Skip to content

BBC’s Fake GHGs Graph

November 15, 2021
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

For the last few weeks, the BBC has been regularly publishing the above graph from Climate Action Tracker, showing the extra emission reductions resulting from the new NDCs, National Plans, submitted for COP26.

Essentially they estimate a figure of 3.3 to 4.7 GtCO2e for all GHGs. Significantly this means that they will still be much higher than 2010 in 2030. According to the science, they need to be cut by 45% from 2010 levels to stay on track for 1.5C

Curiously however in the last few days, the BBC has dropped the above graph, and replaced with an ostensibly fake one, which claims that the new COP26 pledges will cut emissions by 10.5 GtCO2e, more than double the Climate Tracker numbers, bringing 2030 levels down to 90% of 2010 ones.



The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) is a a highly respected and independent scientific analysis produced by two research organisations tracking climate action since 2009. Its output is transparent and easily verifiable.

The Energy Transitions Commission, in their own words however, is a global coalition of leaders from across the energy landscape working together to accelerate the transition to a zero-emissions future. In other words, lobbyists with a vested interest.

So let’s take a closer look at how the Climate Action numbers stack up.

Global emissions of all GHGs, ie not just CO2, rose from 46.3 to 51.2 GtCO2e between 2010 and 2018, the latest year available.



The UNFCCC reckon that Paris NDCs will lead to an increase on 2010 levels of 13.7% in 2030 – meaning a rise to 52.6 GtCO2e. This is clearly in line with CO2 trends since 2015.

Climate Action Tracker estimate that the new NDCs will cut emissions by 3.3 to 4.7 GtCO2e – say 4.0 Gt, leaving 2030 emissions at 48.6 GtCO2e – compared to the Paris NDCs.

They analyse this below. (Note these are not actual cuts in emissions – merely changes from their Paris NDCs):

Most of the savings come from the US and EU. The rest of the world adds up to little more than 1Gt, barely more than a rounding adjustment.

Even these figures look overoptimistic. The new US plan is for a cut of 50% from 2005 levels by 2030. However the Paris NDC already targeted a cut of 27%. By my reckoning Biden’s new target will only save an extra 1.6 Gt. It is of course a highly optimistic plan, assuming full decarbonisation of power by 2035 and 50% EV sales by 2030. Given that he has not got the tools to do any of this, what could go wrong????

The EU is ramping up emissions cuts from 40% to 55% from 1990 levels, and this adds up to another 0.8Gt.

And that’s about it! There are a few small savings to be added into the total from the UK, Japan, Canada etc, but the rest of the world is clearly going to carry on emitting more and more.

In other words, the EU and US additional emission cuts come to around 2.4 Gt, so where the hell does the Energy Transitions Commission get their 10.5Gt from? There is nothing on their website that attempts to justify this.

The conclusion is pretty clear. The BBC know that the British public won’t accept Net Zero policies if the rest of the world is carrying on with business as usual. By publishing their fake graph, they are hoping to persuade people that the rest of the world is doing its bit, and therefore we must do our share.

  1. November 15, 2021 7:30 pm

    Have they factored in anything for population increase?

    • Jethro Bodean permalink
      November 15, 2021 10:38 pm

      The Covid jab will take care of that.

    • November 16, 2021 10:25 am

      Oh you noticed the 27% increase in the world population during the past 20 years also? Funny it is never talked about unless of course we are dealing with the fraud of history.

  2. November 15, 2021 7:43 pm

    The incredulity in David Shukman’s expression was obvious, when he realised its only people like him who believe the world is about to end.

    They actually believed everybody thought like them, “it was obvious that the world was under threat” but strangely everything is much the same.

    • T Walker permalink
      November 15, 2021 10:39 pm

      Patrick Moore’s latest book – Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.

