Earth Hour supporters propose ‘Carbon Law’

From the UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE and “that ain’t gonna fly” department comes this wishful thinking for Earth Hour.

A ‘carbon law’ offers pathway to halve emissions every decade, say researchers

On the eve of this year’s Earth hour (25 March), researchers propose a solution in the journal Science (24 March) for the global economy to rapidly reduce carbon emissions. The authors argue a carbon roadmap, driven by a simple rule of thumb or “carbon law” of halving emissions every decade, could catalyse disruptive innovation.

Such a “carbon law”, based on Moore’s Law in the computer industry, applies to cities, nations and industrial sectors.

The authors say fossil-fuel emissions should peak by 2020 at the latest and fall to around zero by 2050 to meet the UN’s Paris Agreement’s climate goal of limiting the global temperature rise to “well below 2°C” from preindustrial times.

A “carbon law” approach, say the international team of scientists, ensures that the greatest efforts to reduce emissions happens sooner not later and reduces the risk of blowing the remaining global carbon budget to stay below 2°C.

The researchers say halving emissions every decade should be complemented by equally ambitious, exponential roll-out of renewables. For example, doubling renewables in the energy sector every 5-7 years, ramping up technologies to remove carbon from the atmosphere, and rapidly reducing emissions from agriculture and deforestation.

“We are already at the start of this trajectory. In the last decade, the share of renewables in the energy sector has doubled every 5.5 years. If doubling continues at this pace fossil fuels will exit the energy sector well before 2050,” says lead author Johan Rockström director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University.

The authors pinpoint the end of coal in 2030-2035 and oil between 2040-2045 according to their “carbon law”. They propose that to remain on this trajectory all sectors of the economy need decadal carbon roadmaps that follow this rule of thumb, modeled on Moore’s Law.

Moore’s Law states that computer processors double in power about every two years. While it is neither a natural nor legal law, this simple rule of thumb or heuristic has been described as a “golden rule” which has held for 50 years and still drives disruptive innovation.

The paper notes that a “carbon law” offers a flexible way to think about reducing carbon emissions. It can be applied across borders and economic sectors, as well as both regional and global scales.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, says, “Our civilization needs to reach a socio-economic tipping point soon, and this roadmap shows just how this can happen. In particular, we identify concrete steps towards full decarbonization by 2050. Businesses who try to avoid those steps and keep on tiptoeing will miss the next industrial revolution and thereby their best opportunity for a profitable future.”

Co-author Nebojsa Nakicenovic, deputy director general of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and member of the Earth League, said “Humanity must embark on a decisive transformation towards complete decarbonization. The ‘Carbon law’ is a powerful strategy and roadmap for ramping down emissions to zero so as to stay within the global carbon budget for stabilizing climate to less than 2°C above preindustrial levels.”

Joeri Rogelj, also at IIASA, said, “The carbon law outlines a global path towards achieving climate and sustainability goals in broad yet quantitative terms. It sketches a general vision of rapid emission reductions in conjunction with the development of sustainable carbon dioxide removal options. It clearly communicates that no single solution will do the job, and that this deep uncertainty thus implies starting today pursuing multiple options simultaneously.”

Malte Meinshausen, director of the Climate & Energy College at the University of Melbourne, said “Regions that make way for future-proof renewable energy and storage investments will turn a zero-emissions future into an economic opportunity. While for years, we’ve seen the ramp-down of incumbent fossil technologies only as burden, the other side of the coin is now finally visible: lower costs, more jobs and cleaner air.”

Following a “carbon law”, which is based on published energy scenarios, would give the world a 75% chance of keeping Earth below 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures, the target agreed by nations in Paris in 2015.

###

Notes:

The paper “A roadmap for rapid decarbonization” appears in Science as a peer reviewed “policy forum article” on 24 March 2017.

The Paris Agreement sets out a goal to attempt to keep global temperatures “well below 2°C” above pre-industrial temperatures. http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php

The global average temperature is currently about 1.1°C above pre-industrial temperatures.https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-confirms-2016-hottest-year-record-about-11%C2%B0c-above-pre-industrial-era

What are the key carbon roadmap milestones to 2050?

