Skip to content

Cut Emissions? Who, Me?

October 22, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

 image_thumb21

 

The IPCC says we have got to start cutting emissions radically immediately, but the rest of the world is not listening!

 

1) Australia rejects UN call to phase out coal

 

Australia has rejected a call by scientists to phase out coal use by 2050 to prevent the world overshooting targets in the Paris Climate Change agreement with potentially disastrous consequences.
The world’s biggest coal exporter on Tuesday said it would be “irresponsible” to comply with the recommendation by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to stop using coal to generate electricity.
Canberra also reiterated its priority is to cut domestic electricity prices rather than curb greenhouse gas emissions, which have risen for four consecutive years. 
“To say that it [coal] has to be phased out by 2050 is drawing a very long bow,” said Melissa Price, Australia’s environment minister, who previously worked in the mining industry.
“I just don’t know how you could say by 2050 that you’re not going to have the technology that’s going to enable good, clean technology when it comes to coal. That would be irresponsible of us.”

https://www.ft.com/content/326d7228-cb83-11e8-b276-b9069bde0956 

 

2)  Japan Will Defy Calls By The IPCC To Phase Out Coal By Mid Century

Japan’s ambassador to Australia has confirmed Tokyo will defy calls by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to phase out coal by mid-century as part of a scientific appeal to limit global temperature increases to 1.5C.

Sumio Kusaka told The Australian that Japan would consider “all practical ways to further advance decarbonisation” but would need to bolster coal supply in the ­immediate future. He said Japanese plans to ­reduce reliance on fossil fuels in line with its international commitments would see a greater focus on nuclear energy, a form of power prohibited in Australia since 1998.

In recent weeks, Tony Abbott and Ziggy ­Swit­kowski, former chair of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, have called for the prohibition on nuclear power to be lifted to provide for the arrival of small modular reactors that can power towns of 100,000 people.

“I am aware the recent IPCC report contains some firm recommendations in relation to coal,” Mr Kusaka told The Australian.

“However, Japan is a country with very limited resources of its own, and bearing in mind our energy ­security requirements, it would be difficult for us to eliminate coal- fired power altogether.

“With a view to 2050, we are also considering all practical ways to further advance decarbonisation. In relation to this, some of the technologies we are looking at include renewable energy, ­nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage.’’

Mr Kusaka said Tokyo would continue to buy coal from Australia to secure its energy needs into the future. Japan was the largest importer of Australian thermal coal last year.

https://www.thegwpf.com/japan-will-defy-calls-by-the-ipcc-to-phase-out-coal-by-mid-century/

3) China To Speed Up End Of Green Energy Subsidies

SHANGHAI (Reuters) – China will speed up efforts to ensure its wind and solar power sectors can compete without subsidies and achieve “grid price parity” with traditional energy sources like coal, according to new draft guidelines issued by the energy regulator.
As it tries to ease its dependence on polluting fossil fuels, China has encouraged renewable manufacturers and developers to drive down costs through technological innovations and economies of scale.
The country aims to phase out power generation subsidies, which have become an increasing burden on the state.
The guidelines said some regions with cost and market advantages had already “basically achieved price parity” with clean coal-fired power and no longer required subsidies, and others should learn from their experiences.
They also urged local transmission grid companies to provide more support for subsidy-free projects and ensure they have the capacity to distribute all the power generated by wind and solar plants…
China’s solar sector is still reeling from a decision to cut subsidies and cap new capacity at 30 gigawatts (GW) this year, down from a record 53 GW in 2017, with the government concerned about overcapacity and a growing subsidy backlog. 
According to the NEA, the government owed around 120 billion yuan ($17.46 billion) in subsidies to solar plants by the middle of this year.

