In a fake attempt to portray global unanimity on climate change, the United Arab Emirates negotiated a “phaseout” of fossil fuels. John Kerry is singing hallelujah over nothing.
The Phony Climate Promises of COP28
The Wall Street Journal comments on The Phony Climate Promises of COP28
The COP28 climate confab in Dubai didn’t end with white smoke on Wednesday, but Biden climate envoy John Kerry is nonetheless singing hallelujah after nearly 200 countries agreed to “transition” from fossil fuels. The point of the deal is to preserve the West’s illusion that its climate policies are accomplishing something.
China and oil-producing countries refused to sign onto an agreement committing to “phase out” fossil fuels. But Mr. Kerry and European leaders insisted that governments at the United Nations summit demonstrate a common purpose to reduce CO2 emissions.
The deal calls for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade.”
This “just transition” isn’t defined and isn’t binding on governments. It won’t stop China from building more coal plants or the United Arab Emirates from drilling more oil. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries projects that oil demand will grow 10.6% between 2022 and 2028, and nothing in the agreement is likely to change that forecast.
This explains why, as we noted last week, China is building massive coal plants even as it boasts about its growth in solar and wind.
The COP28 agreement, weak as it is, reflects the arrogance of global elites who are ignoring what electorates are saying about the costs they are willing to pay. Elites have turned to government mandates and vast subsidies—i.e., coercion—because they can’t persuade voters that the climate benefits from reducing CO2 emissions justify the social and economic costs.
China and developing countries certainly don’t believe this, and they are refusing to make economic sacrifices for what the left claims is the global climate good. So why is President Biden forcing Americans to do so?
A Mish Headline That Never Was
Here is the headline I wrote on December 11. A few days ago “Hopes Dim and Tensions Flare at COP28 “Carbon Capture Won’t Save Us”
I had the article slated for December 12, but smelling a setup, I never posted the article.
The Wall Street Journal reports At COP28, Hopes Dim for Fossil Fuel Phaseout
The U.S., Europe and a handful of nations on the front lines of climate change went into the U.N. conference, known as COP28, pushing for an agreement that would mark a turning point in the fight against global warming. Their hopes were buoyed by a draft of the agreement circulated late last week that called for “a phase out of fossil fuels in line with best available science.”
Instead, a new draft by the U.A.E. negotiators says “unabated” fossil-fuel burning—in which carbon-dioxide emissions aren’t captured and stored—could be substituted by a host of other energy technologies. Those include renewables such as wind and solar, nuclear, hydrogen and fossil-fuel burning in facilities that can capture and store emissions, the draft says.
“What we have seen today is unacceptable,” said John Silk, minister of natural resources and commerce of the Marshall Islands. “We will not go silently to our watery graves.”
“The objective must be to eliminate emissions linked to fossil fuels, and for this carbon capture will not save us,” said French energy minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher.
Hello French Energy Minister
Pannier-Runacher wants to eliminate fossil fuels, not just phase them out.
But after any deal nearly collapsed (or so the headlines read), United Arab Emirates, a huge oil producing nation, saves the day with a deal everyone agrees to, simply because it says nothing.
I have questions.
Hello Mr. Agnès Pannier-Runacher is it OK if I refresh your memory?
Do you recall what was the deal on March 17, 2019 when I reported Paris Burning: Luxury Stores Looted and Burned in Latest Yellow Vest Uprising.
For those new to the story, these riots started 18 weeks ago in response to Macron’s ill-advised gas tax hike to save the planet from CO2.
Might I remind you of the polls? How is President Emmanuel Macron doing?
The latest polls I can find are from April when his popularity was 73% bad and only 26% good. What is it now?
And what happened in the Netherlands?
New Green Goals Would Force You to Be Vegan and Eliminate Cows
I discussed the Netherlands in New Green Goals Would Force You to Be Vegan and Eliminate Cows
Pitchforks Fly for an Empire of Cows
The Dutch government’s announcement last year that it was planning a 50% cut in nitrogen emissions by 2030 sent shockwaves through the countryside
the farmers weren’t just pushing back against Dutch regulatory overreach, they were fighting “elites” who they claimed were using climate and environmental scaremongering to impose a radical agenda.
In the BBB’s first-ever election, one characterized by unusually high turnout and widely seen as a referendum on Rutte’s rule, it won a bigger share of the vote than any other party in the Netherlands. Gaining 16 out of 75 seats, overnight the BBB went from an insurgent outsider’s movement to the largest single party in the Dutch Senate.
[Mish Note – The Farmer–Citizen Movement (Dutch: BoerBurgerBeweging, BBB) is an agrarian and right-wing populist political party in the Netherlands].
Almost immediately, the BBB’s shocking win upended the Dutch cabinet’s plans for addressing the nitrogen crisis. Badly beaten at the polls and facing a no-confidence vote in parliament, Rutte agreed to hit pause on the plans and signaled that his government was open to pushing back the emissions reduction deadline from 2030 to 2035.
And on December 3, In a totally unexpected election (but shouldn’t have been), the WSJ reported Far-Right Populist Geert Wilders Scores Major Victory in Dutch Election
So Mr. Agnès Pannier-Runacher does that properly refresh your memory?
EU Imposes the World’s Largest Carbon Tax Scheme
On December 19, 2022, I noted EU Imposes the World’s Largest Carbon Tax Scheme, Inflationary Madness Sets In
An EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will be set up to equalise the price of carbon paid for EU products operating under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and the one for imported goods. This will be achieved by obliging companies that import into the EU to purchase so-called CBAM certificates to pay the difference between the carbon price paid in the country of production and the price of carbon allowances in the EU ETS.
CBAM will cover iron and steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizers and electricity, as proposed by the Commission, and extended to hydrogen, indirect emissions under certain conditions, certain precursors as well as to some downstream products such as screws and bolts and similar articles of iron or steel.
CBAM Quantitative Assessment
Please consider the The Global Impact of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: A Quantitative Assessment by the IMF.
Amazingly the IMF got something right.
- Carbon border tax has been debated in many countries over the past decade, and remains highly controversial. While CBAMs have a global impact by design, the scale of its “spillover effects” on other countries is seldom studied. There are concerns that a unilateral EU CBAM will not only distort international trade, but also shift the burden of addressing climate change to developing countries.
- Countries that rely on carbon-intensive exports to the EU will be disproportionately impacted by the CBAM. Welfare losses in developing countries like Ukraine, Egypt, Mozambique and Turkey range between $1 billion to $5 billion, which are significant relative to their gross domestic product (GDP). Mozambique’s economy would shrink by 2.5 percent due to decreased demand.
- The CBAM could worsen income inequality and welfare distribution between rich and poor economies.
- At its broadest implementation, the CBAM could result in an annual welfare gain in developed countries of $141 billion, while developing countries see an annual welfare loss of $106 billion, compared to a baseline scenario.
We need to stop right there because the IMF solution is reparations and an “Equitable Decarbonization Fund” (EDF) to developing countries.
Tit for Tat?
Perhaps CBAM is the EU’s way of striking back at the US for Biden’s IRA.
More likely, it’s just economic stupidity across the board as noted in Al Gore and John Kerry Aim to Hijack the World Bank for Climate Agenda
Three Things CBAM Will Do
- Increase inflation
- Reduce global trade
- Hammer developing countries
And the one thing it will not do is much of anything, if anything at all, is for the environment.
Phaseout Coming, Hooray
This “phaseout deal” was a transparent setup from the beginning. COP28 snatched “victory” from the jaws of defeat once agin.
COP28 will fail like all of the agreements before it, because people do not want to pay for it. And they are voting national leaders out of office over it.
50 Years of Dire Predictions
Finally, Let’s Review 50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened
Many of the predictions are outrageously funny, especially AOC’s 2019 announcement that the world will end in 12 years.
The Word of the Day Remains “Unacceptable”
I left my lead image intact because the arrogance of John Kerry, Joe Biden, and the EU is still unacceptable.
Carbon taxes will not save Africa and other emerging markets. We attempt to force them to use less energy although more energy is what’s needed for them to grow.
The UN wants over a hundred trillion dollars for climate change, largely to pay off emerging markets for the standards the elites force on them. No one in their right mind wants to pay that, so we conjure up fake deals to make it appear something major is happening.
We are on a path for more renewable energy, but it is not fast enough for the likes of John Kerry, Al Gore, and President Biden.
So Biden tries to force the issue with insane milage targets, force people to give up gas stoves, and force people into EVs before there is any infrastructure in place.
Biden then hides the true costs of what he is doing.
Yes, it’s totally unacceptable.
When you hear someone has 5 or 6 homes on standby at all times, it’s hard to take their environmental advice seriously. Add in a few boats and jets and we are done….
Man made climate change is real but getting rid of fossil fuels is economically impossible. The real problem is too many people.
Here is the question: If the climate change people are right what would you be willing to do about it? Are you ready to let your kids get old in a dying world? Would you care?
Little to nothing because if it can be fixed the free market will fix it
Sorry Mish. The free market will not fix the problem of global warming. Just as it can’t fix the problems in Ukraine, or Gaza.
Fixing global warming requires worldwide cooperation. Which isn’t
going to happen.
I disagree. The market operates very well at certain timescales. The climate changes at other timescales. We have no experience with “the market” solving multigenerational problems. Are you willing to risk it for your kids and their kids? Let them fall on the sword of your faith in the market?
I agree with the timescale problem. I said the same thing; just not as well as you did.
Regarding my kids and grandkids; I focus on helping them become resilient and successful. Because that is something I can somewhat control. It is always a better use of my time to focus on things I can actually impact.
There is nothing of significance I can do about global warming, other than to understand it, and attempt to reduce my own carbon footprint; and to profit from it through my investment decisions.
In addition, the future is impossible to predict. We know that global warming is a growing problem. But even if the entire world immediately started to cooperate to fix it, we don’t know what other problems will arise to make that future a living hell for mankind. There are no guarantees when it comes to the future.
So, realistically, future generations are always on their own.
First: the “climate change people” are correct. Man has been making increasing use of fossil fuels for a few centuries now. This has issued in a golden era of economic growth and rising standards of living. As well as an increase in population from 1 to 8 billion people. The downside to this is rising greenhouse gas levels and a warming planet, which if left unchecked, will threaten that golden age.
Second: we (mankind) continuously strive to improve our lives. We are not willing to give up our present way of life and go back to life as it was known 200 years ago. We always want more and better. In addition, there are always more pressing problems to deal with in the present, which leaves little time to deal with problems that will arise in a year, 10 years from now, or a hundred years from now.
The same goes for governments and corporations.
Which is why the problem will continue to worsen until it becomes so bad, that it is then an immediate problem rather than a future problem.
You need to check out the temperatures in eastern Russia link to zoom.earth
Let me guess. More weather extremes of either hot or cold? As predicted.
Just don’t confuse weather with climate.
These are very bad people.
We know this because they say the world is being destroyed because of excess climate emissions, and they claim to be heroes trying to stop it.
So they take private jets halfway around the world to tell the world what heroes they are.
Shouldn’t they be flying coach, at least?
The best thing Papa Dave could of told me is that “I am too optimistic.” I have told my friends around me just that. Yes, I am just way too optimistic. Everyone of you is going to go out and buy renewable energy today just based on the very words I have told you. Well I’m not that optimistic. LOL. Just as the great stink of London took place in the 1850s, businesses were resistant to the huge cost of doing so. They would rather live in their own shit, rather than pay all that money. The benefits of doing so is easily apparent today. Modern societies all have sewage systems with all of us understanding the importance of the matter.
In today’s world change is hard for some people. I’ve noticed the young accept change much easier than us old farts do. Even the liberal people my age are having trouble leaving their gas cars to go electric even though it is clear to them the benefits of battery cars. Yes I am optimistic. Now. Everyone that has read my words is going to magically buy renewable energy today. LOL.
link to thehill.com
Market cooperation, not competition, will achieve clean energy goals
The most direct solution to global warming is obvious: We should follow the best available science and leave fossil fuels in the ground. During 32 years of negotiations and 27 international climate conferences, countries haven’t been willing to put that reality in writing. But as COP-28 ended this week, they finally acknowledged that we must transition away from coal, oil and gas.
Diplomats are calling this historic, although it includes no timetable or plan. However, another development at COP-28 identified the most important step. More than 100 countries agreed to triple their renewable energy capacity in the next six years.
It’s a daunting aspiration rather than a binding commitment, with no details on how to make it happen. But decades of COPs have taught us the parameters. Nations prefer carrots to sticks, and voluntary over mandatory measures. So, the key is to align market forces and remove the obstacles to letting them work. The prize is a robust $2 trillion renewable global energy market by 2030. As the Economist put it, “renewables must once again look like a business to bet on.”
I have told you that you are way too optimistic several times already.
The best and fastest solution to global warming requires cooperation between virtually all the world’s governments, institutions, corporations and people.
Which simply isn’t going to happen.
So it is going to take much longer than you are hoping for. I recognize this reality. I also recognize that I can’t change it. And I attempt to profit from it.
Absolute cooperation truly won’t arrive for awhile. I agree. At some point carbon pricing comes in successfully. Then the momentum goes towards lower carbon emissions strongly.
By then it will be too late. There is a lag in the Earth’s response. Waitung is not good enough.
There is science in this area and the science is conservative about projections. Here’s fingers crossed for future generations.
Not at all progress is the worst of all. Not enough has stronger consequences to live with. FFs is winning its game and its costing us.
One of the more vacuous posts I’ve read in awhile. Govts exist to have a monopoly on violence and money. Cooperation between them is the cooperation of rats on an island. Not for long. Finally, anyone who quotes the Economist except for satire needs to step away from the bong.
I post sources on a regular basis. You are welcome to post sources of what you think the correct reality is.
I don’t see your case being made in reality. Just opinion.
Lurch Kerry has not aged well, both in the physical and in the mental states he is in. What a poor wretch. WAY back, it was revealed that his Mansion in the South consumed more energy in a day compared to a regular home in a year.
So everything you hear is true?
70.000 insufferable ‘experts’ travelling in hundreds of private jets and countless other polluting means of transport to combat ‘climate-change’ by imposing more taxes and restrictions on travel and of course, by endlessly gaslighting…ehhmm…educating the plebs.
I’d like to remind everyone that apparently, this is reality and not satire.
Honk honk!
Who else is right on the edge over this bs? Were going to get a huge uprising. Jackass city here we come.
Mish, if you are going to refer to these people using “elites” can you at least put the word in quotes? There is nothing elite about any of them. Continual use of this description is how people get brainwashed into thinking these folks are somehow better.
Hypocritical, power-hungry. selfish rich b*stards is no doubt too much to type all the time, but maybe someone can come up with a succinct word that captures this.
We need to … blah blah blah … means all the rest of us need to change. Meanwhile the HPSRBs still buy oceanfront mansions, own yachts, travel by private fossil-fuel-burning jets and eat whatever they desire. Or did the Fed have catered insects at the last FOMC get-together and I missed it?
Good article Mish. I agree with much of it, though not all of it. This is a topic I like because the energy transition that the world is attempting, is the reason why I am heavily invested in oil and gas stocks.
The science of climate change has been studied and recorded for over 200 years now. Scientists have discovered and documented the entire climate history of our planet and all the natural changes that have occurred in the last 4.5 billion years and what caused them.
Scientists have additionally studied and documented how mankind has also been affecting climate for the last 8000 years and in particular the last two hundred years, when we started burning fossil fuels. The science is clear that mankind is responsible for the current warming. It is not natural. And it is indeed a problem. Which is the reason for the 28 COPs so far. These Council of Parties meetings bring together scientists, governments, activists, energy companies, entrepreneurs etc to try to deal with the global warming problem. After 28 years of COPs, very little has been accomplished because we continue to use MORE fossil fuels each year.
Of course, small gains have been made. Solar, Wind, Hydro, Nuclear. EVs, CCAS etc etc have made a tiny dent in the problem. But the result of the COPs have been mostly empty words and promises to do more, when the reality is that very little has actually been done or will be done.
The reasons for the failure of COPs is understandable. Too many attendees with too many competing needs and wants. It is impossible to get agreement from so many different parties. So they always end up with some final statement that everyone pretends to agree with, but it’s a statement that they have no intention of honoring.
For example: The first world countries who have been burning fossil fuels for 200 years and contributed the bulk of the extra greenhouse gasses that are already in the atmosphere, expect all the countries who have just started burning lots of fossil fuels (like China and India) to cut back their fossil fuel use. China and India (and all the rest) claim that isn’t fair and they won’t go along with it.
Countries whose economies rely on fossil fuel production, don’t want to stop production. Including the US, which is currently producing more oil and natural gas than ever before.
And so on.
Another result of the entire energy transition and COPs is that it has resulted in oil and gas companies looking at the future with a different focus. In the past, the focus was on drilling as much as possible and expanding production and reserves as much as possible. Today, oil companies are more concerned about managing their existing reserves and only drilling enough to maintain them. And, of course to generate as much cash flow and profit as possible. There is no point spending too much on capex in order to grow future reserves if those reserves end up being stranded assets in the future.
The net result of restricted future oil supply, while demand continues to grow, will put upward pressure on prices and mean higher future profits for the oil companies.
Which is why I remain heavily invested in many oil and gas companies.
I don’t know why there’s a NEGATIVE 9 on this post? The poster speaks the reality, such as Mishs post pretty much says the same thing.
Truth is, we have a problem, first world countries got us here, and to solve it; it’s going to take first world $$ vs. the counter proposal.
I always get a lot of “thumbs down”. That is because I “speak reality” as you say. Which does not sit well with the people at the extremes who want to believe in fairytales. Many want to believe in the fairytale that the current global warming is a hoax. Others want to believe in the fairytale that we can just stop using fossil fuels and transition to renewables and EVs quickly and painlessly.
Both extremes are ridiculous. But people desperately cling to them. They don’t want to recognize reality.
The resolution only passed because the coalition of island nations weren’t in the room to vote.
link to google.com
During the Russian Ukraine war, Pakistan lost out big time from not being able to pay the really high spot market prices of LNG. Even FFs doesn’t guarantee everyone to get the energy they would like. Different scenario, Pakistan has now achieved nearly 100% RE independent of FFs. It doesn’t matter what happens in the world. They have their energy. FFs not only involves degradation to our climate, it can be quite unstable in a topsy turvy world.
link to bloomberg.com
Within a few weeks, Alleyne’s colleagues identified a candidate: Gunvor’s deal with Pakistan, which depends heavily on LNG but is a far smaller customer than major importers such as China and Japan. After some internal debate, the traders ran the idea of scrapping it past the firm’s legal team and decided to proceed. When the Russian army invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, gas prices soared more than 150% in 11 days. Around the same time, according to people familiar with the events, Gunvor stopped responding to communications from the Pakistani government. Then it terminated Pakistan’s deal, saying the country had underpaid for one of its LNG shipments. (Pakistan disputes this.)
link to assets.bwbx.io
Featured in Bloomberg Businessweek, Dec. 18, 2023. Subscribe now. Illustration: Saratta Chuengsatiansup for Bloomberg Businessweek
Under the terms of the contract, Gunvor was supposed to supply Pakistan with five tankers’ worth of LNG over the next several months. Instead, ship-tracking data show, Gunvor sent the cargoes to countries including the UK and Italy, where buyers paid the “spot,” or market, price. If the gas had been delivered to Pakistan as originally planned, the value of the sales would have been about $200 million, according to calculations by Businessweek. By the same arithmetic, Gunvor’s traders unloaded it for more than $600 million. Some would receive seven-figure bonuses for the year, the highest of their careers.
“ Pakistan has now achieved nearly 100% RE independent of FFs. ”
Source please. From various internet sources I looked up, it appears the electricity generation in Pakistan is:
Nat gas 32%
Hydro 25%
Furnace oil 14%
Coal 13%
Nuclear 9%
Wind 5%
Solar and biogas 2%
That’s 59% from FF.
Did you read the article?. The LNG went to the highest bidder and those with less money didn’t get the goods. Pakistan went without that promised supply from the market. Transition gets you to a more secure, independent supply of renewable energy that they are in controll of,
Yes. I read the article. I am merely questioning the assertion that 100% of Pakistan’s electricity is from renewables. That is false. Why are you promoting falsehoods? That’s as bad as the morons here who say the current global warming is natural.
Don’t be a moron who spreads misinformation.
Maybe you misunderstood my meaning. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy is my meaning. Then the LNG market doesn’t matter. Its a scenario as if you don’t FFs anymore. That is a more secure energy.
What is your time frame for replacing all fossil fuels with renewables?
2nd half of the century. The modern economies I believe will get there first. United States may lag due to FF financial influence. Europe is not so strongly influenced by FF lobbying as we are. Much to many people’s thinking, even though China is gun ho coal, they are also gun ho RE. The largest investors in the world in RE is China. Lots of ironies exist in the world. In the mess of it, there is a thriving RE market that will be in the low trillions soon.
Its appears more and more to me, that Joe Biden and John Kerry are representing the will of the people. That’s not arrogance.
link to climatecrocks.com
Above, new “6 Americas” data available from Yale and George Mason University pollsters.
CNN also has new polling reflecting increased concerns about climate and support for climate action.
CNN:
Biden represents the “will of the people”
What a hoot
Yes, ask people if they want free money. Then ask them how much they willing to pay for it.
Biden is polling under 40% because of inflation and his energy polices are sponsoring it in spades.
Get real
You have your point of view. But the American people also want to go more clean energy to the tune of 70%. Arrogance is ignoring the will of the people.
Natural gas is very clean! Otherwise, your gas stove would asphyxiate you.
Not so much asphyxiation, but there is a chemistry spewed into your air that you are partaking in, including myself. My wife won’t quit the gas stove.
link to health.harvard.edu
STAYING HEALTHY
Have a gas stove? How to reduce pollution that may harm healthGas stoves affect air quality inside and outside your home, circulating pollutants that raise risk for asthma and other illnesses.September 7, 2022
Gas stoves are linked to childhood asthmaCooking with gas stoves creates nitrogen dioxide and releases additional tiny airborne particles known as PM2.5, both of which are lung irritants. Nitrogen dioxide has been linked with childhood asthma. During 2019 alone, almost two million cases worldwide of new childhood asthma were estimated to be due to nitrogen dioxide pollution.
Children living in households that use gas stoves for cooking are 42% more likely to have asthma, according to an analysis of observational research. While observational studies can’t prove that cooking with gas is the direct cause of asthma, data also show that the higher the nitrogen dioxide level, the more severe the asthma symptoms in children and adults.
Duh, I installed a exhaust fan above my wifes new gas range that expels the fumes outside. (they all should be so) If Joe wants to fix this problem require that the fans go on automaticly when the temp goes up. No new grid expansion, tiny cost, it solves the health issue and saves electric power for your car.
Important point you made about the exhaust. Thanks.
You sound very much like Benito and Dr Gobbels as you speak of the “people.” That approach has been tried so many times before. The “people” always wake up and reject such claims on their behalf.
“Its appears more and more to me, that Joe Biden and John Kerry are representing the will of the people. That’s not arrogance.”
They are very arrogant because the 1% emit as much carbon as the lowest 66%, yet they still fly around in their private jets, etc, while proclaiming the end of the world. They are Gaslighting us for their selfish benefit.
Hmmmm. the 1% have nothing to do with the false tag on Joe and John.
Cue Albert to tell us this is all a conspiracy theory from Alex Jones
Getting 200 countries to sign off on COP 28 is a big deal. There is a lot to crticize in the process. With FF countries agreeing to phase down the use of FFs was something that wasn’t accomplished in the past. Each country will have its own point of view of whether this is good or bad. But the overall goal is to clean up our energy for our modern lives. Compromise is a messy business that can look pretty messy at times.
link to bloomberg.com
Oscar Boyd 2:20
And the text has just been signed off by 200 countries and for the first time contains clear language about moving away from fossil fuels. How did that come about?
Akshat Rathi 2:29
That’s correct. This is the first time in 30 years of having COP meetings, there is language that says transitioning away from fossil fuels in the energy system. And it might seem silly, because of course, we know the problem that is climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels. And we’ve known that for decades. But because when countries sign off on it, all countries have to sign off on it. That means fossil fuel producers have to sign off on it. And they have been blocking even the mention of fossil fuels for the longest time. We sort of had a breach in the dam in COP26 in Glasgow, where we got a phase down of coal power. And this time, we have all fossil fuels covered.
Jeff, you need to listen to PapaDave
Coal use continues to increase worldwide since COP26. Because the demand for electricity keeps growing, and if all you have available is coal to generate it, you will use it. Words and promises mean nothing when the lights go out.
Now, I agree that one of the best things we can do to reduce emissions is to replace as much coal generation as possible with natural gas generation and renewables. Nat gas is roughly half the emissions of coal. Electricity generation results in 25% of man’s emissions. Coal accounts for 1/3 of that electricity and half of the emissions. Replacing all coal generation with nat gas would reduce global emissions by roughly 6%!
All the renewables we have built in the last 2 decades have reduced emissions by 1-2%. We can certainly keep adding more renewables, but we could have a much bigger impact quickly by replacing as much coal as possible with nat gas.
Its called transition. Desperation gets bad results.
Completely agree. The desperation to replace all fossil fuels with all renewables and all ICE vehicles with all EVs is leading to bad results.
It’s called transition. And it’s going to take time. It will take 30 to 40 years to replace coal for base load electricity generation with renewables and energy storage systems. While we are waiting to build out all those new systems, we could reduce emissions substantially by transitioning from coal to natural gas right now. Same goes for nuclear base load power. It takes 10-20 years to build a new nuclear plant these days. Five years in China.
And since we don’t have enough materials readily available to build 1.5 billion EVs we could transition to PHEVs. Ten PHEVs with 40 mile batteries vs one EV with a 400 mile battery. That reduces emissions faster than 1EV and 9 ICE.
It’s called transition.
One can live in their own shit if they want to. That is the equivalent of what we are doing in the moment with fossil fuel burning pollution. The society was so structured around the old way of human waste it took 50 years after information was clear the human sewage was the cause of the disease. CO2 of today is an undisputable cause of global warming today. Just as sewage was a clear cause of poor health then. Yet it is difficult for society to change out of it then as we are having difficulty changing out of our destructive fossil fuel burning today.
link to en.wikipedia.org
The Great Stink was an event in Central London during July and August 1858 in which the hot weather exacerbated the smell of untreated human waste and industrial effluent that was present on the banks of the River Thames. The problem had been mounting for some years, with an ageing and inadequate sewer system that emptied directly into the Thames. The miasma from the effluent was thought to transmit contagious diseases, and three outbreaks of cholera before the Great Stink were blamed on the ongoing problems with the river.
There is no question that our use of fossil fuels has negative consequences. I am not arguing that point. So stop wasting my time with useless crap like that.
My point is that we can reduce emissions significantly by transitioning from coal to nat gas for electricity generation right now, while we build out enough renewables and storage systems over the next several decades.
What is your alternative to reduce coal emissions right now? Particularly since 35% of worldwide electricity comes from coal. It’s taken 20 years for wind and solar to reach 12% of electricity generation. Optimistically, we can replace about 1-2% per year going forward. And that is just step one. We are not building out the accompanying storage systems needed to create the base load power that coal or natural gas provide.
We can reduce emissions right now. Saying NO to nat gas means more emissions going forward than necessary. That is illogical.
One is transmission from other areas. Indiana is a strong coal state and some of the utilities are doing a nice job of building wind generation. Another is energy efficiency. Another is bringing energy from other utilities.
Natural gas helps to bridge the gap when variable RE goes low. Eventually through storage and future expansion of RE, then the NG reaches a point of not being needed anymore.
When I speak of carbon, I am also talking to others beside you.
Three stories in one day! Can’t keep up!
The Vikings settled Iceland and discovered America when the world was a lot warmer. A mini ice age ended their days of conquest by freezing their boats in their fjords. Nature is a bitch.
Perhaps the Iceland Vikings stopped burning coal and it cooled off?
1) The US has 250 years of the easy stuff to get in coal. To make coal CLEAN to burn isn’t actually new tech.
2) The Uranium atom is 1m times more power than the carbon atom…but the solution they come up with is a 2000 year old tech in windmills?
3) Anyone would half a brain would create “the Manhattan Project 2” if you were really hell bent on reducing carbon, instead of low voltage solar and windmills wasted $
4) Good Science actually points to 100 years of mass deforestation as a cause….plants take an immense of carbon out of the air and back in the soil.
5) When Lawyers (Politicians) play businessmen and Scientists, it’s never a good outcome
US emissions have been dropping, mostly because we are replacing coal with nat gas for electricity. Electricity generation from coal dropped 8% last year and emissions from coal dropped 7% in the US.
Nat gas has half the emissions of coal, and is currently 25% cheaper to use. As a result, Coal will continue to be phased out.
Unit 2 at J-POWER’s Isogo Thermal Power Station, a 600-MW ultrasupercritical unit in Yokohama, Japan, ranks as the cleanest coal-fired power plant in the world in terms of emission intensity, with levels comparable to those from a natural gas–fired combined cycle plant. According to the International Energy Agency’s Clean Coal Centre, the unit’s average emissions are in the single digits for NOx and SO2, and less than five milligrams per cubic meter for particulate matter. Who knew?
Nice to see. How does the cost compare to natural gas plants?
82% of CO2 is turned back to O2 under water. Don’t plant trees, protect the yearly plankton blooms in the Northern and Southern Oceans from over fishing and chemical polution, that started with the Industrial Revolution.
Look around you. Everything you touch or look at is either made of fossil fuels or has been transported or manufactured using fossil fuels. We live in a plastic world unless you live in an ancient house filled with ancient wooden furniture.
The plastic world can’t be replaced now.
The world will use up all the financially viable heavier petroleum products then the natural gas products then go back to coal. Hopefully some “Cheap” fusion energy scheme will be available by that time.
These mindless politicians and green energy activists are actually traitors to their countries. Trying to bring cheap energy down. Energy = The economy.
Things are going pretty good in the energy sector. The energy component of CPI is down 5.4% for the year. I’m actually willing to pay 5% less every year.
Don’t worry, rate cuts by the Fed next year will boost oil prices and wipe out that 5% savings quickly.
In just 2 days, the fedspeak already moved it up 5%
“Pannier-Runacher wants to eliminate fossil fuels, not just phase them out.”
Has Pannier-Runacher calculated how many deaths that will cause from freezing to death during the winter?
All part of the plan, especially if it’s mostly the elderly (useless eaters).
These grifters are determined to sell out western civilization, lower everyone’s living standards and life expectancy, and enslave us to communist China; all while shamelessly enriching themselves and pretending to be altruistic. Absolutely reprehensible and disgusting.
I would ALMOST believe if they called for the cancellation of private jets and yachts. How come there is never any talk about phasing out high emission private jets, of which there are over 500 of them at the cop whatever meeting. Shouldn’t they fly commercial like the rest of us for the good of the planet? But they fund the climate scam, so they are exempt. Wonder if they are eating bugs for their dinner.
I have always felt that crab and lobster were sort of bugs.
The following graph says all that needs to be said. There is no way wind and solar will replace fossil fuels. It’s delusional and silly! I’m sure China, India and Russia will encourage the West to hamstring their economies as they freely use fossil fuels and laugh at our foolishness.
link to bing.com
They originally wanted to call it CON28, then had a big laugh, and changed the name to COP. /s
Seriously, if you reduce environmental destruction to climate change, you’re a serious simpleton, a test these high-profile morons pass with flying colors.
All about control and the money in the middle of the process. They don’t give two S**ts about the environment.
Climate change is natural, we have had IceAges and Warming Periods forever…just government extorting money from us…
Completely agree James . 9000 years ago half the US was covered by a 200 foot thick sheet of ice . Then it began to melt . The poles are the last to melt ,and I believe they will. Perhaps swamps will rear their ugly heads once again . Resist the emotional ones .