Fossil Fuel Production Plans Shred Paris Agreement Fantasies

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

National Geographic has just noticed the top fossil fuel producers and consumers are acting as if the Paris Agreement doesn’t exist.

Dangerous levels of warming locked in by planned jump in fossil fuels output

Plans by the world’s biggest oil, gas, and coal producers to vastly increase their output guarantees those countries will miss their stated Paris climate goals.

BY STEPHEN LEAHY

PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 20, 2019

Global governments plan to produce 120 percent more fossil fuels by 2030drastically at odds with the 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) warming limit they all agreed to under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. All major fossil fuel-producing nations—including the United States, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, Canada, and Australia—have ambitious plans to increase production, according to a new report by leading research organizations and the United Nations.

Carbon emissions from fossil fuel use totaled 37.1 billion tonnes in 2018, a new record. Substantially reducing those emissions will never happen without reducing fossil fuel production, says Michael Lazarus, a lead author of “The Production Gap Report” and the director of Stockholm Environment Institute’s U.S. Center.

Using publicly-available government documents, the report found that countries’ plans to increase production of coal, oil, and gas amounts to 120 percent more in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting global warming to 2.7 degrees F. Those plans include producing 280 percent more coal. That puts the world on a path to more than 7.2 degrees F (4 degrees C) of warming, says Lazarus.

Read more: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/world-fossil-fuel-production-rise-guarantees-missing-paris-climate-goals/

Who could have guessed that Paris Agreement pledges were just a political smokescreen for increased fossil fuel production?

Advertisements

53 thoughts on “Fossil Fuel Production Plans Shred Paris Agreement Fantasies

  1. Apparently, fossil fuels work similar to “If you build it, they will come.”
    Only, now it is “If you produce it, they will burn it.”
    And the blame goes on the fossil fuel producer, not the user.

    SR

  2. Tell President Trump that it is time for him to bring out his Clean Coal Solution and start reducing CO2 Emissions. This is not CCUS that will only take a slip stream of the power plants exhaust, but it will take all of it and remove and transform over 90% of the CO2 and turn the CO2 into good paying full time jobs and money.
    This Sidel CCU System comes with an ROI. The Utilities that put in these CCU Systems will be reimbursed from the profits made selling the CO2 produced products.
    This Sidel CCU System does not require any steam from the power plant for it’s process, and requires less than .5% of the power plants produced electricity.
    Sidel will manage the full CCU System from seed to completion allowing the Utility to focus on what it does best – making and selling electricity into the grid. And they get to collect the 45Q Tax breaks.
    This Sidel CCU System was designed to be Win-Win for all including the local agricultural communities.

    • Clean coal, concentrating CO2 and trying to store it, utterly terrifies me.

      In 1986 in Lake Nyos, Africa, there was a natural release of between 100-300,000 tons of CO2 (though some estimates suggest 1.6 million tons), which killed pretty much everyone within 15 miles of the release.

      Likely a higher casualty rate than if you detonated an atomic bomb over the lake.

      The reason – CO2 is heavier than air, concentrated CO2 hugs the ground, forming an unbreathable blanket of gas 10s of ft high which rolled out over the countryside around the lake.

      Thankfully there were only a few thousand casualties, Lake Nyos is a sparsely inhabited region, probably because this has happened many times in the past.

      But imagine if there was an accident at a CO2 sequestration facility close to a major city. 100,000 tons is the output of a medium size coal power plant for a month. The death toll could be in the millions.

      • Yes it’s best to leave it as a well-mixed trace gas (0.04%) of the atmosphere rather than concentrate it in small areas.
        Like farting when you’re half-way down a ski slope vs letting one go in an elevator.

      • Indeed that was the reason Germany abandoned CO2 capture: nobody wanted to be living on top of the reservoir, which as there are no oilfields would be a different geological formation

      • I keep tellin’ you guys “Don’t mess with Mother Nature! She’s cranky!!”

        What IS this panic attack stuff going on with Fear Of Carbon??? Oh, sorry – I forgot!! Panicky stories, no matter how screwball they are, sell more newspapers and magazines than happy-happy people stories.

        Since the so-called Paris Agreement is just another money-grubbing scam to grab money from the US and other countries, it’s time it was put where it belongs: in the crapper.

      • Terrorist target, as well.

        Remember folks, the US is 14% of global carbon emissions, and dropping. Nothing we can do, even if it were a problem.

    • Interesting technology and I’m always checking out Clean Coal technology but CO2 is not a problem. What does the Sidel system do with the mercury, sulphur, nitrous? The real polutants. Since CO2 is not a problem and will make the earth greener why not go for oxy-combustion? Burn coal in a pure oxygen environment at very high temperatures and you get cleaner than natural gas emmissions. It deals with all the real pollutants.

      We have 40 years of the best coverage of our planet via satellite and we are looking at 1.3C per century (UAH) or 1.9C (RSS). Take the high end, low end or pick a middle number like 1.6C it doesn’t matter.

      There is no crisis with CO2 emmissions. But if you want to test it China has over 1000 coal plants around the world funded (they plan to be the OPEC of electricity) and India plans to double their coal plants from 500 to 1000.

    • Sid, the US is the only nation that has reduced CO2 emissions and that is in spite of Obama and the idiotic Paris Accord.
      U.S. Cuts ‘Global Warming’ Gases Faster Than Anyone Else, But Media Ignore It
      https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/u-s-cuts-global-warming-gases-faster-than-anyone-else-but-media-ignore-it/
      “The latest report from the Environmental Protection Agency shows that the emission of so-called greenhouse gases declined by 2% in 2016 from 2015 and 11% from 2005. No major industrial economy on Earth has made as much progress as the U.S.
      …By forcing a switch to “renewables” like wind and solar power, these countries had hoped to become clean-energy powerhouses. Instead, to make up for the growing energy shortages, higher cost and unreliability of renewables, they’ve had to rely on using even more coal for their energy — entirely foreseeable and avoidable problems that somehow the extreme green leaders of these nations neither foresaw nor avoided…”
      This was done by fracking and natural gas and in spite of Obama’s war on it.
      This while the US has the best economy in the world.
      Trump is not responsible for all of it but natural gas is a winner and he is promoting it. He is also promoting nuclear and no one is serious about AGW unless they favor nuclear which is the only clean and green energy Mankind has right now. Windmills, Solar arrays, biofuels and biomass are a joke and increase CO2 while doing enormous environmental harm. Their only benefit is making wealthy people much wealthier via Gov. tax credits and subsidies.
      New DOE and NRC Agreement Will Lead to Faster Deployment and Licensing of U.S. Nuclear Technologies
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/17/new-doe-and-nrc-agreement-will-lead-to-faster-deployment-and-licensing-of-u-s-nuclear-technologies/

    • Sid,
      “The Utilities that put in these CCU Systems will be reimbursed from the profits made selling the CO2 produced products.”

      What happens to this CO2 that has been captured when the buyers use it?

          • I don’t think CO2 is an input for us. I think it’s an output. In the case of carbonated beverages, usually in the form of burps. I’m pretty sure Susan was making a funny 🙂

    • How can spending money on a solution that’s un-needed be a win for anyone, except those who are getting rich selling a scam?

    • Do you understand that you will collect more than TWICE as much CO2 than the mass of the burnt fossil fuel. Then the volume will be at least an order of magnitude larger unless pressurized to solid form.

  3. . . . the top fossil fuel producers and consumers are acting as if the Paris Agreement doesn’t exist. . .

    So the of the world has caught THE CHINA SYNDROME?

    lol

  4. Stephen Leahy the writer here at NatGeo clearly thinks the Paris Climate Agreement was about climate.
    I wonder when his clue light will turn on?

  5. Let’s change that headline, “Dangerous levels of warming locked in…” to “Adequate supplies of fossil fuel locked in for coming cold times during GSM. Homes to remain toasty warm during hard winters to come.”

  6. There has always been, and will continue to be, a strong desire by the base producers of energy to provide the energy their customers demand, require, and pay for. It is called the Law of Supply and Demand. It is not a legislative fantasy, it is a natural law similar to the Law of Gravity. To the naysayers: GET OVER IT!
    No amount of international agreements can change the demand picture. The connection of human well being to energy use is well established. As long as the human race exists the search for energy will go on – and be paid for by the users. Period- end of story!

  7. “Dangerous levels of warming locked in…”

    I thought that was locked in when CO2 concentration breached 350ppm/v?

  8. “National Geographic has just noticed the top fossil fuel producers and consumers are acting as if the Paris Agreement doesn’t exist.” Because it only exists in the minds of the alarmists who believe it will do something, anything, to stop atmospheric CO2 count. It’s going up you nincompoops! And the US is probably their most unlikely ally in the CO2 war even though they don’t believe or support it!

  9. Have you noticed that green politicians, green celebrities, and many green activists, refuse to give up air travel.

    They live in multiple houses.

    They drive or ride in big gas guzzlers

    When they vacation they go to places that are 10 to 30C warmer than where they live. Isn’t a 2C temp rise supposed to mean the end of civilization?

    And if we want to talk about wealth redistribution; well Al Gore, Justin Trudeau, and Leo DiCaprio can go first. I’ll consider following them when each of these three live in one residence of 900 sq. ft.

    • Yes, I made a pledge to limit my carbon footprint to no more than those champions of the environment. We must all follow their example.

    • I think the Obamas have set the standard now for those who want us plebs to change our polluting ways –
      they’ve just bought a $14m 29-acre Martha’s Vineyard beachfront plot with a 6,892-square-foot main house, about 3 metres above sea level I believe.

      Can you imagine how much heating oil or gas this palace is going to chew through every winter?

      (at least Al Gore bought his seaside palace in a warm-ish area)

  10. Why complain about China and India? They are abiding by the Paris Climate Agreement. The agreement allows both of them to produce as much CO2 as they desire through 2030.

    These nations will make the CO2 reductions of the Western Democracies meaningless. The Western Democracies will bankrupt themselves in an effort to reduce CO2, while China and India make up for that reduction and more.

    There sure are a lot of delusional politicians out there in the Western world. They’ll be the death of their nations, if common-sense folks don’t reign them in at the voting booth. And soon.

    • Spot on, Tom Abbot – and the sooner we all come to our senses and admit that global reduction of CO2 emissions simply will not happen, the better. Come hell or high water!! We are in for an increased atmospheric concentration of one of the most common, and as it happens, one of the most beneficial, natural gases in the world – and that whether we like it or not. And if it does increase sea levels by a couple of meters, so what? The sea level was that much higher only 8,000 years ago, for heaven’s sake. And, of course, it remains a theory only that sea levels will rise that much.

      Yes, any country that seriously attempts to reduce its use of fossil fuel will certainly cause major damage to its economy – in some countries already struggling economically (like Chile, for example) perhaps even fatal. We need worldwide, common sense policies like Donald Trump’s (which, by the way, we can be implemented even without having that loose cannon in charge of the United States!!).

    • Even after 2030, they can stay in the good graces of the Paris Accord by merely thinking about doing something to reduce their emissions.

  11. Is this author the freelancer who is crowdsourcing his work to make money? Could be impacting his objectivity.

  12. They are only producing the oil because the customers want them to.
    It’s not like they spend all that money to drill wells, just to burn the stuff on site.

  13. Alternative A (for Alarmists):
    .IF. the warming alarmists are correct .AND. increased fossil fuel combustion causes dangerous global warming .AND. the largest countries are burning more and more fossil fuels .THEN. humanity is doomed. Go To Point D.

    Alternative C (for Chill)
    .IF. on the other hand, CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming .THEN. there is nothing to worry about. Go To Point D.

    Point D (for Do It!)
    We should all just relax, buy that car or boat we’ve always wanted, and start checking off our bucket list.

  14. Hmmm! Well other govts have very ambitious plans to reduce fossil fuel use.

    the mismatch should produce interesting results.

    (look at decline in gas (petrol) station sin Norway as a micro example)

  15. Well said Allan Macrae,
    Whatever the countries that signed up to the Paris Accord do to reduce CO2 emissions will be meaningless. The coal that is being mined and burnt by China and India will emit double what other countries are trying to reduce emissions ,and in the process any country enforcing draconian laws to limit emissions will ruin their countries economy.
    Coal production was at around 4.7 billion tonnes in 2008 and last year it topped 8 billion tonnes.
    It looks like it is going to rise a lot more according to this doomsayer .
    We all know that nuclear is a dirty word but it does produce electricity with a very low CO2 emission profile.
    If the politicians are allowed to have their way they will ruin many countries economy’s.
    Maybe that is the long game .
    I am all for POINT D Just do it .
    CO2 is not a significant driver of temperature ,
    The theory of global warming depends on the tropical hot spot.
    This has never been found .
    The theory also depends on water vapour being a positive feed back .
    Also not proven .
    Climate models all run hot .
    Why?
    Because the modellers ( I wont call them scientists ) believe that CO2 is the driver .
    They see CO2 rising so they turn up the knob .
    I have been following this scam for as long as it became fashionable and I see no proof that the doubling of CO2 will warm the worlds temperature by more than .6 C point six of one degree Celsius .
    The media have gone overboard blaming every catastrophe on climate change .

    • Good comments Gwan,

      There is no real catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW) crisis – it is false – and its leading advocates know that. They are so deeply (and profitably) invested in it that they cannot back off.

      The future cannot cause the past. That is a fatal flaw in the CAGW hypothesis: Atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales.

      I proved this point in January 2008 and it has never been even remotely challenged. The full mechanism is described below.

      Regards, Allan

      CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
      by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 2019
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2
      Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx

      ABSTRACT

      Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.

      Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature changes, then tropical humidity changes, then atmospheric temperature changes, then CO2 changes.

      The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature changes and CO2 changes occur ~9 months later (MacRae 2008).

      The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.

      The ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.

      Based on the above observations, global temperatures drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations much more than CO2 drives temperature.

      Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low, less than ~1C/(2*CO2) and probably much less.

      There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather due to increasing CO2 concentrations.

      Increasing atmospheric CO2 clearly causes significantly improved crop yields, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.

      Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life.

      Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc may also increase atmospheric CO2. The increase of CO2 is clearly beneficial.

      “Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily because of the fatal flaw of intermittency.

      There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the flaw of intermittency in grid-connected wind and solar power generation.

      Electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to green energy schemes.
      __________________________________________

  16. What a wonderful tragedy. Will that mean CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere will increase from 0.04% to 0.04% by 2030?

  17. I am in the “adopt the basic alarmist champions’ CO2 footprint” camp, as a virtue goal to aim for in life.
    I estimate, I will have to re-enter the business world and open up a couple of new ventures to get up to my DeCaprio energy consumption level. I have concluded the Al Gore level is beyond my lifetime to achieve, so won’t bother with that, and the Emma Thompson carbon standard requires just too much flying about for my liking.

  18. Here’s an idea: find a way to write up a verifiable panic attack article on how we have a balanced atmosphere that is life-friendly and user-friendly, and that attempting to change that balance by removing a naturally-occurring gas (CO2) from the mix will throw off the balance so much (verifiable) that it will destroy every living thing on Earth except bugs and plants.

    These money-grubbing political animals who come up with this nonsense need to be told “Hell, NO!” and sent packing.

  19. Alan Finkel
    aussies answer to John Holdren as a science advisor to govt
    gods help us!
    from what I gather it takes more fossil fuel to produce the stuff than you get back

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/federal-government-tips-into-hydrogen-fund/news-story/59dcf4cf444c6c3db1ebbfc921b3a9db

    Energy ministers agreed to adopt the national hydrogen strategy prepared by chief scientist Alan Finkel, which will see the federal government direct $370 million to a new fund aimed at developing a hydrogen industry.

    Federal energy Minister Angus Taylor says the funding will help Australia to realise its potential as a leading hydrogen supplier to key export markets, particularly in Asia.
    ————-
    370mil would save a lot of lives via hospital improvements etc

  20. Stop the blame game! It’s “the system’s fault”. Everybody wins. Yay!
    See, only big guvmint can save us from ourselves. As in socialist/marxist type, and world-wide, so there’s no cheating. COP25 will be working on that.

  21. All these countries are burning so much fuel because they have to produce cement and steel for all the windmills they need to stop Global Warming!

  22. I certainly wouldn’t bet on Canada increasing production by 120% unless BC gets their wish. Alberta is capped and curtailed.

Comments are closed.