West’s Energy Transition Narrative Ignores The Reality in Asia

Reposted from the South China Morning Post

By Tilak Doshi

BP released its annual “Statistical Review of World Energy” (70th edition) last week with updated global energy data for 2020. As usual, the publication — widely hailed as  the “bible of the global energy industry” — was accompanied by widespread media coverage (here, here and here). The lead stories in newswires and major newspapers focused on two aspects: the impact of the Covid pandemic in drastically reducing energy demand (and hence carbon emissions) and on the continued “good news” of rapid growth in solar and wind energy capacity. The extensive coverage by the leading dailies were lacking in the far more consequential realities of the dominance of fossil fuels and the role of developing countries – which account for over 80% of the global population — in the growth of energy demand.

As energy demand collapsed with the adoption of Covid lockdowns around the world, 2020 registered the biggest fall in carbon dioxide emissions since the Second World War according to the report. Spencer Dale, BP’s Chief Economist, noted in remarks released ahead of the review that this puts the world closer to the path needed for “keeping global warming below 20C this century” but does not reflect the “decisive shift” needed to meet climate goals backed by the Biden administration, the EU and the whole host of multi-lateral agencies including the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank. 

While total energy consumption worldwide fell by 4.5% in 2020, the oil component fell even more steeply, by 9.3%. This reflected the collapse in demand for transport fuels in particular. In contrast, wind and solar capacity increase was described as “colossal” by Mr Dale who said that “The increase in installed capacity last year was 50% bigger than at any time seen in history, despite the world (being) in turmoil, despite the largest peace-time recession.” Mr. Dale seems heartened when he says “The trends we are seeing here are exactly the trends we’d want to see as the world transitions to net zero…”.

While much of the above seems consistent with the “energy transition” narrative, it is akin to the tail wagging the dog. After decades of government mandates and hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies in Western Europe and North America, renewables (which includes wind, solar and non-traditional biofuels) constituted a mere 5.7% of global energy use in 2020. Fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) accounted for 83% of global energy use. Even for the rich countries, fossil fuels provide an average 78% of their energy needs. Another report published last month found that the share of fossil fuels in the world’s total energy mix is as high as a decade ago despite the pressure on governments to act on climate change.

If fossil fuels dominate the energy mix, developing countries, in particular those in Asia, increasingly determine the geographical distribution of energy use. Developing countries accounted for 61% of global energy demand in 2020, with energy consumption in China alone exceeding that of the EU and the US combined. The importance of coal – that most demonized of the trio of fossil fuels – to developing countries in Asia is stark. Almost 82% of global coal consumption occurred in the developing world and developing Asia accounted for almost all of it. China alone was responsible for 54% of global coal demand.

Perhaps the role of developing Asia in the evolution of global energy demand is best measured in incremental terms. BP data show that in the 5 years to 2019,  developing countries accounted for 88% of the increase in global energy demand. Developing Asia absorbed almost three quarters of the world’s increase in energy demand in that period, with China alone accounting for 41%.  

As the world emerges from the economic ravages of the pandemic lockdowns, these patterns of energy demand will re-emerge. Indeed, the early signs are already apparent. Energy demand has rebounded as covid vaccines roll out, governments ease lockdowns and passenger and freight traffic surge. Global oil consumption is now on track to reach pre-covid levels by the first quarter of next year. The bellwether Brent crude price is now at multiyear highs of over $75 per barrel. The average Brent price for 2020 was just under $42 per barrel.  The Biden administration now faces the supreme irony of pressuring the OPEC+ cartel to open its oil taps while continuing in its quest to shut down domestic oil and gas production in the name of “fighting climate change”. The country now has the highest gasoline prices since 2014, threatening the Democratic administration’s already struggling popularity polls and its green and infrastructure spending agendas.

While Americans and Europeans pay more for oil and natural gas, the Middle East and Russia gain considerable leverage over these markets. But the most important driver of global energy geopolitics goes beyond the self-displacement of the US as the world’s leading oil and gas producer on the supply side. The juggernaut of growing energy demand from the developing countries, above all in Asia, is the elephant in the room.

The plutocrats that regularly converge at the World Economic Forum and the policy makers in Western Europe and the US have been pushing their “Global Reset” and “Build Back Better” agendas in the wake of the covid pandemic. Can they deny 80% of the world’s population from climbing up the very energy ladder that the now developed countries ascended in order to enjoy their higher standards of living and all the privileges that come along with being richer and healthier? Will they be able to block Chinese President Xi’s 2049 centenary vision of a “great modern socialist nation in all respects”, dependent as it is on fossil fuels?

The key oil and gas producers in the Middle East and Russia think not: they have been busy investing vast sums in expanding their production capacities. They can rest assured that demand for their energy resources will be required for human flourishing for decades to come.

Dr. Tilak Doshi, Senior Visiting Research Fellow, Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore. This article reflects the opinion of the author solely and not any institution he is affiliated with.

5 24 votes
Article Rating
93 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dk_
July 18, 2021 6:12 am

The point was always to drive the costs of fossil fuels down for China.

Nick Schroeder
July 18, 2021 6:22 am

Ignores reality – period!

LdB
July 18, 2021 7:17 am

Griff says they are going to build big skyscrapers with wind turbines and solar panels all over them. Also 3rd world emissions don’t cause any problem it is only developed country emissions that are bad and they need to pay for them.

Last edited 2 months ago by LdB
Reply to  LdB
July 18, 2021 7:27 am

Griffter expressed concern over flooding in Germany – what about China? Hundreds of thousands lose homes due to flooding – makes Germany look minor. Griffter should be worried about windmills and solar panels being swept away.

griff
Reply to  Anti_griff
July 18, 2021 7:57 am

The point you are choosing to miss about Germany is exactly how unusual and exceptional that is -and how clearly it demonstrates a climate change caused extreme weather event

Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:18 am

Yes, but what about the windmills and solar panels?….are they OK griffter? Weather happens….always has….always will happen.

michel
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:19 am

Its not particularly unusual. And there is zero evidence that the small amount of warming we have seen in the last century has caused it.

There is no causal chain, that is the problem. There is no evidence and no theory which links a downpour surrounded by blocking highs with a rise in local temperature of at most 2 degrees in the summer.

These things will happen somewhere in Europe every couple of decades. Not too long ago there were huge floods in France. More recently huge floods in England (after the Met Office forecase a ‘barbecue summer’).

It would be more to the point for the Germans to stop raving about how the solution is to move to renewable energy and reduce their local CO2 emissions and…

Well, try analyzing which built up areas are at risk from these kinds of events. And get the civil service to stop raving about Global Warming, and start listening to their very competent weather forecasters, and protect their citizens.

The ridiculous thing about Griff’s comments on this is that suppose he could be right about the main point. Suppose he could be right that global CO2 emissions are leading to warming and are a real danger to the world.

But even then, his leap to blaming warming for the current floods would be totally irrational and unevidenced.

Why did no-one react to the Chinese flooding of a couple of years back with cries that what China needed to do was cut back on its emissions?

Now you are asking!

skiman
Reply to  michel
July 18, 2021 8:34 am

Haven’t read entire article yet but seems the Germans were warned about the danger of the floods

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:48 am

The point you are missing is that unusual and exceptional weather events do not prove the climate change has happened. 

George Daddis
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
July 18, 2021 5:06 pm

“Hundred year events” for any one area happen in hundreds if not thousands of areas each year so the probability of such an event somewhere in a year is high.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:49 am

Building houses, even cities, in a river’s flood basin is the very height of stupidity! Maybe they should have heeded the warnings that they WERE given, eh Griff? ‘Global Warming’/’Climate Change’ had virtually NOTHING to do with it! They have had those floods for quite a few centuries back! Those who refuse to learn their history are soon forced to relive it! Haven’t they heard that, somewhere, before?

Redge
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:53 am

Griff, mate,

You’ve been asked a gazillion times to prove flooding in Germany is unusual.

As Leo Smith has pointed out on several occasions the flood in 1342 was much worse and here’s the proof

It’s time to put up or shut up.

Munden_Hochwasserstande_Packhof-1626514679.3989.jpg
Paul Johnson
Reply to  Redge
July 18, 2021 11:03 am

And the 1943 flood was definitely not Climate Change, it was the Dambuster Raid.

Redge
Reply to  Paul Johnson
July 18, 2021 11:09 am

🤣

At least until the watermelons redefine it

DrEd
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:53 am

THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
No, it’s weather.

WR2
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:59 am

Where is your evidence that human CO2 caused this weather event? I could with the same legitimacy claim that human CO2 emissions make such events more rare.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 9:54 am

We’ve been over this half a dozen times griff, but you keep on pushing your propaganda. The top 30 floods were from over 40 years ago. The worst was in 1342.

It was an unusual extreme weather event, but hardly unprecedented, and exacerbated by bad policy and incompetent emergency response.

I suppose you’ll stay on this until somewhere on the planet you find another example of weather to hype.

In which time period would you prefer to live?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025
[__] Really nice CO2 1325-1345

Ron
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 10:21 am

Covid lockdowns around the world, 2020 registered the biggest fall in carbon dioxide emissions since the Second World War according to the report.”

And yet, the atmospheric concentration, measured at Mauna Loa, went UP!

It would suggest that oil consumption and/or renewable capacity have minimal effect over natural variation.

Rick C
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 10:26 am

No, the problem with 100 year weather events is that people have 100 years to forget that they do happen. Plenty of time to drain marshes, build in flood plains, pave over drainage areas etc. It’s pretty much guaranteed that if you build on the banks of a river or stream eventually you’ll see water in your building.

Nigel in California
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 10:58 am

“It” did not “cause” the “event”.

“It” is not even understood well enough to know what events are normally expected (please review history and consider the population increase and landscape changes). Even if “it” is changing, what the effects will ultimately be we can only speculate. And “it” can’t create an entire event all on its own. At best it could only make already expected events maybe slightly larger or slightly smaller. Claiming that “it” was the cause of the event is just soothsaying.

garboard
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 12:07 pm

ironic that CC disaster struck the country doing the most to cut emissions . nature has a sense of humor apparently

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 12:22 pm

griff, are you taking everyone as dumb? come on, man, don’t be so silly and narcissistic as to think that you and only you have knowledge!

1. How do you measure “exceptional”?
Yes, THAT is a scientific question! It demands a clear explanation of the METHODOLOGY used in the study of the phenomena!

2. Assuming that you use the historical reccords to establish some sort of criterium of “exceptional”, please explain how did you apply the principle of “ceteribus paribus” to take into account the HUGE changes in watercourses created in recent decades (impermeabilization due to buildings, roads, etc.; lack of maintenance of canals; lack of cleaning/controlling wild vegetation along watercourses; dams, and irresponsibly keeping them full irrespective of the meteorologic alerts; etc.)?

You know, there is plenty information that has been published in the last few days pointing, with documents, to the lack of preventive measures for years which led to the life and property loss in Germany: can’t you read that published information? Or do you willfully ignore it? Is that atitude of mind what you call “science”? The last time I checked, that was called “superstition” in several languages!

Are you trying to enter the Guiness record of the dumbest uterances about climate? If this is your goal, keep trying, you are one of the front runners!

Last edited 2 months ago by Joao Martins
Editor
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 6:50 pm

Between 8,000 and 15,000 people are thought to have been killed by the floods in Germany[*].
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_floods_in_Europe

[*] in 1634.

fretslider
Reply to  LdB
July 18, 2021 7:45 am

Griff says they are going to build big skyscrapers with wind turbines 

They built ‘the Strata building in London’s Elephant and Castle district.

One of the key features of Strata in Elephant and Castle is the three wind turbines that top the building – they’re visible for miles around. Installed at a cost of an extra £1.5 million, it was thought that they would generate around 8% of the buildings electrical consumption. However, as many south residents will report, the turbines rarely appear to be turning. 

https://www.insiderlondon.com/blog/when-london-buildings-go-wrong/

Word is they face the wrong way….

I wonder if griff gets that?

griff
Reply to  fretslider
July 18, 2021 7:58 am

and really that’s a little bit of frosting on the cake… look at the substance of UK renewables – tens of GW of offshore wind, multiple HVDC connectors, new solar farms, new grid scale batteries, multiple new pumped storage sites…

fretslider
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:05 am

They don’t work

It’s an idiotic idea

Rich Davis
Reply to  fretslider
July 18, 2021 10:09 am

Be reasonable now. The griffendope has a point. They only cost £1.5 million ($2.1 million) which is not that much to pay for an excellent virtue signaling building decoration.

Accounting for inflation, the great cathedrals of the prior religion cost much more.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:56 am

Griff, no large new solar farms have been built in Britain for 5 years since the subsidies were removed for them. As a result, solar power in Britain has not grown significantly for years. Where are the grid scale batteries and the multiple new pumped storage sites?

Bill Toland
Reply to  Alan
July 18, 2021 11:14 am

As you can see, solar power in the UK has virtually flatlined in the last 5 years. Note the ground mounted solar power has shown almost no growth; these are the bigger solar installations.

solarpower-in-uk.png
Last edited 2 months ago by Bill Toland
Bill Toland
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 18, 2021 11:46 am

Solar installations under a certain size are still subsidised, but at a lower rate than 5 years ago. This explains why rooftop systems are still growing, but even these are growing more slowly than before the subsidies were reduced. You can see the point in the chart where the subsidies were reduced. The point is that without subsidies, nobody in Britain would install any more solar power ever again.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Alan
July 18, 2021 11:40 am

Alan, I’ve had a look at the link you provided. Most of the solar farm is subsidised. They added a few more panels which were unsubsidised as a pr exercise so that they could claim that they had built Britain’s first subsidy free solar farm.

Reply to  Bill Toland
July 18, 2021 1:37 pm

Bill you posted: “no large new solar farms have been built in Britain for 5 years since the subsidies were removed for them”
..
I proved you wrong.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Alan
July 18, 2021 1:40 pm

Alan, you certainly did not. The solar farm you linked to is not a large solar farm.

Reply to  Bill Toland
July 18, 2021 1:50 pm

The non subsidized 2.9MW addition is “large.”

Reply to  Alan
July 18, 2021 1:53 pm

Anything above 1 MW is considered “utility scale.”

Reply to  Alan
July 18, 2021 1:56 pm

A 1 MW installation will take about 4 acres. That’s “large.”

Bill Toland
Reply to  Alan
July 18, 2021 1:59 pm

Alan, large solar farms start at 50mw. The farm you are talking about is a tiddler.

Reply to  Bill Toland
July 18, 2021 2:15 pm

Your 50 MW figure is arbitrary and meaningless.

Last edited 2 months ago by Alan
Bill Toland
Reply to  Alan
July 18, 2021 2:22 pm

The Shotwick solar farm is 72mw. A 2.9mw solar farm is not large by anyone’s standard except apparently for you.

Reply to  Alan
July 18, 2021 2:22 pm
Last edited 2 months ago by Alan
Bill Toland
Reply to  Alan
July 18, 2021 2:25 pm

Alan, I see that you have edited your reply after you saw my response. Pretty pathetic. I have a piece of advice for you. When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Reply to  Bill Toland
July 18, 2021 2:36 pm

No, what is “pathetic” is claiming you need 50 MW to be “large” when the sixth farm out of 1170 is less than 50 MW.
.
2.9 MW starts on page 5, so there are a lot of “large” farms that are LESS than that.
.
I have a piece of advice for you, learn about the subject matter you talk about before putting your foot in your mouth.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Alan
July 18, 2021 2:39 pm

You just can’t admit that you were wrong, can you?
Well, I have enjoyed this little interlude. But I don’t see any point in replying to you any longer.

Last edited 2 months ago by Bill Toland
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 18, 2021 2:49 pm

I’m not wrong, but you sure are at “50 MW”

Reply to  Alan
July 18, 2021 2:42 pm

Tell me Skegness at 10.5 MW is “small”
..
https://electricityproduction.uk/plant/GBR0001622
..
32 arces.

Reply to  Alan
July 18, 2021 4:17 pm

Obviously Mr. Toland has no conception of the size of an “acre.”

whiten
Reply to  Alan
July 18, 2021 6:26 pm

Alan,
1MW installations do not even qualify for a grid plug-in, especially in the case of unreliables.

DrEd
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:58 am

5 to 10 times the cost of conventional power as it produces about 20-21% of its capacity. Plus you need reliable backup generation.

Redge
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:59 am

All of which will need reliable backup only provided by gas, coal, and nuclear

On a beautiful, warm sunny day here in the UK, unreliables fail to deliver yet again

Capture.JPG
Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 10:18 am

You dim bulb, griff! What good is tens of GW of (nameplate) wind capacity when it sits idle for a week in the dead of winter and you no longer have fossil fuel backup?

[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025
[__] Really nice CO2 1325-1345

Nigel in California
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 11:18 am

What was gained from pouring money into, and building, those systems?

Answer: Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing is more stable, nothing is cheaper, the weather hasn’t changed for the better, the climate hasn’t changed for the better, the expected future weather and climate hasn’t changed for the better, my house has not improved, my work, car, commute, bills, air I breathe and furniture I sit on have not improved, my life expectancy has not improved, other people’s lives have not improved, prospects for future lives have not improved and are in fact expected to be in worse condition because of ideological follies, etc…. (And I’m talking about the result of building these particular systems not the general improvement of the world related to other efforts).

…I have an idea, let’s try something else!

Doonman
Reply to  Nigel in California
July 18, 2021 12:23 pm

We are trying something else. Mandates. We mandate that we will be carbon neutral by 2050. If not, you will pay a high price for ignoring our mandates to be carbon neutral.

Which of course, causes the economic effect that is the definition of inflation: Too many dollars chasing too few goods.

So the real question is: Why do all liberally elected governments without exception pursue policies that are inflationary?

And of course the answer is: Because they want inflation.

Dave Fair
Reply to  fretslider
July 18, 2021 10:26 am

What experienced architect could have possibly thought that large, industrial scale wind turbines could vibrate significantly and, additionally, make loud noises in a building occupied by people?

griff
Reply to  LdB
July 18, 2021 7:56 am

Yes, but that’s a very small part of the roll out of renewable energy… which is MASSIVE

Redge
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:56 am

and will fail to deliver

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 9:20 am

Wind and solar accounted for 3.47% of total energy use in Britain in 2019. The percentage for the entire world is much lower. Even the British figure was only achieved with gigantic subsidies which cannot possibly be increased much further. The developing world simply doesn’t have the money to subsidise its energy use. We are probably pretty close to Peak Renewables where any further significant increase in renewable energy would be ruinously expensive, even for rich countries.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 10:23 am

Indeed a MASSIVE waste.

In which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025
[__] Really nice CO2 1325-1345

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 10:30 am

What has this “MASSIVE” rollout cost the average taxpayers and ratepayers in extra, unnecessary, energy costs. You leave out so much in your puerile comments, Griff.

oeman 50
July 18, 2021 7:30 am

And despite the lower CO2 emissions, not a blip on the atmospheric CO2 concentration as measured at Mauna Loa. It continues its steady rise as if our emissions did not affect it. Hmmm…..

griff
Reply to  oeman 50
July 18, 2021 7:58 am

all the more reason for renewed effort

commieBob
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:40 am

That’s not even remotely logical. I know … don’t feed the trolls … but somehow this seems like some kind of new low.

Redge
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 9:00 am

nonsense

WR2
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 9:09 am

That’s the response of a religious zealot, not of a scientist. If you made a hypothesis, ran an experiment, and it didn’t give you the expected results, your response is just gotta believe it is true anyway? You hypothesized that human emissions (and only human emissions) drive atmospheric CO2 levels, we just ran an experiment to prove or disprove it, but you refuse to accept the reality of the results? You’re not to be taken seriously by any sane person.

Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 9:09 am

Let the UK be the Great Experiment for the world to watch…go all in now….just do it… so the Great Failure will teach the rest of the world a lesson…..windmills and solar cells don’t cut it…..sorry griffter.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Anti_griff
July 18, 2021 9:52 am

Germany has already proved it, but the MSM won’t cover it. Wonder why?

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 10:32 am

Typical Marxist response: “If it ain’t working, try harder.” Griff, have you ever heard the saying: “If you are in a hole, stop digging?”

Abolition Man
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 18, 2021 7:14 pm

Dave,
The griffter has a hard time hearing you from so deep in his hole; could you speak a little louder, please?

Last edited 2 months ago by Abolition Man
Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 10:33 am

Sure griff. That makes perfect sense. The ideal fake crisis to serve as an excuse for destroying capitalism is one that can’t possibly accidentally work before communism is fully in place. Am I right?

Not sure if I asked this yet, but in which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025
[__] Really nice CO2 1325-1345

Nigel in California
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 11:24 am

“Now, all I need is one last hit…” – Trainspotting

Famous last words.

commieBob
Reply to  oeman 50
July 18, 2021 8:25 am

Indeed.

If you calculate the amount of CO2 emitted by human activity, and keep everything else the same, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should be much higher than it actually is. example

The amount of CO2 in the oceans dwarfs that in the atmosphere. As far as I can tell, a tiny increase in the temperature of the deep ocean would change the solubility of CO2 sufficiently to completely explain the recent increase in atmospheric CO2. In other words, the atmospheric CO2 is governed by Henry’s Law over a sufficient period of time. Certainly there are transient effects such as the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2.

There’s this nifty diagram showing the CO2 fluxes into and out of the atmosphere. Note that the burning of fossil fuels is about 1% of what the atmosphere holds. Note also that other fluxes exceed the burning of fossil fuels by more than an order of magnitude.

The only way the ‘narrative’ works is to assume that nothing else changes and anthropogenic CO2 slowly accumulates in the atmosphere. ‘They’ should not be able to get away with that assumption especially in light of the fact that their arithmetic doesn’t work anyway.

Duane
July 18, 2021 7:54 am

Pretty sure that China left behind the “developing nation” status a couple decades ago, with the world’s second largest economy and world’s biggest exporter of finished goods.

griff
July 18, 2021 7:55 am

Once again, this hides the progress on the electricity generation front, by choosing to quote only ‘global energy use’ and not bringing out the enormous progress in some areas in this e.g. Europe.

we might note also a drastic cut back in new coal power plants (outside China) in the last 2 years…

Adding in proposed project cancellations in Indonesia, it is now estimated that the coal power pipeline in South and Southeast Asia’s four major emerging economies may have dropped by as much as 62GW in 2020. That leaves just 25GW under development, an 80% decline from just five years ago. 

skiman
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 8:37 am

25GW of new is not a decline!

road dog
Reply to  skiman
July 18, 2021 9:16 am

Math is hard.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  skiman
July 19, 2021 5:10 am

And part of that “decline” is just going from coal-fired, to natural-gas fired powerplants. Vietnam is getting ready to build themselves a new natural gas-powered powerplant, for example.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 20, 2021 2:24 am

They might wish they had stuck with coal given that gas prices seem to be on the rise which doesn’t bode well for UK gas and electricity costs this winter.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  griff
July 18, 2021 11:00 am

Griff, I presume that the European Union has developed and published a highly detailed technical and socio-political feasibility plan for how net zero carbon emissions can be achieved among the EU member states by the year 2050.

A fully credible net zero feasibility plan would include a phased schedule of actions each member nation must perform for the EU to reach the overall net zero target.

Assuming that such a feasibility plan does indeed exist, then it might become a reference model which China, India, and the United States could use for how to go about achieving their own net zero targets by 2050.

Griff, I have a request. Could you point us to where the EU net zero by 2050 feasibility plan might be located? If the EU’s plan does in fact exist, but it isn’t yet available on the Internet, how can we get a copy of it?

Thanks in advance.

Redge
Reply to  Beta Blocker
July 18, 2021 11:19 am

.

tumbleweed.gif
Last edited 2 months ago by Redge
Beta Blocker
Reply to  Redge
July 18, 2021 1:46 pm

Wasn’t it the Sons of the Pioneers who made these things popular way back in 1934?

Gary Pearse
July 18, 2021 8:00 am

I have been waxing strongly on the “elephant in the room” that locks us in to rapidly rising CO2 this century taking us beyond 600ppm before 2100. The Third World is on the move to achieve prosperity for its peoples and there is no stopping them.

Even Biden and Kerry on two separate unguarded moments let slip that without solving this problem there was no point in US efforts to meet the Paris accord. The otherwise eerie quiet and doubling down on renewables by Europe and the suite of global Eurocentric agencies has a programmed zombie essence to it.

I’m glad Tilak took this on as I had urged him to in another recent post of his.
I didn’t get a hat/tip, but then, I only got two “likes” from commenters, too and Tilak may not have read it.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/01/as-us-and-europe-push-climate-policies-middle-east-and-russian-state-oil-producers-stand-to-benefit/#comment-3282614

I’ve also been pushing the position that sceptic science has done all it can. We’ve been sidelined by the consensus by being ignored and and those not science literate cajole us with the very reasonable response: “Surely you’re not saying that every university, scientific society, 97% of scientists, government, the UN, etc. etc. is involved in a global conspiracy!!!” Game, set match.

Part of the eeriness is sceptics somehow aren’t showing much interest in the elephant either.

Tilak
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 18, 2021 8:25 am

Gary – hat tip to you multiple times! My earlier lack of response was not a statement but merely life going on! Cheers

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Tilak
July 18, 2021 1:15 pm

Thank you Tilak. Since my efforts on this do not draw a lot of comments by sceptics, I thought it possible you had not read it. Keep up the good work. The elephant is readily understood by all. The science arguments are lost on non-scientically literate folk, i.e. the billions who would be asked to pay for this climate boondoggle.

And a hat/tip to Developing Nations, which are now living up to the rubric defining their economic state. The whole world will be in their debt when they put an end to this ‘Western’ madness, even the hundreds of millions of “useful idiots” when they finally wake up.

Cheers, Gary

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 19, 2021 5:16 am

Not drawing a lot of comments might mean other skeptics agree with you. That would be the case with me. I think you add very much to the discussion. And I do comment when I think I see something that is not addressed, but you usuallly address most points so it becomes unnecessary. 🙂

WR2
July 18, 2021 9:02 am

We just ran a global experiment to test the causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels. As I understand it, CO2 emissions plummeted last year, but atmospheric concentrations kept on keeping on. This should be an opportunity to prove or disprove our role once and for all. I’d like to see some statistical analysis on this. Can anyone point me towards this?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  WR2
July 18, 2021 1:43 pm

WR2 Remember they are only talking about the human contribution of CO2 emissions. Of these emissions, at least half is sequestered in the oceans and land vegetation so the human contribution to the atmosphere was only 2.25%. Now the elephant in the equation : 95% of total CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is from ocean outgassing so the 2020 emission drop is a fraction of 1% of the total. Although very minor, the change in partial pressure of CO2 from the ‘drop’ in 2020 favors a small increase in ocean outgassing to partially make up for the drop assuming no temperature change.

Where this latter phenomenon is important is the crazy mitigaton idea of direct extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere. If you did this, your efforts would only encourage increased ocean outgassing!

July 18, 2021 10:08 am

The US and Europe imagine that they are still living in the white skinned colonial era of 200 years ago and that they can coerce all the world’s “natives” into following them in their green religion and fossil fuel prohibition. They will back this up with all the threats they can true to form, but find out too late that their imperialist dream died long ago and they are far too weak to pull all the world with them in the green folly. They will hand global domination to China and Russia and find themselves marginalised and irrelevant.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
July 18, 2021 10:41 am

The U.S. and EU are already marginalized and irrelevant. China, India and their allies are already dominant in the world economically, militarily and politically. UN, WHO and other world bodies already follow China’s dictates. Read the news about their economic and military buildups, even while ours’ stagnate with pointless foreign wars and lack of penetration in growing markets.

Last edited 2 months ago by Dave Fair
Ronald Stein
July 18, 2021 12:26 pm

The most important fact about today’s environmental movement, and the book Clean Energy Exploitations explores is that the healthy and wealthy countries of the United States of America, Germany, the UK, and Australia representing 6 percent of the world’s population (505 million vs 7.8 billion) could literally shut down, and cease to exist, and the opposite of what you have been told and believe will take place.

Simply put, in these healthy and wealthy countries, every person, animal, or anything that causes emissions to harmfully rise could vanish off the face of the earth; or even die off, and global emissions will still explode in the coming years and decades ahead over the population and economic growth of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam, and Africa.

China (1.4 Billion), India (1.36 billion), Indonesia (270 million), Japan (126 million) and Vietnam (80 million) plan to build more than 600 coal power units, and African countries (1.2 Billion) are planning to build more than 1,250 new coal and gas-fired power plants by 2030.

 

The book “Clean Energy Exploitations” helps citizens attain a better understanding that just for the opportunity to generate intermittent electricity that is dependent on favorable weather conditions, the wealthier and healthier countries like Germany, Australia, Britain, and America continue to exploit the most vulnerable people and environments of the world today.

Tom Abbott
July 19, 2021 5:30 am

From the article: “As energy demand collapsed with the adoption of Covid lockdowns around the world, 2020 registered the biggest fall in carbon dioxide emissions since the Second World War according to the report. Spencer Dale, BP’s Chief Economist, noted in remarks released ahead of the review that this puts the world closer to the path needed for “keeping global warming below 20C this century” but does not reflect the “decisive shift” needed to meet climate goals backed by the Biden administration”

So a shutdown of the world economies wasn’t nearly enough CO2 reduction to meet the alarmist goals.

What’s next?

What’s next is the world economies are moving forward again and there will be no reduction in CO2 emissions because the developing world wants to develop, and are not paying attention to the Western/UN Elites who are attempting to boss them around and make them conform. They are not going to do that, and the Chicoms are going to be right there helping them because the Western world has left that field of play wide open for them. Obviously, the Chicoms do not take the CO2 “danger” seriously. And why should they? Because Michael Mann or Joe Biden says they should?

Steve Z
July 19, 2021 9:39 am

We also saw “President” Biden stop the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office, but a few months later he approved a gas pipeline from Russia to Ukraine. Why are pipelines good for Russia and Ukraine, but bad for Canada and the United States? Is it just possibly the fact that Hunter Biden can make money on pipelines in Ukraine (to be split with Big Daddy) but not on pipelines to Nebraska?

This has nothing to do with climate change. Follow the money!!!

Kenan Meyer
July 19, 2021 10:41 am

China being a developing country is chinese propaganda. China is already the largest economy on the planet or at least will be in just a few years. But in terms of climate action they want to be treated like Ruanda. Thats ridiculous

Shailendra Tiwari
July 20, 2021 6:40 am

Are we serious on mitigation of #climate change and has responsibilities been defined at all lavel s and communicated

%d bloggers like this: