Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A report by the International Energy Agency claims that emissions which will be saved by COP21 / Paris climate pledges currently on the table, will only delay Climageddon by 8 months.
According to the IEA;
Nationally determined pledges are the foundation of COP21. Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) submitted by countries in advance of COP21 may vary in scope but will contain, implicitly or explicitly, commitments relating to the energy sector. As of 14 May 2015, countries accounting for 34% of energy-related emissions had submitted their new pledges. A first assessment of the impact of these INDCs and related policy statements (such as by China) on future energy trends is presented in this report in an “INDC Scenario”. This shows, for example, that the United States’ pledge to cut net greenhouse-gas emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025 (relative to 2005 levels) would deliver a major reduction in emissions while the economy grows by more than one-third over current levels. The European Union’s pledge to cut GHG emissions by at least 40% by 2030 (relative to 1990 levels) would see energy-related CO2 emissions decline at nearly twice the rate achieved since 2000, making it one of the world’s least carbon-intensive energy economies. Russia’s energy-related emissions decline slightly from 2013 to 2030 and it meets its 2030 target comfortably, while implementation of Mexico’s pledge would see its energy-related emissions increase slightly while its economy grows much more rapidly. China has yet to submit its INDC, but has stated an intention to achieve a peak in its CO2 emissions around 2030 (if not earlier), an important change in direction, given the pace at which they have grown on average since 2000.
Growth in global energy-related GHG emissions slows, but there is no peak by 2030 in the INDC Scenario. The link between global economic output and energy-related GHG emissions weakens significantly, but is not broken: the economy grows by 88% from 2013 to 2030 and energy-related CO2 emissions by 8% (reaching 34.8 gigatonnes). Renewables become the leading source of electricity by 2030, as average annual investment in non- hydro renewables is 80% higher than levels seen since 2000, but inefficient coal-fired power generation capacity declines only slightly. With INDCs submitted so far, and the planned energy policies in countries that have yet to submit, the world’s estimated remaining carbon budget consistent with a 50% chance of keeping the rise in temperature below 2 °C is consumed by around 2040 – eight months later than is projected in the absence of INDCs. This underlines the need for all countries to submit ambitious INDCs for COP21 and for these INDCs to be recognised as a basis upon which to build stronger future action, including from opportunities for collaborative/co-ordinated action or those enabled by a transfer of resources (such as technology and finance). If stronger action is not forthcoming after 2030, the path in the INDC Scenario would be consistent with an average temperature increase of around 2.6 °C by 2100 and 3.5 °C after 2200.
Even if alarmists were right about anthropogenic climate change, what a complete and utter waste of effort.
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/energy-outlook.html
The latest release. It provides an assessment of energy consumption by fuel type in the downloadable Excel tables.
Th estimate goes out to 2035. Not unexpectedly, the use of every fuel type increases. Renewables which currently provide some 2.6% of global consumption are estimated to provide some 6.7% of global consumption in 2035.
Of course, this is just one projection and by an evil Oil company – that I used to work for 🙂 – but BP’s Annual Review is usually a good reference.
Whether or not this projection holds remains to be seen but I somehow doubt that the indicated 6.7% renewable contribution in 2035 is what the alarmists want or expect.
In the grand scheme of things, all they care about is Carbon Taxes. All the junk science is just a smoke screen.
Absurd doesn’t get much more absurd than this.
Much ado about nothing (in terms of climate) but much ado about how to tax and spend us all into poverty.
The INDCs that countries are required to submit are educated guesses about what might happen to future emissions if present policies and programs continue. In some cases, countries include in their assumptions the adoption of several new emissions reductions that might happen under “favourable” conditions including strong new government mandates, sharply higher taxes on fossil fuel consumption, ever-larger subsidies for “green” energy and rapid dissemination of new technologies. In other words, they represent a combination of systematic modelling and political wishes. It is interesting, in this context, that with countries accounting for 34% of current emissions reporting (i.e. almost certainly the OCED countries and a few others, but none of the developing countries where emissions will grow fastest) the so-called carbon budget is fully consumed by 2040. That is like saying that, realistically, there is no hope of attaining the IPCC’s targets related to not exceeding the (arbitrary) two degree C. temperature increase goal. For those who believe in the science of catastrophism and the IPCC modelling, one wonders when the penny will drop and they will all start focusing on measures to adapt to climate change, rather than on attempting to mitigate it.
I have a Jamaican friend who likes to discuss solar power. He seems to be fairly well off, which in Jamaica means having the ability to talk things over with a politician. I suggested they submit a very nice emissions goal based on getting cheap loans subsidized by Rich nations, with investment coming from private corporations. I also suggested they ask for technical help, because solar power really won’t help that much in Jamaica. A small country can make lots of money out of this global warming racket but they need to know how to push the right technology and politics buttons.
Fernando, I can’t bear the thought of solar and wind power structures destroying my favorite place, where some of my favorite friends live. There are so many beautiful birds there. Perhaps putting solar panels on the roofs of the huts with batteries to provide light (and the all-important sound system) instead of running cords out from the land owner’s house might make sense, but you’ll literally have to give those people that stuff because they are doing okay as is. Besides they already use solar hot water – the rain barrels are black and sunshine is well mixed with precipitation to replenish and heat their bathing water.
May I (all in fun) share a suspicion? I think the only thing that the French fear about climate change is that England might grow better grapes.
My calculations only came out to 7months, 29 days and 12 hours. They might have forgotten to include the Theodician Metaphasic Tranch enhancement Dampening. It’s a common mistake.
Pardon me for asking, but is climageddon possibly referring to the upcoming solar grand minimum?
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“Even if alarmists were right about anthropogenic climate change, what a complete and utter waste of effort.”
Has anyone off to Paris worked out exactly what the figure for climate sensitivity is yet? If not the 2C figure is utterly useless as is the latest climate gabfest / junket …