EYE-BALL Guru on – The “CARBON v CLIMATE CHANGE” Debate – Part 1 – OIL and its Contribution …
|Latest GURU Posts:
July 19th:The “LIBOR” Scandal …Part III – Banks a conduit for crime and corruption!!!
– Link to Part II – The LIBOR Scandal … The Banks are in Trouble … again!!!
– Link to Part I – The LIBOR Scandal … about to explode …
– The “CARBON v CLIMATE CHANGE” Debate – Part I – OIL and its Contribution –
– The GFC – the right of reply … the right to question …
Joe Hockey’s misfires on Welfare – he should be made to serve a lifetime on welfare existence …
US Bank Stress Tests – The Cover-Up and bullshit continues …
Dec 23rd 2011:
To see more GURU posts:
– The “CARBON v CLIMATE CHANGE” Debate –
– Part I – OIL and its Contribution –
| Author: EYE-BALL Guru | Republished 29th July 2012 |
Index of Headings: | Click on Heading to read Header Title – return Links provided. |
The debate on Carbon and its contribution to the Global Climate Change Debate has its detractors and supporters. There are some cold hard and indisputable facts on this debate concerning Oil Consumers and Carbon emitters, and those on the conservation side of the fence.
The facts used by scientists and other commentators from both sides of the debate that have produced the global concerns and debate over ‘climate change’, and its causes – have largely been distorted to suit and support ‘paid for’ opinions to ensure continued funding.
The EYE-BALL Opinion wrote a blog a few days ago about a well-known and respected ‘Climate Change’ scientist – James Lovelock who has reversed his dooms day climate predictions for the planet – read that blog here. His recant has not yet been widely reported in the main stream media – his comments as to why he has reversed his position challenges all the past scientific recommendations used to formulate the ‘carbon-emissions’ trading schemes currently working their way through Governments around the world.
Australia introduced its ‘Carbon Tax’ on the 1st July 2012. The Tax has been greeted with great scepticism from an engaged and enraged electorate despite flash polls indicating up to 60% support the ‘climate change’ theory – if not the Tax.
New Zealand who initially indicated they were also going to introduce a ‘Carbon Emissions’ scheme have in the last week announced they have scrapped those plans due to the potential for further economic cost on the back of the GFC still impacting on their economy.
The Gillard led Australian Labor Government who promised the electorate before the 2010 election ‘there would be no ‘Carbon Tax’ under a Government I lead’ – reversed her position in a deal with the GREENS to enable the formation of a Minority Government. The polls have deserted this Gillard Labor Government over this ‘Carbon Tax’, and many other matters currently working their way through the Legal system and the Parliament.
This ‘Carbon Tax’ story has many angles – the intent during this series of posts on the ‘CARBON’ debate is to offer commentary and contra opinion on where Government’s around the World have erred in their rush to introduce far-reaching, and impacting legislation based on Carbon emissions and its impact on Climate Change. The research presented here and in future blogs will attempt to show the where and the why. I do not believe the science is conclusive, and have many unanswered questions on why the ‘panicked’ rush to any form of ‘Carbon Tax’ and/or ‘Carbon Emission’ trading scheme.
My thoughts are that the Australian Government have rushed into this deal to appease their GREEN partners to Govern as a Minority Government. I am yet to understand how a tax levy based upon ‘carbon usage’, and its implied deterrent and influence to help reduce ‘carbon emission’ – can or will work. The debate is flawed and represents Policy and Legislative intent with motivating factors that go to the self-serving interests of the Government, and not in the best interests of the Australian people.
The CIA Factbook has many economic and energy resources records on all Nations around the World and is available to the public. Click here to view or download this CIA Factbook data on-line. From that factbook the Producers list looks like this.
The OPEC member Nations are all included on this list i.e. Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Venezuela. These top 30 Nations produce some 93% of all the OIL Produced by the all the Nations listed on the CIA Factbook page. These OPEC Nations account for 31% of the Globes total daily oil production. – [Click here to see source data.] This 31% represents some 27.5 million barrels a day compared with the total daily production of 88.9 million barrels a day.
Extracts from the “About Us” section on the OPEC cartel website states the following:
The flip-side of the Producers relates to the Consumer Nations and whether they are self-sufficient, natural exporters, or net importers. Again the CIA Factbook provides the raw data – click here for the CIA data on-line website for Producers.
The condensed Table at right includes both “Consumers” and “Producers” with a legend of “Producers and their ranking as “Producers”, and Producers and their ranking as “Consumers. [Please click on Table to enlarge in a new window.]
The Highlighted Nation Names are Nations who are either a top 30 Producer or Consumer, but are not a top 30 on the other side. The Yellow highlight represent Nations on both sides of the top 30.
Top Consumers and their Production Shortfalls!
The data in the Consumer and Production tables produced above give clear FACTS about which Nations are OIL dependent, and/or import their daily requirements. Staying within these top 30 Consumers and Producers – there are 21 Nations whose consumption is higher than their production. The shortfall within these 21 Nations amounts to 48.5 million barrels per day.
To put that in context – these 21 Nations with a production shortfall are required to import 48.5 million barrels of oil every day to meet their consumption requirements. That 48.5 million barrels has a refined value of some $4.85 billion or a yearly cost to their economy of $1.77 trillion. [Calculations are based on US$100 per barrel. The “0” values on the Table mean the Nation concerned does not appear in the top 200 Oil Producers listing as per the CIA Factbook.] [Click on the image at right to enlarge in a new window.]
Of a total global consumption usage of 98 million barrels per day, the top 200 Nations named via the CIA Factbook account for 88 million barrels. That 10 million barrels a day shortfall will be explained in future posts. However, the 21 top Nations on this list with supply shortages do import more than 50% of the total daily usage (98 million barrels) for their own consumption.
This is clear evidence as to who the guilty parties are in any ‘carbon emission’ debate. These 21 Nations represent 90% or so of the world population, and some 95% or so of the total global GDP. [This research data will be provided in future blogs in this series.]
The CARBON emission footprint – CIA Data:
The top 30 Consumers listings above represent 90% of the total global daily usage – i.e. 88 million of a total usage of 98 million. This means just 21 Nations are responsible for 86% of all carbon emissions from oil and its by-product usage.
In terms of the ‘carbon’ footprint this 85 million barrels a day usage supply represents, the following calculation is provided:
[Please use links below to see how the conversion of barrels of oil to CO2 emission is calculated i.e. the calculation works out that one barrel of oil produces 317kg of CO2 emissions.]
Using this calculation – Australia emits .97% of the total world carbon emission emanating from its OIL consumption.
When the increase in CO2 emissions are measured by scientist’s, and as presented in a previous EYE-BALL blog – linked here – the CO2 emission number of 315 ppmv rises to 394 ppmv when presented in chart form. The chart below highlights this move.
Sourced from and Linked: CO2 Now.org
Taking the total global 31.37 million tonnes of CO2 emissions every day from (1) above – this equates to 11.5 trillion tonnes per year. This has been happening on an escalating scale since the Industrial Revolution 200+ years ago, and exponentially so since the 1970’s – yet the CO2 levels increase in the atmosphere has increased ever so marginally.
The CO2 Now.org chart is made to look aggressive, threatening, and supportive of a crisis level in the levels of CO2 atmospheric emissions. The facts are far different.
Here is why – if you were to put this scale of increase on a 100% pie chart made up of all the atmospheric gas components – the section indicating the CO2 increase would a minute fraction of the width of a thin line separating pie sections. See Table and chart result below to verify this.
Click on either of these two images (Table or Pie Chart) – to enlarge in a new window. The Table and Charts above have been extracted and compiled from data from the Wikipedia Research Page – “Atmosphere of Earth”.
The crux of this whole debate is the alarm at the increase in CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) Atmospheric content that has risen from 0.031545% or 315 parts per million (Volume) – to 0.039445% or 394 parts per million (Volume). It is an increase of 25% in CO2 levels that represents an increase in CO2 content of 0.00079% in the total atmosphere. In isolation the 25% increase sounds dangerous – yet the fact is that in the size of an olympic swimming pool some 2,500,000 liters – this CO2 increase would represent 19.75 liters.
Calculation for volume of an Olympic size pools measure: 50 metres long, 25 metres wide, and a minimum of 2 metres deep. (25m x 50m x 2m = 2,500m3; 1L = 0.001m3 so 2,500 x 1000 = 2,500,000L)
The sharp end of this debate is focused on the concerns from the fossil fuel and its by-product contribution to this CO2 increase. With the amount of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere on a daily basis from global OIL consumption – the natural instinct is to want to blame CO2 as the guilty party. It’s logical – but the facts paint a completely different picture.
If Politicians truly understood the maths and the miniscule changes that are involved over the period since accurate records have been kept – i.e. 60 years maybe – I guarantee you the debate would not be so frenzied, panicked, and desperately eager to make mass changes. Changes that will impact upon everybody on the planet – both financially, and in the way we all live our lives.
Whatever steps are taken to reduce emissions via a ‘Carbon Tax’ or ’emission trading scheme’ – none of it will make one scrap of difference to any CO2 atmospheric emission in any medium term time frame. The fact is that developing Nations want their opportunity to grow. Why should they be penalised because industrialised Nations have created the carbon trend?
