And speaking of graphs I found the one above, from this article by Robert Rapier at Forbes pretty interesting, too. What that tells me is that even if the United States and Europe reduce their carbon emissions to zero, something no one thinks is going to happen, it’s going to be darned hard for our species’s level of carbon emissions to decrease to the level that global warming activists say is necessary without a lot more activity in that area from China in particular than is presently the case.
Heh. And I’m sure China will see the light.
I’ll bet the US does a better job of controlling emissions per unit of manufacturing output than China. Clearly we need to repatriate our manufacturing base from the Chinese. Its for the children……..
I think it was an error to let it go there in the first place. Problems have a way of becoming intractable in China. Lack of an independent judiciary and a robust system of civil law is a major problem.
I dunno. The curve for China shows a decreasing slope, after all, and the Chinese lead the world in producing solar cells, which they’re happy to sell all over the place. I’d worry a bit more about India’s progress.
“The curve for China shows a decreasing slope,…”
Um, er, the one that is up 8x in the period measured, still increasing, and 270% of the US. Good luck…….
“I think it was an error to let it go there in the first place.”
Surely by now you recognize my snark. Me too. I’d be a wealthier man. More importantly, a vast number of Average Joe workers would be wealthier as well. Screw Obama, Hillary, Bush, never Trumpers, Yellen etc and their globalist aims. Screw’m.
Ahh! My error. The Rate Of Increase is diminishing — second derivative rather than first. The Chinese are producing more pollution over time, but not at an accelerating pace.
Okay now?
China emits more carbon for each incremental dollar of GDP. We don’t. I don’t think China can change that in the near term and doubt that they’re even trying. I think that China’s solar and wind investments are mostly to sell and not to use. That’s consistent with just about everything else they’ve done over the last decade or so.
Any decline in the slope of China’s curve is just another way of saying that its GDP growth isn’t as fast as it was.
But China signed the Paris Agreement, so everything will be OK.
It wasn’t a gotcha. Just a snarky way of saying hoping China will lead the way on CO2 isn’t ever going to happen. Ever meaning on a time frame as far as we are concerned. First you have Dave’s points. Second, with dopey US presidents and advisors you had unilateral de-industrialization. Why would China work against its interests when we will self immolate for a politically motivated theory masquerading as science.
I don’t buy AGW. The data is routinely discovered to have been doctored, er, “adjusted” by advocates. And the solution always the same – taxes. Perfect. But more importantly, graphs like this illustrate that if there were AGW any unilateral actions other than efficiencies developed in the normal course, is suicide. We can’t even convince China to control its client state with nuclear war in the balance.
With economic development comes power consumption. And with power consumption comes CO2. It is nothing short of inhumane to turn the African continent into a ward of the global estate by shuttling them CO2 penalty dollars from the West, much siphoned off by despots, rather than encourage development. If some economically warranted technological breakthrough comes then great, adopt it. Until then, power on.