Paris Agreement Climate Change

No More Coal for Rich Countries by 2030

Is such a scheme for eliminating coal in just 13 years as a source of electric power generation in rich countries likely?

|

MarrakechNorthAfricaPost
North Africa Post

Marrakech—Paris Agreement on Climate Change has put coal on notice, according to the new study, Implications of the Paris Agreement for Coal Use in the Power Sector. The report was released on Monday at the U.N. climate change meeting here in Marrakech by the Berlin-based non-profit science and policy institute Climate Analytics. Based on energy systems modeling, the analysts at Climate Analytics concluded that humanity must phase out coal-fired electricity generation by mid-century globally in order to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of keeping future global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average.

The rich countries, including the United States, the European Union, and all other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, must phase out all coal power generation by 2030. China must end coal burning by 2040 and the rest of the world would phase out coal for power generation by 2050. The Climate Analytics researchers acknowledge that there are currently over 1,000 new coal-fired plants in construction or on the drawing boards around the globe.

Is such a scheme for eliminating coal in just 13 years as a source of electric power generation in rich countries likely? The International Energy Agency (IEA) is slated to release its 2016 World Energy Outlook later this week, but its 2015 projections suggested that coal would still be in use by the U.S. and Europe, and other developed regions through 2040. While the IEA projected in 2015 that coal-fired power generation will increase globally by 10 percent by 2040, coal consumption was forecasted to fall by 40 percent in the OECD countries during that same period. The upshot is that the share of coal in the global electricity mix drops by 2040 from 41 percent to 30 percent. It is worth noting that the IEA estimated that fossil-fuel subsidies amounted to $490 billion in 2014 whereas renewable energy in the power sector received $112 billion, plus $23 billion for biofuels. Getting rid of subsidies is always a good idea.

The IEA's 2015 report also noted that some 1.2 billion people today remain without electricity and 2.7 billion still cook using traditional biomass. More distressingly, the IEA projected by 2030 that 800 million people will still be without electricity and 2.3 billion will yet be cooking with wood, charcoal and dung. Is climate change really more of a danger to the health and well-being of such people than lack of access to modern fuels? After all, exposure to household air pollution from cooking with biomass fuels is estimated to cause 4.3 million premature deaths annually.

In addition, in a comparison of life expectancy and per capita energy use, University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke has shown that "for the countries in the lowest fiftieth percentile of life expectancy the average life expectancy is 66 years and per capita energy use is 74 percent of the global average. For those countries in the top fiftieth percentile life expectancy at birth is 78 years and per capita energy use is 212 percent of the global average." Access to modern energy sources is literally life-saving.

The main topic at U.N. climate change meetings is always money. Specifically, how much rich countries are supposed to pay poor countries to adapt to climate change and shift their future energy use from fossil fuels to renewable energy technologies. As part of the Paris Agreement, the rich countries promised to "mobilize" $100 billion annually to help poor countries to adapt and deploy no-carbon energy power sources. Earlier in the conference, Oxfam International issued its 2016 Climate Shadow Finance Report which found that while rich countries claim to already be spending $41 billion on climate finance targeted for developing countries, the actual amount is $11 to $21 billion.

In addition, the United National Environment Program (UNEP) just released its new The Adaptation Gap Finance report. According to UNEP, previous global estimates of between $70 and $100 per year for the costs of adaptation in developing countries for the period 2010 to 2050 are way too low. The new report estimates that developing country climate adaptation costs could range from $140 billion to $300 billion by 2030, and between $280 billion and $500 billion by 2050. Tomorrow, Canada, Denmark, the European Union, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Switzerland and the United States will announce their support for a major scale-up of technology transfer to developing countries to help implement climate change commitments made under the Paris Agreement. I'll keep you posted.

Tomorrow: Secretary of State John Kerry is going to hold a press conference here in Marrakesh. It should be interesting to see what he has to say about the post-presidential election prospects for the Paris Agreement.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

123 responses to “No More Coal for Rich Countries by 2030

  1. The main topic at U.N. climate change meetings is always money.

    And so the true aim of the scheme is revealed.

    1. so we shut down our coal fired stations and give poor countries money…what a plan!

      1. Give unelected *international* apparatchiks a slush fund.

  2. I think the voting results in WV and KY suggest what some think about the concept of no more coal.

  3. No More Coal for Rich Countries by 2030; Is such a scheme for eliminating coal in just 13 years as a source of electric power generation in rich countries likely?

    Nope. Ain’t going to happen.

    The logical reaction to the recent setback would be for the greenies to embrace nuclear power. But logic has never entered in to the thing; it’s panic and hysteria all the way down.

    1. If the greenies had embraced nuclear power 50 years ago there is a very good chance global warming would already be a nonissue.

      1. They aren’t about ‘Green’, they’re about killing off several billion people because there are too many of us using too many resources that they could enjoy for longer if those pesky poor people weren’t alive to use what is rightfully theirs.

        The end goal of those clamoring for action has never been about just the environment, it’s about non-ethnic cleansing of humanity. RE: Joan Goodall etc.

        Sure, they talk a nice game but when the mask slips they drone on and on about how there need to be several billion less of us. That logic takes you to some morally reprehensible places, but they’ll never admit openly that when lots of people die it’s part of the plan rather than an unintended consequence.

        1. These people need to put their money where their mouth is. Did it ever occur to them that if everyone who thought there was a population problem killed themselves, maybe there wouldn’t be a population problem? Typical phonies, they always want the other guy to take the hit.

      2. The words might change, but the song would remain the same.

      3. CAGW is a non issue, regardless of nuclear acceptance.

    2. They pretend that the nuclear reactors of today would use the same technology from 40 years ago. Jackasses.

      1. Of course they do. They also go into full pants-shitting mode at the mention of any new technologies, which they uniformly describe as experimental, dangerous and unproven. It’s dishonesty all the way down.

      2. shutting down the older nuke plants as fast as they can, VT goes to no wind…let’s burn the forests and provide subsidy to Barry O’s bestest solar baby buddies….yeah that’ll work.

  4. More distressingly, the IEA projected by 2030 that 800 million people will still be without electricity and 2.3 billion will yet be cooking with wood, charcoal and dung. Is climate change really more of a danger to the health and well-being of such people than lack of access to modern fuels? After all, exposure to household air pollution from cooking with biomass fuels is estimated to cause 4.3 million premature deaths annually.

    In the grim dark future of humanity, there is only war.

    1. Perhaps they should die, and decrease the excess population.

      /honest environmentalist

      1. Actually, I take that back. I don’t think most actually want people to die (some would certainly prefer fewer people are born, though). I think they are just so stupid/poorly informed that they honestly believe we can lift people out of poverty, raise living standards, maintain “traditional” (i.e. romanticized) ways of life, and use less energy.

        1. Also, birth rates go down when infant mortality goes down.

        2. A woman in class when I was in undergrad definitely said it might be good that malaria was killing Africans off, because of overpopulation. This was in a discussion of that mass murderer Rachel Carson.

        3. No, they’re ok with killing off billions of people. They might not be in favor of tracking them down and shooting them, but as intended consequences of energy policy or non-GMO foods etc. they’re perfectly find with the second and third order consequences. Those are good goals, they just don’t want the blood on their hands directly.

          1. Depends on who “they” refers to. Most people who are casual supporters of the “green” cause don’t think that deeply on it.

            1. In my view, a ‘casual’ supporter of the “green” cause won’t support the movement the second it change’s something in their life that they like. I.E. they won’t support the Greens in a democratic process to curtail their ability to consume energy or engage in activities they find convenient or enjoyable. They may pay lip service to a ‘green’ movement, but when it actually impacts them they will withdraw support unless they are a true believer.

              This informs attempts at the International level to cut the democratic process out of the equation. ‘They’ are those who are not ‘casual’ supporters of things like recycling, but rather the political and group leadership of the countries and organizations themselves. Predominantly the political rent seekers who run the organizations rather than the political masters, since most of the politicians are at least symbolically attached to an electorate of some kind.

              I’m sure some of them are sympathetic to the movement, but they recognize the limitations of political will. Your true-believer doesn’t care about political will or reality, they want to see 5 billion fewer human’s on Earth. This is why these types of organizations inevitably turn to some form of terrorism to get their way. They are not rational, but can appear rational as long as they perceive they are receiving something for their efforts. That can not, and will not, last. At that point, be prepared to see them for what they are.

