Roger, I notice that the UK is the world's leader on decarbonization. I am in the UK for the summer so I have seen some of what it has taken to produce that decarbonization. The UK, where the industrial revolution began, has dropped out of the world's top ten countries with regard to manufacturing output. They now rank 12th, behind such countries as Russia and Taiwan. The Labour government has halted all new oil and gas development in the British North Sea, putting Scottish offshore worker' jobs in peril. Oil refineries in the UK are being forced to convert to biofuels, and are expected to close when this proves uneconomical. Electric vehicles are being mandated, as are heat pumps. Gas-fired boilers are to be banned. Low-energy washing machines are required; these take five loads instead of two to do laundry for two people, and the clothes do not come out clean. Low-flush toilets are required, which do not clear the bowl reliably of waste. Let no one doubt that the thrust for decarbonization has costs, in jobs, in economic growth and in petty tyrannies imposed upon the population.
I enjoy and learn from Roger’s excellent posts. But the world would have been better off if that meeting in Paris never took place, if CO2 was never given a second thought, and if people just used the most dense fuels available to them. The dragon beyond the horizon is not climate change it is China capitalizing on global stupidity.
Thank you for another good analysis. It is not really surprising since the 2 degree target with its carbon budget was a political construct rather than anything to do with reality.
I work in R&D on energy systems in shipping (what we used to call machinery and engines). This sector accounts for 3% of global CO2 emissions. The International Maritime Organization (IMO, part of the UN) publishes figures on fuel use in shipping. According to them, in 2017 global shipping fuel use was 99.95 % fossil based. In 2023 the number was down to 99.85%. According to their own goals they are supposed to be at 60% in 2030. The progress it seems is on par with the rest of the world.
The ridicule might seem to be the total absence of realism between the minute difference over 7 years compared to the required cut in the coming 5 1/2 years. But the joke lies elsewhere.
The fuel usage numbers for global shipping says it is somewhere between 270 mtoe and 330 mtoe, with the normally preferred 300 mtoe as convenient. The upper and lower numbers have at least a margin of uncertainty of +/-10%. meanwhile, IMO is insisting on giving the numbers with a stated accuracy of 1/100 of a percent.....
The reality is, we do not know how much fuel global shipping uses within a margin of +/- 20%. How then can you calculate any meaningful number of "decarbonization" in shipping? I guess shipping is not very different from other sectors.
It becomes very clear that global energy consumption and global GDP can't be decoupled. And investing in low density renewable energy (wind, solar, and batteries) that has a short useful life is not economically sustainable and a waste of valuable resources. It appears that the UN strategy isn't about climate change or actually reducing global emissions, but more about the redistribution of global wealth. By making energy more expensive in developed countries through green policy and regulation, it gives developing countries a competitive advantage to supply humanity's endless appetite for mass consumerism, and guarantees that emissions will continue to increase as long as global GDP increases. Energy and GDP can't be sustainably decoupled. The only reason the United States has been able to decouple over the last 20 years is by outsourcing a significant portion of its manufacturing capacity to Asia and accumulating approximately $27 trillion in national debt. It's not sustainable. And two thirds of the emissions reductions that the United States has seen in that time is thanks to the shale revolution, allowing natural gas to replace coal fire generation.
Thank you Roger! So, the attendees in Paris set sights on the moon and we've so far just made it to the local drug store. Do you think the Paris Agreement was an act of cynical bad faith, like the 1938 Munich Agreement, or were those present unaware of the monumental nature of the task they were signing up to? Perhaps the best players weren't on the pitch?
Good luck with reducing the amount of energy that humans want--and must have--for civilization to continue. Power production (make that reliable production) and the ability for world markets to function will continue to make any "gains" marginal at best. The world will continue to turn. The idea that we can manage the planet (or that some savants can do the job for the rest of us) is DOA.
"But more important is to refocus COP commitments away from achieving arbitrary quantitative goals of CO2 reductions, arbitrarily distributed among countries, and toward policies that will, in the aggregate, result in zero net CO2 emissions."
Thanks Roger. Could it be that unrealistic targets are set to support a narrative of " we are not doing enough" and to promote more and more mitigation efforts?
Dr. Pielke ==> We might have looked at total CO2 emission from each country as well.
From that viewpoint, even looking at the top ten of the total emitters, ONLY China, the United States, and India (and maybe Russia and Japan) really matter, all other countries only really count when combined.
And in improvements on total emissions, for those 3 (or 5) only the United States (and, if five, Japan) have shown reduced total emissions.
And while your analysis is quite correct from the Political Paris point of view, it is total emissions that the IPCC crowd is worried about.
The discussion here on decarbonization measures falling short documents clearly the point that efforts to mitigate man made climate change (IMHO) will not achieve the goals set by Paris 2015. Efforts to improve this performance (Nuclear, Hydrogen...) are many years in the future. We need to start promoting adaptation more and develop measures of progress in this regard. Adaptation will save more lives and improve living standards more over the next 50-100 years than will decarbonization. In addition the benefits of adaptation are irrefutable as opposed to the benefits of decarbonization which may be illusive.
Roger...brilliant analysis 👌. I'd like to take parts of this and share with readers in our local newspaper ( if they'll publish my letter!). Are you okay with this, and if so, how what source can I quote? Thanks
Yes I would also be interested. My local paper has a small circulation but most letters submitted get printed. I would also be interested in the latest data you have available on sea level rise and anything on the "sinking" of the South of England (Portsmouth area) as that's where we live.
For those unaware, the UAE, the best performer at decarbonization change, has brought 3 nuclear reactors on line in the last few years with a fourth one on the way and talks regarding building more.
Nuclear works. The rest of these efforts are just ways to destroy the economy and make the populace miserable, while lining the pockets of grifters.
Roger, I notice that the UK is the world's leader on decarbonization. I am in the UK for the summer so I have seen some of what it has taken to produce that decarbonization. The UK, where the industrial revolution began, has dropped out of the world's top ten countries with regard to manufacturing output. They now rank 12th, behind such countries as Russia and Taiwan. The Labour government has halted all new oil and gas development in the British North Sea, putting Scottish offshore worker' jobs in peril. Oil refineries in the UK are being forced to convert to biofuels, and are expected to close when this proves uneconomical. Electric vehicles are being mandated, as are heat pumps. Gas-fired boilers are to be banned. Low-energy washing machines are required; these take five loads instead of two to do laundry for two people, and the clothes do not come out clean. Low-flush toilets are required, which do not clear the bowl reliably of waste. Let no one doubt that the thrust for decarbonization has costs, in jobs, in economic growth and in petty tyrannies imposed upon the population.
Yes indeed
One of my biggest misses in my published research was my failure of imagination that the UK GDP growth could crater (Brexit!? Who knew?)
See:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-i-got-wrong
I enjoy and learn from Roger’s excellent posts. But the world would have been better off if that meeting in Paris never took place, if CO2 was never given a second thought, and if people just used the most dense fuels available to them. The dragon beyond the horizon is not climate change it is China capitalizing on global stupidity.
Thank you for another good analysis. It is not really surprising since the 2 degree target with its carbon budget was a political construct rather than anything to do with reality.
I work in R&D on energy systems in shipping (what we used to call machinery and engines). This sector accounts for 3% of global CO2 emissions. The International Maritime Organization (IMO, part of the UN) publishes figures on fuel use in shipping. According to them, in 2017 global shipping fuel use was 99.95 % fossil based. In 2023 the number was down to 99.85%. According to their own goals they are supposed to be at 60% in 2030. The progress it seems is on par with the rest of the world.
The ridicule might seem to be the total absence of realism between the minute difference over 7 years compared to the required cut in the coming 5 1/2 years. But the joke lies elsewhere.
The fuel usage numbers for global shipping says it is somewhere between 270 mtoe and 330 mtoe, with the normally preferred 300 mtoe as convenient. The upper and lower numbers have at least a margin of uncertainty of +/-10%. meanwhile, IMO is insisting on giving the numbers with a stated accuracy of 1/100 of a percent.....
The reality is, we do not know how much fuel global shipping uses within a margin of +/- 20%. How then can you calculate any meaningful number of "decarbonization" in shipping? I guess shipping is not very different from other sectors.
It becomes very clear that global energy consumption and global GDP can't be decoupled. And investing in low density renewable energy (wind, solar, and batteries) that has a short useful life is not economically sustainable and a waste of valuable resources. It appears that the UN strategy isn't about climate change or actually reducing global emissions, but more about the redistribution of global wealth. By making energy more expensive in developed countries through green policy and regulation, it gives developing countries a competitive advantage to supply humanity's endless appetite for mass consumerism, and guarantees that emissions will continue to increase as long as global GDP increases. Energy and GDP can't be sustainably decoupled. The only reason the United States has been able to decouple over the last 20 years is by outsourcing a significant portion of its manufacturing capacity to Asia and accumulating approximately $27 trillion in national debt. It's not sustainable. And two thirds of the emissions reductions that the United States has seen in that time is thanks to the shale revolution, allowing natural gas to replace coal fire generation.
Pretty comical that decarb was faster in Saudi Arabia than in the US 🙃
Thank you Roger! So, the attendees in Paris set sights on the moon and we've so far just made it to the local drug store. Do you think the Paris Agreement was an act of cynical bad faith, like the 1938 Munich Agreement, or were those present unaware of the monumental nature of the task they were signing up to? Perhaps the best players weren't on the pitch?
Good luck with reducing the amount of energy that humans want--and must have--for civilization to continue. Power production (make that reliable production) and the ability for world markets to function will continue to make any "gains" marginal at best. The world will continue to turn. The idea that we can manage the planet (or that some savants can do the job for the rest of us) is DOA.
???
My usual comment about your posts. What is the policy recommendation? Who do you think should DO what? _Do_, not _say_.
Here was mine back in November: https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/cop-28-and-counting
"But more important is to refocus COP commitments away from achieving arbitrary quantitative goals of CO2 reductions, arbitrarily distributed among countries, and toward policies that will, in the aggregate, result in zero net CO2 emissions."
I'll stick with that.
Thanks Roger. Could it be that unrealistic targets are set to support a narrative of " we are not doing enough" and to promote more and more mitigation efforts?
It’s a great question. Depending who you ask, targets like this are either “ambitious”, “unrealistic”, or “stupid”
That was the thinking behind the creation of 350.org, since the world had already passed 350
Of course targets don't make policy happen or be effective, so if that is the thinking, they might think again!
Dr. Pielke ==> We might have looked at total CO2 emission from each country as well.
From that viewpoint, even looking at the top ten of the total emitters, ONLY China, the United States, and India (and maybe Russia and Japan) really matter, all other countries only really count when combined.
And in improvements on total emissions, for those 3 (or 5) only the United States (and, if five, Japan) have shown reduced total emissions.
And while your analysis is quite correct from the Political Paris point of view, it is total emissions that the IPCC crowd is worried about.
I wish the Depoliticization rate was falling on decarbonization
I suspect that Robert Bryce is on top the target with his “Global Power Demand is Soaring, IEA Expects 4% Growth in ‘24 and ‘25.”
The WSJ had an article this week about a supposed increase in focus on adaptation measures to address the fact that measures to mitigate climate change are falling way short of what is "needed". https://www.wsj.com/us-news/climate-environment/climate-cash-pivots-to-new-reality-of-a-hotter-wetter-planet-f0554119?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1
The discussion here on decarbonization measures falling short documents clearly the point that efforts to mitigate man made climate change (IMHO) will not achieve the goals set by Paris 2015. Efforts to improve this performance (Nuclear, Hydrogen...) are many years in the future. We need to start promoting adaptation more and develop measures of progress in this regard. Adaptation will save more lives and improve living standards more over the next 50-100 years than will decarbonization. In addition the benefits of adaptation are irrefutable as opposed to the benefits of decarbonization which may be illusive.
I agree - adaptation has more tangible measurable results and helps with "regular" hurricanes, floods, fires etc...
Very valuable data, Roger - thankyou!
Roger...brilliant analysis 👌. I'd like to take parts of this and share with readers in our local newspaper ( if they'll publish my letter!). Are you okay with this, and if so, how what source can I quote? Thanks
You can cite it as an analysis by Roger Pielke Jr of World Bank and Energy Institute data, published at The Honest Broker on Substack.
Yes I would also be interested. My local paper has a small circulation but most letters submitted get printed. I would also be interested in the latest data you have available on sea level rise and anything on the "sinking" of the South of England (Portsmouth area) as that's where we live.
For those unaware, the UAE, the best performer at decarbonization change, has brought 3 nuclear reactors on line in the last few years with a fourth one on the way and talks regarding building more.
Nuclear works. The rest of these efforts are just ways to destroy the economy and make the populace miserable, while lining the pockets of grifters.
All roads to lead to Rome… and nuclear