Tag Archives: China

USA isn’t Number 1 in Carbon Emissions

This morning I decided to look up some recent carbon dioxide production statistics.  I performed a Google search and selected the Natural Resources Defense Council website, which came up first on the search (and you wondered how Google made money).  The site was chock full of climate propaganda and half truths.  I selected the following question from their website:

Q:  What country is the largest source of global warming pollution?

A:  The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world’s population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning — by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world’s top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so — we already have the know-how.

Al Gore used similar data in his 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth. 

Both Al and the Environmental lobby are wrong.  Big Surprise!  They must be using ancient data.  The data used by Mr. Gore  in his 2006 released film has a 1999 copyright date.  Data takes time to compile.  I’d guess the actual data was probably produced using data form the mid 1990’s.   2014 data is now available .

I wish the Natural Resource Defense Council had spent a bit more on content  editing and a bit less on online advertising.

The Statistica website has  data from 2014.  Their data shows the USA is second place with 14.7% of total manmade carbon dioxide production.  China leads and has led the country chart since 2006.  Their 2014 share was 23.4%, a number that has been steadily rising for over 20 years.  India, another rapid grower sits in third position with 5.7%, followed by Russia (4.9%), Brazil (4.7.%), Japan(3.6%), Indonesia (2.31%), Germany (2.23%) and Korea (1.71%).

Why did Al Gore use old statistics in 2006 when he made his film and why does the USA’s largest environmental lobby still use 20 year old data today?   Because it works as a fundraising tool.  Potential givers want  to feel important. China (and India too) have the ability to overwhelm the mathematics.  Why give.  We in the USA are powerless to impact the autocracy that is China.

I’d argue the data doesn’t begin to tell the full story.   Population density, location and GDP all must also be considered.  China and the USA are about the same size, but China has 4 times as many people and produces less than 50% of the goods the USA produces.  All those people with middle class desires.  Urbanization will lead to additional carbon production.  Throw in GDP differences and China looks more and more like the Elephant in the room nobody talks about

China is a bit closer to the equator than the USA, which means they need to use less energy to keep warm.   The USA has been reducing  their carbon footprint steadily since about 2000.  China continues to grow theirs at nearly 8% per year.

India is another rapid grower and that has the potential to be a perplexing problem for the climate control crowd.   India is about 1/3 the size of the USA and produces a bit more than 1/3 of the USA’s total carbon dioxide.   Their population is still growing rapidly which means that their carbon production will grow rapidly unless they can use much less on a per capita basis.   Their current per capita use is rising from a very low level which means that India has a long runway of increased carbon production in front of them.

China’s impact is huge.  India’s is growing rapidly.  The USA’s potential climate impact (if you trust the UN scientists) has been declining for most of the 21st century.  Who knows what will happen next.  Any notion that we in the USA can change the world with rather modest  changes at home seems a bit fanciful.

Perhaps the guys at the UN are wrong.  Their temperature predictions for the first 15 years of the 21st century have been awful.  The world has been colder than predicted.  Yes surface data shows 2014 as being a warm year.  Satellite data disagrees; and both land based and satellite data are lower than UN predictions made just a few years ago.  Perhaps increased carbon dioxide won’t be as damaging as advertised.

China’s growth rate is slowing and they are building a bunch of new Nuclear Power Plants which should slow their emissions growth rate in the 2020’s.   Maybe the elephant in the room will move more carefully a few years from now.

Time will tell.

Climate — The Good, the Bad and the Stupid

Wow.  What a week.

On Saturday the Wall Street Journal published a feature article on the current state of climate science that was probably the best detailed article I have ever seen on global climate change. (the good).

On Sunday my local paper reprinted a New York Times article that featured a night photo of the UN building featuring the 2 degree C goal on the face of the building (the bad) and …

On Monday climate protestors amassed on Wall Street (the stupid).

The Good

If you haven’t read the Wall Street Journal article, Climate Science is Not Settled, read it now.  It is simply the best article on the subject I have seen.   The first paragraph is an excellent introduction:

The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

The article begins by acknowledging that the world is warmer and that man is probably responsible for some amount of warming.  It then details all the shortcomings in the science.   Discussions items include our limited understanding of the Oceans, the wild variability of computer models and the societal desire to have a precise answer when science cannot give us one.

Precise answers are beyond our abilities at this time and yet the UN has been providing precise answers since 1997.

A quotation courtesy of Mark Twain and/or Will Rogers:

It’s not what we don’t know that gets us into trouble, it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.

The Bad

The UN (when discussing global climate) has always been a political association trying to solve an extraordinarily difficult science problem.  Political solutions don’t work well in science.   The UN has been making specific predictions about future climate for some 20 years now.  Those predictions have been wrong because they have not been willing to admit to the scientific shortcomings listed in the WSJ article just referenced.

Natural climate variation and flawed computer modeling have made many predictions in the 2007 synopses report wrong.   The recently released 2014 Synopses Report modified those predictions to include climate variation.   Some changes in climate that were predicted for our immediate future now might not show up for centuries.  But the predictions persist.

The Wall Street Journal article referenced earlier had this to say about specific climatic predictions:

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

The UN needs  a specific identifiable goal to motivate people to act.  So they give them one.  The following photo accompanied an article about the New York warming protests in my local Sunday paper:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2017169!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg

Keep global temperature increases to_less_than 2 degree C is plastered across the UN building encouraging protestors.  This goal was a part of the 2007 Synopses report.   The UN is supporting the notion that society can control temperature and can keep the change to less than a 2 degree C change since the beginning of the Industrial revolution.   The world has already changed more than a degree C since 1750 so the goal is to keep  temperature in a very tight range.

Natural climate variation makes the goal virtually impossible.

A few less sunspots, a volcanic eruption, a change in short term weather patterns.  A Little Ice Age here, the Medieval Warming Period there, or perhaps the next ice age cold cycle.

One volcanic eruption on the scale of the Mt. Tambora eruption of 1815 would change the world by more than 2 degrees C.  1815 was known around the world as the year without a summer.

Europe in 1709 was a very cold place.  It is guesstimated that Europe was a full 7 degrees C below the 20th century average  that year.  And the Romans built gold mines high in the Alps during a very warm period around 1800 years ago.

Mt. Pinatubo in 1992 changed the world by 1 degree C in only 2 years.  Any notion that man can control climate as specifically as the UN stated on their building last Sunday is poppycock and BAD science.

THE STUPID

Assume the UN is right and all the problems mentioned in the WSJ article are wrong (bad assumptions both).  Gloom and doom is close at hand and immediate action is necessary.  So activists protest on Wall Street? Why?

What would that accomplish?  What do they expect Wall Street to do?  What are their goals?

Carbon production worldwide is growing despite efforts to slow it.  Why?  Four words…China, India and Nuclear Power.  We must find a way to slow the population growth rate and we must construct clean energy plants all over the world.  Plants that will operate on cloudy windless days.  There is only one choice that will work right now (if you believe the UN math), and that choice is Nuclear Power.

Does the world fear Nuclear Power or global warming more?   Right now the answer is Nuclear Power.  Western countries are phasing out of Nuclear because of the Fukashima disaster.   California and Vermont are closing old Nuclear plants and no new ones are scheduled to be built.   That carbon free power is being replaced by power that produces carbon.

China produces more carbon dioxide than the USA and Europe combined.  And in the next 50 years India will become the world’s most populous place, adding half a billion people to its already burdensome population. Each additional Indian that makes it to the middle class wants to use energy to improve their quality of life.  Cheap power is a necessity.

China’s per capita production of carbon now exceeds the average for Europe.  That production is rising at about 8% per year with zero population growth.  India’s use is rising faster than it’s population growth.    The USA, the world’s second largest producer of carbon, has been reducing production, but it gets lost in the mix as China overwhelms everything else.    If India and China don’t change, then it doesn’t matter what the rest of us do.

These are worldwide political problems.   And they involve hard choices and tradeoffs.  Wall Street has very little to do with either.    So why protest there?

Politics of course.  And headlines!

I’d be willing to bet that most of the protestors are absolutely sure they are correct….and I’d also be willing to bet they think all the science issues are settled.   That is a sad reality that has become global warming politics.

