Diogenes, if you want to sell it look for framing ideas at the other post i posted above, a fee and dividend CO2 tax is maybe the best instrument to reduce emissions, since the savings go back to the consumer and people who actively participate in carbon footprint optimisation win even more. And once you have this there is an entire new industry born, when people come up with the craziest ideas to further draw down emissions. As an example, many companies could start to build longer lasting products for instance.
DIOGENESsays
Doug #447,
“So, if you really believe all the stuff you are writing, and want to be effective, maybe taking Hank’s advice would be a good idea. Somebody has to step up. It might as well be you.”
I agree with you (and Hank) in principle. Personal persuasion works in inter-personal relationships, in politics, and in business. Basically, you are suggesting that I do the equivalent of going into business (albeit non-profit) by starting a blog. There are two necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for being successful in business. You have to believe in what you are selling, and there has to be a potential market for the product.
I believe the only chance for avoiding the catastrophe requires implementation of my full plan. I also believe there is essentially zero market for the full plan, and I have stated that repeatedly. Now, I could start a blog and sell perhaps the Ceres Clean Trillion plan. I wouldn’t do it; I don’t believe it will get us where we need to go, and I refuse to sell something which I don’t believe will work.
What will people buy? SA posted two ‘plans’ (or whatever one wants to call them), the Spross-quoted plan and the Ceres plan. Both involved emissions reductions on the order of ~1% per year, or slightly higher, for decades, and even these low levels were viewed by the proponents as challenging. They are an order of magnitude lower than what I believe we need.
I have tried to propose some of these measures to our family, friends, acquaintances, etc. For the deniers, I don’t even get to first base. For those who profess to be concerned about climate change, I may get to first base, and that’s as far as it goes. They’re interested in ameliorating climate change IF it doesn’t impact their electric bill significantly, IF electricity is fully available on demand 24/7, IF it doesn’t disrupt in any significant manner their present lifestyle, etc.
So, I don’t see the market for anything in any way near what we need to avert catastrophe. In fact, on this blog, I have stated repeatedly that the plan I generated is not salable. My main goal was to identify the requirements of what we need to do to avert catastrophe. If these required actions are not salable, then draw your own conclusions about what lies ahead.
Ray Ladburysays
The APS Forum on Physics and Society, which is behind this revisit, is a cesspit of stupidity. It is not a particularly popular forum, and so it relies on volunteers for a lot of its activities. Sometimes volunteer spirit is motivated by a minority agenda rather than civic commitment. Things like this are among the reasons why I let my APS membership lapse.
However, your (and Hank’s) suggestion raises the broader question of what is the best way to ‘sell’ climate change amelioration. To answer this would, at a minimum, involve examining what has been tried already, what has worked and not worked, what methods have been tried in other large-scale movements (ending smoking, ending wars, etc) and what has worked and not worked, and what methods have not been tried previously and offer some promise of working.
Do you think blogs are a successful approach? We have plenty of climate advocacy blogs; what are their metrics for success and what have they accomplished? Numbers of ‘clicks’ don’t cut it for me; what have they done from the larger perspective? TV programs? Tom Hartman has been around for a while, and has produced some hard-hitting videos and has had some hard-hitting interviews. What has that done from the larger perspective? Movements like 350.org? Well meaning and hard working; what has that accomplished of major significance? As far as I’m concerned, we have found nothing that works yet anywhere near the scales required. Either we haven’t found the right technique, or we have a market with no interest in our product (or some other factor). Now, as Brulle pointed out, there has been a billion dollar + disinformation campaign, which certainly has not helped the cause of climate advocacy. But, there is an implicit assumption repeated over and over on this blog that the disinformation campaign is the main reason for public disinterest. I’m not convinced for reasons I outlined on the previous post on this topic, but there’s no way we can re-run the experiment without the disinformation campaign, and see how much more support would have been engendered.
It seems to me these other successful campaigns worked either because we ran out of funds (ending certain wars), or there was majority public support (reducing smoking in public facilities), or there was the potential for expanded employment and large profits (Space Program), or ……. Offhand, I don’t see a ready extrapolation from these successful efforts to the central problem we face, that of getting people to do with less for at least a few decades. That’s not how most programs are sold (except for perhaps Weight Watchers). And, I don’t believe the expansion portion of what is required (planting more trees, substituting low carbon technologies for high carbon) will offset the contraction portion of hard fossil demand reduction.
Do you have any proposals for how we could sell what is needed to avoid the climate catastrophe?
“We are observing an extraordinarily powerful Kelvin Wave, one that was likely intensified by factors related to human global warming, traveling across the Pacific. It appears to be an epic event in the making. One that may be hotter and stronger than even the record-shattering 1997-98 El Nino. What this means is that we may well be staring down the throat of a global warming riled monster.”
siddsays
New paper on DEM and mass waste for Greenland and Antarctica from Cryosat-2
Greenland: Mass loss doubled in between the periods 2003-2008 and 2011-2012
The latter period saw rates of 353 +/- 29 Km^3/yr or approx 1mm/yr sea level rise
West Antarctica from 25 to 188 +/- 11 Km^3/yr
sidd
wilisays
sidd wrote: “Greenland: Mass loss doubled in between the periods 2003-2008 and 2011-2012”
Crikey! That’s doubling every five years or so. At that rate of increase (or slightly worse), wouldn’t we expect over a meter of rise by mid century or so, just from this one source?
Diogenes: “Do you think blogs are a successful approach?” – Nah. It’s more like an image of doing something useful. Blogs are often the lazy man’s solution of avoiding having to do anything. (procrastination)
Doug: “People learn after awhile to trust the opinions of certain individuals, and they want to associate ideas with names” – which is another way of relying upon the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. It is far better to rely upon the truthfulness of the content. Truth and genuine facts should be the yardsticks used to chose what ‘content to trust’.
Diogenes: “They’re interested in ameliorating climate change IF it doesn’t impact their electric bill significantly, IF electricity is fully available on demand 24/7, IF it doesn’t disrupt in any significant manner their present lifestyle, etc.” – Often true, good point.
Diogenes: “So, I don’t see the market for anything in any way near what we need to avert catastrophe. In fact, on this blog, I have stated repeatedly that the plan I generated is not salable.” – That’s true.
“there is an implicit assumption repeated over and over on this blog that the disinformation campaign is the main reason for public disinterest. I’m not convinced for reasons I outlined on the previous post on this topic” – I agree, the public are more interested in their electricity prices not going up and running all the gadgets they have and more.
This is what consumers have been trained to expect and what they want:
– An unlimited electricity supply to suit every need and whim in the home, office, and factory.
– A cheap residential electricity supply historically costing under 2% avg weekly earnings ~$22/wk/person
– A reliable electricity supply 99.9% time with no extended ‘brown outs’ and ‘black outs’ only occur during extreme weather situations.
– An easy to use local retail service to have the electricity (water/gas) supply connected and billed appropriately.
– Sufficient electricity supply to operate all major social and government infrastructure 24/7 such as dams, sewerage works, street lighting, transportation etc.
– Giving bucket loads of heavily Discounted Electricity to Industry to grow the economy and employment.
– A petrol diesel lpg gas station on almost every corner.
– Abundant inexpensive heating oil/gas and cooking gas supplies available.
Most people would want a cheaper and a more reliable supply of at least the same amount of energy (probably more) into the future. Lots of cheap energy makes life a lot easier. The more the better. Tough luck for the 3 billion of Earth who have zero to an ounce of electricity their entire life.
So, bundle the above into a clean green energy package for the entire planet – More Energy For Little $ – as THE Vision for the future and billions would buy it. :)
Tony Weddlesays
Dave Cohen has been writing about the upcoming IPCC climate impacts report, in a blog entry entitled The Death Of “Climate Exceptionalism”. I sincerely hope that the final draft will not play down the risks by talking of a slight hit to the global economy and by placing it as just another risk among many that our global civilisation has.
DIOGENESsays
Pk #456,
C’mon. You post an article entitled “Private enterprise is beginning to take climate change seriously”, which contains unsubstantiated arm-waving like “It seems that an increasing number of perfectly hard-nosed financiers and investment managers are coming round to the view that investing in low-carbon technology and infrastructure makes good financial sense.” That’s the kind of unsupported hype I would expect from our resident tag team, not from you. Last I saw, Rex Tillerson wasn’t standing in a soup line due to lack of support! Where are the numbers on this issue? Look at Walter’s posts, especially on what to expect from BAU. There, the numbers tell the grim story.
We have run out of carbon budget if we are to have any chance of avoiding the climate Apocalypse. For private enterprise to ‘take climate change seriously’, they have to be doing massive restructuring and re-investments of their portfolios and operations, commensurate with our having run out of carbon budget. For all practical purposes, they, along with government and the citizenry that empowers both government and industry, are doing ZERO!
Diogenes, that is an nature editorial with cites. It is not clear what your were referring to as “unsubstantiated arm-waving”. And you are wrong in your claim that this is considered an unsupported hype.
Apparently you generalize a lot and make false assertions such as your claim that industry and government are doing zero.
Good information on the internet is as much needed as the wide spectrum of actions everybody can take in his life. Each day we make our choice to what to buy or what not. To come to a blog and calling bloggers lazy is pure ignorance.
No offense, prok, but are you only figuring that out now?
DIOGENESsays
Pk #463,
“Apparently you generalize a lot and make false assertions such as your claim that industry and government are doing zero.”
I do generalize, but I do not make FALSE assertions. My specific generalization was:
“For all practical purposes, they, along with government and the citizenry that empowers both government and industry, are doing ZERO!”
The clause ‘for all practical purposes’ was not put in there by accident. If we need to march for 100 miles to get to our destination, and in the last decade we have marched fifty feet, and no one with any credibility is forecasting any substantial marching in the future, then I think it’s a fair conclusion that industry, government, and the citizenry are doing ZERO ‘for all practical purposes’. ‘Fifty feet’ is a finite distance, but compared to the 100 miles required, it is zero.
Kevin, sorry if i do not follow every single discussion here, i skipped most of it i guess.
MartinJBsays
Wili (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/unforced-variations-mar-2014/comment-page-9/#comment-475116), I’m not making any judgement about what is a good economy. I’m suggesting that the pace of economic retrenchment that the prolific poster insists is necessary (jury’s still out on that – Hansen for one doesn’t suggest anything close) is not doable without causing immediate, devastating impacts on the well being of the vast majority of humanity. That might sound like an exaggeration, but since we can’t substitute fossil fuel use nearly that quickly, it’d basically involve shutting down our existing infrastructure and moving to a non-powered economy without time to prepare and react.
And, again, apologies for the previous overlong (and then doubled) post.
DIOGENESsays
Pk #463/ Kevin McKinney #456,
Now you have expressed your disagreement with my specific statement “For all practical purposes, they, along with government and the citizenry that empowers both government and industry, are doing ZERO!”, perhaps you can enlighten us with the specifics of what industry, government, and the citizenry are doing to ameliorate climate change ON THE SCALE OF WHAT IS REQUIRED TO AVOID THE CATASTROPHE!
MartinJBsays
C’mon Kevin, it’s a binary world. It’s either 1 or 0. If you’re not following the path of DIOGENES you’re a windfaller leading humanity to ruin (but making a quick buck along the way). I know people who have gotten arrested to promote action on climate change. They’d do anything in their power to promote change and be the change. But they’d still be zeroes in his world.
Diogenes wrote: Now you have expressed your disagreement with my specific statement “For all practical purposes, they, along with government and the citizenry that empowers both government and industry, are doing ZERO!”, perhaps you can enlighten us with the specifics of what industry, government, and the citizenry are doing to ameliorate climate change ON THE SCALE OF WHAT IS REQUIRED TO AVOID THE CATASTROPHE! – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/unforced-variations-mar-2014/comment-page-10/#comment-476980
We can all agree that not enough is done to combat dangerous climate change, however there is progress and i personally like to focus on that. Very relevant are ClimateProgress news coverage of US climate action and energy topics. Problems are often associated with bad policy decisions continued dirty energy usage/generation and some mandatory actions need to be made, i.e. Carbon fee and dividend or more and bigger renewable energy projects.
Last January, I wrote an op-ed for the New York Times—If You See Something, Say Something—about my feelings of duty as a climate scientist to engage with the public. I hoped it would help other scientists feel more comfortable speaking out to the public about the dangers of a world warmed by human emissions.
Little did I know that exactly two months later, the largest scientific organization in the world and publisher of the leading academic journal Science would launch an initiative aimed at doing just that—move the conversation forward by telling Americans “What We Know.” It boils down to three main points—97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is here and now, that this means we risk abrupt and irreversible changes to the climate, and the sooner we act, the lower the costs and risks we face.
The focus of this initiative of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is to help Americans understand climate change, but also to inform us of some of the less probable but more painful risks we face by our continued inaction. By consulting with economists, the report was able to address the fact that the sooner we take action, the lower the cost and the less risk we face.
“(jury’s still out on that – Hansen for one doesn’t suggest anything close)”
It might be useful to see what Hansen actually stated. From his recent Plos One paper: “As discussed above, keeping global climate close to the Holocene range requires a long-term atmospheric CO2 level of about 350 ppm or less, with other climate forcings similar to today’s levels. If emissions reduction had begun in 2005, reduction at 3.5%/year would have achieved 350 ppm at 2100. Now the requirement is at least 6%/year. Delay of emissions reductions until 2020 requires a reduction rate of 15%/year to achieve 350 ppm in 2100. If we assume only 50 GtC reforestation, and begin emissions reduction in 2013, the required reduction rate becomes about 9%/year.”
So, Hansen is proposing “at least 6%/year” emissions reduction starting now, with the requirement for 100 GtC reforestation, and “about 9%/year…..if we assume only 50 GtC reforestation”. The latter number is comparable to Anderson’s 10%/year emissions reduction, which Anderson (and many others) admit will lead to a severe economic downturn. Now, given that Anderson sets a temperature target of 2 C (which he admits is in the Extremely Dangerous region) and Hansen sets a temperature target of 1 C, the only reason that Hansen’s required emissions reductions are not in the many tens of percent per year range is that Hansen adds the assumption/requirement for MASSIVE reforestation. Well, maybe the massive reforestation is doable, maybe not. Hey, if we’re going to make radical assumptions like that, let’s convert everything to renewables/nuclear in four years. This will give us our 25% emissions reduction per year (corrected for lag times to get this working), and everybody will be happy.
What my plan does is start with Hansen’s, use his temperature target (which I believe is the best around), and then minimize the risk of straying from that target. The severe demand reduction component of my plan is mainly for the purpose of risk reduction. If anyone wants to trade off risk of species survival for maintaining present energy wasteful lifestyle, feel free to do it, but, admit that’s what you’re doing.
MartinJBsays
DIOGENES, I’d say that converting the world to renewables/nuclear in four years is just about as likely as reducing carbon by 20% per year (your number) without devastating the population and causing chaotic societal collapse in very short order.
You might have noticed that Hansen includes several alternative scenarios with substantially less radical reductions in carbon that all result in temperature tracks that not only do not approach +2deg, but also have temperatures declining in the medium term. Not only do they suggest that the situation is not so cut and dried as you suggest, but I suspect they are also closer to what will likely occur and is actually achievable.
Yes, they would probably cause more hardship than his preferred scenario and have higher risks of things going truly pear-shaped, but I suspect they would be less damaging than your “plan”. Your risk assessment ignores the risks caused by what you propose.
Recaptcha: flat geoHot
DIOGENESsays
MartinJB #470,
“If you’re not following the path of DIOGENES you’re a windfaller leading humanity to ruin (but making a quick buck along the way).”
Just the opposite! I have practically begged the members of our resident tag team to provide a fully integrated self-consistent alternative to my admittedly harsh plan for providing any chance to avoid catastrophe. And, what have I gotten? Arm-waving, fancy footwork, invective, and all their other specialties, but not one specific. For the Nth time, what IMPROVEMENTS do you recommend to my plan?
#470–Exactly. Quantification works much better in a non-Boolean world–or at least, is much more useful in one.
DIOGENESsays
Pk #473,
“however there is progress and i personally like to focus on that. Very relevant are ClimateProgress news coverage of US climate action and energy topics.”
As the title suggests, the EIA reports the highest USA oil production in a quarter century. At a time when we have run out of carbon budget and run up carbon debt for avoiding climate catastrophe, the oil production in this country has shot up. Does this not reflect government policy: all-of-the-above, and energy independence? Does this boots-on-the-ground result contradict in any way the statement of mine to which you objected? Where is the USA ‘climate action’ here; if anything, it is action in the wrong direction!!!
In a major new analysis released this week, Citi says the big decision makers within the US power industry are focused on securing low cost power, fuel diversity and stable cash flows, and this is drawing them increasingly to the “economics” of solar and wind, and how they compare with other technologies.
Much of the mainstream media – in the US and abroad – has been swallowing the fossil fuel Kool-Aid and hailing the arrival of cheap gas, through the fracking boom, as a new energy “revolution”, as if this would be a permanent state of affairs. But as we wrote last week, solar costs continue to fall even as gas prices double.
Citi’s report echoes that conclusion. Gas prices, it notes, are rising and becoming more volatile. This has made wind and solar and other renewable energy sources more attractive because they are not sensitive to fuel price volatility.
Citi says solar is already becoming more attractive than gas-fired peaking plants, both from a cost and fuel diversity perspective. And in baseload generation, wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydro are becoming more economically attractive than baseload gas.
There’s a decent amount of analysis in there, including an unusually clear succinct account of what goes into LCOE calculations–and the analysis includes quite a few caveats, appropriately.
Overall, it’s another indicator that the economics are shifting underfoot–a trend not likely to reverse anytime soon. But as all here agree, it’s not enough in itself. Every effort should be made to accelerate this, and to limit the use of fossil fuel as much as possible. If, for instance, we were to get a carbon tax enacted, we’d probably start to see coal plants being retired at an accelerated rate.
How does the current US developments compare with lesser fossil fuel imports? So far it appears as if US emissions shifted and some tiny progress is at the horizon.
DIOGENESsays
MartinJB,
“Your risk assessment ignores the risks caused by what you propose.”
If I believed that 2 C or 3 C were ‘safe’, meaning we could stabilize at those temperatures and adapt, albeit to very uncomfortable conditions, then a more comfortable and less disrupting transition such as the Ceres Clean Trillion would be acceptable. From all I have read on the subject, I don’t believe those temperatures are ‘safe’ and Hansen doesn’t believe it. He states that in no uncertain terms in his paper, and I assume there is buy-in from his 10+ knowledgeable co-authors. Now, given the uncertainties and the ‘unknown unknowns’ I mentioned yesterday, if we were truly truly lucky, we might be able to stabilize. Do you want to take that gamble with the survival of our species at stake? If not, there are not many options available. We end up trading off substantial pain today for ultimate pain tomorrow.
Now, I mentioned the four year transition to low carbon in jest. However, some posters have suggested a decade is not out of the question. I have no idea whether such a number is within the realm of possibility/plausibility, but if it is, some modifications may be possible. My plan has five major components at present, with the door open for a sixth. The components are: specification of a target temperature; specification of a condition on the risk of staying near/under that temperature; a front-end reduction of fossil fuel use over and above that provided by the lifestyle maintenance component; rapid carbon removal; and replacement of high carbon and inefficient energy technologies by low carbon and more efficient technologies. The sixth possible component, only to be used as a last resort, would be some form of geo-engineering to probably replace the aerosols that would be lost as carbon emissions are reduced and do not replace the short-term aerosols.
I would hold the line on temperature near 1 C; this is the most critical component of the plan. I would minimize the risk of straying from the target temperature. If fossil can be replaced by low carbon in a decade, as some posters have suggested, that would reduce emissions in the ballpark of ten percent per year. I would accelerate reforestation. Hansen assumes today’s deforestation rate stays constant to 2020, linearly decreases to zero by 2030, then reforestation to 100GtC occurs from 2030-2080. If we’re serious enough to consider the possibility of a decade transition to low carbon, why not use the same level of optimism about reforestation? Don’t waste fifteen years; start ASAP, and complete the task by 2065-2070. Complement with ‘artificial trees’ and other CO2 removal concepts, if feasible.
Finally, we get to front-end demand reduction. I would not let up on this component, since it reduces the risk of the uncertainties in forcing us to stray from the target temperature. If we are getting 10% contribution from the low carbon substitution, then we can perhaps reduce the front-end fossil use decrease to perhaps 10-15%. Given that the transition to low carbon will not be carbon-free, and the massive reforestation will not be carbon-free, we need to insure that all non-essential uses of fossil are eliminated, and the fat trimmed from the uses we deem essential. I would even broaden this statement to all non-essential uses of energy, since it would reduce the number of low carbon replacement plants required. There are other reasons to minimize resource use besides fossil reduction, and cutting back on unnecessary consumption is the first step.
There are other issues involved in terms of restructuring the presently inefficient infrastructure and how we do business, but they await a later time.
Steve Fishsays
Re- DIOGENES above (many posts as usual)
I don’t have any concerns about increasing electricity costs, or brown outs, or any hint that my “lifestyle maintenance” is threatened. My plan works. It doesn’t solve the whole problem in 5 years you say. Your plan is not only impossible, it is a disaster so nothing is solved. My plan is infinitely scalable and is already working toward limiting CO2 emissions. Your plan cannot be sold. My plan can be sold because it offers monetary savings on energy, a feeling of self-reliance and that one is more in control of one’s life, and very fine “lifestyle maintenance.” With expansion my plan can pretty much supply most electrical energy for home, industry and transportation, and a big chunk of agriculture, all with no CO2 emissions.
I am not the originator of my plan. I learned a lot about it around 25 years ago from friends and signed on 12 years ago. Almost all of my current neighbors had already, or have since, signed up. The thing is that it works by word of mouth because it is so attractive and all it would need to expand dramatically is intensive governmental encouragement. Pushing your plan blocks progress on CO2 emissions because it cannot and will not ever work. Adding artificial trees (not economically viable) and reforestation (not possible in your five year short term) to support your vacuous plan is not helpful.
Steve
MartinJBsays
DIOGENES, I’m done with this. Your “plan” is just so divorced from reality that it’s just not worth engaging. If you still don’t get that you never will. You are free to keep spinning your fantasy here as long as the moderators you have utterly disrespected tolerate you. I just hope no-one buys your premise that nothing short will work. I’d hate for folks to give up on what might help because someone has convinced them it can’t possibly be enough.
MartinJBsays
Prokaryotes and Kevin,
That article at reneweconomy actually does a good job of conveying the message of the original Citi report (which was penned by some really good analysts covering the power sector and sustainability in C’s equity research team). The one thing it kinda misses is the sense that I got from the original report of the current and likely continuing dominance of gas in the USA. Also note the limitations they mention about the alternatives to gas for supplying baseboard power at present. They are competitive mainly in the most advantageous locations, although presumably substantial increases in gas prices would expand that range.
482 ‘But as all here agree, it’s not enough in itself.’
Hydro, biomass, and geothermal always was relatively ‘cheaper’ than gas, the problem is the lack of ‘supply capacity’ close to population centers, not the cost per unit.
The problem with wind and solar was two fold; the higher price per kwh, and the unreliability & low volume of the supply capacity. But supply issues persist with location, energy storage for 24/7 supply, overall capacity, and wind reliability.
I would like to see the source figures for this ‘PR article’: “In 2013, solar was the second-largest source of new generation capacity behind natural gas – its prospects look bright in 2014 and beyond as costs continue to decline and improve the LCOE picture. from http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/citigroup-says-the-age-of-renewables-has-begun-69852
It’s self-evident that becoming cheaper means wind and solar would be cheaper to finance. Hooray for Financing!
That doesn’t change the reality of ‘supply’ side constraints. For neither are as cheap per kwh nor possess the output Capacity that Gas already has.
Dr James Hansen says the “Assumed capacity factors: fossil (58% per IEA WEO 2013) hydro (34% per IEA WEO 2013); wind (33%); nuclear ( 90%); solar (15%).”
A gas fired 1,000 MWe plant has an output Capacity of 580 MWe; but the same ‘size’ Solar plant would likely produce only 150e MW over the same time!
Dr James Hansen says:
“Coal use caused most of the emissions growth and coal is now the source of nearly half of global fossil fuel carbon emissions (Fig. 1a).”
“Fossil fuels provide more than 85% of the world’s energy (Fig. 1b). One misconception discussed below concerns the fallacy that renewable energy is rapidly supplanting conventional energy. Total non-hydro renewables today offset only about one year’s growth (3%) of energy use.” http://whatsupwithrealclimate.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/renewable-energy-nuclear-power-and.html
In 2011 3% energy growth = total of 546 GWe Capacity. To replace this growth needs 15 x 3,000 MWe power plants PER MONTH just to keep ahead.
Compare that to the largest solar plant in the world today, Ivanpah which finally opened late last year, took 5+ years and $2.5 billion to build and is only 380 MWe. The largest Wind farm is 1,000 MWe.
A 10% fossil fuel cut equals 1,000 Mtoe which means REPLACING 1820 GWe energy capacity per year, in order to stay under 2 C increase.
So replacing growth and 10% of fossil fuels per year would equal 2360 GWe of new Non-Carbon energy, the equivalent of 788 x 3,000 MWe power plants per year.
I have seen no evidence that Non-Hydro Renewable energy can replace the equivalent of 65 x 3,000 MWe fossil fuel plants per month with Non-Carbon Energy … none at all. I have seen no evidence that future Nuclear energy supply could replace that amount.
So, it isn’t going to happen. Not without cutting total energy use by 5% to 10% per year at the same time using both efficiency gains and real demand reduction from end users over and above everything else being done.
Human nature being what it is, that ain’t going to happen either. So the reality is increasing fossil fuel use rising to meet the energy demand into the future and likely doubling as per current forecasts by 2050 to 20,000 Mtoe.
The facts are that:
Non-carbon energy supply capacity and cost per kwh combined cannot match that of Fossil fuel sources into the future.
Non-carbon energy cannot grow fast enough to keep up with total energy growth into the future.
Non-Carbon energy supply is unable to totally replace the existing 11,000 Mtoe per year of fossil fuel energy used today into the future either.
Until something else changes significantly, this is the real trajectory for global energy use. Where the Non-carbon sources of hydro, nuclear, biomass, wind, solar, tidal and geothermal do not have the physical capacity to replace fossil fuel energy into the foreseeable future.
Not only is there a lack of political will to make major cuts to fossil fuel use, there is no physical capacity to replace such cuts now or into the future in full with any Non-carbon energy supply.
Looks more like a 4 C world and then some.
Or some kind of a long term global energy efficiency drive alongside a demand reduction programme.
Have you noticed that, globally, emissions are increasing?
DIOGENESsays
Radge Havers #483,
“Translation:
“For the Nth time, what improvements could you possibly recommend to MY plan?”
Way to think inside the box.”
Look, I have continually asked for radically new self-consistent plans that would give any chance of avoiding the catastrophe, and NONE have been forthcoming. I thought I would propose one, and perhaps we would get some useful ideas to improve it. I’m getting comments that it’s too painful and risky, but I have yet to see comments that will IMPROVE it. Sure, I can remove pain and risk, but that would substantially lessen the chances of avoiding the impending catastrophe. So, you tell me, how do I remove the pain and risk without reducing our chances of coming out whole? Would the modified plan of #485 do it?
“If the Internet and blogging had existed in the 16th century, Galileo would have been called a ‘troll’ by the Kevin McKinney’s of the day.”
Diogenes and Galileo rolled into one. Whatever, dude.”
Well, our resident tag team likes to associate me with the Koch Bros. or Rex Tillerson or others of similar persuasion because we all agree the sky is blue in a clear day. I thought I would change the associations for once. But, I still believe the statement I made about Galileo!
“One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.”
― Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (1949)
DIOGENESsays
MartinJB #487,
“I just hope no-one buys your premise that nothing short will work. I’d hate for folks to give up on what might help because someone has convinced them it can’t possibly be enough.”
The way to overcome that is to show them that something short WILL work. Unfortunately, neither you nor Fish nor the other tag team members have done that. In #486, Fish talks about his ‘plan’, but doesn’t tell us what it is, what would be involved in implementing it on a global scale, or what temperatures it would produce in the transition period. Not that I’m surprised; none of the resident tag team members ever do that; all they offer is smoke and mirrors. In addition, Fish offers a deliberate misrepresentation of my plan as follows: “and reforestation (not possible in your five year short term)”. The reforestation I proposed in both the original plan and the modified plan was fifty years, following Hansen. In the modified plan, I suggested starting the reforestation a few years earlier than Hansen’s start date of 2030, but nowhere did I suggest shortening the time period. But, hey, why let a few facts cloud the scripted talking points?
Radge Haverssays
@ ~ 491
You are having some difficulty engaging with people here, and it may be because you seem more interested in drawing them into role-playing your internal monologue than in partaking of a meaningful discourse.
It could be that you are unable to appreciate the distinction, or perhaps you just have a tin ear for social context. Either way the Galileo gambit is so familiar and hackneyed, so cringe-worthy, that at this point whoever deploys it identifies themself as clueless to the extent, in some cases, of being self-absorbed, lacking in self-awareness, and therefore difficult to engage in any productive exchange (which by its nature is a social activity).
“As the source of two-thirds of global greenhouse-gas emissions, the energy sector will be pivotal in determining whether or not climate change goals are achieved. […] In our central scenario, taking into account the impact of measures already announced by governments to improve energy efficiency, support renewables, reduce fossil-fuel subsidies and, in some cases, to put a price on carbon, energy-related CO2 emissions still rise by 20% to 2035.
This leaves the world on a trajectory consistent with a long-term average temperature increase of 3.6 °C, far above the internationally agreed 2 °C target.” http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/
(sorry if someone already posted this last year)
This is an emergency. Immediate and transformative action is needed at every level: individual, local, and national; personal, political, and financial. Countries must set aside differences and work together as a global community for the common good, and in a way that is equitable and sensitive to particular challenges of the poorest countries and most vulnerable communities.
What we all do matters, not least in how it influences others. Those who profess to care for the health of people perhaps have the greatest responsibility to act….
… we can expect to see this message flowing into the World Health Organization’s plans for action, to be discussed at its climate conference in August.
Editorial
Climate change and human survival
BMJ 2014; 348 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2351 (Published 26 March 2014)
Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g2351
Robert Brulle’s (Drexler University, Philadelphia) study of the financing of the “anti climate science” movement in the United States shows that, where previously, funding for climate denialism was more clearly linked to oil companies, it is now largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through anonymized funding channels. Kert Davies from Greenpeace has also noted that “the funding of the denial machine is becoming increasingly invisible to public scrutiny.”
In an article published in the European Journal of Public Health, Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee describe five tactics commonly used to undermine science….
…
… In a study of climate skepticism, Stuart Capstick and Nicholas Pidgeon note the difference between “epistemic scepticism” (where people doubt the reality or causes or climate change) and “response scepticism” (where people dispute the efficacy of acting to tackle the problem). Their research suggests that response scepticism is more strongly associated with a lack of concern about global warming, and argue that this is less bound to issues of science than it is to broader societal questions …. response scepticism may also emerge from perceptions that climate change is too large and complex a problem to solve; as well as with wider cynicism about governments, the UN and politics in general.
In many ways, it is response scepticism (rather than epistemic scepticism) that should exercise our minds. But what is the antidote? An emerging academic literature is concerned with answering this question and includes the study of more effective collective action, concepts of environmental citizenship and participatory democracy. We can and must overcome the response scepticism—and the health community should be at the forefront of this.
DIOGENESsays
Walter #489,
It is so refreshing to read posts such as #489 compared to the smoke and mirrors that our resident tag team offers. You have shown quantitatively the problems we face, and the types of temperatures we can expect. And, the 4 C you mention is only a signpost on the road to oblivion. No evidence we can hold the line on that, given the unknowns about what the carbon feedbacks will do at such temperatures.
When we cut to the chase, there are two categories of posts on this blog; those that propose mass extinction, and those that propose possibilities of avoiding mass extinction. Those that propose mass extinction are cloaked in the flowery language of ‘it will reduce emissions, but we won’t get everything you want’. This is the specialty of our resident tag team. But, the scenarios that they are proposing are nowhere as stringent as those of Kevin Anderson, and Anderson’s only give a reasonable chance of staying under 2 C. That can be re-stated as a modest chance of reaching 2.5 C or even 3 C. So, their scenarios would offer a modest (or perhaps more than modest if we would ever see actual numbers) chance of reaching temperatures that could allow the carbon feedbacks to go on autopilot and lead to extinction of our species. When I read their proposals, I see scenarios that would offer some chance of leading to mass extinction. Not exactly the positive image they are trying to present!
Back to the numbers. Jacobson and DeLucchi have published a series of papers over the last five years showing what would be required to convert ALL our energy sources to renewables. I have appended an Abstract of a 2011 paper. Now, they don’t mention the expenditure of fossil energy required to get these plants operational (siting, construction, etc), or the intensity required. I wonder how long such an installation would take if we could institute two conditions: working at wartime speed to effect the transition (24/7, all available resources and industry drafted for the effort), and reducing energy expenditures to only the most essential in order to both reduce fossil fuel use in the interim and reduce the number of renewables facilities required (and minimize fossil fuel use for their construction). It seems to me that a max construction effort combined with a max non-essential energy reduction effort, and complemented by a max reforestation effort started early, might actually give a reasonable chance of avoiding catastrophe. Would it be painless; no way! It would involve unloading those myriad industries founded on providing ‘junk’, and founded on extravagant waste of energy. For those in such industries, there could be some possibilities in working on the massive construction required or massive reforestation, albeit at much lower wages. No guarantee jobs would be available for all.
Have you seen any computations that would provide answers relative to the feasibility of such a scheme? Right now, I’m just interested in exploring what is possible; forget about what people and governments would actually support.
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the utilities trade group, released a report (.PDF) entitled “Disruptive Challenges” in January 2013, outlining the threat that distributed energy generation presents to the traditional utility industry business model of selling electricity from large, centralized, mostly fossil fuel power plants. According to the latest disclosures to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Dominion Virginia Power primarily generates electricity from large power plants ….
It’s no wonder Dominion wants to limit the growth of distributed solar energy by blocking net metering from reaching multi-family communities. Republican delegates support for Dominion’s protectionism is the equivalent of supporting an attempt by Kodak to stop people from buying digital cameras. Dominion’s lobbying effort is anti-competitive and anti-free market. It’s meant to slow the growth of clean energy in order to maintain one special interest’s “dominion” on the sale of electricity in Virginia, and should generate bipartisan opposition.
— Dominion Virginia Power placed its Altavista Power Station into commercial operation Friday with renewable biomass as its fuel, the first of three stations to be converted from coal to biomass.
— July 15, 2013 /PRNewswire/
Diogenes, if you want to sell it look for framing ideas at the other post i posted above, a fee and dividend CO2 tax is maybe the best instrument to reduce emissions, since the savings go back to the consumer and people who actively participate in carbon footprint optimisation win even more. And once you have this there is an entire new industry born, when people come up with the craziest ideas to further draw down emissions. As an example, many companies could start to build longer lasting products for instance.
Doug #447,
“So, if you really believe all the stuff you are writing, and want to be effective, maybe taking Hank’s advice would be a good idea. Somebody has to step up. It might as well be you.”
I agree with you (and Hank) in principle. Personal persuasion works in inter-personal relationships, in politics, and in business. Basically, you are suggesting that I do the equivalent of going into business (albeit non-profit) by starting a blog. There are two necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for being successful in business. You have to believe in what you are selling, and there has to be a potential market for the product.
I believe the only chance for avoiding the catastrophe requires implementation of my full plan. I also believe there is essentially zero market for the full plan, and I have stated that repeatedly. Now, I could start a blog and sell perhaps the Ceres Clean Trillion plan. I wouldn’t do it; I don’t believe it will get us where we need to go, and I refuse to sell something which I don’t believe will work.
What will people buy? SA posted two ‘plans’ (or whatever one wants to call them), the Spross-quoted plan and the Ceres plan. Both involved emissions reductions on the order of ~1% per year, or slightly higher, for decades, and even these low levels were viewed by the proponents as challenging. They are an order of magnitude lower than what I believe we need.
I have tried to propose some of these measures to our family, friends, acquaintances, etc. For the deniers, I don’t even get to first base. For those who profess to be concerned about climate change, I may get to first base, and that’s as far as it goes. They’re interested in ameliorating climate change IF it doesn’t impact their electric bill significantly, IF electricity is fully available on demand 24/7, IF it doesn’t disrupt in any significant manner their present lifestyle, etc.
So, I don’t see the market for anything in any way near what we need to avert catastrophe. In fact, on this blog, I have stated repeatedly that the plan I generated is not salable. My main goal was to identify the requirements of what we need to do to avert catastrophe. If these required actions are not salable, then draw your own conclusions about what lies ahead.
The APS Forum on Physics and Society, which is behind this revisit, is a cesspit of stupidity. It is not a particularly popular forum, and so it relies on volunteers for a lot of its activities. Sometimes volunteer spirit is motivated by a minority agenda rather than civic commitment. Things like this are among the reasons why I let my APS membership lapse.
Five years ago: What is to be done about climate change?
Doug #447,
However, your (and Hank’s) suggestion raises the broader question of what is the best way to ‘sell’ climate change amelioration. To answer this would, at a minimum, involve examining what has been tried already, what has worked and not worked, what methods have been tried in other large-scale movements (ending smoking, ending wars, etc) and what has worked and not worked, and what methods have not been tried previously and offer some promise of working.
Do you think blogs are a successful approach? We have plenty of climate advocacy blogs; what are their metrics for success and what have they accomplished? Numbers of ‘clicks’ don’t cut it for me; what have they done from the larger perspective? TV programs? Tom Hartman has been around for a while, and has produced some hard-hitting videos and has had some hard-hitting interviews. What has that done from the larger perspective? Movements like 350.org? Well meaning and hard working; what has that accomplished of major significance? As far as I’m concerned, we have found nothing that works yet anywhere near the scales required. Either we haven’t found the right technique, or we have a market with no interest in our product (or some other factor). Now, as Brulle pointed out, there has been a billion dollar + disinformation campaign, which certainly has not helped the cause of climate advocacy. But, there is an implicit assumption repeated over and over on this blog that the disinformation campaign is the main reason for public disinterest. I’m not convinced for reasons I outlined on the previous post on this topic, but there’s no way we can re-run the experiment without the disinformation campaign, and see how much more support would have been engendered.
It seems to me these other successful campaigns worked either because we ran out of funds (ending certain wars), or there was majority public support (reducing smoking in public facilities), or there was the potential for expanded employment and large profits (Space Program), or ……. Offhand, I don’t see a ready extrapolation from these successful efforts to the central problem we face, that of getting people to do with less for at least a few decades. That’s not how most programs are sold (except for perhaps Weight Watchers). And, I don’t believe the expansion portion of what is required (planting more trees, substituting low carbon technologies for high carbon) will offset the contraction portion of hard fossil demand reduction.
Do you have any proposals for how we could sell what is needed to avoid the climate catastrophe?
Private enterprise is beginning to take climate change seriously
http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/monster-el-nino-emerging-from-the-depths-nose-of-massive-kelvin-wave-breaks-surface-in-eastern-pacific/#comments
“We are observing an extraordinarily powerful Kelvin Wave, one that was likely intensified by factors related to human global warming, traveling across the Pacific. It appears to be an epic event in the making. One that may be hotter and stronger than even the record-shattering 1997-98 El Nino. What this means is that we may well be staring down the throat of a global warming riled monster.”
New paper on DEM and mass waste for Greenland and Antarctica from Cryosat-2
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/8/1673/2014/tcd-8-1673-2014.html
Greenland: Mass loss doubled in between the periods 2003-2008 and 2011-2012
The latter period saw rates of 353 +/- 29 Km^3/yr or approx 1mm/yr sea level rise
West Antarctica from 25 to 188 +/- 11 Km^3/yr
sidd
sidd wrote: “Greenland: Mass loss doubled in between the periods 2003-2008 and 2011-2012”
Crikey! That’s doubling every five years or so. At that rate of increase (or slightly worse), wouldn’t we expect over a meter of rise by mid century or so, just from this one source?
Diogenes: “Do you think blogs are a successful approach?” – Nah. It’s more like an image of doing something useful. Blogs are often the lazy man’s solution of avoiding having to do anything. (procrastination)
Doug: “People learn after awhile to trust the opinions of certain individuals, and they want to associate ideas with names” – which is another way of relying upon the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. It is far better to rely upon the truthfulness of the content. Truth and genuine facts should be the yardsticks used to chose what ‘content to trust’.
Diogenes: “They’re interested in ameliorating climate change IF it doesn’t impact their electric bill significantly, IF electricity is fully available on demand 24/7, IF it doesn’t disrupt in any significant manner their present lifestyle, etc.” – Often true, good point.
Diogenes: “So, I don’t see the market for anything in any way near what we need to avert catastrophe. In fact, on this blog, I have stated repeatedly that the plan I generated is not salable.” – That’s true.
“there is an implicit assumption repeated over and over on this blog that the disinformation campaign is the main reason for public disinterest. I’m not convinced for reasons I outlined on the previous post on this topic” – I agree, the public are more interested in their electricity prices not going up and running all the gadgets they have and more.
This is what consumers have been trained to expect and what they want:
– An unlimited electricity supply to suit every need and whim in the home, office, and factory.
– A cheap residential electricity supply historically costing under 2% avg weekly earnings ~$22/wk/person
– A reliable electricity supply 99.9% time with no extended ‘brown outs’ and ‘black outs’ only occur during extreme weather situations.
– An easy to use local retail service to have the electricity (water/gas) supply connected and billed appropriately.
– Sufficient electricity supply to operate all major social and government infrastructure 24/7 such as dams, sewerage works, street lighting, transportation etc.
– Giving bucket loads of heavily Discounted Electricity to Industry to grow the economy and employment.
– A petrol diesel lpg gas station on almost every corner.
– Abundant inexpensive heating oil/gas and cooking gas supplies available.
Most people would want a cheaper and a more reliable supply of at least the same amount of energy (probably more) into the future. Lots of cheap energy makes life a lot easier. The more the better. Tough luck for the 3 billion of Earth who have zero to an ounce of electricity their entire life.
So, bundle the above into a clean green energy package for the entire planet – More Energy For Little $ – as THE Vision for the future and billions would buy it. :)
Dave Cohen has been writing about the upcoming IPCC climate impacts report, in a blog entry entitled The Death Of “Climate Exceptionalism”. I sincerely hope that the final draft will not play down the risks by talking of a slight hit to the global economy and by placing it as just another risk among many that our global civilisation has.
Pk #456,
C’mon. You post an article entitled “Private enterprise is beginning to take climate change seriously”, which contains unsubstantiated arm-waving like “It seems that an increasing number of perfectly hard-nosed financiers and investment managers are coming round to the view that investing in low-carbon technology and infrastructure makes good financial sense.” That’s the kind of unsupported hype I would expect from our resident tag team, not from you. Last I saw, Rex Tillerson wasn’t standing in a soup line due to lack of support! Where are the numbers on this issue? Look at Walter’s posts, especially on what to expect from BAU. There, the numbers tell the grim story.
We have run out of carbon budget if we are to have any chance of avoiding the climate Apocalypse. For private enterprise to ‘take climate change seriously’, they have to be doing massive restructuring and re-investments of their portfolios and operations, commensurate with our having run out of carbon budget. For all practical purposes, they, along with government and the citizenry that empowers both government and industry, are doing ZERO!
Diogenes, that is an nature editorial with cites. It is not clear what your were referring to as “unsubstantiated arm-waving”. And you are wrong in your claim that this is considered an unsupported hype.
Apparently you generalize a lot and make false assertions such as your claim that industry and government are doing zero.
Walter wrote: Blogs are often the lazy man’s solution of avoiding having to do anything. – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/unforced-variations-mar-2014/comment-page-10/#comment-476913
Good information on the internet is as much needed as the wide spectrum of actions everybody can take in his life. Each day we make our choice to what to buy or what not. To come to a blog and calling bloggers lazy is pure ignorance.
#463–“Apparently you generalize a lot and make false assertions such as your claim that industry and government are doing zero. – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/unforced-variations-mar-2014/comment-page-10/#comment-476772”
No offense, prok, but are you only figuring that out now?
Pk #463,
“Apparently you generalize a lot and make false assertions such as your claim that industry and government are doing zero.”
I do generalize, but I do not make FALSE assertions. My specific generalization was:
“For all practical purposes, they, along with government and the citizenry that empowers both government and industry, are doing ZERO!”
The clause ‘for all practical purposes’ was not put in there by accident. If we need to march for 100 miles to get to our destination, and in the last decade we have marched fifty feet, and no one with any credibility is forecasting any substantial marching in the future, then I think it’s a fair conclusion that industry, government, and the citizenry are doing ZERO ‘for all practical purposes’. ‘Fifty feet’ is a finite distance, but compared to the 100 miles required, it is zero.
Kevin, sorry if i do not follow every single discussion here, i skipped most of it i guess.
Wili (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/unforced-variations-mar-2014/comment-page-9/#comment-475116), I’m not making any judgement about what is a good economy. I’m suggesting that the pace of economic retrenchment that the prolific poster insists is necessary (jury’s still out on that – Hansen for one doesn’t suggest anything close) is not doable without causing immediate, devastating impacts on the well being of the vast majority of humanity. That might sound like an exaggeration, but since we can’t substitute fossil fuel use nearly that quickly, it’d basically involve shutting down our existing infrastructure and moving to a non-powered economy without time to prepare and react.
And, again, apologies for the previous overlong (and then doubled) post.
Pk #463/ Kevin McKinney #456,
Now you have expressed your disagreement with my specific statement “For all practical purposes, they, along with government and the citizenry that empowers both government and industry, are doing ZERO!”, perhaps you can enlighten us with the specifics of what industry, government, and the citizenry are doing to ameliorate climate change ON THE SCALE OF WHAT IS REQUIRED TO AVOID THE CATASTROPHE!
C’mon Kevin, it’s a binary world. It’s either 1 or 0. If you’re not following the path of DIOGENES you’re a windfaller leading humanity to ruin (but making a quick buck along the way). I know people who have gotten arrested to promote action on climate change. They’d do anything in their power to promote change and be the change. But they’d still be zeroes in his world.
Worst Weather Ever: Record Breaking Heat Waves Explained
Diogenes wrote: “For all practical purposes, they, along with government and the citizenry that empowers both government and industry, are doing ZERO! – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/unforced-variations-mar-2014/comment-page-10/#comment-476979
Source? Your stomach feeling?
Diogenes wrote: Now you have expressed your disagreement with my specific statement “For all practical purposes, they, along with government and the citizenry that empowers both government and industry, are doing ZERO!”, perhaps you can enlighten us with the specifics of what industry, government, and the citizenry are doing to ameliorate climate change ON THE SCALE OF WHAT IS REQUIRED TO AVOID THE CATASTROPHE! – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/unforced-variations-mar-2014/comment-page-10/#comment-476980
We can all agree that not enough is done to combat dangerous climate change, however there is progress and i personally like to focus on that. Very relevant are ClimateProgress news coverage of US climate action and energy topics. Problems are often associated with bad policy decisions continued dirty energy usage/generation and some mandatory actions need to be made, i.e. Carbon fee and dividend or more and bigger renewable energy projects.
Mike Mann: How Scientists Are Moving Climate Change Conversation Forward
Citigroup says the ‘Age of Renewables’ has begun
US Salamanders ‘Shrinking?’ Study Suggests ‘Clear’ Correlation To Climate Change
Dwarfing.
MartinJB #468,
“(jury’s still out on that – Hansen for one doesn’t suggest anything close)”
It might be useful to see what Hansen actually stated. From his recent Plos One paper: “As discussed above, keeping global climate close to the Holocene range requires a long-term atmospheric CO2 level of about 350 ppm or less, with other climate forcings similar to today’s levels. If emissions reduction had begun in 2005, reduction at 3.5%/year would have achieved 350 ppm at 2100. Now the requirement is at least 6%/year. Delay of emissions reductions until 2020 requires a reduction rate of 15%/year to achieve 350 ppm in 2100. If we assume only 50 GtC reforestation, and begin emissions reduction in 2013, the required reduction rate becomes about 9%/year.”
So, Hansen is proposing “at least 6%/year” emissions reduction starting now, with the requirement for 100 GtC reforestation, and “about 9%/year…..if we assume only 50 GtC reforestation”. The latter number is comparable to Anderson’s 10%/year emissions reduction, which Anderson (and many others) admit will lead to a severe economic downturn. Now, given that Anderson sets a temperature target of 2 C (which he admits is in the Extremely Dangerous region) and Hansen sets a temperature target of 1 C, the only reason that Hansen’s required emissions reductions are not in the many tens of percent per year range is that Hansen adds the assumption/requirement for MASSIVE reforestation. Well, maybe the massive reforestation is doable, maybe not. Hey, if we’re going to make radical assumptions like that, let’s convert everything to renewables/nuclear in four years. This will give us our 25% emissions reduction per year (corrected for lag times to get this working), and everybody will be happy.
What my plan does is start with Hansen’s, use his temperature target (which I believe is the best around), and then minimize the risk of straying from that target. The severe demand reduction component of my plan is mainly for the purpose of risk reduction. If anyone wants to trade off risk of species survival for maintaining present energy wasteful lifestyle, feel free to do it, but, admit that’s what you’re doing.
DIOGENES, I’d say that converting the world to renewables/nuclear in four years is just about as likely as reducing carbon by 20% per year (your number) without devastating the population and causing chaotic societal collapse in very short order.
You might have noticed that Hansen includes several alternative scenarios with substantially less radical reductions in carbon that all result in temperature tracks that not only do not approach +2deg, but also have temperatures declining in the medium term. Not only do they suggest that the situation is not so cut and dried as you suggest, but I suspect they are also closer to what will likely occur and is actually achievable.
Yes, they would probably cause more hardship than his preferred scenario and have higher risks of things going truly pear-shaped, but I suspect they would be less damaging than your “plan”. Your risk assessment ignores the risks caused by what you propose.
Recaptcha: flat geoHot
MartinJB #470,
“If you’re not following the path of DIOGENES you’re a windfaller leading humanity to ruin (but making a quick buck along the way).”
Just the opposite! I have practically begged the members of our resident tag team to provide a fully integrated self-consistent alternative to my admittedly harsh plan for providing any chance to avoid catastrophe. And, what have I gotten? Arm-waving, fancy footwork, invective, and all their other specialties, but not one specific. For the Nth time, what IMPROVEMENTS do you recommend to my plan?
#470–Exactly. Quantification works much better in a non-Boolean world–or at least, is much more useful in one.
Pk #473,
“however there is progress and i personally like to focus on that. Very relevant are ClimateProgress news coverage of US climate action and energy topics.”
Ok. Let me add one to your repertoire that you may have overlooked: http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2014/03/19/eia-reports-highest-u-s-oil-production-in-a-quarter-century/. “Not since 1940 [when we were preparing for global war and ramping up armaments production] has the nation seen a larger annual percentage jump in U.S. oil production.”
As the title suggests, the EIA reports the highest USA oil production in a quarter century. At a time when we have run out of carbon budget and run up carbon debt for avoiding climate catastrophe, the oil production in this country has shot up. Does this not reflect government policy: all-of-the-above, and energy independence? Does this boots-on-the-ground result contradict in any way the statement of mine to which you objected? Where is the USA ‘climate action’ here; if anything, it is action in the wrong direction!!!
#475–Thanks for that link, prok.
There’s a decent amount of analysis in there, including an unusually clear succinct account of what goes into LCOE calculations–and the analysis includes quite a few caveats, appropriately.
Overall, it’s another indicator that the economics are shifting underfoot–a trend not likely to reverse anytime soon. But as all here agree, it’s not enough in itself. Every effort should be made to accelerate this, and to limit the use of fossil fuel as much as possible. If, for instance, we were to get a carbon tax enacted, we’d probably start to see coal plants being retired at an accelerated rate.
Oh, wait, we’re already seeing that:
http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/economic-politics/pace-quickens-for-extinction-of-coal-fired-electric-in-the-us-13013/
(Note that item has a perspective from the ‘other side.’)
OK, a *further* accelerated rate.
Translation:
“For the Nth time, what improvements could you possibly recommend to MY plan?”
Way to think inside the box.
Diogenes and Galileo rolled into one. Whatever, dude.
Does this not reflect government policy: all-of-the-above, and energy independence? – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/unforced-variations-mar-2014/comment-page-10/#comment-476914
How does the current US developments compare with lesser fossil fuel imports? So far it appears as if US emissions shifted and some tiny progress is at the horizon.
MartinJB,
“Your risk assessment ignores the risks caused by what you propose.”
If I believed that 2 C or 3 C were ‘safe’, meaning we could stabilize at those temperatures and adapt, albeit to very uncomfortable conditions, then a more comfortable and less disrupting transition such as the Ceres Clean Trillion would be acceptable. From all I have read on the subject, I don’t believe those temperatures are ‘safe’ and Hansen doesn’t believe it. He states that in no uncertain terms in his paper, and I assume there is buy-in from his 10+ knowledgeable co-authors. Now, given the uncertainties and the ‘unknown unknowns’ I mentioned yesterday, if we were truly truly lucky, we might be able to stabilize. Do you want to take that gamble with the survival of our species at stake? If not, there are not many options available. We end up trading off substantial pain today for ultimate pain tomorrow.
Now, I mentioned the four year transition to low carbon in jest. However, some posters have suggested a decade is not out of the question. I have no idea whether such a number is within the realm of possibility/plausibility, but if it is, some modifications may be possible. My plan has five major components at present, with the door open for a sixth. The components are: specification of a target temperature; specification of a condition on the risk of staying near/under that temperature; a front-end reduction of fossil fuel use over and above that provided by the lifestyle maintenance component; rapid carbon removal; and replacement of high carbon and inefficient energy technologies by low carbon and more efficient technologies. The sixth possible component, only to be used as a last resort, would be some form of geo-engineering to probably replace the aerosols that would be lost as carbon emissions are reduced and do not replace the short-term aerosols.
I would hold the line on temperature near 1 C; this is the most critical component of the plan. I would minimize the risk of straying from the target temperature. If fossil can be replaced by low carbon in a decade, as some posters have suggested, that would reduce emissions in the ballpark of ten percent per year. I would accelerate reforestation. Hansen assumes today’s deforestation rate stays constant to 2020, linearly decreases to zero by 2030, then reforestation to 100GtC occurs from 2030-2080. If we’re serious enough to consider the possibility of a decade transition to low carbon, why not use the same level of optimism about reforestation? Don’t waste fifteen years; start ASAP, and complete the task by 2065-2070. Complement with ‘artificial trees’ and other CO2 removal concepts, if feasible.
Finally, we get to front-end demand reduction. I would not let up on this component, since it reduces the risk of the uncertainties in forcing us to stray from the target temperature. If we are getting 10% contribution from the low carbon substitution, then we can perhaps reduce the front-end fossil use decrease to perhaps 10-15%. Given that the transition to low carbon will not be carbon-free, and the massive reforestation will not be carbon-free, we need to insure that all non-essential uses of fossil are eliminated, and the fat trimmed from the uses we deem essential. I would even broaden this statement to all non-essential uses of energy, since it would reduce the number of low carbon replacement plants required. There are other reasons to minimize resource use besides fossil reduction, and cutting back on unnecessary consumption is the first step.
There are other issues involved in terms of restructuring the presently inefficient infrastructure and how we do business, but they await a later time.
Re- DIOGENES above (many posts as usual)
I don’t have any concerns about increasing electricity costs, or brown outs, or any hint that my “lifestyle maintenance” is threatened. My plan works. It doesn’t solve the whole problem in 5 years you say. Your plan is not only impossible, it is a disaster so nothing is solved. My plan is infinitely scalable and is already working toward limiting CO2 emissions. Your plan cannot be sold. My plan can be sold because it offers monetary savings on energy, a feeling of self-reliance and that one is more in control of one’s life, and very fine “lifestyle maintenance.” With expansion my plan can pretty much supply most electrical energy for home, industry and transportation, and a big chunk of agriculture, all with no CO2 emissions.
I am not the originator of my plan. I learned a lot about it around 25 years ago from friends and signed on 12 years ago. Almost all of my current neighbors had already, or have since, signed up. The thing is that it works by word of mouth because it is so attractive and all it would need to expand dramatically is intensive governmental encouragement. Pushing your plan blocks progress on CO2 emissions because it cannot and will not ever work. Adding artificial trees (not economically viable) and reforestation (not possible in your five year short term) to support your vacuous plan is not helpful.
Steve
DIOGENES, I’m done with this. Your “plan” is just so divorced from reality that it’s just not worth engaging. If you still don’t get that you never will. You are free to keep spinning your fantasy here as long as the moderators you have utterly disrespected tolerate you. I just hope no-one buys your premise that nothing short will work. I’d hate for folks to give up on what might help because someone has convinced them it can’t possibly be enough.
Prokaryotes and Kevin,
That article at reneweconomy actually does a good job of conveying the message of the original Citi report (which was penned by some really good analysts covering the power sector and sustainability in C’s equity research team). The one thing it kinda misses is the sense that I got from the original report of the current and likely continuing dominance of gas in the USA. Also note the limitations they mention about the alternatives to gas for supplying baseboard power at present. They are competitive mainly in the most advantageous locations, although presumably substantial increases in gas prices would expand that range.
482 ‘But as all here agree, it’s not enough in itself.’
Hydro, biomass, and geothermal always was relatively ‘cheaper’ than gas, the problem is the lack of ‘supply capacity’ close to population centers, not the cost per unit.
The problem with wind and solar was two fold; the higher price per kwh, and the unreliability & low volume of the supply capacity. But supply issues persist with location, energy storage for 24/7 supply, overall capacity, and wind reliability.
I would like to see the source figures for this ‘PR article’: “In 2013, solar was the second-largest source of new generation capacity behind natural gas – its prospects look bright in 2014 and beyond as costs continue to decline and improve the LCOE picture. from http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/citigroup-says-the-age-of-renewables-has-begun-69852
It’s self-evident that becoming cheaper means wind and solar would be cheaper to finance. Hooray for Financing!
That doesn’t change the reality of ‘supply’ side constraints. For neither are as cheap per kwh nor possess the output Capacity that Gas already has.
Dr James Hansen says the “Assumed capacity factors: fossil (58% per IEA WEO 2013) hydro (34% per IEA WEO 2013); wind (33%); nuclear ( 90%); solar (15%).”
A gas fired 1,000 MWe plant has an output Capacity of 580 MWe; but the same ‘size’ Solar plant would likely produce only 150e MW over the same time!
Dr James Hansen says:
“Coal use caused most of the emissions growth and coal is now the source of nearly half of global fossil fuel carbon emissions (Fig. 1a).”
“Fossil fuels provide more than 85% of the world’s energy (Fig. 1b). One misconception discussed below concerns the fallacy that renewable energy is rapidly supplanting conventional energy. Total non-hydro renewables today offset only about one year’s growth (3%) of energy use.”
http://whatsupwithrealclimate.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/renewable-energy-nuclear-power-and.html
In 2011 3% energy growth = total of 546 GWe Capacity. To replace this growth needs 15 x 3,000 MWe power plants PER MONTH just to keep ahead.
Compare that to the largest solar plant in the world today, Ivanpah which finally opened late last year, took 5+ years and $2.5 billion to build and is only 380 MWe. The largest Wind farm is 1,000 MWe.
A 10% fossil fuel cut equals 1,000 Mtoe which means REPLACING 1820 GWe energy capacity per year, in order to stay under 2 C increase.
So replacing growth and 10% of fossil fuels per year would equal 2360 GWe of new Non-Carbon energy, the equivalent of 788 x 3,000 MWe power plants per year.
I have seen no evidence that Non-Hydro Renewable energy can replace the equivalent of 65 x 3,000 MWe fossil fuel plants per month with Non-Carbon Energy … none at all. I have seen no evidence that future Nuclear energy supply could replace that amount.
So, it isn’t going to happen. Not without cutting total energy use by 5% to 10% per year at the same time using both efficiency gains and real demand reduction from end users over and above everything else being done.
Human nature being what it is, that ain’t going to happen either. So the reality is increasing fossil fuel use rising to meet the energy demand into the future and likely doubling as per current forecasts by 2050 to 20,000 Mtoe.
The facts are that:
Non-carbon energy supply capacity and cost per kwh combined cannot match that of Fossil fuel sources into the future.
Non-carbon energy cannot grow fast enough to keep up with total energy growth into the future.
Non-Carbon energy supply is unable to totally replace the existing 11,000 Mtoe per year of fossil fuel energy used today into the future either.
Until something else changes significantly, this is the real trajectory for global energy use. Where the Non-carbon sources of hydro, nuclear, biomass, wind, solar, tidal and geothermal do not have the physical capacity to replace fossil fuel energy into the foreseeable future.
Not only is there a lack of political will to make major cuts to fossil fuel use, there is no physical capacity to replace such cuts now or into the future in full with any Non-carbon energy supply.
Looks more like a 4 C world and then some.
Or some kind of a long term global energy efficiency drive alongside a demand reduction programme.
prokaryotes,
My my, are you becoming optimistic?
Have you noticed that, globally, emissions are increasing?
Radge Havers #483,
“Translation:
“For the Nth time, what improvements could you possibly recommend to MY plan?”
Way to think inside the box.”
Look, I have continually asked for radically new self-consistent plans that would give any chance of avoiding the catastrophe, and NONE have been forthcoming. I thought I would propose one, and perhaps we would get some useful ideas to improve it. I’m getting comments that it’s too painful and risky, but I have yet to see comments that will IMPROVE it. Sure, I can remove pain and risk, but that would substantially lessen the chances of avoiding the impending catastrophe. So, you tell me, how do I remove the pain and risk without reducing our chances of coming out whole? Would the modified plan of #485 do it?
“If the Internet and blogging had existed in the 16th century, Galileo would have been called a ‘troll’ by the Kevin McKinney’s of the day.”
Diogenes and Galileo rolled into one. Whatever, dude.”
Well, our resident tag team likes to associate me with the Koch Bros. or Rex Tillerson or others of similar persuasion because we all agree the sky is blue in a clear day. I thought I would change the associations for once. But, I still believe the statement I made about Galileo!
“One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.”
― Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (1949)
MartinJB #487,
“I just hope no-one buys your premise that nothing short will work. I’d hate for folks to give up on what might help because someone has convinced them it can’t possibly be enough.”
The way to overcome that is to show them that something short WILL work. Unfortunately, neither you nor Fish nor the other tag team members have done that. In #486, Fish talks about his ‘plan’, but doesn’t tell us what it is, what would be involved in implementing it on a global scale, or what temperatures it would produce in the transition period. Not that I’m surprised; none of the resident tag team members ever do that; all they offer is smoke and mirrors. In addition, Fish offers a deliberate misrepresentation of my plan as follows: “and reforestation (not possible in your five year short term)”. The reforestation I proposed in both the original plan and the modified plan was fifty years, following Hansen. In the modified plan, I suggested starting the reforestation a few years earlier than Hansen’s start date of 2030, but nowhere did I suggest shortening the time period. But, hey, why let a few facts cloud the scripted talking points?
@ ~ 491
You are having some difficulty engaging with people here, and it may be because you seem more interested in drawing them into role-playing your internal monologue than in partaking of a meaningful discourse.
It could be that you are unable to appreciate the distinction, or perhaps you just have a tin ear for social context. Either way the Galileo gambit is so familiar and hackneyed, so cringe-worthy, that at this point whoever deploys it identifies themself as clueless to the extent, in some cases, of being self-absorbed, lacking in self-awareness, and therefore difficult to engage in any productive exchange (which by its nature is a social activity).
To help understand why eyes are rolling, contemplate:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit
From the IEA 12 November 2013 – World Energy Outlook Executive Summary
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2013_Executive_Summary_English.pdf
“As the source of two-thirds of global greenhouse-gas emissions, the energy sector will be pivotal in determining whether or not climate change goals are achieved. […] In our central scenario, taking into account the impact of measures already announced by governments to improve energy efficiency, support renewables, reduce fossil-fuel subsidies and, in some cases, to put a price on carbon, energy-related CO2 emissions still rise by 20% to 2035.
This leaves the world on a trajectory consistent with a long-term average temperature increase of 3.6 °C, far above the internationally agreed 2 °C target.”
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/
(sorry if someone already posted this last year)
Climate change and human survival
Editorial
Climate change and human survival
BMJ 2014; 348 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2351 (Published 26 March 2014)
Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g2351
The science of climate denialism
Walter #489,
It is so refreshing to read posts such as #489 compared to the smoke and mirrors that our resident tag team offers. You have shown quantitatively the problems we face, and the types of temperatures we can expect. And, the 4 C you mention is only a signpost on the road to oblivion. No evidence we can hold the line on that, given the unknowns about what the carbon feedbacks will do at such temperatures.
When we cut to the chase, there are two categories of posts on this blog; those that propose mass extinction, and those that propose possibilities of avoiding mass extinction. Those that propose mass extinction are cloaked in the flowery language of ‘it will reduce emissions, but we won’t get everything you want’. This is the specialty of our resident tag team. But, the scenarios that they are proposing are nowhere as stringent as those of Kevin Anderson, and Anderson’s only give a reasonable chance of staying under 2 C. That can be re-stated as a modest chance of reaching 2.5 C or even 3 C. So, their scenarios would offer a modest (or perhaps more than modest if we would ever see actual numbers) chance of reaching temperatures that could allow the carbon feedbacks to go on autopilot and lead to extinction of our species. When I read their proposals, I see scenarios that would offer some chance of leading to mass extinction. Not exactly the positive image they are trying to present!
Back to the numbers. Jacobson and DeLucchi have published a series of papers over the last five years showing what would be required to convert ALL our energy sources to renewables. I have appended an Abstract of a 2011 paper. Now, they don’t mention the expenditure of fossil energy required to get these plants operational (siting, construction, etc), or the intensity required. I wonder how long such an installation would take if we could institute two conditions: working at wartime speed to effect the transition (24/7, all available resources and industry drafted for the effort), and reducing energy expenditures to only the most essential in order to both reduce fossil fuel use in the interim and reduce the number of renewables facilities required (and minimize fossil fuel use for their construction). It seems to me that a max construction effort combined with a max non-essential energy reduction effort, and complemented by a max reforestation effort started early, might actually give a reasonable chance of avoiding catastrophe. Would it be painless; no way! It would involve unloading those myriad industries founded on providing ‘junk’, and founded on extravagant waste of energy. For those in such industries, there could be some possibilities in working on the massive construction required or massive reforestation, albeit at much lower wages. No guarantee jobs would be available for all.
Have you seen any computations that would provide answers relative to the feasibility of such a scheme? Right now, I’m just interested in exploring what is possible; forget about what people and governments would actually support.
from http://www.energyandpolicy.org/dominion_thwarts_solar_net_metering_bill_in_virginia
Oh, and on the other hand:
— Dominion Virginia Power placed its Altavista Power Station into commercial operation Friday with renewable biomass as its fuel, the first of three stations to be converted from coal to biomass.
— July 15, 2013 /PRNewswire/
House Republicans are pushing a bill to force NOAA to “protect lives and property by shifting funds from climate change research to severe weather forecasting research”. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/202051-gop-government-should-focus-on-storm-prediction-not . My floor, it has a jaw-shaped indentation in it.