Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,
Noah Smith has a question: What about per capita emissions? I have answers.
Our World in Data, Per Capita and Annual CO2 Emissions
Per capita emissions in the US are the worlds highest, but they are also crashing. China per capita emissions are rising fast.
And check out India. It has passed China as the world’s most populous country. Where is that headed?
Our World in Data, Per Capita and Annual CO2 Emissions
World per capita CO2 emissions have stabilized largely because of the US and EU. Total emissions are another matter.
The world population is increasing so there is a continued increase in carbon production.
For global standards of living to improve, there will need to be more energy production.
US standards of living rose by increasing fossil fuel production. The US and EU are now telling the world, that’s a no-no.
Instead of using cheaper natural gas or coal, we tell developing countries they can’t. Europe has carbon border taxes to prevent it.
On December 22, 2022 I commented EU Imposes the World’s Largest Carbon Tax Scheme, Inflationary Madness Sets In
Let’s tune into a Tweet Thread by Faten Aggad Senior Advisor Climate Diplomacy @AfricanClimateF.
“The only effect CBAM would have is a resource shift whereby clean energy capacity in already under-resourced countries will be shifted for export production while industry aimed at local consumption and energy access will depend on dirty fuels.“
For more discussion, please see The Cost of Soup and Solar Panels is About to Increase, Thank President Biden
Please consider Climate Stupidity Canadian Style
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doubles down on carbon taxes, hammering Canadian farms and raising prices for everyone.
Trudeau proposes Canada carbon taxes to be as high or higher than any place else in the world in order to prevent carbon leakage.
This is despite the fact that Canada’s own studies suggest a negative benefit to the economy.
Our estimate of the economic impact captures the loss in employment and investment income that would result from the federal fuel charge.
Differential impacts on the returns to capital and wages, combined with differences in the distribution of employment and investment income drive the variation in household net costs across provinces. When the economic impact is combined with the fiscal impact, the net cost increases for all households, reflecting the overall negative economic impact of the federal fuel charge
Let’s sum it up this way. You gain $699 in Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, you lose your job.
And for what? If Canada stopped all carbon emissions tomorrow it would not even register, except for the Canadian economy which would crash.
Also note, China Abandons Clean Energy Goals Making U.S. Efforts Painful and Pointless
Heritage Foundation:
It was a bad week for anyone who thought China would cooperate on emissions reduction. President Xi Jinping reiterated that his country would set its own path on the issue and not be influenced by outside factors, according to the Washington Post and Bloomberg. This contradicts Xi’s 2015 Paris Agreement pledges to reduce its carbon emissions at the latest after 2030.
This should not be news, because Xi gave the same message last fall. In October 2022, he said that China would not abandon coal-fired power plants before renewables could substitute for the lost fossil fuel.
China leads the world in EV production. It is using more coal-fired plants to do so.
Cost is one thing now, it’s another inflationary kettle of smelly fish when the need for batteries skyrockets. No one has ever scaled EVs to estimate the mining costs and infrastructure costs if everyone did the same thing.
On July 19, I asked Electric Vehicles for Everyone? If the Dream Was Met, Would it Help the Environment?
My follow-up post was What Do MishTalk Readers Think About “Electric Vehicles for Everyone?”
The EV math does not add up in the EU or here. But here we go anyway.
In case you missed it, please consider The Shocking Truth About Biden’s Proposed Energy Fuel Standards
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA did an impact assessment of 4 fuel standard proposals and compared them to the cost of doing nothing. Guess what.
The NHTSA conclude: “Net benefits [of stricter mile standards] for passenger cars remain negative across alternatives” vs doing nothing at all.
See the above link for details and charts.
* * *