By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: A solid leftist writing at a well-known leftist publication has declared an end to the planetary climate emergency! Solar and wind are replacing fossil fuels at an astonishing pace, sooner even than optimists expected when James Hansen began the climate crusade in 1988. This is good news to start the New Year. If others follow his lead, we can more easily turn the public policy debate to more serious issues.
An “admission against interest” is the legal term, broadly speaking, for a statement admissible because it is made by someone with knowledge of the subject and is against that person’s own interests.
“Donald Trump’s “carbon bubble” economy is bound to pop
— the only question is how bad it will be“
“Trump’s economic policies are built on many flawed assumptions, especially a fossil-fuel boom that won’t end well.”
By Paul Rosenberg at Salon, 2 January 2017.
Let’s go directly to the money paragraphs that give us the good news, notable because it is made by a leftist against one of their major campaigns of the past two decades.
“The carbon bubble does exactly the same thing. It’s not just fossil fuel reserves that are overvalued by the bubble, but everything associated with the sector — pipelines, power plants, refineries, etc. …
“The carbon bubble risk is only made worse by the fact that renewable energy costs have dropped dramatically in recent years, and become increasingly competitive. Thus, even if those reserves were not unburnable because of their potential impact on climate change, they will become so for economic reasons in the next few decades. For example, the World Economic Forum’s recently released “Renewable Infrastructure Investment Handbook: A Guide for Institutional Investors” reported:
‘[T]he unsubsidized, levellized cost of electricity (LCOE) for utility scale solar photovoltaic, which was highly uncompetitive only five years ago, has declined at a 20% compounded annual rate, making it not only viable but also more attractive than coal in a wide range of countries. By 2020, solar photovoltaic is projected to have a lower LCOE than coal or natural gas-fired generation throughout the world.’
“Add to this the fact that renewable energy — particularly solar and wind — is a new technology sector, in which large efficiency gains are to be expected. That’s quite unlike the fossil fuel industry, whose costs are increasing because the cheap, easy-to-get fuel has already been burned. By 2030, renewables could well leave fossil fuels in the dust. …
“Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English.”
This is the good news of the decade (even if bad news for fossil fuel investors)! For a decade climate activists have warned about the coming apocalypse from RCP8.5, the worst-case scenario in the IPCC’s AR5 report (often misrepresented as “business as usual” despite its unlikely assumptions). Almost all the articles you have read about the horrific effects of climate change assume the RCP8.5 scenario.
To learn about this possible future see “RCP 8.5: A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions” by Keywan Riahi et al in Climate Change, November 2011. It describes a hot dirty 21st century, in which coal use increases 5-fold to become the world’s major source of power (it’s a back to the 19thC future) — with the steepest increase coming after 2030. This graph shows energy use by fuel in 2100 for each of the four scenarios in AR5.
Figure 5 from Riahi et al: “Development of global primary energy supply in RCP8.5 (left-hand panel) and global primary energy supply in 2100 in the associated mitigation cases stabilizing radiative forcing at levels of 6, 4.5, and 2.6 W/m2 (right-hand bars).” Click to enlarge.
Rosenberg’s prediction makes sense, which is why so many people have said it is likely. (Climate activists’ rebuttal to mention of likely tech progress during the 21st C was to scream “denier!”). Coal production probably has already peaked. Fossil fuel use peaking in 2030 (followed by a slow decline as power infrastructure is replaced) plus continued technological progress would put us on track to reach the emission levels of RCP2.6 (the most favorable of the four scenarios) by the late 21st century.
For details about these futures turn to “The representative concentration pathways: an overview” by Detlef P. van Vuuren et al, Climatic Change, Nov 2011. See the large difference between annual emissions in the low- and high-end scenarios. They are world-changing differences.
Green: RCP2.6, Red: RCP4.5, Black: RCP6.0, Blue: RCP8.5.
Consequences
Does Rosenberg’s article show a shifting of priorities by the Left? Yesterday climate change was our greatest threat, warranting spending trillions of dollars — or even making drastic revisions to our economic system (as urged by Naomi Klein
and Pope Francis). Today their top priority is opposing all things Trump.
Rosenberg’s prediction negates the nightmares that climate activists have bombarded us with during the past decade. If correct, then seas will not cover cities by 2100 (although the seas will continue their millennia-long rise). Agriculture will not crash. The tropics will remain habitable.
