Tim Worstall

Climate Change Again

Looks like there are more problems than at first thought:

The latest study was written by scientists from the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the United States, the University of
East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, as well as institutes in
France and Australia.

It shows that carbon dioxide
emissions have been increasing by three per cent a year this decade,
compared to a 1.1 per cent a year rise in the 1990s. Three quarters of
this rise came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid
increase in China.

It’s that last part that is goingto cause the problem.

Antonio Hill, of Oxfam, said: "G8 counties face two obligations in this
year’s summit – to keep global warming below two degrees and to start
helping poor countries to cope with harm already caused."

Well, yes Antonio, but when it’s no longer the G8 countries powering the growth in CO2, what then? How can they face an obligation for something they have no control over?

In

12 responses

  1. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    “How can they face an obligation for something they have no control over?”
    Tim, don’t be ridiculous. If developing country emissions are rising then all G8 countries would have to do to keep total emissions from growing is cut their own by a similar amount. Considering that our per capita emissions are considerably higher and that there are easily-identified ways of cutting them, this should be (and increasingly is, in fairness) a political priority. By all means let’s try to get developing countries to grow more carbon-efficiently, but painting the G8 as innocent and helpless bystanders is just self-serving guff.
    Tim adds: And, as the Stern Review pointed out, if the UK stopped emitting in total tomorrow, China would fill that gap in just two years.

    Reply
  2. Devil's Kitchen Avatar
    Devil’s Kitchen

    It’s simple: we just invade them and bomb them back to the stone age.
    I can’t see why anyone hasn’t sugested this yet.
    DK

    Reply
  3. Dryden Avatar
    Dryden

    Nuclear carpet bombing isn’t sufficiently environmentally friendly. I suggest we use germ warfare, so that the billions of dead can decay in a suitably updated Political Science carbon neutral way. . . We could even do something useful with the resulting gigacide, such as a film version of the “Death of Grass”.

    Reply
  4. DocBud Avatar
    DocBud

    Increased CO2 emissions correlate to increased economic growth, which is exactly what humankind needs to raise people out of poverty and enable adaptation to any harmful natural variability in the climate, although as a general rule, a warmer planet is a healthier and more productive planet.

    Reply
  5. Stephen Avatar
    Stephen

    Ha, that Jim! Had me going for a minute there. Very funny! You should write for the Independent.

    Reply
  6. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    “as the Stern Review pointed out, if the UK stopped emitting in total tomorrow, China would fill that gap in just two years.”
    Okay, I’ll make it simpler for you. Since China isn’t going to do something for us – ie agree to grow more carbon efficiently – unless we (G8 etc) do something for China – ie cut our own emissions, transfer the requisite technology to them or pay them not to emit more – the idea that we “have no control over” what happens is self-evidently nonsense.

    Reply
  7. Tin Drummer Avatar
    Tin Drummer

    Sorry, Jim, you’re going to have to make it even simpler for me. If the UK reduces its carbon emissions to zero, say, and if that still does not compensate for China’s rapidly increasing emissions, you’re suggesting we need to continually provide them with technology, or even bankrupt ourselves by bribing them, instead of getting them to er, reduce their emissions? Wouldn’t it just be simpler to say “these countries are now the major emitters of CO2 and they should emit less” rather than to hand over massive cheques which they can then use to build more coal power stations with?
    You couldn’t be suggesting, could you, that the UK and the G8 generally need in some way to be punished, instead of looking dispassionately at who is emitting most highly and who is going to need to reduce emissions most in the next 20 or so years?

    Reply
  8. Andrew Duffin Avatar
    Andrew Duffin

    Have the G8 countries really promised to keep global warming below 2 degrees?
    When nobody, least of all politicians, knows the relationship between C02 and temperature rise, which is cause and which is effect, or even whether there is actually any causal connection between the two?
    Have they taken leave of their senses? (rhetorical question, clearly).

    Reply
  9. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    Tin Drummer, I’m not sure I’d be able to make it simple enough for you to get. But you might want to start by looking up the difference between a country’s per capita and total emissions.

    Reply
  10. Tin Drummer Avatar
    Tin Drummer

    Well, thanks for the effort anyway.
    So you think Luxembourg is doing more damage to the earth than China?

    Reply
  11. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    I don’t think Luxembourg’s size gives Luxembourgers a free pass, any more than China’s size means the average Chinese, who I probably have to remind you is much poorer than the average Luxembourger, should be cutting their emissions faster.

    Reply
  12. JuliaM Avatar
    JuliaM

    “You couldn’t be suggesting, could you, that the UK and the G8 generally need in some way to be punished..”
    Hmm, is that what Jim is really getting at…?
    “..the average Chinese, who I probably have to remind you is much poorer than the average Luxembourger…”
    Yes indeed, it woud appear so 😉

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading