Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets
Green innovations must be developed and spread globally 10 times faster than in the past if we are to limit warming to below the Paris Agreement’s 2 degrees C target
DURHAM, N.C. – The global spread of green technologies must quicken significantly to avoid future rebounds in greenhouse gas emissions, a new Duke University study shows.
“Based on our calculations, we won’t meet the climate warming goals set by the Paris Agreement unless we speed up the spread of clean technology by a full order of magnitude, or about ten times faster than in the past,”
said Gabriele Manoli, a former postdoctoral associate at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, who led the study.
“Radically new strategies to implement technological advances on a global scale and at unprecedented rates are needed if current emissions goals are to be achieved,” Manoli said.
The study used delayed differential equations to calculate the pace at which global per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide have increased since the Second Industrial Revolution — a period of rapid industrialization at the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th. The researchers then compared this pace to the speed of new innovations in low-carbon-emitting technologies.
Using these historical trends coupled with projections of future global population growth, Manoli and his colleagues were able to estimate the likely pace of future emissions increases and also determine the speed at which climate-friendly technological innovation and implementation must occur to hold warming below the Paris Agreement’s 2° C target.
“It’s no longer enough to have emissions-reducing technologies,” he said. “We must scale them up and spread them globally at unprecedented speeds.”
The researchers published their peer-reviewed findings December 29 in the open-access journal Earth’s Future.
The analysis shows that per-capita CO2 emissions have increased about 100 percent every 60 years — typically in big jumps — since the Second Industrial Revolution. This “punctuated growth” has occurred largely because of time lags in the spread of emission-curbing technological advances, which are compounded by the effects of rapid population growth.
“Sometimes these lags are technical in nature, but — as recent history amply demonstrates — they also can be caused by political or economic barriers,” Manoli explained. “Whatever the cause, our quantification of the delays historically associated with such challenges shows that a tenfold acceleration in the spread of green technologies is now necessary to cause some delay in the Doomsday Clock.“
Manoli, who is now on the research staff at ETH Zurich’s Institute of Environmental Engineering, conducted the new study with Gabriel G. Katul, the Theodore S. Coile Professor of Hydrology and Micrometeorology, and Marco Marani, professor of ecohydrology. Katul and Marani are faculty members at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment with secondary appointments in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Duke’s Pratt School of Engineering.
###
Funding for the study came from the National Science Foundation (grants EAR-1344703 and EAR-1530233), and from the Duke WISeNet Program, sponsored by NSF grant DGE-1068871.
CITATION: “Delay-induced Rebounds in CO2 Emissions and Critical Time-Scales to Meet Global Warming Targets,” Gabriele Manoli, Gabriel G. Katul, Marco Marani. Earth’s Future. Dec. 29, 2016. DOI: 10.1002/eft2.2016EF000431
HELP! Hurry, there is a wolf!! WOLF!
Given my total lack of respect for the incumbent socialist party ruling the Province of Alberta, Canada, and given that we now have a completely useless “Climate Leadership Plan” which will cost the taxpayers of Alberta countless billions over the next (God-knows-how-many) years, a good friend of mine summarized the situation very well:
“Sounds like the carbon tax supporters have been doing a better job of informing the public about their side to the story than your “molecule of life” (a.k.a. CO2) gang. As usual, most politicians will support the causes that align with what the majority of the voters think – currently anti-greenhouse gas.”
This is the true issue: How do we convince the masses of the true science, that being that the atmosphere is currently deprived of CO2, and that higher CO2 concentrations are extremely beneficial to plant (and therefore by default, animal) life, with minimal to zero impact to the climate.
It appears the gang green of Ontario has not only infected Alberta, it’s also spread to the nation’s capital. Only time will cure this disease.
Mr. Brisley, I do hope that you are right, and that the disease is cured before too much money is wasted.
Darrell, I hope it’s not too late…I understand Alberta is committed to shutting down coal and investing in wind. By the time the people realize this will double electricity prices with no effect on climate it likely will be too late, as was the case in Ontario.
And I agree with you about CO2. That its benefits outweigh its perils, IMHO, is as obvious as cornflakes.
“gang green”
Accurate description Phil. A bit like “green blob”, but better.
The exit exam for enviro academic programs counts the number of doomsday statements in the essays and multiple choice answers. Alarming headline writing is also a core course requirement.
Does anyone know if there is a source which records or lists all the “tipping points” which the IPCC or others have forecasted and which have come and gone, replaced by new climate deadlines or new ‘tipping points?’
Wow. delayed Differential Equations! Should fit well on the line going forward for an iteration or two in the inherently non linear iterative nature of the dynamic fractal chaos and strange attractors that swirl around the thing we call climate.
Green schemes are no longer dipping into your wallet, they need to skip the middle man and go right to your bank account.
No, next it will be a deduction right from your salary in the form of a tax. Oh, wait!
The only useful thing about this study is it identifies two funding sources that can be eliminated on Jan. 20.
Patrick
I see that you are still looking at this post. I fully agree with the point that you make at Patrick MjD January 4, 2017 at 9:40 pm .
The Article is on the Paris Accord and future reduction of CO2 emissions. Even today, it is obvious the the Paris Accord will achieve nothing. The First and Third biggest CO2 emitters (China and India) are not committed to curbing their emissions, to the contrary they are allowed to increase their emissions and will do so significantly between now and 2030.
Of those that have commitments under the Paris Accord the two biggest players are the USA and Germany. We know that Trump wants to bring back jobs, help the coal and steel industry, and embark upon infra-structure building. This will create a lot of CO2. We know from the Trump election that the USA will not be reducing its CO2 emissions.
That leaves Germany, and we know from the migrant crisis that Germany will also not cut its CO2 emissions. Like the USA, Germany is going to have to embark upon a period of infra-structure building and consumerism. This will emit a lot of CO2.
So all the four big global players will not be reducing CO2 emissions. To the contrary, all four will increase their CO2 emissions.
In fact, unless France, changes its recent policy, France will also be increasing its CO2 emissions. Last year France decided that it would close its nuclear power stations. Nuclear is the only form of energy production that does not emit CO2. If France proceeds with closing nuclear power stations over the next 15 years, it too will inevitably increase its CO2 emissions.
It is obvious that the Paris Accord is dead in the water. There is absolutely no way that any of the big players will reduce CO2 emissions.There is nothing binding about the Paris Accord. It is a good job that there is no penalty for failing to meet commitments since non of the major players has a cat in hells chance of meeting its commitments..
Excellent post, and thank you! Economic confidence in the US has increased substantially since Trump “won”. Ford have reversed their plan to open a factory in Mexico and expand their Detroit operation (Could due to what Trump said about taxes). Ford *JUMPED* at the opportunity…
Australia lost that edge in 2007 with Rudd(erless), and then the other pantomime PM from the wastelands of Wales(UK).
2017 will be interesting.
2017 will be interesting.
As regards FORD, what other politician could have achieved that result, and so quickly? I cannot recall another example where a lone politician, or even a government, has openly stood up to a multi-national and achieved that sort of volte face.
It shows the power of the man, how others perceive him, and his potential. The fact that he is prepared to stand up to MSM, and not be shackled by MSM should also not be under-estimated. This is a freedom that other politicians have not enjoyed. It all bodes well for America.
‘Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets’:
“Based on our calculations, we won’t meet the climate warming goals set by the Paris Agreement unless we speed up the spread of clean technology by a full order of magnitude, or about ten times faster than in the past,”
“Radically new strategies to implement technological advances on a global scale and at unprecedented rates are needed if current emissions goals are to be achieved,” Manoli said.
“Sometimes these lags are technical in nature, but — as recent history amply demonstrates — they also can be caused by political or economic barriers,” Manoli explained. “Whatever the cause, our quantification of the delays historically associated with such challenges shows that a tenfold acceleration in the spread of green technologies is now necessary to cause some delay in the Doomsday Clock.“
DURHAM, N.C. – The global spread of green technologies must quicken significantly to avoid future rebounds in greenhouse gas emissions,
”caused by political or economic barriers,” Manoli explained.
But since ‘Tenfold jump in green tech [is] needed to meet global emissions targets.’ and Manoli’s interests in technology is restricted to
_____________________________________________
‘DURHAM, N.C. – The global spread of green technologies must quicken significantly to avoid future rebounds in greenhouse gas emissions,’
Leaves the questions:
– who pays for ‘Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets’
– who who does the ‘Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets’
– will Manoli surprise with unexpected
“Radically new strategies to implement technological advances on a global scale and at unprecedented rates are needed if current emissions goals are to be achieved,”
– or just shut up.