New study estimates that just 63 out of 1,500 climate policy interventions had any impact on emissions! All done with disregard for the costs. and what might have been done instead
As you read this, think about the tens of trillions of dollars already spent and the tens of trillions about to be spent on “net zero” policies that achieve nothing but the creation of energy poverty, inflation, massive scars on the earth from open cast mining, the destruction of entire marine and land eco-systems for o valid reason. THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS.
Before ploughing into the study let’s show some context from a few of my previous articles.
Land area = 57.5 million square miles = around 14.9 billion hectares.
Using data from here: Land Use - Our World in Data
Over that 22-year period, the global population increased from around 6.0 billion people to 7.8 billion people. Note that the sum of cropland and grazing was relatively constant, but those extra 1.8 billion people took up 28 million hectares of land. That works out at around 108,000 square miles or around 0.2% of the planet’s land surface area and about 0.05% of the planet’s approximate 200 million square miles of the world’s total surface area.
1.8 billion extra people on 108,000 square miles = 16,666 people per square mile on the new “urban sprawl”. Mexico City has a population density of 16,000 per square mile, nYC 29,000 per square mile, London 14,500, Tokyo 16,100, LA 7,500, Paris around 20,000, Hng Kong 39,000, Singapore around 20,000, Manila around 29,000, Lagos 18,000 and Sao Paolo around 19,000 per square mile.
Okay, that’s the change in land use, showing an extra 1.8 billion people over the 22 years to 2020 took up 108,000 square miles.
The weather stations measuring temperatures, those that work that is, are now predominantly sited in those newly built-up areas, not a good distance from them or their “urban heat island” effects.
I also posted this in July 2024:
It showed data from here: CO₂ emissions - Our World in Data
Around 37 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year.
I doubt that anyone “measures” emissions. They are a result of spreadsheet calculations that make simplifying assumptions. For example, 1.5 billion cars emit, on average, 4.6 metric tons of CO2 a year= around 7 billion metric tons a year, Do the same calculation for planes, ships ad trains etc, they do the same for estimates of mines, factories, plants, the average huma emits 2 metric tones a year times 8 billion humans = 16 billion tonnes a year and so on and so forth. Pay a couple of interns to the extrapolated data on a spreadsheet and trumpet the findings to a ravenous flock of chicken littles in politics and the MSM!
Pretty much the same method as used to predict millions of deaths from a non-existent scamdemic (and not used to model the costs of human trafficking via illegal immigrations!).
“According to recent studies and reports, there are approximately 3.04 trillion trees worldwide as of 2022. This estimate is based on advances in satellite imagery and a study published in the journal Nature, which suggests that this number is 8 times more than previous estimates.”
“On average, a tree absorbs around 10-40 kilograms (22-88 pounds) of CO2 per year, depending on factors like planting density, species, and environmental conditions.”
“3 trillion trees absorbing, say, the mid-point of 10-40 kg per year of 25 kg = 75 trillion kg a year or 75 billion tonnes per year.”
Twice as much CO2 absorbed by trees as is emitted per year.
More debunking of the climate cult here:
Ok, now to the report.
Effectiveness of 1,500 global climate policies ranked for first time | University of Oxford
“The study, led by Climate Econometricians at the University of Oxford, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), and the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), analysed 1,500 observed policies documented in a novel, high quality, OECD climate policy database for effectiveness. It is the first time a global dataset of policies has been compared and ranked in this way.\”
Inquiring minds want to know why this sort of work was not done BEFORE trillions were spent, laws made, and regulations imposed!
“… The break detection methodology, called indicator saturation estimation, developed at Climate Econometrics, allows break indicators for all possible dates to be examined objectively using a variant of machine learning.”
Machie learning? Presumably, the instructions to the machines are to discard human learning (/s).
“The results were sobering: Across four sectors, 41 countries, two decades and 1,500 policies, only 63 successful policy interventions with large effects were identified, which reduced total emissions between 0.6 and 1.8 Gt CO2.”
A “ Gt “– one billion tons of CO2, so straight away we run into an issue. The data table above shows just 37 billion tons. The reductions alone
Apparently, there are around 8 giga tons (Gt) of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia
So, 63 measures prevented up to 1.6 Gt out of 8 Gt in the whole of the earth’s atmosphere?
I smell a rat, or at least a cow fart.
Here are some conclusions of the report.
“… policy mix rather than implemented alone –for example combining carbon pricing with a subsidy.”
Surprise, surprise, climate chicken little handing out subsidies and deciding the price of “carbo” (not CO2, just ” C “. the carbon element)
“…. In developed countries, carbon pricing stands out as an effective policy, whereas in developing countries, regulation is the most powerful policy.”
All about intervention by climate chicken littles. Wilful blindness or a complete lack of awareness of the energy poverty created and imposed on the bottom half of income earners among the world’s 8 billion people. “Let them eat expensive and environmentally hostile green energy”.
Last conclusion in the report.
“The Paris emissions gap can be closed: Focusing on the 63 cases of effective climate policies would close the current emissions gap to meet the Paris Targets by 26% -41%, a significant contribution.”
Pars Climate Accord? Paris Bullshit Accord more like, making room for grift, corruption and planetary pollution that destroys entire ecosystems. A reduction of 26-41% means there will be more grift, corruption, pollution and destruction of ecosystems. Talk about Newspeak! Say something like “reduction in the gap” to imply it’s a god thing when, in fact, the effect is exactly the opposite because the reduction coms from a ludicrous ad false position!
There is a link I the report to a data tool:
Insight Brief: The Climate Policy Explorer (ox.ac.uk)
Which says stuff like this:
· “The researchers show that bans on coal-fired power plants or combustion engine cars do not result in major emissions reductions when implemented alone – additional policies need to be included in a suitable policy-mix.
· Successful cases arise in tandem with tax or price incentives, as shown in the UK for coal-fired power generation or in Norway for cars.
Taxes and price “incentives” - a socialist’s wet dream, controlling the means of production and distribution.
Science magazine covered the report here:
Climate policies that achieved major emission reductions: Global evidence from two decades | Science
One metric you will NOT find in ay of these “analyses” is the amount of taxpayer money wasted o the 1,500 measures, or the total amount of subsidies paid, or the opportunity cost of implementing these chicken little green policies instead of lower taxes or subsidies for fossil fuels.
Out of interest, the average price for household electricity in Russa, India ad China is 6.1 cents per kWh, 7.7 cents and 7.5 cents, respectively.
Compared to:
And
Any correlation with lunatic “green energy” policies is entirely coincidental/ NOT.
How do those monitoring electricity prices feel about charging the poor in their countries and states 7-10 times the price of Russia, India ad China? Are they gloating when they virtue signal their creation of energy poverty?
Onwards!!!
Please take a paid subscription or forward this article to those you think might be interested. You can also donate via Ko-fi – any amount from three dollars upwards. Ko-fi donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan