The record of recent Man-made CO2 emissions: 1965 -2013 shows that China and the developing world is laughing at your position, Mr. President.
Guest essay by Ed Hoskins
The following calculations and graphics are based on information on national CO2 emission levels worldwide published by BP[1]in June 2014 for the period from 1965 up until 2013. The data is well corroborated by previous similar datasets published by the CDIAC, Guardian [2] and Google up until 2009 [3]. These notes and figures provide a short commentary on that CO2 emissions history.
The contrast between the developed and developing worlds is stark in terms of their history of CO2 emissions and the likely prognosis for their future CO2 output.
Since 1980 CO2 emissions from the developed world have shown virtually no increase, whereas the developing world has had a fourfold increase since 1980: that increase is accelerating.
Similarly the CO2 output per head is declining in the developed world whereas it is accelerating the developing world.
In October 2010 Professor Richard Muller made the dilemma for all those who hope to control global warming by reducing CO2 emissions clear: in essence he said[4]:
“the Developing World is not joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor does it have any intention of doing so.
The failure of worldwide action negates the unilateral action of any individual western Nation”.
This presentation divides the world nations into seven logical groups with distinct attitudes to CO2 control:
These graphs of total CO2 emission history show that up until 2013:
§ There is stabilisation or reduction of emissions from developed economies since 1980.
§ The USA, simply by exploiting shale gas for electricity generation, has already reduced its CO2 emissions by some 9.5% since 2005[5]. That alone has already had more CO2 emission reduction effect than the entire Kyoto protocol[6] [7].
§ CO2 emissions from the developed economies rejecting action on CO2 have hardly grown since 2005.
§ The European Union (27) has reduced its CO2 emissions by ~14% since 2005.
However:
§ CO2 emissions from the developing world as a whole overtook the developed world in 2007 and are now a third larger than the developed world’s CO2 emissions.
§ there has been a very rapid escalation of Chinese CO2 emissions since the year 2000[8].
§ China overtook the USA CO2 emissions in 2006, and Chinese emissions are now ~62% greater than the USA, the escalation in Chinese CO2 emissions continues. Chinese emissions have grown by +75% since 2005 and China continues to build coal fired powerstations to supply the bulk of its electricity as demand grows.
§ India has accelerating emissions[9], growing from a low base by +63% since 2005. India too is building coal fired powerstations to increase the supply of electricity as 25% of its population still has no access to electric power.
§ there is inexorable emissions growth from the Rest of the World economies, from a low base, they have grown by +30% since 2005.
So any CO2 emissions reduction achieved by the Developed Nations will be entirely negated by the increases in CO2 emissions from Developing Nations.
However probably more significant than the total CO2 emissions output is the comparison of the emissions/head for the various nation groups.
§ The EU(27) even with active legal measures have maintained a fairly level CO2 emission rate but have managed to reduce their CO2 emissions/head by ~16% since 2005. Much of the recent downward trend is largely attributed to their declining economies.
§ The USA has already reduced its CO2 emissions/head by ~22% since in 2005, mainly arising from the use of shale gas for electricity generation.
§ Russia, Japan, Canada and Australia have only grown their emissions/head by ~1% since 2005.
§ China’s CO2 emissions/head have increased ~11 fold since 1965. China overtook the world-wide average in 2003 and surpassed the rapidly developing nations in 2006. China’s emissions / head at 7.0 tonnes / head are now approaching the level of the EU(27) nations.
§ India’s CO2 emissions have grown by 4.7 times over the period and are now showing recent modest acceleration. That increasing rate is likely to grow substantially with increased use of coal for electricity generation[10].
§ The eight rapidly developing nations have shown consistent growth from a low base in 1965 at 5.6 times. They exceeded the world average CO2 emissions level in 1997.
§ The Rest of the World (~160 Nations), 36% of world population, have grown CO2 emissions consistently but only by 2.6 times since 1965, this group will be the likely origin of major future emissions growth as they strive for better standards of living.
§ Overall average world-wide emissions/head have remained relatively steady but with early growth in the decade from 1965. It amounts to 1.6 times since 1965.
When the participating nations particularly EU(27) are compared with Chinese CO2 emissions/head, an interesting picture arises:
§ Chinese CO2 emissions at 7.01mt/head for its 1.3 billion population are already ~43% greater than the worldwide average. Those emissions are still growing fast.
§ At 5.5mt/head, France, with ~80% nuclear electricity generation, has the lowest CO2 emission rates in the developed world and is at only ~12% above the world-wide average.
§ China’s CO2 emissions/head exceeded France’s CO2 emissions/head in 2009 and are now 22% higher.
§ The UK at 7.2mt/head is now only ~48% higher than the world-wide average and only about ~3% higher than China. So China is likely to overtake the UK in the near future.
§ Germany, one of the largest CO2 emitters in Europe, has emissions/head ~100% higher than the worldwide average and is still ~49% higher than China. Germany’s emissions/head have increased recently because they are now burning much larger quantities of brown coal to compensate them for the “possibly irrational” closure of their nuclear generating capacity.
This must question the logic of Green attitudes in opposing Nuclear power. Following the Fukushima disaster, the German government position of rapidly eliminating nuclear power in a country with no earthquake risk and no chance of tsunamis should not be tenable.
If CO2 emissions really were a concern to arrest Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming / Man-made Climate Change, these results particularly from France show starkly the very real advantage of using Nuclear power for electricity generation.
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt was CEO of RWE Innogy, the major German windpower supplier, he had pioneered Germany’s significant advances in renewable energy, especially in the development of wind power.
Previously Professor Vahrenholt had fully accepted the IPCC as the foundation of his understanding of mankind’s effect on climate change. However, with his scientific background as chemist, he re-examined IPCC reports in detail. He found many errors, inconsistencies and unsupported assertions. Accordingly he has now entirely revised his position.
Professor Vahrenholt’s diagram below is from his July 2012 lecture at the Royal Society [11] [12], it shows the miniscule impact of the enormously costly efforts at decarbonisation in Germany, (die Energiewende), in comparison with the inevitable escalation of CO2 emissions from the rest of the world.
The underdeveloped nations are bound to become progressively more industrialised and more intensive users of fossil fuels to power their development and widen their distribution of electricity.
The futility of the expenditure of vast resources on Green activities in Germany becomes clear. German actions with increasing risks to its energy security and the growing risk to the German economy as its manufacturing industries seek more congenial energy / business environments, could only ever reduce Germany’s CO2 emissions by ~150,000,000 tonnes between 2006 and 2030.
That would only amount to ~1/100 of the concomitant growth in other CO2 emissions from the developing world. According to Bjorn Lomborg the $100billion German investment in solar power alone, not including other renewable investments, can only reduce the onset of Global Warming by a matter of about 37 hours by the year 2100[13].
This point is re-emphasised above, by cross comparing the annual growth in emissions from China and India with the full annual emissions from key European countries. Chinese CO2 emissions growth in some years can exceed the total UK and French emissions level and even approach the German level on occasions.
Professor Varhenholt is now convinced that it is nature and in particular the behaviour of the sun that is responsible for our continually changing climate, and as he said as the final point of his Royal society lecture:
“This change can only develop first with a revolution of our minds.”
“It’s not mankind creating climate. It’s the sun: stupid.”
Professor Varhenholt and his colleague Sebastian Luening have now published a best seller in Germany “Die Kalte Sonne”, the book now released in English as
“The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe”[14].
[1] http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data
[3] https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOG0yWkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en#gid=1
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5m6KzDnv7k
[5] http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/07/a-fracking-revolution-us-now-leads-world-in-co2-emission-reductions-.html
[6]http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2012/09/thanks_to_fracking_u_s_carbon_emissions_are_at_the_lowest_levels_in_20_years_.html
[7] http://www.oilandgasonline.com/doc/u-s-fracking-has-carbon-more-whole-world-s-wind-solar-0001
[8] http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/pressreleases/2011/steep-increase-in-global-co2-emissions-despite-reductions-by-industrialised-countries
[9] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-10/global-warming/29642669_1_kyoto-protocol-second-commitment-period-
[10] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/India-invokes-right-to-grow-to-tell-rich-nations-of-its-stand-on-future-climate-change-negotiations/articleshow/36724848.cms
[11] http://www.thegwpf.org/vahrenholt-lecture/
[12] http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/vahrenholt-2012-annual-gwpf-lecture.pdf
[13] http://www.lomborg.com/content/2013-03-germany-pays-billions-delay-global-warming-37-hours
[14] http://notrickszone.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The third world countries, for all their negatives regarding their governments, know instinctively that energy is life and cheap energy is prosperity. It’s comical for the Western nations to even consider having the third world commit generational suicide. Might even make Nuremberg charges appear childish.
“A fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”
What if America leads the fight and falls on its face, as the EU has been busy doing? That will discredit renewables even more.
Leaders in the East can see that the EU’s CO2 reduction policies have been futile and economically destructive–and that their full destructiveness hasn’t yet come home to roost.
They can infer that, if the USA follows in the EU’s footsteps. more futility and economic destruction will follow.
Perhaps, they think, in 30 years, sea levels will rise or there will be more weird weather. But, they say to themselves, “If I act, will it hurt or help my political prospects at home in the next five or ten years? And will it hurt or help my populace? And, if I act, will all others act too?” If the answers are Hurt, Hurt, and No, all they will do is ask for reparations from the West–which will let them off the hook and stalemate things forever.
Finally, they think, perhaps in 30 years sea levels and weather won’t be acting as the doomsters foretell. They can see that 97% of the CMIPs (sp?) that embody the 97% consensus have been wrong (too hot).
Message to the president!!! I wouldn’t bother. How can anyone explain to the president that which the president will never understand? I’m not talking about the climate science. I am talking about the lies and misinformation he is being fed… like a pig is drawn to its feeding trough!
davidmhoffer says:
July 4, 2014 at 8:32 pm
Your ox get gored?
He said it was the sun. Now let us take that reasoning a little further. If the sun controls the clouds as some papers suggests is it or is it not the sun?
I disagree with Roger frequently on other matters. But I do think here he has a point here.
And BTW I’m no lawyer. In fact I don’t have a degree in anything. I worked my way up from bench technician to aerospace engineer though. If that counts for anything.
===================
I really don’t get why EVIDENCE that the climate is controlled by the sun draws so much fire. It may be true. It may not. But isn’t it SCIENCE to reexamine the evidence even in SETTLED questions? Some guy won a Nobel for work he did while he was working a day job in a patent office for such an evidence reexamination.
I suppose it is just further evidence that Max Planck was correct.
“Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Thus, Science advances one funeral at a time” Max Planck
==================
I do like the solar explanation – this week – but I’m willing to change my mind – again. One thing I’m sure of – it is NOT CO2.
Its disingenuous to site the better fuel economy of cars and home insulation for the drop in CO2 emissions in the west Average mileages have also risen (not by 3 times but then neither has fuel economy dropped that much!) and the better home insulation gives an even more comfortable home . We all know the recession of the last ten years or so has decimated industry and the CO2 witch hunt has sent industry abroad (thank you unions for the lack of jobs) In the UK the Victorians used CO2 in greenhouses to promote growth (remember it was dangerously low after the LIA) I wonder if that is where the name came from, Ive read the holly theory about CO2 and IR but they all seem to leave out convection and I don’t see how this sparse molecule could be absorbing this IR and re emitting at a different frequency without becoming excited and therefore lighter? and isn’t this effect logarithmic? and we are way over the slope? The whole AGW think is snake oil and the YSA has the biggest salesmen in bongo and his gang, they will cost us dear. One silver lining from this demonic cloud is we now know who the honest scientists and politicians are, because all on the AGW bandwagon are either liars or senile!
I don’t quite understand the use of the word “futile”. Wouldn’t “pointless” better serve your headline and your message? Warmers view humanity as its own worst enemy, an existential threat to itself. Existence (in this sense) may be futile, but we environmentally-enlightened few (… er 97%) plod on heroically for the good of all.
I hate to think of the warmers engaging in this kind of self-congratulatory back-patting… the Sisyphean “futility” of their endeavor, as it were.
On the other hand, “pointless” communicates that CO2 reductions serve humanity no more effectively than Al Gore cutting back on the amount of eau de Cologne that he slaps on his puss before he heads out for another 5-digit speaking engagement.
@ur momisugly Chris Edwards. Years back, certainly within the time frame of the graphs shown, the various cars I drove would get typically 20mpg. For the last 5 years I have had a car that gets 60mpg, in 9 weeks time I will take delivery of a new car that according to the government figures gets 88mpg (UK gallons, statutory combined mileage figure, Skoda Octavia Greenline III, 94mpg extra urban figure). I have no idea what the average improvement in fuel economy for the UK has been over the same period, but I would have thought a 3 fold improvement may not be too wild a guess.
Household insulation for new builds has improved dramatically over the last 20 years, as have the heat retention figures for double glazing.
Certainly manufacturing industry within the UK has been decimated and then some, a short sighted disaster in my view. I don’t know if any figures for energy reduction due to that loss exist.
It would be interesting to have a more detailed breakdown of energy usage and co2 of the various parts of an economy to see if improvements in efficiency have made a significant difference.
PS. I will get that 88mpg as I mostly drive like a geriatric pushing a zimmer frame. I will make an attempt to get that magical 100mpg from a tank, then I will go back to driving normally. My expectation of an average 80mpg seems reasonable where I live, not in a large city, with by and large uncluttered roads.
I agree the ability of co2 to have any additional influence on temperatures is insignificant. The only players are the oceans, clouds and the sun which is the only energy input.
The air is for free, you may inhale all you want…
Discovering that CO2 change, and therefore human activity, does not cause global warming is a start. But this leaves the question of what actually does drive average global temperature change.
Two primary drivers of average global temperature have been identified. They very accurately explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with R2>0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95) and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).
The influence of CO2 change is insignificant.
Coefficient of determination, R2 = 0.9049 considering only sunspots and ocean cycles.
R2 = 0.9061 considering sunspots, ocean cycles and CO2 change.
Solar cycle duration or magnitude fail to correlate but their combination, expressed as the time-integral of solar cycle anomalies, gives an excellent correlation. A solar cycle anomaly is the difference between the sunspot number for a year and an average sunspot number for many years.
The calculations use data since before 1900 which are publicly available.
The coefficients of determination are a measure of how accurately the calculated average global temperatures compare with measured.
Everything not explicitly considered (such as the 0.09 K s.d. random uncertainty in reported annual measured temperature anomalies, aerosols, CO2, other non-condensing ghg, volcanoes, ice change, etc.) must find room in the unexplained 9.51%.
The tiny difference in R2, whether considering CO2 or not, demonstrates that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate.
The method, equation and data sources are provided at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com and references.
I think all analysts realize that CO2 emissions in this century will be primarily a function of emissions in the rest of the world. If the US and EU went zero carbon today it would not by itself materially change the trajectory of CO2 emissions or concentrations. What is true though is that per capita emissions are much higher in the EU and US, though China has risen to significant levels. It is not obvious to assume that the path of per capita emissions in developing countries are fated to a certainty. Up till 1999, it was assumed that developing countries would eventually build out landline phone coverage similar to EU/US. That of course never happened, cellular is the way they went. If solar/wind reach grid parity, and electric/high mileage vehicles become cost competitive, and we solve the issue of energy storage (all reasonable possibilities in next 30 years), then per capita emissions will not soar. Currently, global emissions of carbon (not carbon dioxide) is about 9 gigatons. Extreme fossil fuel intensive scenarios posit that to rising to over 30 gigatons by 2050, but other scenarios do not. If we made a political agreement that as a planet we would keep emissions to 1 ton per capita (with permit trading) by 2050, then emissions will stay flat over the next 35 years. At that point we would also have a much better sense as to how much if any warming is really happening and whether we need to drive emissions even lower.
The role of emission reductions in the EU/US is primarily to develop low carbon technologies that will eventually be adopted in the 2020’s and 2030’s by developing countries. The EU and US and can show how the world can have very high living standards with low emissions. While the US is still a high 5 tons per capita, the French are at 1.5 tons. To suggest 1 ton per capita in 2050 (even for the US, an 80% reduction which is what John McCain supported in 2008) is not outrageous. Trying to limit Peru’s emissions today is irrelevant.
The important questions involve the future, not the past! No one seems to notice that China’s emission will be DOUBLE those of the US THIS YEAR (2014). How long before Chinese emissions will be TRIPLE those of the US? Triple is only another 50% increase. Some of the coal-fired power plants that will result in tripling are already being built or authorized. Although it is difficult to forecast the growth of Chinese GDP, their current policy is to reduce the energy intensity of their economy by 3% a year. So 8% annual growth in GDP would translate into 5% growth in emissions and triple our emission in 8 more years. Unless the growth rate of the Chinese economy drops to that of a typical developed country (which would leave about half the people in poverty), China’s emissions will be triple those of the US sometime in the 2020’s. Since China will have four times the population of the US at that point, their emissions per capita will be similar to ours and probably higher than those of most other developed nations.
Even if the US could cut emissions by the recommended 80% (say by 2050), the growth in Chinese emissions before 2030 will negate those reductions and keep CO2 increasing at 2 ppm per year.
The goal of every underdeveloped nation in the world is to emulate what the Chinese have accomplished over the last few decades in getting their people out of poverty.
Nice essay Ed.
If only the British politicians trying to deliberately force up the price of our energy whilst seemingly trying to make it more scarce, would realise how inconsequential we are. It is the big players that need to clean up their emissions act, should anyone believe that the co2 element is itself of much consequence.
tonyb
The planet does not distinguish between CO2 emitted by China, the USA or any other country. It is the accumulation in the atmosphere that is the key matter.
Saying that the West should do nothing because China and other developing countries are increasing their emissions is a perverse argument. The measures taken to reduce emissions anywhere in the world help to curb the rate of increase and the eventual peak in concentration. Abandoning such measures just means the peak will be higher and will be reached earlier.
In saying that, I hope we will not be led down the anti-science cul-de-sac that it does not matter how high concentration goes as there will be little or no temperature response.
Also, the green energy is too expensive/won’t work/is nuts lobby should reflect on the fact that investment continues strongly in many countries, generation rates are increasing and generally its popular:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/uk-switches-on-to-green-power-9566508.html
According to Lomborg (sp?), Germany’s $100 billion investment in renewables will push back the peak in global warming in 2100 by 37 minutes. Was that $100 billion well spent, in your opinion, or were there better uses for it?
If you dispute his 37-minute estimate, how many minutes, or hours, or days, or weeks, or months, or years of deferred peak-warming would make that price tag a bargain?
Sending a message to the President that ‘CO2 Reduction is Futile’ would be futile. President Obama has clearly demonstrated that he is more interested in image than in actual results, and he’s willing to use fake data to prop up the facade. Just this past week he bragged about his rapidly improving economy and the best employment numbers since 1999. The problem is almost all the job gains last month were part-time jobs. Also, the civilian labor force participation rate, which was 66% in 2008, is currently 62.8 percent — a 36-year low. So if he is willing to twist facts to brag about the economy, he certainly won’t let the facts stop him from continuing to promote his agenda on climate change.
rogerknights
Bjorn Lomborg’s main argument is that whilst climate change due to rising CO2 may be happening, we need not worry about it too much because the main impacts will be well into the future.
In response:
Firstly, he, like the rest of us, does not know exactly what the impacts will be, nor their magnitude, nor when they will occur. We can only look at ranges of likely outcomes.
Secondly, extrapolating cost-benefit analysis into the future a century from now is pure guesswork. So for example, how on Earth could people in 1914 have any idea of what the world’s economy, population, science etc would look like in the year 2000 ?
So I am not going to join in with such pointless projections. However, as a point of fact, if countries choose to abandon measures to reduce emissions, then it is highly likely that future peak CO2 concentration will be higher, and will come sooner, than if they do not. That is the significant risk. It is better to act now. If it turns out we overplayed the impacts, how much would we have lost ? We would have moved more quickly to wean the economy away from fossil fuels which are a finite resource – something we will have to do anyway.
James Abbott;
That is the significant risk. It is better to act now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You just went in to great detail to explain that we cannot calculate the risk, so by extension, you cannot conclude that it is better to act now.
