These G20 charts prove it’s right to push USA for climate action, stop predatory delay + co2 price impact (3)

By Mathew Carr

Sept. 7, 2023: Oxfam, which wants to end poverty, came up with some cool charts that show for sure the USA is most to blame out of the G20 for climate change and for predatory delay of climate action.

This (below) is a top report that should be read by all policy makers … but they probably won’t bother because they are so reckless and focussed on money instead of showing empathy.

Figure 6: Fair share 2030

US emissions (far left) will be 10 tons/yr per person by the end of the decade; they should be at about minus 15 tons

Even if these wealthier countries reduce their domestic emissions to zero by 2030, they would still fall short of these fair share benchmarks, Oxfam said.

Figure 8: Takes consumption of stuff in 2030 into account (shows Russian energy waste); shows a key reason for the deadly proxy war between Russia and the U.S.?

Both the USA and Russia seem hell bent on avoiding climate accountability. Global geopolitical tension will ease and climate action will ramp up when this warmongering behavior stops.

Figure one: by 2030, wealthy G20 countries should have PER PERSON emissions of NEGATIVE 7.1 metric tons of CO2 v tracking to positive 7.7 tons

Green horizontal dashes show the
1.5°C-consistent per capita emissions levels in 2030 (benchmark) for each country aggregation — I highlighted in bright pink the most important one — see report — which shows the predatory delay because it demonstrates how unfair the situation is; and the rich countries have now downplayed that unfairness for the past 33 years.

CarrZee comment (not investment advice): These charts, not really news but told in a fresh way that shows clearly how global policy change is sorely needed, are yet another screaming ‘buy signal’ for carbon credits.

Here’s why: If the world were fair, and it can be, each American would need to buy 24.6 tons of carbon credits to “make good” on its “fair-share shortfall” in 2030. See the USA column in figure 6: the difference between about 10 tons of co2 equivalent per person (likely in reality) vs -15 tons (what each US person’s emissions should be under a fair-share regime).

At 340 million people in the USA, that’s demand for 6.36 billion tons of CO2 credits in 2030 alone. At a price of $100 each, that’s an investment needed by the USA of $636 billion in that year alone, assuming the world gets fair (I’m obviously not going to hold my breath on this while I wait for it to happen).

Carbon credits is just one way to making the unfair fairer

“Middle-and low-income countries must also be willing to implement emissions reductions that are deeper than their fair share would indicate, for 1.5°C-consistent global mitigation to remain possible,” Oxfam said. “However, as it would be unjust to expect these countries to implement deeper cuts with their own resources, these would need to be facilitated by climate finance and support from high-income countries.” (eg carbon trading outlined above, for example — the $636 billion from the US in 2030 could be used for this; the rich could offer grants for adaptation instead, concessional finance, derisk finance to boost private investment, payments for emissions-cutting results or for deployment of adaptation measures).

Indeed, there is continued interest in carbon trading and this happened earlier this week:

I find it interesting that even Brazil’s oil company is buying carbon credits — because Brazil is one of the few countries that will be going beyond fair share in 2030 under some models — see figure 8 above, far right of the chart.

The thing I could say in favor of the USA and China is they will have made a lot of nice things that make living in 2030 quite cool I imagine (if you are not one of the 3 billion really poor people around the world who can’t afford any of them).

G20 is meeting Sept. 9-10 in New Delhi:

It’s time to help those 3 billion and resist any corporations that push back. Or the G20 could simply decide to regulate and tax them properly. Oh — and put a price on carbon dioxide and methane emissions so clean stuff has a fair chance in global markets. Actually reduce fossil fuel subsidies, finally, after promising on this for decades and repeatedly failing and failing and failing.

(More to come; adds analysis on carbon-credit demand; written from a report emailed to me earlier than Sept. 5)



NOTE: I accidently published this early Sept. 6, then unpublished it to comply with the Oxfam embargo. Sorry for the confusion.


Leave a Reply