Despite Clean Energy Use, Global Warming is Still Projected to Continue (msn.com) 45
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)
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.
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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