Slashdot Mirror
In Historic Turn, CO2 Emissions Flatline In 2014, Even As Global Economy Grows
mdsolar sends this report from Forbes:
A key stumbling block in the effort to combat global warming has been the intimate link between greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth. When times are good and industries are thriving, global energy use traditionally increases and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions also go up. Only when economies stumble and businesses shutter — as during the most recent financial crisis — does energy use typically decline, in turn bringing down planet-warming emissions.
But for the first time in nearly half a century, that synchrony between economic growth and energy-related emissions seems to have been broken, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency, prompting its chief economist to wonder if an important new pivot point has been reached — one that decouples economic vigor and carbon pollution. The IEA pegged carbon dioxide emissions for 2014 at 32.3 billion metric tons — essentially the same volume as 2013, even as the global economy grew at a rate of about 3 percent. Whether the disconnect is a mere fluke or a true harbinger of a paradigm shift is impossible to know. The IEA suggested that decreasing use of coal in China — and upticks in renewable electricity generation there using solar, wind and hydropower — could have contributed to the reversal.
But for the first time in nearly half a century, that synchrony between economic growth and energy-related emissions seems to have been broken, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency, prompting its chief economist to wonder if an important new pivot point has been reached — one that decouples economic vigor and carbon pollution. The IEA pegged carbon dioxide emissions for 2014 at 32.3 billion metric tons — essentially the same volume as 2013, even as the global economy grew at a rate of about 3 percent. Whether the disconnect is a mere fluke or a true harbinger of a paradigm shift is impossible to know. The IEA suggested that decreasing use of coal in China — and upticks in renewable electricity generation there using solar, wind and hydropower — could have contributed to the reversal.
...A man has cancer, and and he's still getting sicker, but not sicker at a faster rate, so I'm sure he'll be just fine.
I guess we've done enough to ward off all those hurricanes and droughts and tornadoes and dogs and cats living together. No need for a carbon tax! Congrats, humanity!!
To make the world smaller? Space travel excluded. I would like a mars po box. thanks
Just in case you are not being sarcastic, or someone is not getting it: Even with constant emisions, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing, now it is just no longer also accelerating.
this winter was so fuckin cold - need moar CO2
economic statistics and economic reality?
Another explanation is that the global economy has flat-lined or gone into recession. CO2 may be a leading economic indicator for the next crash. GDP figures are more easily faked than CO2 levels.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
My guess is that it's a little bit of everything
giagwatts of wind and solar are coming online all over the developing world
There is also a glut of methane in the world economy and its beginning to displace coal, which in terms of carbon/watt is a win
I just got my new iPhone 6+. I'm juicing everywhere
"A key stumbling block in the effort to combat global warming has been the intimate link between greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth."
"The IEA suggested that decreasing use of coal in China — and upticks in renewable electricity generation there using solar, wind and hydropower — could have contributed to the reversal."
Doing a stellar job at journalism.
Few incidents of idiotic morons and you are calling for ban? Alcohol causes shit loads more stupid shit. Ban that first.
I love Obama, but guns should not be banned. If guns are illegal it won't stop criminals from having them. Nutjobs will also either find a gun on the black market or resort to making bombs from easily obtainable materials.
And even if CO2 stopped increasing, global temperature would continue to increase for several decades.
I'm not sure there is really an absolute correllation between economic growth and greenhouse gas emmissions. An increase in stock value does not increase global emmissions per se.
If the shadow banking, quantitative easing, and other shennagins are counted in the global economy there surely is no correllation.
"A key stumbling block in the effort to combat global warming has been the intimate link between greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth."
Time to cue up the warning about correlation not being causation.
Most particularly, in this case: when the economy gets better, people buy more stuff. There's a correlation between how many teddy bears people buy for their children and their income. That doesn't mean that increasing the production of teddy bears will increase average income. When the economy grows, people buy more.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
But oh, no, it can't possibly be that China's fast-track of building new nuclear power plants had anything whatsoever to do with it, oh no, never never never never. (grumble grumble grumble)
The CO2 problem will never be solved until the people who continue to loudly assert that they are so very very concerned about it get over their irrational dread of the only 24x7 source of energy that has the capacity to compete with coal.
That's the sad thing. Sadly politicians don't understand that. So the GOP wants to cut Social Security over some potential threat by Baby Boomers but Global Warming - which has far more dire consequences - they're willing to kick the can down the road. Nice.
There are two problems with this whole statement:
1. "The IEA pegged carbon dioxide emissions for 2014 at 32.3 billion metric tons". Note that this is at best a semi-scientific *guess* at the level of emissions.
2. Every government around the world lies about their economic growth. In the U.S., the government magically reclassifies at least 2% of inflation as economic growth. The lie in China is probably even larger.
The fact that we suddenly developed a huge glut of oil is empirical evidence that probably the global economy is actually contracting, not growing.
It could also be a result of increased biomass eating up more CO2. Someone needs to compare biomass via satellite mapping with the usage levels of natural gas, wood, coal and oil.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
As the pile of evidence contrary to the Global Warming Doomsday narrative continues to grow, a new kind of "Denier" is born.
Coming up on 20 years with no statistical warming which no one predicted and no one can explain. (Or, take you pick of about 20 contradictory explanations).
This just in, Carbon Dioxide still lags temperature.
Seriously though, this appears to be implied CO2, rather than measured. And it seems to be "energy sector" rather than overall. Oh, and the alleged "3% global expansion" is even more imaginary.
See that "Preview" button?
That's the sad thing. Sadly politicians don't understand that. So the GOP wants to cut Social Security over some potential threat by Baby Boomers but Global Warming - which has far more dire consequences - they're willing to kick the can down the road. Nice.
Sadly I think most of them understand, but don't give a rats a**.. It is more about now. Them and the people that gives them money to say "Move along. Nothing to see here"
Think about it. They've been doing quantitative easing for years now. QE is just massive levels of money printing (a few trillion a year), with said money being pumped into the various entitlement programs and the stock market. This has caused massive inflation, but since inflation figures are fudged (since the 70s, no less) this shows up as growth. Milk and gas doubling in price is your imagination- but the NASDAQ, that's real!
Since the US dollar is still the fundamental unit of measurement for all things economic, it looks like we're in the midst of massive growth, when we're really stagnant and in the midst of massive money printing.
The CO2 numbers aren't reflecting the same trend because printing money doesn't cause economic growth.
You're right it couldn't possibly be Chinese nuclear plants because they only generate about 2% of the country's electricity. As for building lots of nuke plants elsewhere, all you have to do is figure out how to finance them, who pays for the liability insurance (it better not be taxpayers), how to safely dispose of the existing waste, who is going to agree to live near them, and how to make them come online in less than 10 years.
It is the replacement of coal with natural gas that is really dropping the CO2 emissions.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Not as many workers due to lack of work meaning less folk both driving and flying meaning we are all screwed. Have a great day. :)
...we may really be worrying more about the methane. Thats set to grow.
But libtards hyperventilating are going to undo all the improvements.
According to wikipedia, nuclear is only responsible for 2% of the Chinese electricity right now, and most of that was already operational in 2013. They are fast-tracking new plants, but it'll take a while before these are on-line. They are aiming to get 6% of their electricity from nuclear in 2020.
Wow, the level of ignorance here is astounding. When Barack and company had both the White House and both houses of Congress, just how much did they get accomplished on this? Or did they too "kick the can down the road?" Politicians are all alike, and if you don't comprehend that then just keep feeding on what they're shoveling to you. Maybe your determined consumption of political bull$h!t will cut down on some cow's carbon footprint.
Your right it has nothing to do with the insignificance of nuclear energy in China. Also coal is no longer the benchmark of cheap energy generation. Its natural gas. Welcome to the 21st century.
---- Daily KOS is a few million websites to your left.
Take your cultist wet dream there.
"Just in case you are not being sarcastic, or someone is not getting it..."
Yes, I'm sure he was totally serious about the dogs and cats living together.
Proverbs 21:19
Central banks have dumped credit, not wealth, into the global economy. That has goosed the numbers only, not the organic growth of world economies.
This has occurred in order to mask the poor quality of the debt held by private and public banks, and to allow gov'ts the ability to spend in deficit.
The patient has been giving more blood than is healthy for about thirty years now. Replacement with saline and meth has made them alert and conversant, but collapse is inevitable without ENERGY INPUT.
Why does it seem to piss off so many people that there is a bit of good news? What the hell is wrong with needing less and less fossil fuel?
It's like every time there's any story that indicates renewable resources are becoming for efficient and economical, there has to be this rage over, "But alternative energy's going to kill us all and make us have to live in caves!"
I guess once you've grabbed hold of a narrative, you'd rather die than give it up. Little by little, step by step, we're going to need less fossil fuel. Don't worry, we'll let you keep your Hummer H3 matchbox cars to play with.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Economic growth in a fiat finacial model can be caused by inflation hidden in price/value increases of things such as stock, futures, securities, etc. Its not so much the demand, as the inabitility to get returns elsewhere (i.e. bonds).
If the atmosphere says carbon has flatlined, then it would indicate that the economy has also flatlined but that is yet to be reflected in the growth model due to where the money is parked.
This is probably a pre-cursor to a large collapse similar to 2008...
Ah, and a new Slashdot meme is born!
./er grumbles: "but,but,but. . . NUCLEAR!"
*Some positive energy/global warming related article is posted that does not explicitly attribute nuclear power*
Some grumpy
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
The high price of oil likely played a bigger factor then nuclear power in China. With the lower price for oil, consumption will go back up for 2015. The high price lead to some investment in non-carbon energy sources but that investment has since stalled.
Where
E = Environmental impact
P = Population
S = Standard of living
T = Technology
I was at a symposium some twenty years ago when I saw a well known environmentalist write that on the board. He wasn't being literal mind you; this equation was a metaphor for how these factors interact.
The world's population is increasing, and already many people are living in dire poverty. We naturally want to raise their standard of living, but that will raise their level of consumption which combined with their growing numbers could have devastating environmental consequences. Fortunately raising the living standards of people tends to reduce the number of children they have, so we have something of a lucky break there, but populations are still likely to grow under any development scenario.
The message was this: if we want to preserve the environment AND raise living standards, we have to get our asses in gear on green technology.
Now I think it's premature to declare success based on preliminary data about one year; the "win" could disappear with the discovery of a few accounting errors. But I think there's no question technology has got greener and that helps.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Once the House passed the Waxman-Markey bill, the next step would have been for the Senate to have passed its own comprehensive climate and energy bill. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to do so...S.1733 passed the committee by a vote of 11-1, with all seven Republican members boycotting the final vote...Citing a lack of bipartisan support in the Senate, however, Reid announced in July 2010 that upcoming energy legislation would not include a cap on GHG emissions. This effectively ended action on climate legislation for the 111th Congress.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Wow, the level of ignorance here is astounding. When Barack and company had both the White House and both houses of Congress, just how much did they get accomplished on this? Or did they too "kick the can down the road?" Politicians are all alike, and if you don't comprehend that then just keep feeding on what they're shoveling to you. Maybe your determined consumption of political bull$h!t will cut down on some cow's carbon footprint.
Unfortunately US politics is a lot more complex than that. The Democrats as a whole probably did want to get something done, however the Republicans REALLY didn't want to do anything even on things they could agree with, for something like Global Warming they would have been able to make it extraordinarily costly to do something.
The Democrats simply didn't have the popular support to enact a serious climate policy, especially after they spent all their political capital on health care reform and economic stimulus.
I stole this Sig
So was there a filibuster (I honestly don't know)? I don't see a mention of it in the text that you posted.
Stop spending stupid algore money.
Plant moar trees
Yes, this is more likely.
China's economic growth has declined to lows in the past years, as Europe, Japan, and the US (despite all the happy propaganda talk).