What is missing from the debate is the increase/decrease of other minute gas’s within the atmosphere. Carbon is deemed the ‘bad-boy’ or so Scientists and Government’s would want us to believe. This is a ‘con-job’, a ‘swindle’, or a ‘Ponzi’ type scheme if you like on a massive scale in terms of how many, and the who’s who of who has been sucked into sponsoring, and believing that Carbon is solely responsible for any perceived ‘Climate Change’ argument.
As posted in many of the earlier blogs on this subject made over the last 18 months – all linked below – Carbon is the essential ingredient of everything that exists on this planet. More Carbon means more food – and pretty much more of everything. The debate is idiotic in that context – and it rests mainly in academia land where Government funding is the only thing that provides the scientists with employment, and a lifestyle they would never have in the private sector. What and where is the research that indicates peak levels of atmospheric CO2 that create human and animal health issues? What about food production in a higher CO2 atmosphere – what are the yield growth ratios?
Without the ‘Carbon Tax’ and ‘Climate Change’ debate – $billions would have already been saved from the monies spent on research, reviews and more reviews on those reviews, and the infrastructure undertakings already in place and planned for. A great number of people have been sucked in by this ‘con’, and those perpetrating the ‘con’ have gotten filthy rich – i.e. Al Gore for one who is visible.
The recant by renown scientist Mr Lovelock earlier this year, and as reported on this blog site, gives pause and reason to debate whether this whole urgency may just unfold itself and fade away when the ‘con’ is revealed and accepted. Try telling that to the likes of Environment Minister Greg Combet and his Prime Minister – they for Political gain will not entertain any other debate.
Politicians have relied solely on scientist’s advice to sell this ‘Carbon Tax’ and ‘Climate Change’ to the electorate and to the World. Their own research has been to read the Scientific research and their minds are closed to any other perspective. The GREENs wanted this as a price if they were going to form a Minority Government – the Coalition said NO – and the ALP wanted Government at any price.
The then Leader of the ALP broke her promise to all Australian’s a week or so before the 2010 election when she looked down the camera lenses and stated – ‘no carbon tax under a Government I lead’ – she rolled over and let Bob Brown stick it to her and Australia where she gets to enjoy all the thrills and frills, and the Australian people have to carry the baby.
The CARBON emission footprint – OECD Data:
Another part of this research endeavour has been to compare the OECD data on CO2 emissions with the data extracted from the CIA factbook and the calculations differences made from that data extraction. Below is a OECD Table of CO2 emission data covering all ‘fuel combustion’ emissions, including – COAL, PEAT, OIL, and GAS.
When Coal, Gas, and Peat are added to Australia’s carbon footprint – the emissions goes from 0.97% of the Worlds emissions, to 1.4%. The difficulty here is that the CIA data is date stamped 2011, and the OECD data is date stamped 2009. [Click on the Table below to enlarge in a new window.] Click here to see the source data at the OECD Website.
This information adds somewhat to the confusion and accuracy of any research project and their findings. If one did not know better – it might be suggested it has been done this way deliberately to help with the confusion. I’m sure that the raw data the scientist’s are working with comes from unpublished sources and all we can do as researchers and commentators is work with what we can find.
It ain’t a perfect system – but this whole ‘Climate Change’ movement given a shot on the arm in 2002 with AL Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ and his ladder to point to where CO2 is headed has been something to behold. I was a supporter until I decided to get my own facts and prove to myself that what I had believed in and all based on the propaganda presented was in fact the right side of the debate. If all Australians did this – including the Politicians this ‘Carbon Tax’ would have been proven tobe a great big hoax.
When Scientists are working with the same type of data with its variances – do you think they allocated and threshold factors for ‘margins of error’. The Scientist’s who supported the climate change debate took what they needed and made the numbers work. Those who were sceptics did the opposite. Governments came down on the supporters and they got the funding. You can get any amount of Government funding to prove carbon’s impact on animal habitats and the like – but you can’t get a dime to disprove any of what the Governments have accepted.
The CIA data presented earlier is dated 2011 – whereas the data and research results presented from the OECD database is dated 2009 data.
The interesting point in this data comparison from Australia’s perspective is that using the CIA data – and at the 2011 dateline – the Australian oil usage CO2 emission footprint is measured at 304,575 tonnes per day – whereas the OECD data Australia’s total fossil fuel emissions calculated as follows: 395,000,000 annual tonnes of CO2/365days = 1,082,191 tonnes per day of which OIL represents 304,575 tonnes.
Again the Important Note: The OECD data includes Coal, Peat, Oil, and Gas emissions whereas the CIA data only pertains to OIL. Like with like comparisons are still being researched and will be presented in future posts on this ‘Part Series’ expose as Gas, Coal and Peat are researched..
