“Global Decarbonisation Efforts Stall”–No S**T Sherlock!!
By Paul Homewood
It takes them awhile to catch up, doesn’t it!!
Global decarbonisation efforts will need to be seven times greater if the world is to stand a fair chance of limiting global warming to 1.5C, according to a new PwC report which found decarbonisation has slowed to its lowest level since 2011. EURACTIV’s media partner edie.net reports.
PwC UK’s latest Low Carbon Economy Index (LCEI), published today (19 September), found that reaching the Paris Agreement’s 2C limit for global warming would require the global economy to reduce its carbon intensity by 7.5% every year up to 2100. The report notes that this is five times faster than the current decarbonisation rate of 1.6% – less than half the decarbonisation rate witnessed in 2015 (of 3.3%), when the Paris Agreement was introduced.
In order to meet the more ambitious target of the Paris Agreement – limiting global warming to 1.5C which has been requested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC’s) special report – decarbonisation rates must reach 11.3% annually. That is seven times greater than the current rate, which has slowed to its lowest level since 2011.
Global emissions actually increased by 2% in 2018, due to a 2.9% increase in energy demand. The report warns that extreme heat and cold weather patterns contributed to this growth in demand, and will likely exacerbate decarbonisation efforts in the future. In total, 69% of the increase in energy demand was met by fossil fuel production.
I’m not quite sure how they conclude that “Global decarbonisation efforts will need to be seven times greater” when emissions keep increasing. They obviously have to fall to meet Paris targets.
They are, of course, using the meaningless carbon intensity measurements, which tell us nothing about actual emissions.
Meanwhile Reuters report that China is pushing ahead with massive new coal power projects:
SHANGHAI (REUTERS) – China’s total planned coal-fired power projects now stand at 226.2 gigawatts (GW), the highest in the world and more than twice the amount of new capacity on the books in India, according to data published by environmental groups on Thursday (Sept 19).
The projects approved by China amount to nearly 40 per cent of the world’s total planned coal-fired power plants, according to the Global Coal Exit List database run by German environmental organisation Urgewald and 30 other partner organisations.
The new China projects would be more than Germany’s existing installed power capacity of around 200 GW by the end of 2018.
China’s installed thermal capacity is currently 1100 GW, so this new tranche will add about an extra 20%.
Why all of this should come as a surprise to anybody is beyond me. It has been obvious to anyone who has bothered to actually check the facts, instead of getting swept away with the make believe generated when the Paris Agreement was signed.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
What nonsense to talk about increasing the rate of decarbonisation when emissions are increasing and everyone (whose head is not in the sand) knows that it will continue to do so for many years to come. Fortunately, carbon dioxide has an almost negligible effect on temperatures ……. and even less on the climate.
But helps grow a lot of extra food.
All based on a fabrication that CO2 has or will drive temperatures.
To paraphrase Professor Lindzen, only in the models is sensitivity significant and only in the minds of the alarmists and those they indoctrinate is there any possibility of catastrophe.
You don’t have to be a “Sherlock” to know that the 3,700 million tons added last year are already equilibrating and will be added to the total in the atmosphere. There is no way that what will be added this and subsequent years can be “decarbonized”…captured and stored to limit the “carbon intensity”. The Paris goals may look good on paper, but not in the real world where energy is needed and “renewable” alternatives are not ready to replace carbon globally. Net-zero is unreachable and this should be admitted?
I note that the doomed Guardian newspaper has today’s CO2 level on their weather page and a figure for Safe Level at 350ppm!! Where does that come from? Any bets on when we get back to that, eh?
The 350 ppm is a goal that was established in 2008 by NASA “guru” James Hansen. It is totally unreachable. Now requiring the capture, transport and safe geological storage of 65 ppm… almost 500 billion tons!
And what was the weather like when the planet was at that ‘safe’ Co2 level of 350ppm? Em, pretty crap in comparison today I seem to remember. But hey ho, our alarmist friends don’t do history do they?
I don’t know how they think that the world is decarbonising at a rate of 1.6% when hydrocarbon fuel burning reached a new record last year as it does every year. Dodgy accounting.
The fantasy must be believed. The AGW zealots have beaten me on the BBC website, I have given up!
You cannot reason with someone who believes, I know that why did I bother? I think it was to distract myself from real life problems, so I joined in with the fantasy for a bit.
Assuming that CO2 is the climate ‘control knob’, the Paris Agreement aims to keep a global temperature rise this century below 2C above pre-industrial levels.
By 2100 at the current rate the atmospheric CO2 concentration will be double the presumed pre-industrial level forcing ~1C GAT rise (ceteris paribus).
Empirically and boldly accepting the IPCC absurd assumption, the linear T trend since 1979 is ~0.6C extrapolating to 2100 = 1.2C.
I seem to have lost my thread, no-one knows what the GAT was in say 1850 but assuming that it has risen ~1C since to date, it looks like ~2C above pre-industrial will be achieved by doing nothing.
2019-09-17 Energy Self-Sufficiency Avoids Wars – The Green Cult Starts Them
These are the consequences of short-sighted, idealistic and ultimately foolhardy green legislation that even many opponents of the increasingly authoritarian green movement haven’t yet fully apprehended.
https://eurasiafuture.com/2019/09/17/energy-self-sufficiency-avoids-wars-the-green-cult-starts-them/
May 21, 2019 Why is Carbon the Key to Life? (On Earth, Anyway)
One element is the backbone of all forms of life we’ve ever discovered on Earth: carbon. Number six on the periodic table is, to the best of our knowledge, impossible to live without.
Thank you for that, I have been saying for some time that we need Carbon in its many forms but no one listens
What’s more, it needs mobile carbon. It doesn’t do much good sitting in a rock. And the obvious natural candidate is carbon dioxide.
So CO2 is a lot like Ox in that we know we can’t do without it and neither is harmful to people?
I’ve never thought much of the parallel universes concept but the folks that write these climate alarm pieces are going a long way to change my mind.
‘Global decarbonisation efforts stall‘? But – no, that can’t be true: at the UN climate summit on Monday only those with the ‘boldest’ plans to increase ‘ambition’ have been selected to speak. And they include China and India. So everything must really be OK. Surely.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/19/100-countries-applied-un-climate-summit-half-rejected/
For 7 times greater decarb effort they will have to become 7 times more bonkers. Is this achievable?
“…become 7 times more bonkers. Is this achievable?”
Yes! With one more push from our Marxist fifth columnists, led by the present, elite force of fame-and-money-corrupted “scientists.”
A problem with the theory that anthropogenic emissions are driving up atmospheric concentrations, is that it ain’t necessarily so. In 1995, Charles Keeling was concerned that CO2 data from Mauna Loa showed a decrease after 1988, ironically the year that Hansen said Global Warming had arrived.
https://www.nature.com/articles/375666a0
“OBSERVATIONS of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and at the South Pole over the past four decades show an approximate proportionality between the rising atmospheric concentrations and industrial CO2 emissions. This proportionality, which is most apparent during the first 20 years of the records, was disturbed in the 1980s by a disproportionately high rate of rise of atmospheric CO2, followed after 1988 by a pronounced slowing down of the growth rate.”
As it happens the annual increase rose again in 2016 with the El Nino event.
RESPONSIVENESS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS
JAMAL MUNSHI https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997420
“The IPCC carbon budget concludes that changes in atmospheric CO2 are driven by fossil fuel emissions on a year by year basis.
A testable implication of the validity of this carbon budget is that changes in atmospheric CO2 should be correlated with fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale net of long term trends.
A test of this relationship with insitu CO2 data from Mauna Loa 1958-2016 and flask CO2 data from twenty three stations around the world 1967-2015 is presented. The test fails to show that annual changes in atmospheric CO2 levels can be attributed to annual emissions.”
An LSE report from 2012 says that from 1990-2007, global anthropogenic GHG emissions actually rose by over 40 per cent. During that same time, Mauna Loa figures increased by just 8%. There is no direct correlation.
Watching the self-righteous marching on yesterday’s “news” made me think about how to solve their problem without resorting to mass extermination (the only guaranteed solution).
My suggestion is that the people who marched and their supporters show us non-believers how effective reducing CO2 is by:
1. Giving up all travel in fuel burning transport (cars, aeroplanes, ships);
2. Refusing to buy products that have been transported;
3. Removing all gas fired heating devices from their homes and schools;
4. Eating only locally grown fruit and veg.; and,
5. Only using electricity for the renewables percentage of the time ( say 40 % of the time).
This would demonstrate how effective CO2 reduction is actually, so that the unbelievers would willingly follow confessing their erroneous ways ….. (as with the INDCs) ……
I wish I knew what the “climate goals” were. The idiotic and doomed Guardian newspaper weather page has ‘350ppm’ as a safe evel of CO2 . Where from? As it climbs steadily upwards towards about 500 beneficial ppm, what will happen to us? Nada I guess