Despite Clean Energy Use, Global Warming is Still Projected to Continue (msn.com) 60
The world's use of clean energy "is rapidly growing", reports the Washington Post, "but not fast enough to keep temperatures in check..."
Many experts say it will be the economics of clean energy that defines the future of the planet — and how developing countries choose to meet their growing electricity demands. "What happens in emerging and developing economies in the next decade in some sense is the whole ballgame," said Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center for Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. Global greenhouse gas emissions could peak as soon as next year, according to the International Energy Agency, but are not on course to drop sharply enough to contain warming. The world would have to cut its emissions roughly in half by 2035 to meet the 1.5 C target, scientists warn, in part because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for centuries.
Instead, the U.N. projects that nations' current policies will lead to 3.1 C of warming by 2100, or as little as 2.6 C if the strongest pledges are kept. This would represent substantial progress from when the Paris agreement was adopted, when scientists expected a 4 C (7.2 F) rise in temperatures by century's end... Still, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts "dangerous and widespread disruption" on the current path. The Greenland ice sheet might tip into irreversible collapse, according to the IPCC, threatening cities from New York to Shanghai, while extreme heat and humidity could make large swaths of the world effectively uninhabitable. Scientists also expect a growing toll of disease, crop failures and weather disasters. It would likely take thousands of years for Greenland's ice to completely vanish, but other impacts — like the death of coral reefs worldwide and month-long heat waves — could come in a matter of decades. If countries wish to avoid these consequences, they will have to spend vast sums on adaptation. From now through 2030, poor nations will need up to $387 billion per year to adapt to mounting climate disasters, according to a recent U.N. report...
[Much of the progress on curbing emissions] has come from the United States' switch from coal to natural gas and renewables, and the European Union's rapid embrace of wind and solar power... But the demand for power is also rising, complicating these efforts. According to a recent report from the International Energy Agency, countries are expected to add electricity demand equivalent to the entire nation of Japan every year — thanks to the growth of EVs, the rapid build-out of AI data centers, and a surge in a need for air conditioning in developing countries. That growth in demand means that even as clean energy is added to the grid, fossil fuel use hasn't decreased. And unless countries close coal and gas plants and shut down oil drilling, emissions won't start to come down.
"Two things can both be true: Clean energy is breaking almost every record you can imagine," Bordoff said. "And oil use is going up, and gas use is going up, and coal use is going up."
Many experts say it will be the economics of clean energy that defines the future of the planet — and how developing countries choose to meet their growing electricity demands. "What happens in emerging and developing economies in the next decade in some sense is the whole ballgame," said Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center for Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. Global greenhouse gas emissions could peak as soon as next year, according to the International Energy Agency, but are not on course to drop sharply enough to contain warming. The world would have to cut its emissions roughly in half by 2035 to meet the 1.5 C target, scientists warn, in part because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for centuries.
Instead, the U.N. projects that nations' current policies will lead to 3.1 C of warming by 2100, or as little as 2.6 C if the strongest pledges are kept. This would represent substantial progress from when the Paris agreement was adopted, when scientists expected a 4 C (7.2 F) rise in temperatures by century's end... Still, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts "dangerous and widespread disruption" on the current path. The Greenland ice sheet might tip into irreversible collapse, according to the IPCC, threatening cities from New York to Shanghai, while extreme heat and humidity could make large swaths of the world effectively uninhabitable. Scientists also expect a growing toll of disease, crop failures and weather disasters. It would likely take thousands of years for Greenland's ice to completely vanish, but other impacts — like the death of coral reefs worldwide and month-long heat waves — could come in a matter of decades. If countries wish to avoid these consequences, they will have to spend vast sums on adaptation. From now through 2030, poor nations will need up to $387 billion per year to adapt to mounting climate disasters, according to a recent U.N. report...
[Much of the progress on curbing emissions] has come from the United States' switch from coal to natural gas and renewables, and the European Union's rapid embrace of wind and solar power... But the demand for power is also rising, complicating these efforts. According to a recent report from the International Energy Agency, countries are expected to add electricity demand equivalent to the entire nation of Japan every year — thanks to the growth of EVs, the rapid build-out of AI data centers, and a surge in a need for air conditioning in developing countries. That growth in demand means that even as clean energy is added to the grid, fossil fuel use hasn't decreased. And unless countries close coal and gas plants and shut down oil drilling, emissions won't start to come down.
"Two things can both be true: Clean energy is breaking almost every record you can imagine," Bordoff said. "And oil use is going up, and gas use is going up, and coal use is going up."
Re: (Score:2)
You misspelled "propaganda lies". I hope you got at least paid for your evil deed. Thirty pieces of silver is the usual price, I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stuff that is true. We have an extensive infrastructure based on oil; many of our materials are oil based.
Things that are not true or misleading.
Wind turbines release more carbon in their construction than the save.
We will run out of oil before we find an alternative (perhaps we should stop burning it!).
Transmission lines will take thirty years to build (we do need to change the shape of the grid, but infrastructure is never done).
This is a TV drama is it not?
Re: (Score:2)
A 2021 study comparing EV and ICE emissions found that 46% of EV carbon emissions come from the production process while for an ICE vehicle, they ‘only’ account for 26%. Almost 4 tonnes of CO2 are released during the production process of a single electric car and, in order to break even, the vehicle must be used for at least 8 years to offset the initial emissions by 0.5 tonnes of prevented emissions annually. https://earth.org/environmenta... [earth.org]
How is it that boiling water with some form of energy (natural gets, etc) which converts to mechanical energy in turning a turbine, which converts to electrical energy via a generator set, then power transformers, power lines, more transformers (house current, then DC for the EV), then another 20% loss in heat when stored in
Re: There is no free lunch (Score:2)
Good news, with newer tech the payback is even faster.
An average EV produced in the U.S. in 2023 will close the gap in about 2.2 years or 25,000 miles. https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Well apparently... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, apparently, they aren't calculating the energy required to make and maintain things like solar (lithium mining, which is filthy), etc.
Obviously, they do. This is not some bunch of amateurs, even when the deniers want to style them as such.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, apparently, they aren't calculating the energy required to make and maintain things like solar (lithium mining, which is filthy), etc.
They do. The wider you cast the net the more complex it is to calculate, though. And it also applies to fossil fuel sources, although I've seen people try to compare the expansive footprint of solar to the narrow footprint for fossil sources
Do not worry (Score:1)
But I think we're all fucked anyway because we have to worry now about fish farts.
This is why I have organized a new Boston Tea Party all around the world. Only instead of dumping tea into harbors, we are dumping cases of Beano [target.com] tablets!
Come, join our movement! Or should I say, counter-movement.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they are part of the calculation. The reality is our green energy is still a metaphorical piss in the ocean compared to our wasteful use of fossil fuels.
The US and EU can not do it alone ... (Score:3, Interesting)
China has to stop pretending it's an impoverished developing nation that needs immunity from pollution / climate change requirements. It's a wealthy modern industrial nation that should and should act as such.
And regarding honest to god developing nations, well, either climate change is an existential threat or it is not. If it is, sorry, even developing nations need to chip in. Immunity from pollution / climate change requirements just says that "existential threat" is just political posturing not reality.
If the existential threat is real, everyone, developed or not, needs to do their part.
Re: (Score:1)
It's spending more on solar than the rest of the world combines.
It's spending more on wind than the rest of the world combined.
What's your far richer America doing?
An American emits more CO2 from oil than a Chinese person does coal. But it's Chinese coal "causing all the problems", isn't it...
It's not hard to see who the dirty and who the clean people are. [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It's spending more on solar than the rest of the world combines.
It's spending more on wind than the rest of the world combined.
And it, China, is emitting more pollution than anyone else in the world.
What's your far richer America doing?
Decreasing our emissions, unlike China which is still increasing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Decreasing but still the world leader [ourworldindata.org] 'decreasing' but still 50% higher than China [ourworldindata.org]
Let us know if you ever intend to be serious.
Wrong. China is the largest emitter of CO2 in the world.
"China is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide gas in the world, with 11,397 million metric tons emitted in 2022. 1 The primary source of CO2 emissions in China is fossil fuels, most notably those that burn coal. About 58% of the total energy generated by China comes from coal alone
https://www.investopedia.com/a... [investopedia.com].
Re: (Score:2)
And they're still cleaner than Americans...
The primary source of CO2 emissions in China is fossil fuels, most notably those that burn coal.
A Chinese person emits 6t from coal. An American emits 6.5t from oil. But it's the Chinese person and the coal, not the American or the oil to blame... You can start being serious any time you like...
The facts are the facts, China emits more. China has not reduced its emissions like the US. Your fraudulent use of per capital stats does not change this. Also, China's emissions are more industrial in nature than stemming from individual behavior. In other words, CCP policy, not individual behavior. So your per capita ploy is double fraudulent.
China has to do its part.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop twisting things to lie by cherry picking what you want. Leaving off what you don’t want to show from these charts is convenient, but anyone can select “countries” and check China again, or any of the rest of the world.
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And they're still cleaner than Americans...
The primary source of CO2 emissions in China is fossil fuels, most notably those that burn coal.
A Chinese person emits 6t from coal. An American emits 6.5t from oil. But it's the Chinese person and the coal, not the American or the oil to blame... You can start being serious any time you like...
The facts are the facts, China emits more. China has not reduced its emissions like the US. Your fraudulent use of per capital stats does not change this. Also, China's emissions are more industrial in nature than stemming from individual behavior. In other words, CCP policy, not individual behavior. So your per capita ploy is double fraudulent. China has to do its part.
It's not just about emissions today, the history of carbon emissions also matters. Since 1850, China has emitted 284 billion tons of carbon dioxide while the USA that industrialized far earlier has emitted 509 billion tons of carbon and, what's far worse, seems in no hurry to stop emitting carbon. China on the other hand, added more solar panels in 2023 (217 GW) than US did In Its entire history (200 GW). Meanwhile coal power plant construction in China is plateauing and they are solidly on track to replace
Re: (Score:2)
200 countries in the world and the American thinks he's clean because he's number 2 and not number 1 ...
Sad how dumb people can be.
Well, smarter than you. Work on that reading comprehension. All that was said was that the US has reduced emissions, China has not, and to avoid an existential crisis China we have to do its part.
Re: (Score:2)
China emits a tiny fraction of US and EU emissions per capita, the only reasonable measure assuming you don't think killing off billions of people is an acceptable solution.
What's more, last year China installed more solar and wind generation that the US has in its entire history, and it is accelerating.
It really is the US and EU that need to do more. The really frustrating thing is that we have solutions, we just need to implement them. There are some areas where a bit more work is needed, so maybe we coul
Re: (Score:2)
My own view, fwiw, is that every country can and should be doing much more, with a twofold focus on building out net new low carbon energy and shuttering existing high carbon energy. The thing that might just save us is that the costs of solar, wind and storage in particular have fallen so much and are continuing to fall that they provide their own incentives, eg sub Saharan African economies are importing solar and “skipping ahead” instead of building out fossil-based infrastructure in much the
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, every country needs to do more. China is the world leader, but even they could ramp up faster, and the government could be a bit clearer about ending fossil fuel use for electricity generation, rather than just relying on the free market to do it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
An American emits more than a Chinese and a European added together.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So why isn't the US doing its part?
It has, emissions have been reduced, unlike China.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not China that needs to grow up. It is the US.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not China that needs to grow up. It is the US.
US emissions are down, a little behind the EU.
China's emissions are still growing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US is rated even below China by Climate Change Performance Index: https://ccpi.org/ [ccpi.org]
China invests massively in renewables and emissions will likely peak now. It has to do much more just as everybody else, but the idea that the US is somehow in a leading position is grotesquely wrong and the "but China" excuse is intellectually and morally poor.
Re: (Score:2)
The US and EU can not do it alone.
China has to stop pretending
Oh fuck off. China is spending far more on green initiatives both in absolute as well as per capita terms than the US and EU and are on track to become a wealthiest 1st world nation with with lowest contribution to emissions over its advancement in history.
Stop outsourcing your emissions to China. Stop pretending that you have more of a right to pollute than a Chinese person. Start realising that the US / EU per capita emissions are a global embarrassment made only worse by selfish comments like yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then it's even more important that we reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, isn't it?
Demolishing returns. The US and EU cannot avoid the existential threat themselves. Either everyone works towards it or we all fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Do you want facts and truth or do you want lies that make you feel warm and comfortable?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how bad things will need to get (Score:2)
A system in which each national government gives priority to its own country, and only focuses on issues that will show results in the next 3 or 4 years, is not well suited for a problem like climate change which demands a whole world unified response. It tends to leave those sorts of problems too late.
Re: I wonder how bad things will need to get (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How could I have been so blind to the Vast Scientist Conspiracy? Thank you, climate change denalists funded by benevolent oil and coal, for enlightening me!
Christ almighty, the absolutely unbelievable shit right wingers believ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)