      Here is Dr. Patrick Moore’s description of his unique thesis as presented in Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.”It dawned on me one day that most of the scare stories in the media today are based on things that are invisible, like CO2 and radiation, or very remote, like polar bears and coral reefs. Thus, the average person cannot observe and verify the truth of these claims for themselves. They must rely on activists, the media, politicians, and scientists – all of whom have a huge financial and/or political interest in the subject – to tell them the truth.

      Dr Moore was of course a founder member of Greenpeace.

      Well worth a read.

      It is obliquely true of things like hurricanes – you can tell people that they are twice as frequent and twice as powerful – even if the opposite is true. When you get a 12 year break without a major hurricane making landfall in the USA, when you then have 3 in a year – see how much worse things are becoming.

      “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

      Joseph Goebbels

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        November 16, 2021 10:41 am

        Goebbels would be in awe of the BBC.

  3. Chilli permalink
    November 15, 2021 8:03 pm

    Do they also have a graph of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin by 2050?

    • November 16, 2021 12:19 pm

      Gee, thanks. I suffered through reading Thomas Aquinas in high school World History AND then again as a college freshman in Humanities course. Lovely reminder.

    • jezburns permalink
      November 16, 2021 7:19 pm

      Their new tactic seems to be to bore potential dissenters into submission with oceans of meaningless figures drawn from fantasy built on fantasy. Lysenko would be jealous.

  4. David Wojick permalink
    November 15, 2021 8:46 pm

    Tracker only counts present NDCs. In the first week of COP26 a bunch of big announcements added a lot of pledges that are not yet in NDC. That is why revisions are now due in 2022 instead of 2025. For example India committed to net zero in 2070 and 100+ countries committed to cutting methane emissions by 30% in 2030.

    IEA estimates that these new pledges limit temp rise to 1.8 degrees which actually hits the Paris target of between 2 and 1.5 degrees. Unfortunately COP26 was actually successful. See my

    We still have a big fight on our hands to stop alarmism. Saying COP26 failed is incorrect so does not help.

  5. Harry Passfield permalink
    November 15, 2021 8:47 pm

    Why no India or Russia in the NDC updates?

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      November 15, 2021 8:49 pm

      Doh! I guess because they have made no changes to their NDCs…

      • David Wojick permalink
        November 15, 2021 9:48 pm

        Next year India should submit a NDC with their 2070 net zero pledge, unless they change their minds.

  6. November 15, 2021 9:37 pm

    So it confirms it. The BBC are merely a climate propaganda organisation, they were forced to pay for. Time to cancel the TV license me thinks.

    • Robert Jones permalink
      November 16, 2021 9:59 am

      You got that right!

  7. Broadlands permalink
    November 15, 2021 9:37 pm

    it should be reiterated that emission CUTS take no CO2 out of the atmosphere to lower the temperature… which is the reason for all of this? That’s why so much has been invested in carbon capture and geological storage, another boondoggle to fleece the public.

    The COP26 pledges are 42 GtCO2. 42,000 million metric tons. A net-zero reduction of about 5 ppm… but impossible to accomplish. And, if done would leave us at 410 ppm. Hardly worth all the time and expense?

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      November 16, 2021 10:39 am

      It’s hogwash. It’s about destroying the economy and controlling the people, not about mild beneficial warming.

  8. It doesn't add up... permalink
    November 16, 2021 12:39 am

    Did we cover the latest Hausfather revelations? It seems that anthropogenic emissions have been seriously overestimated for some time.

    The Global Carbon Project (GCP) substantially revised their best estimate of LUC emissions in their newly released dataset. Rather than a 35% increase in LUC emissions since 2000 – as the data previously showed – the new version has a roughly 35% decrease instead.
    The new updates to global CO2 emissions in the GCP substantially revise scientists’ understanding of global emissions trajectories over the past decade. The new data shows that global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years.

    An immediate implication is that there needs to be an alternative, non anthropogenic explanation for the difference in emissions arising from the revision. We haven’t changed the readings on atmospheric CO2 levels, so it must be the result of some other process. Together with the failure of the reduced level of emissions last year to show up in reduced rates of increase of atmospheric CO2 we are ending up with serious questions about what really controls rising atmospheric CO2 content. The bland assumption that anthropogenic emissions are responsible is now on much shakier ground – in turn undermining the value of attempting to cut them. There is little point in cutting if the balance is controlled by other factors.

  9. It doesn't add up... permalink
    November 16, 2021 12:40 am

    I fear my post hit the spam folder.

  10. Geoffrey Williams permalink
    November 16, 2021 5:36 am

    The BBC lying again . . .

  11. Stephen Lord permalink
    November 16, 2021 8:02 am

    China will pretend to do it’s best to keep us sucked in but will not actually reduce its rate of increase. They will simply lie

  12. Phoenix44 permalink
    November 16, 2021 8:43 am

    The US will get nowhere near that. If Biden somewhere forces significant change, next November will see carnage for the Democrats with the same in 2024. If he doesn’t then they might not. So either way it can’t happen.

    In any event this is pure scientism, the illusion of science using what looks like real numbers and equations.

  13. November 16, 2021 10:19 am

    Paul, There HAS TO BE perspective here. We need to fight the important battles not the noise which the climate industry creates as a smokescreen. The 1.5 degree number is arbitrary. It has no scientific basis whatsoever. This cannot be emphasised enough. It was plucked out of the sky. This point has to be the one to be challenged. It like the none existent case against CO2 is a cornerstone of the house of cards which is the climate fraud. This number was larger until a few years ago when it was changed to up the anti. The absurd claim is that they view the end of the Little Ice Age as a reference point. This number has no empirical basis whatsoever. Repeatedly the climate industry make sweeping claims and assertions and then build cases on those assertions without demonstrating scientific robustness of any kind. Modelling a baseless claim means what exactly?

  14. David Woodcock permalink
    November 16, 2021 11:44 am

    LMAO @ Paul Homewood and his psuedo graph which anyone who’s been observing the mean temperature data over the past few decades can see right through.
    I was wondering how long it would be before someone in the media would have to come out and explain away the end of the fake catastrophic warming trend, as the media cant hide the real temperature vs CO2 data forever. At some point the mismatch between the media’s catastrophic warming myth and the truth that the trend in warming temperatures ended many years ago would have to be explained.
    So along comes Paul Homewood with his graph explaining how temperatures are being capped, purely by switching from fossil fuels by predetermined amounts as if by magic and ‘hey presto’! the temperatures have stopped rising!! The politicians and ideologists will have worked their magic on the thermostat of the Earth just like they said they could.
    However, he has exposed himself and exposed the lie of his pseudo graph because it won’t explain why temperatures stopped rising ahead of COP26 and at the same time atmospheric CO2 levels Ppm continue to rise!
    The psuedo science of Man’s CO2 thermostat will be laid bare for all to witness.

  15. tom0mason permalink
    November 16, 2021 1:06 pm

    Dear BBC,
    So some ‘greenhouse gases’ have risen by some miserably small parts per million — so what!
    All that is happening is the planet is becoming greener, and NOTHING else.
    I hope you’ve included the most important ‘greenhouse gases’, dihydrogen monoxide (aka Hydric acid) in your figures.

    • David V permalink
      November 16, 2021 1:19 pm

      Don’t forget that powerful alkali hydrogen hydroxide.

    • November 16, 2021 1:45 pm

      There was a famous gag performed by Penn and Teller, where they were at a climate change conference (or some such location/event) and started a petition to campaign against “dihydrogen monoxide”. It’s amazing how many delegates fell for it and signed, not realising of course it’s water. Amazingly funny, but also amazingly stupid signatories!

  16. November 17, 2021 9:26 am

    BBC’s latest climate propaganda offering…’reality check’ 🙄

    COP26: The truth behind the new climate change denial
    By Rachel Schraer & Kayleen Devlin
    BBC Reality Check

    Published 8 hours ago

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: