If we can believe Spiegel, it looks like the German political-climate blitz, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, aimed at isolating and humiliating the United States, particularly President Donald Trump, appears to have run aground.
The Paris Climate Accord may be having its D-Day.
Image cropped from Spiegel here
According to the online English version of Der Spiegel, “The German chancellor had been hoping to isolate Donald Trump on climate issues at the upcoming G-20 summit in Hamburg“, but a number of longtime US allies have decided that the overall relationship with America is more important than the flakey, UN-manufactured “climate crisis”.
Merkel’s international defeat
Spiegel writes that Merkel led the charge to try to get 19 countries of the G20 to turn against America and “make Trump a bogeyman of world history. A score of 19:1“.
Japan, in part due to obvious North Korean factors, is also hardly ready to upset its longstanding crucial Pacific ally.
No sooner did Merkel launch her climate anti-Trump campaign at the G7 summit did it begin to crumble, first because of pragmatism out of Canada, and then Great Britain. Merkel was not able get the six other countries of the G7 to make a statement against Trump. Spiegel sums up: “Climate policy is great, but when it comes to national interests, it is secondary.”
What’s left of the G7 attempt to isolate Trump is a lonely gaggle of Germany, Italy and France.
Spiegel summarizes it is “a defeat for Merkel” when it comes to climate policy and international leadership.
No mention of “climate” in G20 draft statements
Concerning the G20 meeting in Hamburg in July, there are already signs that the climate issue will also be secondary there as well. Spiegel writes how several drafts for joint statements have circulated and: “There isn’t a single mention of the climate in the document.”
Now that Merkel realizes her strategy to isolate Trump is not working, Spiegel writes that German government officials are now “eager to avoid turning the climate statement into an instrument of power politics” and that Merkel will likely to “retreat” to a role of mediator.
But it’s an election year and the race to bash and “to stand up to” Trump is as intense as ever. In polls Merkel’s CDU/CSU party currently holds a huge lead over the crumbling SPD socialist party, led by Martin Schulz. Merkel probably could even afford softening her anti-Trump stance.
Germany CO2 emissions reductions an embarrassment
Another factor that Spiegel did not bring up is that Germany’s climate charges against America in fact look ridiculous. How can anyone take Germany seriously on leadership in climate protection? This is a country that has not cut back its greenhouse gas emissions in 8 years and will completely miss its 40% reductions target by 2020.
Moreover, led by the Merkel government, Germany has massively slashed subsidies on green energies and the Chancellor’s pledge to put a million electric cars on the road by 2020 remains light years away.
Germany preaching America on cutting greenhouse gases is nothing short of a bad joke.
69 responses to “Global Climate Policy Meets Its D-Day?…SPIEGEL: “CLIMATE ALLIANCE IS CRUMBLING”!”
who thought that Turkey would stand with the rest of the world and against the USA?
Politicians will not act against Trump. What Merkel does, is mostly in fear of the election. It will be we, the people, who stop Trump.
Theresa may just learned a lesson yesterday…
‘We the people…’
Who are you fooling? Indeed it’s the people who are fed up with elitist eco-left politicians, activists and their media buddies telling them how they should think and feel.
“Theresa may just learned a lesson yesterday…”
Yep, When your main opponent promises free money and you let him get away with it unchallenged???
Just ask the Greeks.
Good luck with that.
“U.N. sponsored global poll rates climate change dead last”
Turkey is building 80 new coal plants in the next few years. The US is shutting down coal plants by the 100s. And yet in your symbolism-over-substance interpretation of events, you think Turkey is on your side.
Turkey plans to build as many as 80 new coal plants in the next few years, on top of 25 that already exist, belching an extra 200m tonnes of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere each year.
“The US is shutting down coal plants by the 100s. ”
Because GAS is so much cheaper and easier.
Turkey is building so their society can PROGRESS.
Same with Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam.. and MANY other countries.
I am not the least bit worried that their will be global CO2 emission decreases in any foreseeable future.
But I do PITY those countries that have destroyed their once reliable supply systems on the back of a the unproven brain-washed AGW conjecture, which is gradually being proven to be a manifest LIE and a massive CON job aimed at a totally different globalist AGENDA..
So as Turkey progresses to a more comfortable life electricity demand (and the BASE-LOAD) is rising, and as happens the ONLY logical answer is to install more 24/365 reliable power generation and not those intermittent windmills and solar panels.
The Turkish government obviously understand more about electricity supply and distribution than sob.
“It will be we, the people,”
There goes sob-sob off into his hallucinogenic FANTASY land yet again.
May campaigned VERY poorly, allowed Labor to do all the shouting.
They need someone stronger who will not bow in the least the far-left totalitarian agenda that is supported mainly by the lowest forms of inner-city, yapping, do-nothing worms, such as seb-sob.
Not that surprising really when one considers the fact that Turkey is convinced the US was behind the abortive coop against Erdogan.
Excuse me? The United States still emitting more than double the GHGs per Person than the rest of the world. They are doing the “easy” reductions right now.
It’s basically the same as if you would say that a developed country has a GDP growth of 2% and ridicule that country because a less developed one has a growth of 10%. What a joke, right?
FACT: US has cut back, even though they never promised to do so. Germany hasn’t, even though they promised they would do so.
Again US GHG annual emissions cuts since 2005 are now as great as Germany’s total annual emissions.
Yeah, because they were the largest emitter on this planet and still are! Per capita! It’s no contest! What they did is the easy part of reducing emissions, a first step. They would have to half their emissions to get even near EU28 levels.
China emits 30% of the world’s CO2 emissions and burns 50% of the world’s coal. The US emits 15% of the world’s CO2 emissions and less than 10% of the world’s coal.
The EU emits 9% of the world’s CO2. 7.5%, or halved 15%, is less than EU emissions.
Links to Twitter don’t work? Maybe this one works?
SebastianH, you wrote that the US leads the world in CO2 emissions. This was false. China does. China emits 30% of the world’s CO2 emissions. The US emits 15%. The EU emits 9%. Do try to keep up.
On a per capita basis, the US as a nation ranks 11th in the world, not 1st as you have falsely claimed:
Qatar: 40.1 (Tonnes)
Trinidad & Tobago: 37.78
Netherlands Antilles: 23.55
Brunei Darussalam: 22.96
United Arab Emirates: 22.31
Falklan Islands: 19.56
United States: 17.5
Saudi Arabia: 16.92
i have never even heard of Aruba before. These are dwarf-states. What are you trying to tell us with that list?
this is a technical argument: yes there are tiny states that have a larger per capita output than the USA. But this is next to irrelevant, because their population is so small. Yes, there is a country with 4 times the population of the USA and in ADDITION it is the country that does basically all of the production of the world, and so it is putting out more CO2 than the USA in total. But this makes it all the more relevant, that China must NEVER reach a per capita use of CO2 similar to the USA ever!
Your line of argument is obscuring the important parts.
Is nationalist bigotry acceptable where you live?
SebastianH falsely claimed that the US is 1st in emissions per capita. He was wrong. The US is 11th, and overall US emissions is lower now than it was in the 1990s despite the population growing by 70 million since then.
Between 1970 and 2013, China’s per capita emissions grew by 770%. Between 1970 and 2013, the US’s emissions per capita declined by -28%. And yet you are here praising the direction of China?
““These are dwarf-states.””
Bigger than El Hierro. BY a LONG way.
What they did was to frack, and the US will continue to frack.
Fracking is decarbonisation, and the US will reduce its CO2 emissions more effectively than any developed nation remaining in the Paris accord since presently the use of gas as the main baseload provider for energy is the only proven means of reducing CO2 emissions. Apart from nuclear and hydro, until there is cheap reliable storage, everything else is pure fantasy.
Soon the developed world will come crashing up against the buffer of reality.
In the meantime, most people will come to envy the US since CO2 per capita is essentially a measure of the quality of life. Generally speaking, the more CO2 per capita the better the quality of life. there are a few exceptions such as Switzerland and Norway where energy come mainly from natural hydro, but natural resources such as natural hydro and geothermal are scarce for most countries.
I like Germany, but would not want to live there if they reduce CO2 by 40% in the near future. It will be a very bleak life indeed. As I say, politicians are presently living in fantasy land but gradually the stark facts of reality will catch up; there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Switching from an energy source that outputs X CO2 to one that outputs X/2 CO2 doesn’t really “decarbonate”.
Don’t get delusional there … GDP per unit of energy use is a measurement of economic efficiency and the US is “just” average in that regard:
Of course it does. On your very example it reduces CO2 emissions by 50% (ie X/2 is 50% of X).
If one switches away from coal powered generation to gas powered generation, one reduces CO2 emissions by about 40 to 50% That is real and effective decarbonisation.
As regards your other point, it is not about efficiency, it is about lifestyle and consumerism; the better the quality of life, the more CO2 one emits.
For example, I spend a lot of time in Spain. I rarely use aircon, but my next door neighbour runs his aircon all day between May and October. My next door neighbour has a heat pump on his pool so that he can swim all year round, by contrast I have solar heating on my pool which only works effectively in the summer, when it is not really needed. My solar heating extends the swimming season by about 2 to 3 weeks either end (ie. I can go swimming in April through to mid/end of October). My next door neighbour eats out once usually twice a day, 365 days a year, and drives his car sometimes 100km round trip just to go to a restaurant he likes. His CO2 emissions are far more than mine, and this is down to the quality of life he leads.
I have 3 fridges, 2 in my house and one next to my pool. I am fitting a 4th fridge on another terrace because I am too lazy to walk to the pool, or go inside the house to get a cold beer etc. Having 4 fridges means that my CO2 emissions are higher than someone who only has 1 fridge.
When I was dating my girlfriend (now my wife) she was living in Norway, and I was living in England. I use to fly to Norway every weekend for about 6 to 8 months before we got married. I had a large CO2 footprint just to date my girlfriend. After we got married, my wife use to spend the summer school holidays in our house in Spain, I would fly to Spain each weekend, Again, my CO2 emissions were high merely to spend time with my family.
The amount of CO2 per capita depends upon the life style you wish to live, eg., aircon, heated swimming pools, having several cars rather than one, having a motor home, having a motor yacht, the number of holidays one takes a year, having the heating on so you never need to wear more than a T shirt in the house, being able to keep the windows open in winter to get fresh air and not be worried about letting the heat out, being able to put the dishwasher on when there are only a few plates in it, rather than waiting for it to be full, taking the car to drive a few hundred metres rather than walking, having all the latest gadgets and tech etc,
It is a fact that the more consumerism there is, the more energy per capita, and the US has high levels of consumerism and hence it has high per capita CO2 emissions. US citizens enjoy a high quality of life.
Do you think that Al Gore and DiCaprio have small CO2 footprints, or do they have large CO2 footprints because of the quality of life that they lead? The better quality of life one has, the more CO2 one emits.
As developed nations try to cut back their CO2 emissions the lifestyle of their citizens will begin to get worse. As energy prices go up, the citizens will have less money to spend on other items further eroding the quality of life. Meanwhile, the US citizens will have no such concerns. Lucky them.
“Of course it does. On your very example it reduces CO2 emissions by 50% (ie X/2 is 50% of X). ”
No. Imagine i replace my car with a car that uses 100% more. But the car is delivered a week late. So i use nothing for a week. So was it a good deal for CO2 output? NO!
replacing coal with gas gives the impression of a lower CO2 output NOW. But basically it locks in that 50% CO2 in 30 years as well.
in 30 years, most systems will be low CO2. a 50% system will be very bad then.
