil and gas, too, as long as there are no cheaper options

Very simple and perfectly understandable.

We have more than 20 people sitting in the same life boat with sharing the same limited resources and the obese guy in the boat wants to have 1/4th of the rations and asks the hungry ones to try fishing instead.