Fossil fuels dominate global energy – Democrats try to conceal & suppress this reality

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

There are now at least 4 major global energy and emissions 2019 reports addressing the unequivocal energy reality that fossil fuels dominate year 2018 world energy use and emissions and further that future world energy use and resulting emissions outcomes through at least year 2050 will continued to be dominated by fossil fuel use.

These results are dictated by the world’s developing nations that completely control the direction and magnitude of all global energy and emissions outcomes.

The unequivocal fact that global energy and emissions are overwhelming dominated by fossil fuels as dictated by the worlds developing nation’s is concealed and suppressed by Democrats who continue to inappropriately push massively costly, hugely ineffective and completely unnecessary energy and emissions schemes like the Green New Deal upon our country while using distortion, deception and dishonestly to hide the global irrelevance of their climate alarmist propaganda schemes with the support of biased and purely politically driven climate alarmist media.      

These comprehensive year 2019 reports that address present and future global energy and emissions outcomes include the Brutish Petroleum Statistical Review report, the European Commission Joint Research Centre report, the Energy Information Administration International Energy Outlook 2019 report and most recently the International Energy Agency 2019 report.    

The GWPF article headline addressing the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) latest 2019 report on global energy and emissions says it all by noting “Climate Hysteria Flops: Global CO2 Emissions Rising Again And Won’t Peak Before 2040”.

clip_image002

The IEA report shows year 2018 global CO2 emissions climbing by 1.9% with forecasts of global energy use and emissions increases continuing through at least year 2040. Present and future energy use are dominated by fossil fuels with these resources supplying about 75% of total global energy use in year 2040 from year 2018 levels of about 85%.

The British Petroleum Statistical Review 2019 report clearly established through use of extensive and detailed country and region specific energy and emissions data that in the last decade ending in year 2018 the world’s developing nations use of fossil fuels controlled and dominated global energy use and growth and resulting emissions outcomes.

clip_image004

The BP data showed that in the period from 2008 through 2018 global energy grew by 18.5% with 98.5% of that growth driven by the world’s developing nations. Additionally about 88% of the world’s developing nations energy growth during that decade was provided by fossil fuels.

By year 2018 the world’s developing nations accounted for about 60% of all global energy use and two thirds of all global CO2 emissions. Further the developing nations increased CO2 emissions by over 4.5 billion metric tons during that decade with two thirds of that increase in emissions from China and India. The BP data demonstrates the overwhelmingly dominant role of the world’s developing nations in controlling global energy use growth and resulting emissions increases.

The European Commission Joint Research Centre 2019 report displays the ever upward and increasing climb of global CO2 emissions as a consequence of the continued, dominate and growing use of fossil fuels by the world’s developing nations. Global CO2 emissions in year 2018 climbed by about 8 billion metric tons per year since year 2005 levels despite declines in CO2 emissions during that period by the developed nations led by the U.S. and EU.

clip_image006

China and India lead the dominance of the world’s developing nations in the use of fossil fuels and increasing emissions outcomes as shown below. Since year 2005 these two nations have increased CO2 emissions by more than 6.4 billion metric tons per year easily exceeding the total yearly CO2 emissions of the U.S.

clip_image008

clip_image010

The U.S. has been reducing CO2 emissions since peak year 2007 levels primarily by the cost effective and energy efficient substitution of natural gas in place of coal fuel use. These reductions however are small compared to the huge emissions increases that are driven by the world’s developing nations.

clip_image012

The EIA IEO 2019 report forecasts global energy and emissions from year 2018 through year 2050. This forecast is consistent with the IEA 2019 report forecast and further demonstrates the complete dominance of the world’s developing nations in controlling the direction and magnitude of global energy use and resulting emissions.

This EIA report shows the continued use and growth of fossil fuels in meeting the great majority of future global energy use. These outcomes are displayed in the EIA report graphs provided below.

clip_image014

clip_image016

clip_image018

clip_image020

The EIA report data shows that by year 2050 the world’s developing nations are accountable for about 70% of all global energy use and about three quarters of all global CO2 emissions.

The developing nations account for about 87% of all global energy growth and 100% of all global CO2 emissions increases between 2018 and year 2050. This developing nation outcome results in CO2 emissions from these nations increasing by over 8.4 billion metrics tons by year 2050.

EIA forecast data shows total global energy use in 2018 used fossil fuels for about 80% of that total energy. EIA forecasts that fossil fuels will provide about 70% of year 2050 total global energy use.

As the leader of the world’s developing nations China made a significant announcement this month that it is making a recommitment to coal fuel use as its top priority for meeting future energy growth and energy security goals in its Five Year Plan with lessor emphasis on use of renewables.

clip_image022

This action by China in emphasizing use of fossil fuels for meeting future energy use needs will significantly influence and be reflected in energy growth plans by other developing nation countries many of whom have energy partnerships with China. The world’s developing nations will further promote the continued reliance by these nations on using fossil fuels to meet future energy and economic needs.

For decades fossil fuels have been relied upon by the world’s nations to provide the foundation for improving economic opportunities and development in both the 20th and 21st centuries.

clip_image024

Now that the world’s developing nations are dominate in defining the global energy strategy that will be used to drive future economic outcomes it is quite clear that fossil fuels will continue to be the primary global energy resource relied upon to achieve their objectives.

Climate alarmist elitist and propagandists in the developed nations, including the Democrats in the U.S., will not be able to control or change this global energy reality no matter how hard they may try to conceal and suppress that globally documented and established fact.

Advertisements

76 thoughts on “Fossil fuels dominate global energy – Democrats try to conceal & suppress this reality

  1. Hey, European Union, now that you have tripled down with Electric Vehicles, solar, wind, and renewables financing, one might say that be careful what you wish for, because you might not like the economic development and environmental results.

    The Multiple Fires Involving Tesla’s Solar Systems Lawsuit alleges/states:

    “To state the obvious, properly designed, installed, inspected, and maintained solar systems do not spontaneously combust, and the occurrence of multiple fires involving Tesla’s solar systems is but one unmistakable sign of negligence by Tesla.”

    • Green Delusion Persists: Tesla Crash Victim Can’t Find Anyone To Recycle His Wrecked Car

      ccdeditor ccdeditor
      2 days ago

      tesla car wreckIt was just over a month ago that we reported on a Tesla accident in Austria that resulted in firefighters needing to use a special container to transport the remains of the vehicle and the battery at the scene of the accident.

      Now, the owner of the vehicle is having trouble finding someone who will properly recycle his wrecked car and its battery.

      It’s been sitting in one place since the accident and Tyrol reports that “nobody wants to burn their fingers to dispose of the car with its unpredictable 600kg lithium-ion battery.”

      The owner, Dominik Freymuth, says he feels “abandoned by the manufacturer.” Every morning he passes by the wreckage of his old vehicle, a stark reminder of being pulled out of his burning vehicle before it was charred to the ground, he says.

      To try and get the car taken care of after the wreck, he reached out to Tesla’s Austrian disposal partner ÖCAR Autoverwertungs.

      Tesla’s website says “ÖCAR Automobile Recycling has a large network of authorized recycling and disposal partners fully licensed by the Department of the Environment.”

      But ÖCAR reportedly has “no permission” to take over Tesla models, according to a spokeswoman for the company. She stated: “I can not give you any information because we have no authorization for Tesla.”

      Many disposal companies don’t want to deal with the Tesla battery, because its a “fire hazard” and because you “do not remember where the battery starts and where it stops” – especially after a wreck.

      Martin Klingler, the waste disposal expert at the Schwaz environmental company DAKA, said (translated):

      “Such a large lithium battery can not be taken over by his company since one does not even know the mix of dangerous substances inside them. The electric vehicle manufacturers kept the composition of their elixirs top secret so as not to lose their competitive edge. The liquid in which the accident car was cooled by the Walchsee is a dangerously poisonous brew, but now a coveted drop. The Montanuniversität Leoben has already secured samples of it in order to discover the secret of its content.”
      Roland Pomberger, chair for a waste utilization technology in Leoben, when asked on how to deal with a Tesla battery, simply said: “I don’t know.”

