Bishop Hill Deben has explaining to do
Nov 7, 2013 Deben Lord Deben was on the Toady programme this morning discussing whether other countries were doing as much as us on the renewables front (audio below). This statement grabbed my attention.
If you look at what China's doing...China's actually moving a lot faster than we are now, and it's actually moving towards a peak in its emission in the mid, maybe even in the early, 2020s...
This is pretty bizarre when you think about it. Per capita emissions have been falling in the UK for decades, as has the carbon intensity of the economy. How has China been doing? Not so well actually, as this graph of per capita carbon dioxide emissions shows (source).
;)
Click for full sizeHowever, according to this article, this 2020s peak in emissions is correct and is earlier than prevously expected, although it's not entirely clear if it refers to total emissions or per capita. I'm guessing the former. So how is the UK doing on the total emissions front? The answer is shown below (source).
;)
Click for full sizeSo UK total emissions have been falling for decades apart from a blip in recent years, which looks to be connected with the Climate Change Act from the timing of it. Again, it seems hard to represent China as moving faster than the UK.
But perhaps Lord D just meant that the Chinese are installing renewables faster than us? Renewables are certainly said to be one of the reasons for the peak in emissions arriving faster than expected (alongside lower economic growth and other factors).
According to this article at Bloomberg:
The [Chinese] government aims to have 100 gigawatts of wind-power installed capacity and more than 35 gigawatts of solar power by 2015...
With a population of 1.34bn, 100 GW of wind power represents about 72 W/capita. The UK currently has 8445 MW of wind for a population of 63 million, which is 134 W/capita. So we are already doing roughly double what China is expected to achieve by 2015.
For solar, China's 2015 figure of 35 GW represents 26 W/capita, while the UK has about the same already.
In fact, China has been developing very large amounts of hydro power This is possible in totalitarian countries where whole populations can be moved at the stroke of a pen, but is not really an option here, although perhaps Lord D thinks otherwise. Comparing figures here was tricky. I found a 2009 figure for Chinese hydro capacity of 196GW. Another article suggested this has been growing at 15GW per annum. Let's say that they currently have 250GW or 186 W/capita. The UK has 1650MW or 26 W/capita.
Overall I reckon from here that China is adding renewables capacity at around 35GW per annum, or about 26 W per capita per annum. The UK meanwhile is adding renewables capacity at roughly 2GW per annum which is about 31 W per capita per annum. I'm therefore struggling to find any evidence at all that China is moving lots faster towards decarbonisation than us.
Of course these figures represent capacity increases rather than actual generation and wind power is famously useless. So it may be that if you did the figures again with power generated by type you would find that China's decision to install a sensible form of power - hydro - rather than a foolish one - wind - means that they are indeed making faster progress towards decarbonisation than us.
But that wouldn't be much of an advertisement for the policies Lord Deben upholds, would it?
Reader Comments (40)
China is planning to build 363 new coal-fired power plants
> So UK total emissions have been falling for decades apart from a blip in recent years,
> which looks to be connected with the Climate Change Act from the timing of it.
Isn't the "blip" just a bounce back from the large drop due to the shock of the recession in 2008?
Nice Analysis!
It's telling that this article was produced by one man since hearing the show in the morning, together with thoughtful reflection, numbers and a sensible conclusion.
It's a shame that Lord stern doesn't make the same effort. Perhaps he thinks it's fine to bandy around unchecked statements on national radio. I mean, who's going to go to the trouble of actually checking them?
Err, wait...
The only way a country's electricity supply can be significantly decarbonised is with a mix of nuclear and hydro. Wind wave, solar and tidal all need back-up and so, together with their enormous carbon feetprint, are a hindrance rather than a help.
When I heard (a report on Deben's interview) that he had said that China was moving forwards faster with renewables than the UK, I realised that right there and then fully understood the definition of 'dissembling'.
Did you mean to say 'Toady programme'. It is probably about right.
UK chart fits nicely with the dismantling of energy intensive business.
I wonder where they all went?
I wouldn't bother looking too long for any evidence to back up anything Deben says. Deben has no interest in supplying any accurate information, only a steady stream of misinformation to help his friends in the renewables industry to justify his well paid directorships and consultancy positions.
This is exactly what is wrong with the Conservative party today. I'm a long time conservative voter but simply couldn't stomach voting for this corrupt lot again. First Yeo then Deben, the renewables industry is rife with vested interests and corruption.
The Chinese government, will install these useless whirlygigs and most probably in order to protect their grid not connect them to aught, but then China likes to kid the Gwei lo, Deben is like them all [IPCC adherents of the greenwash] - a green gimp and only too willing to believe in ghosts and 'Chinese renewables'.
What does it matter [to Britain] if China does this, that or the other? China, in most things, cannot be used as a comparator.
What Deben should be made to understand, is that, all of the mush that he keeps at the back [and fore] of his cranium - is utter tosh, going green will stuff Britain. More, if we continue on the path to industrial suicide that he espouses so ineloquently - his kids will be out of work and [if they remain in blighted Blighty] most certainly his issue will be much poorer than he [is today].
Again, just who, is trying to fool who - Deben must think that we're all as thick as he.
Gummer? Suspiciously opportunistic grasp of the "facts"? Say it 'ain't so!
Or: "smoke, fizzle .... What the fu .. **BANG** ....... (fumbles) Err, Houston, we're going to need a new sh1t-breath detector."
Message to all deniers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10432845/Nick-Clegg-I-am-entitled-to-call-Tory-climate-sceptics-deniers.html
Lest we forget how tangled the web is. The following is from April 2011:-
Lobbyists who cleared 'Climategate' academics funded by taxpayers and the BBC
Worth revisiting the whole article
What is interesting about wind and hydro is that it is relatively easy to use hydro to level out the variability of wind generation. Hydro turbines can be shut down and slow the flow of water out of dams when wind power peaks and ramp it up as it declines. There have even been water storage system in use in the US for decades that balanced out the loads, moving water up hill at night when power demand is low and electricity costs are low and then using the pumped storage to generate power when utilization and electricity prices are high makes perfect sense. By integrating large scale hydro and wind, I think you can make wind more attractive because you don't need to do purpose built storage. But environmentalists only like small hydro and this would seem to drive infrastructure cost up as you'd be making purpose built small storage facilities that could not stand on their own. I wonder if there is a resolution here that could make economic sense.
U.K. Looks like China's "great leap forward" years...
The difference is that our benevolent political classes don't have the arrogance to think they can manage the economy...
oh...
The article also states that emissions will increase more slowly because:-
1) GDP growth has dropped substantially in the last year or so, and will continue to remain much lower than in the early 2000's.
2) The economy is becoming less heavy industry, and more service/consumer orientated, so will be less energy intensive.
As they say, China has more or less all the power generating capacity they need now, so won't have to keep building loads of new.
Also a factor is the need to do something about the choking smoke pollution coming out of the coal plants. I suspect that much of this will be replaced by gas.
- The useful idiot spends 2 seconds reading a blatant lie that a Green PR guy wrote for him
- and then in response the Bish takes 6 hours to deconstruct.
..same old story they just tell outrageous blatant lies and we flounder for 6 hours to honestly deconstruct and debunk it
..but it's just as easy to say "it's an extraordinary statement, it comes out of the mouth of a dramagreen, therefore it's a lie... jsut like the last 50 that we debunked"
- especially since no proper evidence was cited to support it, and the journalists interview style was unchallenging
From the Telegraph article Paul above gives the link:
But Mr Clegg said the UK should play a leadership role on the green agenda, adding: "We are looked to around the world as being a real pioneer country and being a pioneer government in terms of policy."
Pioneers? Us, watched by the world? What level of delusionism is this man suffering from? I know these days putting yourself forward for election pretty much guarantees that you're an oddball of some sort, but this bloke is clearly a hospitalisation case.
The UK currently has 10396MW which makes it 165W per capita.
A full transcript of the segment is now here:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20131107_r4
BTW There is a scenario where China goes far less CO2 than otherwise
- when future energy comes from a lower element of coal & more from fracking
as your favourite #ClimateScarePorn rag reported one year ago : China planning 'huge fracking industry'
..I'm sure you think lower CO2 is more important than that fracking might devalue your GreenEnergy mafia shares)
.......................... So Lord Debden join me in saying "we mustn't be left behind China ! Frack On"
@ John B
Very much my position. I wouldn't vote for any of the LibLabCon now. As a libertarian I have no trouble with people becoming rich by their own efforts, but those who are just rent-seekers like Deben, Yeo and our PM's daddy-in-law I despise with a passion. I don't have much time either for those on the left like Miliband junior who devise a policy to increase the cost of energy and then whine when it happens.
In my long lifetime we have never had a more useless crop of politicians right across the spectrum. As someone said the other day (H/T to them - sorry decreasing braincell count affects memory) - we now have an ineptocracy.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ineptocracy
The best outcome for this miscreant would be do explain himself. When the rule of law fails to solve this sort of problem, the problem usually doesn't remain unsolved.
====================
@Paul
I am entitled to call Nick Clegg something that the Bish would probably heavily moderate.
Here is info on a aero-generator that will help keep our CO2 lower. (/sarc)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24844182
I think Deben is a lovely chap, for a scrounging, expenses 'defrauding', dissembling, grasping s.o.b.
I think this and the following post reporting Ross McKitrick's paper on the causes of malaria reduction are two of the most interesting and potentially important I've read for a while on any blog.
I hadn't before today picked up the Scottish Widows research note The low-carbon China scenario on 11th October. Craig Mackenzie could obviously be wrong but it is his work that is suggesting peak CO2 emissions for China early in 2020s rather than 15 or so years later. (Not per-capita but total emissions, I think that's completely clear in the source document.)
The most important assumption Mackenzie makes that is different from previous work is lower growth for China over that period. He may of course be wrong about that but I have no problem in saying that I'm grateful both to the Bish and (yes) Lord Deben for bringing this piece of work to our attention.
Our host has also provided convincing evidence that what Gummer said about our relative position with China was unsupportable:
There's a lot in there. It's very valuable to have the UK vs China total emissions story crystal clear, thanks again to our host. But what does this mean for the overall debate?
One thing I find amazing in the Mackenzie paper is the rejoicing in lower growth for China. Aren't there hundreds of millions of incredibly poor people still in that gigantic country? How can we be so happy that their escape from grinding poverty is going to be delayed? Lord Deben refuses to disclose his remuneration from Veolia but for me it's far worse that he expresses nothing but delight over this situation. Nor would such people it seems give a second thought about countries with much worse growth prospects than China being held back far more than it will allow itself to be. Growth is bad because it produces CO2. How dare they.
It's the lack of any mention of a tradeoff here that is almost the worst blindness I see in the CAGW movement. And of course it has applied closer to home as well, to the understandable rage of many here present.
Clegg's Spanish wife Ms Gonzalez Durantez, is pictured in today's 'Thunderer', with suitable vending material - in a railway station, collecting for the 2013 Royal British Legion Poppy appeal.
In another article, the dead man walking [purely in the political sense of course] 'copper bottom' Clegg is telling us that, he won't allow the Tories to drop green targets blah, bloody blah.
Now, we all know that, Mr. Clegg always has been and until 2015, is a cynical publicist............................but?
Ah Mrs Clegg that reminds me
- Husband of CEO of one of Europe's largest wind farm developers asserts his right to INSULT people who might reduce the massive taxpayer subsidies to the companyGreensand,
yes that Globe article is worth rereading.
Gummer is in good company there: Elliot Morley, Huhne and Stephen Byers. Ye gods, it's like a Lags eleven. How on earth did we get to this sorry state that this bunch of criminals and rent seekers are given huge amounts of public money to jet around the world pushing this nonsense.
And £500k on flights. They must have been reading this: Deluded fool (from Geoff in unthreaded).
Globe is there hiding in plain sight. We've become so immune to this level of waste that everyone just walks on by without a murmur. Why wasn't this Quango stuck on the bonfire as promised. We're all in it together!
I believe this optimism about China is wishful thinking - encouraged by the Chinese who, I suggest, are taking us for fools. And succeeding. Consider this and this and this and this and this. A quotation from the latter:
[my emphasis]Moving faster than we are? I don't think so.
Robin, I'm on the same page as you in thinking that China will grow as fast as it can through 2040 and that it couldn't give two hoots about its carbon emissions (though it does care about clean air in Beijing and other cities, of course). But that's not necessarily the question here. Do you think China will grow on average at 10.8%, as it did in 2010, or at something more like 3-4%, between here and 2040? I sure don't know the answer to that, nor do I know the implications of the assumed rebalancing of the Chinese economy. It's these factors that lead one researcher to think its total emissions will peak not long after 2020. What think you? And how might it change the debate in the UK?
Like Sean O'Connor's comment above, I don't think the fall in emissions in 2009 had much to do with the Climate Change Act, but was much more to do with the financial crisis.
The same 'blip' can be seen across the world, e.g. see fig 2.1 here:
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/CO2REPORT2012.pdf
The same report says
So according to Deben, a more than doubling of CO2 emissions in China since 2002 is somehow better progress than the UK's decrease? Why do the BBC give him such an easy ride?
Paul: Re Clegg's 'Denier' article in the DT. I've been over there and noticed it to be one of the most active comment threads I've ever been on. People are just piling in - and it's throwing up a whole new raft of trolls. My favourite was the guy who thought only peer-reviewed papers should be accepted but didn't know, not only that Stern's review was NOT PRed, but that he didn't know anything about Stern or what he'd written. Notwithstanding that, he was all in favour of whatever needed to be done to ameliorate CACC. Priceless.
Why do you dignify these shits with the titles that they give to themselves?
SimonW
This started many moons back, the education system for the masses was dumbed down, with the condescending approval of the "socially aware". The opportunity for all was in fact a means of keeping real education away from any other than the elite.
The incumbent elite had the public school system available, the newly elected elite gained access to the system, fees out of expenses. Whilst the education of the masses was slowly but surely being dumbed down.
Now the elite have no challenges from the masses, they don't even know what has happened to them. Google "Bread and Circuses"
Rant over
The whole game is predicated on moving industry from high wage to low wage countries. From clean factories to dirty ones. Trillions of dollars of profit and nothing to do with Greenpeace, Monbiot or saving the planet.
I like that per capita graph, but I think this one is even more instructive in the light of our nation's attempted self immolation for the 'cause':
CO2 production
data taken from the same source as the per capita plot.
Your illustration is a little old. According to this publication, China reached 7.1 tonnes per capita in 2012, just slightly below the EU (7.4).
There has been a lot of praising of China from the usual suspects lately - e.g. from Maurice Strong - and Professor Jørgen Randers of Club of Rome fame recommends copying China's authoritarian government in order to tackle Climate Change (in Norwegian in Morgenbladet and a BBC interview).
That this good Lord is able to get up and push bald faced untruth and expect to get away with it is just an example of the dysfunction that permits AGW to thrive.
Think of how dirty socks and unwashed feet can permit various foot fungi to thrive as an example from nature.
John Redwood agrees with the Bish : Headline Carbon dioxide reductions – the Chancellor is right and the BBC wrong
He then quotes fig to debunk that- but hasn't completely come over "Policies which develop new cheaper sources of energy which also cut CO2 would be a good idea."