By Institute for Energy Research ——Bio and Archives--January 15, 2013
Global Warming-Energy-Environment | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
“10 …Mitigation and adaptation are linked, in that effective mitigation reduces the need 11 for adaptation. Both are essential parts of a comprehensive response strategy. The threat of 12 irreversible impacts makes the timing of mitigation efforts particularly critical. This report 13 includes chapters on Mitigation, Adaptation, and Decision Support that offer an overview of the 14 kinds of options and activities being planned or implemented around the country as governments 15 at local, state, federal, and tribal levels, businesses, other organizations, and individuals begin to 16 respond to climate change (Ch. 26, 27, 28). 17 Large reductions in global emissions, similar to the lower emissions scenario (B1) analyzed in 18 this assessment, would be necessary to avoid some of the worst impacts and risks of climate 19 change. The targets called for in international agreements would require even larger reductions 20 than those outlined in scenario B1 (Figure 1). Meanwhile, global emissions are still rising, and 21 are on track to be even higher than the high emissions scenario (A2) analyzed in this report. The 22 current U.S. contribution to global emissions is about 20%. Voluntary efforts, the recent shift 23 from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, and governmental actions in city, state, 24 regional, and federal programs under way and have contributed to reducing U.S. emissions in 25 the last few years. Some of these actions are motivated by climate concerns, sometimes with 26 non-climate co-benefits, while others are motivated primarily by non-climate objectives. These 27 U.S. actions and others that might be undertaken in the future are described in the Mitigation 28 chapter of this report; at present they are not sufficient to reduce total U.S. emissions to a level 29 that would be consistent with scenario B1 or the targets in international agreements…”We have underlined key elements of the excerpt above, which beautifully illustrate the tone of urgency and calls for drastic action by government at all levels. It is no wonder that the loudest climate alarmists welcome the draft with open arms, because it fits their messaging perfectly.
In other words, how much of the IPCC’s projected 1.1°C to 6.4°C of warming will the U.S. be responsible for in the next century? The answer is about 0.08°C of the low end estimate and about 0.35°C of the high end… Using the IPCC’s mid-range scenario, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. contribute about 0.19°C of the total 2.96°C global temperature rise. Yep, that is it. For all the incessant talk as to how the highly consumptive U.S. lifestyle—from SUVs, to air conditioners, to big screen TVs and huge portion sizes—is leading climate catastrophe, the sum total of our contribution to “global warming” this century will amount to the neighborhood of about 0.2°C. Not five degrees. Not two degrees. But about two-tenths of a degree Celsius. And even this number may be on the high side if the climate sensitivity is lower than about 3°C (see here for more on recent findings concerning the climate sensitivity). So all the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions restriction tactics—EPA regulations, cap and trade schemes, carbon taxes, efficiency programs, guilt-inducing ad campaigns, etc.—are aimed at chipping away at this already tiny 0.2°C. Big deal. (Emphasis in original.)Thus we see that it was very misleading when the new National Climate Assessment draft said that the “current U.S. contribution to global emissions is about 20%.” In context, it led the reader to believe that the United States has the power to avert up to one-fifth of the potentially severe climate change the report says could be coming. Yet as Knappenberger’s analysis shows, this is wrong. China and India, with their growing economies, are projected to have much greater increases in emissions than the United States in the coming decades, meaning the U.S. share of the “blame” for future warming is more like 6 percent, not 20. Furthermore, even very aggressive U.S. government action wouldn’t eliminate all of this share, but the point is, even a total cessation of U.S. economic activity would at most avert 6 percent of the projected rise in global temperatures, according to the IPCC’s own mid-range scenario. In this context, it’s worth pointing out that the draft report comes on the heels of the Doha round of discussions relating to the Kyoto Protocol, which even Kyoto’s host country, Japan, no longer supports. In fact, despite alarmist attempts to convince Americans of the errors of our energy ways, the number of countries agreeing to limit their own carbon dioxide emissions has shrunk dramatically, and now represents less than 15% of total world emissions.
View Comments
The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.