I can serve up lots of links on how poorly the economies are doing.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-11/china-reports-worst-industrial-production-data-ever-outside-global-financial-crisis
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-13/what-happens-stock-market-if-us-follows-world-recession
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-12/q1-gdp-expectations-are-crashing
Let's see if the Keeling curve has an inflection !
Wow, the level of ignorance here is astounding. When Barack and company had both the White House and both houses of Congress, just how much did they get accomplished on this? Or did they too "kick the can down the road?" Politicians are all alike, and if you don't comprehend that then just keep feeding on what they're shoveling to you. Maybe your determined consumption of political bull$h!t will cut down on some cow's carbon footprint.
You are referring to the 111th Congress. A list of what they did do is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
They passed more legislation than any other Congress since Lyndon Johnson was in office. Most of what they passed was meant to deal with the fallout of the Bush economy they inherited. If that wasn't the case, maybe they would have done more for the environment.
Next time you achieve something at work your boss can stroll in and say: "Jimmy here just stopped our servers from crashing every hour and instead they crash every 3 hours now. Jimmy's work is done here. He can go home early for such great work!"
Positive reinforcement is a much better motivator than to bash the progress no matter how little it appears to be. News like this makes me realize the small changes I made and that my company made actually helped.
The Democrats simply didn't have the popular support to enact a serious climate policy,
That's the real kicker. If the public support were there, they would get something done, and Republicans would go along (heck, as hypocritical as politicians are, they might lead the charge. Even Bush supported climate change legislation when it was convenient). If public support were there, then politicians who didn't pretend to go along would be voted out of office.
Even dictators work to manipulate public opinion, because even they know their power ultimately relies on the people.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The pace for nuclear in China seems slow compared to wind and solar. http://www.worldnuclearreport.... and nuclear power seems to be in a rut so probably it's only contribution is not adding more opportunity cost by being moribund. http://www.worldnuclearreport....
Economic stimulus, he-he you made me chuckle there...
Can't we at least celebrate some progress? No, the job isn't done, not at all, but can't we be happy that we're at least moving a little in the right direction?
I'm not saying there's no problem any more, of course there is, but why does everything have to be 100% gloom and doom and disaster and condemnation?
At what point do reduced CO2 average global levels start to negatively impact plant growth?
Probably not, more likely their building of solar and wind farms like crazy in the past few years in an effort to get to grips with their pollution problem. (In addition to bringing online new coal power plants to replace their oldest ones.) While they have been building some nuclear plants they have only just approved the first one since the 2011 disaster in Japan.
A child has jumped in front of our car, so we took our foot off the gas and stopped accelerating. We're only coasting now, we're absolved and any further responsibility because it's entirely up to the child to crawl out of our way. Maybe in a several more meters (years?) we'll apply pressure to the brakes and give the child a little more time to not have his brains splatter onto our grill..
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The ONLY reason that it flatlined is because china's growth has slowed way down, combined with the west making massive cuts.
However, america's economy may actually lift china's, which will mean massive increases continue.
For those of you who do not understand this, this is REAL values as opposed to the assumed numbers for this article.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Oco2 shows that china's emissions are far greater than others and it is the fact that their economy is slowing way down, that has slowed this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So sick of this 'climate change' bullshit, EVERY SINGLE DAY, on 'ClimateDot'. Idiots.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', which is why the dishonest liars renamed it 'climate change', which means nothing of the sort, yet is MEANT to be taken to mean exactly the same thing.
What has a nuclear reactor in China to do with reduction of CO2 output?
A new reactor might stop/prevent growth of CO2 output, but does not reduce it.
The rest of your argument makes no sense either as Solar,
Wind and Biomass (and water where it is viable) are all CO2 free alternatives to coal, not only nuclear. Why do idiots like you always claim such nonsense??!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Oco2 is showing which geographic regions co2 is coming from and to what levels. It can tell what is creating it, but it does show where the real issues are.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The real problem is the far left that screams about western nations, while ignoring the fact that China alone is over 40% emissions ( thank you oco2 for showing that ).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You mean most of it was establishing new entitlement programs and putting the deficient and the national debt on steroids.
