It took an economic disaster for them to reduce their carbon output:
But the data shows that even though EU economic weakness and US natural gas are responsible for significant drops in emissions in the developed world, developing countries, led by China, continue to drive the global total higher.
This underscores the disconnect between green policies and green results. The US hasn’t checked off many items on the green wish list for domestic legislation; Europe has. But it turns out that the introduction of the euro and the subsequent economic disaster had more to do with European emissions drops than Kyoto or the shambolic carbon-trading program.
The usual suspects are headed to Bonn next week for another forlorn attempt to carve out a meaningful global climate treaty. Meanwhile in the real world, the challenge is to find a way for developing countries to continue rapid growth without driving greenhouse gasses and other pollutants to potentially dangerous levels.
That’s assuming that the high levels of the “other” “pollutants” is more dangerous than slow economic growth, of course. And meanwhile, it turns out that the US has twice as much oil, and three times as much gas as we thought. And “peak oil” continues to recede into the future, to the tears of the Malthusians. Which are delicious.
[Update a while later]
Gazprom (and the Russian economy) are in trouble, too:
The US has begun exporting gas to Europe, and has also ramped up coal exports by more than 250 percent since 2005. The net result has been to knock Gazprom back on its heels. The WSJ reports that the negotiations with Bulgaria were heated, with Gazprom’s negotiators shouting in frustration on several occasions.
In public statements, however, the Russian company remains defiant (and perhaps in a state of denial) about the implications of the shale gas boom…
Well, that’s one tactic, I guess. Not one I’d recommend, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml54UuAoLSo
“You picked the wrong day to mess with the eco-system, Plastic Boy!”
If you look at the actual, historical record of temperature it has been remarkably stable, +- a couple of kelvins out of an average
T of 289 k. Which is indicative of a system with significant negative feedback, not positive. The climate simulationists have to introduce large positive feedbacks to produce the kind of sharp increase in global temperature they need in order to panic the public into the type of economic controls they desire.
Over geologic time, the Earth has gone through periods as extreme as “Snowball Earth” to periods far hotter than today. Even as recent as < 20,000 years ago, there was an intense ice age underway. It ended, not because of the cave people's CO2 emissions but natural factors. For a period that lasted approximately 500 years and ended around 1850, there was the "Little Ice Age". Temperatures have varied a great deal over time without humans being responsible.
I was careful to indicate historical times. Clearly over geological time there have been other climate regimes. The embarrassing fact for climate warm mongers is that snowball Earth has strong positive feedback – in the wrong direction. Colder climate, more snow cover, higher albedo, more heat reflection, lower temperature, more snow/ice pack..
I think the writing was on the wall for Gazprom when they launched a joint production venture with Nigeria called “Nigaz.” They really did that.
That’s actually worse than the GM trying to market the Chevy Nova in Spanish-speaking Mexico.
The Chevy Nova thing didn’t actually happen. http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp
Well, thanks. I will be more careful bringing that up in the future.
Unfortunately, though, Snopes doesn’t really demonstrate that the putative myth is untrue – GM did market the Nova in Mexico. It just says it didn’t affect sales relative to expectations. But, that does not mean it did not affect sales.
That’s one of those “you can’t be serious” lines but it’s actually true, with the proper politically correct backlash from the usual suspects.
This underscores the disconnect between green policies and green results.
I’m not sure this is true. It sure seems green policies are intended to weaken economies.
Hmmm, sounds like it might time for round two of privatization of Russian oil. If they were to auction this stuff off without playing favorites (Yeltsin-style), I bet they’d get good money and a thriving oil industry capable of dealing with the US.