The just releasedBP Statistical Review includes an updated historical record of CO2 emissions across the world, through 2013.
While China's CO2 emissions have almost tripled since the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, the U.S. emissions have decreased about 2%.
That U.S. reduction actually is superior to all the world's major regions and entities, as identified by the BP research report. This U.S. reduction (see adjacent chart) took place even though the U.S. was one of the few countries not to sign the 'Protocol.'
With that said, any CO2 emission reduction by the U.S. is being immediately offset by the huge increases happening in other parts of the world. As a result, neither U.S. citizens, nor the world's, are benefiting from any U.S. CO2 reduction efforts.
To make the U.S. CO2 reduction aspirations even more bleak, if America could slash its emissions by 50% for each of the next 85 years, the net impact on global temperatures by 2100AD, at best, might be all of a measly -0.09°C.
That type of impact would require U.S. emissions to drop by some 3 billion metric tonnes per year, which based on today's technology, would likely amount to at least an annual $1 trillion expense (assumes a ludicrously low $400 per tonne cost to immediately replace all the lost fossil fuel utilization, needed new infrastructure, replacement transportation vehicles and g*d knows what else to survive).
Read here. Another incredible example of big government 'green energy' failure. The green idiocy just begets more.
"Department of Energy officials gave a New Hampshire-based biofuel company access to $80 million for a Michigan project that has already fallen short of job creation expectations, despite receiving another $40 million in state and DOE subsidies...“In September 2008, Mascoma [Corp.] pledged 70 jobs at the plant by the end of 2012. On Feb. 29 of this year, Mascoma reported to the MEDC that only three jobs had been created by the grant,”..."
Read here. The United Nations and European Union elites and bureaucrats must possess that unique combination of being idiot-savants and pathological liars. The people that continue to massively mismanage the global economy and financial markets, also claim that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for CO2 emissions was a resounding success. It was sooooo successful that they now want a Kyoto II.
In fact, the empirical evidence clearly shows the Kyoto Protocol to be an abysmal failure. Instead of reducing CO2 emissions by 5.2% of the 1990 base year, actual 2010 CO2 emissions were some 46% higher and 2011 emissions are likely to be even higher. The UN and EU experts predicted the 5.2% reduction by year 2012.
Did we say abysmal failure yet? (click on any above chart to enlarge)
The leftmost chart at top is total global CO2 emissions starting in 1965. Despite the UN and EU forcing the majority of countries to become Kyoto signatories, the CO2 emissions just kept on growing.
The middle chart reveals that the U.S., without signing or agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol, reduced per capita emissions the most. The EU, the principal Kyoto promoter, failed to match the U.S. accomplishments - completely opposite of what the UN experts predicted.
The final chart on the right documents the vast superiority of the U.S. free market approach to CO2 emissions: over the 2-year period ending 2010, the U.S. has robustly led the world in reducing emissions, without the penalty of the failed Kyoto regulations.
However, this incredible failure of a predicted outcome by the EU/UN elites is not admitted to. Instead, their mass stupidity, self-delusion and arrogance has pushed them to propose the Kyoto II protocols. Simply amazing.
This gross failure of the Kyoto has an additional twist. At the time the Kyoto Protocol was being reviewed by the U.S. Senate, one of today's infamous Climategate's scientist estimated that if all countries signed and actually reduced emissions by 5.2% the impact on global warming would be an almost immeasurable 0.05 degree reduction.
"There has been some discussion over the years regarding Tom Wigley’s 1998 estimate that even if Kyoto were to be 100% successful in meeting its targets, it would only have reduced temperatures by an estimated 0.05 degrees Celsius by 2050. Since Wigley was and is a strong supporter of Kyoto, this was a significant admission. Kyoto has been a crazy waste of money, Kyoto nations have spent billions and billions of dollars on the off-chance of cooling the earth by an amount too small to be measured..."
Conclusion: All the EU elites have managed to accomplish is to waste their taxpayer billions on regulations that don't work, destroyed multiple EU economies and the EU currency in the process, while making sure to enrich wealthy investors and corrupt friends in bogus green energy scams. Simply brilliant, no?
Read here. Obama and Democrats continue to propose and maintain energy regulations/legislation that suck big money out of taxpayers' wallet to enrich the Dem-Left's renewable energy, big corporate supporters and lobbyists.
$1.78 per gallon corporate subsidy by taxpayers: Corn ethanol
$2.55 per gallon corporate subsidy by taxpayers: Celluosic ethanol
$3.00 per gallon corporate subsidy by taxpayers: Biodiesel
So far, renewable energy schemes (scams?) from large corporations are mostly environmental disasters, funded by the gigantic annual expense to individual taxpayers.
Read here. Big government loves renewable energy mandates and projects. Why? These projects require huge government handouts and subsidies that empower politicians and enrich their friends/lobbyists.
Most governments are now discovering that renewable energy initiatives are a sure path to uncontrolled government spending in the name of huge "renewable" corporate welfare. The Obama administration heartily embraces this form of corporate welfare to the painful detriment of the individual taxpayer and small businessperson.
"Renewable energy has proved an expensive and unreliable source of energy everywhere it has been tried on a significant scale. And now there is a big divide among the major European economies that have enthusiastically adopted wind, solar and the other renewables.....While the UK ploughs ahead by throwing good money after bad, Italy, Spain and Germany are cutting back on their taxpayer/ratepayer-funded generosity toward politically correct energies. France, meanwhile, with its abundant nuclear power, has smartly stayed out of the game.....Some countries are waking up to the disaster of extravagant subsidies to renewable energy. But Britain isn’t. The lesson for Americans is simply that throwing money at renewable energy tends to be an economic disaster, but that politicians buttressed by expensive lobbyists can keep the racket going regardless."
Read here. Long before the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act legislation was introduced, Spain's economy was reeling from the disastrous energy decisions that government made in the name of clean and secure power. Now Obama and Democrat leaders want to pass and enforce similar legislation/regulations that has literally strangled the Spanish economy. Despite the disaster of Spanish energy policies, Obama embraces the big government intrusion into the energy market.
It's fairly obvious the leftists/liberals are intent on creating another man-made disaster (when you're anti-growth and anti-capitalism jihadists, producing man-made disasters is of second nature).
"We’ve now got two places strongly pushing a Green Agenda that are going down in flames. Spain and California (with our own version of Cap and Tax…). It is not just a side effect of the recession. Other places, like China, Texas, and Brazil are doing much better.....And at this point it is pretty clear that “Green Jobs” and “Cap and Tax” are a clear path to wealth destruction and poverty. It’s called an existence proof, and we have more of them staking up every day."
Read here and here.The fanatics' hysterical fears of CO2-induced warming, especially from Europeans, produce some truly awful, bizarre global-harming solutions that should have never have been implemented. Besides the self-induced global-harm of burning corn for fuel, the Europeans are now pursuing forest deforestation policies for energy production reasons. Simply put, because the burning of tree biomass is considered a "renewable energy" source, they conveniently justify the destruction of forests to feed their wood burning energy facilities.
"Deforestation is already a big problem globally without the biofuels boom. Promoting the use of wood material for biofuel will only accelerate deforestation.....We have an enormous deforestation problem already, there is no way massive increases in wood to feed bioenergy furnaces could ever be sustainable.....Wood biomass energy is twice as crazy an idea as maize ethanol was.....potential for disaster is absolutely enormous if this takes off in Europe and America"
If the UN and International Criminal Court ever decide to process ecocide cases, the first that should be charged are those politicians who enabled wood-burning energy policies, which facilitate and justify forest destruction.
Read here and here. Scientists from both China and America (Argonne Labs) conduct study that finds a wide adoption of electric vehicles by Chinese populace would dramatically increase greenhouse emissions. As with many of the climate alarmist solutions, the cure is worse than the disease.
"We have here another study that points to the fact that widespread
adoption of electric vehicles (EV) could actually increase
greenhouse-gas emissions rather than reduce them as we had hoped. This
study, conducted by the Argonne National
Laboratory and China's Tsinghua University, specifically focuses on
China and concludes that mass EV adoption could lead to tremendously
higher emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide
due to the country's widespread use of coal as a power source."
Read here. The best U.S scientists made predictions for solar power during the first energy "crisis." How good were their predictions? Terrible, which is the the usual outcome with expert predictions, including 99.99% of all climate change predictions that the gullible-MSM faithfully repeats from the scientist press releases.
In comparison to the simple solar power market, it is often said that Earth's climate is the most complex system known because it incorporates these characteristics: non-linear, chaotic, and coupled. These three attributes should invoke immense climate scientist humility, but they don't seem to. In addition, for these numerous fundamental reasons (besides the déjà vu of experts always being wrong) the public and policymakers should outright reject any notion that climate predictions from scientists and climate models have any real-world validity.
Read here. As we have written about before, ethanol and other biofuels are not only economic disasters, they are also very harmful to the environment. As the actual science of biofuels is slipping out, these fuels actually can cause more CO2 emissions than the fossil fuels they are supposed to replace.
Politicians decided to close their eyes to the real environmental science because of the dollars that biofuel lobbyists were throwing around. The same lucre-spreading is happening in regards to cap and trade CO2 legislation.
"Biofuels such as biodiesel from soy beans can create up to four times more climate-warming emissions than standard diesel or petrol, according to an EU document released under freedom of information laws...Chief among those fears is that biofuel production soaks up grain from global commodity markets, forcing up food prices and encouraging farmers to clear tropical forests in the quest for new land...Burning forests releases vast quantities of carbon dioxide and often cancels out many of the climate benefits sought from biofuels...Biodiesel from North American soybeans has an indirect carbon footprint of 339.9 kilograms of CO2 per gigajoule -- four times higher than standard diesel ..."
Read here. One has to be significantly brain-impaired to actually believe what's being shoveled out by the Obama administration and the special interests (big $$ lobbyists) on jobs, energy and climate. As the article points out, the politician's "green jobs" are not necessarily real jobs, as a typical taxpayer might presume.
"While the phrase "green jobs" evokes organic farmers and wind turbine repairmen, there is no clear, common definition of what a "green" job is. Without one, special-interest lobbying will transform even well-intentioned programmes. Consider corn-based ethanol, a technology with no redeeming features. Corn-based ethanol is bad for the environment, placing unsustainable demands on water supplies and increasing harmful farming practices. It is bad for people, raising corn prices for some of the world's poorest people. It provides little, if any, environmental benefit, with a net energy gain often close to or even below zero (the exact amount depends on the weather during the growing season, among other things). Yet corn-based ethanol has received billions in taxpayer support and continues to be favoured in so-called "green" energy legislation...."
Have a few minutes to learn more? Watch this video on politicians' favored "green energy," which supposedly produces "green jobs":
Read here and here. It is very obvious to objective observers that wind power is an expensive and non-robust solution to real-time energy needs. Other countries have discovered this, yet the Obama administration attempts to keep this type of information from the public.
"There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions… Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone)."
"They also show it was coordinated with the lobbyists for “Big Wind” and the left-wing Center for American Progress (CAP)....But it is clear that senior staff in Ms. Zoi’s office, and another under her authority, were told by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) of its concern over the foreign economic analysis because of the media and policymaker attention it was receiving....The questions raised about green jobs also threatened the vast increase in Department of Energy spending to pursue green jobs. The Obama administration has poured cash into renewable-energy efficiency and renewable energy with abandon....What is clear is that the Department of Energy then worked with Center for American Progress and the industry lobby AWEA to produce an attack that would serve all their interests."
Read here. Much like the corn ethanol initiative, wind power is promoted and subsidized by the U.S. government. This turnabout from a 90's "has-been" is primarily due to the shenanigans of the former corporate powerhouse Enron, and now GE, which acquired the Enron wind business.
Despite a lot of powerful friends, wind power is becoming reviled within the green movement and local environmentalist community. It's easy to understand why since wind power farms are not exactly appealing to local residents and it's really not a very reliable source of energy. Add to the boiling pot a government(s) jamming wind farms into areas over the protests of community residents, it becomes a recipe that may cause 'Tea Party' supporters and green activists to work in concert - viva la revolution!
Per this article or this one, it doesn't sound as if the wind power proponents and government agencies quite understand the populace undercurrents. Clueless?
Read here, here and here. There are a multitude of good reasons why subsidizing ethanol production and mandating its use is plain craziness. The most important reason though, is the fact that a gallon of ethanol spews more CO2 than a gallon of gas (we should replace all ethanol with oil-based gas that comes from U.S. resources - "drill baby, drill" policies). If the politicians and the EPA really felt CO2 was a harmful pollutant, and would endanger not only humans but the climate also, they would be morally be obligated to immediately kill the subsidies and mandates. Obviously, it's all about money and control, not reducing CO2 emissions.
"Replacing the US gasoline consumption of 138 billion gallons annually with ethanol biofuel — just as the government energy policy wants to do — would add about 138 billion pounds of carbon dioxide annually from renewable ethanol biofuel. This is an additional 69 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air annually. The government energy policy would increase rather than decrease carbon dioxide into the air, just the opposite of what the government climate policy wants to do."
Read here. The idiotic claim by Democrats and Obama that the U.S. will enjoy a green job revolution has been pretty well proven to be....well....idiotic, based on othercountry's experiences. Also, the very flaky green job growth machine premise is additionally undercut by the Democrats' own love affair of using NIMBY or the EPA to stop any actual green job opportunities from becoming a reality. Finally, U.S. green job growth depends on having access to needed, scarce rare metals but China wants to keep the metals and green jobs for themselves.
It's time to be putting U.S. labor to work utilizing our own natural resources (oil and coal) and technology capabilities (nukes). Unfortunately, Obama and Democrats are only interested in increasing their socialist, green utopia - no real jobs, just more Washington D.C. welfare controlled by SEIU members.
Read here. As previous experts have found, promoting increased production of biofuels has many negatives, including:
Produce little or no additional energy.
Can damage vehicle engines not designed to run on ethanol.
Result in greater CO2 emissions than fossil fuel.
Causes rising food prices either directly or by competing with food crops.
Encourage clearing of forest lands.
Increase use of fertilizer leading to greater runoff and NOx emissions.
Produce less energy than simply burning the biomass to produce electricity
Are only commercially viable with government subsidies and forced use mandates.
Now add 20,000 gallons of fresh water needed for a single gallon of biofuel as another large negative that scientists have documented. This incredibly stupid idea for biofuel energy has been legislated by Congress, renowned globally for its corruption by lobbyists, and, of course, its amazing scientific idiocy. Letting these same people make any decisions on CO2 emissions, global warming and/or climate change legislation and regulation is another disaster that can be avoided - starting in 2010, all politicians supporting 'cap & trade' policies need to be voted out of office.
Well, at least one Aussie thinks so - read here. Based on real world, CO2 proposed reduction/substitution solutions available, as depicted below, one would have to concur with the astute Aussie. Term limits, anyone?
(Email chart or print/mail chart and then send to your state and national officials. Ask them if they support, and would vote for, any of these solutions in their district or state. Ask them to publicly state for the record their support or opposition for these solutions in their own "backyard.")