      He continued: “That falls into the producer responsibility, and the Walchsee Tesla shows that the manufacturer has probably not thought too much about it. Here one has failed to think from cradle to stretcher.”

      And the fiasco has Freymuth rethinking ever buying a Tesla again: “I will not buy any more, now that I know the time bomb I am sitting on,” he said.

      Recall, Freymuth lost control of his Tesla and crashed into a tree, after first hitting a guardrail. It was then that the vehicle caught fire.

  2. Asia’s economiuc rise and emissions swamping the OECD reductions will not stop the wind and solar invested GreenSlime billionaires here in the US, Canada, Europe from attempting to get vastly richer by squeezing the middle class into serfdom. They are funding a massive global propaganda campaign the likes of which are unprecedented.

  3. Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.

    The graph above, “Global Primary Energy Consumption by Energy Source”, projects steadily growing renewable energy. It shows it going from 50 quads now to 250 quads in 2050. It also shows nuclear being flat.

    WUWT has had lots of stories that look at the amount of resources consumed by renewable energy technologies. My guess is that 250 quads is unattainable. New nuclear technologies, on the other hand, show some promise.

  4. There should be a law that service stations, buses, airplanes, electricity bills should have a label similar to the notice in most websites that states ” This product uses in its manufacture or contains fossil fuels for _____ per cent and by continuing to use or buy this product I agree to its energy sourcing”. It will be illegal to operate a battery charging station powered by diesel engine without disclosing it or from the power grid without disclosing the energy mix of the grid. Invoice for new electric cars, solar panels and batteries, windmills, and emission free gadgets will carry the label on the fossil fuel usage to manufacture it.

  5. A good article – but I do not see wind and solar power generation increasing for much longer. The fatal flaws in wind and solar of intermittency and diffusivity are unlikely to be solved in the foreseeable future. I have known these facts since ~forever and published them as early as 2002.

    Fossil fuels have comprised about 85% of global primary energy for many decades and this will continue for many decades in the future. I believe there will be a transition to nuclear power generation over time, but not to much more wind and solar.

    Global cooling, which happened in ~2007-2009 as the end of SC23, will probably be even more severe now, at the end of weaker SC 24. We also predicted this global cooling in an article published in 2002. Bundle up!

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/05/fear-and-loathing-for-california/#comment-73212
    [excerpt from 2009]

    Fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) comprise over 85% of global primary energy – the remainder is mostly nuclear and hydro. Wind, geothermal and solar don’t amount to much, and neither do biofuels. It is ironic that so many people in the developed world loath energy companies, and yet fossil fuels are essential to keep them and their families from freezing and starving. Many Europeans and North Americans have bought into this irrational hatred – as they huddle in their homes during this cold winter, perhaps some of them will realize that rational energy policies and capable energy companies are essential for their survival.

    Regards, Allan

      • Well, it 18th Nov 2019 here in Sydney and it’s is cool. So much for late spring and 87% fires started by arsonists with decades of fuel load to burn.

        • At my nearest weather station, Mildura, western Victoria, 32 today, 36 tomorrow and 43 on Wednesday (20th Nov.) Good luck in Sydney, some cooler weather there should help with the bushfires.

          • Unfortunately Tom here in Gulgong the mid West of NSW it’s going to be 36C plus here over the next few days. My son has been helping fight fires in northern NSW. People want to blame bushfires on climate change, thankfully they’ve caught a few of the arsonists and they know that most were caused by people. Many of the homes that were lost were destroyed directly because of these idiots. And the greens in councils won’t let us slowburn reduction fires. The fuel has simply built up over the years.

    • As always, Allan Macrae has it right, just as he did in 2002. “I do not see wind and solar power generation increasing for much longer.”
      Germany, by it’s actions has admitted as much by hardly installing any wind generation in 2019. Liberal pundits like to say that’s only because of permitting complications, but as usual they confuse cause and effect. The cause is Germany has too much wind and solar already (the same as California) and the effect is permits are not being issued for a host of reasons…including NIMBY from numerous directions. In 2020 Germany’s original tariff wind mills will lose their funding. More turbines will be decommissioned than built into the foreseeable future. the fat lady has sung. Note: Capacity may increase slightly, but not significantly (current turbines 5X larger).
      Another indicator that Germany has realized that wind and solar are maxed out is their legislating the new “energy packet”. The packet shifts the emphasis to transportation and buildings and away from power generation. Merkel and her minions created the “energiewende” mess and only the next government will have a chance of cleaning it up. No science here, only politics.
      Germany won’t be converting to electric or hydrogen transportation by 2030 no matter what form the new “packet” finally evolves into and won’t be by 2045 unless they restart their nukes (IMHO).