EXACTLY. Rather than locking in say 4 GT of CO2, it locks in just 2 GT of CO2. Is that not what one is trying to achieve?
Germany is committed to reducing CO2 emissions by 40%. Germany will not achieve this, and the only way it can cut back significantly will be by cutting back energy demand; that is a very bad thing for industry, the people and the economy. i suspect that Germany will achieve no significant reduction going forward as from today, but we will have to wait and see. we will know more in 2020 when interim figures are published.
The US will cut back its emissions by a bigger percentage than that achieved by Germany, and will do it without cutting back its energy demands. That is a very good thing for industry, the people and the economy.
Of course there will be CO2 emissions locked in. From a global atmospheric CO2 perspective, It does not matter how one cuts back/reduces CO2 emissions, the only issue is the total emissions. The US CO2 emissions will be significantly less in 2030 than they are now. Of course, this will have little bearing since CO2 from China and India will be up, and they will be up by more than the CO2 reduced by the developed nations, so in 20330 the total global CO2 will be far higher.
Your example with the car is the wrong way around. It should read: suppose I had a car that uses 50% less petrol, would that be a good thing? The answer is of course YES since whenever you use the car you are now producing 50% less emissions than when you had your old car.
Of course, I am not at all concerned about CO2 emissions, whereas you are, but we ought to be agreed that the switch from coal to gas results in real and significant reduction in the amount of CO2 emissions. That is why the US, even though not signed up to Kyoto protocol, was able to reduce its CO2 emissions by a far greater percentage than any nation that was signed up to Kyoto. We ought to be agreed that the US is doing a good job at reducing its CO2 emissions since 2005, whereas Germany is doing a lousy job. That ought not be contentious. The data is clear.
if the goal is getting to 0 CO2 some day in the distance future, just switching to different fossil fuels wont cut it. That’s the same fallacy as when the German government decided that Diesel needs to be subsidized, because it reduces CO2 emissions. Yeah it does, but it has no chance to reduce it any further then. Switching to electric vehicles is the only option in the transportation sector to reach lower CO2 emissions.
Regarding your point about luxury and life style and the resulting CO2 emissions. They don’t necessarily correlate. This entirely depends on the CO2 emissions per energy usage. If you have country completely running on EE or nuclear fuel (say France), having 4 fridges will not impact your CO2 footprint as much as in a country running on coal (say Poland).
Countries like Germany aren’t really restricting themselves on energy usage, but graphs like these (https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_gdp_puse_ko_pp&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DEU:USA&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false) show that Germany (click on other countries on the left) is far more efficient at using energy than the United States. Imagine the luxory and lifestyle that would be possible with and increase in efficiency 😉
Yes it’s clear. The absolute reduction is impressive. That being said, it was the easy part. Analogy time. When you are spending $3000 a month on stuff compared to someone spending $1000 on stuff, than reducing your expenditures by $1000 is easy. The other guy will never be able to do that. Got it?
Per capita? No one measures per capita it is versus GDP.
And what do we get when we do that?
Still no empirical support that CO2 rates drive climate. It’s a junk science cartel that needs to be eliminated.
In this instance, per capita is a meaningless metric. Total net quantities are the only “meaningful” data.
Why? A country with 1.3 billion citizens is not allowed to emit as much per capita as a country with 0.3 billion citizens?
That is exactly what the ANTI-human cult you worship is trying to avoid.
They DO NOT WANT third world countries to develop.
It really is a low-end, evil agenda.
No wonder you worship it, seb.
Yep he sounds just like one of those ANTI-human cult FABIANs. http://www.forbiddensymbols.com/fabian-society/
It remains that no trace gas in the atmosphere at any concentration can drive the climate. It’s that simple. CO2 is not an air pollutant.
In fact, CO2 IS PLANT FOOD and is greening the planet. We actually need more CO2 than less, as we need to secure our food supply.
“Climate science” says that the upper tropical troposphere (at -17 degC) “traps” IR radiation from Earth’s surface and redirects it downward, thus heating the surface. They call this region of the atmosphere the “hotspot” that has to be warming faster than the planet.
A couple of problems with this. First, real world measurements over decades have failed to detect the “hotspot” in the upper tropical troposphere. Millions of readings and nothing. In fact, this region of the atmosphere has been gently cooling for over 35 years. A complete failure of the “climate science” that has NEVER BEEN ADMITTED by the climate alarmists.
Second, as the upper tropical troposphere is 32 deg C cooler than the surface, it is thermodynamically impossible for IR from above to warm the surface. IR from the “hotspot” would be equivalent to -17 deg C and all of those energy levels in the surface, at 15 deg C, would be already full and thus the incoming IR is reflected back upward.
Very simply, a cold object cannot heat a hot object.
Furthermore, even if the energy could be absorbed, there is simply no enough energy in the upper tropical tropospheric thin atmosphere to heat the surface, just not enough matter to contain the heat required. The hotspot would have to be 100s to 1000s of def C to heat the surface as claimed by the climate alarmists.
Per capita output of CO2 is a not relevant if your argument is that CO2 is a threat to the planet only total total output is important. Per capita output of CO data is a lame statistical attempt at assessing fault and guilt in order to extract money….and that will not work anymore. No more funding of the life styles of elitist UN sycophants.
That doesn’t make sense at all. If you set a global CO2 budget there can’t be countries that have to decrease their emissions more than others just because they have more citizens. That would indeed be “lame” and very anti-social.
True SebastianH, “Germany preaching America on cutting greenhouse gases is nothing short of a bad joke.”
“German CO2 emissions up despite ‘energy transition'” says it all.
Sigmar Gabriel in a speech, calling the “Energiewende”, or “energy transition,” the “trend for the future” is clearly misleading.
Considering the replacement of nuclear power, which is almost carbon neutral, is for sure the wrong way. Therefore, the CO2 emissions will hardly go down.
I think it does not fit here, but i really like the D-day reference 🙂
“FACT: US has cut back, even though they never promised to do so.”
there is a problem with cutting back by using fossil fuel gas.
it does not matter, how much we cut back this year. The really important thing is, how much do we cut back over the next 50 years.
building new gas plants (or even worse, new coal plants) will LOCK IN gas (or coal) for 30+ year or will end in a financial fiasco.
Building windfarms or solar locks in CO2 since they require 100% backup by either coal or gas or nuclear or hydro or geothermal and for most the back up is by coal or gas.
No windfarm has yet saved global CO2 emissions bearing in mind the amount of CO2 required in its manufacture, construction, siting, connecting to the grid, back up (including STOR). This is why Germany’s CO2 reductions have essentially hit the bufffer and there has been little reduction in Germany’s CO2 emissions since 2005, and last year CO2 emissions increased.
Personally, I am all for returning CO2 to the atmosphere since the planet has too little CO2 in its atmosphere, and it is also to cold such that if by some happy coincidence CO2 leads to some warming then that is a win win scenario. I appreciate that others are not so keen, but based upon present technologies windfarms and solar do not achieve significant CO2 reduction, and fracking is the only proven CO2 reducer.
Sorry to call it that, but this is bullshit and I hope you know why.
Only in capacity and not in fuel. So I’d call it BS too.
Does SebH have anything to offer apart from mere abuse and conjecture?
I call everything you say, UTTER BS, seb.
Thing is, I am telling the TRUTH,..
You are , as usual, LYING through your a**e !!
“Building windfarms or solar locks in CO2 since they require 100% backup by either coal or gas or nuclear or hydro or geothermal and for most the back up is by coal or gas. 2
that is not even true today, but will change even more over the next 30 years.
Solar PV will never vanish again. It will reach levels soon, that will make “base load plants” impossible.
wind could change, if technology improves a loot (high wind, flying harvest?) or if nuclear makes a huuuuuge jump.
imagine two systems, both at 20% nuclear and 80% coal. System A changes 30% coal to gas and also replaces an additional 20% of coal plants with new and more effect coal. (so 20% nuclear, 30% gas, 20% new coal, 30% old coal).
System B changes to 30% wind and solar, but closes 10% of nuclear and 20% coal. (so 10% nuclear, 30% wind/solar, 60% old coal)
obviously system A might perform better over a certain period of time. But system B is on a far better way towards the 100% low CO2 output that we need to get over the next 30 years. it can always also add gas plants, which will be plants that are good at stepping in when there is little wind and solar. But it could also happen, that such plants are never really necessary, because storage makes a huge jump.
System A has locked in 50% of fossil fuels for 30 years.
the other system changes
The problem is that System B has slightly higher emissions, much higher costs (unless you want to pretend that the fairies build the turbines for free) and won’t work when the weather don’t cooperate e.g. on overcast days with little wind.
How about System C, 20% nuclear and 80% new coal? Slightly lower emissions than either of your examples but much cheaper and more reliable output.
“How about System C, 20% nuclear and 80% new coal? ”
most stupid way to go. coal will die in about 10-20 years. The investment in new coal will be mostly sunk costs.
But my advice is always the same. if you believe in coal, then invest invest invest.
You had better advise the 62 countries installing or planning to install new coal fired plants because the electricity will be cheap.
Incidentally your System B should be 10% nuclear, 60% old coal and roughly 167% wind (at the average German CF). Even then those silly enough to take your advice will suffer blackouts.
“new coal fired plants because the electricity will be cheap.
And RELIABLE. !!
Reliability is an ABSOLUTE MUST, that is why solar and wind can NEVER be anything but a tiny fraction of energy supply.
Those places “playing” with these two niche energy supplies will eventually get badly bitten by the “UNRELIABLE” nature of their energy supply.
sod 11. June 2017 at 10:06 AM
“most stupid way to go. coal will die in about 10-20 years. “
Again so much BS. You never replied the last time I called you out on this nonsense.
Where’s your data or is it just another on of your many lies!
[…] Global Climate Policy Meets Its D-Day?…SPIEGEL […]
There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 is a main driver of temperature, not through history where, at best, CO2 changes parallel temperature but several hundred years behind; not today, when temperatures have remained stable for 18 years while CO2 emissions continue to increase. The concrete evidence of change that has been brought about by a combination of higher CO2 and higher temperatures is the greening planet with its shrinking desert areas and greater crop yields (other factors contribute too).
Fossil fuels must therefore not to be banned because of CO2; they must be offered to countries which still lack stable, affordable electricity. This will give them the chance to create a standard of living that we are privileged enough to take for granted. Scrap the Paris Farce! Apply political, technological and scientific resources to solving the Real Problems on our Planet!
WELL SAID, Kevin
Exactly my point of view.
What the “climate change ” AGENDA has done in holding back allowing solid reliable power to developing countries is tantamount to a crime against humanity.
Nope … developing countries are exempt of almost anything and net receivers of funds to build up their energy production in a cleaner way than the first world did. Secondly, every country set its own goals, they aren’t forced on any country. The Paric Accord is a weak “contract”, but it is a first step and it was the first time that nearly all countries joined such a contract. And now North Korea, Syria und the US are the only countries not “participating” … great company for the US btw 😉
You are LYING yet again, seb, as is always your way.
LIES and MISINFORMATION
You know that funding agencies are holding back and refusing to help develop supply PROPER reliable energy systems.
That is why China has had to fill the gap.
Participating in the Paris AGENDA for most third world countries will only allow UNRELIABLE wind and solar, or money scammed for the ruling class
These countries need RELIABLE energy supplies, not the useless wind and solar that ALWAYS NEED those RELIABLE supplies to back them up.
Too difficult for your tiny brain-washed mind to process, isn’t it seb.
But REALITY never was your strong point.
I DARE you to try a simple experiment.
When wind and solar in Germany drop below say 20% of nameplate, you TURN OFF all your appliances, lights etc.. No fridge, no heating, no lights.
You WOULD NOT HAVE THE GUTS to live how you and your slimy AGW scammers would want the third world to live, with irregular, intermittent, and unreliable electricity supply.
@AndyG55 10. June 2017 at 10:50
“What the “climate change ” AGENDA has done in holding back allowing solid reliable power to developing countries…”
Absolutely true! Much political pressure is put on developing countries not to install reliable power. From the UN spokes-morons to the armies of UN (and Soros) financed NGOs and all the diplomatic arm twisting.
If all these “climate changers” would stop emitting greenhouse gases themselves the planet would be saved in no time.
As Kevin above said… CO2 does not cause global warming hence climate change.
Yet people go on and on and on about emissions.
The whole GHG Theory has been debunked.
Why do the climate alarmists take some of the other IPCC claims seriously?
More than one IPCC official has claimed that the controversy is not about climate but about transfer of wealth.
Feeding dictatorships from the sweat of our taxpayers is NOT the way to go.
Then there is the actual science. No evidence that co2 has ever had any impact on the planet’s temperature. Experiments in closed containers hardly represents the complications associated with the open atmosphere where satellites detect heat escaping to space and greenhouses don’t experience any planetary level feedbacks.
Then there is the still open issue of there being no “hot spot” despite millions of radiosondes over the past decade or two. This necessary (but not sufficient) condition for validation of the greenhouse gas theory has not even been satisfied. There’s also Obama’s EPA administrator’s admission to congress that even if every nation met its goals by 2030, the impact on the temperature in 2100 would be a fraction of one degree – so meaningless, except of course for the TRILLIONS of dollars expended to achieve that ludicrous goal.
+10, well said!
… oops “… alarmists NOT take some of the other IPCC claims seriously?”
Trumps actions pulled the string that will
unwind the biggest fraud ball in history . Why is Germany always from and centre in these massive frauds ? What happened to German excellence ?
That’s not what you wrote. You wrote that the US leads the world in both total emissions and per capita. Both were wrong. By a lot.
I didn’t call Germany a bad joke.
I think it’s rather sad, though, that German citizens pay about 3 or 4 times as much for their energy as US citizens do…for the sake of what? What do Germans get for having so many of her citizens energy poor? Or UK citizens?
“I think it’s rather sad, though, that German citizens pay about 3 or 4 times as much for their energy as US citizens do…for the sake of what? What do Germans get for having so many of her citizens energy poor? Or UK citizens?”
they use less. basically they pay the same TOTAL price at the end of the month.
when you have cheap electricity, people use 4 fridges and place them ion direct sunlight next to the pool and keep them running all year long for that one time they put a can of beer in. People here pretend that this is quality of life, in reality it is just plain out stupid.
Why is there a need to ration energy? Why would energy rationing be a good thing? Why should it become so unaffordable that it becomes the province of the rich? Why do you want such an unequal world?
The cost of electricity in Spain is among the highest in Europe. this high price is the legacy of a green fiasco.
The Spanish government (from tax payers and bill payers money) greatly subsidised solar with generous feed in tariffs. This pushed the price of electricity up very high. After a few years, the Spanish government found that the solar farms often produced energy 24/7. They investigated and found that many solar farms had diesel generators to supply energy when the sun does not shine. The high subsidies being received more than offset the cost of buying the generator and the cost of the diesel to run them.
