The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction

The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
by Ronald R. Cooke

The Cultural Economist

Author, "Oil, Jihad & Destiny" and "Detensive Nation"
November 30, 2009

Those who propose draconian measures to curb CO2 production need a math refresher course. Look at the projections. Assuming existing CO2 reduction policies are not changed, by 2030, human activity will account for about 3.3% of global CO2 production (NASA). By itself, the United States is projected to contribute 15.8% of world human emissions in 2030 (IEA/EIA). Therefore:

America’s projected share of total world CO2 emissions in 2030 is 3.3% x 15.8% = 0.52%.

Barack Obama has pledged that by 2030, America will have decreased its CO2 emissions by 42%. How effective will that cut be versus America’s projected emissions? Do the math.

3.3% x 15.8% x 42% = .22% of total world carbon emissions in 2030, and

15.8% x 42% = 6.64% of all human emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels.

There is, unfortunately, a critical problem with Barack’s pledge.

A reduction of that magnitude will definitely trash America’s economy.

Barack Obama assumes Americans are willing to endure the destructive misery of chronic recession in order to reduce total world CO2 emissions by a tiny little .22%, and human emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels by only 6.64%. Barack is telling the world we Americans are willing to turn off the heat , eat uncooked food, and turn off the lights 42% of the time. We will have to drive tiny little cars and trucks. The buildings we work in (or live in) will be insufferably hot in the summer and icy cold in the winter. Curtailing economic activity means more of us will be unemployed and even if we do have a job, it will not pay a living wage. (Unless of course, you happen to be a Washington insider.) More of us will be living in poverty. Health care will definitely deteriorate. In other words, by 2030 America’s economy will look just like Cuba’s economy.

Is this what we want?

I have three questions:

1. Who gave Barack permission to make this commitment?
2. Why is he pursuing a policy of economic self-destruction?
3. Are we willing to trash our economy for a tiny little change in world CO2 production?

There IS a correlation between economic growth and energy consumption. At no time in human history has there ever been a sustained increase in human wealth without a corresponding increase in the consumption of energy. We Americans can increase the efficiency of our consumption (and we are), but we can not sharply decrease our energy consumption without doing serious damage to our economy.

Do our people in Washington care that the proposed CO2 reductions will drive up the rate of unemployment, increase the rate of inflation, and force Americans to accept poverty as a way of life?

Apparently not. . One can only conclude certain persons in Congress and the Obama Administration are either math challenged, or these people have a deceptive agenda that has little to do with global warming.

Hopefully, it’s only a problem of simple math.

TEA

www.moralnation.blogspot.com

References:

Carbon cycle data. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Science Enterprise, Carbon Cycle.

The IEA’s International Energy Outlook 2009, Projects CO2 emissions at 40.4 billion metric tons in 2030. Developing nations, including China, India and the Middle east, will account for 97% of the increase in CO2 emissions from 2006 through 2030. The United States, along with the other OECD nations, will cause only 3% of the increase in CO2 emissions, assuming there is NO change to existing fossil fuels consumption policies.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030, projects United States CO2 emissions in 2030 at 6.4 million metric tons. Energy-related CO2 emissions in the AEO2009 reference case grow by 0.3 percent per year from 2007 to 2030. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the country's emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels to decrease 5.6% in 2009. Most of this decrease is due to the recession which has reduced economic activity (and GDP).

From the EIA International Energy Outlook 2009, Reference Case.

“Over the 24-year projection period, the average annual increase in non-OECD emissions from 2006 to 2030 (2.2 percent) is seven times (my emphasis) the rate projected for the OECD countries (0.3 percent). In 2030, non-OECD emissions (25.8 billion metric tons) exceed OECD emissions (14.6 billion metric tons) by 77 percent.”

“Coal is the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, and it is the fastest-growing carbon-emitting energy source in the IEO2009 reference case projection, reflecting its important role in the energy mix of non-OECD countries—especially, China and India. In 1990, China and India together accounted for 13 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions; in 2006 their combined share had risen to 25 percent, largely because of strong economic growth and increasing use of coal to provide energy for that growth. In 2030, carbon dioxide emissions from China and India combined are projected to account for 34 percent of total world emissions, with China alone responsible for 29 percent of the world total.”

“In the IEO2009 reference case, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent from 2006 to 2030.” …. “The highest growth rate among the non-OECD countries is projected for China, at 2.8 percent annually from 2006 to 2030, reflecting the country’s continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels, especially coal, in the projection.”

The US plans to pledge a 17% cut in emissions from 2005 levels by 2020, 30% by 2025, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050.

http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/cooke/2009/1130.html

Yes, don't let numbers and facts get in the way of a good fairy tale!


BTW, can anyone tell me why Climate Change Conferences are always held in Geneva, Cancun, Rio de Janiero and other vacation havens and not Detroit, Camden and Mogadishu?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNMJOhl79XM

Barack is telling the world we Americans are willing to turn off the heat , eat uncooked food, and turn off the lights 42% of the time. We will have to drive tiny little cars and trucks. The buildings we work in (or live in) will be insufferably hot in the summer and icy cold in the winter. Curtailing economic activity means more of us will be unemployed and even if we do have a job, it will not pay a living wage. (Unless of course, you happen to be a Washington insider.) More of us will be living in poverty. Health care will definitely deteriorate. In other words, by 2030 America’s economy will look just like Cuba’s economy.

It is sad so few see the potential economic, and environmental boom that can be had by embracing, developing, and pushing forward renewable energy.

It would allow the middle east to move to exports of lithium and sand for silicon, save oceans and wetlands, stop poisoning ourselves and our ground waters.

The only reason to continue and promote fossil fuels is because that is how we have done it.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.



____________

Janice

I've introduced numbers here. All I'm getting is touchy-feely back.

another cut and paste troll.

Proof by Verbosity
The practice of burying you with so much information and misinformation that
you cannot possibly respond to it all is called proof by verbosity, or argumentum verbosium.


________________________________________

The only question is, why you are here keith? I mean, you set up a boinc account, and accumulated enough credits to post, and dove right to the political forums, showing little interest in the project. Currently you have
no units in progress at all. So that tells me you knew where you were going, and why, and that you have a purpose to be here. Other than to find E.T.

The answer to me is simple. You are trying to control the discussion in the direction you wish, because you or more likely those you are working for (paid for or not) fear a reasonable exchange of ideas.

I am sure there is some twisted reasoning behind the numbers you cut and pasted. I also knows per capital the USA uses far more than its "fair share", on a total or per capita basis of the CO2 polution, and destruction of atmospheric oxygen content.

There is no need to directly respond to each one of your off the wall ill founded or downright fraudulent statements. Especially since they for the most part not even your statements, just what you have copied from others of a similar ilk, HIGHLY suspect in source, content, and scientific accuracy.

So the questions that remain are
1: how much are they paying you? ; OR
2: do you really have nothing better to do with your time?


____________

Janice

Perhaps you should run this garbage by the scientists running the CPDN project. you'd be laughed the beaten off of the forums. we have screwed up the atmosphere. Simple plain and deadly. Even their least devastating, predictions show an overall increase of global temperatures of 3-5 degrees by the end of this century. And considering the multitude of data they've ran through its a certainty that things aren't going to cool down any time soon as we've got world leaders that can't see beyond the end of their noses
____________
Proud member of TSWB.

End terrorism by building a school

It is sad so few see the potential economic, and environmental boom that can be had by embracing, developing, and pushing forward renewable energy.

It would allow the middle east to move to exports of lithium and sand for silicon, save oceans and wetlands, stop poisoning ourselves and our ground waters.

The only reason to continue and promote fossil fuels is because that is how we have done it.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

It is sad so few see the potential economic, and environmental boom that can be had by embracing, developing, and pushing forward renewable energy.

It would allow the middle east to move to exports of lithium and sand for silicon, save oceans and wetlands, stop poisoning ourselves and our ground waters.

The only reason to continue and promote fossil fuels is because that is how we have done it.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

So gathering up and concentrating the toxic element lithium for human use would be a good thing?

And what happens when someone like you recognizes we are now encroaching on the natural habitat of some sand flee?

Insanity: doing the same thing...

Kong, on #2 and #3 I have to say this is simply not correct. The scientific community has confirmed this is (beyond a reasonable doubt) happening. The politicians of course responded with a hissy fit and fought about the results, and continue the fighting. This is because they do not LIKE the scientific findings. It is so much easier to just say "no. Because I said so."

The only obscuring is political, not scientific.
____________

Janice

Just like the "birthers" this argument will never end. Smoking is bad for you is not "settled science" either I suppose?

Anyway. At least you agree we need to move on past fossil fuels. That is much better than most. And seriously, there is money to be made in it!!

If we can just get over inertia.
____________

Janice