Article:
A new climate change report offers something unique: hopeHere’s something you don’t hear much when it comes to climate change: hope.
Countries are setting records in deploying climate-friendly technologies, such as solar power and electric vehicles, according to a new International Energy Agency report. The agency, which represents countries that make up more than 80% of global energy consumption, projects demand for coal, oil and natural gas will peak before 2030.
While greenhouse gas emissions keep rising, the IEA finds that there’s still a path to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s what’s needed to avoid the the worst effects of climate change, such as catastrophic flooding and deadly heatwaves.
“The pathway to 1.5 [degrees] C has narrowed in the past two years, but clean energy technologies are keeping it open,” said Fatih Birol, IEA Executive Director, in a statement. “The good news is we know what we need to do – and how to do it.”
That overall message is more optimistic than the one issued in 2021, when the IEA released its first Net Zero Roadmap.
In addition to optimism, the 2023 version shows that the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner forms of energy will have to speed up even more in the coming decade. For example, the world is on track to spend $1.8 trillion on clean energy this year. To meet the target outlined in the 2015 Paris climate agreement among the world’s nations, the IEA finds annual spending would have to more than double to $4.5 trillion by the early 2030s.
As renewable energy costs continue to decline, the IEA says tripling installations of new renewable energy, mostly solar and wind power, will be the biggest driver of emissions reductions. But the agency warns countries will have to speed up permitting and improve their electricity grids for that power to get to where it’s needed.
The agency also finds a little room for new fossil fuel developments, such as the controversial Willow project the Biden administration approved in Alaska earlier this year. The roadmap does leave room for some new oil and gas drilling to avoid “damaging price spikes or supply gluts.”
The report comes as countries prepare to meet for an annual climate summit in Dubai at the end of November and amid calls to phase out fossil fuels entirely.
“It’s an extraordinary moment in history: we now have all the tools needed to free ourselves from planet-heating fossil fuels, but there’s still no decision to do it,” said Kaisa Kosonen with Greenpeace International in a statement.
The oil and gas industry continues to argue it can be a part of addressing climate change, despite research showing most oil, gas and coal reserves would have to stay in the ground.
The American Petroleum Institute offered a defense of its business in response to the IEA report. “Policymakers should not ignore current market realities—which are clearly signaling the need for more supply of oil and natural gas—in favor of any scenario models with predetermined outcomes,” said Dustin Meyer, American Petroleum Institute senior vice president.
If countries fail to achieve climate goals, the IEA report warns carbon removal – essentially vacuuming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere – would be required. The agency calls those technologies “expensive and unproven” at the scale that would be needed to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
“Removing carbon from the atmosphere is very costly. We must do everything possible to stop putting it there in the first place,” Birol said.
IMHO, the last paragraph kinda invalidates the rest of the article.
Do you know how much good it does for climate change to build a lot of solar power and electric vehicles “while greenhouse gas emissions keep rising”? None. It does not help. The amount of climate change it prevents is zero. The atmosphere does not care that you’ve built a record amount of renewable energy capacity.
I mean obviously everyone here does know that, but it’s amazing how many journalists and politicians seem completely and stubbornly unaware of it.
Yup, the idea of electric cars is great, but it easily becomes something like Braess Paradox. Where building bigger roads leads to more cars & more traffic. Building electric cars just means fuel is cheaper so people drive more.
And even if we were able to electrify every single vehicle in the world, with sufficient charging infrastructure, cheap reliable renewable energy, and abundant resources for cheap replacement batteries; that still leads to collapse. Assuming electric cars are afforable,b that pushes more “investing” in so many car-centric single-family suburbs that are cashflow negative will have to finally face drastic increases in taxes. We’ll wish that walkability and public transit should had been prioritized, as we desperately densify in patchwork ways that cost more in the long run.
Then if you look at the amount of pollution caused by rubber tires, continuing with electric cars using rubber tires is just leading to collapse from inhaled particles and forever chemicals.
The answer has always been walkable cities with infrastructure for bikes, busses, streetcars, and rail. This temporary century-long obsession with abandoning what’s worked for human cities and splurging with the assumption that the temporary abundance of cheap energy would never end. But we never change in time.
My guess is that carbon removal will be our new normal for decades to come. We will hope to be able to change something with it, with uncertain outcomes.
The problem is it’s extremely energy intensive. The math just doesn’t work. IIRC, we currently have three big “carbon capture” plants operating to try and remove CO2 from the atmosphere. (As opposed to the carbon capture they do in things like concrete plants.) Those plants are operating at a fraction the efficiency they expected. Age even if they did work, we’d need to open a new plant like those every single day for a decade before we could capture just the emissions we’re putting out right now.
It’s not gonna work.
Carbon capture still requires energy though. If it’s inadvertantly emitting more carbon than it captures, it’s pointless. May be watching thunderf00t made me too cynical… I don’t know. His hacky solution for the time beimg is to release non-toxic gases (don’t remember the names) that counteract CO2’s greenhouse effect into the air using planes while we figure out how to solve the whole mess. Like literal chem trails.
When I was thinking about it a bit further, I realized that carbon capture is probably doomed from the start.
Most carbon emissions happen as a side effect for something which generates economic value, and thus the emissions got scaled to the extent we observe today. Everybody wants to make money, or help their community by doing so as so they (necessarily) emit carbon.
What economic incentive can people have to capture carbon? You can’t sell the result, you don’t bring value to your community, you can’t do it as a side effect… so: it won’t scale.
Having a price on carbon seems the right way, but I have the feeling that this won’t bring the extent of scale we would need.
Someone needs to find a way to capture the carbon from space, pump it in giant balloons and sned it off to Mars, start warming it up.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“The pathway to 1.5 [degrees] C has narrowed in the past two years, but clean energy technologies are keeping it open,” said Fatih Birol, IEA Executive Director, in a statement.
To meet the target outlined in the 2015 Paris climate agreement among the world’s nations, the IEA finds annual spending would have to more than double to $4.5 trillion by the early 2030s.
The agency also finds a little room for new fossil fuel developments, such as the controversial Willow project the Biden administration approved in Alaska earlier this year.
The report comes as countries prepare to meet for an annual climate summit in Dubai at the end of November and amid calls to phase out fossil fuels entirely.
“It’s an extraordinary moment in history: we now have all the tools needed to free ourselves from planet-heating fossil fuels, but there’s still no decision to do it,” said Kaisa Kosonen with Greenpeace International in a statement.
“Policymakers should not ignore current market realities—which are clearly signaling the need for more supply of oil and natural gas—in favor of any scenario models with predetermined outcomes,” said Dustin Meyer, American Petroleum Institute senior vice president.
The original article contains 585 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!