Wednesday, May 31, 2017

BloggeRhythms

While nothing final’s been disclosed as yet, it’s still expected that the POTUS will announce his decision on the climate deal by the end of the week. 

As far as the outcome’s concerned, Julie Pace wrote @ap.org/dynamic: “President Donald Trump is expected to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, a White House official said Wednesday, confirming a move certain to anger allies that spent years negotiating the landmark agreement to reduce carbon emissions.

“Nearly 200 nations, including the United States under President Barack Obama's administration, agreed in 2015 to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to combat climate change. Withdrawing would leave the United States aligned only with Russia among the world's industrialized economies in rejecting action to combat climate change.”

Although the subject is discussed frequently in the media, underlying details regarding specifics of the issue are rarely mentioned.   

However, some web research shows that “out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent.

“During the natural carbon cycle, carbon is released into the atmosphere from various sources and absorbed through "sinks." For example humans and plants give off carbon dioxide through respiration, making them a source of carbon dioxide, while plants absorb carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, making them a sink.”

In regard to the effect of regulations already in place without the Paris Agreement’s inception, or perhaps adjustments happening naturally in the atmosphere: “In 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,870 million metric tons (15.1 trillion pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalents. This total represents a 7 percent increase since 1990 but a 7 percent decrease since 2005.”

Statistically, while being the world's second largest emitter of carbon, following only China, at 3.8 million square miles the U.S. is the world's third- or fourth-largest country by total area, third-largest by land area, and the third-most populous.

Other nations clamoring for the U.S. to remain in the Accord include Germany which comprises 137,847 square miles, about 85% the size of California. From north to south, Germany would stretch from Los Angeles to Redding.

The total area of France is 211,209 square miles, making France slightly smaller than two Colorado’s. France is smaller than the state of Texas at 268,820 square miles of area.

Italy’s total area is 116,350 square miles and the 72nd largest country in the world. Almost 40 per cent of that is mountainous territory. Thus the US is about 32.5 times the size of Italy. 

Then there’s the United Kingdom at 94,060 square miles, which is about 57% the size of California. From the southern tip of England to the northern end of Scotland would stretch from Los Angeles to the Oregon border.

Population-wise, China ranks first at 1,383,450,000 people. That’s
18.4% of world population.


India’s next with 1,316,570,000 inhabitants and 17.5% of the world.

The U.S. is next with 325,046,000 and 4.33%, respectively.

Indonesia follows at 263,510,000 and 3.51%.

Brazil, 207,563,000 and 2.76%.

Pakistan, 196,605,000 and 2.62%

Nigeria, 191,836,000 and 2.56%

Bangladesh, 162,532,000 and 2.16%.

Russia, 146,804,372, 1.96%

Japan ranks 10th with 126,730,000, 1.69% of world population.

While national size ranking tells us one thing, top CO2 emissions Per Capita illustrate another.

Qatar’s per capita emissions equal 40.3%.

Trinidad and Tobago are second at 38.2%.

Kuwait, 31.3%

Luxembourg, 21.4%

Oman, 20.4%.

United Arab Emirates, 19.9%.

Bahrain, 19.3%.

And then the U.S. ranks 8th at 17.6%.

Saudi Arabia’s ninth at 17.0, with Australia 10th at 16.9%.

Whereas we now know the U.S. falls far down the lists in terms of rankings relative to the size, population and per capita carbon emissions of other nations, we come to the most important category likely considered by those drafting the Paris Accord.  

The U.S. GDP is $17.95 trillion.

Germany‘s GDP is $3.356 trillion.

The U.K., $2.849 trillion, with France at $2.422 trillion.

Why all the prior statistics have so much importance can be seen in a Wikipedia description of how contributions to the climate agreement will be determined in the future.

“The global stocktake will kick off with a "facilitative dialogue" in 2018. At this convening, parties will evaluate how their NDCs stack up to the nearer-term goal of peaking global emissions and the long-term goal of achieving net zero emissions by the second half of this century.

“The implementation of the agreement by all member countries together will be evaluated every 5 years, with the first evaluation in 2023. The outcome is to be used as input for new nationally determined contributions of member states. The stocktake will not be of contributions/achievements of individual countries but a collective analysis of what has been achieved and what more needs to be done.

And here’s the clincher: “The stocktake works as part of the Paris Agreement's effort to create a "ratcheting up" of ambition in emissions cuts. Because analysts have agreed that the current NDCs will not limit rising temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, the global stocktake reconvenes parties to assess how their new NDCs must evolve so that they continually reflect a country's "highest possible ambition."

“While ratcheting up the ambition of NDCs is a major aim of the global stocktake, it assesses efforts beyond mitigation. The 5 year reviews will also evaluate adaptation, climate finance provisions, and technology development and transfer.”

And then we find that: “Some specific outcomes of the elevated attention to adaptation financing in Paris include the G7 countries' announcement to provide US $420 million for Climate Risk Insurance, and the launching of a Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems (CREWS) Initiative. In early March 2016, the Obama administration gave a $500 million grant to the "Green Climate Fund" as "the first chunk of a $3 billion commitment made at the Paris climate talks." So far, the Green Climate Fund has now received over $10 billion in pledges. Notably, the pledges come from developed nations like France, the US, and Japan, but also from developing countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, and Vietnam.”

Which means that to date, the U.S. has already “granted” half a billion dollars to the fund, versus $10 billion in “pledges“ from other member nations. Leading to the question as to whether anyone really knows what the odds are on collecting on promises from France, Mexico, Indonesia and Viet Nam? 

And then, beyond providing financial pledges to the Accord itself, individuals goals are also becoming apparent as reported by James Delingpole @breitbart.com on Monday, as follows:

“If he were standing here, he would tell you that he feels much more knowledgeable on the topic today,” said Trump’s economic advisor Gary Cohn, referring to the president’s position on climate change and the Paris agreement.

“Well if that’s the case, it’s certainly no thanks to Cohn – whose advice on these matters is about as sound, reliable and unbiased as that provided by Grima Wormtongue – slippery henchman of the evil wizard Saruman – to King Theoden in Lord of the Rings.

“Cohn wants Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement. Of course, he does. As an ex-Goldman Sachs man Cohn is a fully paid up member of the $1.5 trillion-a-year Climate Industrial Complex. It was Goldman Sachs – along with Enron – which pioneered the carbon trading schemes that helped enrich enviro-troughers like Al Gore. If the global warming Ponzi scheme ever collapses – and it will – then many of Cohn’s friends and former clients stand to lose millions in crony-capitalist “investments” currently propped up by Obama-era regulation which Cohn and his cronies are desperate to keep in place.

“This also explains Cohn’s extraordinary recent attack on the coal industry – “coal doesn’t even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock” – and his risibly dishonest claim that solar and wind power can help the U.S. become “a manufacturing powerhouse.”

“It’s extraordinary firstly because it is in direct and explicit contradiction of Trump’s election trail promises to bring back jobs in the coal industry.”

Thus, whether it regards funds provided by the U.S. to be distributed to other nations under the guise of a “Climate Accord,“ or the windfall hopes of investment bankers like 
Goldman-Sachs and its cohorts, the climate itself seems to have very little to do with any of it.

Which means that walking away from the Paris agreement and making some staff changes in the White House are both key steps in draining the swamp as promised by Trump all along.    

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment