Bishop Hill The environment correspondent's standards
Mar 13, 2015 Energy: grid Foreign Media The FT reports that carbon dioxide emissions remained steady in 2014, despite the global economy having continued to expand.
One of the reasons is apparently China's energy mix:
China has cut its use of coal, one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions, and installed more hydroelectricity, wind and solar power.
Now the FT article is written by Environment Correspondent Pilita Clark, so claims about the involvement of wind and solar need careful examination. I think a little data is required, which, thanks to Reuters, I am able to bring you:
;)
The same story emerges from BP's research. To be fair, Clark points to other factors, which are rather more plausible - energy efficiency measures for example - but in essence her article looks as if it exhibits the normal environment correspondent standards of truthiness.
Reader Comments (79)
Pilita Clark will write any old rubbish, as long as it has a green tinge. A couple of years ago she claimed that Saudi Arabia might export solar energy to Europe. That idea is so stupid, on so many levels, that I seriously thought about cancelling my FT subscription. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3d108c3e-3fb5-11e2-b2ce-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3UD166aqB
So enriching climate scientists has been a success, and there is no need for the Pointless Panic in Paris, after all the Parades in Paradise.
Climate scientists will demand annual Parades in Paradise to keep the CO2 bogeyman at bay.
Do tax payer funded air tickets, for the Panic in Paris include unlimited baggage for the return trip? Early christmas shopping must be one of the reasons for going, especially if "expenses" can be rewritten in detail, like temperature records
"An important factor could be that China's coal consumption fell in 2014, driven by their efforts to fight pollution, use energy more efficiently and deploy renewables”
I have a bridge to sell to these people.
End-of-pipe air pollution controls would reduce energy output from a coal fired power plant (because these controls themselves need energy to function). The other option would be to (a) use cleaner fuels or (b) replace older (usually smaller) inefficient coal-fired plants with new, larger and cleaner ones.
China did not cut its use of coal.
It may have increased its use of other fossil fuels faster than coal.
hunter does irony;^).
As alluding as I do, I have stated this interminable road to Paris is going to be strewn with lies and bigger ones.
Obama's messengers/green advocates/campaigners alight on susceptible jejune journos and there is a rich seam to be mined at Times newspapers inc. It is a hearts and minds campaign being fought in the world's press and such august organs like the FT no matter what the doubtful provenance of this confection is, this likely tale has been aired and the meme is China and how China is 'limiting' its "CO² emissions" when the reality is as far away from the truth as journalists can get away with. The idea is to implant in minds, that China is on board with a new emissions treaty - and we have proved it y'all.
Be prepared, this is the way of things, nearer to December 2015 a snow storm of disinformation and green propaganda - will become a blizzard - oh dear me, how I hope Paris will be snowed over - both figuratively and really.
hydro cannot be right you cannot build that many dams unless you completely destroy the ecology of the country,
which they have allready done btw..they are more likely bringing hydro down.
This picture forgets nuclear: China is preparing a factory line for nukes
REAL World or Greenies world ?
... that is the question to always ask of new assertions.
Thanks for all the comments on the difference between the atmospheric CO2 concentration (Mauna Loa report) and mankind's CO2 emissions (IEA claim). I think I understand ...
Ed Davey made an interesting comment on the story (LINK):
I hope he's noticed that China has merely said that it "intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions". A "peak" is not the same as a "cut" (let alone a dramatic one) and even that is not scheduled (depending on what "intends" means) until "around 2030".Yet, as Athelstan has noted, greenies keep attempting "to implant in minds, that China is on board with a new emissions treaty". But what do they expect to gain from doing this? It seems to be that it can only lead to bitter disappointment.
Commenting on the story, Die Klimazwiebel - after noting that no details of the IEA analysis are provided and that two years doesn't make a trend - says this:
I don't understand something here: how exactly are the emissions totals measured? If they are 'estimates' as stated in the text, on what are those estimates based? Could this be some kind of modelling going on here? I seem to remember modelling as forecasting getting a bad press recently; can't quite remember where. In any case, shouldn't we be getting error bars on estimates, here? Otherwise how can we tell whether they're worth anything?
environment correspondent's standards, now there is an oxymoron!
