Thank you ,Roger. Much to comment here, but first, your basic question:
How can net-zero carbon dioxide be achieved this century?
The answer is, that net zero cannot be achieved, but since human emissions so far have proved to be too small to affect global temperature, it seems that the only climate issue facing humankind, consists of climate hysteria, climate religion and climate kleptocracy.
Here is the peer reviewed science showing our emissions have no measurable effects, the 2023 update have newer data, but the conclusion is the same.:
Dagsvik et al mentions two possible caveats; that statistical methods are insufficiently sophisticated to find human influence in the data, and that our best observations in nature are insufficiently good to measure human influence.
Now for the first graph, let us take a closer look at Ukraine with their major emission cuts. Getting rid of the Soviet era industry helped a lot early on, but most cuts were achieved recently by being invaded and bombed by Putins Russia, reducing GDP and emissions by more than 50 %. The latest messages from Ukraine mentions Russian soldiers even stealing solar panels, for drone protection in their entrenchments.
No other country is anywhere near net zero. And won't get there due the populations voting against it, as soon as they realize the cost.
Clearly we are better off emitting CO2, rather shooting ourselves in the foot by cuts, or inviting Putin in to fix our emissions.
The bottom line seems to be that Land Use Changes only, as of today, is where humans may change the climate and where we can do anything about it.
I am swayed by a host of qualified climate scientists who do not feel carbon dioxide is a problem. The foremost are William Happer who has studied the optical effects of chemical bonds, and Richard Lindzen who resigned from the IPCC sighting their political bias. If we humans can make it for at least another thousand years, our use of fossil fuels will be limited to about 200 years out of 10s of thousands of years on planet earth.
You do a great job pointing out how ridiculous COP28 is! Thanks.
It's not just emissions that finds no consensus at COP28. It's also the source of emissions. In addition to the flaw that Roger carefully explains, there is an even bigger flaw that prevents correcting the emissions' flaw and any other flaws. COP28, like previous conferences, requires not just consensus, but unanimity. Any one country can prevent a word or phrase from becoming part of a Congress of the Parties resolution.
Nigeria and many other third world countries will not allow any resolution promoting emissions' reductions. Saudi Arabia will not allow any resolution promoting the phaseout or phase down of fossil fuels. In fact, it will not allow the phrase fossil fuels to be used. China and India will not allow the word coal to be mentioned in a resolution. Correcting any previous resolution or flaw requires 100% agreement by every party (all 200 countries) with little chance of such unanimity.
I think the unanimity flaw is responsible for the Paris Accords. Only a resolution that didn't mention emissions and fossil fuels was possible. What was that resolution- to try to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius. This aspirational resolution didn't limit use of fossil fuels or limit greenhouse gas emissions, so countries like Saudi Arabia, China, and India went along with it. Unfortunately, so did the IPCC, even though their own Assessments describe how difficult attribution of warming is, the result of so many variables. These variables include the amount of emissions, the climate sensitivity to these emissions, and the climate variability, or whatever warming or cooling would be occurring without any change in emissions. None of these variables can be quantified- future emissions, although we are sure it's not the RCP8.5 scenario, climate sensitivity somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 or maybe not, and what mother earth might be doing in the absence of anthropogenic forcings.
In my opinion, the Paris Accords 1.5 and 2.0 C aspirational goals, the only resolution that could pass, was responsible for creating unreasonable climate crisis fear, promoted by the wind/solar lobby and their climate activists, and without any agreed upon means to limit global warming. or at least the anthropogenic part. The Congress of the Parties is dysfunctional, and the unanimity flaw makes correcting any flaws almost impossible.
The requirement for unanimity is not a bug, it is a feature which cannot be changed unless all agree. Here is how the West cheats to get around this rule:
In Cracow the 1.5 C Special Report was not approved, since it was a political attack on oil producing countries, with a recommendation of fossil fuel phaseout. In the final hours a compromise was made, where the publication of the report was approved, while the content of the report was not approved. At the time this was reported by Reuters and others.
Later, in the West, the Climate establishment marketed the 1.5 C Report as approved in its entirety, concealing the invalid content and telling media we had to get rid of fossil fuels.
In the Rest, development of coal, gas and oil resources continued. These countries can probably accept the phrase phasing down, as log is it is unspecified. After all, in a thousand years from now hydrocarbons are mostly gone, and we will have found a better way to provide reliable and plentiful energy, offered at a reasonable price.
"The same way that the world has achieved a doubling of average human lifespans and fed the world over the past century — through a commitment to technological innovation, diffusion and deployment while at the same time supporting economic growth. Advances in health and agriculture have taken place without globally negotiated targets and timetables and without cleaving the world along a wealth axis, pitting the rich against the rest." So the question is "why is this particular issue framed as anything else?" and "who is benefitting from that framing?"
I feel like that statement is a bit "back to the future" with regard to the Hartwell Paper.
You and a companion find yourselves in a life boat after a ship disaster with limited rations and water. You divide the resource three-ways, thinking charitably, that there's a possibility of another survivor joining the boat. Subsequently, several other survivors join the boat and you inform them to split the unclaimed one-third of the resource amongst the new arrivals while you and your companion each keep one-third. What's the likelihood that the life boat will remain peaceful?
You need to read some Robert Zubrin. They rescue a new arrival on their boat and he tells them how to navigate by the stars to some islands he knows are nearby. And he saw a old fishnet floating in the sea that they can catch fish with. And some debris with which they can fashion oars and a sail & rudder. And some plastic that they can condense water in the morning to drink. To quote Zubrin: There are no natural resources. There are only natural materials. Resources come from human creativity.
No thinking person without an overriding hidden agenda or irrational utopian world view would think that an effective treaty could (1) give a pass to the biggest worst offenders and (2) expect voluntary self-sacrifice by peoples/countries desperate for short-term survival.
I love it when you are brilliant, Roger.
Thank you ,Roger. Much to comment here, but first, your basic question:
How can net-zero carbon dioxide be achieved this century?
The answer is, that net zero cannot be achieved, but since human emissions so far have proved to be too small to affect global temperature, it seems that the only climate issue facing humankind, consists of climate hysteria, climate religion and climate kleptocracy.
Here is the peer reviewed science showing our emissions have no measurable effects, the 2023 update have newer data, but the conclusion is the same.:
https://ssb.brage.unit.no/ssb-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2651801/How%2Bdoes%2Btemperature%2Bvary.pdf?sequence=2
Dagsvik et al mentions two possible caveats; that statistical methods are insufficiently sophisticated to find human influence in the data, and that our best observations in nature are insufficiently good to measure human influence.
Now for the first graph, let us take a closer look at Ukraine with their major emission cuts. Getting rid of the Soviet era industry helped a lot early on, but most cuts were achieved recently by being invaded and bombed by Putins Russia, reducing GDP and emissions by more than 50 %. The latest messages from Ukraine mentions Russian soldiers even stealing solar panels, for drone protection in their entrenchments.
No other country is anywhere near net zero. And won't get there due the populations voting against it, as soon as they realize the cost.
Clearly we are better off emitting CO2, rather shooting ourselves in the foot by cuts, or inviting Putin in to fix our emissions.
The bottom line seems to be that Land Use Changes only, as of today, is where humans may change the climate and where we can do anything about it.
Roger,
I am swayed by a host of qualified climate scientists who do not feel carbon dioxide is a problem. The foremost are William Happer who has studied the optical effects of chemical bonds, and Richard Lindzen who resigned from the IPCC sighting their political bias. If we humans can make it for at least another thousand years, our use of fossil fuels will be limited to about 200 years out of 10s of thousands of years on planet earth.
You do a great job pointing out how ridiculous COP28 is! Thanks.
Bob Wisne
It's not just emissions that finds no consensus at COP28. It's also the source of emissions. In addition to the flaw that Roger carefully explains, there is an even bigger flaw that prevents correcting the emissions' flaw and any other flaws. COP28, like previous conferences, requires not just consensus, but unanimity. Any one country can prevent a word or phrase from becoming part of a Congress of the Parties resolution.
Nigeria and many other third world countries will not allow any resolution promoting emissions' reductions. Saudi Arabia will not allow any resolution promoting the phaseout or phase down of fossil fuels. In fact, it will not allow the phrase fossil fuels to be used. China and India will not allow the word coal to be mentioned in a resolution. Correcting any previous resolution or flaw requires 100% agreement by every party (all 200 countries) with little chance of such unanimity.
I think the unanimity flaw is responsible for the Paris Accords. Only a resolution that didn't mention emissions and fossil fuels was possible. What was that resolution- to try to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius. This aspirational resolution didn't limit use of fossil fuels or limit greenhouse gas emissions, so countries like Saudi Arabia, China, and India went along with it. Unfortunately, so did the IPCC, even though their own Assessments describe how difficult attribution of warming is, the result of so many variables. These variables include the amount of emissions, the climate sensitivity to these emissions, and the climate variability, or whatever warming or cooling would be occurring without any change in emissions. None of these variables can be quantified- future emissions, although we are sure it's not the RCP8.5 scenario, climate sensitivity somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 or maybe not, and what mother earth might be doing in the absence of anthropogenic forcings.
In my opinion, the Paris Accords 1.5 and 2.0 C aspirational goals, the only resolution that could pass, was responsible for creating unreasonable climate crisis fear, promoted by the wind/solar lobby and their climate activists, and without any agreed upon means to limit global warming. or at least the anthropogenic part. The Congress of the Parties is dysfunctional, and the unanimity flaw makes correcting any flaws almost impossible.
The requirement for unanimity is not a bug, it is a feature which cannot be changed unless all agree. Here is how the West cheats to get around this rule:
In Cracow the 1.5 C Special Report was not approved, since it was a political attack on oil producing countries, with a recommendation of fossil fuel phaseout. In the final hours a compromise was made, where the publication of the report was approved, while the content of the report was not approved. At the time this was reported by Reuters and others.
Later, in the West, the Climate establishment marketed the 1.5 C Report as approved in its entirety, concealing the invalid content and telling media we had to get rid of fossil fuels.
In the Rest, development of coal, gas and oil resources continued. These countries can probably accept the phrase phasing down, as log is it is unspecified. After all, in a thousand years from now hydrocarbons are mostly gone, and we will have found a better way to provide reliable and plentiful energy, offered at a reasonable price.
Oh mon dieu, Geir. I didn't know that. What a mockery. There's more sense in Roger Pielke's weekly insights than in 28 years of climate conferences.
"The same way that the world has achieved a doubling of average human lifespans and fed the world over the past century — through a commitment to technological innovation, diffusion and deployment while at the same time supporting economic growth. Advances in health and agriculture have taken place without globally negotiated targets and timetables and without cleaving the world along a wealth axis, pitting the rich against the rest." So the question is "why is this particular issue framed as anything else?" and "who is benefitting from that framing?"
I feel like that statement is a bit "back to the future" with regard to the Hartwell Paper.
You and a companion find yourselves in a life boat after a ship disaster with limited rations and water. You divide the resource three-ways, thinking charitably, that there's a possibility of another survivor joining the boat. Subsequently, several other survivors join the boat and you inform them to split the unclaimed one-third of the resource amongst the new arrivals while you and your companion each keep one-third. What's the likelihood that the life boat will remain peaceful?
You need to read some Robert Zubrin. They rescue a new arrival on their boat and he tells them how to navigate by the stars to some islands he knows are nearby. And he saw a old fishnet floating in the sea that they can catch fish with. And some debris with which they can fashion oars and a sail & rudder. And some plastic that they can condense water in the morning to drink. To quote Zubrin: There are no natural resources. There are only natural materials. Resources come from human creativity.
The Atlas Society Asks Robert Zubrin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh-dM44O1Vs&t=930s
No thinking person without an overriding hidden agenda or irrational utopian world view would think that an effective treaty could (1) give a pass to the biggest worst offenders and (2) expect voluntary self-sacrifice by peoples/countries desperate for short-term survival.
Roger, you are killing me! I couldn't find any spelling or tense errors, so I was reduced to complaining about the nittiest of nits:
"Yet, i am still optimistic. How can net-zero carbon dioxide be achieved this century?"
The 'i' should be 'I' ;)
Frank
Ha! You are obviously helping me to focus my attention better ;-)
I could not agree more, especially the last part concerning diffusion of technology and equal access to energy services through economic development.
Excellent summary of the situation, Roger!