        4. No,they actually intend that the rest of us lower our lifestyles to accommodate their vision. they want US to cut back on our emissions,not them. note that the proponents like AlGore,Bono,Traitor Kerry,and other environuts all fly extensively in private planes,instead of flying commercial and using much less petrofuels,and certainly not cutting back on their jetting around. They build huge mansions and water their lawns despite water restrictions,use more electricity than entire communities.

      2. You don’t believe “a rising tide lifts all the boats?”

        1. a rising tide lifts all babies…except the ones that sink

  5. you first friend, you first.

  6. Is such a scheme for eliminating coal in just 13 years as a source of electric power generation in rich countries likely?

    Yeah. Uh, no. The scenario is so clear to me, as if I’m there:

    2030: So, how are we doing?

    Getting there. Promise.

    2040: How about now?

    Give us time. It’s not like can snap our fingers or wiggle our noses…

    2050: Hey, we’re way past the deadline and…

    Quit bitchin’ and fuck off.

    In the meantime, Joe (or Jackass) and the others will continue their fight against Angry Volcano God inside their comfy padded rooms, if they could just get their arms from those 10-feet-long sleeves.

    1. It’s amazing how those scienticianally calculamated deadlines happen to fall exactly at the beginning of every decade.

  7. Is such a scheme for eliminating coal in just 13 years as a source of electric power generation in rich countries likely?

    Obviously not. There isn’t enough energy in wind and solar, and even if there was building out that much capacity that quickly is pretty much impossible given current costs and prices and the regulatory nightmare that would ensue. Nuclear is even more unlikely. Maybe gas could pick up the slack — I really don’t know, but given opposition to fracking it seems politically infeasible.

    You know, I’m somewhat concerned about global warming, but the approach that the environmental movement takes, which is equivalent to sticking its fingers in its ears and screaming “I can’t hear you” anyone tries to talk about tradeoffs, actual market forces, realistic prospects for mitigation, is entirely counterproductive. But then, this is about morality for them, not practical change.

    1. I also note how there was no mention of the fact that Germany’s attempt to shift to wind and solar resulted in them burning more lignite to compensate for the failings of the renewables.

    2. The point is for there to be no slack, i.e. to radically lower your standard of living. That is what they want.

      1. Exactly. Rich greenie assholes don’t care how expensive power gets – they’ll still be able to afford it. You and I, on the other hand, will have to live in a more primitive way, and that’s exactly what they want.

      2. Yes, but impossible to get them to admit that.

  8. Is climate change really more of a danger to the health and well-being of such people than lack of access to modern fuels? After all, exposure to household air pollution from cooking with biomass fuels is estimated to cause 4.3 million premature deaths annually

    Angry Volcano God Demands Much Sacrifice!

  9. FUCK THE POOR.

    Love,

    Your Betters

  10. Tomorrow: Secretary of State John Kerry is going to hold a press conference here in Marrakesh.

    Directly from the people who delivered us to Trump.

  11. Pretty hard to believe that these out of touch elitist asshole idiots somehow still haven’t figured out that normal people everywhere are telling them they can go fuck themselves.

    Do they need to start getting a bullet in the head before they finally get the message? I truly hope that it doesn’t come to that, but I’m beginning to wonder.

    1. I suspect the ones who actually write these treaties know it’s BS but feel like they have to be aspirational and do *something*.

      1. Yea i was reading wattsupwiththat and there was a comment along these lines….if you watch what governments are actually doing, it is a dog and pony show check the box type thing. Maybe feather some nests of their cronies. You can tell by their actions it is kind of a hey let’s put this on our resume and move on.

        1. Except it’s really not. Obama and his minions at the EPA have spent the last several years implementing regulations and other stealth moves explicitly designed to try to put the coal industry out of business.

  12. Tomorrow, Canada, Denmark, the European Union, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Switzerland and the United States will announce their support for a major scale-up of technology transfer to developing countries

    Meet your Developed Countries, encouraging Cargo Cult since the 20th Century.

    1. technology transfer to developing countries

      Despot A: Where’s the technology I asked for to help supress my people harder?
      UN: Uh, that’s not how it’s supposed to w-
      Despot A: STFU and give me some money.
      UN: OK.