 

Dr. Hansen’s Dream World – Part 3

This post is the third of 3 dealing with an article published on December 3rd by Dr. Hansen and 17 other scientists.  The article’s basic argument is that carbon dioxide is creating an energy imbalance.   They attempt to measure the energy imbalance, and make predictions about the future.

The article is refreshing in that it finally addresses many of my objections about the IPCC.  It actually discusses other possible drivers for climate change and tries to provide a compelling argument for why these other drivers of climate are not important.   I am less confident than I was before reading the article, but I still have doubts, many doubts.

Dr. Hansen made up his mind about the importance of carbon dioxide before most of the research used was performed.   He has been an advocate for a really long time.   And many of his arguments use data with very short histories.   The data displayed about the sun only goes back 40 years.

https://i1.wp.com/www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action

I want to see what happened during the last cooling cycle from 1940 to 1976.   Information that went back to the beginning of the Little Ice Age would be even better.

The Energy Imbalance discussion uses data from buoys.  The changing amount of energy stored by the oceans is used as an indicator that the world is accumulating energy.  That it is out of balance.  Virtually all of the data used in the calculation is less than 10 years old.   It is more a snapshot in time rather than a trend established over a long period of time.

And I worry about the data set.   There are about 4,000 buoys spread out around the globe.  They drift with the currents and too many are near land.  Many of the buoys have only been available since 2005.   The data is so new and so important to his conclusions that I suspect lots of wild guessing.

The article also dismisses all the short term temperature predictions in past IPCC reports.  It uses the oceans and the large ice masses near the poles as reasons why the horrible changes predicted have been late.   This effectively eliminates one of my main complaints about the IPCC….stupid short term predictions.

And they bravely encourage widespread use of Nuclear Power.   I think Nuclear power is a necessary part of any green answer.  Unfortunately with the exception of China, the world is walking away from nukes.

The article paints a bleak picture of the world unless we make the following changes to the way we generate energy.

  1. The article advocated carbon trading on a worldwide scale.
  2. They advocated widespread use of wind and solar.
  3. They advocated widespread use of Nuclear to replace both coal and natural gas generation.

Carbon trading requires all the countries of the world to agree.   That is unlikely to happen.  Without a worldwide agreement, carbon trading only works for the countries that don’t join.   Today, China and the USA have a huge trading advantage when trading with the EU because they don’t have to worry about carbon taxes.

Wind and solar will continue to be developed, but they have limitations due to Mother Nature.  If and when a better battery is developed,  their use can expand.  Until then, their use will be limited.

Germany has so much solar that their power grid is developing reliability issues when solar is not available.    Germany’s ability to manufacture goods may be impacted.   Germany’s 21st century solution, a brand new coal fired power plant!

The world has changed a lot since 2006 when Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for his political commercial masquerading as a documentary film.   Dr. Hansen and his cohorts barely got any press for their latest bit of gloom and doom.  The world has passed them by.  Why?

They have been gloomy for a long time. Doom failed to arrive on schedule.   Throw in climate-gate and the Mann Hockey Stick debate; the group has lost some credibility.  How did they get into this position?

I think it starts with their mind set.  Dr. James Hansen and his comrades live in a political dream world.  Why do I say they live in a dream world?  Let me count the ways:

  1. They think the science is so compelling that there is no other plausible view.  When Dr. Hansen and 17 other scientists wrote the article I am critiquing, they declared there were no competing interests.  The world does not have unlimited funds.  Every dollar spent on global warming is not spent on something else.  Things like world overpopulation, starvation in Africa,  AIDS, Cancer, over fishing the oceans, and safe drinking water all have the potential to be competing interests.
  2. This group lives on government funds.  Every other need of the government is a competing interest.
  3. Competing interests go beyond government money.  Jobs are at stake in the coal industry.   Wind turbines kill birds, including some endangered species.  People dislike the appearance of wind mills in pristine areas.   Solar panels take up lots of space and must be imported, impacting trade.   Nuclear, well it’s Nuclear, need we say more.
  4. The carbon dioxide is evil climate group has made many mistakes.  These mistakes have given the skeptical community reason to doubt their results.  They have been caught cooking data (Climate-gate), adopting questionable scientific theories (The Mann Hockey Stick Graph) and their short term predictions have been wrong.  Horribly wrong.
  5. They have been too secretive and too vague.  They have argued against sharing data with skeptics.  If the data is good, they should be doing exactly the opposite.  In 2005, the Scientific American  wrote an article defending this use of secrecy shortly after the Mann Hockey Stick data began to be attacked by skeptics.   The Scientific American defended Dr. Mann aggressively.  Interestingly, Dr. Hansen in his new article, appears to argue that the specific temperature conclusions in the Mann Hockey Stick Graph were wrong.
  6. The politics has turned against them.  A worldwide recession, cheaper and more plentiful fossil fuels, and the Fukashima Nuclear Disaster have changed the political landscape.   Global warming advocates are failing because people fear Nuclear Power.  Germany and Japan are abandoning their Nukes, only China seems willing to build new Nuclear plants.
  7. Long ago they made one very large mistake, they let a politician become point man for the cause, Al Gore.   Mr. Gore is driven by political realities.  He will never advocate Nuclear Power.   Green energy without Nuclear energy does not work.  It will not work until a cheap way to store electrical energy is developed.    The green community has been advocating a solution that does not work.  This is now becoming obvious.
  8. They expect the United Nations to be an effective force.   This expectation never made sense.   Much is made of the original Kyoto Treaty.   A treaty that did not work.  Carbon emissions soared during it’s implementation period. Kyoto created too many winners and losers.   Russia got special treatment.  India and China got a free ride.   It was politically unacceptable in the USA.
  9. China has become significant politically.   Any solution must involve China.  In a few years  China will produce a third of the world’s anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The 2009 Copenhagen attempt at a new treaty failed in large part because there was no way for the world community to get China to do what they felt needed to be done.  Absent political concessions in China, the USA will never come on board.   The two largest economies in the world must be a part of any real agreement.
  10. Stop living in the past.   Dr. Hansen has been an advocate of counting all the pollution a country has produced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when dictating what each country is obligated to do to stop warming.   I personally don’t buy the argument scientifically, but that’s beside the point.  This approach has effectively given China a pass.  It provides them with an excuse not to cooperate.
  11. Global warming hawks need to learn how to compromise.   Natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel than coal.  While it is not as good as Nuclear as a base load fuel, from a carbon dioxide perspective, it is much better than coal.   No new plants are currently under construction.   Decades will pas before any new Nuclear plants come on line in the USA. And old plants are being retired as we speak. Dr. Hansen and his cohorts should be adopting natural gas as a lesser of two evils while they wait for technology to provide a better choice in the short run.

I would be more convinced by the arguments in Dr. Hansen’s article if Dr. Hansen hadn’t made his mind up about global climate change in the 1980’s.   15 years ago doom was coming and coming soon.   His article still says it’s coming, but it could be delayed by centuries.   It is a better argument than the immediate gloom arguments of 15 years ago. Unfortunately for him, politicians usually don’t respond to problems in the indefinite future.

And still  I wonder.   Is Dr. Hansen right now….or is he just selectively looking at data to defend a position he has held for 30 years?   Only time will tell….lots of time.

Nuclear Power — One Fine Politial Mess

Nuclear Power politics has long fascinated me.   Whenever I meet a global warming gloom and doom  believer, I ask them if they support Nuclear Power.  Invariably they either oppose the issue or are confused by the question.  I have yet to meet one that interconnects the two issues.   This puzzles me.

Nowhere is this more puzzling than in Europe.  Britain has just decided to build two new Nuclear power plants.   The first new plant built since the Fukashima disaster of 2011.  It’s big news and the Chinese are big backers.   People all over the EU are up in arms.

Europeans are trying very hard to reduce man caused carbon dioxide in their lives.  And they are trying to avoid the political third rail that  is Nuclear Power.  Germany has walked away from Nuclear Power, France has pledged to cut production by 40% and Italy has delayed new Nuclear plants.

Japan has pledged to be Nuclear free.   China is building 20 new Nuclear plants.

Suppose, just suppose, that the global warming fear mongers are right.  If they are right, we must seriously change the way we make electricity.  Invariably the green community solution is renewable energy.   For most of the world that means wind or solar.   Hydro and geothermal can work when the environment is right, but most places where people live have neither.

