{"id":16926,"date":"2016-06-15T18:06:51","date_gmt":"2016-06-15T22:06:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/?p=16926"},"modified":"2016-06-15T18:06:51","modified_gmt":"2016-06-15T22:06:51","slug":"sen-john-barrasso-predicted-china-emissions-wrong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2016\/06\/sen-john-barrasso-predicted-china-emissions-wrong.html","title":{"rendered":"Sen. John Barrasso predicted China emissions wrong"},"content":{"rendered":"

\nSee the power behind FERC get it very wrong.
\n<\/a>
\nAbout China emissions, about energy and economy, about solar power, and all in one speech.<\/p>\n

\nAmerican Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), YouTube, 3 December 2009 (posted 15 Dec 2009),
\n
\nU.S. Senator John Barrasso speaks at ALEC in December 2009 in DC. Part 3<\/a>,<\/p>\n

\n


\nJust look at China,<\/p>\n

they’re the number one emitter in the world right now.
\nAnd when you look at China, now they’re starting to talk about a green economy.
\nI would say pay attention to what they do, not what they say.
\n
\nEmissions from China are gonna continue to grow every year, all the way
\nto the year 2050.
\n<\/strong>
\nThat’s already the plan; that’s going to continue to happen.<\/p>\n

\nThat’s even if they promise to do everything they’re promising to do.
\nThe Chinese will not put their economy in the back seat to the environment.
\nThey’re going to choose to get richer, rather than to get greener.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nHe went on to claim that was an argument for why the U.S. shouldn’t do anything
\nbut research emissions scrubbers.<\/p>\n

\nWhat actually happened? Chinese emissions peaked in 2014 and now are falling.<\/p>\n

\nLauri Myllyvirta, GreenPeace, 19 January 2016,
\n
\nChina’s CO2 emissions likely fell 3% in 2015 — and that trend
\nlooks set to continue<\/a>,\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n\"Chinas<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\nDon’t believe Greenpeace?
\nTry New York Times<\/a>,
\nor
\n
\nGuardian about an economic report from the London School of Economics<\/a>,
\nor MIT<\/a>,
\nor Nature<\/a>.
\nSure, there’s some doubt whether that was actually the peak just now in China,
\nbut every one of those studies says if it wasn’t, the peak will come within a decade.
\nThat would be by 2026, not 2050, as Sen. Barrasso predicted.
\nAnd the Nature article notes:<\/p>\n

\n

\nCountry’s 13th Five-Year Plan advances a broad goal to phase down
\ncoal and expand renewable energy.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nWhat did you say, Sen. Barrasso?<\/p>\n

\n

\nThat’s already the plan; that’s going to continue to happen.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nWell, this is not just the plan, this is the Five-Year Plan: coal going down and emissions decreasing.<\/p>\n

\nWhich in part reflects
\na deal U.S. President Barack Obama worked out with Chinese President Xi Jinping<\/a>.
\nAnd China’s emissions are actually improving faster than China promised<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\nWhat’s that you said, Sen. Barrasso?<\/p>\n

\n

\nThe Chinese will not put their economy in the back seat to the environment.
\nThey’re going to choose to get richer, rather than to get greener.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nWell, that was a false choice.
\nCoral Davenport, New York Times, 5 April 2016,
\n
\nCan Economies Rise as Emissions Fall? The Evidence Says Yes<\/a>,<\/p>\n

\n

\nIn a paper<\/a> published last month by the journal Climate Policy,
\ntwo British researchers made the case that China’s emissions may
\nhave peaked in 2014 and have now begun a modest decline. It’s hard
\nto know for sure because China’s self-reported emissions data can be
\nfaulty. But if it is true, and China’s economy continues on even a
\nmodest growth path, it could have profound implications for the
\nfuture of climate change. “The question with China is if they
\nreally have turned the corner and if it can stick,” Mr. Aden
\nsaid.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nThat story seems unsure about decoupling.
\nLet’s look for a more authoritative source.<\/p>\n

\nInternational Energy Agency, Press Release, 16 March 2016,
\n
\nDecoupling of global emissions and economic growth confirmed:
\nIEA analysis shows energy-related emissions of CO2 stalled for the second year in a row as renewable energy surged<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nGlobal emissions of carbon dioxide stood at 32.1 billion tonnes in
\n2015, having remained essentially flat since 2013. The IEA
\npreliminary data suggest that electricity generated by renewables
\nplayed a critical role, having accounted for around 90% of new
\nelectricity generation in 2015; wind alone produced more than half
\nof new electricity generation. In parallel, the global economy
\ncontinued to grow by more than 3%, offering further evidence that
\nthe link between economic growth and emissions growth is weakening.\n<\/p>\n

\nIn the more than 40 years in which the IEA has been providing
\ninformation on CO2emissions, there have been only four periods in
\nwhich emissions stood still or fell compared to the previous year.
\nThree of those — the early 1980s, 1992 and 2009 — were
\nassociated with global economic weakness. But the recent stall in
\nemissions comes amid economic expansion: according to the
\nInternational Monetary Fund, global GDP grew by 3.4% in 2014 and
\n3.1% in 2015.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe two largest emitters, China and the United States, both
\nregistered a decline in energy-related CO2 in 2015.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nSo why does it matter that the junior Senator from Wyoming was wrong in
\nwhat he said at ALEC?<\/p>\n