  13. Is climate change really more of a danger to the health and well-being of such people than lack of access to modern fuels?

    The UN should be proposing a crash program of coal powered electricity generation.

    1. The major health problem in the developing world is lack of access to clean drinking water. Part of that is because rural villages lack electricity to drive water purifiers.

    2. Is climate change really more of a danger to the health and well-being of such people than lack of access to modern fuels?

      Of course. Just look at the Netherlands: they are already under water. Folks, the UN needs to step in and make sure that Bangladesh doesn’t turn into a shithole like the Netherlands! It’s a fate worse than death I tell you!

  14. Ask them if they are willing to replace a meaningful level of coal-fired generation with hydroelectric.

    1. most hydroelectric that can produce power has already been developed.
      And environuts have been getting older dams removed so that salmon and other fish can use their former mating grounds,and recover their populations.
      Coal and nuclear are the only reliable,practical electricity producers for the amount of power needed.
      Solar and wind isn’t going to do it,and neither is reliable.

  15. There isn’t enough energy in wind and solar

    Oh, sure there is. You just need a lot of Rube Goldberg “capture and store” systems to smooth out the disparities between peak production and demand.

    1. We captured wind and solar back in the caboniferous period – now demand has gone up, so we’re going to release it.

    2. Perpetual motion can work Brooks. You are just a denier.

    3. Unless you are willing to cover significant portions of the country/globe in solar and wind farms, there really isn’t enough energy density there even *if* you solve the storage and transmission issues. Chances of environmentalists signing off on an East Coast-sized portion of, well, anywhere being peppered over with solar panels or turbines? Zero. Chances on everyone else signing off? Less than zero.

      1. Oh, wind and solar are great. Just ask Germany.

        1. …or what Uncivil Servant said upthread.

  16. Is climate change really more of a danger to the health and well-being of such people than lack of access to modern fuels?

    Of course not, but why would that be part of the discussion? You can’t shake down poor people.

    1. But how far are they willing to take the shakedown?

      Here is a clue: I vaguely remember reading about Benjamin Franklin’s trip to England. Ol’ George assigned him a carriage and driver and he was restricted to certain areas. Of course as soon as he was out of site he demanded the driver take him sightseeing. As they rode out through the countryside he saw people without even hovels. They were living in holes in the ground and did not even possess clothes. No matter, the king had his throne.

      They will keep shaking us down until we have nothing. That is what thieves do. They steal, and keep stealing until there is nothing to steal.

      1. He managed to wander all the way to Scotland?

        Also have the Scots moved out of their sod houses yet?

      2. – You can’t shake down poor people.
        – But how far are they willing to take the shakedown?

        Ask any smoker.

  17. Tomorrow, Canada, Denmark, the European Union, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Switzerland and the United States will announce their support for a major scale-up of technology transfer to developing countries

    Money-fired power generation, FTW!

  18. I’d be interested in seeing their list of rich and poor countries. My bet says there’s a discrepancy there somewhere.

    For instance, despite China having overcapacity problems, they keep building more coal plants as make work projects in a slowing economy. Is China still considered a poor country?

    Meanwhile, Australia has, I believe, the world’s third largest coal deposits. Are they considered a rich country? Australia’s economy is being both pushed forward and battered in all sorts of way by market forces emanating from China.

    Even apart from whether rich countries and poor countries are really rich or really poor, what about disparity between individuals within those countries?

    Ever seen what rural poverty looks like up close in Appalachian coal country? Who imagines that pulling the rug out from under their impoverished feet is somehow justified because they live in a rich country? People who presume central planning and socialist democracies to be the norm, that’s who.

    This mostly boils down to turning environmentalism into a wealth redistribution scheme, and people who are resistant to accepting it on that basis are on the right track.

  19. Should the 1.2 billion without electricity get electricity? Yes.

    Should the rest of the planet have a say in that? No.

  20. The new report estimates that developing country climate adaptation costs could range from $140 billion to $300 billion by 2030, and between $280 billion and $500 billion by 2050.

    Nope, doesn’t seem suspicious at all.

  21. Maybe you missed it Ron but there was an election last week. And given the results, I am going to go with a negative response here. Coal is cheap, efficient and unless you believe in the church of global warming, doesn’t create much pollution when done properly. So coal is not and should not go anywhere. Cheap energy is essential to our economy and ultimately to our lifestyle and freedom. You can have my coal powered electricity when you pry my cold dead hands off of it. Keep your trans-humanist scientific fad worshiping paws off of it.

    1. …the church of global warming…

      The fact that they bleat about “consensus” is the tip-off that it’s a religion, not science. Science is about observation and experiment. Politics and religion are about consensus. We don’t remember Einstein and Newton because they had consensus.

      1. The fact that they bleat about “consensus” is the tip-off that it’s a religion,

        The more traditional term for “consensus” is “catholic”.

      2. At the behest of the Nazi government, bunch of toady German scientists signed a declaration saying that the Theory of Relativity was “Jewish science” and thus incorrect and should be ignored. When asked about this declaration and the huge number of people who signed it, Einstein replied “if it were true only one of them would have needed to sign it”.

        Never was a more true statement made. And it is a perfect response to the AGW “consensus”, whatever that is.

      3. I’d say that some degree of consensus is necessary, though not sufficient, to call something an established scientific fact. And in most cases, the existence of a consensus among experts in a field is a good indication that something is well established science. It’s all well and good to talk about the scientific method and how that’s supposed to work. But acceptance of scientific knowledge is still a social phenomenon. Dismissing anyone who challenges the established order is never good for science.

        1. Zeb, consensus is nice I suppose but it doesn’t mean anything. You only talk about “consensus’ because you don’t have any established fact. If you did, you wouldn’t need to appeal to the consensus, you would appeal to the data.

        2. Absolutely not Zeb. No degree of consensus is necessary to establish a fact, scientific or otherwise. It may be a sufficient condition, but definitely not a necessary one.

  22. It should be interesting to see what he has to say about the post-presidential election prospects for the Paris Agreement.

    It is never interesting to listen to the droning voice of John Kerry.

    1. No its not. And the Paris accord is dead. It always was dead as far as I am concerned. It was never ratified by the Senate much less enacted into law.

      Here is what is likely to happen. Trump will renounce the US commitment to the Paris accord and Congress will pass an amendment to the Clean Air Act explicitly defining the term pollution as excluding C02. That will be game over for the AGW cult. Even if they get a future President who believes this bullshit, he wont’ have the regulatory authority to do anything about it.

      The public doesn’t believe in this bullshit and are not going to tolerate the lights going off so various stupid white people can feel good about themselves.

      1. Especially with the mounting evidence that the vast majority of the AGW activists are funded by Russia and China to reduce Western economic efficiency and cause political disruptions. Russia particularly benefits enormously by increasing usage of NG and reduction in coal/petroleum.

        And of course the whole rabbit hole around the concept the Middle East conflicts are largely due to a desire by Russia to disrupt a southern pipeline into Europe from Iran through northern Iraq and Syria that would compete with Gazprom’s energy chokehold on the EU.

        1. The Russian and foreign funding of the green movement is one of the great political scandals of our age. You want to talk about treason, that is treason.

          1. I was/am completely unaware of this.

            Sounds like a good topic for a Reason article.

            1. Lol. Good one!

              Oh, wait — were you serious?

            2. It’s right after Wikileaks on the ‘to do’ list.

            3. Russia’s KGB started,funded,and directed West Germany’s Green Party way back in the 1980s,to oppose nuclear weapons being stationed in W.Germany. then it expanded to oppose all nuclear power.
              The Verona Papers exposed the KGB for creating and funding the Greens,as a means to remove the nukes and weaken Germany.

  23. Time to revisit the rat-hole problem.

    Every student of the arts of diplomacy in the civil-service and staff colleges of the U.K. hears much about the rat-hole problem. How does one let the other side off some hook on which they have imprudently impaled themselves, while minimizing their loss of face?

    As good as triumphalism feels, we must create a path of exit for rank-and-file greenies. Such a path will necessarily require that they enthusiastically embrace nuclear energy, particularly MST reactors.

    Rat-holes, like truth and reconciliation commissions, aren’t as satisfying as vengence, but they get things done.

