Let’s discuss the Kyoto Protocol climate objectives and dozens of reasons why a net zero by the 2050 target has virtually no chance.
The Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted on December 11, 1997. There are 192 Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
The ultimate objective of the convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.
The current goal is net zero carbon emission by 2050.
Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050
The Fraser Institute reports that we are Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050 with virtually no progress, despite all the hoopla.
That article is 44 pages long and worth a read from start to finish. I post some key ideas below.
Carbon Impact on Climate
The Fraser Institute is not a carbon denier. Let’s start there to not immediately lose all of the climate cheerleaders.
The Earth is made hospitable for photosynthesis and habitable for all higher organisms thanks to the regulation of its atmospheric temperature by several naturally occurring trace gases—above all by carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Without their presence the planet’s surface would be permanently frozen at about -18oC, but by absorbing a small share of the outgoing (infrared) radiation these trace gases keep the mean tropospheric temperature at about 15oC or 33oC higher than in their absence (NASA, 2023).
There is nothing new about the realization that these trace gases could affect climate. In 1861 John Tyndall concluded that variation of atmospheric CO2 “must produce a change in climate” (Tyndall, 1861). In 1896 Svante Arrhenius explained that exponential rise of CO2 would result in a nearly arithmetic rise of surface temperatures and that the doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels might raise the Earth’s temperature by 5 to 6o C (Arrhenius, 1896).
Energy Transitions
The goal of reaching net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions is to be achieved by an energy transition whose speed, scale, and modalities (technical, economic, social, and political) would be historically unprecedented.
What is particularly clear is that (in the absence of an unprecedented and prolonged global economic downturn) the world will remain far from reducing its energy-related CO2 emissions by 45 percent from the 2010 level by 2030: for that we would have to cut emissions by nearly 16 billion tons between 2023 and 2030—or eliminate nearly as much fossil carbon as the combined emissions of the two largest energy consumers, China and the USA.
On the face of it, and even without performing any informed technical and economic
analyses, this seems to be an impossible task given that:
- We have only a single generation (about 25 years) to do it;
- We have not even reached the peak of global consumption of fossil carbon;
- The peak will not be followed by precipitous declines;
- We still have not deployed any zero-carbon large-scale commercial processes to
produce essential materials; and- The electrification has, at the end of 2022, converted only about 2 percent of
passenger vehicles (more than 40 million) to different varieties of battery-powered cars and that decarbonization is yet to affect heavy road transport, shipping, and flying (IEA, 2023c).Renewable generation also needs expanded high-voltage transmission lines (overhead wires and undersea cables from offshore wind sites) to bring the electricity from the windiest and sunniest places to often distant cities and industrial areas.
Moreover, there are many final energy conversions (ranging from heavy ocean shipping and long-distance commercial aviation to chemical industry dependent on fossil carbon feedstocks) that cannot be readily electrified. Further, we would need substantial quantities of solid and liquid fossil carbon even in the zero-carbon world for paving (asphalt) and for industrial and commercial lubricants. Producing what I have called the four pillars of modern civilization—cement, primary iron, plastics, and ammonia—now depends on fossil fuels, and replacing them with alternatives will require the development of new mass-scale industries and distribution networks ranging from green hydrogen (made by electrolysis of water by green electricity) and ethanol to new synthetic fuels (Smil, 2022a).
If more complex innovations are cheaper than the established ways, or if their higher costs are outweighed by higher quality, efficiency, and convenience, then the transitions can proceed rapidly. Examples include black versus color television, reciprocating engines versus jet engines in long-distance commercial aviation, landlines versus mobile phones, and high-efficiency natural gas furnaces versus coal stoves.
In contrast, renewable conversions start with the inherent disadvantages of having low power density and greater intermittency, and hence their full costs (with service comparable to the on-demand supply and reliability of fossil fuel converters) are considerably higher than the marginal cost of purchasing and installing new PV panels or wind turbines (Smil, 2015; Sorensen, 2015).
The cost differences have been narrowing but the latest comparisons of the levelized costs of electricity generation in the US indicate that the overall cost of solar PV (with a capacity factor of 28 percent) entering service in 2027 will be only 9 percent lower than the cost of combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT, capacity factor 85 percent), and that onshore wind will have the same overall cost but offshore wind plus battery storage will be still more than three times as expensive (US EIA, 2022).
Our Record So Far
The most obvious way to start assessing the progress of the required energy transition is to look at what has been accomplished during the past generation when the concerns about global decarbonization assumed a new urgency and prominence.
Contrary to common impressions, there has been no absolute worldwide decarbonization. In fact, the very opposite is the case. The world has become much more reliant on fossil carbon (even as its relative share has declined a bit). We are now halfway between 1997 (27 years ago) when delegates of nearly 200 nations met in Kyoto to agree on commitments to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases, and 2050; the world has 27 years left to achieve the goal of decarbonizing the global energy system, a momentous divide judging by the progress so far, or the lack of it.
The numbers are clear. All we have managed to do halfway through the intended grand global energy transition is a small relative decline in the share of fossil fuel in the world’s primary energy consumption—from nearly 86 percent in 1997 to about 82 percent in 2022.
But this marginal relative retreat has been accompanied by a massive absolute increase in fossil fuel combustion: in 2022 the world consumed nearly 55 percent more energy locked in fossil carbon than it did in 1997 (see figure 5). The conclusion is unequivocal: by 2023, after a quarter century of targeted energy transition, there has been no absolute global decarbonization of energy supply.
What It Would Take to Reverse the Past Emission Trend
After cutting our relative dependence on fossil fuels by just 4 percent during the first half of the prescribed post-Kyoto period, even if there was no further increase in CO2 emissions we would have to cut it by 82 percent by 2050.
Another revealing way of viewing the daunting magnitude of this challenge is to look at the cuts that would have to be made by G20 economies to meet the interim 2030 goals: for nearly all major economies, it would generally mean halving the 2020 emissions, with cuts of 45 percent for Canada and 46 percent for Saudi Arabia, to 55 percent for the EU, 56 percent for the US, and 63 percent for China (McKinsey, 2023). Only an unprecedented economic collapse could bring such cuts during the next seven years.
The Task Ahead: Zero Carbon Electricity and Hydrogen
Hydroelectricity now supplies about 15 percent of the world’s electricity generation, followed by nuclear fission, which generates about 10 percent (Energy Institute, 2023b). New renewables, wind and solar, have grown rapidly during the past three decades and in 2022 they supplied 12 percent of all electricity generation, still less than the total generated by the two older carbon-free alternatives. Moreover, primary electricity (hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, and a small contribution by geothermal plants) accounted for no more than about 18 percent of the world’s primary energy consumption, which means that fossil fuels still provided about 82 percent of the world’s primary energy supply in 2022.
What is clear is that the total addition of zero carbon electricity will have to go far beyond just replacing today’s fossil-fueled generation, which is about 62 percent of the total of more than 29 quadrillion watthours (PWh) in 2022. Electricity demand will continue to grow: the International Energy Agency forecasts annual growth of 3.3 percent until 2050 and that would raise the 2022 total nearly 2.5-fold to just over 72 PWh (IEA, 2022). Even if hydro and nuclear were to cover 20 percent of that total, wind and solar would have to reach about 58 PWh in 2050, about 17 times their 2022 output and almost exactly twice the 2022 electricity generation from all sources.
Spotlight Steel
Steel is, and it will remain, modern civilization’s dominant metal, indispensable for all infrastructure, housing, transportation, agriculture, and industrial production (Smil, 2016b). Roughly 30 percent of the world’s steel is made by recycling scrap metal: this is done in electric arc furnaces (EAF) and hence this effort can be fully energized by green electricity.
But 70 percent of the world’s steel comes from basic oxygen furnaces (BOF) using cast (pig) iron smelted in blast furnaces (BF) fueled with coke (made from coking coal), coal dust, and natural gas. In 2022, the output of this primary BF-BOF steel reached 1.4 billion tons. The forecasts are that no less than 2.6 billion tons of the metal will be needed in 2050. Even with raising the EAF steel share to 35 percent, demand would require roughly 1.7 billion tons of green iron (World Steel Association, 2023; ArcelorMittal, 2023).
Instead of reducing iron ores with carbon (and emitting CO2), in the zero-carbon world we would have to reduce them with hydrogen (Fe2O3 + 3H2 2Fe + 3H2O). This means that by 2050 the annual output of 1.7 billion tons of green steel would need about 91 million tons of green hydrogen
Spotlight Ammonia
Ammonia is an even more important product: about 85 percent of its annual production is used to make synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers without whose continuing applications about half of today’s world population could not survive (Smil, 2022a). Ammonia is now synthesized with nitrogen taken from the air and hydrogen produced through a shift reaction from natural gas, coal, and liquid hydrocarbons (N2 + 3H2 2NH3), with less than 5 percent coming from electrolysis of water (green hydrogen). In 2022 the annual output of ammonia reached about 150 million tons; forecasts are that at least 200 million tons will be needed by 2050.
Electrolytic production of green hydrogen needs about 50 MWh/ton: making 500 million tons of green hydrogen by 2050 would thus require about 25 PWh of green electricity, the total equal to about 86 percent of the 2022 global electricity use (IRENA, 2023). To repeat, this renewably generated electricity would be dedicated to the production of green hydrogen alone!
Spotlight Copper
A typical electric vehicle contains more than five times the amount of copper (80 versus 15 kg) of an internal combustion car engine. Replacing today’s 1.35 billion light-duty gasoline and diesel vehicles with EVs and supplying the expanded market (estimated at 2.2 billion cars by 2050) would thus require nearly 150 million tons of additional copper during the next 27 years. That is an equivalent of more than seven years of today’s annual copper extraction for all of the metal’s many industrial and commercial uses (EIA, 2021, October 26). In addition, the IEA estimates that, compared to 2020, the take-over of EVs by 2040 would need more than 40 times as much lithium as is currently mined, and up to 25 times the amount of graphite, cobalt, and nickel (IEA, 2021c). Cumulative demand for materials to achieve total decarbonization by 2050 has been estimated at about 5 billion tons for steel, nearly a billion tons for aluminum, and more than 600 million tons of copper (to list just the three largest items).
Such massive mineral needs bring not only technical and financial concerns, but also environmental and political implications (Energy Transitions Commission, 2023; Sonter, Maron, Bull, et al., 2023). Copper offers a stunning example of these environmental externalities. The metal content of exploited copper ores from Chile, the world’s leading source of the metal, has declined from 1.41 percent in 1999 to 0.6 percent in 2023, and further quality deterioration is inevitable (see figure 7) (Lazenby, 2018, November 19; Jamasmie, 2018, April 25; IEA, 2021c).
Using the mean richness of 0.6 percent means that the extraction of additional 600 million tons of metal would require the removal, processing, and deposition of nearly 100 billion tons of waste rock (mining and processing spoils), which is about twice as much as the current annual total of global material extracted including harvested biomass, all fossil fuels, ores and industrial minerals, and all bulk construction materials.
Extracting and dumping such enormous masses of waste material exacts a very high energy and environmental price as it puts new, supposedly “green” energy uses even further from the goal of maximized material recycling. Moreover, copper’s production is dominated by just a few countries (Chile, Peru, China, and Congo), and China alone refines 40 percent of the world’s supply. China processes even more of the other minerals required for green energy conversion: nearly 60 percent of lithium, 65 percent of cobalt, and close to 90 percent of rare earths (IEA, 2021d; Castillo and Purdy, 2022). That makes OPEC’s grip on crude oil (now 40 percent of global production) a relatively restrained affair!
Costs, Politics, and Demand
Nobody can offer a reliable estimate of the eventual cost of a worldwide energy transition by 2050 though a recent (and almost certainly highly conservative) total suggested by McKinsey’s Global Institute makes it clear that comparing this effort to any former dedicated government-funded projects is another serious category mistake. Their estimate of $275 trillion between 2021 and 2050 prorates to $9.2 trillion a year. Compared to the 2022 global GDP of $101 trillion, this implies an annual expenditure on the order of 10 percent of the total worldwide economic product for three decades.
In reality, the real burden would be far higher for two reasons. First, it cannot be expected that low-income countries could sustain such a diversion of their limited resources and hence this global endeavour could not succeed unless the world’s high-income nations annually spend sums equal to 15 to 20 percent of their GDP. More importantly, this ultimate global transformation project would face enormous cost overruns. As the world’s most comprehensive study of cost overruns (more than 16,000 projects in 16 countries and in 20 categories, from airports to nuclear stations) shows, 91.5 percent of projects worth more than $1 billion have run over the initial estimate, with the mean overrun being 62 percent (Flyvbjerg and Gardner, 2023).
Only once in history did the US (and Russia) spent higher shares of their annual economic product, and they did so for less than five years when they needed to win World War II. Is any country seriously contemplating similar, but now decades-long, commitments?
We must also consider the poorest continent, the population of which will grow from 1.2 to 2.5 billion by 2050. Africa has seen how China became relatively rich during the past generation by quadrupling its combustion of fossil carbon and becoming the world’s largest producer of cement, steel, plastics, and ammonia. Affluent countries themselves have no large-scale non-fossil alternatives that could be transferred to Africa and enable the continent to pursue green development. That is why “African Nations Tell COP27 Fossil Fuels Will Tackle Poverty” (Mcfarlane and Abnett, 2022, November 10).
Realities versus Wishful Thinking
Denmark, with half of its electricity now coming from wind, is often pointed out as a particular decarbonization success: since 1995 it cut its energy-related emissions by 56 percent (compared to the EU average of about 22 percent)—but, unlike its neighbours, the country does not produce any major metals (aluminum, copper, iron, or steel), it does not make any float glass or paper, does not synthesize any ammonia, and it does not even assemble any cars. All these products are energy-intensive, and transferring the emissions associated with their production to other countries creates an undeservedly green reputation for the country doing the transferring.
Responsible analyses must acknowledge existing energy, material, engineering, managerial, economic, and political realities. An impartial assessment of those resources indicates that it is extremely unlikely that the global energy system will be rid of all fossil carbon by 2050.
Belief in Miracles
Belief in near-miraculous tomorrows never goes away. Even now we can read declarations claiming that the world can rely solely on wind and PV by 2030 (Global100REStrategyGroup, 2023). And then there are repeated claims that all energy needs (from airplanes to steel smelting) can be supplied by cheap green hydrogen or by affordable nuclear fusion.
What does this all accomplish besides filling print and screens with unrealizable claims?
Instead, we should devote our efforts to charting realistic futures that consider our technical capabilities, our material supplies, our economic possibilities, and our social necessities—and then devise practical ways to achieve them. We can always strive to surpass them—a far better goal than setting ourselves up for repeated failures by clinging to unrealistic targets and impractical visions.
Failing to reach an unrealistic goal of complete global decarbonization by 2050 means failing to limit average global warming to 1.5oC. How much higher the temperature might rise will not depend only on our continued efforts to decarbonize the global energy supply but also on our success in limiting CO2 and other greenhouse gases generated by agriculture, animal husbandry, deforestation, land use changes, and waste disposal. After all, those contributions account for at least a quarter of global anthropogenic emissions but, so far, we have been almost exclusively focused on CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. But that is a topic for another inquiry.
Mish Comments
That’s a pretty long snip but it’s from 44 pages. I suggest reading the entire article if you have a few extra minutes.
Absolutely Brilliant Speech by British Satirist, Konstantine Kisin
Climate Deniers
I have been accused of being a climate denier. Mercy. Actually, I am a climate realist.
Climate change is real and constant and has been ever since the earth formed.
The debate is over how much is manmade and even more importantly, what to do about it, whether it’s manmade or not.
Let’s assume recent climate change is 100% manmade. So what do we do about it?
Play the above video then think about the path of China and India while noting the whole continent of Africa is not even on the scale.
Also note that India just passed China in population and would like to catch up economically. That requires more energy.
The Problem of Politics
The problems of politics and rushing things too fast are easy to spot.
On January 26, 2024, I discussed The Rise of the Farmer’s Daughter and Another Green Energy Revolt
Yet another farm protest in the EU has farmer’s spraying “merde” on the streets of France. Green energy regulations are at the heart of the protest.
An energy revolt also led to a collapse of the political center in the June 2024 Parliamentary Elections.
I discussed the results in Marine Le Pen Set for Record Win, Macron Calls Snap French Election
Winners: The Far Right
Losers: Renew Europe (Macron), and the Greens.
Ford Loses $36,000 on Each EV, Cuts Production of Electric Trucks
On January 20, I noted Ford Loses $36,000 on Each EV, Cuts Production of Electric Trucks
Demand for EVs is nowhere close to projections so car makers are slashing production.
Did I say $36,000. Oops, strike that.
Ford Loses $132,000 on Each EV Produced
On April 26, Ford admitted a new amount: Ford Loses $132,000 on Each EV Produced, Good News, EV Sales Down 20 Percent
Ford (F) reports a huge loss on every EV. Sales are down 20 percent holding the losses to $1.3 billion.
Please note the good news. Sales were down 20 percent holding the losses to a mere $1.3 billion.
Unsold Tesla’s Pile Up in Mall Parking Lots, Big Discounts Likely
On May 14, I noted Unsold Tesla’s Pile Up in Mall Parking Lots, Big Discounts Likely
Tesla is renting parking lots to store thousands of vehicles. This helps explain the mass layoffs.
This is what happens when governments mandate solutions.
Toyota ignored the hype and the US mandates and instead put a focus on hybrids. After laughing at Toyota, the big three are scrambling to catch up on hybrid technology.
If Trump wins the election, and I believe he will, the energy backlash is likely to set environmental goals back at least for years if not more.
Meanwhile, ironies abound.
Please note Biden Wants EVs so Badly That He Will Quadruple Tariffs on Them
Astute readers will immediately notice the title of this post makes no sense. It’s not supposed to. But it is exactly what President Biden is doing.
Wishful thinking coupled with unsustainable, hypocritical government mandates are worse than doing nothing at all.
What happened when the government mandated the elimination of CFCs? When it mandated the removal of sulfur dioxide from power plant flue gas? When it mandated the end of leaded gasoline?
I hope that governments will mandate the end of all these right-wing howlers, such as “That is what happens when government mandates solutions.”
Climate Change is always happening, but very slowly on a geological time scale (millions of years).
We are taking sequestered hydrocarbons that otherwise would not be a part of the natural carbon cycle, and farting them into the atmosphere on a decadal scale.
The greenhouse effect is easy to understand at a high level. I understood it in the 7th grade.
Climate Change is a huge problem as will be seen in the next 1-2 decades, but short of a geo engineering miracle ….. its too late!
There is a 3 decade lag in the effects, we will soon be experiencing what we caused in the 1990’s – 2000’s, And we were way worse after that.
“What is particularly clear is that (in the absence of an unprecedented and prolonged global economic downturn) the world will remain far from reducing its energy-related CO2 emissions by 45 percent from the 2010 level by 2030”
It’s the assumption that there isn’t going to be an unprecedented and prolonged global economic downturn what I don’t understand. Oil and gas production seems to be peaking about now, and the likely consequence is an unprecedented and prolonged downturn. The only thing that is required for achieving net zero in those circumstances is to remember in the ensuing chaos that going hell-for-leather for coal is only likely to provide temporary respite and make things even worse in the long run. Difficult, but it doesn’t seem entirely impossible.
The US Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol by unanimous (95-0) vote.
Half of EV owners have buyer’s remorse, wants to go back to gas. https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/nearly-half-american-ev-owners-want-switch-back-gas-powered-vehicle-mckinsey-data-shows
Fossil fuels are not endless and not being replenished, so ‘net zero’ is inevitable.
Just a matter of how we get there, addressing reality early usually brings better results
Biden makes no sense, so in his own way it makes sense.
See Kenya…..To a city near us. Well maybe not us, but our kids or grand kids
Carbon Impact on Climate. According to this graph, fossil fuel carbon emissions rose 19 fold during the time period specified. What were the numbers for carbon emissions from natural sources, like human beings, volcanos and cows? And what was the density of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1900? You know, inquiring minds………..
Emissions from all human activity is 60 times what volcanoes produce each year. Those activities include burning fossil fuels, breathing, raising animals, growing crops etc. Burning fossil fuels is 91% of the emissions.
Hope that helps. But probably not. You will likely ignore my answer because it doesn’t fit your “beliefs” and keep asking the same stupid question over and over, hoping that the answer will be different next time.
The W.E.F. and Bill Gates have already announced the answer and now it is our Propaganda Machinery’s goal to convince us to die en masse.
I read recently that an AI search uses 10X the electricity of a standard search. This will add to the problem of producing enough electricity for all its uses.
As has been mentioned here about a hundred times.
Yep. AI, EVs, and Crypto are all adding to our electricity needs. Then there’s the 800 million who still don’t have electricity and would like access as well. Demand will just keep going up.
Per the “Figure 5” chart from the Energy Institute (2023b) above…
“Renewables”… this is PURE FUDGE.
they (Energy Institute) have the data – “renewable” is either solar, wind or biomass. and if they were honest they would delineate+quantify each of these sources separately, just as they do for hydroelectricity (which is also “renewable”).
you see, hydroelectricity is efficient, effective & significant so they/EI are happy to post those numbers. hooray for hydro!!
but solar, wind & biomass are inefficient, ineffective & insignificant (respectively) so they bundle/obscure them in a mud bucket and post a BS/nonsense/political number that no one can challenge.
this chart shows “Renewables” production/usage out-pacing both Hydroelectricity & Nuclear… this is LAUGHABLE… PURE FICTION.
If EI were forced to delineate & quantify solar, wind & biomass individually, we would need a microscope to see their representation on this chart.
Actually, its been a smashing success when you consider that its ultimate goal is to make the 192 Parties to the Kyoto Protocol lots of money.
Yes. Those 192 countries have all made so much money from the Kyoto agreement that they have all paid off their national debts including the US.
The only realistic solution is to kill vast quantities of people.
They will have to be buried.
Cremation would result in the release of too much greenhouse gas.
Or, perhaps “the Scientists” will discover something, and =
“The politicians” will create all the money needed for –
“The engineers” to invent new stuff that will resolve all the problems.
And they all lived happily ever after.
The End.
They need to suck all of the Greenhouse Gasses out of the Earth’s atmosphere, bloat all of the dead bodies full of that and helium and float those dead bodies into space.
Climate Change 2025.
Thanks for posting those article highlights Mish. It’s a summary of what I have been saying here for 4 years now, over and over again. Global warming is real, and its being caused by us, because we need the energy from fossil fuels to power our economies and grow our living standards. Our attempts to transition away from fossil fuels have been ineffective and insignificant so far. So global warming is going to continue to worsen and cost our economies a lot as time passes.
Predictably, the climate change deniers “believe” that somehow this article proves that global warming is a hoax. Which, of course, it did not say. But those cult morons will never change their tune.
I pretty much agree with much of what Mish says here, with one exception:
Mish says; “ The debate is over how much is manmade and even more importantly, what to do about it, whether it’s manmade or not.”
Mish is wrong here; There is no debate on how much of the current warming is manmade. The science is clear. It’s man’s emissions.
Mish is correct here; Once you finally realize that man’s emissions are the problem, what to do about them is important.
As I continue to state; we are going to do far too little to reduce our emissions because we are so addicted to fossil fuels. We will always focus on short term economic needs over long term climate concerns.
And I intend to profit from this reality. Because there’s nothing I can personally do to prevent it.
Got oil?
YES!!!! https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/fossil-fuel-co2-emissions-hit-record-high-2023
Rejoice!
Yes Papa, you have been saying that since I have followed your post. You have been spot on in terms of Oil, and I as you know listened, and have made some $ as well, so thank you again for your insight into that, which I agree more and more with! Oil is going nowhere fast for sure!!
While I also agree that Global warming is real, I am a bit more skeptical as to the speed at which it is occurring. Don’t confuse that please, with being a denier, that so many others do. I see the hype of the issue, as a way to gather momentum in coming up with a cure, so to speak, but it most certainly is not a hoax.
I see the rush to EV’s for example, and jumping the shark for Political again was a futile, and simply silly approach to a serious and very real issue. We were not ready, are still nowhere near ready, and forcing the issue will hurt our Environment even more as a result.
We need smart, thought out, really well planned out, and then an executed plan in steps and phases. Same with Solar, and Wind, as they are not viable options yet, and forcing them down our throats will not make it so. We are not yet ready for this sort of transition, as nothing is in place to allow for it to be successful. We need to do it I agree, but Do It Right…
I have to agree with Mish 100% on “The debate over how much is manmade and even more importantly, what to do about it, whether it’s manmade or not.” This is my point above, about being smart and with a methodical approach that has a chance to succeed. We have to Know & Understand what we are up against, and the best solutions after we understand all of that. We are miles from there at the moment, and simply grasping at straws Politically.
Mish MUST be right here; There is no debate on how much of the current warming is manmade. The science is clear. It’s man’s emissions. To Be Correct here: Once you finally realize that man’s emissions (which ones!) are the problem, what to do about them is important.
I so agree that we are so addicted to fossil fuels (We as throughout the World). And We (The World) will always focus on short term economic needs over long term climate concerns.
Got Oil!
We agree then.
It’s real.
It’s us.
And it’s going to get a lot worse.
But it’s a slow moving, long term (centuries) problem. And we will continue to focus on our immediate problems first. So we will not do what is necessary to solve the longer term problem.
Unfortunately, the impacts are already hitting us harder and faster than scientists expected.
But; there is nothing you or I can do to change this. It would take 8 billion of us working together to have an impact. And that is not going to happen.
