Aug 29, 2017 at 9:30 AM | Mark Hodgson

The pseudo climate politicians/scientists will be the last ones to vote for budget cuts that will end their own careers.

Climate Science still celebrates the 97% Consensus based on computer models, meanwhile the commercial world is losing confidence in the business models proposed by Lord Stern. Lord Stern can defend himself by explaining that he based his infamous report on the best science from the IPCC and the world's top Climate Scientists

The UN is paying developing countries to blame their lack of development on Global Warming, when in most instances, it is lack of mineral wealth and bad politicians.

Australia seems to be leading the world in turning a country with great mineral wealth and bad politicians into a powerless economy.

I am grateful for all comments on this thread. I am saving them to a word document on my pc, alongside my observations on the Paris Treaty and the INDCs submitted pursuant to it, just in case our host ever takes down this website (or should it suffer an accident).

Mark Hodgson, I have previously referred to this report

http://marshall.csu.edu.au/Marshalls/html/typhoon/typhoon.html

It ought to be a standard reference for Malthusians. Instead it is ignored, and the Marshall Islanders are encouraged to blame all their problems on Global Warming.

I have never visited the Marshall Islands, and have no personal interest or experience.

Their increasing population has nowhere to go, apart from the vulnerable coastlines that their ancestors knew were vulnerable to storms and inundations by high seas.

The "Compensation Culture", "Where there's blame, there's a claim" etc, seems to be their only hope, now that funds from Bikini Atoll compensation have been appropriated, along with the safer land with the best development potential.

The Marshall Islands are a disaster waiting to happen.

It seems all those countries with large rain forests or jungles, whose INDCs claimed to be "carbon sinks", may have to reconsider:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/alarm-as-study-reveals-worlds-tropical-forests-are-huge-carbon-emission-source

Alarm as study reveals world’s tropical forests are huge carbon emission source

Forests globally are so degraded that instead of absorbing emissions they now release more carbon annually than all the traffic in the US, say researchers

The world’s tropical forests are so degraded they have become a source rather than a sink of carbon emissions, according to a new study that highlights the urgent need to protect and restore the Amazon and similar regions.

Researchers found that forest areas in South America, Africa and Asia – which have until recently played a key role in absorbing greenhouse gases – are now releasing 425 teragrams of carbon annually, which is more than all the traffic in the United States.

This is a far greater loss than previously thought and carries extra force because the data emerges from the most detailed examination of the topic ever undertaken

Overall, more carbon was lost to degradation and disturbance than deforestation.

“Prior to this we knew degradation was a problem but we didn’t know where or how much,” said Wayne Walker, another of the lead authors. “It’s easier to address the problem when there is still some of the forest left standing.”

The priority is to protect pristine forests with high carbon density. The most effective way of doing this, he said, was to support land rights for indigenous people. “Those living in the forest can make a difference,” Walker said.

Unfortunately, many governments whose territories are home to tropical forests are moving in the opposite direction. In Brazil and Colombia, for example, deforestation has accelerated rapidly in the past year.

Oct 2, 2017 at 8:25 AM | Mark Hodgson

The destruction of the Amazonian Rainforest has been a recurring theme since before Global Warming was invented.

As a country bumpkin, it is something that I remember from school, and the idea that the rainforests are the lungs of the world, but exchanging carbon dioxide for oxygen, is another reason why I initially accepted the scare stories of Climate Science.

The deforestation of the UK was largely completed during the First World War, and the Forestry Commission was set up in 1919 to ensure the retention of a strategic asset, not initially for conservation reasons. Cutting down trees faster than they can grow, has been an English concern since the 1600s(?), and the fate of Easter Island has been linked to it.

Since the stone age, people have chopped down trees, for housing, fuel for heating and cooking etc, but also to use the land for food crops. With modern technology, rainforest can be cut down and cleared for a quick cash profit, leaving arable land as a bonus. I accept the argument that the soil beneath rainforest is not that fertile, once the trees are cleared and high rainfall washes out the nutrients.

Farmers and gardeners all over the world know that soil needs to be looked after, in order to maintain its productivity, and "slash and burn" leading to monoculture without crop rotation, fertiliser and cultivation will cause failure. Little attempt has been made to preserve the soil, because it was more profitable to clear more forest.

Loss of rainforest is at the worst end of short-term asset stripping capitalism, and the indigenous population are not the long term beneficiaries. The profits buy a lot of political support, and bans/restrictions on teak, ivory, cocaine etc have only increased the incentives, along with grants and "encouragement" for products we never knew we needed such as Palm Oil.

The problem for environmentalists, is that the majority of those living in undeveloped communities would like some form of development, and that means money.

Unfortunately for the Green Blob, they have been involved with some unsavoury activity against indigenous people, so that they can impose their vision. If the whole "save the rainforest" movement is trying to regroup and attract fresh sympathy and publicity by jumping on the Global Warming band wagon, they may have left it a bit late, as the wheels on the Global Warming band wagon are getting a bit loose.

