How Obama's New CO2 Rules Will Impact Global CO2 Levels & Temperature

By Elmer Beauregard

On Monday Obama came out with his new CO2 regulations increasing the amount of cuts from 30% to 32% of 2005 levels by 2030. James Hansen has come out saying these new cuts will have no effect on global CO2 levels or global temperature and for once I actually agree with him.

First off, these cuts are only for the U.S. which is only responsible for 17% of CO2 emissions annually on the other hand Obama signed a treaty with China, the world's largest emitter of CO2, allowing them to skate and emit as much CO2 as they want for the next 30 years.

Secondly, all of mankind is only responsible for 3% of CO2 emissions annually, mother nature produces 97%.

So let's see, with the current trajectory of global CO2 levels it looks like we will be around 428 ppm by the year 2030. With Obama's new CO2 rules reducing 17%(U.S. output) of 3%(mankind's output) by 32% in 2030 instead of 428 ppm global CO2 levels would be down to 427.9 ppm and that's if we were at the 32% reduction levels today. Seeing as how you probably shouldn't use decimal points when talking about parts per million, I rounded it back up to 428 ppm so I used the same line for CO2 levels before and after Obama's new rules because there really isn't any difference.

ObamaChart

How will this effect temperature? The red line shows the global temperature trend from 1997 to July 2015 which is -0.03 Cº per century. Because there was virtually no change in CO2 levels by 2030 I kept the temp trend line the same.

Who knows what the temp will be in 2030? It really depends on what the sun does not CO2 levels as this chart also shows, world temps have stayed the same for the last almost 20 years with CO2 steadily increasing. I know that correlation doesn't mean causation but its hard to argue for causation when there is no correlation.

I know that correlation doesn't mean causation but its hard to argue for causation when there is no correlation.

Don't get me wrong! I may agree with certain green groups and Dr. James Hansen about Obama's rules not having any effect but I don't agree with them that there needs to be even more CO2 cutbacks. Even if mankind were wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow that green line would still be basically heading in that same trajectory. Instead of 428 ppm in 2030, CO2 levels would be 427 ppm if mankind no-longer existed, which is what I think Mr. Hansen and others must want.

This really isn't about global warming anyway. This is all about shutting down America's economy and setting up a One World Communistic Government this December in Paris like they tried in Copenhagen in 2009. Hopefully they will fail again.

UPDATE: I recently had a couple of challenges on this article asking how I came up with this and where did I get my data.

And realized I had made a mistake so I redid my math and updated the chart.

The projected CO2 levels I came up with by extrapolating the Mauna Loa CO2 chart out to 2030 we are currently at 400 ppm and look to be at 428 ppm by 2030, a 28 parts per million increase.



The 17% is how much of the mankind's CO2 is made by the U.S. and Obama wants to reduce this by 32% by 2030.




Mankind is only responsible for 3% of total CO2 so the equation is:

28 ppm x .17 x .32 x .03 = .045 ppm

Where this is probably wrong and I will update my chart is the 3% figure, while it is widely accepted that mankind only produces 3% of the CO2 generated every year on this planet (the other 97% is natural) I have, since this article was written, changed my thinking and am now willing to concede the point that mankind is probably 100% responsible for the increase in CO2 levels. I don’t think there is anyway to actually prove this (especially after NASA’s recent discovery that there are 10 times as many trees on the planet as previously thought) but I am willing to change this so the new equation will be:

28 ppm x .17 x .32 = 1.4 ppm. So instead of CO2 levels being at 428 ppm in 2030 they would be at 427 ppm (rounding to the nearest part per million).

So instead the chart would look like this.

The new chart looks amazingly like the old chart because the green line is 2ppm wide. The red line didn't change much either because one millionth of a degree isn't a huge change.