Thanks for the logical lay out of the issues. As I read the graphs it appears to be that if GDP has grown at 3% while decarbonization has grown at 2%, we are not merely missing our goal posts, but are moving in the wrong direction. Am I reading this correctly?
What if our CO2 emissions do not have a significant effect on our climate? What if our use of "fossil fuels" is completely irrelevant? Then climate policy is a exercise in harakiri.
Consider these scientific findings:
1. Every ten years or so the Earth’s rotation rate increases or decreases significantly by between three and five milliseconds.
2. Every ten years or so the Earth’s rotation rate increases or decreases significantly by between three and five milliseconds.
3. Every ten years or so the Earth’s rotation rate increases or decreases significantly by between three and five milliseconds.
"The decadal rotational variations likely arise from gravitationally driven electromagnetic coupling between inner and outer cores and the mantle. Global temperature changes some eight years after the Earth’s rotation rate changes. The Earth’s rotation rate changes some eight years after the inner core’s rotation rate changes. Recently, scientists found that the inner core’s rotation rate began to slow around 2009. Global cooling is likely to set in around 2025. "
Focusing on carbon dioxide diverts attention from the root causes, which are the use of fossil fuels, cement, steel and N-fertilizer production, and deforestation/land use changes. All these fossil resources are essential to human life on Earth.
They are the factors that increase or not the amount of carbon dioxyde in the atmosphere. Accounting for this molecule does not suggest anything that can directly provide any change, but it is very useful for accusing, blaming and shaming everyone involved in their daily activities. It is demotivating and does not encourage any performance other than that of announcing a catastrophe. To change anything, the average citizen has no means at his or her disposal, apart from trifles.
Accounting for the consumption of fossil fuels is simpler, more understandable, and doesn't cause headaches when trying to figure out which borders they cross.
Consumption can be reduced by improving efficiency (GDP/Tech) and by substitution, above all by widespread electrification (Tech/Tech, a ratio which is not explicit in the Kaya identity).
Fossil fuels currently account for 88.7% of the world's energy mix. This proportion has fallen by 0.27% each year over the last five years. Everyone will know how to use a rule of three to estimate how many years are needed to get to zero at this rate (329 years), or to estimate the size of the changes needed to get there in 25 years (accelerating immediately to a rate 13 times higher than the current one). None of these figures but the current situation are realistic; the mitigation policies will fail. Adaptation will be more helpful.
Generally agree, but isn't there a counterargument suggesting that in the absence of policies aimed at reducing emissions, emissions growth would have been higher? This caught my eye in the IEA's 2023 CO2 report, published a few days ago:
"Between 2019 and 2023, total energy-related emissions increased around 900 Mt. Without the growing deployment of five key clean energy technologies since 2019 - solar PV, wind, nuclear, heat pumps, and electric cars - the emissions growth would have been three times larger."
"Three times" is probably an overstatement. Still, isn't it difficult to imagine these technologies scaling as rapidly as they have, particularly wind and solar, without significant government support?
If people can be compelled to wear masks and stand 6 feet apart based purely on fear-based diktats, they can be compelled to forgo a lot travel, meat, and HVAC based on climate-based fear.
What is the decision-making process that determines the targets of climate policies? i.e. where do those numbers come from, are they based on trend analysis and feasibility reviews, etc. What does it look like in the 'room where it happens'?
Good analysis. Now what you need to do is calculate the decarbonization rates of various countries during their main efforts to replace or switch fossil fuels. That would be largely France, Sweden, Ontario, USA with nuclear during the 1970s and Germany with wind & solar, USA with coal --> gas.
I suspect the best Nuclear build rates did result in more than your 9% Decarbonization rate objective, but no other effort by any nation has succeeded with any other method.
Said another way, without a legion of technological breakthroughs or whole scale adoption of nuclear, the acceleration of the decarbonization curve won’t be happening soon, if at all. Thus the current trajectory of emission reduction policies are just Environmental Marxism.
A deeper dive would split the world into Developed World (e.g., OECD including US, Europe, etc.) and Developing World (non-OECD). Economic and energy consumption growth rates and population growth are dominated and will be dominated by the non-OECD world while the GDP growth rates of the OECD are lower and population will have slow growth at best and energy may have peaked. Most of the decarbonization is occurring in the OECD with a mixed message in China (growing renewables, EVs but growing coal, natural gas, oil and energy use) and growing emissions in the rest of the world. The challenge is not the ongoing decarbonization in the OECD but the growing emissions in the world that still hungers for GDP growth and increasing energy use for a growing population.
Thanks for the logical lay out of the issues. As I read the graphs it appears to be that if GDP has grown at 3% while decarbonization has grown at 2%, we are not merely missing our goal posts, but are moving in the wrong direction. Am I reading this correctly?
What if our CO2 emissions do not have a significant effect on our climate? What if our use of "fossil fuels" is completely irrelevant? Then climate policy is a exercise in harakiri.
Consider these scientific findings:
1. Every ten years or so the Earth’s rotation rate increases or decreases significantly by between three and five milliseconds.
2. Every ten years or so the Earth’s rotation rate increases or decreases significantly by between three and five milliseconds.
3. Every ten years or so the Earth’s rotation rate increases or decreases significantly by between three and five milliseconds.
"The decadal rotational variations likely arise from gravitationally driven electromagnetic coupling between inner and outer cores and the mantle. Global temperature changes some eight years after the Earth’s rotation rate changes. The Earth’s rotation rate changes some eight years after the inner core’s rotation rate changes. Recently, scientists found that the inner core’s rotation rate began to slow around 2009. Global cooling is likely to set in around 2025. "
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Mackey-2023-Decadal-Rotation-Climate.pdf
Focusing on carbon dioxide diverts attention from the root causes, which are the use of fossil fuels, cement, steel and N-fertilizer production, and deforestation/land use changes. All these fossil resources are essential to human life on Earth.
They are the factors that increase or not the amount of carbon dioxyde in the atmosphere. Accounting for this molecule does not suggest anything that can directly provide any change, but it is very useful for accusing, blaming and shaming everyone involved in their daily activities. It is demotivating and does not encourage any performance other than that of announcing a catastrophe. To change anything, the average citizen has no means at his or her disposal, apart from trifles.
Accounting for the consumption of fossil fuels is simpler, more understandable, and doesn't cause headaches when trying to figure out which borders they cross.
Consumption can be reduced by improving efficiency (GDP/Tech) and by substitution, above all by widespread electrification (Tech/Tech, a ratio which is not explicit in the Kaya identity).
Fossil fuels currently account for 88.7% of the world's energy mix. This proportion has fallen by 0.27% each year over the last five years. Everyone will know how to use a rule of three to estimate how many years are needed to get to zero at this rate (329 years), or to estimate the size of the changes needed to get there in 25 years (accelerating immediately to a rate 13 times higher than the current one). None of these figures but the current situation are realistic; the mitigation policies will fail. Adaptation will be more helpful.
My data source: Energy Institute (ex BP report). See my analysis here, it's free but quite valuable: https://blog.mr-int.ch/?attachment_id=10873 (diagram on page 11).
Generally agree, but isn't there a counterargument suggesting that in the absence of policies aimed at reducing emissions, emissions growth would have been higher? This caught my eye in the IEA's 2023 CO2 report, published a few days ago:
"Between 2019 and 2023, total energy-related emissions increased around 900 Mt. Without the growing deployment of five key clean energy technologies since 2019 - solar PV, wind, nuclear, heat pumps, and electric cars - the emissions growth would have been three times larger."
"Three times" is probably an overstatement. Still, isn't it difficult to imagine these technologies scaling as rapidly as they have, particularly wind and solar, without significant government support?
I believe your PAT equation was first used by Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 publication, "The Population Bomb".
If people can be compelled to wear masks and stand 6 feet apart based purely on fear-based diktats, they can be compelled to forgo a lot travel, meat, and HVAC based on climate-based fear.
What is the decision-making process that determines the targets of climate policies? i.e. where do those numbers come from, are they based on trend analysis and feasibility reviews, etc. What does it look like in the 'room where it happens'?
I agree.
Good analysis. Now what you need to do is calculate the decarbonization rates of various countries during their main efforts to replace or switch fossil fuels. That would be largely France, Sweden, Ontario, USA with nuclear during the 1970s and Germany with wind & solar, USA with coal --> gas.
I suspect the best Nuclear build rates did result in more than your 9% Decarbonization rate objective, but no other effort by any nation has succeeded with any other method.
Said another way, without a legion of technological breakthroughs or whole scale adoption of nuclear, the acceleration of the decarbonization curve won’t be happening soon, if at all. Thus the current trajectory of emission reduction policies are just Environmental Marxism.
I am with you on everything but this. We do not need decarbonization. At 800 ppm CO2 the Earth will be fine. "Will Happer".
OK - thank you.
But the trend was there before all these deployments - no?
Thank you.
Does this mean that climate policy (solar, wind, EVs etc) have not made a dent?
A deeper dive would split the world into Developed World (e.g., OECD including US, Europe, etc.) and Developing World (non-OECD). Economic and energy consumption growth rates and population growth are dominated and will be dominated by the non-OECD world while the GDP growth rates of the OECD are lower and population will have slow growth at best and energy may have peaked. Most of the decarbonization is occurring in the OECD with a mixed message in China (growing renewables, EVs but growing coal, natural gas, oil and energy use) and growing emissions in the rest of the world. The challenge is not the ongoing decarbonization in the OECD but the growing emissions in the world that still hungers for GDP growth and increasing energy use for a growing population.
Figure 3.4 of TCF Chapter 4 shows data goinf back futher to 1950s and beyond
Here is data to 1960 via GCP:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/end-the-week-with-thb-964