But CO2 will continue to warm the world — and contribute to our always changing climate — for several more decades, although I doubt models can accurately predict the magnitude of this effect. Combine this with the environmental damage from a population growing to ten billion (perhaps 12B) and the pollution from a more crowded and industrialized world: the result is tough times ahead. But we can work through it.
Look ahead to the second half of the 21st century. Combine a shrinking population, falling CO2 emissions, and better technology — we could repair the damage and make this world into a garden.
This is good news to start the New Year!
For More Information
For more information about this vital issue see the keys to understanding climate change and these posts about the politics of climate change…
1. Important: climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
2. How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
3. A story of the climate change debate. How it ran; why it failed.
4. Science into agitprop: “Climate Change Is Strangling Our Oceans”.
5. Ignoring science to convince the public that we’re doomed by climate change.
6. The 5 stages of grief for the failure of the climate change campaign.
7. A status report on global warming. Much depends on the next few years.
When you think the tides of war have turned and you might be about to start losing it is quite sensible to try to declare victory and end the fighting immediately.
“James Hansen began the climate crusade in 1988.”
But it probably wouldn’t have got anywhere without Margaret Thatcher’s support.
Thttp://www.thegwpf.com/margaret-thatcher-warmist/
https://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
“Good news” was repeated several times. Where was it? Since when have renewables become “competitive”? If cheaper than fossil energy it’s because of subsidies. That’s not competition. It’s dead set skulduggery that cheats consumers. Besides, world nenewable contribution stands at 5% last time I looked. That’s not going to change any time soon. Please, no more “good news” and “renewables” in the same sentence.
The article is a smokescreen to cover the left’s retreat from an untenable climate alarmist position.
Two thing: 1) CO2 cannot warm anything. 2) There will not be any significant change in the efficiency of wind turbines. To claim otherwise shows great ignorance of physics.
What do you mean by “warm”?
What Mr Rosenberg and others like him are continually blind to is solar and wind generated electrons are not the same quality as thermal ones. At present his fickle electrons are free-riding on reliable thermal electrons but any modest electrical engineering knowledge would be acutely aware of his looming fallacy of composition problem. Unfortunately my State of South Australia will have to impress that upon the likes of Mr Rosenberg.
If there are similar failures in Europe this winter, that’ll have a political effect on the attractiveness of warmism. Politicians will have to get into all the complexities of the hidden costs of renewables, and may learn something.
Yeah, but it’s all about CO2. Here’s a helpful guide:
http://s23.postimg.org/fw1lvdvdn/good_and_bad_co2.png
Did mr. Rosenberg ever passed a basic math test? I have my doubts.
The “good news” will turn out to be another post-truth addition.
Biomass.
I have no problems with using WASTE biomass.
But when biomass is grown IN PREFERENCE TO GROWING FOOD for the world…
… that is one of the MOST DESPICABLE, ANTI-HUMAN ACTS of the whole anti-CO2 “greenie” agenda.
Also applies to ethanol.
AndyG55, you raise an interesting point: What is the ethical justification to make food for today more expensive to the poorest of the poor?
Hunter, the ethical justification is that the free market allows it to happen. Thou shall not stand in the way of Corporate Profit.
“Solar and wind are replacing fossil fuels at an astonishing pace, sooner even than optimists expected”
As I am writing this (just before 10am in the UK) contribution to the total electricity grid from wind and solar are:
Wind 0.79GW = 1.99%
Solar 0.10GW = 0.25%
For the UK that is in the forefront of investments with billions of £ or $, astonishing pace indeed.
What a joke.
The lights (Sunset) goes out at about 4:30pm in the UK during winter as I recall. So that solar figure seems reasonable at this time of year.
I’m surprised that solar is even that high (currently up to 1%, while wind is about the same), however this time of the year wind contribution should be at its highest.
Problem is that the load on the greed is highest in the winter months. Critical load is 50GW, with that number being hit for couple of hours every of the last 3 days.
At this moment the UK is fine at about 41GW load.
typo : grid (me or auto spell correct ?)
What went wrong – surely its all pretty clear cut for folks who want to set up a ‘Power Station’, in the broadest sense. Be that coal, nat-gas, wind, solar or whatever
They are sellers into A Market – that market being run by whoever controls the National Grid in such a way that it ‘Keeps The Lights On’
Namely, the buyer in this market.
So, lets say the buyer sees a cold snap of weather coming just as the Cup Final finishes on the TV and expects a surge in demand. Such surges in the UK are pretty specatacular – being the shower of tea-drinking couch potatoes that we are.
So the buyer goes to market to get quotes for delivery of electricity, a certain quantity and at a certain time (because electricity is not especially store-able) Deals are struck and contracts signed.
If wind and solar want to enter that market, they have to play by the rules – don’t they? If not, why not?
Even a deaf dumb and blind man can see whats coming – if any supplier breaks that deal through being unable to deliver – they are not going to be asked again.
And that is the only certain thing with wind and solar – they will let you down sooner or later. Esp sooner in the UK
The solution is really really simple- have the renewable generators install their own backup.
That way they will be able to enter the electricity market with strength & confidence, deliver when they promise, be ‘good for their word’ and become trusted and reliable suppliers.
What is wrong with that?
(I think we all know don’t we – how *did* it go so badly wrong?)
I know what it is like when the lights go out in the UK from personal experience, The cold 1970’s with union action and rolling black-outs. The attack by Arthur Scargil, and unions on Thatcher, eventually, broke for good or bad. Extreme leftists say Thatcher closed more coal mines than any other Prime Minister. Actually, it was Labour and Wilson in the 1960’s who did more damage to that industry.
The level playing field solution is to only allow electron suppliers to the common universal grid to bid those electrons they can guarantee 24/7 all year round but that would be game over for their Gummint sponsored dumping scheme. The only way out of their zero supply at times would be to partner with thermal generators and pay them whatever they need to go guarantor, but how economic would they be then? At present they bastardise the market with their cheap marginal cost from time to time, leaving thermal to wear the average costs of constant supply. When the existing, aging thermals can’t sustain those long term average costs, including allowing for capital depreciation, the power consumer will wear the brownouts as they close.
Hah! The ‘climate emergency’ may be ‘over’ but the energy shortfall emergency is yet to hit home.
There is no CO2 caused climate crisis, if data is the basis of the argument. And the claims about wind and solar becoming important energy sources are false. Other than that it is a great article. Yes, lefty parasitic behavior is looking for a new frontier to corrupt. But that’s what parasites do.
“Climate scientists” have settled their science.
Earth is greening while CO2 continues rising.
Atmospheric temperature has stalled (from El Nino peak to another).
And now this, renewable energy replaces hydrocarbons faster than foreseen.
https://popkey.co/m/7Nra-clapping-excited-girl+clap-red-exciting?ref=search_page
Why would anyone with at least half a brain read anything Salon puts out?
It did seem odd that Salon was featured here……
There are a whole host of recent articles ignoring that many ‘renewable’ energy sources have ceilings that are ignored when plotting the trend line.
I.E.
The practical ceiling for solar power is summer peak demand – winter peak demand = demand that has to be met with something else.
Since you have to pay build something else…the price of solar has to be below the marginal operating cost(fuel) of something else.
The pace of solar installations has begun to slow in California and IMHO will in the near future barely keep up with replacement of units that are no longer functioning.(Solar advocates tend not to take into account that solar panels don’t last forever)
The practical ceiling for wind power is available low/no cost balancing reserves…I.E. Hydro. I personally use 3 parts hydro to 1 part wind…the last Chinese 5 year energy plan I saw used 2 parts hydro to 1 part wind.
Main point:
Larry still believes that CO2 causes climate warming.
As to his anxieties about Trump.
Another popular uprising is starting to correct the excesses of yet another experiment in authoritarian government that was going out of control. Such as the one that took down Communism and the Berlin Wall in 1989. The one before that has been called the American Revolution. Before that there was England’s “Glorious Revolution” of 1688.
Trump just happens to be fronting a very powerful movement.
In 1989 in Eastern Europe just plain folk took on a murderous police state.
All the American Left has is propaganda.
I’ve published a couple of pieces on the subject. “American Spring” on July 4 and “Draining the swamp” after the election. Both can be Googled.
Bob Hoye
Many had predicted this turn of events years ago. Once the “catastrophic AGW” mantra started to collapse from the weight of contrary data and weakening of political correctness among the people, its purveyors would declare victory and move on to the next vehicle to try and hamstring our economy and society. Expect to hear more reports that the CO2 reduction measures already taken have saved us. And be on guard for the next point of attack.
“we could repair the damage and make this world into a garden”
WHAT DAMAGE? How can falling CO2 plant food repair anything. Only CO2 can make the garden thrive. Straw man from beginning to end. GK
Isn’t this saying “I wish evolution was totally wrong and only the nice things remained on the planet” (people not being part of the nice, of course). This all seems so anti-Darwin to me.
Dead-on, Sheri. It’s fantasy-thinking and anti-science.
Interesting point about Darwin, efficient power generation is an expression of the advantage derived from our culturally obligate status as a species.
“CO2 warms the planet” is not = to “CO2 is causing a climate crisis”
and
“Building more so-called renewable power generation capacity” is not = to “”Renewable power is a viable alternative to fossil, nuclear or hydro power”
When one factors in the actual deliverable power from renewables vs. the stated capacity of renewable, the contrast is quite telling.
The hysterical non-rational response of our leftist friends to the inevitability of reality is bit entertaining but also alarming.
Meanwhile, back in LaLa land…
I urge anyone who cares to be factually informed about wind to look at the reality in Texas, with one of the largest sources of grid wind power in the country.
http://www.ercot.com/
Wind is a waste of time, money and resources.
Not for the people making a fortune off of it—oh, wait, you meant for the great unwashed masses, right? 🙂
you got it in one! Thanks. Too few people are willing to consider just how far removed from reality hard core climatocrats really are.
As we appear to be entering a cooling phase, they will probably claim that their jet con-trails saved the planet from overheating. They had best beware, however, as things get bitterly cold, they might be blamed for the next little ice age. Wouldn’t that be ironic?
The cheerleaders for the CAGW Cause, and for their “solutions”, notably “green” or “renewable” energy, are in a deep state of d*nile, and in their desperation to keep the whole charde going are claiming many, many wild things in hopes of spurring the troops on. But in their heart of hearts, they know the jig is up.
Yes – when I first read the words “it’s over”; and saw the name “Salon”, I did a double take… Salon being honest about AGW was a stunning turnaround!
Then I read the article; and understood that the old “spots”/”leopards” adage remains true…
Interesting lingering myths:
perpetual motion machines
alchemy
energy from weather
Just gets a new coat of paint thrown on and remarketed over and over. Yet it always sells.
Sheri, you think “energy from weather” is a myth? Guess the rain that falls behind the hydroelectric dam is not “weather.”
when you come to think about it, coal is “weather” + CO2 energy
If the drought continues after the stored water is gone . . . or the clouds continue after the energy storage is gone . . . or the wind does not blow when energy needs are greatest . . .
Do you see the problem??
Pagburn says: “If the drought continues after the stored water is gone.”
..
The storage behind Niagra Falls aren’t affected by drought, so the following power stations:
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls_hydroelectric_generating_plants
.
don’t have that problem.
In fact, hydro power is responsible for several orders of magnitude more deaths than nuclear power. Take the Banqiao Dam disaster, for example:
Casualties
According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, in the province, approximately 26,000 people died[14] from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Or the Sichuan earthquake, perhaps:
BEIJING — Nearly nine months after a devastating earthquake in Sichuan Province, China, left 80,000 people dead or missing, a growing number of American and Chinese scientists are suggesting that the calamity was triggered by a four-year-old reservoir built close to the earthquake’s geological fault line.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06quake.html?pagewanted=all
catweazle666, Your claim of “several orders of magnitude” is not correct because you seem to neglect that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two examples of “nuclear power”
“you seem to neglect that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two examples of “nuclear power”
Oh dear.
If you set light to a straw man as big as that, you really would cause serious Global warming, Rob.
Don’t be silly!
LMAO @ur momisugly catweazle666, don’t talk about “strawmen” when you post a claim that an EARTHQUAKE and not hydro power that was responsible for deaths.
” an EARTHQUAKE and not hydro power that was responsible for deaths”
What was responsible for the earthquake, you prat?
Rob – the fortunate half per cent . . .
Sheri makes a great point when considered in a reasonable context.
Catweazle666:
.
1) When you post “you prat?” you’ve already lost the argument since name calling is an act of desperation.
.
2) As of today most geologists will tell you that the movement of tectonic plates is the root cause of most earthquakes.
.
3) now, if you wish to argue that the specific earthquake you mention is CORRELATED to some other cause, so bit it, but you know full well that correlation is not causation.
..
4) Enjoy
“now, if you wish to argue that the specific earthquake you mention is CORRELATED to some other cause, so bit it, but you know full well that correlation is not causation.”
Read the linked article, dimwit.
Or is that too difficult for you?
Then take it up with the “growing number of American and Chinese scientists” who assert that there was causation.
It is they that are arguing for causation, not me.
But I suppose that’s too difficult for your brain cell to cope with.