Of course, what this is trying to hide is this truth (dateline 22 September 2014):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-21/china-beats-u-s-in-per-capital-pollution-for-first-time
So in less than six months we have a downward revision of estimated global emissions for 2014 of 2.5% (is that 5% lower in the last 6 months?). Sort of reminds you of a GCM running too hot. However, ominously within the article is this forecast:
The credibility of a London-based non-profit group that joined the university academics in warning that fossil-fuel burning must be halted in producing statistics on Chinese coal consumption I leave open to your imagination.
Igsy:
"The acceptance - even encouragement - by the warmists of the significant expansion in developing country CO2 emissions is one of the key pointers that this whole thing is much, much more about the politics than about the planet and The Science."
This is about Contraction and Convergence, explained a little more here: "Changing The Engine Of The Global Economy – The Next UN Strategy" http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/changing_global_economy_engine.html
The process whereby developed countries sacrifice their home industries and populations by imposing ever higher taxes on energy, is known in UN parlance as “Contraction and Convergence.”
"It is described by its initiator as “An International Conceptual Framework for Preventing Dangerous Climate Change” and has been adopted and subscribed to by the UN and member countries of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCC).
The narrative says that there is a finite global budget for carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere, a total amount beyond which the world will heat uncontrollably and human kind will be visited by dreadful climate disasters, including, but not limited to, stronger hurricanes, rising sea levels, droughts, floods and plagues.
“Climate justice” demands that everyone on the planet has an equal right to emit the same amount of CO2. Greedy western nations have, since the industrial revolution, used up their share of this allowable CO2 amount and must now pay reparation to the undeveloped nations who have not industrialised.
Developed nations must “Contract” their economies by cutting fossil fuel usage to levels reported in 1990 (the Kyoto Protocol) and then transfer knowledge, technology and finance to developing nations, to bring them up to the new lowered expectations of the developed nations, described as “Convergence.”
However, there is a problem and it is that there are two paradigms in force, mutually antagonistic to each other. “Climate Equity and the Millennium Development Goals” require that undeveloped nations are allowed to use fossil fuels to lift them from poverty, whereas “CO2-induced Climate Catastrophe Theory” says global emissions must peak by 2015 and then start coming down to save the planet.
There are no targets, caps or limits on the emissions of CO2 by developing nations and it is unlikely they will wish to, at some point in the future, give up their improved standards of living brought about by greater access to fossil fuel energy. Emissions from developed nations are being replaced by emissions from developing nations."
The journalists, faux or otherwise, only get away with what their editors allow.
It is time to wonder why far too many editors tolerate non-factual reporting, suppression of discussion, cut-and-pasting of special interest and NGO press releases, etc.
I thought the announcement was ambiguous when I saw it on "text" yesterday. My understanding is that the RATE of increase in emissions has steadied. I.e. emissions are increasing at a constant rate. Let's put it in context though - atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since all this malarkey started from a tiny 355 ppm to a tiny 390 ppm. I'm not going to loose any sleep.
@Vernon E
390ppm? That's virtually an armful mate!
@ Robin Guenier, Arthur Dent
The Mauna Loa charts provide the total CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, of which 95% is natural and 5% from human origin. Looking at the charts (a.o the annual mean growth rate, which is a little higher for 2014 compared with 2013) it is quite clear that the 5% anthropogenic CO2 emissions have very little influence on the total CO2 balance. Even if the 5% would disappear completely, the concentration would hardly change; it would drop from 400 to 380 ppm.
I do find it strange that a green person can state in an article that the CO2 emissions "remained steady", whithout making clear what it means for the total balance. It is also suggested that the anthropogenic CO2 is measured, which is not the case. It is roughly calculated from fuel use. Stating that wind and solar were responsible for the emissions "remaining steady" is very disingenuous, as other commenters have already shown.
@Vernon E
Zero growth 2013-2014; nothing to do with rate of growth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31872460
Does anyone know where to find up-to-date emissions data? CDIAC has not updated since 2010
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2010.html
EPA only to 2008
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
I almost wonder if they are trying to hide the fact that emissions continue accelerating while atmospheric concentration is at a flat rate.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/CO2_zps330ee8fa.jpg
Bart: re up-to-date emissions data, your observations well made - it's very odd. And note that yesterday (9:26 PM) 'It doesn't add up...' wrote this:
Are they?
According to the Guardian in September 2014 emissions were heading for a record and were some 2.5 Percent up on 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/21/record-co2-emissions-committing-world-to-dangerous-climate-change
Don't forget this is Paris summit year so this looks like Officaldom is looking to encourage the troops by demonstrating it is possible to make a difference
Tonyb
Robin Guenier
I didn't consider the /sarc tag necessary...
Did you notice that the BBC seem to have magically cut CO2 emissions ***just like that***? They talk of 32Gt, whereas Bloomerberg (sic) reported expected emissions of 40 billion tons for 2014 and implied 39 billion tons for 2013 (possibly total GHG equivalent, but the difference between even short tons (2,000lb) and tonnes would only get you from 40 to to 36.3Gt). BP's estimate for 2013 was 35GtCO2 - their figures exclude other GHGs.
When news outlets can't agree on a figure by such a large margin there is something suspicious. I noted too that Bloomberg seemed to be using highly inflated versions of the contributions of renewables to Chinese supply.
Checking with China's NEA I find that by end 2014 they say they had 28GW of solar installed (compared with 18.3GW end 2103 according to BP, now revised down by the Chinese to 17.45GW) - still rather less than Germany's 38GW, and claim to have generated 25TWh from it.
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=zh-CN&u=http://www.nea.gov.cn/2015-03/09/c_134049519.htm&usg=ALkJrhidUkvFhFROt3uxvKSlSU4eK7wWmw
They only have figures for wind that I could find up to September, showing output of 106TWh compared with full year last year of 131.9TWh, which isn't suggestive of a significant increase by year end, given China's 5,361TWh production in total in 2013.
Elsewhere, they do say that 2014 is the first year when the whole Three Gorges Dam was operational.
Tonyb: that Guardian story refers to a study by the "Global Carbon Project" (LINK). It refers to 2004-2013 and shows that emission growth in 2013 was 2.3% above 2012 and (if I read it correctly) estimated growth to 2014 to be 2.5% - i.e. rather less certain than the Guardian's claim that "Annual carbon dioxide emissions showed a strong rise of 2.5% on 2013 levels". However the article also says "the study" (a different study?) was "published as a paper in the peer-review journal Nature Geoscience called “Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets” " That can be found here: LINK. It appears to show 2013-2014 emissions growing by 2.5% (although how they knew in September 2014 is beyond me).
Given these studies, it seems odd that the IEA now thinks emissions are not increasing. Hmm ... which is most likely to energise those Paris delegates - a study that shows emissions are continuing their climb to dangerous levels or a report that, despite increased GDP, it's possible for emissions to be restrained? That's a tough one.
Earlier on climate an environmental journalism lay under science journalists. Then suddenly there was a drive to have climate and environmental journalists instead. I wrote to my newspaper then and told them this was a very bad idea. Having a profession that is making a living of CAGW and environmental idea is bound to go bad, very bad. Actually it's gone even bader. We now have A situation in the Western World where most of the climate and environmental journalists are on a tour with Alice in Wonderland!
Not exactly sure where I saw it, but I saw a wonderful article that stated that China's wind power capacity was greater than the total of nuclear power capacity in the US. It admitted that the power production was different from capacity, but I tried to envision how many windmill farms it would take to out produce all the nuclear plants in the US, but failed. I recognize that nuclear isn't the major energy producer in the US that it is, say, in Japan, but still, trying to envision the Great Wall of China replaced by the great wall of windmills in China was an impossible task.
Not exactly sure where I saw it, but I saw a wonderful article that stated that China's wind power capacity was greater than the total of nuclear power capacity in the US. It admitted that the power production was different from capacity, but I tried to envision how many windmill farms it would take to out produce all the nuclear plants in the US, but failed. I recognize that nuclear isn't the major energy producer in the US that it is, say, in Japan, but still, trying to envision the Great Wall of China replaced by the great wall of windmills in China was an impossible task.
Not exactly sure where I saw it, but I saw a wonderful article that stated that China's wind power capacity was greater than the total of nuclear power capacity in the US. It admitted that the power production was different from capacity, but I tried to envision how many windmill farms it would take to out produce all the nuclear plants in the US, but failed. I recognize that nuclear isn't the major energy producer in the US that it is, say, in Japan, but still, trying to envision the Great Wall of China replaced by the great wall of windmills in China was an impossible task.