Each decade has key milestones to reach:

2020: 40 Gigatonnes of CO2

2030: 20 GtCO2

2040: 10 GtCO2

2050: 5 GtCO2

Carbon dioxide emissions from land use fall from 4 GtCO2/yr to 2 Gt CO2, to 1 to 0,5 by 2050. New carbon sequestration technologies ramp up to remove CO2 from the atmosphere from 0 to 0,5. 2,5 to 5Gt CO2 by 2050.

How to get there:

  • 2020: remove fossil fuel subsidies. Put a price on carbon starting at $50 per ton rising to $400 per ton by 2050. Large-scale energy efficiency measures and large scale trials of carbon sequestration begin at 100-500MtCO2/yr.
  • 2030: coal exits energy mix, in this decade construction becomes fully carbon neutral or stores carbon, several cities reach carbon neutral status. Carbon sequestration of 1-2 GtCO2 begins.
  • 2040: oil exits energy mix early in this decade. Europe starts the decade with close to zero emissions. Other continents finish the decade close to zero.
  • 2050 global economy carbon neutral.
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
255 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Edward Katz
March 23, 2017 6:06 pm

A proposal like this only underscores the fact that these climate activists are getting further removed from reality every time they open their mouths.

arthur4563
March 23, 2017 6:08 pm

Notice these morons never mention the revolutionary new nuclear reactor technologies and provide nothing more than arm waving , silly claims about Moore’s law. Wind power hasn’t changed much in 30 years, despite all of the impetus granted by large increases in market demand. Instead of making fossil plants more expensive, molten salt reactors are going to provide an alternative that’s
cheaper than fossil fuel. These lunkheads are attempting to make renewables attractive by making their fossil fuel alternatives artifically expensive. A bunch of Dudley Do Wrongs – they have the dumbest plan imaginable.

Severian
March 23, 2017 6:17 pm

Carbon Law? What about Ape Law?

Art
March 23, 2017 6:18 pm

Let me think about this. Hmmmm…… Since the law would only apply to the successful western capitalist economies and the majority of the world would keep on merrily emitting an ever increasing amount of CO2……..sorry, just can’t figure out the science on this one.

Bill Illis
March 23, 2017 6:32 pm

Everyone can ignore this study because they did not even build a model for the Carbon cycle.

If they did, they would have noticed that the natural sink rates are increasing and will soon be 20 billion tons CO2.

So why reduce emissions to Zero. You don’t need to. Simply stabilizing emissions, as has happened over the last three years with the switch to natural gas generated electricity from coal, will stabilize CO2 levels and cause them to eventually go down.

The issue really is that NONE of these climate scientists have any math skills. They are getting papers published and climate models built and they can’t pass University math classes. That is how they ended up in “Environmental Science” because the were failing math.

Chimp
Reply to  Bill Illis
March 23, 2017 6:36 pm

All the more remarkable when you consider that many so-called “climate scientists” aren’t climatologists, or even scientists, but mathematicians and computer programmers.

Actually, in the strictest sense, no consensus “climate scientist”, regardless of his or her field, can be considered a scientists, since they don’t practice the scientific method.

Ron Williams
Reply to  Chimp
March 23, 2017 7:26 pm

Does anyone know if there is an actual designation for an actual “Climatologist” that is versed in every discipline required to be an expert in climate? Seems to me there is probably at least 20-25 direct subjects required to adequately understand the science well enough to be able to make any credible analysis. I guess one would be a “generalist” if one had to know that many disciplines, but what does a mathematician actually know about many specific climate related issues. Sounds like a giant conspiracy with all these expert scientists rubbing each others backs exclaiming the science is settled, and 97% at that according to their own study.

michael hart
March 23, 2017 6:47 pm

When these space cadets retrain themselves as nuclear engineers then the universe might start to take them seriously.

March 23, 2017 6:59 pm

Johan Rockström? He is nothing but a ‘educated farmer’ (a.k.a. agronomist) and one of the High Priests of Climate Doom in Sweden. Any one who remember what was tought in mandatory school here ignores him …

He’s just one of many types of left wing contribution* hunters we have here, including politicians, bureaucrats, most journalists and other useful idiots …

* Social welfare in disguise …

raybees444
March 23, 2017 7:15 pm

Where can I get a supply of what the authors of this opinion piece masquerading as “science” have been smoking?

clipe
Reply to  raybees444
March 23, 2017 7:37 pm
clipe
Reply to  clipe
March 23, 2017 8:30 pm

I knew this screenshot would pay dividends one day -Hello raybees444- Thanks for stepping on the upturned rake.

http://s28.postimg.org/bfijguaq5/stepping_on_rake_cartoon.png

clipe
March 23, 2017 8:06 pm

“The national celebrations, also known as National Earth Hour Mauritius, will be held in the beautiful town of Curepipe where the Queen Elizabeth Avenue (main historical street) and key landmarks will light up at night.”

Brook HURD
March 23, 2017 8:28 pm

They predict that several cities will be carbon neutral by 2030. The residents will go to sleep when sun sets and walk to work after the sun raises. In the winter there will be massive deaths due to hypothermia. Those deaths which are no doubt part of the plan will be what reduces carbon emissions.

Dean - NSW
March 23, 2017 8:34 pm

Wonder if they included the Chinese plan to keep increasing emissions until 2030 then do something about it maybe….

gbees
March 23, 2017 8:57 pm

Moore’s law came about through entrepreneurship, science & capitalism by the private sector. The carbon law would result from government taxation & regulations, religion (CAGW) & socialism. Hardly a recipe for success. Remember these peoples’ names. They are stark raving mad and need to be locked up.

hunter
March 23, 2017 9:15 pm

The anti-carbon fanatics are sort of the Khmer Rouge combined with the Heaven’s Gate death cult.
Anti-human pastoral delusions combined with si fi movie plots.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120869/Heavens-Gate-cult-committed-mass-suicide-15-years-ago.html

http://www.cambodiatribunal.org/history/cambodian-history/khmer-rouge-history/

Peter
March 23, 2017 9:31 pm

I propose a carbon free diet for all supporters of this innovative law. All foods with carbon in them would be banned.
This would fix the problem.

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  Peter
March 24, 2017 9:57 am

+ 1000

And no cheating.

Michael Darby
March 23, 2017 11:02 pm

https://wentworthreport.com/2017/03/24/no-to-earth-hour/

[https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/ef2eb88edc694057d5c371b78933cc0f?s=200&ts=1490335271]

No! to Earth Hour wentworthreport.com No! to Earth Hour, by Michael Darby. Wentworth Report readers are entitled to be unimpressed by plans being made for so called “Earth Hour” on Saturday 25 March. Thousands of misled people across A…

________________________________

March 23, 2017 11:39 pm

These people are as mad as a box of frogs.

Telboy
March 24, 2017 1:29 am

Pure happenstance, but I’m happy to say that on Earth Day I shall be doing my bit by flying from Japan to England. Keep the plant food coming!

Khwarizmi
Reply to  tango
March 24, 2017 4:23 am

Our rulers sold Hazelwood to foreigners, so we no longer have control over our power supply. That’s what globalism is all about – losing your sovereignty.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Khwarizmi
March 24, 2017 4:52 am

Exactly! Just like ~20% of NEW housing in Australia, now purchased by non-Australian residents, mostly Chinese. And our leaders wonder why there is a “housing affordability crisis” in Australia, when wage growth is stagnant and jobs are going offshore (To China). Recipe for disaster.

Khwarizmi
March 24, 2017 4:12 am

It’s called “The Australian-German Climate College,” according to Google:
http://climate-energy-college.org/files/site1/images/1249/11760335_884114351677249_4558013007527105719_n.jpg
http://climate-energy-college.org/

I want to know why only European nations are subject to incessant propaganda demanding that they change their evil ways with regards to energy use. Isn’t it enough that we exported most of our manufacturing to increasingly wealthy and powerful China, while we grow weaker, less capable, and more indebted?
Isn’t it enough already that my small nation of ~20 million people, producing an insignificant fraction of total CO2 emissions, has the 2nd most expensive energy on the planet? What more do they want?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Khwarizmi
March 24, 2017 4:49 am

Voting does not make any difference in Australia. When a “party” comes to power, it’s more like shuffling chairs on the deck of the Titanic. You know what will happen, but shuffling chairs makes no difference!

K. Kilty
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 24, 2017 7:28 am

Truly inadequate diversity.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 24, 2017 7:40 pm

“K. Kilty March 24, 2017 at 7:28 am”

True, but at least our democratic right to shuffle chairs remains intact.

K. Kilty
Reply to  Khwarizmi
March 24, 2017 7:36 am

If only the VC had booby-trapped his typewriter. Lost opportunities.

Graham
March 24, 2017 4:58 am

Nuts to that. Here’s a Carbon Law I’d back.
Carbon Law: Any adult person who refers to carbon dioxide as “carbon” will be liable to a term of imprisonment that will expire when global warming/climate change fraud does.

Hivemind
March 24, 2017 5:23 am

“2030: coal exits energy mix”

More accurately: norm for electricity supplies becomes no power. Days with power become rare.

jclarke341
March 24, 2017 6:31 am

The most interesting thing about this article is how well it fits with the entire Global Warming meme, right on down to the idea that the real world is completely irrelevant. Moore’s law was a product of observation. Moore didn’t decide that computer power should double every two years. He observed that it was happening and predicted it would continue. The ‘Carbon Law’ is quite different. While the authors claim that renewable energy output has doubled every 5.5 years for the last 10 years, it’s share of the total energy produced has not doubled, as fossil fuel use also continues to increase.

Secondly, the constant increase in computer power that was described by Moore’s Law was generated organically by (relatively) free markets. It was, and is, hugely lucrative for inventors and corporations to continue the constant improvement in computer technology. The opposite is true of renewable energy. Without massive government subsidies, solar and wind power would be making a much smaller contribution than the already are.

Increasing computer technology has massively contributed to the growth of the global economy. Increasing renewable energy is having a large, and growing drain on the global economy. A strong economy is one that continuously finds the most efficient uses of limited resources. It is economic suicide to move towards less efficiency while forcibly limiting the available resources

Moore’s law was based on observation. The Carbon Law is based on wishful thinking and delusion. The global climate is also found in observations, while the climate models continue to be a product of ‘wishful thinking’ and delusion. In the make-believe world of AGW, something like the ‘Carbon Law’ would be right at home, but it is less than useless in reality.

Sheri
March 24, 2017 6:59 am

“Businesses who try to avoid those steps and keep on tiptoeing will miss the next industrial revolution and thereby their best opportunity for a profitable future.”

“The next industrial revolution” would be the one that comes after decades of death and poverty caused by trying to reach zero carbon. The grandchildren of today’s business owners might live long enough to see that happen. In the meantime, welcome to environmental hell.

March 24, 2017 7:29 am

Unfortunately passing carbon laws does not overcome or disprove the actual laws of physics as they relate to energy generation. Of course this level of decarbonisation is possible, but with gas replacing coal burning and nuclear energy both, wholly sustainably and affordably. These goals are Impossible on the science facts with renewable energy offsetting fossil a bit of the time, and wholly ridiculous in terms of adeqaute overall grid energy supply with “storage”. Unless you go back to 3rd World energy supply levels.

As are these random science denying economies. And both economies and renewables are largely unnecessary IF you want to achieve these carbon reduction goals fastest and at lowest cost in energy science fact. These are scientists at a real University?

No arithmatic or joined up physics was troubled in the making of their assertions. It’s undeliverable science denial.

K. Kilty
March 24, 2017 7:32 am

Such a “carbon law”, based on Moore’s Law in the computer industry, applies to cities, nations and industrial sectors.

What they propose is the exact inverse of Moore’s Law. Moore’s Law is simply an observation of what innovation produces. What they propose is legislation demanding a particular outcome, with innovation to supposedly follow. Idiocy, foolishness, stupidity, hubris….none of these terms really describes what is afoot here.