The battle lines have been drawn on the ‘Carbon Tax’ debate from a Political perspective. The Opposition have vowed to repeal the Tax – the Government has mandated to do everything it can whilst still in Government to make it impossible for the Opposition to scrap the Tax – either Legislatively, or via other means.
This gives the Opposition a bet each way – they can promise to repeal the Tax and when they get into Government – they can claim that the unwinding of the Labour minefield of Legislation just means the Australian electorate will have to live with the Tax. Would that be an election promise broken? ALl type os hypocrisy would then become the debate and it would be as it is now except for role reversals.
For this ALP Government to have stoop to such petty endeavours and announce its intentions to try and block any chance of a repeal of this ‘Carbon Tax’ Legislation is indicative of the ’cause and effect’ this Government is having on Australian’s and the Nation as a whole.
To put this another way – even blind Freddy can read the polls indicating a whitewash result for Labour at the next election. That would mean most of the Front Bench will be out of a job. They all know this and this spiteful and vengeful display by a minority Government proves its disdain and in anywhere but Government – ‘criminal’ intent to sabotage the next Government if it not be them.
The research information on OIL provided in this blog has to make you wonder right? All the MP’s and Senators will be receiving an e-mail with a link to this post in an effort to draw further constructive debate and commentary between Leaders and MP’s alike. Should you want to respond likewise with a link back to this page please feel free to do so. Or – you might just want to post a comment below to express your feelings.
The next Part II in this series of blogs will be on the Coal and Gas Industry and their contributions to the emission’s debate.
Previous EYE-BALL Posts on the “Carbon” Debate:
Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.
The EYE-BALL Guru …
|The views and opinions contained within this web-site are private and made with the intention of creating free debate among anyone who reads or wishes to make comment. All non-spam generated comments will be posted. Comments and opinions are expressed and made without personal PREJUDICE or MALICE. They are not meant to offend but to purely enlighten readers of an opinion that might not be considered MAINSTREAM. Please enjoy the site and feedback is very welcome.|
EYE-BALL Site Tag Search:
EYE-BALL Categories Search
Search Posts Monthly:
EYE-BALL’s Posts Archive …
Most Recent Posts:
- EYE-BALL’s new Blogsite … August 14, 2013
- EYE-BALL Opinion – Goodbye and Farewell … for now – August 11, 2013
- EYE-BALL’s – “On the Hustings” – The Campaign Trail – Day 4 August 8, 2013
- EYE-BALL’s – “On the Hustings” – The Campaign Trail – Day 3 August 7, 2013
- EYE-BALL’s – “On the Hustings” – The Campaign Trail – Day 2 August 6, 2013
- EYE-BALL’s – “On the Hustings” Day 1 – The Campaign Begins – August 5, 2013
- EYE-BALL Opinion’s “None of the Above” campaign – We don’t trust our Leaders – August 5, 2013
- EYE-BALL’s Snoop-Poop – Ricky Stuart – NRL Supercoach!!! Poor, Poor, Parramatta – August 4, 2013
- EYE-BALL’s Herman on – Federal Economic Update – A conjuror’s spin – August 2, 2013
- EYE-BALL Opinion – EYE-BALL’s MediaZone Growl No: 4 – Australia’s Media Horde July 30, 2013
- EYE-BALL Guru
- EYE-BALL’s Guru on – The Wayne Swan 2013-14 Federal Budget – Special EYE-BALL Guru Report – The Economic Triggers Part 2.6 –
- EYE-BALL’s Guru on – The Wayne Swan 2013-14 Federal Budget – Special EYE-BALL Guru Report – The Economic Triggers Part 2.5 –
- EYE-BALL’s Guru on – The Wayne Swan 2013-14 Federal Budget – Special EYE-BALL Guru Report – The Economic Triggers Part 2.4 –
- EYE-BALL’s Guru on – The Wayne Swan 2013-14 Federal Budget – Special EYE-BALL Guru Report – The Economic Triggers Part 2.3 –
- EYE-BALL JokeZone
- EYE-BALL MovieZone
- F.C.A.T.A. Web Master
- TE-BO Harry's Growl
- EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl on – Election 2013 – Growl No: 51 – The US Back Gillard – Poor Call or Poor Form –
- EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl on – Election 2013 – Growl No: 50 – Rudd’s House of Pain, He must learn that ‘less is more’ –
- EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl on – Election 2013 – Growl No: 49 – Shorten has to be made accountable –
- EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl on – Election 2013 – Growl No: 48 – Gillard’s “Mrs Doubtfire” moment –
- TE-BO - [The EYE-BALL Opinion]