JonJay

Try here; http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html

While you're there, have a browse.

Where did you get your 40 million from?
You seemed to have omitted any of the reputable sites you alluded to.

Give me 1 or 2 links and I'll check out.

Rudd has done an amazing job of convincing an uncritical media that he's serious about climate change, when his actual measures are business as usual models. The CPRS won't reduce industrial emissions at all before 2030 and while the RET may encourage the solar and wind industries, it will not encourage important developing technologies such as geo and solar thermal. In addition, individual effort and expense to reduce emissions will have no effect except to free up free permits for the big polluters. Rudd's steps are perverse schemes, designed to appear to set up market mechanisms, while ensuring that big coal doesn't have to change anything.

And to Peter Hume, do you disagree that it is appropriate for governments to act in times of emergency? And in times of crisis do you support some rights being suspended so a greater good can be achieved? And that the failure of governments to protect its citizens is when the real conditions of fascism are created?

Q&A

http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/climate/climate_07/technology_pre.pdf shows about 40 Gt CO2-eq. Abare is very reputable
But, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html which I think may (?) be more accurate, does not predict 40 billion tonnes until 2030. So on that point I stand corrected.

Estimated 2009 emissions are 30-31 billion tonnes. However, EIA does show emissions of 29 billion tonnes in 2006, so I have emailed CDIAC with a request that they explain their very much lower figures.

Q&A

It appears that the measures you cite (from CDIAC) record the estimated movement of the element Carbon, whereas the measures I refer to relate to the movement of CO2-e. CO2-e includes the CO2 equivalent of other GHG's such as methane.

I asked CDIAC two questions: 1/ why their estimates differ from UCS and 2/why bunker emissions are not included in their total?

CDIAC advice is as follows

“First question: UCS uses carbon dioxide, which includes the oxygen molecule of molecular weight 32.
We just include the carbon atom, atomic weight = 12.

(12+32)/12 is the conversion factor = 3.67.

That is, multiply our numbers by 3.67 and you should be close to theirs.

We just track the carbon atom, which changes molecular partners from hydrogen in the fuel to oxygen after combustion, and back to hydorgen and oxygen in sugars produced by photosynthesis, etc.

Second question. International bunker fuels are fuels used in international commerce.
For example, a ship leaves New York, taking passengers or goods to London. To which country is this carbon charged? At present, they are not charged to any country, but are still tracked as a source of atmospheric CO2.”

So we are both right but are citing measures of quite different things which are therefore not directly comparable even using the conversion factor cited by CDIAC since it does not address the other GHG's included in CO2-e.