\nFirst of all, ALEC is not just a lobbying group, it’s a shadow government,
\nwith corporate representatives voting equally with state legislators on draft
\nbills that those legislators take back to their state and try to pass.
\nA legislator who succeeds becomes an ALEC Alumnus.
\nAnd those bills cover a wide range of things big companies want
\nat the expense of the public, including
\n
\nto prohibit disclosure of fracking chemicals, to make state PSCs subsidize pipelines, to expand LNG exports, to revoke renewable energy portfolios, and to
\ncharge rooftop solar generators a monthly tax.<\/a><\/p>\n

\nALEC members include all of the companies involved in all three components of the Southeast Market Pipelines Project: Sabal Trail (NextEra, Spectra, and Duke), Hillabee Expansion Project (Williams Co.), and Florida Southeast Connection (FPL).<\/p>\n

\nOK, that’s bad, but who’s John Barrasso?<\/p>\n

\nThis is the same Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming
\n
\nwho found an alleged conflict of interest that caused former FERC Chair Jon Wellinghoff to resign<\/a>
\nshortly after
\n
\nWellinghoff predicted in 2013<\/a> that more U.S.
\nelectric energy would come from solar power by about 2023 than from any other source.<\/p>\n

\nHerman K. Trabish, Green Tech Media, 21 August 2013,
\n
\nFERC Chair Jon Wellinghoff: Solar ‘Is Going to Overtake Everything’: One of the country’s top regulators explains why he is so bullish on solar.<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\n“Solar is growing so fast it is going to overtake everything,”
\nWellinghoff told GTM last week in a sideline conversation at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas.<\/p>\n

\nIf a single drop of water on the pitcher’s mound at Dodger Stadium
\nis doubled every minute, Wellinghoff said, a person chained to the
\nhighest seat would be in danger of drowning in an hour.\n<\/p>\n

\n“That’s what is happening in solar. It could double every two
\nyears,” he said….<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n“Geothermal, wind, and other resources will supplement solar,
\nWellinghoff said. “But at its present growth rate, solar will
\novertake wind in about ten years. It is going to be the dominant
\nplayer. Everybody’s roof is out there.”\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nI had made
\n
\nalmost exactly the same prediction 29 January 2013<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\nAnd Wellinghoff was right.
\nWell, actually a bit too conservative.
\nU.S. solar power deployment is actually
\n
\ndoubling in slightly less than each two years<\/a>.
\nIf goes on, we won’t see emissions continuing up from China,
\nwe can if we want to see no emissions at all<\/a>, with the whole world powered by wind, sun, and water<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\nInvestors
\nhave caught onto solar power deployment doubling like compound interest.
\nTom Randall, Bloomberg, 6 April 2016, Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels: Record clean energy investment outpaces gas and coal 2 to 1<\/a>.
\nThat article explicitly cites the two-year doubling rate of solar power,
\nand the somewhat slower doubling rate of wind power deployment.
\nAnd that’s just a recent example of
\n
\nthe many financial press articles<\/a> about big banks and investors stampeding
\naway from fossil fuels and to sun and wind power investments.<\/p>\n

\nSen. Barrasso’s prediction was wrong.
\nSun and wind power are actually the smart choice to get richer,
\nwhile cleaning up emissions.
\nFixing climate change
\n
\nis profitable<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\nYet this is the same Barrasso who nixed the first FERC Chair nominee after
\nWellinghoff, Ron Binz,
\n
\nbecause Binz said natural gas was a dead end<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

\nCurrent FERC Chair Norman Bay barely squeaked by Sen. Barrasso’s gauntlet
\nby being very quiet about any dead ends for natural gas or good future for solar power.<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\nHere’s Sen. Barrasso, the power behind the FERC throne, just yesterday.
\nSenate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, YouTube, 14 June 2016,
\n
\nSen. Barasso, R-Wyoming, questions Mr. Peress of the Environmental
\nDefense Fund regarding “extremely troubling” protester tactics.<\/a>
\nI’m not going to transcribe it; I can’t; I’m laughing too hard.<\/p>\n

Barrasso complains Beyond Extreme Energy (BXE) has been
\n
\nholding protests
\nin front of the DC houses of FERC Commissioners<\/a>.
\nBarrasso wants to know if “physically intimidating” people is OK.<\/p>\n

Sen. Barrasso wonders if this will go on until some FERC person is physically harmed.
\nBy these oh-so-polite doctrinaire non-violent BXE folks:<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

He also complained about
\n
\nprotestors driving FERC people off the stage<\/a>
\nat one of FERC’s recent dog-and-pony shows.
\nThis laughable complaint came from the power behind the FERC that let a Spectra pipeline
\nblow up in Pennsylvania this April<\/a>,
\nincinerating trees and a house and sending its owner to the hospital
\nwith third-degree burns.
\nI could go on about hazards of pipelines that FERC has approved<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

\nBut Sen. Barrasso’s complaint is that some people don’t like
\nwhat this alleged federal agency (that actually
\n
\nbrags about getting 100% of its funding from the industries it “regulates”<\/a>) does.
\nThat some people don’t like it so much they are actually trying to do something about it.<\/p>\n

\nWait, what’s this Sen. Barrasso also said to ALEC back in 2009,
\nin that same video?<\/p>\n

\n

\nWe the people tell the government what to do;
\nit doesn’t tell us.
\nWe the people are the driver, and the government is the car.
\nAnd we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nWell, maybe we the people will prove Sen. Barrasso right about that one.\n<\/p>\n

\nOn every other point Sen. Barrasso made?
\nThe emperor has no clothes.<\/p>\n

\nHere’s
\n
\nthe video:<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n