To OFA: 100% of climate scientists say it's about CO2. Why don't you? The science says US CO2 has plunged and is heading lower. The science says China CO2 overwhelms US and rest of world and is heading higher. NASA and NOAA scientists say neither 2012 Sandy storm nor drought caused by CO2. Why won't you?

8/12/13, "Obama group (OFA): ‘Gravity exists. The Earth is round. Climate change is happening’," The Hill, Ben Geman

"Organizing for Action, the advocacy group born from President Obama’s reelection campaign, has a simple message for its 35 million Twitter followers as it seeks political support for the White House's climate agenda."...

===================

6/20/13, "OFA supporters know climate change is real and something must be done to reduce its impact."

============================

6/10/13, 2012 Global CO2 emissions chart from IEA report, p. 2, US continues to fall, China continues to rise:  


















================================

Global CO2 US v China, 2005 to 2011, US EIA (US Energy Dept.), Energy related, WSJ, April 2013. (Chart above shows 2012).

4/18/13, "Rise in U.S. Gas Production Fuels Unexpected Plunge in Emissions," WSJ, Russell Gold

"U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions have fallen dramatically in recent years, in large part because the country is making more electricity with natural gas instead of coal.

Energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that is widely believed to contribute to global warming, have fallen 12% between 2005 and 2012 and are at their lowest level since 1994, according to a recent estimate by the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the U.S. Energy Department."...

=================================

May 2012 Washington Post on China CO2:

"China was the biggest contributor (in 2011), with carbon dioxide output growing 9.3 percent." (3rd parag.)
. 

5/25/12, "U.S. cut its carbon emissions in 2011 — but China erased the gains," Washington Post, Brad Plumer

==========================================

1/29/13, "China Uses Nearly as Much Coal as Rest of World Combined, EIA Says," Wall St. Journal, Cassandra Sweet

"China's use of coal has grown quickly over the last decade and now rivals the amount of coal consumed by the rest of the world combined, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said Tuesday.... 

China was also the world's largest coal producer in 2011, producing more than 3.5 billion metric tons, or nearly 46% of global coal production that year, according to data published by the International Energy Agency. China was also the world's largest net importer of coal in 2011, importing about 177 million metric tons of coal, according to the IEA.

The U.S. produced a little more than one billion metric tons of coal in 2011, or nearly 13% of the world supply...

Global demand for coal has grown by about 2.9 billion short tons, or 2.6 billion metric tons, since 2000, with 82% of that demand growth in China, the EIA said."...

 =========================================

China emitted 4 billion tons more CO2 in 2011 than the US:

2/2/12, "Carbon pollution up to 2 million pounds per second," AP, Seth Borenstein

"The overwhelming majority of the increase was from China, the world’s biggest carbon dioxide polluter. Of the planet’s top 10 polluters, the United States and Germany were the only countries that reduced their carbon dioxide emissions....

The latest pollution numbers, calculated by the Global Carbon Project, a joint venture of the Energy Department and the Norwegian Research Council, show that worldwide carbon dioxide levels are 54 percent higher than the 1990 baseline. The 2011 figures for the biggest polluters:

1. China, up 10 percent to 10 billion tons.
2. United States, down 2 percent to 5.9 billion tons
3. India, up 7 percent to 2.5 billion tons.
4. Russia, up 3 percent to 1.8 billion tons.
5. Japan, up 0.4 percent to 1.3 billion tons.
6. Germany, down 4 percent to 0.8 billion tons.
7. Iran, up 2 percent to 0.7 billion tons.
8. South Korea, up 4 percent to 0.6 billion tons.
9. Canada, up 2 percent to 0.6 billion tons.
10. South Africa, up 2 percent to 0.6 billion tons."

=============================================

6/4/12, "Climate change stunner: USA leads world in CO2 cuts since 2006," Vancouver Observer, Saxifrage



"Not only that, but as my top chart shows, US CO2 emissions are falling even faster than what President  Obama pledged in the global Copenhagen Accord....Here is the biggest shocker of all: the  average American's CO2 emissions are down to levels not seen since 1964 --  over half a century ago.... It is exactly America's historical role of biggest and dirtiest that makes their sharp decline in CO2 pollution so noteworthy and potentially game changing at the global level."...  

========================

"Virtually everyone believes the shift [US CO2 plunge]could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy.”…

8/16/12, “AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low,” AP, Kevin Begos

“In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.

Many of the world’s leading climate scientists didn’t see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.  . 

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for “cautious optimism” about potential ways to deal with climate change….
 
In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. Energy emissions make up about 98 percent of the total.

The Associated Press contacted environmental experts, scientists and utility companies and learned that virtually everyone believes the shift could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy.”… 

=========================

News of US CO2 plunge has been described as:

• “Surprising,“
• “little noticed,“
• “dramatic,“
• “stunner,“
• “most people are surprised to learn,“
• “quiet but tremendous progress,”  
•  “major long term implications,”
• “game changing,”
• “shocker,”
• “huge contrast to the forecast.”

========================= 

China's massive CO2 increases render the rest of the world's reductions meaningless. Global CO2 increased from 2005-2011 because China was up 60%, North America and Europe lowered CO2:

5/8/13, "Jack Mintz: Canada unfairly Gored," Financial Post opinion  

"It makes little sense for advanced countries to take on policies that hurt their own economic growth if environmental benefits are unattainable.

Such failure seems to be the case with China, Russia and others where carbon emissions are sharply on the rise. It is almost as if the Western countries are digging ditches, only to see them filled up by emerging countries following up from behind."

============================

Yale 360 credits 30 years of US government investment for the US leading in CO2 reduction which it says is expected to decline even further:
.

4/21/12, “Why [CO2] Emissions Are Declining in the U.S. But Not in Europe,” by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, newgeography.com .
.
“As we note below in a new article for Yale360, a funny thing happened: U.S. emissions started  going down in 2005 and are expected to decline further over the next decade....

.
Why? The reason is obvious: the U.S. is benefitting from the 
30-year, government-funded technological revolution that massively increased the supply of unconventional natural gas, making it cheap even when compared to coal.   

The contrast between what is happening in Europe and what is happening in the U.S. challenges anyone who still thinks pricing carbon and emissions trading are more important to emissions reductions than direct and sustained public investment in technology innovation."

============================

Science says 2012 US drought not due to human CO2:

NOAA study says US 2012 weather extremes due to natural causes, not global warming:
 
4/12/13, “Study Reveals Global Warming Not To Blame For Last Year’s Crippling Drought,” stlouis.cbslocal.com with AP
.
“A new federal study reveals that global warming is not to blame for last year’s extreme drought that crippled the central Great Plains. The study conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Drought Task Force places the blame on natural variations.“… 

 

==================================

The science about Sandy: Peer reviewed NASA study says Superstorm Sandy not due to man-caused global warming or climate change, was once in 714 year event:
.
5/28/13, "On the impact angle of Hurricane Sandy's New Jersey landfall," Geophysical Research Letters, AGU, Hall and Sobel

""We calculate that under long-term average climate conditions, a hurricane of Sandy's intensity or greater (category 1+) makes NJ landfall at an angle at least as close to perpendicular as Sandy's at...a return period of 714 years."...
--------------------------

Two more reports on the Sandy finding:

7/12/13, "Hurricane Sandy Was 1-in-700-Year Event," LiveScience.com, Elizabeth Howell 


6/3/13, "Hurricane Sandy took highly unusual path, but climate change doesn’t get the blame – yet," blogs.AGU.org, by Sarah Charley

 ============================== 

Der Spiegel, Scientists note pause in global warming, Jan. 2013:

1/18/13, “Climate change: scientists puzzle over halt in global warming,” Der Spiegel, by Axel Bojanowski (translation from German by google)

===============================

The myth about lack of US climate "action" is criminal. Yale 360 authors cited above seem to be among the few aware of US climate action:

Since at least 1990 across 13 U.S. government agencies massive US climate "action" and spending to save the global atmosphere have been mandated via the

"U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990"

US politicians converted the US government and US taxpayers to the service of the climate industry long ago, to fight "human-induced and natural processes of global change" (Title 1...Section 101) indefinitely. Section 4 cites the desirability of reducing CO2:

"SEC. 204. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH INFORMATION OFFICE....

Such information shall include, but need not be limited to, results of scientific research and development on technologies useful for...

4. promoting the conservation of forest resources which help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;"... 

========================================= 
 
In 2012, EPA freely admits cutting greenhouse gas emissions at US electric utility units won't effect US CO2 emissions. They say it's to stimulate investment and to send a "signal internationally." The world is being told that the US president scorns every American who made him rich, detests them, sees them only as pawns:

3/27/12, "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," EPA, Carbon Pollution Standard, Fed. Register, draft, epa.gov

p. 49, "While this proposed rule also will not have direct impact on U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases under expected economic conditions, it provides assurance that emission rates from new fossil fuel-fired generation will not exceed the level of the standard and will send a strong signal both domestically and
internationally. 

Domestically, this proposed rule can further stimulate investment in CCS and other clean coal technologies, 

by making it clear that such technologies do provide a clear path forward for new coal-fired generating capacity. 
 
Internationally, 
this rule may encourage others
 

to consider less GHG-intensive forms of power generation."...via USNews.com 
 
==================

4/12/12, "The Illogic of EPA Carbon Regulations," USNews.com, by Daniel Simmons
.

"If global warming is a problem that the EPA needs to address, then why are they working on imposing rules that the agency admits "will not have [a] direct impact of U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases?"  

It's tough to see how EPA regulation makes logical sense. 

 

Does the EPA not really care about global warming

or are they working to end America's use of coal?

Does the EPA only want to increase the price of energy by making it harder to build low-cost electricity generation?

What explains the EPA's actions? And why are taxpayers paying for this nonsense?
 
The only thing we know for sure is that the EPA claims that global warming is a problem and then announces rules that the agency admits does nothing about it. Draw your own conclusions."

============================

11/29/12, "Countries Worldwide Propose to Build 1,200 New Coal Plants," Institute for Energy Research

"In the United Kingdom, for example, coal consumption increased by nearly a quarter between the second quarter of 2011 and the second quarter of 2012. Germany is encouraging the construction of 10 gigawatts of coal-fired generation to replace its nuclear plants and provide back-up power for its wind and solar units, which require backup 

when the wind isn’t blowing or when the sun does not shine."

=========================

Europe's massive carbon trading system did nothing to improve the climate, took hundreds of billions from chump customers:

11/23/11, "Europe's $287 billion carbon 'waste': UBS report," The Australian, by Sid Maher
.
"SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union's emissions trading scheme has cost the continent's consumers $287 billion for "almost zero impact" on cutting carbon emissions."...EU CO2 trading provided "windfall profits" to participants paid for by "electricity customers.""

 
====================== 

Added: If you're in the CO2 business, it's very simple. CO2 isn't a problem. The world does have lots of problems and needs lots of help. You're now free to solve real problems.