If it’s not the sun let’s just reduce the heat from the sun by 10% and see what happens to interglacial warming. Global warming is the wrong term. It’s warming between glacial periods. It’s cyclical and not permanent. In a few hundred years the ice will be back, Now let’s relax and stop thinking all this theorizing will prevent the ice coming back. The Earth abides – no matter what you think about CO2.
It is NOT about President Obama and truth and facts about his position that the “science is settled” or that CO2 control is futile on the part of the U.S. or not. It is about winning the debate. Mr. Obama wants to win the debate. It doesn’t matter if he is arguing constitutional law or climate chnage. It doesn’t matter who is “right” or “wrong”: it is about winning a position. If he were an injury lawyer, and his client was a fake with a contrived neck injury and brace… it wouldn’t matter to Mr. Obama… because it is about winning, despite all facts.
Just remember: “if you like your insurance, you can keep it !”. Mr. Obama picks a fight, then argues and decides coal and oil is bad, and hopes his position sticks so he wins the argument. Win. Do ANYTHING to win. We will cripple the economy while China does what it wants because they need the bucks (darn that communism!…let’s get the cash!)
Sad… repeat the lie often enough, then sheep will believe it. But even more sad: I voted for him, twice.
Why let facts get in the way of a political agenda? The ‘CO2 reductions’ have nothing to do with CO2 at all. They have to do with punishing Western Civilization as it is represented by America. O’Bama is a hard-core ideologue who HATES America and Americans. CO2 is just a cover for economy-destroying, life-wrecking, power-grabbing tyranny.
Mike says:
July 5, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Sad… repeat the lie often enough, then sheep will believe it. But even more sad: I voted for him, twice.
===================================
I’m conducting something of an informal survey. Let me ask: Were you voting against Bush? If so, did the fact that Bush wasn’t running for reelection bother you at all?
davidmhoffer sed:
David – what energy source creates the clouds and causes them to vary?
Someone asked, “David – what energy source creates the clouds and causes them to vary?” I thought this was a rather good question. At first a number scientists thought it was cosmic rays from the Sun causing the lower cloud layer (as opposed to the upper layer) to increase or decrease. However over the past twenty years this notion has been challenged by researchers from the U. of Copenhagen who now have a long set of data showing it to be from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. That means the Sun provides the heat and our home galaxy provides the cooling cloud cover. Find actual data at http://www.friendsofscience.org .
Here’s a good counterpoint to his claim:
Since the Clinton years the unemployment rate has not counted the long-term unemployed. If the Clinton metric had been used in the past, the unemployment rate in the 30s would have been half or a third of what it actually was–25%.
PS: Too bad Hoover wasn’t as slick as Willy.
That may be his main argument, but it wasn’t the argument I quoted. Per the article,
James Abbott: In response: Firstly, he, like the rest of us, does not know exactly what the impacts will be, nor their magnitude, nor when they will occur. We can only look at ranges of likely outcomes.
Secondly, extrapolating cost-benefit analysis into the future a century from now is pure guesswork. So for example, how on Earth could people in 1914 have any idea of what the world’s economy, population, science etc would look like in the year 2000 ?
As I said, that’s beside the point. Lomborg was talking about the trajectory of future CO2 emissions of the developed vs. the developing world. There’s not much dispute about them under a BAU scenario.
Is it? Is reaching peak warming a few hours or days or weeks or months later than under Business As Usual a significant risk? (I asked you that already.)
What if Lockheed’s skunk works comes out with its breakthrough nuclear reactor (fusion?) in 2017, as is rumored. Then almost all the money that’s gone into renewables prior to that time will have been wasted. That’s Lomborg’s argument–wait until there’s a technological breakthrough, or at least significant technological progress in current renewables. And it’s one not unacceptable to you in principle either, based on this: “how on Earth could people in 1914 have any idea of what the world’s economy, population, science etc would look like in the year 2000 ?”
Also, we (in the US) won’t have to wean ourselves from fossil fuels for centuries, because coal can be gasified, because we have lots of natural gas, and because we could mine methane hydrates if necessary. Peak fossil is decades away. If by weaning you mean moving to some advanced form of nuclear, I have no objection there. Some versions of it are sustainable.