Who Cooked the Planet?, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Never say that the gods lack a sense of humor. I bet they’re still chuckling on Olympus over the decision to make the first half of 2010 — the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died — the hottest such stretch on record. ...
So why didn’t climate-change legislation get through the Senate? Let’s talk first about what didn’t cause the failure, because there have been many attempts to blame the wrong people.
First of all, we didn’t fail to act because of legitimate doubts about the science. Every piece of valid evidence ... points to a continuing, and quite possibly accelerating, rise in global temperatures.
Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You’ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers —... “Climategate,” and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action...
Did reasonable concerns about the economic impact of climate legislation block action? No. ... All serious estimates suggest that we could phase in limits on greenhouse gas emissions with at most a small impact on the economy’s growth rate.
So it wasn’t the science, the scientists, or the economics that killed action on climate change. What was it?
The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice.
If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money. The economy as a whole wouldn’t be significantly hurt if we put a price on carbon, but certain industries — above all, the coal and oil industries — would. And those industries have mounted a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines.
Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you’ll find that they’re on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades.
Or look at the politicians who have been most vociferously opposed to climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? You already know the answer.
By itself, however, greed wouldn’t have triumphed. It needed the aid of cowardice — above all, the cowardice of politicians who know how big a threat global warming poses, who supported action in the past, but who deserted their posts at the crucial moment.
There are a number of such climate cowards, but let me single out one in particular: Senator John McCain.
There was a time when Mr. McCain was considered a friend of the environment. Back in 2003 he burnished his maverick image by co-sponsoring legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. He reaffirmed support for such a system during his presidential campaign, and things might look very different now if he had continued to back climate action once his opponent was in the White House. But he didn’t — and it’s hard to see his switch as anything other than the act of a man willing to sacrifice his principles, and humanity’s future, for the sake of a few years added to his political career.
Alas, Mr. McCain wasn’t alone; and there will be no climate bill. Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price.

Posted by Mark Thoma on Monday, July 26, 2010 at 12:42 AM in Economics, Environment, Politics | Stumble, Digg, del.icio.us, Reddit, Tweet, Share, Like | Permalink Comments (79)

Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Richard H. Serlin said...
End the filibuster.

You're not going to end greed and cowardice, but you can end the filibuster. It's the single best thing we can do for global warming and almost every other major issue over the long run.

Reply Sunday, July 25, 2010 at 10:58 PM

paine said in reply to Richard H. Serlin...
go for it serly

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 01:43 PM

Michael Pettengill said in reply to Richard H. Serlin...
In the next six years, the filibuster is going to be the only defense against the insane conservatives who are determined to destroy the nation in order to win control of the nation.

If the Republicans win control of Congress in November will defend against repeal of the Clean Air Act which is being used to implement energy policy.

If Obama loses in 2012, the filibuster will prevent repeal of the Clean Air Act, Health Reform, PayGo, and while a Republican president can screw up the implementation of the law, lawsuits will force some degree of compliance.

Reply Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 09:26 AM

Richard H. Serlin said...
For more on why see:

http://richardhserlin.blogspot.com/2009/08/key-reason-why-51-democratic-senators.html

Reply Sunday, July 25, 2010 at 11:01 PM

lonesome moderate said...
What Richard Serlin said.

The consensus politics that prevailed for most of the twentieth century is over, Republican party discipline killed it. The archaic filibuster rule dimply creates artificial gridlock.

Reply Sunday, July 25, 2010 at 11:59 PM

lonesome moderate said in reply to lonesome moderate...
Simply, not "dimply", mea culpa.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 12:20 AM

paine said in reply to lonesome moderate...
well it does it dimply too
it does it 8 ways to sunday

the filibuster is man made
social constipation

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 01:46 PM

Anon said...
Low growth and constrained oil supplies killed CapnTrade

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 04:14 AM

btg said in reply to Anon...
Cap'n Trade - is he related to Cap'n Crunch?

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 06:51 AM

paine said in reply to Anon...
low growth
why that's pure crap and trade

that causal claim amounts to crap
and you're trying to trade it here for alibi ike

the bill was killed by big energy
constrained oil supplies ??

peak gibberish

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 01:48 PM

ilsm said in reply to paine...
The cost of US addiction to oil is hidden.

Low US growth comes from the US war machine pillaging the US economy to keep dirty diesel cheap.

If the cost of USCENTCOM's battle groups and air wings that keep the oil flowing to China were taxed on imported US oil instead of borrowed the US would not need cap n trade.

Reply Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 07:08 AM

bakho said...
Climate change legislation would be much easier if the alternatives to coal and oil were less expensive. Research and Development and creation of a market can start these technologies down the road to incremental improvements that will make them more competitive. BigE needs to be weaned of the subsidies.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 05:22 AM

paine said in reply to bakho...
bakho
if by magic wand
we could go pure alternative tomorrow
and get stuck with amortizing
the cost of construction and
of course for ongoing operation
what are u figuring the up charge would be
over what we got now
as a percent of gdp ???

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 01:51 PM

bakho said...
China tops USA in spending on clean energy
Updated 3/25/2010 3:53 PM

By Julie Schmit, USA TODAY

China is emerging as the world's clean-energy powerhouse, according to a new study by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Last year, China spent more than any other major country on clean energy, including wind and solar, toppling the U.S. from the top spot for the first time in five years, the Pew report says. The U.S. is also on the verge of losing the top spot in terms of installed renewable energy to China.

Unless U.S. policies change to encourage more investment, the U.S. could miss its chance to lead the expanding clean-energy industry, says Phyllis Cuttino, project director at Pew. The USA's entrepreneurial tradition and strengths in innovation give it the potential to recoup leadership, the Pew report says.

Cuttino's sentiments echo those expressed late last year by Energy Secretary Steven Chu. He noted in congressional testimony that the U.S. "has fallen behind" other countries in the race to be at the forefront of the clean-energy industry. Although Chu said he was confident the U.S could make up the ground, he cited China as a formidable competitor.

In recent years, China has emerged as the No. 1 maker of solar cells for solar panels and, most recently, as the leader in wind-turbine-making capacity. China's leaders have also set in motion plans to get 15% of the country's energy from renewable sources by 2020.

The Pew report, using data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, examined the world's top 20 economies. It found that:

• From 2005 through 2009, China's clean-energy investment, including wind and solar, soared 148% vs. 103% for the USA.

• Clean-energy investment in Asia, mostly China, rose 37% last year to $39 billion. By contrast, investment declined 33% last year in the Americas as the economy slowed and credit markets tightened.

• Ten of the leading economies devoted a greater percentage of gross domestic product to clean energy than the U.S. in 2009.

The U.S. has no national standard for expanded use of renewable energy. The American Wind Energy Association and others argue a national standard would do more to help manufacturers prepare for a big U.S. market for their products. The U.S. has also offered on-again, off-again financial incentives for renewable energy while other countries' support has been steady.

U.S. incentives "need to be 10 years in length" to encourage long-range planning and investment, Cuttino says.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2010-03-25-china-clean-energy-investing_N.htm

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 05:57 AM

kthomas said in reply to bakho...
So what?

The amount of merury and carbon they are emitting now far outweighs this. Waste of time posting that link, which is nothing more than propaganda.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 08:24 AM

paine said in reply to kthomas...
kt

be bold

make a global cost claim
then a global benefit claim

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 01:53 PM

bakho said...
China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy

By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: January 30, 2010

TIANJIN, China — China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.

China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.

These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.

“Most of the energy equipment will carry a brass plate, ‘Made in China,’ ” said K. K. Chan, the chief executive of Nature Elements Capital, a private equity fund in Beijing that focuses on renewable energy."

The US is being held hostage by the BigE wealthy special interests.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 06:01 AM

bakho said in reply to bakho...
April 2010:

The Department of Energy announced the availability of $37.5 million in financing for Chinese and American researchers working on clean energy projects.

Where is the development money and the electric grid money?

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 06:05 AM

bakho said in reply to bakho...
Out of the Running?
How Germany, Spain, and China Are Seizing the Energy Opportunity and Why the United States Risks Getting Left Behind
The Clean-Energy Investment Agenda

China, Germany, and Spain are early winners in the next great technological and industrial revolution. The United States, which has yet to fully embrace a truly sustainable growth strategy for the low-carbon future, is not

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/out_of_running.html

"Markets: Expanding markets and driving demand for new clean and efficient energy products and services

Financing: Investing across the full value chain of clean-energy solutions—research, development, commercialization, production, and deployment—needed to meet demand

Infrastructure: Revitalizing and reinvesting in the physical and human capital infrastructure upon which the clean-energy transformation— like all major industrial transformations in the past—will ultimately be built.

When we researched Germany, Spain, and China’s approach to the emerging clean energy economy, we found that all three countries have taken just such an approach."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/out_of_running.html

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 06:11 AM

hix said in reply to bakho...
That article is big prophaganda crap. The German and the Spanish aproaches are both horrible, the German more so than the Spanish if thats possible.

Both countries pay subsidies for burning coal and out of proportion subsidies for rooftop solar electricty at the same time. Spain is slightly saner here since they actually have sun, which makes the program sligtly less wastefull and cut the program once it got out of control cost wise. Not so in Germany, every year the solar subsidy machine keeps roling.

When you look arround a wealthy southern German suburb or farm, solar panels everywhere, more and more every month. Its good business, - for the suburban large house owners, for the agriculture subsidy rentiers, for the Chinese and American solar panel makers. For everyone else, its a pain.
We dont need lobbyists with their renewable bullshit language they made up to put burning plants in the good and nuclear in the bad category to unify the club of rome crowd with the co2 crowd and the farm lobby under one buzzword.

We need a tax on co2, pure and simple, thats the most important thing to do.

German environmental politics sets bottom standards the way Americans do with healthcare.

Now excuse me if im a bit short on further explanation on why solar on rooftops is so bad just short: Its much more expensive than other measures to achieve the same positive environental impact

Allow me to rather speak about a recent example of German absurdity, a new creative idear from our conservative Government to design a tax on the co2 output from planes designed creative to make sure it only hurts the poor and possibly doesnt even reduce the co2 output. Theres no pigon tax on planefuels so far like there is for cars, heating, electricty etc, on top of that, theres no VAT on cross border flights in contrast to cross border trains..

Now one might think theres a simple answer to this: Tax the planfuels. But no, Merkel has a better idear: Tax the passenger with a head tax, a couple of Euro for every person that flies, no matter if on a new energy efficient plane, no matter if he has a big first class seat or some Ryanair seat, no matter if the person booked the marginal seat that would be empty otherwise on a discount carrier plane, hardly adding any co2 at all compared to an empty seat. This is how German environmental politics works - spare the rich, the well organiced and the powerfull, in this case rich buisnessmen that jet arround the world first class, handout favours to well organiced factions, kick the weakest.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 02:44 PM

tinbox said...
A Senator from AZ would be an unlikely supporter of serious climate legislation. Realistically, PK might want to look closer to home to find fault. For example, how have major news media in, say, NYC covered the climate issue? Do they treat it as a "he said, she said" affair? Do they promote "balance" in coverage? Is there greed and cowardice in the way the New York Times presents the issue to its readers?

Here's a link to a typical report from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/science/earth/11climate.html

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 06:56 AM

bakho said in reply to tinbox...
Maybe a senator from AZ would support subsides to a solar generator located in AZ along with building an electric grid from AZ to market paid for by a windfall profits tax on oil or a small gasoline tax?

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:23 AM

tinbox said in reply to bakho...
I don't think a GOP Senator would support that either...not with a gasoline tax increase.

With "liberal" papers like the NYT playing along with the so-called debate, why should anyone favor unpopular actions now? If the NYT is too afraid or greedy to report the current state of affairs plainly, does PK need to accuse the GOP of cowardice?

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 08:00 AM

anne said...
Tinbox:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/science/earth/11climate.html?ref=science

February 11, 2010

Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze
By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON — As millions of people along the East Coast hole up in their snowbound homes, the two sides in the climate-change debate are seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments.

Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.

Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.

But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.

As an illustration of their point of view, the family of Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, a leading climate skeptic in Congress, built a six-foot-tall igloo on Capitol Hill and put a cardboard sign on top that read “Al Gore’s New Home.”

The extreme weather, Mr. Inhofe said by e-mail, reinforced doubts about scientists’ conclusion that global warming was “unequivocal” and most likely caused by human activity....

[What a simple global temperature check would have shown however was that on February 10, 2010 we were in the midst of the warmest winter ever recorded globally and the warmest 12 months ever recorded and the warmest year in the southern hemisphere ever recorded.]

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:03 AM

anne said...
The warmest years recorded since 1880 when modern measurements begin are in order of warmth: 2005, 2007, 2009, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2004, 2001, 2008. We are however currently passing through the warmest year of all, while the last 12 months have been the warmest 12 months ever recorded. While there are of course temperature variations locally and globally, what is cold is less cold than ever and what is warm is warmer than ever recorded this year and last year and the year before and before. No matter ocean currents, no the extent of matter explosive activity on the sun, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing and increasing because of human activity and we are warming and warming ever more dangerously and will continue to warm.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:08 AM

tinbox said in reply to anne...
anne,

You will never write for the NY Times. You didn't give equal weight to the Competitive Enterprise Institute--nor did you throw in Rush Limbaugh's thoughts on the matter.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 08:08 AM

anne said...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

January 15, 2010

Average Global Temperature, 2007-2010

(Degrees Celsius)

2008

Jan ( 15.08)
Feb ( 14.77)
Mar ( 14.76)
Apr ( 14.84)
May ( 14.81)
Jun ( 14.53)
Jul ( 14.65)
Aug ( 14.76)
Sep ( 14.70)
Oct ( 14.72)
Nov ( 14.62)
Dec ( 14.58)

Average ( 14.74)

2008

Jan ( 14.36)
Feb ( 14.36)
Mar ( 14.84)
Apr ( 14.52)
May ( 14.46)
Jun ( 14.42)
Jul ( 14.65)
Aug ( 14.36)
Sep ( 14.70)
Oct ( 14.63)
Nov ( 14.73)
Dec ( 14.61)

Average ( 14.55)

2009

Jan ( 14.66)
Feb ( 14.67)
Mar ( 14.59)
Apr ( 14.67)
May ( 14.70)
Jun ( 14.76)
Jul ( 14.75)
Aug ( 14.79)
Sep ( 14.87)
Oct ( 14.66)
Nov ( 14.76)
Dec ( 14.65)

Average ( 14.71)

2010

Jan ( 14.89)
Feb ( 14.95)
Mar ( 15.02)
April ( 14.85)
May ( 14.88)
Jun ( 14.86)

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:09 AM

anne said...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

January 15, 2010

Atmospheric Concentration of Carbon Dioxide, 2007-2010

(Parts per million by volume) *

2007

Jan ( 382.67)
Feb ( 382.87)
Mar ( 382.82)
Apr ( 383.54)
May ( 383.33)
Jun ( 383.69)
Jul ( 384.00)
Aug ( 383.73)
Sep ( 384.10)
Oct ( 384.51)
Nov ( 384.52)
Dec ( 384.69)

Average ( 383.71)

2008

Jan ( 385.21)
Feb ( 384.83)
Mar ( 384.35)
Apr ( 384.36)
May ( 385.30)
Jun ( 385.56)
Jul ( 385.93)
Aug ( 385.93)
Sep ( 386.36)
Oct ( 386.40)
Nov ( 386.25)
Dec ( 386.40)

Average ( 385.57)

2009

Jan ( 386.70)
Feb ( 386.53)
Mar ( 387.16)
Apr ( 386.64)
May ( 386.97)
Jun ( 387.13)
Jul ( 387.28)
Aug ( 387.70)
Sep ( 388.05)
Oct ( 387.81)
Nov ( 388.13)
Dec ( 388.13)

Average ( 387.35)

2010

Jan ( 388.32)
Feb ( 389.16)
Mar ( 389.54)
Apr ( 389.61)
May ( 389.72)
Jun ( 389.74)

* Seasonally corrected

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:09 AM

anne said...
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001

July 27, 2010

Daily global average temperature near surface layer, 2005-2010

[Continual atmospheric temperature recording at levels near sea surface and above, from 1998 through 2010.]

The year 2005 was the warmest since 1880 when modern recording begins, while 2009 was the 3rd warmest. The year 2009 was also the warmest for the southern hemisphere since 1880. I prefer 2005 for comparison. The decade through 2009 was the warmest since 1880, while the half decade through 2009 was also the warmest. These last rolling 12 months have been the warmest ever near sea surface and above.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:10 AM

paine said in reply to anne...
the clinton era was kool

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 01:57 PM

beezer said...
At least, until winter I suppose, we won't have to deal with the anti-global warming crowds' 'hot air'.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:16 AM

Patrick said...
Nothing is going to be done. I've given-up hope. The good news is humans can't break the Earth with C02 (unlike, for example, a nuclear holocaust). Fortunately (from my perspective), it's those who are most intransigent who stand to suffer the most. China is suffering big time and the US will have entire states (Florida) and major cities (New York) disappearing beneath the waves as well as the destruction of it's breadbasket/farm belt. The ensuing economic and social upheaval will probably tear the country apart. I can't imagine tens of millions of displaced Americans not resorting to violence.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:59 AM

Davis X. Machina said in reply to Patrick...
There are powerful people and institutions who would rather from the ruins than live in ease under someone else. So long as can they sleep with one eye open, and it's someone else's throat the peasants slit in the night, it's not a bad life for them.

And they can produce for the delectation of the peasants an endless stream of bright, shiny objects more than sufficient to guarantee that outcome.

Hell, the US is the Saudi Arabia of bright, shiny objects.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 08:49 AM

Steven Hales said in reply to Patrick...
Is this a movie script? I'll invest. www.dystopian.com

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 09:32 AM

paine said in reply to Patrick...
total brown out amerika

revolution for fools

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 01:59 PM

anne said...
What is by the way a curious problem is that the heat wave of this summer has been repeatedly reported on in the New York Times, and while any weather event or short term event sequence of events is not evidence of long term climate change, nonetheless we have for years been finding short term weather events that are occurring in the warmest decade ever recorded since modern recordings began in 1880, and the warmest half decade ever recorded and since 1998 in the 10 warmest years ever recorded.

There seems to be as a supposed matter of fairness a catering to commercial interests that deny climate change that make discussion of short term weather patterns in long term context almost impossible even in the New York Times.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 08:09 AM

fred said...
"I can't imagine tens of millions of displaced Americans not resorting to violence."

The solution to all our problems is very simple. A pandemnic (flu or whatever) that wipes out all the excess populuation, both here and in the third world. Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution is already putting out feelers on this subject ("How many people are needed to maintain current living standards?"). Ideally, the flu would hit the elderly hardest, as it usually does, rather than those in the prime of life, like the 1918 pandemnic, since this will fix all the pension plan woes in one fell swoop. Response with be Katrina-like regardless whether Democrates or Republicans are in power, though the latter may try to shift the death toll onto minorities more than the elderly whites. The rich will be preserved regardless.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 08:10 AM

kthomas said in reply to fred...
huh?

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 08:26 AM

fred said in reply to kthomas...
I was responding to Patrick above. Reducing the world's population to 1 billion (the number Tyler Cowen threw out) or 100 million (the number one of the commenters on his blog suggested) will mean plenty of space for the survivors despite the inundation of low-lying areas, and plenty of food despite the reduction in food supply due to worldwide drought.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 08:36 AM

Davis X. Machina said in reply to fred...
In no sane world is 'rooting for the return of the Black Death' a policy prescription.

In no sane world...

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 08:50 AM

Bruce Wilder said in reply to fred...
We have the technological capability to engineer a highly contagious, highly lethal flu virus, a combination nature would be unlikely to develop on its own. And, unlike, say, a nuclear weapon, it doesn't require a rooms full fantastically esoteric equipment and teams of physicists and engineers.

I figure there's a molecular biology Ph.D. candidate somewhere, laboring in some ego-maniac's corporate-funded, off-campus lab, in the 11th year of his doctoral program with no end in sight, struggling through traffic in his 400,000 mile Camry, whose just one mis-firing synapse away from "a final solution".

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 09:19 AM

paine said in reply to Bruce Wilder...
the doomsday bug is a fairly tame sci fi meme
like soylent green

i still prefer asteroids

guess i'm swiftian that way

my friends at the laputa observatory
will warn me in time to make it to
deep caves pre stocked
with tang viagra and play stations

no condums of course
verboten !!!

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 02:05 PM

julio said in reply to Bruce Wilder...
Or, some bug somewhere, which requires hot weather, and for which most of humanity has little protection is packing its bags as we speak.

We may have started the experiment already.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 02:46 PM

anne said...
http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/

October, 2009

CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion, 2007

Annual CO2 emissions (million tonnes)
Percent of world total
Per capita emissions (tonnes)
Percent above world per capita average

World ( 28,962) ( 100.0%) ( 4.38) ( 0%)

China ( 6,028) ( 20.8%) ( 4.57) ( 4%)
United States ( 5,769) ( 19.9%) ( 19.10) ( 336%)
Russia ( 1,587) ( 5.5%) ( 11.21) ( 156%)
India ( 1,324) ( 4.6%) ( 1.18) (- 73%)
Japan ( 1,236) ( 4.3%) ( 9.68) ( 121%)

Germany ( 798) ( 2.8%) ( 9.71) ( 122%)
Canada ( 573) ( 2.0%) ( 17.37) ( 297%)
United Kingdom ( 534) ( 1.8%) ( 8.60) ( 96%)
South Korea ( 489) ( 1.7%) ( 10.09) ( 130%)
Iran ( 466) ( 1.6%) ( 6.56) ( 50%)

Italy ( 438) ( 1.5%) ( 7.38) ( 68%)
Mexico ( 438) ( 1.5%) ( 4.14) (- 5%)
Australia ( 396) ( 1.4%) ( 18.75) ( 328%)
Indonesia ( 377) ( 1.3%) ( 1.67) (- 62%)
France ( 369) ( 1.3%) ( 5.81) ( 33%)

[Notice especially the per capita emissions of the 15 countries emitting the most carbon dioxide.]

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 08:29 AM

Steven Hales said in reply to anne...
Think of all the greening of the planet all that CO2 accomplishes. Without water vapor feedbacks, which are both positive and negative in types of clouds formed in the upper atmosphere, the GWP of CO2 is rather weak. Besides we are likely de-carbonizing anyway via a Kuznets curve.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 09:01 AM

Bruce Wilder said in reply to Steven Hales...
". . . we are likely de-carbonizing anyway via a Kuznets curve."

Boy, are you out of touch with reality.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 09:21 AM

paine said in reply to Bruce Wilder...
a kuznet curve ??

shit even i can hit that..
did he mean koufax curve ??
or heaven forbid
a kismet curve
no that's more like it

or did he throw a spitter ???

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 02:08 PM

Goldilocksisableachblonde said in reply to paine...
"or did he throw a spitter ???"

No , but it rhymes with that.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 08:48 PM

Bill Jefferys said in reply to Steven Hales...
More luxuriant plant growth cuts two ways. More CO2 also encourages more algae blooms, more kudzu, more and more undesirable plants like poison ivy (and more toxicity, as reported a few days ago on NPR), etc.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 09:51 AM

paine said in reply to Bill Jefferys...
shit like living
in an endless laundry
where the steam presses are
yikes
giant venus flytraps !!!!

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 02:10 PM

ilsm said in reply to Bill Jefferys...
Lots of kudzu!!!!

All we need is perfecting cellulose metabolism to a green fuel.................

Reply Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 10:14 AM

Steven Hales said...
Since you all are so gloomy there is a bright ray of hope for you: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-24-what-would-the-world-look-like-without-people-video/

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 08:57 AM

Bruce Wilder said...
PK: "All serious estimates suggest that we could phase in limits on greenhouse gas emissions with at most a small impact on the economy’s growth rate."

Until the proponents re-conceptualize "growth", I doubt that anyone will be serious enough to take effective action.

Krugman makes it sound like a diet-and-exercise-plan: so easy, just a few minutes a day, a few simple exercises, and you can still eat the foods you love.

This Brad DeLong approach of sunny optimism and a straight-edge on graph paper, to project the future, a future where humans will be much richer, and there will be this annoying little problem of climate change and ecological collapse which we can easily take care of, is just not persuasive.

We are talking about truly massive changes in the economy. And, if we don't make them fast the economic growth rate will be negative and accelerating. We are approaching a Malthusian sink, here. The productivity of the earth's resources -- even more than our vaunted science and technology, the foundation of our prosperity and standard of living -- are constrained, and declining. "Economic growth" on the traditional model of the last 200 years of global conquest and expansion is no longer possible. There's no West to be Won, no virgin continents to be broken by the plow, no Darkest Africa to be explored. That foundation is crumbling, and climate change is just one aspect of the deterioration.

The only-in-Hollywood scare stories are not persuasive, either. I'm not saying that dramatic tales of catastrophe are necessary, as much as the human spirit loves them.

I am saying that we need the dismal science to be suitably and realistically dismal.

Peak oil and the on-going collapse of the ocean ecology, an end to the expansion of agricultural acreage and the erosion of natural topsoil, the various challenges to the earth's capacity to absorb our pollution -- these all amount to a Malthusian sink, in which the wheels of our advancing technology spin faster and faster, only to sink deeper and deeper in the mud.

"a small impact on the economy’s growth rate" ???

Krugman really doesn't get it.

This isn't some minor tweak. We're talking about a scale of problem, where completely eliminating fossil fuels from power generation and transportation by 2050 is a "reasonable" goal. We are talking about stopping the growth of human population for the first time in history, by 2050, and, then, reversing in (hopefully in a controlled way).

10,000 years ago, our species had trouble peacefully organizing a gathering of 50 people in one place. In this century, we will have to establish institutions of global governance, to control the climate. And, the American news media can't figure out why it should be skeptical of Breitbart.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 09:11 AM

Steven Hales said in reply to Bruce Wilder...
Stop population growth??? Why? Isn't the demographic bomb going off in Europe and Japan any clue to how uninformed your solutions are. None of the worst projections of the environmentalists has ever come to pass. And we've been talking about peak resources since Malthus. Where's the peak? Your meme lacks sufficient memetics to transmit it beyond a dystopian book or movie. What a thrill.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 09:29 AM

chriss1519 said in reply to Steven Hales...
tell us more about the Kuznets curve

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Bruce Wilder said in reply to Steven Hales...
"Where's the peak?"

Here. Now. You're living it.

"Stop population growth??? Why?"

Because there are too many people, for all of them to live well. The costs of congestion are immiserating. At the margin, each additional person aspiring to live and work at 1st World middle-class standards is frustrating her own (and everyone else's) ambitions to do so, as the externalities and depletion increasingly outweigh additional value of production, resulting in a smaller and smaller net.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 12:53 PM

paine said in reply to Bruce Wilder...
we can cook em and eat em if it comes to that bruce
they'll be weak
and probably grateful for "the free bath"

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 02:13 PM

Bruce Wilder said in reply to Steven Hales...
SH: "Stop population growth??? Why? Isn't the demographic bomb going off in Europe and Japan any clue to how uninformed your solutions are."

Not to pick on Steven Hales particularly, but the easiest judgement in the world to confirm is the judgment that the world is suffering from severe overpopulation.

If someone cannot, by dint of private reasoning, figure that much out, I really despair of persuading them.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 12:56 PM

paine said in reply to Bruce Wilder...
"the world is suffering from severe overpopulation"

yes
by neolithic metrics it is

but hey pops this is the age of the genome
we can shrink ourselves down to
the size of a healthy lemur

brain case ??
come on we got the internet to think for us
just so long as we still look good ....

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 02:22 PM

julio said in reply to paine...
A being that just consumes Fox News can be made very energy efficient, a few drops of corn syrup a day should do.
And remember, they only have to look good to each other.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 04:54 PM

paine said in reply to Bruce Wilder...
"Krugman makes it sound like
a diet-and-exercise-plan "

the paradigm for all merit class designed
social projects

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 02:11 PM

paine said in reply to Bruce Wilder...
"Peak oil and the on-going collapse of the ocean ecology, an end to the expansion of agricultural acreage and the erosion of natural topsoil, the various challenges to the earth's capacity to absorb our pollution -- these all amount to a Malthusian sink, in which the wheels of our advancing technology spin faster and faster, only to sink deeper and deeper in the mud."

that's not the straight old whig in ya talkin bruce
that's the flipped whig

as much as i'd side with you in any scrap
i can't follow you into that space ship

mother geo's good earth
as the little shop of horrors

i'm just too blinded
by market magic
and invisible helping hands
to see it i guess

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 02:20 PM

fred said in reply to paine...
BW is a case of "the man who is tired of London is tired of life" (referring to when London was like modern day Calcutta).

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 02:33 PM

Bruce Wilder said in reply to paine...
On my good days, I hope the Singularity arrives on schedule; on my bad days, I imagine the Singularity may entail voluntary self-extinction.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:08 PM

ilsm said in reply to paine...
Malthusian sink!

When the cars stop running

just farm the medians

Ewell Gibbins said the land

in the medians could feed the world.

Do the grapes grow better in hot dry climates.

Be positive, more land for vineyards.

Reply Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Michael Pettengill said in reply to Bruce Wilder...
Bruce, you really should study the history of technology change to find that while a few people were like you and saw the change as all pain and suffering, most people just woke up a few decades later and asked, "where did all this change come from? Why didn't I see it coming?"

How dismal was the making of cotton fabric in factories by automated looms?

How dismal was the railroad crisscrossing the US?

How dismal was the motorcar displacing all the horse draw vehicles?

How dismal was electronics that put tubes in most homes in radio and then TV and then their replacement with transistors then IC?

How dismal was the replacement of card processing equipment with room sized computers with smaller computers with file cabinet sized computers with suitcase sized computers with notebook computers with pocket sized networked computers?

Do you have any idea how much those changes cost society in dollars. When you add in all the changes to other parts of society as side effects - the car allowed people to live further from their job than the street car reached or they could walk, so that created the need for building entire towns just to accommodate the car.

In the history of the nation, I bet the cost of technology change has been over a hundred trillion dollars in current dollars.

So, how can the cost of energy technology change be too high?

Reply Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Lyle said...
A part of the problem is that Cap and Trade looks a lot like more ways for Goldman Sachs and its friends to make money. A pure tax is much better than a subsidy for Wall Street and friends. Cap and Trade would lead to derivatives on Carbon emissions and options and all manner of things that have not yet been dreamed up to get money to the house of the greatest casino. Tax and dividend is much simpler, with no money going to Wall Street.
Further even with no filibuster I don't think you could get 51 votes in the Senate with the number of states that depend on Coal, W Va, Va, Ky, In,IL,KS, MT,UT, Wy, Az, Oh,Pa,Co and the republicans. I count 9 democrats from those states alone.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 06:54 PM

Bruce Wilder said in reply to Lyle...
A Country that can't figure out that there's no percentage in spending a $1 trillion a year chasing down a few dozen Al Qaeda in the wastes of Iraq, Afganistan and where-ever else, is not going to cleverly stop global warming, just because to do so would be wise.

America doesn't do wise anymore. Greed, and only greed, is in charge.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:12 PM

Rune Lagman said in reply to Lyle...
The amount of coal production in AZ is very small compared to the benefits from wind and solar.
Ref. post below.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:29 PM

Rune Lagman said...
From AZ republic:

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/05/30/20100530biz-Arizona-could-become-hotspot-alternative-energy-plants0530.html

"Most of the solar plans are concentrated west of Phoenix along I-10 and near Yuma and Kingman. Most of the wind proposals are near Snowflake or in the northwestern part of the state.

The amount of power that all of the proposed plants would generate is far more than Arizonans can use, even if regulators increased the current state requirement that 15 percent of the energy used here comes from renewables by 2025.

Most of the would-be Arizona plants would have to sell at least some, if not all, of their power to California, where there are far more people using many more electric appliances.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/05/30/20100530biz-Arizona-could-become-hotspot-alternative-energy-plants0530.html#ixzz0uqITK3cL

This shows that it's very possible to replace a large portion of current power consumption with renewable energy. It's just a question of political will.

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:23 PM

Rune Lagman said...
I wonder about the effects of a carbon tax. Assuming that peak oil is around the corner, then a carbon tax that reduces oil-consumption would lower the price of oil (because of less demand).

Thus, the question is: pay a carbon tax to ourselves (less other taxes) or pay for higher oil-prices to Saudi-Arabia?
However, I can't find any reference that shows the price of oil as a function of global demand.

This leads to another question; are EU gasoline-taxes subsidizing U.S. gas-guzzlers?

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 07:46 PM

reason said in reply to Rune Lagman...
No it may well increase it, because coal is more carbon intensive and so will be hit first. But most of the increase will go to natural gas. One of the major aspects I see to proper carbon pricing would be a major move to natural gas, causing it to hit peak much sooner than would otherwise have been the case.

Reply Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 07:33 AM

Rune Lagman said in reply to reason...
When U.S. gas-prices reached $4/gallon, U.S. drastically reduced oil consumption; from 21 million barrels/day (2007) down to 19 million barrels/day (today). So why wouldn't carbon taxes affect U.S. oil consumption?

Agree that carbon taxes would affect coal based energy the most, and as you suggest probably replaced by natural gas in the short term.

However, in the long term, carbon taxes will make wind and solar more competitive. My point is that carbon taxes would increase U.S. GDP growth rather than decrease GDP growth.

Reply Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Rune Lagman said...
Accepting the premise that a carbon tax leads to lower global oil-prices (before carbon tax), then if oil-consumption is replaced with domestic energy sources, a carbon tax should result in higher U.S growth rather than less growth.

In addition, lower global oil-prices should lead to higher global growth. Higher global growth also positively affects the U.S. growth rate.

What's wrong with this line of reasoning?

Reply Monday, July 26, 2010 at 08:45 PM

Michael Pettengill said in reply to Rune Lagman...
Look, sustainable energy requires you believe in capitalism: capitalism is the idea that accumulating capital results in more output from the same or reduce resource and labor inputs.

Conservatives are advocates of decapitalism: take capital like an oil field, and destroy that natural capital by mining it and burning it. Within a decade, the capital worth of that oil field has been depreciated, and it is impossible in invest to increase its capital worth.

On the other hand, if you build a wind farm you create build capital that will produce energy, and over the decades it will continue to produce energy at the same rate, and generally, investing more into the wind farm will replace the depreciated capital with improved capital and extend its life, so at the end of three decades, the wind farm will still be producing energy, and probably more energy, which will mean that it still had capital value.

Conservatives see the oil field which is reduced to zero value after 30 years as the ideal, while liberal see the wind farm that has the same or higher capital value after 30 years and 60 years and 100 years as being the ideal.

The conservative believes in decapitalism.

The liberal believes in capitalism.

Reply Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 09:42 AM

Rune Lagman said in reply to Michael Pettengill...
Don't see how the decapitalism vs. capitalism argument has anything to do with whether U.S. carbon tax increase or decrease U.S. GDP growth rate.

Reply Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 10:51 AM

anne said...
"Think of all the greening of the planet all that CO2 accomplishes. Without water vapor feedbacks, which are both positive and negative in types of clouds formed in the upper atmosphere, the global warming potential of CO2 is rather weak. Besides we are likely de-carbonizing anyway via a Kuznets curve." *

* A curve that increases and decreases and has no possible meaning here.

What is the point of simply writing such pretentious nonsense? Why simply try to undermine what scientists actually understand?

Reply Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 06:30 AM

Michael Pettengill said...
The Republicans a century ago would be seeking to block the motorcar to preserve the horse and buggy industry, the horse market, the feed industry, the stables, horse care workers, the government jobs picking up the horse shit.

After all, the motor car can steer itself when the driver is drunk, the motor car is too expensive, the motor car pollute air with racket that disturbed the peace of sleepers and scares the horses.

McCain would be standing up to the liberals who seek to destroy the economy and destroy the peace and joining with other Republicans to preserve the future.

Reply Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 09:34 AM

anne said...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/business/28volt.html

July 27, 2010

G.M. Puts $41,000 Price Tag on the Volt
By NICK BUNKLEY

The carmaker has begun taking orders for the plug-in vehicle, which is expected to be at dealers in November.