    • Allan, I hope that you’re right about the eventual move to nuclear. Though, Australia is blowing up it’s coal fire power plants and apparently there’s a moratorium against nuclear here, hydro’s not big (we have problems with water), we could be in trouble.

      As for Biofuel, calling that a renewable source and pretending it doesn’t add to co2 is an oxymoron isn’t it?

      • Hi Megs,

        Re biofuels:

        I “inherited” a corn ethanol project in Wyoming years ago. The business never made economic sense – it barely broke even despite huge state and federal subsidies.

        About 30% of the huge USA corn crop is devoted to corn ethanol, and this industry is contributing to the excessive drawdown of the vital Ogalalla aquifer in the USA Midwest.

        I do not approve of biofuels in general – biofuels have also caused huge environmental damage in the tropics, both with sugar cane ethanol in Brazil and palm oil in SE Asia.

        • I love international blogs Allen, it increases my knowledge and makes me want to learn more. I had not considered ethanol so much when I referred to biofuels, we don’t make ethanol here, I was thinking more along the lines of woodchip. We don’t make that here either but the fact that it’s up there with renewable energy which is supposed to be reducing co2 is beyond a joke! I don’t have a problem with using wood as a fuel but how can the greens pretend it doesn’t create co2 and whats more add it in support of their figures?

          • This may be of interest, about 25 years ago I invested in some fuel technologies developed by Rudolf Gunnerman of Nevada, the proprietary product facilitated the emulsifying of petrol or diesel with water, of course the water has no calorific value but I witnessed testing and data first hand in Reno Nevada, also Adelaide buses trialed A55 as it was called for a couple of years with the following results, better mileage due to fuel efficiency factors, motors running cooler and lasting twice as long with elongated oil change intervals, particulate and harmful gas emissions reduced to about half of diesel, this prompted trials on coal and gas fired power stations which produced similar results, 25% better efficiency (hence less coal or gas used) lower emissions, unfortunately for Australia our own “worlds best treasurer-Peter Costello” insisted on full fuel excise for the water content, which killed the project and patent was brought from the receiver by an oil company for peanuts and we lost our considerable investment. Gunnerman also developed a biomass product from vegetation for home heating with clean air being the aim, I have heard Russia is making a similar product for power generation and selling into Scandinavia with emissions ranging from 10 to 50 % less than coal, don’t know about economics but with the dopey sterilization of Australian forests and massive fines for picking up a bit of firewood, only to see the lot go up in smoke, killing people and animals and razing property, it may be time to have a good hard think about it and remove the failed three tiers of government from forestry and the hapless National parks and wildlife and adopt the Russian approach.

          • Thanks Tom
            I don’t have a problem with research into alternative reliable energy sources. I truly don’t believe that wind and solar have been thought through. Wouldn’t it be good to see that wasted investment spent on sorting out water for inland Australia. It would be a service to the environment here and in China too.

          • Hi MEGS, Looking more at the opportunities to make existing power generation more efficient, a 25% saving in fuel equates to a massive generation cost saving so would drive power prices down and make a huge saving in emissions, a win-win except for the coal and gas sales who are the main opponents, don’t discount state governments as being complicit with loss of royalties being a factor, so all are against efficiency, don’t think we will really know the true cost of renewables for decades but doubt if the higher costs and subsidies will yield a net saving for the environment, the climate changers could well be responsible for a far worse outcome than clean coal. Will renewables ever be efficient? Unlikely as batteries on big scale just don’t work and will need huge taxpayer subsidies forever, wind power is a joke as far more efficient and cheaper mills have had patents brought by suppliers and buried

          • Tom, in regards to renewable energy, the ecological cost is far greater than with coal. The wasted $$$ is an added travesty.

    • https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records

      U.S. DAILY RECORDS SUMMARY – THOUSANDS OF NEW RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES IN THE LAST 7 AND 30 DAYS.

      PERIOD HIGH MAX HIGH MIN LOW MAX LOW MIN SNOWFALL
      Last 7 Days 82 61 966 1225 420
      Last 30 Days 884 1005 3424 4201 1258

      In my opinion, the new record highs must be strongly discounted, because they are artifacts due to the UHI effect.

      It’s getting colder out there – some people still attribute this cooling to fossil fuels and global warming – maybe it’s brain freeze.

      • The new record highs must be strongly discounted, because they are high ones. The only records to trust are low ones. Yes… its getting colder out there because its your winter.

        If you were at all curious you’d examine the ratios and ponder the growing imbalance, and bear this in mind, parts of North America have been the least anomalously warm for many months – so imagine the imabalance in places that have been the most anomalously warm.

        Tomorrow it’ll be 42C. The record for November is 42.7C, wish me luck. I blame those tricky Democrats. (even though they’re in another country)

        • Loydo is getting angrier and angrier that the low lifes are failing to believe as she has instructed them to believe.
          It’s gotten to the point that she is no longer able to even understand, much less accurately respond to the arguments they make.

        • Lets say I buy everything you say, CO2 emissions and Fossil Fuel use continues to increase where do you want to go from there?

          All the big emissions players are Nuclear armed and a couple of the big players are totalitarian states so you can’t use force, trade wars or voter power.

          You badly need a plan B because Emission Control is flogging a dead horse ,,, do you agree?

          • Good comments, LdB.

            IF increasing atmospheric CO2 were a real threat, humanity would be finished, because the biggest CO2 emitters are accelerating their use of coal, oil and natural gas and they won’t stop.

            Fortunately, climate is relatively INsensitive to increasing CO2 and the net result, consisting of greatly increased plant and crop yields, is hugely beneficial.

            The leading proponents of fossil fuel and CO2 abatement have known this reality for decades – their real agenda has never been about the climate – it is about using the global warming smokescreen to sabotage the last great democracies.

            Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace provided an early warning of this covert totalitarian campaign in 1994:
            “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement – The Rise of Eco-Extremism”
            http://ecosense.me/2012/12/30/key-environmental-issues-4/

            “Surprisingly enough, the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.”

        • Most record highs are from URBAN areas, rarely in Rural areas, why is that Loydo?

          Most “global warming” occurs during El-Nino phases, little to none without El-Nino phases, why is that Loydo?

  6. “concealed and suppressed by Democrats”

    Uh huh, they’re tricking everybody except you Larry. Got any evidence of this malevolent trickery?

    • Loydo, as usual make a dumb statement, here is the entire quote YOU didn’t post that surrounds your cherry picked part:

      “The unequivocal fact that global energy and emissions are overwhelming dominated by fossil fuels as dictated by the worlds developing nation’s is concealed and suppressed by Democrats who continue to inappropriately push massively costly, hugely ineffective and completely unnecessary energy and emissions schemes like the Green New Deal upon our country while using distortion, deception and dishonestly to hide the global irrelevance of their climate alarmist propaganda schemes with the support of biased and purely politically driven climate alarmist media.”

      Already answered in the article you didn’t read, Democrats are at war with “fossil fuels”, they try closing coal powered plants, push the intermittent “renewable” power generation plants, fight Nuclear power, resist NG, and pass favorable energy tax and subsidy credits for “renewable”, such as Solar and Wind.

      Meanwhile Larry makes a good case to show that “fossil fuels” will still be dominating the energy landscape by 2040, something YOU seem oblivious to…..

      It appears you are tricking yourself with skill.

    • Cherry picking quotes. How appropriate. You’ve been cherry picking your data since you slimed your way onto this site.

  7. Agree that renewables forecast is ‘optimistic’ – I wonder what assumptions are used? Can one see them anywhere? Continued taxpayer subsidy? Technical breakthrough?

