Category — India
India released an analysis on Wednesday projecting tripled carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2030, the New York Times reports. Taking into account five independent studies, India expects to release between 4 billion and 7 billion tons by 2030, BBC News reports, compared to 1.2 billion tons today.
India released the analysis to strengthen its bargaining position at the December Copenhagen climate summit where delegates will attempt to negotiate a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. The United States and other industrialized nations contend that India should adopt binding emission limits. India refuses, arguing that mandatory restrictions would stifle the country’s economic development.
The analysis supports this position, explains Jairam Ramesh, India’s minister of environment and forests, because India’s per capita emissions in 2030 will still be much lower than that of any developed country today. India’s per capita emissions in 2030-31 will be 2.7 tons to 5.00 tons (up from 1.19 tons in 2006). For perspective, in 2006, per capita CO2 emissions were 19.8 tons in the United States, 10.4 tons in Germany, and 9.7 tons in Japan, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The Indian government’s analysis inadvertently imparts an inconvenient fact: Even extraordinary parsimony in the use of carbon-based energy is not enough to achieve absolute cuts in CO2 emissions. Too bad Ramesh does not draw out the real lesson: Nations cannot achieve deep cuts in their emissions, or even cap emissions at current levels, without capping and cutting economic growth.
As the world’s most populous countries with the biggest “emerging” economies, India and China are uniquely positioned to challenge the moral bona fides of Kyoto-style energy rationing. So far they have not done so. They talk the Al Gore talk, which means they speak and act at cross purposes.
Consider UN IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri, a prominent Indian citizen. Pachauri defends India’s refusal to cut its emissions, noting that millions of Indians still lack electricity. Yet Pachauri was instrumental in getting the IPCC to adopt a CO2 stabilization target of 450 parts per million. That’s a very aggressive target requiring, among other things, building new nuclear reactors at the rate of one every other day and covering one million roofs with solar panels every day over the next 40 years, according to Cal Tech chemist Nathan Lewis. Pachauri now calls for stabilizing global CO2 concentrations at 350 parts per million. Maybe a global de-industrialization treaty could lower CO2 levels to 350 ppm by 2050 – then again, maybe not. [Read more →]
September 4, 2009 7 Comments
Why is the Party in Power So Fearful of Copenhagen? (Is a 'death spiral' for climate alarmism ahead?)
[Editor note: Ken Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001]
For weeks now, we’ve been hearing an odd refrain from the Democrats who are pushing hardest for the Waxman-Markey climate bill. They are determined, it seems, not only to have such a bill drawn up before Copenhagen, but to have it signed into law. At the same time, the EPA is widely expected to issue its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, triggering what will undoubtedly be a hotly disputed regulatory process.
President Obama, it is reported, wants to sign climate legislation before the critically important Copenhagen climate conference in December. And Senate Majority leader Harry Reid wants the President to sign a climate bill this fall as well.
They both have plenty of company in the “act first, think later” brigade.
September 1, 2009 14 Comments
A market-driven revitalization of the world oil refining sector is the best and fastest way to reduce both oil demand and related air emissions, including CO2. A combination of market-based pricing–absent from foreign refineries (most politically owned and/or managed)– and new investment brought forth by the improved profitability of such pricing, could reduce the demand for crude oil by between eight and twelve million barrels per day, or about 10–15 percent.
A Bold Hypothesis
This rather astounding assertion can be educed as follows:
- Most countries subsidize refined oil product consumption, usually middle distillates (diesel and kerosene) at the expense of gasoline and other products;
- Owing to the price controls on heavily used middle distillate products, most oil refiners outside the U.S. and a few other countries lose money;
- The subsidies to middle distillate users, at the expense of gasoline and LPG consumers, creates an “unbalanced” demand barrel – one that defies both economics and chemistry; [Read more →]
April 23, 2009 3 Comments