The electrical utility business is an on demand business.   At any given time there must be enough power generation to meet that demand.   Demand varies throughout the day as this chart of New England demand prepared by the EIA demonstrates:

graph of electric load curve: New England, 10/22/2010, electric power demand (gigawatts), as described in the article text

Electrical energy demand peaks at about sunset in October.  Solar works best in the middle of the day.  Wind usually decreases as the Sun sets.   At 7 in the evening, the reality of the power utility business runs directly into the fantasy world of clean energy.   Clean energy become less available when it is needed most.   What are  we to do?

How do we, as a society, meet the evening peak?

No fair counting on technology that does not yet exist.   When a new way of storing electricity is developed, then we can plan on an electrical utility world that is not demand based.  Until then the power that is needed at 7:00 PM on a Monday night must be produced at 7:00 PM on that same Monday night.

Society has but three rational options.

  • Coal fired plants
  • Natural Gas fired plants
  • Nuclear energy fired plants

There are no other choices that will work ….right now.   Thus my confusion.  Only one of these options works well in a carbon doom and gloom society…Nuclear Energy.   So how is France going to reduce Nuclear Power use by 40% without impacting their carbon footprint?   And Japan?   And Germany?

The Chinese solution to the problem is Nuclear power plants….and the British have figured this one out too.  I wonder when the powers that be in the EU will decide.

So far, European politicians appear to be trying to have it both ways.  Clean energy and no Nuclear power.   What magical power source is widely available, carbon free and not Nuclear?  I don’t know of one.   If the IPCC is right, we have no choice.  We must produce less carbon dioxide.

Nuclear Power and carbon dioxide production are linked.  People all over the world appear to be pretending not to make a choice.  But that non choice is a choice.   Either people really don’t believe the IPCC rhetoric or they like living in a fantasy world.  And this puzzles me and has puzzled me for a really long time.

Each of us really does have to choose. Which is worse for the world, carbon dioxide or Nuclear power plants?

Disease Statistics — A SWAG guessing game

This morning I was reading an Anchorage Daily News article about how keeping your brain active by working longer delays dementia.   Smack dab in the middle of the article was this dementia factoid:

ABOUT DEMENTIA: About 35 million people worldwide have dementia, and Alzheimer’s is the most common type. In the U.S., about 5 million have Alzheimer’s — 1 in 9 people aged 65 and over.

The numbers didn’t seem right to me.  I immediately suspected wild ass  guessing.  I decided to look at the data a bit more closely.

If there are 35 million people in the world with dementia, and there are 5  million Alzheimer cases in the USA, then….there are probably at least 7 or 8 million cases of dementia in the USA or  about 20% of the world’s dementia cases.  20% of the total is in a 4.7 % population sample.  Does the USA have dementia at 5 times the worldwide average?    Probably not?

I then looked at the CIA life expectancy data.   If enough of the world’s population had a very low life expectancy then the numbers might make sense.  There are places in the world where most people don’t live long enough to get dementia.     Places like Chad (last on the list) or South Africa where the average person doesn’t see their 50th birthday.  But is it statistically significant?  Chad probably gets lost statistically because the population is too small at 11 million.

There are 30 countries in the world where the average person lives less than 60  years (Ethopia is #193 on the list of 223 countries at 60.00 years), but there are also 50 countries in the world where people can expect to live longer than the USA’s 78.62 years.

The data is full of odd little facts.   People in Hong Kong live 7 years longer than do people in the rest of China.   And people in Puerto Rico live longer than the average for the entire USA.   And Italians live longer than any other large group of Europeans.  Go figure.  I wasn’t surprised that Monaco topped the list at over 89 years, but having Macau come in second did surprise me.

I’d expect many  dementia cases in say…Japan (#3) where the average person lives to be 84.

I then went over and looked at the world population totals by country and compared that data to life expectancy data.  I then prepared a table of the 25 most populous countries….and here it is,  the world population top 25:

Country                    Population            Life Expectancy         Life Ex. Rank   Year

China                     1,347,350,000                        74.99                         100          2102 India                      1,210,193,000                         67.48                         163           2011 USA                           313,478,000                         78.62                            51          2012     Indonesia                237,561,000                         71.90                          138          2010  Brazil                        192,376,000                          73.02                         127           2011  Pakistan                 183,000,000                          66.71                          167          2013  Niger                       158,423,000                           54.34                        207          2010 Russia                     143,056,000                           69.85                         152          2012 Bangladesh            142,319,000                           70.36                        150           2011  Japan                       127,650,000                           84.19                             3           2012  Mexico                    112,336,000                           76.86                           72          2010  Philippines             92,340,000                            72.21                         135          2010  Vietnam                   87,840,000                            72.65                        130           2011 Ethiopia                   84,321,000                            60.00                        193           2012 Egypt                        82,019,000                             73.19                        124           2012 Germany                 81,858,000                             80.32                          28            2011     Iran                           76,348,000                             70.62                        149           2012  Turkey                    74,724,000                             73.03                        126           2011 Congo(DROC)      65,966,000                              56.14                       200           2012 Thailand                 65,500,000                             74.05                        115           2010 France                     65,350,000                              81.56                           15           2012  United Kingdom 62,262,000                              80.29                          30           2010   Italy                         59,464,000                              81.95                            11           2011  South Africa         50,586,000                             49.48                         222           2011  South Korea         48,580,000                             79.55                            42          2010

Africa, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh definitely pull the numbers down……but I’d suspect quite a few cases in China and Western Europe…so….I still have doubts.  I wonder if Vodka consumption has anything to do with the Russia numbers?

I still think either the USA number is too high or the rest of the world is too low.  We could have over diagnosing in the USA or ….more likely… we have places where the data is inaccurate.   I still expect SWAG…..and under reporting in the developing world and China.

The new Obama Keystone Pipeline miscalculation

First an admission –  I voted for Mr. Obama in 2008, but I voted from Mr. Romney in 2012.   It was a tough call, but I took the economy over social issues and went with the guy that, in my estimation, better understood the business that is the US economy.  Unfortunately Mr. Obama has proven to be as I expected.

The economy has improved since the election because housing and energy and autos are booming.   Housing and autos were going to boom no matter who was in charge, but the resurgence in US oil production has been in spite of Mr. Obama (even though he likes to take credit for it).    Case in point, linking the Keystone Pipeline to a global climate initiative.

Mr. Obama and his friends don’t like fossil fuels, so anything that aids in the production of them is necessarily an environmental problem.  So we get statements like:

Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest

and also:

And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward

The Obama administration is hiding behind the notion that a single pipeline project can have a significant impact on global climate.   And other administration officials are interpreting that to mean any increase in carbon dioxide is significant.  Both positions are surprisingly stupid and more than a little bit naive.   An Ostrich with his head buried in the sand immediately comes to mind.

Let’s start with an assumption, the Canadians are going to produce the oil and it is going to get to a market somewhere.   The US State department has said as much in their review of the project.  And now the EPA is suing the State Department, saying they violated EPA law…go USA.

If there is no Keystone pipeline, the oil may cost a small amount more to transport and will need a higher clearing price to be profitable but it will be produced.

Since the oil is going to be produced, the trick is to find the most efficient way to get it to market.   There is only one answer…a pipeline.  Pipelines are the most efficient way to move oil.  Sure rail works too, but it is less efficient.  The Canadians have two choices, the Keystone project or a pipeline (or rail) to British Columbia and marine transport to Asia.   Which is better for the environment?  Remember the Exxon Valdez before answering!

Duuuuh.

Doing nothing is not a choice.  But let’s suppose the Canadians chose not to produce the oil.  We would have to get our oil from someplace else….like Venezuela or Russia or perhaps Saudi Arabia.  All have environmental and political costs associated with their production and transportation to market.

All the alternate feasible energy options will have some environmental risk and could have much greater political risk than the Keystone Pipeline. For my money, oil from Canada trumps oil form anywhere on the other side of the Atlantic.  When I think of Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia, I have no difficulty coming up with a positive public interest finding for Keystone.

Pipelines do scar the land during construction, but that damage is temporary and easily mitigated.  There is some risk of a spill, but the risk is relatively low and the cleanup (particularly when on land) is relatively easy to mitigate.  Environmentally, pipelines are generally a good choice, particularly when comparing them to the alternatives.

