Reduction targets based on some earlier baseline make almost zero sense.
Germany likes to use 1990 because that was pre-reunification. When East Germany joined West Germany, there were many extremely inefficient coal burners in East Germany which were shut down and replaced. This gives Germany a built in "accomplishment" of reductions from the 1990 baseline, which are mostly meaningless. Inflate the baseline to make the accomplishment look good.
Or consider France. Their emissions have been near 60 grams of CO2 per KWHr generated (contrast with Germany at 400+) since around 1995.
Does it make sense to insist that France reduce emissions by 80%?
It seems everyone within a certain political sphere on this planet are in agreement that when you cannot meet your targets, you should set higher targets further out.
My country, Norway, is also on the same line as Australia. We will probably not reach our target of 55% reduction by 2030 measured from 1990 levels. Therefore our bold government has put forward the next ambition - higher and further out. Now we are aiming for 70-75% reduction in 2035, measured from 1990 levels.
Norway is already at 50% renewables in our total energy system (not only the electricity part). We have been there for decades, and we were there in 1990. Thus we are way ahead of the rest of you. We do not have the luxury of coal plants to cut out of the system, something which is fairly simple to do. We have only the hard to abate stuff left.
In absolute, domestic figures Norway emitted around 51 million tons of CO2-equivalents. This increased to just shy of 57 in 2007. Since then it has slowly dropped to 46.7. Of course, Norway met its 30% by 2020 target - by buying emissions quotas abroad, not cutting at home.
Now, being a filthy rich country we can buy quotas still and maybe get some fancy accounting such as LULUCF (the EU does that, we haven't joined them - yet) and through that "reach" our 2030 target. But I think most people are waking up to the harsh reality that the cost is extremely high, for very debatle benefits.
I absolutely agree with you that real cuts come only when you actually replace emitters rather than add on something.
The interest in the coming climate catastrophe is in decline. I think very few will go to see the movie.
Feasible or not, why have a quantitative goal at all. Why not have a goal of by 20zz having a tax on net emissions y% of tht needed to get the world to net zero by 20XX?
The notion of policies to reduce CO2 emissions driven by setting targets to meet Net Zero goals tied to U.N. desires to save the world are absurd. Unfortunately Australia is learning this lesson the hard way following in the footsteps of Germany, Great Britain, Canada, Spain and other virtue signaling countries. If not for the Trump administration and Chris Wright, Lee Zeldin and Doug Burnum the US would be in the same self destruct mode.
The political leaders of Australia after getting away with COVID policies that were truly horrific and anti democratic have concluded that they can get away with just about anything. It will probably take an Australian Trump to turn things around. Do any of THB's Australian subscribers know if anyone is waiting in the wings?
Hoping that fellow Aussies treated you well and rewarded your hard work about us. Thank you.
A thread through your several articles is our PM Albanese with determination to keep net zero alive and become a renewables powerhouse. I have written an article about conflicts with his and President Trump's addresses to the UN last week. They are planned to meet on Oct 20, much later than most other heads of state. Would I be right to surmise that President Trump made the date this late to allow PM Albanese to hear Trump's preferences, to reverse his policies and announce them before that visit? It would sure save some political fisticuffs on and after 20th. Geoff S
Roger, do not feel too badly about miscalculating the UK's rate of economic growth over the last 15 years or so. No rational analyst would have predicted the economic suicide pact the UK's political class entered into with their Climate Change Act. Our summer here in Britain has made me sad to see a once-great industrial nation shooting itself in both feet and all ten toes. Under both Labour and Conservative governments, serious policies were put in place to meet serious Net Zero goals. Green subsidies doubled the price of electricity such that British industries pay twice as much for power as Germans do, and four times as much as we do in the US. Sale of gasoline ("petrol") cars will be banned as of 2030. Energy Secretary Ed Millibrand canceled all new North Sea oil and gas drilling permits. Steel-making and crude oil refining have collapsed. Aircraft building is vestigial. Coal-mining died decades ago. The HS2 high-speed rail project is paralyzed after environmentalists insisted on spending 100 million pounds on overpasses to allow newts to travel across the rail line in safety. (For the biologically challenged, a newt is a small slender amphibian with a well-developed tail.) Unemployment is soaring and the government must sell its bonds at interest rates higher than either Greece or Italy. Nations take note: Net Zero can eviscerate your nation's economy if you take it seriously.
I thought that when the UK passed Brexit, that they had freed themselves from the EU climate insanity.
Then they adopted their own homegrown version of insanity.
Germany has been in recession for over two years and has some of the highest electricity rates in the world. That was true (except the recession part) before the UK followed.
Why in the world did the UK think that Germany's example was a good one to follow?
My fevered, paranoid brain is starting to believe that inefficiency, waste, collapse and mismanagement are the intent. Make things horrible and the public will start to believe the lies published by WEF's pet NGOs and academics claiming that our way of life is "unsustainable".
After things collapse the public will scream for change, any change, and then all the WEF/globalist disciples can implement their 15 minute cities, end personal transportation, destroy private land ownership and feed the public bugs.
Dear Mr. Walther: Alas, the will of British citizens, as expressed by Brexit, has been subverted by the British "deep state" of politicians and government permanent under-secretaries. The latest madness is Energy Secretary Ed Milibrand's thrust to ban hydraulic fracturing permanently in Britain. In the British midlands, there are shale deposits 6000 feet deep which could yield enough methane to keep Britain in cheap energy through the end of this century. However, such deposits need to be hydraulically fractured to get the gas to flow. Milibrand's ban will ensure that these deposits will never be exploited.
There is no UK. There is London, which dominates politically and socially. I long ago realized that large cities have many benefits, but are also highly susceptible to mass delusions.
I suggest a read of Bruce Chatwins' SONGLINES. Australian leadership should undergo a camping tromp through the outback for 6 months with a diet of lizards and eucalyptus leaves. Watch out for brown snakes or they will end your climate fantasies.
The Australian government's justification for its "ambitious" targets is in accordance with The Economist's calls for a "politics of the possible" - hide the reality about your objectives and capabilities in order to maintain the enthusiasm of Green supporters.
In 2023, Australia's emissions were 0.96% of the world total, ranking them 18th in the world. China, number one, had emissions 35 times Australia's emissions, and China is racing to build more coal plants.
Can you comment on what allows counties to continue committing to goals they know they cannot meet? Is there some rational explanation? Good intentions? Hope? Dependence on experts who say no problem. What?
The Australia lesson that "climate policy needs more pragmatism, and less virtue signaling" is spot on. I am left wondering how much was spent not achieving targets and how much more will be wasted to chase unattainable new targets with good intentions instead of capable technologies.
@Roger Pielke JR.
Do you have anything to say about the damage functions used by economists and climatologists to estimate costs under various scenarios?
They are nuts just like the rest of the west other than the USA
“ Nuclear power and natural gas use here is illustrative. You can do the same sort of math with solar, wind, geothermal, batteries, etc.”
Only if you use “discovery math”. Ie make it up
Reduction targets based on some earlier baseline make almost zero sense.
Germany likes to use 1990 because that was pre-reunification. When East Germany joined West Germany, there were many extremely inefficient coal burners in East Germany which were shut down and replaced. This gives Germany a built in "accomplishment" of reductions from the 1990 baseline, which are mostly meaningless. Inflate the baseline to make the accomplishment look good.
Or consider France. Their emissions have been near 60 grams of CO2 per KWHr generated (contrast with Germany at 400+) since around 1995.
Does it make sense to insist that France reduce emissions by 80%?
It seems everyone within a certain political sphere on this planet are in agreement that when you cannot meet your targets, you should set higher targets further out.
My country, Norway, is also on the same line as Australia. We will probably not reach our target of 55% reduction by 2030 measured from 1990 levels. Therefore our bold government has put forward the next ambition - higher and further out. Now we are aiming for 70-75% reduction in 2035, measured from 1990 levels.
Norway is already at 50% renewables in our total energy system (not only the electricity part). We have been there for decades, and we were there in 1990. Thus we are way ahead of the rest of you. We do not have the luxury of coal plants to cut out of the system, something which is fairly simple to do. We have only the hard to abate stuff left.
In absolute, domestic figures Norway emitted around 51 million tons of CO2-equivalents. This increased to just shy of 57 in 2007. Since then it has slowly dropped to 46.7. Of course, Norway met its 30% by 2020 target - by buying emissions quotas abroad, not cutting at home.
Now, being a filthy rich country we can buy quotas still and maybe get some fancy accounting such as LULUCF (the EU does that, we haven't joined them - yet) and through that "reach" our 2030 target. But I think most people are waking up to the harsh reality that the cost is extremely high, for very debatle benefits.
I absolutely agree with you that real cuts come only when you actually replace emitters rather than add on something.
The interest in the coming climate catastrophe is in decline. I think very few will go to see the movie.
Feasible or not, why have a quantitative goal at all. Why not have a goal of by 20zz having a tax on net emissions y% of tht needed to get the world to net zero by 20XX?
The notion of policies to reduce CO2 emissions driven by setting targets to meet Net Zero goals tied to U.N. desires to save the world are absurd. Unfortunately Australia is learning this lesson the hard way following in the footsteps of Germany, Great Britain, Canada, Spain and other virtue signaling countries. If not for the Trump administration and Chris Wright, Lee Zeldin and Doug Burnum the US would be in the same self destruct mode.
The political leaders of Australia after getting away with COVID policies that were truly horrific and anti democratic have concluded that they can get away with just about anything. It will probably take an Australian Trump to turn things around. Do any of THB's Australian subscribers know if anyone is waiting in the wings?
Roger,
Hoping that fellow Aussies treated you well and rewarded your hard work about us. Thank you.
A thread through your several articles is our PM Albanese with determination to keep net zero alive and become a renewables powerhouse. I have written an article about conflicts with his and President Trump's addresses to the UN last week. They are planned to meet on Oct 20, much later than most other heads of state. Would I be right to surmise that President Trump made the date this late to allow PM Albanese to hear Trump's preferences, to reverse his policies and announce them before that visit? It would sure save some political fisticuffs on and after 20th. Geoff S
Roger, do not feel too badly about miscalculating the UK's rate of economic growth over the last 15 years or so. No rational analyst would have predicted the economic suicide pact the UK's political class entered into with their Climate Change Act. Our summer here in Britain has made me sad to see a once-great industrial nation shooting itself in both feet and all ten toes. Under both Labour and Conservative governments, serious policies were put in place to meet serious Net Zero goals. Green subsidies doubled the price of electricity such that British industries pay twice as much for power as Germans do, and four times as much as we do in the US. Sale of gasoline ("petrol") cars will be banned as of 2030. Energy Secretary Ed Millibrand canceled all new North Sea oil and gas drilling permits. Steel-making and crude oil refining have collapsed. Aircraft building is vestigial. Coal-mining died decades ago. The HS2 high-speed rail project is paralyzed after environmentalists insisted on spending 100 million pounds on overpasses to allow newts to travel across the rail line in safety. (For the biologically challenged, a newt is a small slender amphibian with a well-developed tail.) Unemployment is soaring and the government must sell its bonds at interest rates higher than either Greece or Italy. Nations take note: Net Zero can eviscerate your nation's economy if you take it seriously.
I thought that when the UK passed Brexit, that they had freed themselves from the EU climate insanity.
Then they adopted their own homegrown version of insanity.
Germany has been in recession for over two years and has some of the highest electricity rates in the world. That was true (except the recession part) before the UK followed.
Why in the world did the UK think that Germany's example was a good one to follow?
My fevered, paranoid brain is starting to believe that inefficiency, waste, collapse and mismanagement are the intent. Make things horrible and the public will start to believe the lies published by WEF's pet NGOs and academics claiming that our way of life is "unsustainable".
After things collapse the public will scream for change, any change, and then all the WEF/globalist disciples can implement their 15 minute cities, end personal transportation, destroy private land ownership and feed the public bugs.
Dear Mr. Walther: Alas, the will of British citizens, as expressed by Brexit, has been subverted by the British "deep state" of politicians and government permanent under-secretaries. The latest madness is Energy Secretary Ed Milibrand's thrust to ban hydraulic fracturing permanently in Britain. In the British midlands, there are shale deposits 6000 feet deep which could yield enough methane to keep Britain in cheap energy through the end of this century. However, such deposits need to be hydraulically fractured to get the gas to flow. Milibrand's ban will ensure that these deposits will never be exploited.
I'd say, if you do not use the most efficient means of achieving it.
There is no UK. There is London, which dominates politically and socially. I long ago realized that large cities have many benefits, but are also highly susceptible to mass delusions.
Net Zero is a slogan and a chimera – a destination without a path to reach it.
The "roadmaps" tp 2050 ignore the fact that many of the "roads" do not exist. The two most important missing "roads" are economical storage and DEFRs.
"A failure to plan is a plan to fail.", Benjamin Franklin
The plan to succeed is non-existent. The plan to fail is operative.
I suggest a read of Bruce Chatwins' SONGLINES. Australian leadership should undergo a camping tromp through the outback for 6 months with a diet of lizards and eucalyptus leaves. Watch out for brown snakes or they will end your climate fantasies.
The Aussies skipped a step. They forgot to ascertain if they should reduce emissions.
The Australian government's justification for its "ambitious" targets is in accordance with The Economist's calls for a "politics of the possible" - hide the reality about your objectives and capabilities in order to maintain the enthusiasm of Green supporters.
https://www.economist.com/interactive/leaders/2025/07/31/the-climate-needs-a-politics-of-the-possible
In 2023, Australia's emissions were 0.96% of the world total, ranking them 18th in the world. China, number one, had emissions 35 times Australia's emissions, and China is racing to build more coal plants.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/co2-emissions-by-country
Not only are Australia's CO2 reduction goals impossible, they are completely pointless. Even if CO2 was the climate control knob.
As the old saying goes, "Speak the truth and shame the Devil."
Or, "If you can keep your head when all about you ..." :)
The issue is not what others are doing, but the failure to cost out the means of achieving the goal.
Can you comment on what allows counties to continue committing to goals they know they cannot meet? Is there some rational explanation? Good intentions? Hope? Dependence on experts who say no problem. What?
I believe it's called "lying". A particular speciality of those we call "politicians".
The Australia lesson that "climate policy needs more pragmatism, and less virtue signaling" is spot on. I am left wondering how much was spent not achieving targets and how much more will be wasted to chase unattainable new targets with good intentions instead of capable technologies.