Climate Change

We Likely Won't Cut Carbon Dioxide Emissions 45 Percent by 2030

The "New World Energy Outlook" report by the International Energy Agency suggests global warming is here to stay.


In order to have a good chance of preventing global average temperatures from exceeding 1.5°C by 2100, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Global Warming of 1.5°C report issued in October, 2018, asserted that global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions must decline by about 45 to 50 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 (and reach net zero around 2050). This is not going to happen, if the new International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2019 (WEO) report is to be believed.

The WEO projects future energy consumption and emissions trajectories using three different scenarios. In the current trends scenario, countries make no additional efforts to curb fossil fuel consumption and associated emissions. In the stated policies scenario, the agency presumes that all countries will mostly abide by the commitments they've made with respect to reducing fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. And the third sustainable development scenario incorporates a set of ambitious policies that assumes significant gains in energy efficiency, the expansive deployment of renewable power generation, carbon capture, and sequestration technologies.

Since most of the IEA report is behind a paywall, let's rely on the data supplied by the invaluable Carbon Brief to set out the scenarios.

In the "current policies" scenario, world energy consumption grows at 1.3 percent per year and global carbon dioxide emissions continue rising through 205,0 which is the year that the IPCC 1.5°C report says that the world needs to reach net-zero emissions.

IEA emissions reduction trajectories

In "stated policies," the IEA projects that global energy consumption will rise by 1 percent per year until 2040, which is half the 2 percent rate of growth between 2000 and 2018. About half of that consumption increase will be supplied by renewables and one-third by natural gas. While global carbon dioxide emission growth slows, it would nevertheless rise from 34.7 gigatons in 2017 to 37.1 gigatons in 2030. Global emissions were about 32 gigatons in 2010, so a 45 percent cut means that emissions would have to fall by 14.4 gigatons by 2030.

Are countries likely to fulfill their stated energy and emissions policies?  A new analysis just released by the Universal Ecological Fund, The Truth Behind the Climate Pledges, strongly suggests that this is a doubtful prospect. The report notes that "at least 130 nations, including four of the top five world's largest emitters, are falling far short of contributing to meeting the 50 percent global emissions reductions required by 2030 to limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels."

Even in the IEA's ambitious Sustainable Development scenario, global CO2 emissions decline to 17 percent below 2010 levels by 2030, 48 percent by 2040, and 68 percent by 2050. According to the IEA, this puts the world "on course for net-zero emissions by 2070," which has a 50 percent chance of limiting average warming to 1.65°C above pre-industrial levels.

Man-made climate change is a big problem, but the new IEA report persuasively shows that steep, immediate cuts in global energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions are a pipe dream.

NEXT: U.S. Secret Service Wants Schools To Treat Unhappy Students as Potential Violent Threats

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No CO2 and the industrial age is here to stay. Global warming? If there even can be said to be such a thing, is an entirely different issue.

    The bottom line with all of this is that even if you believe in the AGW cult, and that is all it is at this point, no one has provided a feasible solution for it. So worrying about it or taking it into account in your life or policy decisions is pointless and stupid. CO2 emissions are not going to go down, period. So whatever is going to happen will happen and driving around in a Prius saying your rosary or trying to set up a totalitarian state that puts people back into the stone age isn't going to change that.

    1. n if you believe in the AGW cult,

      This is an interesting point, too. If the elites who blather about this actually believe that catastrophic climate change is around the corner, then why do they:

      * Continue buying/building coastal property
      * Fail to disclose this in the bond sales of coastal cities
      * Refuse to allow more nuclear power
      * Hitch any proposed solution* to myriad progressive goodies that only make it exponentially less likely to pass

      If you really thought the world as we know it would end by 2030 unless CO2 emissions radically dropped, you'd do the opposite of all those things.

      * assuming the proposed solution is valid, which they presumably believe

      1. Exactly. You would move to the Mountains or somewhere that you would feel would be least effected by the whole thing.

        The whole thing is absurd. They are claiming that a warmer planet will be less hospitable to life. Think about that. If that is true, then I guess the mid latitudes and the arctic must have more flora and fauna than the tropics right?

        And plants must do worse with higher levels of CO2 right?

        It is a first class end of the world cult like we used to get when the entire country was Christian once in a while. Hopefully this will run its course before it does too much more damage.

        1. "And plants must do worse with higher levels of CO2 right? "

          The plants we rely on for food are sensitive to temperature. Adding a few more days to the August heat wave may be enough to kill wheat and other vital crops. Don't believe the cultists when they tell you the world will end, because it won't. The danger is the famine, disease and turmoil that accompany food shortages.

          1. Adding a few more days to the August heat wave may be enough to kill wheat and other vital crops.

            Which at worse would mean that we grow wheat at higher latitudes than we are now. Just because it gets warmer and you grow different crops in different places doesn't mean they won't grow at all.

            Also, they grow wheat all over the world. You can grow wheat if Thailand. You just use a different variety than you do in Canada you fucking retard.

            God you people are stupid.

            1. Intense heat will kill wheat, even if it's planted in higher latitudes or in Thailand. The seeds simply won't develop if they are exposed to intense heat while growing.

              1. If intense heat killed wheat, they wouldn't be able to grow it in places like Egypt. What you are saying is just wrong.

                1. Exactly. What makes Egypt great farmland is the same thing that makes California great farmland - hot, long growing season, lots of sunlight, very little rain, lots of water running down from the mountains.

                2. "If intense heat killed wheat"

                  Intense heat does indeed damage wheat rendering its seeds useless to eat or plant. It's interesting you should mention Egypt where poor weather conditions in 2010 resulted in some %15 reduction in wheat yield. Prices rose and the next year there were bread riots, all over, most notable in Tahrir square in the capitol city Cairo. They led to the downfall of a long established dictatorship and the election of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. This was only 10 years ago.

                  1. You think we eat wheat seeds.... wow.

                  2. Oddly, in the past 25 years the earth has increased its production of green plants by about 14%.

                    Those pesky plants just won’t cooperate with the AGW hysteria. Ban ‘em!!

                    1. Intense heat will damage plants. Nothing odd or hysterical about that.

            2. The really stupid part by the anti science liberal is we harvest plants when they are ready, not based on the temperature in august. If it is warmer a few more days, farmers dont change their harvest schedule. It's an idiotic assertion.

              1. My point is intense heat can render wheat and other plants 'permanently unready.' It's unfair, I know, but it's part of mother nature's evil design.

                1. When the earths average temperature (as if there is such a thing) increases by 50 F then we might, might be in trouble. Maybe when the sun becomes a red giant in 5 billion years?

          2. The danger is the famine, disease and turmoil that accompany food shortages.

            Much like the progress of CO2 and warming, we've had record yields, domestic and worldwide year over year, multiple years running for the last couple decades.

            If you believe the statistics that tell you the Earth is warming, then the statistics telling you we, as a species, generally eat more than enough, grow more than we need, and will continue to do so well into the future are irrefutable.

            1. If the crops we rely on fail, that will be trouble. Intense heat can destroy these crops regardless what the statisticians foretell.

              1. No it can't you moron. Some of the hottest places on earth are also the most productive.

                1. Chanting the same thing over and over again makes it true. Hence, "mtrueman".

                  1. "Chanting the same thing over and over again "

                    What are you chanting today? Chinese hoax? Greedy scientists?

                2. "Some of the hottest places on earth are also the most productive."

                  You're missing the point. There are limits to the temperatures plants can be subjected to when its bringing forth fruit. Too high and it fails. If temperature rise an average of 2 degrees F, that will shift the temperature distribution bell curve two places to the right, and what was part of the long tail in the old distribution will 'become part of the bell, so to speak. The probability of disastrous heat waves increases.

                  1. Spectacularly stupid even for you. If temps were to increase uniformly (they won't), a simple shift to different variant of crops more attuned to the local temps solves any production issue. Longer growing seasons result in higher yields. Full stop. Clutching your pearls over doom porn doesn't change reality.

                    1. "doesn’t change reality."

                      Reality hasn't changed. A higher average temperature means higher extreme temperatures.

                    2. So you flunked math as well.

                      The average of 10 and 2 is 6.
                      The average of 9 and 5 is 7.

                      Smaller extremes and higher average.

          3. Adding a few more days to the August heat wave may be enough to kill wheat and other vital crops.

            Which ignores the fact that the warming is not manifesting in higher summer temperatures. It is manifesting in warmer winters.

            Summers highs have actually come down slightly over recent decades.

            1. "Summers highs have actually come down slightly over recent decades."

              Length of heat waves is important, as I understand. 5 days may leave a crop unharmed. 7 days might destroy it.

              1. No citations and no data. Yield losses in the US from droughts have declined dramatically even since the 80's due to the introduction of drought resistant strains. And CO2 fertilization has benefited worldwide plant biomass including crop production.

                1. "No citations and no data."

                  You're free to look into it if you are curious.

                  1. You're free to provide evidence if you are competent.

                    1. I owe you nothing, m1shu. If you are curious, follow it up yourself. You shouldn't need my help and you're not getting it.

          4. "The danger is the famine, disease and turmoil that accompany food shortages."

            The biggest danger to the world food supply is likely global *cooling* brought on by the upcoming solar minimum.

            Naturally this will be called "climate change" and blamed on CO2 warming, because warming causes cooling, because complexity, dontcha know?

          5. The anti science left.... carbon actually helps plants as they compete less for water resources. Try learning science.

            1. Intense heat can damage plants.

          6. Calm down mtrueman.

            And anyway, you can always plant sorgum and millet in the US, and 1 degree won't affect durum production in Canada or the Ukraine, who are the big wheat producers.

            1. " and 1 degree won’t affect durum production in Canada or the Ukraine,"

              More intense heat waves could destroy crops in Canada or Ukraine.

        2. A significantly warmer planet is inhospitable to much of the current life on the Earth. So is a significantly colder planet.

          The fact that you don't understand this also explains why you made such poor grades in school.

          1. After we finish with me, let's do Leonardo,

      2. That's about it. The people pushing the climate warming crisis don't believe in it themselves; why should I? Get past that low bar first, then get back to me about what *I* believe in.

        1. "why should I?"

          What's stopping you? An attitude like that will always give your enemies the upper hand, and you'll always be on the defensive.

          1. Like I wrote and you didn't read -- if the alarmists self-evidently don't believe their own propaganda, why should I? How does that give my enemies an upper hand?

            If you want to, go ahead. You're pretty daft in other ways, what difference does it make?

            1. "How does that give my enemies an upper hand?"

              They've always got the initiative. You're stuck with grasping for an explanation. What is it this week? A cult? Chinese hoax? A religion? A tax grab? Science marches on. Every week or so, Ron comes up with more scientific findings. And every week you respond with the same tired old tropes you always do. Don't you ever get tired of nipping at the heels of more knowledgeable people?

              1. Have you looked in a mirror lately? Lysenkoism and Eugenics were science "marching on" too. Ehrlich and Holdren and Schneider were science "marching on."

                Don't you ever get tired of the apocalypse not arriving on schedule?

                1. So, you're going with the corrupt scientist explanation this week. I've always preferred the Chinese hoax version, myself.

                  1. No, I'm going with scientific fallacies. It's a fact that science doesn't always "march on." It frequently gets things wrong. But do tell me again about how all of the scientists voted therefore it's a fact.

                    1. "I’m going with scientific fallacies."

                      That's a fun one. Next week let's do the one about Leonardo DiCaprio.

                    2. AGW is a failed hypothesis. Only by cherry picking weather stations, ‘adjusting’ historical data, or simple lying can it be supported. All 103 CO2 based models fall more than 2 sigma above the measured temperatures of the past decade.

      3. The global warming crowd makes lotsa lotsa money pushing it. They can subsequently afford coastal properties and private jets plus that's how Dicaprio gets hot chicks.

        1. "The global warming crowd" = 10,000 PhD scientists.

          Yes it is just another liberal conspiracy, and Pizzagate was true too.

          Deplorables, for sure.

          1. Almost none of those are climate scientists, even less physics, but many in social sciences and such.

            Do you find it odd that 2 of the go to science tests for alarmists are Oreskes and Cook. One is a science historian, the other is a social scientist.

    2. So, go full nihilist then?

      I'm thinking there is probably some middle ground between "nationalize the economy" and "nothing can be done so don't worry be happy".

      1. Sure, things are already being done, like fracking. More things could be done, like easing regulation on nuclear power. Strangely, those are rarely "approved" solutions.

        1. Did anyone say "thorium"? Cause I am taking everyone's libertarian card, if no one said "thorium" yet.

          1. Damn, you win.

          2. Thorium is idiotic.

        2. "More things could be done, like easing regulation on nuclear power"

          If the ruling class really believed in a global crisis occurring due to AGW, nuclear energy would be their number one solution, and they'd be building nuclear plants like mad.

          When the cultists actually start behaving like there's a disaster happening, then maybe I'll believe them.

      2. Facing reality as it is and making the best of it rather than engaging in stupid, destructive and pointless gestures is not nihilism you fucking moron. There is nothing nihilistic about it.

        Could you please stop raping the English language. I happen to like her and am tired of seeing her virtue destroyed by mendacious half wits like you.

    3. " trying to set up a totalitarian state that puts people back into the stone age isn’t going to change that"

      Putting people back into the stone age would change that. Even a global depression would change that. CO2 emissions dropped dramatically in 2008 with the Obama financial crisis.

      "So whatever is going to happen will happen "

      I agree with these words.

      1. Putting people back into the stone age would change that.

        Only if you mean "by making it way, way worse."

        Unless, of course, you mean returning to the stone age and killing off five billion people.

        Because if you tell the current population of earth to start relying on camp fires for heat, you're going to make the problem worse by several orders of magnitude.

        1. "Because if you tell the current population of earth "

          It's wise to look into and promote non-CO2 sources of energy instead of fossil fuels. That shouldn't kill anyone let alone 5 billion.

          1. Depends on the source of energy. If it costs as much as so called renewables do and is as unreliable, then yes it will kill many people.

            1. Now who's being apocalyptic?

              1. Ask those who died in NorCal when PG&E cut off the power how they feel.

                Ask those who died of fuel poverty in the UK how they feel.

                1. "Ask those who died of fuel poverty in the UK how they feel."

                  Better yet, ask Leonardo DiCaprio about his feelings. Let's keep focused on the essentials.

                  1. He is focusing on the essentials. He linked to an article about people in the UK dying of cold because they can't afford to heat their homes thanks to CAGW government policies.

                    1. It's tragic. The sooner we switch to non CO2 sources the better.

              2. Go ask poverty stricken people what would benefit them the most and they will tell you cheap energy.

                1. Free energy is even better. Unfortunately not even the poorest among us is likely to get what we want. Physics and chemistry will see to that.

          2. Many more people still die from cold than heat. The LIA had many more crop failures and deaths than the MWP which was a boon for life. Your ignorance is astonishing.

    4. Come on, we can all do our part by reducing our personal carbon footprint, can't we?
      With just a little bit of work I reduced my carbon footprint by over 50% in the last two years.
      Three years ago I burned six thousand, four hundred sixty0two pounds of coal to heat my home.
      Last year I only burned three thousand fourteen pounds of coal to heat my home.
      What have YOU done to cut your carbon footprint?

      1. No, I don't drink the kool aid of death cults.

    5. For anyone under 30 out there reading this --

      John and his generation are exactly the problem. As you can see, they ain't gonna do shit. And the facts won't matter either as they unfold. FYTW.

      The only solution for your generation is mass slaughter of the older generations. Your generation got the balls to do that?

      1. Those under 30 are too anxious to inherit all of the stuff from those you want to kill. But it's refreshing to see your mask fully drop and expose your inner psychopath.

        1. Just being realistic. The intergenerational theft ain't just about climate change. It ain't gonna stop. And in fact those who are doing the stealing are emboldened by the lack of response.

          Oh and btw - everything that is inheritable will remain inheritable.

          Rule #1 of life - You can't take it with you.

          1. You're the idiot who doesn't understand entropy. Those under 30 are the most eager to vote for the welfare state so they're just as responsible as their elders.

            1. No the under-30's still mostly aren't voting - but they are rapidly becoming aware of the importance of the issues facing them. 36% turnout in that age group in 2018 - 20% turnout in 2014.

              And no they aren't really voting the way you think they're voting. You're just gonna fail to even try to understand what's happening.

              1. That was convincing.

      2. People under 30 are the problem, cause they're too young to remember that in the 70s the future was Global Cooling and reglaciation, and they're too indoctrinated by Captain Planet to ever listen to those who expose Climate Fraud.

        1. You clearly don't remember the actual 1970's either cuz there was no such thing. The mentions of 'ice age' or 'cooling' then had nothing to do with anything now. That was just a flurry of research from 1971-1974 on the Milankovitch hypothesis/cycles because data was available to do that for the first time.

          Computer power did not exist then - and the temp/sensor data was just in the process of becoming global - to even attempt to come up with any sort of climate projection or any of its subcomponents on anything else in anything under geologic timeframes. 'Atmospheric science' did not exist in the 1960's or 1970's.

          1. We still dont have global temp data dipshit. Coverage of global temps is still minuscule compared to surface area.

      3. You are correct and the current "old" generation is actively stealing quality of life from those who are younger. It's just the way it is, and it probably isn't going to change.

        And of course those under 30 will do the same when they are in their 50s+. It is just humanity. It is human nature. It is the selfish gene, etc.

        1. Thanks for understanding my real point.

          And yet - we have managed to structure our system so that it is not based entirely around stealing quality of life from others. Except intergenerationally where there is a weakness, an achilles heel. That we freely exploit precisely because it is a weakness that gives us a free lunch - something for nothing.

          Whoever can figure out how to fix this weakness. Figure out how to really truly pay the future instead of just take from it. Create a way for those who value the long-term instead of the short-term to really truly make their will felt in the pricing system. Well that will be a worthy achievement.

          1. Thanks for understanding my real point"

            He's another sociopathic Gaia cultist like you, J(ew)Free, you repellant anti-semite.
            Of course he's going to back your misanthropic dogmas.

    6. Priuses aren’t good enough anymore - better be electric, or a bicycle

  2. It's so important you need to pay to see it.

    1. Ron's other article is the evil Republican plot to thwart climate science by requiring that government policy be based on science with *publicly available* data.

      Peasants don't need to see the data.
      Trust and Obedience will usher in Woketopia!

  3. Well, then we'll just have to ban more stuff, reduce people's quality of life further, "randomly" exterminate large numbers of the population, and give the government even more power to make sure we reach our target!

    1. My preferred policy is to prohibit exhaling CO2 by liberals and lawyers.

    1. Interesting view. There's definitely something to the idea that libertarians can't just ignore pollution, since it harms others. Taking a closer look at the arguments, I find some less than satisfying on closer examination.

      Libertarians are free to referee the scientific debate in any manner they wish. They are not free, however, to argue that ideological priors should have anything to do with that call.

      With respect to the science itself, yes, of course. Some people (the left too) apply ideological priors to the science, which is wrong. However, I don't care that much to debate what the science itself is, since I'm not a climate scientist. A lot of other libertarians feel similarly. The issue is over whether there is a substantially negative effect. That brings me to the next (out of order) point:

      Mitigating climate risks will produce fewer benefits than costs. Since when did libertarian principles dictate embracing utilitarian calculations in the course of deciding whether to protect property rights?

      One has to establish that there is a rights violation, whose rights are being violated, and who is causing the violation. The "science" cannot say that. It can say that x chemical may have y effect. But what if the effect of this is to accidentally make the world a better place? In what sense would that be a rights violation? If you say it is a rights violation because not everyone agreed to it, then virtually any significant human activity becomes a rights violation.

      Now, even if we accept that that is reasonable, that it is a rights violation, what follows is the question of whether it is a bigger rights violation that state action to combat it. You may object, "but the only point of the state is to protect rights, so that doesn't matter." Ok, imagine a case of an obvious rights violation: child abuse. Suppose the state decided that surveillance was necessary to combat this (as it would surely be for climate change measures). Would you conclude that such a rights violation is acceptable, because it fights another rights violation?

      Environmentalists are trying to shut-down capitalism by controlling energy markets

      This is a reasonable objection. While it is not assured that cooperating on climate change will lead to this end, it is a plausible outcome. Strategic defenders of liberty may conclude that this is too great a risk to take.

      1. The entire piece is garbage.

        The science does not justify addressing climate risks.

        And then he immediately proceeds to the consensus argument instead of the actual issues with the science. The fact that the flaws of climate change science are significant and the appeal to consensus is used to argue that the debate is over should not color how libertarians assess the underlying science (a trait, historically speaking, more common amongst progressives than libertarians).

        Mitigating climate risks will produce fewer benefits than costs. Since when did libertarian principles dictate embracing utilitarian calculations in the course of deciding whether to protect property rights? If party A is harming party B, the contention that A gains more than B loses in the course of that transgression should not encourage libertarians to green-light rights violations.

        This is itself a violation of private property rights and a utilitarian argument. The author is advocating for removing the ability of property owners to use their property as they see fit in order to benefit the greater good. Seems like a pretty clear case of rights infringement. In fact everything has a cost tradeoff. By breathing you are emitting CO2 which is a pollutant according to the author. Can I impose a moratorium on your breathing? The same is true when you eat food or produce waste. That is a cost. It's a harm, so by his logic the government can regulate it with no rational limit to the restrictions.

    2. That is an idiot's view of climate change and climate science. Taxing carbon as an externality only works if you can accurately calculate the damage done by that externality. And the damage done by carbon is the entire point now isn't it? That article just assumes the question, assumes that the answer is not only what they want but can be calculated to a degree of accuracy beyond the wildest dreams of the most optimistic climate scientists and then tells us we all need to pay a tax based on these dreams.

      It is not surprising you find it persuasive.

      1. Exactly. Virtually everyone is simultaneously victim and perpetrator. And their points that the exact amount doesn't matter are bullshit. Of course it matters. A minor nuisance does not justify massive government intrusion in the economy.

      2. Taxing carbon as an externality only works if you can accurately calculate the damage done by that externality.

        Bullshit. We cleaned up air/water pollution by merely imposing arbitrary costs. There was never some measurement of the costs of the externality ahead of time. And in fact the iterative imposition of that cost is what leads to discovering the damage done by the externality. If it doesn't lower the bad enough over some period of time, then raise the cost again. The second that tax is being viewed more as a revenue stream for non-related stuff than as an externality reduction, then it is exceeding the damage.

        1. We cleaned up pollution because we were already cleaning it up. Then again you have yet to show that CO2 is a pollutant.

          1. Actually it's already been shown and proven to non-dumb people that excess CO2 is a "pollutant". The low IQ set will never understand..they just don't have brains capable of that.

            1. No it hasnt been. What an idiotic assertion. The epa produced a study on nano particulates that claimed it damaged lungs and decreased lifespans but never showed the work to get to their assertion. The scientist behind those regulations has committed fraudulent studies multiple times. It hasnt been proven at all dipshit.

    3. Unsurprising that you think Niskanen ("We need to embrace the welfare state") is libertarian. They're as progressive as you are.

  4. I've run the math you have to increase the CO2 levels from present 400+/- pmm to 2500 pmm to get 1º F of temperature change. its all a farce to tax us into slavery

  5. I still do not understand why these people think reducing/eliminating plant food is a good idea.

  6. the toasters could wipe out 45% of humans maybe that would do it

    1. All this has happened before, and all this will happen again ...

  7. Where I live (Chicago) we had 2 snowfalls in late April, a cold rainy May and June, one month of summer, a very pleasant but more like fall August and September and snow on Halloween. We're in an Arctic deep freeze currently. Unfortunately for us we live in an area where this is just weather and never climate. I expect 2019 will again be named hottest year on record.

    1. We haven't had a "hottest year" in a few years. We moved from "this was the hottest year" to "two of the last three years were the hottest years" to "three of the last five years were the hottest years" to "the five hottest years have been since 2000."

      1. And we're still below the MWP and the Roman WP let alone the HCO. Remind me when human civilization first got started. During the HCO? Oh.

    2. Deep freeze in Chicago? Beware of MAGA-hat wearing thugs bearing nooses and bleach. The sub-zero temperatures draws them out. Don't go out at night. It's scary out there.

      1. The Ice People come out and hunt when it's cold.

        Winter is Coming.

  8. Unfortunately for us we live in an area where this is just weather and never climate.

    I chuckled at this quite a bit.

    1. Meant as a reply to Fats of Fury

  9. I don't really know anything about climate science, but I have noticed weather getting more volatile over the years in my area and some of the rural areas I do business in. With all the climate change stuff, it is starting to scare me. I don't think anyone serious is saying the world will end by 2030... they're saying that hey, if things go the way they are, we might have real trouble making food in 2080. That kind of talk scares me a lot.

    But, it doesn't scare me into supporting total government take over of the economy. It scares me into fully supporting Bill Gates' new design for nuclear power reactors that run off of depleted nuclear waste - the stuff that's just sitting there in the desert. The design our government wouldn't let him build. The design Trump's new policies stopped Gates from building in China.

    1. The plural of anecdote is data. Normalized storm damage has been flat to declining for about a century.

      If weather scares you then you want us to control as much energy as possible. Energy is our protection against nature.

      1. There's a lot of data out there supporting climate change, or at least that's most of what I've heard.

    2. You havent noticed anything except recency bias.

      1. I really hope so.

  10. Man-made climate change is a big problem,

    Facts not in evidence.

    CO2 fertilization is real and a significant benefit.
    Droughts and floods show no trend at all.
    The Maldives are still here and Al Gore and Barry both have coastal homes. Sea rise is a non-issue.
    Crop yields have maintained a steady increase for decades.
    ACE shows no trend.
    Tornadic activity is flat to down in the US.

    So how exactly do you justify the claim that it is a big problem?

  11. Everyone interested in the validity, or lack thereof, of climate "science" should follow Tony Heller on youtube. At least until he's inevitably banned for heresy against the Climate Consensus.

  12. Annoyingly, you can't cut and paste from The Truth Behind the Climate Pledges, but it's the usual propaganda.

    China will meet it's pledge to reduce it's "carbon intensity" per unit of gdp, though umm ermm their actual emissions have increased by 80% between 2005 and 2018, and are expected to continue to increase going forward, though for some mysterious reason they don't choose to quantify this.

    Similarly, they moan about "this administration - Orange Man Bad!" withdrawing from the agreement, but somehow fail to show the US decreasing it's absolute carbon emissions and even moreso decreasing it's "carbon intensity" since 2005 and the likelihood of both trends continuing through the period of the agreement, or at least as long as we still have coal fired plants to replace with natural gas plants.

    Nuclear energy has had the capability to reduce our carbon emissions, but for the greenies who opposed it.
    Fracking has *succeeded* in reducing carbon emissions, and will continue to do so in the US for the foreseeable future, over the hysterical objections of the greenies who claim carbon emissions are an existential threat to mankind.

  13. I am really growing sick and tired of the AGW cult. Was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for a while, but there constant hysterics, refusal to accept “common sense” solutions like nuclear and natural gas, and using children to push their agenda make me want to go out and buy an F350 with a coal is beautiful bumper sticker. They are all about virtue signaling and would be laughable if it weren’t for the retarded politicians who actually believe them.

    1. You love to focus on the extremists and not the scientists. You essentially create a straw man, which is always a bore.

      1. Last I heard according to the “scientists” is that we have 10 years until Armageddon. When scientists start sounding like cultists, they are no longer scientists.

      2. Which scientists? The ones the activists ignore so they can try to scare kids with "imminent extinction"?

        The IPCC worst-case scenario requires deliberately laughable assumptions - but people try to tell me that "science" says the prognosis is far, far worse than that and that we need to revert to agrarian existence now or we're all gonna die.

        That's the "cult", and the "scam", not "warming is almost certainly happening and humans are a non-zero contributor to it", which is boringly true and completely different.

  14. The Paris Accords allow China, India, and other "developing" nations to keep increasing their carbon emissions until 2030, and China and India historically double their emissions every 10 years. China produces twice the emissions of the USA.

    Yep. It's all our fault.

  15. I have a question about getting older. Help me out. The article says carbon dioxide emissions were nearly 35 gigatons in 2017. 1 gigaton means 1 billion tons. How much coal has to burn before a ton of co2 is produced? My guess is 2 tons of oxygen get added to 1 ton of carbon, so the answer to my question would be about 1/3 of a ton.

    So here’s my real question: those 35 gigatons require 22 gigatons of oxygen. If 35 gigatons of co2 is enough to alter the world, why has there been no reduction in the amount of oxygen in the world? Is that why I get winded more easily as I get older?

    1. See photosynthesis

    2. That and ... the dry-air [no water vapor] mass of the earth's atmosphere is around 5.13 quadrillion tons. That's six orders of magnitude more than a gigaton.

      Sure, only 30% of it is O2, but ... six orders of magnitude.

      Even if CO2 was never converted back to oxygen, there's a LOT of available oxygen.

  16. Malthusians gonna Malthus.

  17. We should invite the members and supporters of the Cult of Global Warming to reduce their own CO2 emissions to zero. If they truly want to save the planet, they should be happy to remove themselves from it.

    Logan 5, paging Mister Logan 5, please call your office!

    However, what they REALLY want is for OTHERS to make the sacrifices, while they reap the the benefits.

  18. "meeting the 50 percent global emissions reductions required by 2030 to limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels."

    Which model predicts that and does it predict?

    (Also, if the hippies want lower CO2, they can support nuclear power.

    Until they do, they're not serious about one or more of their belief in an imminent crisis or their willingness to do something about it.

    Demanding "just stop using fossil fuels and build windmills!" is a non-starter, which should be dropped if one thinks it's a crisis.

    Since it's also been their wish-list since at least 1968, why should I take them seriously now?

    ("To save the world"? No, the actual climate science guys don't say the world's gonna end.

    And, well, "shoulda thought of that before doing the same thing blindly and stupidly for the past 60 years".)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.