Come on guys….

And now for the really stupid part….the implication that any single relatively small project can have significant worldwide climate implications or the notion that any amount of  additional carbon in the environment is mathematically significant.  It doesn’t matter whether you believe in global climate change as predicted by the UN or not, the math makes no sense.   Any single project is just too small to matter.

The notion that there is a clear national interest in denying the project….well that’s just extra special stupid.  Allow me to explain.  Three charts should do the job, and here they are.  The first is total green house gas emission in the USA by sector:

Most of the Industry section (20% of the total) is end use energy  consumption.  Either heating or process fuels.  All the pipelines in the USA are but teeny tiny part of the Industry section. The best ways to reduce carbon dioxide in the USA are to reduce transportation fuel (better gas mileage vehicles) and to use less coal in power generation.

There are lots of pipelines.

How can one pipeline really matter?

Carbon production is a world wide story.  Thinking regionally doesn’t work when counting carbon.   In 2005 the USA produced more man caused carbon dioxide than any other country.  In 2006 China passed us…and by 2011 they produced 50%  more than the USA.   China now (2013) produces more carbon dioxide that the USA and the EU combined.

Any solution that reduces world wide carbon production must include China.

The natural cycle creates about 97% of all carbon produced at any given time.  The 3% man produces is probably changing the balance as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has steadily risen by 1.5 to 2 ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Earlier this year it topped 400 ppm for the first time in over a million years.

China is increasing their carbon production by about 8% per year.  That 8% is a huge number.  It overwhelms every other number in any carbon dioxide calculation.

In summary

  • All pipelines collectively are but a tiny piece of the 20% Industry component of the US carbon footprint.
  • The USA represents about 16% (in 2013) of the world wide total.
  • China is growing their carbon footprint at 8% per year and is about 29% of the total.  Each year China increases the worldwide total by about 2%.
  • There are literally millions of miles of pipelines in North
    America

It is impossible statistically for one 2000 mile pipeline to become significant mathematically?   The impact is going to be so small as to be unmeasurable.   And China goes and goes and goes.   If China doesn’t change their ways what we in the USA do doesn’t really matter.

And if the Keystone pipeline is not built…the oil will go to China where it will be consumed in plants that pollute the air and raise the carbon levels more than if the pipeline had been constructed.

BBC China Emissions Story makes common mistakes

A recent BBC News article titled China in carbon trading experiment was disappointing. The story makes two significant factual errors.

Mistake #1 – A photo that misrepresents.

The article features the following photo:

This photo is of visible air pollution.  Carbon dioxide is colorless.   China has big time air pollution problems because they burn lots of coal and don’t clean it properly.  The air is full of all sorts of cancer causing crap that China has become famous for.  But if they invested is scrubbing equipment they could significantly improve their air quality and still have the same carbon dioxide problem they have now.

Every carbon dioxide article in the world seems to make this mistake.  But every time I see it I get a bit annoyed.

Mistake #2 – They misquoted the China position on carbon dioxide.

The article says the following:

 Beijing is aiming for a 40% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 from 2005 levels, without specifying how it will achieve that goal.

China plans to reduce their carbon production per unit of GDP by 40% from 2005 levels by 2020.  The two sound almost the same but the difference is huge statistically.   China’s GDP has more than doubled since 2005 as the following China GDP chart demonstratives:

https://i1.wp.com/www.financialblogonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/china-gdp.gif

The Economist predicts that in 2020 China will have a GDP of 22.9 Trillion dollars.  Their GDP in 2005 was 2.26 Trillion dollars.   If they reduce their emissions per unit of GDP by 40% then they would increase their carbon dioxide production by about 600%.  The arithmetic looks like this:

(22.9 – .4*22.9)/2.26 = 6.1

The BBC said the Chinese pledged a 40% reduction when the really pledged a 6 fold increase.

Details …details…those pesky details.

I expect the law of large numbers to begin to impact China very soon.   They have an aging population and an economy driven by cheap labor that is becoming less cheap every day.  Perhaps a 4 fold increase is carbon production from 2005 levels is more likely.   A 40% reduction from 2005 levels was never a possibility.