 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-renewables-subsidy/china-to-speed-up-efforts-to-cut-solar-wind-subsidies-draft-guidelines-idUSKCN1LX0HI

4) Germany’s Merkel Promises New Law To Ward Off Diesel Driving Bans (And To Save Her Floundering Government)

BERLIN (Reuters) – German Chancellor Angela Merkel, campaigning for her Christian Democrats (CDU) to retain control of the crucial state of Hesse in next Sunday’s election, promised legislation to ward off the threat of air pollution leading to driving bans.
Speaking at a news conference on Sunday evening, Merkel said it would be disproportionate to ban dirty diesel cars from the road in places like Frankfurt, Hesse’s largest city, where nitrogen emissions limits were only marginally exceeded.
Following her allies’ disastrous showing in Bavaria’s regional elections last week, Merkel faces murmurs of dissent within her party. Defeat in the state to the resurgent Greens could prove fatal to her premiership.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-emissions-merkel/germanys-merkel-promises-legislation-to-ward-off-diesel-driving-bans-idUSKCN1MV0T5

31 Comments
  1. Doug Proctor permalink
    October 22, 2018 6:06 pm

    At what point do direct negations of the IPCC’s “recommendations” i.e. instructions, by the major countries lead to the end of the IPCC?

    Every person responsible for the IPCC reports is a salaried citizen of some country, subject to that country’s leadership’s irritations. A company bureaucrat can only survive causing trouble for his company’s CEO for so long. How long for the IPCC mandarins?

    • Snowleopard permalink
      October 23, 2018 3:10 am

      “At what point do direct negations of the IPCC’s “recommendations” i.e. instructions, by the major countries lead to the end of the IPCC?”

      Your guess is as good as mine.

      It would have happened already if not for the massive funds supporting the AGW lie coming from the Rockefeller and Rothschild groups of families and their controlled foundations etc. Their ownership, control and influence over most of the major media and political parties leadership (worldwide) slows popular reactions they don’t like. They ARE losing though, and when they finally throw in the towel, the change in public perception will be quite rapid. Do not be surprised if they then agitate for the same sort of “global governance” to combat global cooling. That may be more dangerous, as global cooling is an actual rather than imaginary threat

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        October 23, 2018 12:09 pm

        The question that has always puzzled me is what these institutions stand to gain from their “investment” in the global warming scam. Very few of them seem at first sight to have much in common with the environmental movement or its aims.

        As for global cooling, I keep my fingers crossed that we have all got our fingers so badly burned with global warming that that horse won’t even leave the starting stalls. At least in terms of “doing something about it” at exorbitant cost.

  2. Stonyground permalink
    October 22, 2018 6:09 pm

    Could it really be true that the politicians are finally waking up to the fact that no one believes the lies of the IPCC anymore and that spending taxpayers money on renewable crap is electoral suicide? The latest IPCC report is so utterly ridiculous that they have lost credibility with even the faithful. I’ve been expecting the bubble to burst ever since the Climategate thing happened, surely it has to happen eventually. Then we can all feel smug.

    • keith permalink
      October 22, 2018 7:22 pm

      Except the UK Government who want to go hell leather to zero emissions, and sod that it will kill the Country.

      • HotScot permalink
        October 22, 2018 8:41 pm

        keith

        Our British Government have a cunning device not one other country can wield quite as effectively as them.

        When every other country has stealthily (Mr. Trump not so stealthily) slunk away from the Paris accord (the damn cowards!), leaving the UK and the IPCC standing together, alone, the UK will strike and deliver……’Kneejerk’.

        Then our government will crow ‘Kneejerk’ delivered the fatal blow to the foundering IPCC and the MSM (the guardian [spit], if it still exists) will announce a resounding victory for the UK on the international climate stage and announce itself as always having been in the forefront of climate scepticism.

        The country will dissolve, once again, into political turmoil and Whithall will find ways of spending taxpayers money at the rate of £11 Bn a year more effectively, doubtless to combat global cooling.

        You must realise, there is no end to the worlds first democratic parliamentary system (something like that) creating new and novel ways to spent taxpayers money.

        That’s, after all, what it’s for. Isn’t it?

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        October 22, 2018 9:32 pm

        Hotscot: The only ‘kneejerk’ I’d like to see is the one in the groin of the Green-keeper who drips his poison in the ear of Perry (assumes that she would be reasonable in the absence of such drip).