  8. I think we are stuck with fossil fuels for a while yet, unless we go nuclear. But I don’t agree with the premise of the article, that the Democrats are trying to suppress and conceal our dependence on fossil fuels to push for alternate energy sources. Surely their lobbying is BECAUSE of the dependence on fossil fuels and their belief in its negative consequences. All we hear is fossil fuels bad, we use too much of them, we’re too dependent on them, we have to stop being dependent on them.

    Of course, sooner or later, we are going to run out of fossil fuels and in the lead-up they are going to get harder to find and extract and so become more expensive. CO2 aside, sooner or later we’ll need to come up with new and betted technology to use other energy sources. Why not sooner? New technology always has many unpredicted side benefits.

    • Who is ‘we’? Do you mean we the US, or we the British?

      Or do you mean we the Chinese and Indians?

      That is what this piece forces you to be explicit about. It is showing clearly that we the OECD cannot reduce global emissions by unilateral action or stop or even materially affect global warming, assuming the emissions do cause it. We are not emitting enough, they who we do not control are emitting too much.

      So tell me again, why the mania about reducing our own emissions?

      Why the support for Paris, which envisaged the ROW increasing as fast as they can go?

      Why does the left keep advocating we take expensive measures which will have no effect on what they claim to be the problem, because we are not the main source of the problem?

      Its like proposing Tuvalu tackle sea level rise by reducing its own emissions.

      • Michel, you seem to be responding to my comment, but I’m not sure because I didn’t mention reducing emissions.

        Anyway, by ‘we’ I mean the world, all of us.

    • “Tom Foley November 18, 2019 at 1:23 am

      All we hear is fossil fuels bad, we use too much of them, we’re too dependent on them, we have to stop being dependent on them.
      Of course, sooner or later, we are going to run out of fossil fuels and in the lead-up they are going to get harder to find and extract and so become more expensive. “

      Utter nonsense.
      A) Fossil fuels have been identified that can supply energy for over a century.
      B) Our Solar System has far more methane available for feedstock than can be imagined. Harvesting just one source will make total Earthbound sources ever, paltry by comparison.

      Using or citing Malthusian mantras is absurd. Man’s limitations are mental not physical.

      Democrats, elitists, progressives, etcetera are all pretending that they do not rely upon fossil fuel from their first morning breath through the next night’s slumber.
      • Foods are grown, fertilized, harvested, cleaned, transported, sold, refrigerated and cooked/prepared by fossil fuels.
      • Water is drawn, purified and distributed by fossil fuels.
      • Human wastes are flushed, carried by fossil fuel installed sewage systems, handled by fossil fuel run sewage plants.
      • All clothing is dependent upon fossil fuels from initial planting harvesting through carding, roving, thread spinning, weaving, cutting, sewing, selling. Fossil fuel originating fibers; e.g. lycra, rayon, dacron, polypropylene, nylon are entirely sourced from fossil fuels.
      • Every component in a building depends upon fossil fuels for mining, harvesting, smelting, sawing, refining, chemical factory, etc. etc. right through construction as workers use fossil fuel powered tools to install the components.

      No matter the item, every item used by humans are dependent upon fossil fuels.

      Anyone who believes we are too dependent must prove that by utterly ceasing to use fossil fuel derived products, heat, cooling, transport, clothing, shelter, etc. etc.

      A big fear eagerly written about by authors and playwrights was the nuclear apocalypse where humans are returned to the stone age. Nowadays, Malthusian disciples want to achieve the same end without the nuclear apocalypse.
      They can prove it by going there first.

      • ATheOK,
        I am influenced by a family member with a life-time in the petroleum industry, not by Malthus. One of those quiet scientists who no-one has ever heard of, but who had a important role in oil exploration over the last 50 years, and who, by the way, has no doubt about global warming. So I’ve learnt more than a bit about oil exploration and the predicted future of the fossil fuel supply, as well as the wide variety of uses of fossil fuels. The Democrats know perfectly well how much it is used – and they think that huge usage is causing global warming.

        Now that I’m in my 70s, the idea that fossil fuels will last for over a century is unimpressive. The next century will be over in a flash, and as I noted, as time passes it will be harder and increasingly expensive to extract what is still there. We need to look at finding and improving access to other energy sources asap.

        And if we are going to source methane from other planets or moons in the solar system, we need to get moving on interplanetary travel yesterday. Back in the 60s when I was a science student at university, we were excited about the space race to the moon, and when that happened, we knew that we’d be on Mars, or further, before the end of the century. For us in 1968, the film 2001 wasn’t fantasy, it was prediction. But it didn’t happen.

        So if you’re talking about sourcing methane from elsewhere in the solar system in a hundred years time, get moving now. It’s 50 years since the first moon landing and we haven’t even been back there for 47 years. Of course, we could just wait for the world to warm up a bit and buy methane from the Russians when the Siberian tundra melts and releases lots; that might be cheaper.

        On the other hand, why go to all that effort to go to other planets to source energy, when the sun sends it to us daily. I predict breakthroughs in the way we utilise solar energy are the most probable. Not to mention nuclear, tidal, geothermal.

    • We are not running out of fossil fuels.

      I had a friend some years back who became part of that movement, when it gained brief internet popularity around 2000 (right after Y2K didn’t pan out). I made fun of him then and he became very angry. They said then by 2005 we would all be dead from the oil running out.

      Well it’s 2019. I’d bring it up to him now and again but I outlived him due to his reluctance to rely on Western Medicine in favor of some alternative hippie stuff. True story!

    • “But I don’t agree with the premise of the article, that the Democrats are trying to suppress and conceal our dependence on fossil fuels to push for alternate energy sources.”

      That’s a strawman—a rebuttal of a claim the original article didn’t make. Implicitly they and other warmists conceal: 1) That renewables are far more expensive (and will continue to be) than fossil fuels; 2) That the developing world isn’t and won’t be “buying it” (renewables); That mitigation of CO2 by developed countries is therefore expensive and futile.

      • This is the statement in the article that I was responding to.

        “Now that the world’s developing nations are dominate in defining the global energy strategy that will be used to drive future economic outcomes it is quite clear that **fossil fuels will continue to be the primary global energy resource relied upon to achieve their objectives**.
        Climate alarmist elitist and propagandists in the developed nations, including the Democrats in the U.S., will not be able to control or change this global energy reality no matter how hard they may try to **conceal and suppress that globally documented and established fact**.”

  9. Attenborough (actually the people who wrote his script) had the nerve to attack hydroelectricity in his recent TV nature programme from South America, and of course “greens” hate nuclear. Thus “greens” have the nerve to attack numbers 1, 2 and 3 in the league table of global energy generation methods, and the useless MSM eggs them on.

    • Old Boaty Mcboatface certainly knows how to read a script. You don’t need a science degree to do that. Fortunately for real scientists Boaty doesn’t have a science degree, otherwise the embarrassment would be too great to bear. The lack of science awareness at the BBC is shocking, despite their founding of the open university which was and is a good thing. Sadly it now suffers from the left infestation and agenda. We all hoped Open would be above such influence but no, the course material is constantly pushing the warmist/left story line.
      Very sad.

  10. Larry

    “The unequivocal fact that global energy and emissions are overwhelmingly dominated by fossil fuels as dictated by the worlds developing nation’s is concealed and suppressed by Democrats ”

    Great post

  11. Larry

    “Democrats who continue to inappropriately push massively costly, hugely ineffective and completely unnecessary energy and emissions schemes like the Green New Deal upon our country while using distortion, deception and dishonestly dishonesty to hide the global irrelevance”

  12. “These comprehensive year 2019 reports that address present and future global energy and emissions outcomes include the Brutish Petroleum Statistical Review report”

    Brutish ?

    Freudian slip ? lol

  13. The only kind of energy that could provide the steady power we need for electricity and replace fossil fuels effectively is Nuclear. (Aside from terrible electric cars, there is little to nothing we can do about cars at this time besides continue to make them more efficient.)
    The benefits to nuclear is the it does not produce carbon emissions and leaves clean air, the fuel can be used a long time, and is a good way to get developing nations on board with electricity.
    The main drawbacks of nuclear are the cost, particularly with replacing existing plants, and overcoming years of propaganda about their dangers.
    Still, if the “climate change activists” were truly concerned about stopping emissions quickly, they would conclude rationally there was no other choice. The fact that they want everyone to use faulty electric sources like hydro, solar, and wind and simultaneously go back to a more primitive way of living to cope with the lack of adequate electric power shows they have a different agenda in mind.

    • The fact that they want everyone to use faulty electric sources like hydro….

      Just want to point out that hydro is not “faulty”. It works wonderfully and is among the safest, most reliable forms of power in existence today. The “problem” with it is that it is limited to areas where the geography supports it’s use. (a hydro electric plant in the middle of the Sahara Desert, for example, would not be of much use).

      • Ditto in the Australian center John, that’s why we have little in the way of Hydro. Nuclear would certainly be the best option for us, if only our governments had the courage.

  14. Well, the Greenbeaners really won’t stop trying world conquest until they’re freezing to death in the upcoming Little Ice Age Part II.

    And since they want carbon levels reduced (as if carbon dioxide is the Enemy), they ignore that simple little fact that in an oxygen-heavy atmosphere (e.g., the Silurian and Carboniferous periods), they will expire from the effects of hyperoxia, because oxygen in excessive quantities is just as poisonous as carbon dioxide. Only giant bugs will be left.

    Oh, yeah – on a side note, I wondered if insects could be forced to increase in size in an Oxy-heavy atmosphere, and found that an experiment on that very question was run. The results were interesting: dragonflies increased in size in their first generation, while cockroaches did not, owing to the size of the spiracle openings in their thoraxes.

    Seriously, messing with Mother Nature’s balancing act, which is what these people want to do – play God – is a really, really bad idea. Don’t mess with Mother Nature. She’s cranky.

  15. “and resulting emissions outcomes through at least year 2050 will continued to be dominated by fossil fuel use.”
    excellent example of inability to recognize the obvious coming dominance of Gen 4 molten salt small modular reactors. They will dominate because of their superior economics and technology and zero emission behavior. Domination should begin 2030 and these SMRs can be built quickly , chrsply smf installed virtually anywhere.

    • We hope Gen 4 SMRs really take off, but as you should be aware the big mean Green machine does not like cheap energy and will do whatever they can to prevent it or slow it down and make it more expensive.

  16. Here’s a comment I just made on the Climategate thread, but I should have waited and posted it here:

    It’s just occurred to me (more forcefully than in the past, anyway) that what’s been keeping the Climate Action Bandwagon in business so long has been the claim that renewables are no more costly than the alternatives and/or that their costs are falling.

    But that isn’t the case, when the indirect and hidden costs are accounted for. Electricity costs will rise within the next three to five years as newly alarmed jurisdictions (in the developed world) shift toward renewables. This will create voter and demonstrator pushback. (As in Brazil, although as a result of different green austerity measures.)

    Another Bandwagon-booster has been the belief that all the world in on-board with this crusade. It’s true that there are renewables being installed all over the world, especially in India. But the bulk of the developing world’s energy investment isn’t going into renewables. This should become evident as the Keeling curve of CO2 in the atmosphere continues its steady or accelerating rise.

    A third alarmist-booster is the belief that “we” can reduce the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere, or at least decelerate its accumulation, by moving to renewables. But the rest of the world—the developing world—isn’t moving, and isn’t going to move, to renewables, because they’re too expensive and/or impractical.

    The mass of the public that has been currently swayed into endorsing “climate action” will become disillusioned with it once it becomes clear that it is just a costly exercise in futility and inconvenience. Time is on our side. Economics bats last. It will be much easier to disprove alarmist claims about the economics and global appeal of renewables than about the intricacies of climatology—and, that done, climate-related alarmist claims will come to be viewed with suspicion as well.

  17. Nature dominates emissions. For CO2, over 96% of emissions are natural. Human emissions are <4%.

    'The unequivocal fact that global energy and emissions are overwhelming dominated by fossil fuels'

    Unequivocally wrong.

  18. The point is those countries using coal will prosper and those not won’t.

    Not able to sell climate change to most adults they now turn to children by teaching it in the schools. That is where the victory is seen to enriching themselves with money and power.

    Why do they hide the truth, because the truth is not helpful.

Comments are closed.