Forecasts 25% rise in annual CO2 emissions by 2035
Submitted by Eric Worrall –
BP has controversially predicted that the huge rise in energy demand over the next 20 years can only be met with fossil fuels.
According to BP;
“Rising global demand for energy over the next two decades is at odds with the fight against climate change, the head of BP said on Tuesday, as he outlined the oil giant’s forecasts showing unsustainable increases in carbon emissions.
BP’s annual energy outlook predicted that the world economy would double in size in the next 20 years, resulting in demand for energy rising by almost 40%. The company said two-thirds of this demand would be met from fossil fuels – oil, gas and coal – and that this would lead to a 25% increase in carbon emissions.
BP said slower growth in China and India coupled with greater energy efficiency would mean that demand would rise by 1.5% a year over the next two decades, rather than the 2.5% a year recorded during the past decade.
From BP’s forecast paper:
Fossil fuels are projected to provide the majority of the world’s energy needs, meeting two-thirds of the increase in energy demand out to 2035. However, the mix will shift. Renewables and unconventional fossil fuels will take a larger share, along with gas, which is set to be the fastest growing fossil fuel, as well as the cleanest, meeting as much of the increase in demand as coal and oil combined. Meanwhile, coal is now expected to be the slowest growing fuel, as industrialization in emerging Asian economies slows and environmental policies aroundthe globe tighten.
That brings us to the environmental challenge. The most likely path for carbon emissions, despite current government policies and intentions, does not appear sustainable. The projections highlight the scale of the challenge facing policy makers at this year’s UN-led discussions in Paris. No single change or policy is likely to be sufficient on its own. And identifying in advance which changes are likely to be most effective is fraught with difficulty.
Source: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/energy-outlook-2015/Energy_Outlook_2035_booklet.pdf
Any national effort to cut CO2 emissions will be a futile waste of time, if BP forecasts are correct.
The desire of people in poor countries to industrialise, and create economic opportunities for their children, is irrepressible.
Can anyone explain what are the supposed replacement fuels under “decarbonization” for the world’s air transport, shipping, trucking industries. Of course everyone is planning to be using driverless electric personal vehicles, even in winter in Canada and the US North East!
Did the BP jerks say CO2 emissions are unsustainable! His shareholders should show him the door right away.
Bravo BP for having the guts to say it!
I agree. Good for them. As a shareholder, I applaud.
Why describe the prediction as “controversial”? That makes you sound like the BBC. Except to those of a green bent, BP are just voicing the obvious.
Those who really wished to significantly reduce CO2 emissions would promote the development of nuclear power. Their past obstructionist sins are coming back to haunt them.
Michael
‘Obvious’ = => blindingly bleeding obvious.
Fixed.
Smiles,
Auto
I suspect this means that BP does not expect to go into the wind and solar farm business.
BP once held the patents/rights for the most efficient solar panels, along with an Australian airline company (I forget which). BP sold those pantents/rights so time ago. I am sure there is a very good reason for that.
I remember when we started pushing hard to increase ethanol production. . It was sold to us as a way to significantly reduce our dependency on foreign oil. A renewable energy source with less pollution and CO2 emissions. Grow locally by our farmers.
Turns out that other than rewarding our hard working farmers, ethanol from corn was one of the most ruinous energy policies ever for this country.
However, we have the ethanol plants and industry thriving today, not because it’s makes sense(it uses up natural resources and pollutes, as well as increases food prices/ takes away 30 million acres of fertile ground that could grow something else)
Now, we have a system in place that includes massive ethanol production dialed into it. Regardless of detrimental aspects, it’s here for good.
Are we headed down the same path regarding fossil fuels?
The reason to mention this, is that we can pass all sorts of regulations and shut down coal plants and increase other forms of (renewable) energy sources but if they don’t work out, there is a tendency to fight returning to the previous environment, even if it makes sense. Even if it costs more, is less efficient and even if the benefits don’t meet expectations, like corn grown for ethanol, we tend to stick with the ruinous policy.
Even when it becomes obvious that something may not have been the best idea, those that are benefiting or that have control of the new industries will do everything in their power to sustain it.
Carbon Emissions Reduction is easy.
It only takes the Greens stopping their efforts to oppose Nuclear power, hydro electricity, fracking and GM crops.
Just by shutting the eff up, they will do more to cut CO2 emissions than they did with all their decades of effort in ‘renewables’ .
The simple proof that CO2 change does not cause climate change has been hiding in plain sight and here it is.
CO2 has been considered to be a forcing with units Joules/sec. Energy change, which is revealed by temperature change, has units Joules. Average forcing times duration produces energy change. Equivalently, a scale factor times the time-integral of the CO2 level produces the temperature change.
During previous glaciations and interglacials (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth) CO2 and temperature went up and down nearly together. This is impossible if CO2 is a significant forcing (scale factor not zero) so this actually proves CO2 CHANGE DOES NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE.
Application of this analysis methodology to CO2 levels for the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years) (Berner, 2001) proves that CO2 levels up to at least 6 times the present will have no significant effect on average global temperature.
See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.
Futile and the UK consumer is on the hook to pay $900Million in subsidies chasing this fools errand. Sick. These politicians should be taken to court and made to pay for their stupidity.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/booker-and-the-dogger-bank-wind-farm/