We are reputable mandate working directly with seller/Refinery here in Russian Federation that is capable of supplying the under listed products.
AVIATION KEROSENE (JP54, A1, TS1)
MAZUT FUEL OIL,
DIESEL GAS,
FUEL OIL (D6)
LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS
LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GAS.
Kindly contact us if interested for a copy of sellers procedure/price list. (Krivtsovoilconsultant@yandex.ru)
Regards;
Krivtsov Afanasy (Mr.)
E-mail: Krivtsovoilconsultant@yandex.ru
Email: krivtsovoilgasconsultant@mail.ru
Skype: krivtsovoilandgasconsultant

I suppose this is what happens when an international climate agreement defines the world's largest emitter of GHGs as a developing country, and thereby allows it to make no commitment to reduce GHG emissions.

China drives natural gas demand boom

https://www.rt.com/business/407538-china-drives-natural-gas-demand/

A few choice snippets from the article:

For much of the past two decades, China has been the main driver of global oil demand growth. In the coming two to three decades, China is expected to become the leading determinant in global natural gas demand as well, outpacing the US as the biggest natural gas consumer at some point between 2040 and 2050.

Economic and industrial production growth, coupled with efforts to reduce stifling pollution levels, will lead China’s surging natural gas demand over the next couple of decades, according to analysts and international projections.

China’s gas consumption is expected to rise to 300 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2020 from 206 bcm in 2016, and surge to 600 bcm by 2040. After that, China is seen outstripping the US in natural gas consumption to become the biggest user of the fuel in the world, according to Bernstein.

he International Energy Agency (IEA) sees global gas demand growing 1.6 percent annually until 2022, with China making up 40 percent of this growth. Consumption in China is expected to increase to almost 340 bcm by 2022, of which imports will account for 140 bcm, up from 70 bcm last year, according to IEA’s Gas 2017 report. In addition, China’s domestic production is seen growing by around 65 bcm to 200 bcm by 2022, with annual growth of 6.6 percent, which would make the country the world’s fourth-largest natural gas producer by 2022.

BP sees Chinese demand for oil surging 61 percent, and gas demand soaring 186 percent by 2035. The UK supermajor also expects China to become the world’s second-biggest shale gas producer after the US in two decades’ time.

Almost everyone expects China to become for the natural gas market what it is for the oil market now—the leading consumer with the largest demand growth.

Oct 23, 2017 at 8:05 PM | Mark Hodgson

The Chinese realised that the Global Warming Scam was the best thing since Chaiman Mao died. Why fight capitalism, when you can beat it at its own game, and prosper?

From Reuters, via Paul Homewood's site, more evidence of the failure of the Paris Agreement:

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Southeast Asian demand for oil will keep growing until at least 2040 as emerging nations there rely on the fossil fuel to transport their rapidly growing populations, ship goods and make plastics, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday.

Oil usage in the region will expand to around 6.6 million barrels per day by 2040 from 4.7 million bpd now, with the number of road vehicles increasing by two-thirds to around 62 million, the agency said in a report. It did not make any forecasts beyond 2040.

A global push to replace combustion engines in vehicles with electric-powered ones to fight climate change has raised concerns in the oil industry that demand for the commodity could peak in the next 10-20 years.

But oil will continue to meet around 90 percent of transport-related demand in Southeast Asia, especially for trucks and ships, Keisuke Sadamori, the IEA’s director of energy markets and security, said at the Singapore International Energy Week.

“Unless there are any drastic technological changes that can decarbonize these areas, we do not expect oil demand to fall,” he said.

Oil demand from the petrochemicals sector, one of the largest users of the fossil fuel, will also grow fairly substantially, Sadamori said. Oil can be used as a raw material for plastics and textiles.

The IEA expects electricity to account for only 1 percent of transport energy demand in 2040, saying there will be only about 4 million electric cars in a total passenger vehicle stock of 62 million.

Meanwhile, Southeast Asia’s overall energy demand is expected to climb nearly 60 percent by 2040 from now, led by power generation, as rising incomes in the region spur more people to buy electric appliances including air conditioners, the IEA said.

Oct 25, 2017 at 7:19 PM | Mark Hodgson

South East Asis manufactures most of the world's solar panels, and they have sunshine there.

There must be something wrong with the Green maths, if Developing Countries need reliable energy to produce unreliable energy generating kit to sell to countries that already know how to produce electricity reliably.

Representatives of Developing Countries were happy to have a free holiday in Paris, and they were promised money for their autographs.

Given that Syria has now signed the Paris Climate Accords, I thought I would have a look at their INDC, since they must have submitted on if they've signed the agreement, yes? But I can't find it on the UN website which contains the INDCs for public reference. I have found this however:

https://www.climatelinks.org/resources/greenhouse-gas-emissions-factsheet-syria

"GHG emissions in Syria increased 77 percent between 1990 and 2007. Syria’s GDP increased by 132 percent in the same time period, indicating that GDP was growing faster than GHG emissions. But, as of 2007, Syria was emitting almost four times more GHGs relative to GDP than the world average."