The Irish also had a similar daft plan. They were paying users €150 per tonnee of pellets burned. Farmers were buying in pellets at about €80 to €100 per tonne, and installed pellet burners to heat empty warehouses 24/7 even in summer!!! This fiasco brought down the Irish government. the plan was so stupid that when the sh*t hit the fan, the government had to resign over it.
I struggle to think of a single green initiative that has not been plain daft. I want to be able to use as much energy as I want, whether that is wasteful or not, and this is not a problem since the planet is presently too cold, that is why I am wearing a T shirt whilst I type this, even though it is currently a sunny 28 degC, and has too little CO2. Oh for some more warming, and some more CO2, then I can enjoy a cold beer sitting in the sun and that will free some more CO2.
Don’t you just love it when you hear the bottle being opened and CO2 being freed!!.
sod 11. June 2017 at 10:23
sob-sod supplies another vacuous comment with NO DATA, just person assertions.
Where is your comparative data from? A dream? What your FarseBook fiends told you? Or did you just invent it? More sod BS.
No, I just wrote per capita and you are seriously arguing that I was “wrong” because 10 rather smallish countries emit more per capita than the US? BTW: where is my comment you are quoting here? Did it get deleted?
No you didn’t, the article did. I just asked you that given those numbers (per capita CO2 emissions, per GDP $ CO2 emissions) you’d call think it to be fair to call Germany a bad joke. Do you?
You also have to look at per capita GDP. There are many other factors at play, e.g. US climate is more extreme than Germany’s (hot summers, frigid winters, Americans have bigger families, distances in USA are greater, higher per capita GDP in US, hence higher need for energy is greater. Of course the alternative would be to become like North Korea. Lights out1
Lights on, but with clean(er) energy solutions!
Higher GDP = higher energy usage … that’s usually true, but the US’s GDP per unit of energy is just world average: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=eg_gdp_puse_ko_pp_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:DEU:USA:FRA:ITA:ESP:CHN&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false
Climate – as you’ve written – seems to be a factor in this figure. So the US needs more energy to be productive … and that excuses them how? Or makes Germany’s efforts a bad joke why exactly? Yes, Germany will fail the goals it set, but has anyone looked at the CO2 avoided, because of the high share of renewables in the power grid?
“because of the high share of renewables in the power grid? – See more at: https://notrickszone.com/2017/06/10/global-climate-policy-meets-its-d-day-spiegel-climate-alliance-is-crumbling/comment-page-1/#comment-1214766”
I doubt VERY much that ANY CO2 has been avoided. The manufacturing and installation CO2 cost will take a LOT longer to recover.
Plus the MASSIVE pollution in China from manufacture of rare earth magnets.. but you don’t give a stuff about that, and probably even would not even count it in how “clean” wind is.
In FACT, coal is FAR CLEANER that wind will ever be, and let’s not even get into the MUCK that solar panels use in their manufacture and the massive toxic load they will leave behind as they decay.!
NASA “Adjusted” Temperature Charts Prove CO2 Driven Warming is a Hoax
Unless the laws of physics cease to exist in the labs of NASA, NASA’s own research and publications debunk the CAGW theory.
Whilst Climate is regional and whilst response to Climate Change is also regional, there is one thing you need to do some work on.
You are right that CO2 is a well mixed gas, and therefore, at first brush, one would expect to see the same type of response if CO2 drives temperature change.
However, as I noted, Climate is regional and response will also inevitably regional not least because of differences in humidity, water vapour, rain patters, topography and geography, in particular nearness to oceans and oceanic currents.
So when one looks at temperatures over deserts, Antarctica and the Arctic, these gives us a good insight into the no water feedback effect of CO2 itself (if CO2 is in itself a driver of temperature which is moot).
I think that you also need to look at the different day night response, and also the different seasonal response.
I like the point that you are trying to make, but unfortunately, I consider that it is not quite as simple as you seek to ortray.r
Forget Trump. Merkel now has Jerry Brown as her “comrade”
in the war against the demons of AGW!