David Bidstrup: The hole’s not deep enough, we’d better keep digging.

A report “The Australian” Tuesday 24/9 is headed “Five times more effort needed on carbon action” and contains a table showing changes in “emissions” over the period 2005 to 2017. The report is replete with the usual hyperbole about “warmest of any equivalent period on record”, heatwaves, fires, cyclones, floods and droughts – all of which are supposedly on the increase due to one molecule in 2,500 of the atmosphere. Melting ice, ocean “acidification” and sea level rise also got a run.

I thought an analysis was in order to try and make some sense of it all.

The table below shows the results with one caveat: there seems to be a double entry for India and Russia and I cannot find any information to allow me to correct one or the other so there is no claim that this is gospel truth.

The table compares emissions in 2005 and 2017 for various countries then finds the change over 12 years. This is expressed in both Gigatonnes, (column 4), and as a percentage, (column 5).

Column 6 shows the relative percentage for each country for the 2017 emissions. Column 7 shows the multipliers that any country’s emissions are larger than Australia’s emissions.

First up, 66% of the 2017 emissions are due to China, U.S and “the rest of the world”. Of the 17 counties listed, 4 have reduced emissions over the past 12 years, (24%), and 13 have increased emissions, (76%). Of the 13 increases only 3 are less than 10% – Australia, Mexico and Japan. Increases range from 10% for South Africa to 103% for India. Australia’s share of the 2017 emissions is 1.1% and is the lowest of all in the table.

The next 2 columns show the quantity of CO2 added over the 12 years by the various countries. I have calculated this by averaging the 2005 and 2017 quantities and multiplying by 12. I recognise this is not as rigorous as some would like but the lack of data makes it necessary, and it illustrates the issue.

In the 12 years 416,000 Gigatonnes of CO2 have been “emitted”. The table shows that “the rest of the world”, China and the U.S have contributed 69% of this increase. Note also that “the rest of the world” and the U.S are 2 of the 4 that show reductions over the 12 year period, China has an increase of 71% and India 104%.

Australia sits one from the bottom having a contribution of 1.15%, only beaten by Turkey at 1.02%.

The article contains some suggestions to reduce emissions, and here they are with their corresponding “annual reductions” in Gt.
• “Scaling up ocean based renewable energy” to save 5.4 Gt a year.
• “Decarbonising shipping” to save 1.8 Gt a year.
• “Protecting and restoring mangroves, sea grasses and salt marshes” for I Gt a year.
• “Using low-carbon sources of protein from the ocean, (seaweed), to ease emissions from land based food production” for 1.24 Gt a year.

A grand total: 9.44 Gt a year. Over the 12 year period the “average” emissions per year are 34,644 Gt. 9.44 will not move the needle on this, it is 0.027%.

This shows the dismal failure of “emissions reductions” and shows that the gazillions of dollars thrown away in the quest to “de-carbonise” has bought us zilch.

Rather than recognise this and have a re-think the default position is to double down on the madness and keep whipping us to hurry back to the dark ages.

Surely it is time to exit the United Nations and do ourselves a favour.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to David Bidstrup: The hole’s not deep enough, we’d better keep digging.

  1. stackja

    UN was created to stop WWIII.
    Now UN seemingly wants to end the world.

  2. Rafe Champion

    I hope we can win the argument about CO2 (that it is not an issue) because there are so many things wrong with the road we are on. Just consider the cost of the measuring and accounting systems required to work out the numbers and what places like China will do with the accounts. Deloitte and other accountants will be happy but!

  3. BoyfromTottenham

    Good work, David.
    What seems to be constantly overlooked in the ‘CO2 reductions’ story is that most of the ‘man-made’ CO2 sources are ignored. the generation of electrical energy only represents a small percentage of Australia (and the rest of the developed world’s). What about railways, shipping and aviation? What about metal refining and cement production? What about making fertilisers and plastics from petrochemicals? I assume that these are ignored because a direct attack on them would expose the obvious – that there are no practical alternatives to the use of fossil fuels for these purposes, and the loss of them would send any economy back to the dark ages. So we waste all our time and energy attacking and defending only one of the sources of ‘man-made’ CO2, with a promise that windmills and solar cells can fill the gap.

  4. stackja

    The solution to the CO2 ‘problem’ would be for people so concerned, to not exhale. The earth population will benefit greatly.

  5. Dr Fred Lenin

    Co2 from Western countries is pollution and damaging the climate . But CO2 fromm China Nd India is good for the planet and has no effect on the climate . The science is settled ,all 73 clinate “scientists”
    ( activists )are totally in agreement .

  6. Dr Fred Lenin

    As I have said before ,China is building coal fired power stations to supply power to the factories that make solar and windmills to be exported to us to ruin our reliable power supply .
    How is that for a cynical lark they must laugh at the foolishness of the weak politicians of the West .

  7. Karabar

    It doesn’t matter. CO2 has buggar all to do with the weather.

  8. jrm

    Found this video which explains the physics and the BS physics in such a way that even I can understand it. Real climate physics versus fake political physics. Enjoy.

  9. Again, we generate SFA, yet are supposed to cripple our economy and lifestyle while the rest of the world goes about their business as usual.

    But wait! We should reconsider those per capita figures (which most likely includes all of our natural resource exports).

  10. Goanna

    Surely it is time to exit the United Nations and do ourselves a favour.

    Never a truer word.

  11. sfw

    Love how the same people who worry about our emissions are the same who love mass migration and want to increase it. They don’t want to see the connection.

  12. classical_hero

    You need to pay your climate indulgences.

  13. Crossie

    This shows the dismal failure of “emissions reductions” and shows that the gazillions of dollars thrown away in the quest to “de-carbonise” has bought us zilch.

    Not exactly zilch, it has enabled spoiled teenage brats, children of the well off, to scream at us plebs to show us their moral superiority.

  14. Tezza

    Very forceful, David.
    Interesting that the UK isn’t shown. I guess it is about as significant as Germany and has also reduced its emissions by about as much, contributing most of the decline for the ‘rest of the world’.

  15. Tel

    I’m not sure but I would guess those numbers count our exports as well, so because Australia has been exporting coal, and recently started exporting gas as well, those numbers keep going up despite all the windmills and solar panels we have been building.

    Saudi Arabia are an oil exporter, they don’t actually use all that much as a percentage, but the export counts them as a carbon emission.

    I would like to see the breakdown of where those numbers come from.

  16. Tel

    Not exactly zilch, it has enabled spoiled teenage brats, children of the well off, to scream at us plebs to show us their moral superiority.

    They would be doing that anyway, but the Green politics has been a useful tool to guide them into something pointless where they are well contained.

  17. cohenite

    I don’t know what’s happened, the dearth of science to support alarmism is now never, or hardly ever referred to. Sceptics seems to have fallen into what I consider the trap that Australia is doing more than it’s fair share and demands to do more would ruin our economy unfairly position.

    There is NO evidence to support alarmism; all the so-called evidence is phony modelling or adjusted data. There is no principle evidence to support alarmism

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.