And "Syria is one of the few countries that did not submit an Intended Nationally determined Contribution (INDC) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ahead of the climate change negotiations at the Conference of Parties (COP 21)."

Funny the mainstream media don't mention any of this in their concerted efforts to big up the agreement and have another pop at Trump for taking the USA out.

I wonder what volume of GHGs have been released into the atmosphere over Syria during the recent years of war and turmoil?

The Syrian regime is desperate for International and UN support ie money.
Syria has upset some local oil rich countries.
Doing anything that goes against Trump wishes, may attract sympathy.
Power generation is normally a target in conflicts, along with water supplies.
Humanitarian aid for the innocent victims of conflict will always attract support, and corrupion
Other than the above, Syria signing up, is about the Politics of necessity.

Meanwhile over in Bonn, an Elephant goes missing from the room. Delegates keep bumping into each other, whilst trying to avoid what is missing.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/09/bonn-climate-change-talks-us-two-tribes

The Guardian don't want to admit that without the USA, Paris was a waste of CO2 emissions and other people's money

This post from 2016 illustrates how World Democracy works at the UN, and why the support of small Island States is so valuable to small Island States

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/22/another-importance-of-small-islands-in-global-warming-alramism/

"The net result is that the cumulative support of small nations became critical in approving actions within the General Assembly. There are 13 UN member nations with populations less than 100,000 people. Tuvalu, with major media stories about the threat of sea level rise due to warming, has a population of 9,876 people with a UN vote equal to the 1.4 billion people in China or the 1.3 billion in India. The 13 UN member nations with populations under 100,000 represent a total of 617,228 people or one vote for 47,479 people. The top 13 nations on the UN population list represents a total of 4,510,141,301 people or one vote for 346,933,946 people, which is approximately the population of the US."

"Why waste time and money trying to support the global warming agenda with the big nations when it is so much cheaper and easier to convince these smaller nations? Their leaders will always vote for receiving what amounts to minuscule amounts of money from the Kyoto Protocol and latterly the Green Climate Fund. In other words, all politicians are vulnerable to bribes, but the small ones with limited income opportunities, are more vulnerable."

Mark Hodgson
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria

"Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, the Syrian economy has been hit by massive economic sanctions restricting trade with the Arab League,[6] Australia,[7] Canada,[8] the European Union,[9] (as well as the European countries of Albania,[10] Iceland,[10] Liechtenstein,[10]Macedonia,[10] Moldova,[10] Montenegro,[10] Norway,[11] Serbia,[10] and Switzerland)[12] Georgia,[10] Japan,[13] Turkey,[14] and the United States.[15] These sanctions and the instability associated with the civil war have reversed previous growth in the Syrian economy to a state of decline for the years 2011 and 2012.[16] According to the UN, total economic damages of the Syrian civil war are estimated at $143 billion as of late 2013.[17]

By July 2013, the Syrian economy had shrunk 45 percent since the start of the Civil War. Unemployment increased fivefold, the value of the Syrian currency decreased to one-sixth its pre-war value, and the public sector lost USD $15 billion.[18][19] By the end of 2013, the UN estimated total economic damage of the Syrian civil war at $143 billion.[20] The total economic loss from the Syrian Civil War will reach $237 billion by the end of 2015, according to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, with the Syrian opposition's capture of Nasib border crossing costing the government a further $500–$700 million a year on top of this.[21]

As a result of the war, the six economies of the greater Levant (Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt) taken together have lost close to US$35 billion in output, measured in 2007 prices."

I think that on balance, conflict in Syria may have reduced CO2 production, so some may judge the economic depression and loss of human life worthwhile.

Syria upset both East and West during the Cold War, aswell as oil-rich Arab States.

Thanks Gwen - thoughtful and thought-provoking stuff.

Iraq's INDC was written in Arabic, so I don't know what it said. However, it seems unlikely to have committed to reduce their oil & gas production:

https://www.rt.com/newsline/411055-iraq-bids-oil-gas/

Iraq to start receiving bids for developing oil, gas fields in June

Iraq will start receiving bids next June for projects to develop nine oil and gas fields in an attempt to boost energy revenues, AP reported. Detailed energy information on the nine areas in question will be disclosed at the end of this month, Abdul-Mahdi al-Ameedi, who heads the Oil Ministry’s Licensing and Petroleum Contracts Department, said on Monday. Companies that bid on the projects will for the first time be able to take part in the drawing up of the contract, as an incentive for the bidders. Five of the nine fields or blocs are shared with Iran, three with Kuwait and one is located in the Persian Gulf. Iraq has the world’s fourth largest oil reserves.