That’s fine

But if the world is serious about tackling climate change, these fantastic engineering achievements are not enough. Whereas, in the year 2000, aviation contributed 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, it is projected that by 2050, aviation’s growth will increase its carbon emissions fivefold, even allowing for continued improvements in efficiency.

 

The generally accepted answer is that emissions must fall by 80% (no, don’t worry if that’s true or not but that is what is being said). So, that leaves us with 20% of current emissions that will still be allowable. If aviation takes up 50% of that, or rises to 10% of current emissions, that’s just fine. We should be using our emissions on whatever it is that produces the greatest value for us.

So, imagine, say, that we end up with no-emissions power generation and transport. We also get farming under control with no-till and more pasture land. These are at least theoretically possible. The emissions we’re still allowed to make could be that aviation plus, say, cement making. And then we’re fine.

The real point here being that just because we wish to have lower emissions in total does not mean that we need to reduce all sources of emissions.  It’s entirely fine if some sources even grow as long as that total reduces.

26 comments on “That’s fine

  1. No, it’s not fine. For these are zealots who will have us all no-tilling the fields from our unheated mud hovels (cement, what cement?) while the bien-pensants use those emission allowances in the way they define to be efficient – to swan the world in private jets, checking up on the peasants’ emissions.

  2. it is projected that by 2050, aviation’s growth will increase its carbon emissions fivefold, even allowing for continued improvements in efficiency.

    I’m fairly certain it won’t be white westerners that are contributing to this increase. In which case, good luck persuading those Chinese, Indians, SE Asians, and Africans that they should not fly because Global Warming.

  3. You will note that there is a slight reprise of the previous piece.

    Prof Mac gives quite a few TED lectures.

    In 2014 TED moved its persentations from Vancouver to Long Beach and Palm Springs.

    So plane flights for Prof Mac to Canada, East and West Coast USA, but no holidays for me in Sri Lanka anymore.

  4. The whole reason Polly has a mansion in Tuscany is to get away from the proles. If Ryanair makes it cheap enough for them to turn up at her door step, and puke all over it in all likelihood, what is the point of being rich?

  5. What happened to the KLM jet fuelled entirely by hydrocarbons produced by GM bacteria? Completely carbon neutral(but I’m sure the smug parasites would count it)?

  6. It’s entirely fine if some sources even grow as long as that total reduces.

    It may be entirely fine to you, but it will be utter anathema not just to the bien pensant and zealots but also to their wide variety of limp green supporters.

  7. But if the world is serious about tackling climate change

    There’s the rub: the world doesn’t give a fuck about “climate change”. China and India, whose carbon emissions make ours look like a drop in the ocean, are not going to stop industrialising because some fat old white people told them to.

    China and India are happy to take over the industries we’ve driven off our shores due to our environmental regulations. The other third world countries are happy to cash whatever cheques we’re willing to send them out of misplaced eco-guilt.

    They’ll laugh up their sleeves while milking us for all we’re worth. But they’re not going to accept limits on their growth imposed by cretinous and hypocritical white men who are busily destroying their own civilisation. So “climate change” is a religion that only has influence in the decadent West.

    Talking about the world being serious about “climate change” is like a member of the Heaven’s Gate cult wondering when everybody else is going to snip their own balls off and commit suicide. It ain’t going to happen. At best you’ll provoke some chuckles over your castrated corpse.

  8. Steve is right.

    The whole issue of carbon dioxide emissions is simply the lever which the greens will pull to bring down the modern (western) world.

    Billions of new ‘carbons’ since 1996 and NO temperature rise.

    Tim, I usually agree with most of what you say, but on this one you are barking up the wrong tree.

  9. SMFS

    Apparently Polly gets really angry when people say she has a villa in Tuscany.

    It’s actually in Umbria.

  10. I understand that it is merely the form of your writing Tim, but “we” don’t want to do any of these things. The general “we”- the general population- don’t seem much interested in doing them. Half a dozen smelly maniacs with bits of compost in their hair are not “we”.

    Which is why “we” don’t want your stupid carbon tax that you keep asking for either.

  11. Just a question…

    For the last 17 years and more, global warming rate has not increased and in fact declined in the last six or seven years in the presence of accelerating CO2 emissions, the complete opposite of what ‘the Consensus’ predicted and nobody can explain this.

    So, if we cannot rely on the temperature record to gauge the effect of CO2 emissions, and if we were to reduce CO2 emissions, what would we use to determine whether our efforts were too little, too much, or just right?

    How far into the next Manmade Ice Age would we have to go before we realised we had overdone the reduction a bit, or if temperatures kept going up despite lowering emissions what then?

    Action out of fear based in ignorance is never wise.

    If only we had an age of scientific enlightenment which relied on evidence from observation not opinion.

  12. Rob, the really funny thing is that when Blair was fashionable, he said Tuscany was his favourite holiday resort. Polly let it be known her villa was in Tuscany.

    Now that Blair is poison, even to the left (apart from Dan “Glenda” Hodges) Polly likes to tell the truth, that her villa is in Umbria.

    Wouldn’t like you get the idea Polly was very hot on the truth…

  13. Tim, you keep making the fundamental mistake of admitting the premise of AGW for the purposes of argument, often with an express denial of any admission the actual truth of the premise.

    All that does is fix the premise in your brain as at least worth of argument, which it demonstrably is not. No temperature rise for 17 years, and Steven Goddard has pretty much proved data tampering for US data. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

    There has been no rise in US temps for 50 years.

    Mark Steyn is slowly but steadily demolishing Michael Mann.

    You’re like thousands of other victims of a con. When the cops, or your wife, tell you repeatedly what the con-man is, you refuse to believe it, often for a long, long time.

  14. @FredZ et ors.

    If discussing the advisability of compulsory tithes to the church, it’s usually better not to launch oneself into rational proofs for the non-existence of god. Tends to get believers stacking faggots rather than listening to arguments.

  15. I doubt that the greenies would accept aviation being ‘let off’ while everyone else has to jump through the ‘no carbon’ hoop. Everyone has to suffer equally, and aviation should be made illegal anyway – what’s wrong with Windjammers? It means nothing to them that supplanting Jet-A1 as an aviation energy source is basically a non-starter. Unless, of course, we resurrect Project Pluto…

  16. Hey Tim! Not defending yourself again?

    Your readers think you’re wrong. They’re Ragging On Worstall.

    Most people snort at your nonsense, but your friends think you’re wrong.

    It’s as clear as it always was; you don’t give a shit. Shame these few types lap up your every word.

    At least murphy engages.

  17. OK, I’ve always been very slow with all of this:

    1) Purely out of curiosity – what is the refutable hypothesis with regards to “catastrophic global warming”?

    Ie, what are the “observable facts” that then leads the proponent of said hypothesis to say, “ok, perhaps we got this one wrong”?

    2) And (doing a Tim at this stage) assuming that said hypothesis has passed that test (..) – on to the economics…

    If the whole world “as one” politically is not going to impose “the same carbon tax” (and we know that’s true), how does that (economically) work in reality?

    3) And can someone hypothetically explain to me (or link) the pros and cons of the economics of simple straightforward “adaptation” (to whatever shit may hit us) versus the concept of a “carbon tax”, or is that simply ‘the same’ at the end of the day..??

    And in simple layman’s terms if at all possible – and which presumably shouldn’t be all that complicated given the global importance, in terms of the future of the planet and all the furry things?

  18. At least murphy engages.

    Tim does less btl than I would like. But that’s his choice. Although, when he does it, I would much prefer that he commented rather than appending to the comment he is challenging or agreeing with.

    Murphy doesn’t engage except with his fan club. He ridicules or censors. You’ll note you don’t get automatically blocked here. Cf taxresearch.

  19. At least murphy engages.

    Hmmm…

    Yep, there is loads and loads of “I agree”

    or else

    “you are a neo sophisticate and you are now banned – except I’ll probably not quite work out how to ban your next post, but pretend I have anyway, oh bugger now I’ll have to respond to this next one too”

    and which those such as Ironman and Pellinor may attest to?

    I’ve always wondered why Murphy blindly responds to almost everything. I don’t get it – what’s the point? Quality versus quantity..??

    He seems incapable of just letting go – knowing others will respond, maybe this is the crux 🙂 – and all of which is pointless if it’s a real blog rather than “pretty pretty”…

  20. DannyL – “Billions of new ‘carbons’ since 1996 and NO temperature rise.”

    They wish it were true. But it doesn’t mean it is.

    Rob – “Apparently Polly gets really angry when people say she has a villa in Tuscany. It’s actually in Umbria.”

    My mistake. I have always wondered about retiring to Italy so it is actually an important thing to get right. You wouldn’t want to buy a little place and find Polly saying hello over the back fence.

    Not that she would talk to her fellow Brits I expect.

    If it wasn’t for the sun I would be tempted to retire to a small house by a lake in Brandenberg. With the added advantage of being sure never to see anyone who writes for the Guardian.

  21. UnSpanish bloke: I know, I know, but I’m of German extraction and hence … . Well, you know us Germans.

    As for stacking faggots, I dunno, I think Tim is straight.

  22. @SMFS, I wouldn’t retire to Italy if I were you. I’ve been there (lived there in fact) and it’s absolutely full of foreigners. Some of them are even black.

  23. Brandenburg would be good, since your chances of running across anyone at all are quite slim.

  24. Bloke in Germany – “Brandenburg would be good, since your chances of running across anyone at all are quite slim.”

    Perfect then.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.