Last week I pointed out how useless it is for the US to require reductions in US CO2 emissions, which if effective will not make any measurable change in atmospheric CO2 levels and have not resulted and will not result in any significant changes in emissions control by rapidly growing developing countries according to the proposed Paris climate treaty.
“I’m Going to Pledge to Stop Fossil Fuels”
Unfortunately at least one prominent Democratic presidential candidate does not seem to understand the issue very well (except possibly how to use it to take green votes away from Senator Sanders) and last week stated:
After the Democratic debate in Durham, New Hampshire, on February 4, 2016, Hillary Clinton was questioned by a climate activist as to whether she would stop accepting campaign contributions from fossil fuels. Clinton responded: “I’m going to pledge to stop fossil fuels. That’s a lot better.”
It appears that Clinton has gone far beyond her statements last year advocating that enough renewable power be generated to meet all household demand by 2027, and now wants to end all use of fossil fuels in the US.
This would mean that all demands for energy would have to be met by “renewable” sources, presumably non-hydro renewable sources since environmental groups oppose hydroelectric development. This would mean somehow replacing not only all fossil-fueled electric generating plants, but also all non-electricity-powered heating and air conditioning equipment, motor vehicles, and airplanes currently powered by fossil fuels and somehow replacing them with new equipment using “renewable” sources or doing without them. I wonder how she proposes to power military airplanes and tanks in the face of opponents who use far more efficient fossil fuels that extend the range of operations greatly by providing more energy per unit of fuel weight?
The cost of what she proposes would clearly be astronomical, if it could be done at all without driving the US back to an era of energy use prior to the Revolutionary War. Even most environmental organizations have not advocated such an extreme policy, although some advocate keeping fossil fuels “in the ground.”
A Dramatic Increase in CO2 Emissions Expected from Rapidly Developing Countries
A recent chart by Richard Muller dramatically illustrates why even this radical proposal would have no measurable effect on climate even in the unlikely case that the UN IPCC science should be correct:
(Click to enlarge) For further explanation of the chart see here.
Although Clinton now proposes that there be a 100% reduction in US CO2 emissions rather than the 80% assumed in the chart, I actually believe this chart is much too “optimistic” in terms of reducing CO2 emissions because the rapidly growing developing countries are highly unlikely to cut back on their CO2 emissions starting in 2040 given their stance at the Paris climate conference. And they certainly will not decrease emissions by 80 percent after 2040 as assumed in the chart. If so, there will be no peak in 2040, as shown in the chart.