    1. It is a cult Tonio. There is no way to give them an honorable peace. They won’t take one.

  24. Reasons to believe that the carbon-based fuel economy is not going away soon.
    a) Tobacco industry style government capture.

    BP Plc will invest $30 million in Fulcrum BioEnergy Inc., which makes biofuel from garbage, in a new partnership designed to curb airplane pollution.
    The London-based oil-producer also signed a 10-year deal to buy 500 million gallons (1.9 billion liters) of biofuel from Fulcrum’s North American plants, according to a statement by BP on Tuesday. BP will distribute the aviation fuel to planes through its unit Air BP Ltd., which sells about 7 billion gallons of aviation annually.
    Airlines facing pressure to clean up their pollution last month brokered a landmark deal in Montreal. Their accord created a global system that requires them fund environmental initiatives from 2020 that may cost as much as $24 billion annually by 2035.

    b) crude analogs from things like sewage that perpetuate current supply pipelines. (ie — plastic ain’t going nowhere)

  25. This is just scientifically illiterate.
    Power plants have efficiency of scale and technological advancements allow for optimized generation and pollution control. Power plants can justify the high costs of emissions control and even carbon capture.
    Localized/home/vehicle power generation is far less efficient and particularly with vehicles, optimization is impossible as it adds counterproductive weight.

    Natural gas generates more energy/CO2 than coal….but….the biggest benefits come with localized usage. Powering a car with NG is better than petroleum and better than coal.

    If we assume all are finite, then we should be using the coal to generate electricity and saving the NG for vehicles and localized power generation. It is simply ignorant to not use coal, because unless the NG is infinite we’ll be back to coal at some point in the foreseeable future anyway.

    1. Bingo. Coal has one great efficient use; the mass generation of electrical power. There is absolutely no reason not to use it for that and leave other forms of carbon based energy like Natural Gas for other uses.

    2. Agreed, NG lends itself to all sorts of portable usage. Using it for large scale power generation is ostentatiously wasteful.

      1. Perhaps, but in fairness coal fired electricity can also be very portable while also being far less hazardous to transport. You just need to put it in one of those new fangled battery things. (Of course, lithium is also pretty unstable inside a battery so…yeah.)

        Hence why most sane people realize that electric vehicles run on coal or natural gas already, even if most people are too stupid to recognize it. So, in a way, coal is already the future. At least until ITER is up and running, I hope.

        1. Batteries are horrible for a number of reasons.

          Even if you assume energy storage is 100% efficient the damn things still weigh a ton. So on a unit energy basis they are terrible. Then there are the economic and environmental costs of manufacture and disposal.

          Burning coal to charge batteries is not bad if there are no better alternatives. But burning NG to charge batteries is insane under all but extreme circumstances (e.g. places where there is no free oxygen for combustion.)

  26. I notice Jack hasn’t been around to tell us ‘we don’t need no stinking senate’ with Obo and then Clinton in the WH.

  27. They were living in holes in the ground and did not even possess clothes.

    Coal mines count as “holes in the ground” and the temperature, while not necessarily balmy, is stable, and well above freezing. You’ll be warm enough, so long as you keep shoveling.

  28. “Is such a scheme for eliminating coal in just 13 years as a source of electric power generation in rich countries likely?”

    Fuck that shit. Burn (coal) baby, burn (coal)!

  29. “China must end coal burning by 2040 and the rest of the world would phase out coal for power generation by 2050. The Climate Analytics researchers acknowledge that there are currently over 1,000 new coal-fired plants in construction or on the drawing boards around the globe.”

    Wait… how many of these 1000 coal-fired plants are in “China and… the rest of the world?” So coal-fired plants that might be up and running soon are going to smile and shut down after a maximum of 24 to 34 year span of operations?

    Do these people even believe their own bullshit?

    1. No but the canapes are to die for.

      1. Is there a location that says ‘not serious’ more than Marrakesh in late fall?

        Bet they were all bummed when they heard there would be no Brangelina sightings.

  30. The IEA’s 2015 report also noted that some 1.2 billion people today remain without electricity and 2.7 billion still cook using traditional biomass. More distressingly, the IEA projected by 2030 that 800 million people will still be without electricity and 2.3 billion will yet be cooking with wood, charcoal and dung.

    Protip for the AGW crowd: if your plan for saving the world involves hundreds of millions of people starving to death, you … might need to come up with a better plan.

  31. When your policy is being driven by the Malthusian Left, it’s hardly surprising when the end-goal has an ‘unintended’ consequence of killing off millions or billions of people and rendering large segments of currently populated area’s virtually uninhabitable.

    Demanding some type of evidence that Climate Change is something mankind can make a meaningful difference on will brand you as an apostate, and as everyone knows the penalty for that crime against Gaia is to be placed on the roll’s of those who no longer deserve life.

    If anything, it’s better for everyone that politicians just want to shuffle cash around instead of actually doing anything meaningful considering that meaningful action results in human suffering. Most voters don’t like being murdered by policy, so the political class will never be able to fully implement the will of the Malthusians.

    I will say this though, ‘Green’ does sound a lot better than ‘Malthusian’ even if 95% of people have no idea what the latter is.

    1. If you look at the areas Trump won in this election, the closer they were to the carbon based economy, the bigger the winning margin for Trump. This election was as much as anything a repudiation of AGW. I think or at least hope that Trump understands that and if he does nothing else, he will put an end to this bullshit for a while.

      1. I doubt it, and I hope he doesn’t beyond scaling back things like the EPA. Regardless of all that idiocy though, it’s hard to deny that the Green Left has either been deeply infiltrated by Malthusian sentiments or has always been part of that movement. I honestly don’t know which one, and can’t be bothered to research it, but it’s blatant throughout their propaganda and in interviews with major players within the Green movement. That much I can say for certain.

        1. I think the entire thing is horseshit. I hope he throws it out entirely. And I think he might. This is stuff white people like. Outside of a small section of our elites, no one cares about AGW. Anyone who cares about AGW didn’t vote for Trump, so he loses nothing by killing it and has much to gain.

          1. I only mean that the Executive Branch shouldn’t have a single say in the matter either way. It should be a Senate issue (treaty powers motherfucker), so fuck Trump if he does anything beyond rolling back previous overextensions of the Executive branch through regulatory fiat. That would include these so-called ‘agreements’ that do little more than kick can’s around internationally.

            Since Trump likely doesn’t give fucks about those things, lets just say I’m not holding my breath for him to become any kind of a conservative. If anything, I expect an updated version of a Blue Dog Democrat that’s become unhinged from any core principles.

            The only thing I’m hopeful for are decent SC picks. Everything else I expect to be more or less a NeoCon/RINO version of Obama that accomplishes very little and, what they do accomplish, will ensure a Democrat President in the next Election. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised. After all, people win the lottery sometimes right?

            1. The treaty was never approved by the Senate. And treaties can only be approved if they are submitted by the President. Trump doesn’t need the Senate to walk away from a treaty that was never ratified by the Senate. He can just throw it in the trash.

              1. I am aware of that, which is why they call them ‘agreements’ or ‘accords’ or whathaveyou. I don’t think it’s possible that Trump will care about that technicality, much like how Obama didn’t care for it either. It remains to be seen if the Senate will suddenly grow a spine or not though.

                In fairness, I did forget that the President submits them. I think I was under the impression that they could, but was also under the impression that they didn’t need to do so in order for the Senate to vote on one. I’m definitely no Constitutional Law Scholar like Obama. ^_-

                1. The Constitution gives the treaty power to the President with advice and consent from the Senate. That means it takes both the President and the Senate to have a valid treaty. So, the moment Trump takes office, he can renounce the treaty and that is all she wrote. He couldn’t renounce it if it had been ratified but he certainly can since it has not been.

          2. “I think the entire thing is horseshit”

            Horseshit is animal dung, John. That’s all that will be left to burn until they ban that too.

  32. In addition, in a comparison of life expectancy and per capita energy use, University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke has shown that “for the countries in the lowest fiftieth percentile of life expectancy the average life expectancy is 66 years and per capita energy use is 74 percent of the global average.

    Yes, but we can make up for that by driving income inequality into negative territory. Heck, for 20 years life expectancy lost, we just need a Gini coefficient of about -160. You might think that that is mathematically impossible, but if we extend incomes to complex numbers and make all income imaginary, we may well be able to achieve this feat. I’d like to remind everybody that the creation of imaginary incomes is a many goal of progressive policies, so we were on the right track (before Trump).

  33. ‘ It is worth noting that the IEA estimated that fossil-fuel subsidies amounted to $490 billion in 2014 whereas renewable energy in the power sector received $112 billion, plus $23 billion for biofuels.’ – Huh?

    1. It is worth noting that the IEA estimated that fossil-fuel subsidies amounted to $490 billion in 2014 whereas renewable energy in the power sector received $112 billion, plus $23 billion for biofuels.’ – Huh?

      “Subsidies” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

      1. Fossil-fuel subsidies = Absence of a carbon tax

  34. I was born in 1961, and started paying attention to politics around eleven years later. In the time since I don’t think I have ever seen an environmentalist proposal with widespread support on the Left that didn’t boil down to tying the poor spreadagled and kicking them right in the fork.

    I don’t think expect this idiocy to be any different.

    1. ^This^ Elites have always wanted the poor to stay poor and not reproduce.

  35. What’s Germany gonna do?

  36. The UN made a similar proclamation for a global ban on tobacco by 2030 a few years back but haven’t heard anything about that lately. Maybe if coal brought in as much tax revenue as cigarettes they would keep it around too.

    1. I bet coal brings in quite a lot of revenue for the US. it’s taxed at every level,from mining to sale of electricity produced by it.
      the AGW folks don’t care about revenue,they want their socialist goals.
      Consider the words of the man Comrade Obama hired as his top adviser on science and technology, John P. Holdren:

      “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to DE-DEVELOP the United States. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. This effort must be largely political.”

      “Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations,” wrote Obama’s future science adviser, along with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, “is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”

      1. I don’t know when it because the responsibility of the US to “provide a decent life to every human being” on the planet,other than our own citizens.

  37. Uncritically parroting the IEA subsidy numbers is beneath you, Ron. You know damn well the majority of those subsidies come from non-OECD countries subsidizing cheap gas for their populations. What’s worse is that even with those ridiculous subsidies tossed in to the global mix, per MJ greed enery (aka renewables) receives at least an order of magnitude more subsidy.

    Do better.

    1. And most “subsidies” are legitimate business deductions allowed to any extractive business…

  38. RE: No More Coal for Rich Countries by 2030
    Is such a scheme for eliminating coal in just 13 years as a source of electric power generation in rich countries likely?

    I don’t know about all you people out there, but I sure am glad a group of foreign government entities are entitled to tell everyone in the USA what energy source they can and cannot use.
    Aren’t you glad the USA is still in the UN?

  39. Climate change is a false premise for regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. These changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag.

    There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely and well-documented causes include sunspot cycles, earth/sun orbital changes, cosmic ray effects on clouds and tectonic plate activity.

    Here’s why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to limestone and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. An equilibrium-seeking mechanism.

    99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. All living or dead organic matter (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%.

    A modern coal power plant emits few air effluents except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy.

  40. Screw them. Get a coal stove or coal boiler for your homes.

  41. Consider the words of the man Comrade Obama hired as his top adviser on science and technology, John P. Holdren:

    “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to DE-DEVELOP the United States. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. This effort must be largely political.”

    “Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations,” wrote Obama’s future science adviser, along with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, “is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”

  42. For a media outlet calling itself Reason, it sure wastes a lot of time and effort reporting on what will be moot under the Trump admin…

  43. Germany decided to use clean coal instead of loosing all its good manufacturing jobs. Green Energy is too expensive except for lighting, and impractical for industrial use. Many European countries use waste to energy incinerators which though lower emissions, aren’t green. Neither is there enough trash for them to replace coal for power. In England hundreds of seniors each year die from hypothermia, unable to pay for heating because Green Energy is too expensive. Imagine how much worse it will be in colder areas. Current Nuclear Energy production has issues due to nuclear waste, and not safe in areas prone to earthquakes. Biggest problem is too many 1st world people, and not enough resources.

    1. If there are too many people are you volunteering to die appeasing the volcano gods…..didn’t think so.

  44. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  45. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  46. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>> http://www.centerpay70.com

  47. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.