Really, we are all suffering today from the "productivity" of the 111th Congress.
The media and big donors made them not go along. Grover Norquist, NRA, the Tea Party, and other groups would primary anyone who didn't do what they wanted.
Once you get those loud people threatening, you're either with us or against us", the public goes along with their 'team' on the right.
All of the reduction can be attributed to China's "reported" reduction. Some of that might be real because they are ramping up nuclear and hydro projects.
But consider the source of that report.
Democrats could have enacted a serious climate policy if they had sat down and negotiated. But they tried to do it unilaterally and got stuffed. Same with health care reform; the Republicans wanted to be at the table and work out a solution - but Pelosi locked the door.
I think you've been Poe'd.
Probably once the CO2 levels get well below 280 ppm which is where it was for the last ~10,000 years until the early 1800s.
You should understand that this story doesn't mean that CO2 is not still rising in the atmosphere, just that the rate of increase didn't accelerate in 2014.
"In Historic Turn, CO2 Emissions Flatline In 2014, Even As Global Economy Grows." There are three distinct claims made:
1 - That CO2 emissions have not flatlined or declined before while the economy grew - While this is a logical assumption, there is not sufficient data to support the conclusion on the historical end.
2 - That CO2 emissions flatlined. I do not believe we measure the emissions with sufficient precision to accept this assertion. When the numbers consist of estimates piled upon estimates, the conclusion has error bands that still go well into the positive side.
3 - That the global economy grew. Same issues as #2 in the other direction.
Given that, according to the headline itself this is unprecedented, should we not be skeptical of claims 2 and/or 3?
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
QE is just massive levels of money printing (a few trillion a year), with said money being pumped into the various entitlement programs and the stock market.
It doesn't actually work that way. QE is just an asset swap and it doesn't create inflation. It does however force down interest rates and that allows for higher leverage levels which elevate asset prices.
The percentage of adults working (at least in the US) is at the lowest point since the 70s. Fewer people commuting to work each week = lower emissions.
We've managed to raise the global temperature enough to thaw the Arctic areas that are holding huge amounts of methane and have now allowed that to escape into the atmosphere. Unless somebody figures out how to stop further releases of that greenhouse gas, as David Letterman said on his show a year or so ago, "We're screwed."
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
It's at 400 now, apparently.
Except for the inconvenient truth that global temperatures aren't increasing and haven't for nearly 20 years.
Both the International Energy Agency article and the Forbes magazine orticle cited in the Slashdot story are written for narrow viewpoint audiences such as business finance managers and economists working for national governments.
Think of the audience being written to as accountants who watch accounting transactions and balance sheets. For these people, the news is a business operating ratio of energy consumption vs. economic activity has changed a very small amount.
If anything, both OP articles should be faulted for not presenting the two numbers that compose an actual "operating ratio". What is the ratio of gross KWH producing CO2 to Dollars or Euros of economic activity? That is a number the IEA should have presented. Together with error bars, of course.
In the articles, a clue to the very narrow perspective of the "news" is that the IEA article does not mention global warming atmospheric gas concentration increase. The bad news from the Mauna Loa observatory is:
Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
February 2015: 400.26 ppm
February 2014: 397.91 ppm
Last updated: March 5, 2015
Yes, CO2 in the atmosphere is right around 400 ppm now. It hasn't been that high for at least 3 or 4 million years.
Do you think more CO2 in the atmosphere would result in more vegetation growth?
To some extent for some types of plants. But that assumes there is plenty of water, other plant nutrients and good growing conditions too. It seems to me there was plenty of vegetation when atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm.
Kudos to all those activists and government bureaucrats. I'm sure it was ALL THEIR HARD WORK bitching and complaining that we have to thank for reaching this milestone!
Can't we at least celebrate some progress? No, the job isn't done, not at all, but can't we be happy that we're at least moving a little in the right direction?
I'll wait for a report which confirms this report before I celebrate.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Governments around the world have lied about their economic and employment statistics. Compare shadowstats.com vs the US gov's current inflation #s.
China's numbers are complete fantasy, etc.
So CO2 concentration is hard #, but the economic numbers are seriously flawed. Ratios are especially suspect.
Total BS, like most 'news'.
Two things that could cause that.
1) Natural gas displacing coal in a lot of plants for any reduction.
2) Natural cycles. When temperatures go up or down CO2 FOLLOWS it almost all the time with a 600-800 year lag. So what was happening 1300-1500 and what came next? The medieval warm period followed by the little ice age. So maybe we are seeing the effects of cold from the start of the little ice age.
Not that it matters to the climate. A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and almost 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
The effect CO2 has on temperature is not linear. The greatest effect is in the first 100 PPM. After that it drops like a rock. Once you get out to 300-400 PPM you have to double CO2 levels to 600-800 just to get a 0.7 to 1.5 degree Celsius increase. That will cause no problems and will be a great boon for plants and food supplies.
By the way lost in the politics of CO2 is the fact that at 150 PPM all plant life above the oceans dies. Followed very shortly after by all the animals. During the last ice age we were ~10% away from not having this conversation. We got down to around 170 PPM. Way too close. So having a nice buffer of a couple hundred PPM makes great sense.
Now if we could clean up all the real pollutants we're spews around the world like mercury and radiation that would be great. Thanks to all the natural gas we now have access to we have at least 6 decades to figure out a truly long term solution like molten salt reactors (LFTR), fusion (maybe LENR), storage for the intermittent stuff (wind, sun). Raise the standard of living with lots of cheap, clean energy that will lower the birth rate, etc etc.
Chances are we'll just piss it away and not do anything until the last minute. Tis the human way I guess.
I could have had a V8
Although the Tea Party has embraced home solar.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
If it replaces a coal or natural gas station it does.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
But it does not ... their power demand is increasing, so they simply add plants.
They are far far away from replacing old plants. Perhaps they replace really old ones like an 80 year old plant ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It does seam coal in general is being reduced though.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Much of the twenty first century's GDP is produced without burning something. Government borrowing is counted in the GDP. Telecommunications, financial, and medical services grow the GDP without smokestacks. Automation increases productivity without increasing energy usage.
Renewables are coming online now. They have a carbon footprint but it shrinks as the energy used in their production is amortized over their useful lifetime.
Let's count the win guys, let's count the win.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Ah, so we are on a turning point here, that is something good!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In the medicine cabinet there's going to be a bottle labeled "seroquel" or "lithium" or some other neuroleptic. Go get yourself a glass of water and follow the label.
And in the meantime, building nuclear power plants means pouring a lot of cement - the manufacture of which is the major industrial producer of CO2. So if anything, this should have increased emissions in the short term.
I'm really surprised that everyone is talking about climate change, and pointing the finger at CO2 which is of course, the official narrative.
but that doesn't mean its correct! let's put a spanner in the works with one observation: All the planets of our solar system have gotten warmer. It's a fact. Go look it up! Your 4x4 is causing global warning on Mars?? Seriously??
The astounding conclusion should be, that the sun is driving temperature change! I mean, what a shocker? Don't get me wrong, I don't like what comes out the back of a car any more than the next man, but green energy isn't as green as we think, when they're paid NOT to produce power in the UK, and then when we're all at home at night watching the football after a hard day at work, and the adverts come on - you fire up the kettle for a quick brew. Massive power spike on the national grid, and another powerplant or two are brought online to supply the demand! No wind or solar can give us stable power that we can rely on. More sun, please! More wind!!
We need alternatives to our current alternative energy systems! They exist, and are far more practical. The question is, why are we not using them?
The CO2 problem can not be solved by the denial of arithmetic.
Agreed. Where is your arithmetic supporting that nuclear power contributed to this 2014 "reduction" in any meaningful way?
It seems you are the one who is coming to a conclusion without any arithmetic. . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!