      • George Lawson permalink
        October 22, 2018 10:24 pm

        The UK Government will surely follow suit shortly and wake up to the fact that the IPCC is a ridiculous scaremongering, lying and expensive body that has now lost all credibility. It, together with its parent body, should be wound up at the earliest opportunity, and allow the world to return to normality, following too many years of lying scientists pedalling their false scaremongering to gullible governments across the world. Sadly, the British government is the world leader in buying into the hoax hook line and sinker.

  3. Broadlands permalink
    October 22, 2018 6:57 pm

    “The IPCC says we have got to start cutting emissions radically immediately, but the rest of the world is not listening!”

    How can anybody listen to those who want it all done in the next 12-20 years? Cutting emissions does not lower CO2 back to Dr. Hansen’s 350 ppm. That will take many more hundreds of years…even if it was possible.

    • keith permalink
      October 22, 2018 7:27 pm

      Oh no, the UK Government doesn’t believe that. They just want to shut everything down. But then they are just a bunch of Muppets who cannot even get Brexit right.

  4. MrGrimNasty permalink
    October 22, 2018 7:18 pm

    Also Canada is backing away from/watering down Carbon tax I seem to recall reading.

  5. John Scott permalink
    October 22, 2018 7:30 pm

    How could our virtue signalling politicians possibly even think about committing economic hari-kari on their nations on the basis of six so called climate scients of the 95 members of the IPCC. No politician seems to have addressed the schizm between the political ambitions of the IPCC, to redistribute the West wealth to the rest of the world, while saying the exercise has nothing to do with Global Warming and the money grubbing parasite scientists corrupting base data to prove that AGW is caused by CO2 and the only answer is to decarbonize the world economy.

  6. October 22, 2018 8:25 pm

    I’m hoping for a really cold winter so that I can massively increase my CO2 emissions.

    • HotScot permalink
      October 22, 2018 9:37 pm

      Phillip Bratby

      Have you seen my electricity and gas bills???!!!!

      No thanks, I’ll take global warming any day!

      Tragically, global cooling is what sceptics don’t want, but need, to prove the insane alarmists wrong!

      The whole concept is utterly insane!

      I think I need some more !!!!!!! but doubtless the electricity required to generate them will drive me to bankruptcy!…..Ooops!……Damn!….Bollox!……Not another one, they are self generating!!!!!…………STOP!

      • Gerry, England permalink
        October 23, 2018 1:48 pm

        So nice to light the fire and snuggle up on the sofa and add some nice particulates to the atmosphere.

  7. Coeur de Lion permalink
    October 23, 2018 10:00 am

    And the ludicrous Church of England Synod has decided to disinvest in fossil fuels thereby joining a very unsavoury mob, damaging their pensioners, and keeping the world’s poor cooking on twigs and dung. But I will still contribute to the Food Bank.

  8. October 23, 2018 10:17 am

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    How many more years must this empty charade limp on for, before the plug is finally pulled?

  9. Ian permalink
    October 23, 2018 10:17 am

    Don’t worry, especially people in the north of the UK:

    http://communicatoremail.com/In/207408015/0/E637B9yuLVlT09UbjcJ3FiW22iQ0q8FqAyi3jRNq5Lq/

    Having destroyed dedent jobs and energy security in the name of climate change action, we’re going to see them replaced by new, green jobs. Aren’t we lucky?

    • Russ Wood permalink
      October 24, 2018 2:23 pm

      Do ‘green’ jobs include scraping the snow off the solar panels, or de-icing wind turbine blades? Seasonal, but still ‘green jobs’.

  10. October 23, 2018 10:31 am

    Who knows how to send a copy of this masterpiece of common sense to all of our benighted ministers and MP’s ? Please tell me how, if you know ? Thanks.

  11. October 23, 2018 11:50 am

    Maybe these countries know by now that the IPCC 1.5C carbon budget is statistical fiction.

    Please see
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/tcr-transient-climate-response/

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      October 23, 2018 12:25 pm

      The 1.5° was always a fiction. The 2° figure was plucked out of the air by Schellnhuber to please the politicians who like nice neat soundbites that avoid the need to use the brain (think 5-a-day, 21 units a week, BMI below 30, etc,).

      Schellnhuber admitted himself that there was no scientific basis for that figure. And I am still waiting for an answer to the question, “2° above what?” ‘Pre-industrial’ can mean anything — middle of the LIA? middle of the MWP? Neither of which we have any figure for that is near enough accurate to build this edifice on. Will somebody stick their neck out and give us the definitive figure we must not exceed in degrees C?

      And can the rest of us please keep putting them on the spot till they do?

    • Ian permalink
      October 23, 2018 10:47 pm

      This is addressed here. Well worth the time to watch/listen:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/23/climatologist-pat-michaels-on-life-liberty-and-levin/

  12. October 23, 2018 12:21 pm

    Just yesterday, Angela Merkel announced that Germany would be buying Liquid Natural Gas from the US instead of Russia. Last spring, President Trump took her to task for building the pipeline from Russia instead of looking to us, especially as we were footing a lot of the bill for NATO.

    She blinked and announced the building of an LNG terminal. Trump announced it to Texas in the Houston rally last night. They were happy. West Virginia is building 2 pipelines which will bring it to the Norfolk, VA terminals.

    It literally made no sense for Germany and Europe in general to be dependent upon Russia for energy. What a convenient choke-point held by a somewhat hostile country.

    When President Trump publicly removed us from the Paris Climate Accord, he did so with stated reason. By doing so, he gave cover to others to follow suit. It seems as though they have and are.

    While we are on the subject of exporting gas, could we interest you in Dr. Michael Mann?

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      October 23, 2018 1:05 pm

      NO!

  13. MrGrimNasty permalink
    October 23, 2018 1:54 pm

    As we wade through the tsunami of ever increasingly nutty studies on micro plastics – now found in human poo, horror of horrors – will someone like to explain why offshore windmill blade erosion into the air and seas is acceptable then?

  14. October 23, 2018 3:29 pm

    Turn the money taps off and see how quickly ‘scientists’ find something else that interests them

  15. Svend Ferdinandsen permalink
    October 23, 2018 10:26 pm

    Zero emission would mean the CO2 content would fall with 2ppm/year.
    In some hundred years we would achieve Paradise, all of us. A dead Globe and all peoble starved to death. That is a bit exagerated, but think about that half the CO2 content with all the amplifications would mean the temperature shoud drop 3K.

  16. manicbeancounter permalink
    October 24, 2018 1:50 pm

    Paul’s four examples are from four countries that collectively account for less than 40% of global emissions. There are over 190 other countries to consider as well. Spread the net wider and the problem becomes even worse, as many of those countries are likely to see emissions rise over the coming decades proportionately more than even China.
    Take the INDC submissions for COP21 Paris for three populous nations of South Asia, with low current emissions per capita – India. Pakistan and Bangladesh. Their combined total population of 1724 million (1350+208+166) is 23% of the global total, so they cannot be ignored.
    India projected 5% emissions growth from 2015 to 2030, as against 8% GDP growth. That is emissions are projected to more than double.
    Pakistan projects emissions to quadruple from 2015 to 2030. But with $40 billion in aid it will be just 3.2 times higher. That is compound growth of 9.7% reduced to 8.0% with aid.
    Bangladesh is a bit vague, but commits to keeping its GHG emissions per capita below those of the developing country average. In 2012 Bangladesh’s GHG emissions per capita were less than a quarter that of the developing country average. Given the developing country average is likely to increase for decades and that Bangladesh’s population is still growing, it will not be very difficult to keep to this commitment.

    http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Submission%20Pages/Submissions.aspx

    Given that the 1.5C objective is to reduce global emissions to zero by 2040, I am sure that Bob Ward has been seeking the same media exposure in these countries as he gets here to spread the message.

  17. George Letkiewicz permalink
    October 24, 2018 5:13 pm

    Obama, Kerry, Sanders, Brown, Nye, Tyson, Hansen should not stand for this. They know it is the biggest threat to the planet.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: