Why nothing changes on the greenhouse front

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

http://unfccc.int/meetings/doha_nov_2012/meeting/6815.php

Come November, the same old same old will repeat once again. Several thousand environmentally concerned dudes and dudettes will convene on a summit to bicker on a possible agreement on the issue of global climate. From time to time, the occasional politician will give a nice speech. The end result? Zero. Nada.

This time the saviors of Earth will meet in Qatar. Shrug. I can tell you from now that no decisions will be taken about countering climate change. Why? Because the main players will never come to a common ground. Still, various populist politicians and pundits will score a few cheap points from the whole thing, while exercising their verbal acrobatics in front of eager ears. Some of us will rant a bit that those fuckers are totally inept, while others will remain content that nothing has changed and no one will be coming to seize their property and freedoms (read: taxes) in the following year. At least not for pouring it into some bottomless bucket that is the issue of climate change. If it ever existed. I mean... if it were ever caused by humans. Sun spots, I mean. Um, just God probably, maybe. The tides - we've never been able to explain them. Whatever.

And the politicians will probably whine that we're not seeing the REAL advances that they're making FOR REALZ. Except, how could we possibly see it? The fact of the matter is that when you look at the bigger picture, there is little advance to boast about, if any. Since the 70s the global CO2 emissions have risen by 75%. For the last decade alone the increase was more than 30%, in 2010 alone it was 5% (record increase so far), and last year, another 3%. Almost 9/10 of the emissions are from burning fossil fuels. The IAEA data shows that last year the atmosphere "enjoyed" an unprecedented influx of 31 billion tons of CO2 from fossils. That's a staggering amount.

All of this shows that doing anything meaningful about climate change is an illusion. The goals set in Cancun'2010 and confirmed in Durban'2011 were a 2-degree decrease of global temperatures compared to the pre-industrial age. That's bullshit.

But why do climate summits fail, despite all the glamor and nice talk? Why do the industrialized countries and the developing countries never come to an agreement? Why are they so immovable in their positions?

Let's first take a look at the biggest players, USA and China. The two camps. Last year the two had vomited over 40% of all the CO2 vomit into the Earth's atmosphere. And yet, they both keep refusing to even look at possible plans for reduction that would suit all. The Americans believe China should do the first step, since it's the biggest polluter in the world. If China doesn't make such a commitment, the US, who in turn had been the leader in the global CO2 emissions for a loooong time, wouldn't move a finger. Do as we say, so to speak. Because China is really the #1 carbons emitter, even according to their own records. But still, the Chinese can't agree with the American logic. And they're not likely to do it any time soon.

Why? Well, because the old industrialized countries cannot be trusted to act out of principle, that's for starters. There are three reasons for that.

First, because of their (our?) lifestyle. The per capita CO2 emissions (no no, not the total emissions, don't be tricked like that) are the REAL measure for our wastefulness. In 2010 the average American dude or dudette had 18 tons of CO2 on their record. The OSCE peeps had 10 tons, and the world on average, 4 tons. The average Chinese would burden the atmosphere with 6 tons, the Indian with 2 tons. China fast catching up with the EU levels. In their nice official speeches the politicians often say that all people have equal rights in this respect. But in reality, that's bullshit too.

Second. Historic responsibility. Any conclusions based on "scientific" stats from just a few years of prior research, is bullshit. Because CO2 remains trapped in the atmosphere for decades, and the climate reacts to emissions that've been accumulated over many years. Today's climate change is a result of all the CO2 emissions from the last century or so. In the 20th century the US and Europe used to vomit 30% of all the world's emissions on a regular basis, while China was practically off the map in this respect. Industrialization in the modern sense began there only recently. But this isn't mentioned very often in the media.

Third reason, and here we're digging deeper into the issue: the "grey emissions". The industrialized economies are responsible for them by a huge margin. It's easy to boast that the US has cut its carbon emissions for the last year and complain that China has erased these gains in the meantime, but what's the real story behind this claim? Why do the emissions of developing countries like China and India grow so fast these days? Simple. And no, it's not just because the US may've cut its industrial production due to the financial crisis or anything like that. It's mostly because those developing countries now produce goods by the industrialized countries, and for the industrialized countries. The printers, computers and cellphones that you use in America, Europe or Australia are now being made in Asia. But they're still products that are meant to be consumed in the developed world. It's just that the developed world has outsourced its vomit elsewhere, because it's more politically expedient and economically beneficial this way.

The industrialized countries have started this process of transferring their vomit, read: CO2 emissions (and not only), to the developing countries, a long time ago. While it may be bringing economic benefits for the host economies, let's keep focused on the environmental side of the issue if you please. The fact is that these emissions are now being written on the record of the host countries where the factories are located. But the REAL source of all this pollution, is again, us. A more correct national emission balance should have contained data about ALL the global emissions caused by the production of goods that are used in a particular market. But none of this is being done - and no surprise. The industrialized countries ought to be able to face-lift their ecological balance and keep a clean face, of course. What's worse is that they're then asuming the moral high ground to lecture in their typical paternalistic manner.

So, as it turns out, China does have a point in questioning the official stats - no, not the correctness of the numbers, they're just fine. They're questioning what really stands BEHIND the numbers. Even a cursory attempt at digging somewhat under the surface of "grey emissions" reveals the real picture. For instance, a rare 2009 research published by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reviews data from 2004, but this time, oh blasphemy, what it takes into account is the emissions for the production of a certain product that's consumed in the client market. And then what happens? Suddenly, the emission balance of the US sees another 700 million tons of CO2 being added to its record, including 400 billion tons coming directly from products made in China by US companies and consumed by US customers on the US market. Thus, the US total emissions rise by almost 10%. Funny, isn't it?

And conversely, if we take the "grey emissions" into account, China's balance loses another 1100 billion tons. Which is more than 22%. Thus, in stark contradiction to the official data, China and USA begin to look very similar in terms of burderning the atmosphere with CO2, contrary to the now dominant narrative in the West. And what's more important, the emissions PER CAPITA tilt even more drastically to USA's disadvantage.

And it's not just about the US. In fact the picture looks even worse if we look at Germany: a 26% increase. Which means that Germany would fare much worse even than the US in the per-capita department. And that's the same Germany which so much likes to pose as the paragon of climate-friendly policy. They'd be completely unable to meet the Kyoto requirements, but for their practice of outsourcing their polluting production.

All of this means that the US and the other industrialized countries clearly have no right to criticize the developing countries at the coming climate summit. Which of course doesn't mean they won't.

As it turns out, we've bought our wealth and prosperity by vomiting all that CO2 and causing a climate change as a result of processes spanning decades back, and what's worse, we continue doing it at an ever accelerating rate. The industrialized countries have the obligation to acknowledge the TRUE causes for the problem and take the historic responsibility for solving it, and start doing a REAL change by giving an example. Otherwise we'll never untie this knot and things will be fast approaching the point where all of these quibbles will have become totally pointless. Which doesn't necessarily mean this will have become a non-issue.

But of course, you shouldn't bet on any of that happening in Qatar, come November.

Comments

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Cool thing happened (bad pun I know): Co2 emissions in the United States for the last year are at the lowest levels in 20 years. I have to say, I was pretty surprised by that good news. (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/AP-IMPACT-CO2-emissions-in-US-drop-to-20-year-low-3793420.php) Due to a lot less use of nasty coal to more clean natural gas.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

yeah, but we still have the frakking issue to deal with.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but you know, in an never ending cascade of bad news on global warming, this is truly a bright spot. It's really depressing topic otherwise (e.g. the record Arctic Ocean ice melt this Summer). And I only brought it up because a lot of people aren't aware of this statistic.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

That's good news. It could mean that some processes are still not irreversible.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I was thinking of making a post on that documentary Carbon Nation (http://www.carbonnationmovie.com/), and the director really talks about moving the conversation away from getting people to believe in human-based climate change (he thinks it's so polarized now, and science is nearly universal in its agreement on this point, so why waste valuable time on it now versus real action and remedies that appeal to people for more practical reasons) and instead make it a practicable issue: in fact he shows a business man in Alaska is using geothermal heat because he's pro environment, loves saving money, and believes climate change is complete bunk.

The director Peter Byck was interviewed recently and he mentioned in passing how we can reverse a lot of the damage done, and all hope is not lost. He specificially mentioned how powerful of a tool topsoil is in the process of Co2 sequestration. I'm trying to find out more about that.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

In that we've slowed our approach to those tipping points?

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Well that's good, at least someone is listening at least.

...

Or is it because we simply shipped all of our industries overseas and closed down our plants?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

No, it's related to reduction of our coal-powered electrical output.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Hats off to the United States for its leadership on the issue of Climate Change. Think of how much progress could be made if more countries followed American's sterling example.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I would say that it may be a little more complicated than simply the USA and China here. The existing treaties like Kyoto are very much not enforced by their actual signatories (and IIRC neither the USA or China ratified the Kyoto Protocol), which means for developing countries this amounts to being told to implement policies that actual signatories to these treaties don't enforce for themselves, policies which have additionally an end-result of helping to enshrine the global status quo of rich and poor. In both cases, poor countries have no reason to adhere to these ideas, and rich countries very obviously whatever the principle of the thing don't have any interest in acting according to said principle.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Yep. It's far from being ONLY the USA and China here.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

I still feel like the first snow fall of the year in, say, the North West/Great Lakes region of the U.S. would be met with "OMG where's your global warming now?!?"

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Someone turned the sun off to-evening! We're doomed!!!

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

Ahem...

If " Any conclusions based on stats from just a few years of prior research, is bullshit" - as you say; than the statement: "Today's climate change is a result of all the CO2 emissions from the last century" is bullshit, too because all the human-made-the-global-warming theory is, in fact, based on "scientific" stats from a few years of prior research.

The "Ozone depletion" hysteria has since faded so I hope the Carbon Dioxide Panic will die off as well.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Ahem, I hope you do know that science has its ways to make pretty accurate measurements dating back hundreds and thousands of years, and make conclusions about epochs when climatology virtually boiled down to spitting on your finger and raising it in the air to see where the wind was coming from - don't you?

Ever wonder why the ozone depletion hysteria has since faded? Has something been done to curb ozone depletion, or we just sat with our fingers crossed all that time?

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

If you work for the Heartland Institute, General Motors stopped paying you to be a climate denier a long time ago... You can give up the charade now. ((:

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Do you think the reduction in ozone depleting gases from the early 1990s onwards had something to do with the practical policies and legal requirements that were embodied in the Montreal Convention?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Ozone_cfc_trends.png

Looks like it, doesn't it?

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Good post, but not enough vomiting.

Offhand...I would say...

A. Carbon emissions don't represent the real troubles with global warming and climate change. The real danger is the Clathrate gun hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis) aka methane burps. Rising temperatures melt ice freeing methane trapped inside. Freed methane traps heat raising temperatures which in turn melts more ice releasing more methane.. Methane is more than 20 times (http://www.epa.gov/methane/) more effective at trapping heat than CO² per weight. Could be associated with periods of earths history where mass extinctions (http://www.livescience.com/15168-embargoed-methane-burst-cleared-dinos.html) occurred.

B. There's a phenomenon known as global dimming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) which suggests pollution in the atmosphere reduces or refracts sunlight resulting in a phenomena known as global cooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling). Extreme lows experienced during winter may be associated with these principles. It doesn't imply global warming doesn't exist only that there are other variables in play.

C. Earth's magnetic field is weakening (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY2MrQKiIoM). Could mean higher temperatures via increased solar radiation & add a boosting effect to whatever global warming is already occurring.

/whatever I'm forgetting or not thinking of right now goes here.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Global dimming reminds me of those nanobots the machines dimmed the entire sky with in The Matrix.

WE R DOOMD!!111

Ps. Also: vomit vomit vomit vomit vomit vomit! <-- Hope that suffices!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

C is a natural phenomenon that occurs in conjunction with the sun's 550 year (give or take) flux cycle.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

The argument that the salient issue isn't total emissions, but lifestyle, is very interesting. Shrewd observers, however, know that carbon dioxide has no politics. Its impact on the global climate is the same, regardless of its country or origin. If Chinese CO2 is not a problem, it is hard to get too worked up about the far smaller amount of American CO2.
The issue of historic responsibility is another argument supported more by anti-Western sentiment than by any kind of science. One would think that, in the face of a genuine urgent crisis, there would be more objectivity. Evidently, those who wonder if these conferences are simply an exercise in bashing the West and trying to shake down the developed world aren't totally off base.
Finally, the vomit transfer argument should win a prize. If the United States is responsible for its emissions, the same should apply to other countries. Emissions in China are caused by Chinese companies governed by Chinese law. So, Chinese emissions are Chinese vomit.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I wonder if China will consider reducing its emissions when they complete the dozens of nuclear plants they have under construction.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

carbon dioxide has no politics. Its impact on the global climate is the same, regardless of its country or origin

True. And yet, in order to change anything about the emissions, first you have to convince those who are causing said emissions to think about it.

If Chinese CO2 is not a problem, it is hard to get too worked up about the far smaller amount of American CO2

You've completely missed the point. Neither was it argued that the Chinese CO2 is not the problem, nor that the far smaller amount of American CO2 represents anything resembling a "solution".

those who wonder if these conferences are simply an exercise in bashing the West

The West remains unperturbed, and that's what matters. Perhaps we should shift to begging it?

Emissions in China are caused by Chinese companies governed by Chinese law

That's very convenient, but the bulk of the Chinese industrial boom from recent years was driven by corporations from the industrialized world which outsourced their production to China. It's not that China suddenly decided to create hundreds of corporations and begin operation of industrial facilities all across their territory.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Its impact on the global climate is the same, regardless of its country or origin.

Actually, that's not quite true. But I do understand what you're saying here.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The thing that's always bugged me about the AGW debates (aside from the distinctly anti-humanist bent of certain participants) is that CO2 only a tangental factor.

CO2 by itself has a low specific heat and a high emmisivity to absorbtion ratio. In other words it's not a very good insulator.

It does however influence things that are.

Both CO and H20 have a far greater influence on an atmosphere's ability to absorb and radiate heat yet no body talks about reducing the clobal humidity or stomping out carbon monoxide.

Finally there is the simple engineering aspect of it.

Say we adopt the most extreme measures proposed. Strict localization of food production enforced sterilizations to reduce the population, rejection of all non-alternative energy sources.

Is that really going to cost less than adaptation?

Building levies or engineering a crop to grow in new conditions is a much simpler and solvable problem than reversing the course of human history.