Agreed, and by not addressing the short term problems, they may not be able to be addressed at some point. That could end up being “The Issue”
You can start by dying tomorrow morning about this time. Thanks in advance.
In one “breath” you say “…we are going to do far too little to reduce our emissions because we are so addicted to fossil fuels…”
But in the very next “breath” you say “…And I intend to profit from this reality. Because there’s nothing I can personally do to prevent it…”
So which is it? “We” or “I”? Your shtick is getting a bit old.
You clearly aren’t as worried about climate change as you state. I’ve heard you mention that you have grandkids (assuming your story is even real, I have no way of knowing for sure). Aren’t you worried about them if the globe is headed towards catastrophe? If what you claim is true, how will all of the money you are making today save them in the future? Why not put that money to good use and run for office, start a Climate Change Super PAC, or start a Climate Change outreach fund to get the word out? If it is “we” as you stated above, then everyone can help contribute, right?
I think you are simply an internet troll who enjoys making money. I have no problems with that, but you could at least be honest that you care more about yourself than anyone else about it. I have no problems with that either.
“We” is humanity.
“I” is just PapaDave.
Yes. I have grandchildren.
Yes. They will certainly experience a worsening climate in their lifetime. It will be worse for them than for me.
All I can do for my children and grandchildren is to help them understand reality, and help them to become resilient in the face of adversity. And yes, even to take advantage of the opportunity that adversity presents.
Because there is nothing I can do to prevent global warming or climate change. Just like I cannot prevent wars in Ukraine or Gaza. Or nuclear war. Or stop a meteor impact with earth.
I will leave it to you to run for office to fix the world. Go ahead. I’m sure that you can fix all the world’s problems. You and other dreamers like Jeff Green seem to think they can make a difference. Be my guest.
Or worse yet, you can be like so many cult morons here, who think climate change is a hoax and that more CO2 will be good for us.
People here call me all kinds of things including “troll”. I don’t care.
I come here for Mish’s economic analysis. As a result, I was fortunate to read some excellent investment comments from a couple of very astute investors. And I keep returning to try to emulate them a little as a way of saying thank you to them and to Mish.
I will probably continue to offer both some investment advice and some reality. Whether folks are bright enough to understand either, is questionable.
Please resist farting into our atmosphere: a good start.
“Mish is wrong here; There is no debate on how much of the current warming is manmade. The science is clear. It’s man’s emissions.”
The heat island effect is caused by man constructing cites where natural plant life used to exist.
Nope. Not even close.
I have explained this to you before, but you are too f*cking stupid to understand it.
Infrastructure such as cities and roads cover less than 3% of the land on earth. And the land is less than 30% of earth’s surface. So cities and roads cover less than 1% of earth’s surface. The heat island effect you refer to is less than insignificant.
The problem with cities is not the “heat island effect”, it’s the emissions coming from those cities that are adding extra GHGs to the atmosphere.
Only thing for sure about 2050 is they got 25 years to screw us over
As Ruy Texeira pointed out in his most recent Substack article, https://substack.com/home/post/p-145822336 climate change is the top issue for a whopping 4% of American voters. Take that, retarded Swedish monkey girl!
This article seems to be shadenfreud over possibly missing the goal of 2050. Admittedly its disapointing to me to see this kind of celebration of failure of not meeting goals.
In the year 2023, the world averaged out `1.3*C over the world average temperature in 1850. My guess is that we humans will experience 1.5*C average before 2030. Scratch that goal of staying below 1.5*C.
That is why the IPPC put out several scenarios.
From wiki
RCP 1.9RCP 1.9 is a pathway that limits global warming to below 1.5 °C, the aspirational goal of the Paris Agreement.
From wiki
RCP 2.6 is a “very stringent” pathway. According to the IPCC, RCP 2.6 requires that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions start declining by 2020 and go to zero by 2100. It also requires that methane emissions (CH4) go to approximately half the CH4 levels of 2020, and that sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions decline to approximately 10% of those of 1980–1990. Like all the other RCPs, RCP 2.6 requires negative CO2 emissions (such as CO2 absorption by trees). For RCP 2.6, those negative emissions would be on average 2 Gigatons of CO2 per year (GtCO2/yr). RCP 2.6 is likely to keep global temperature rise below 2 °C by 2100.
Meeting RCP 3.4 is taking on removal of co2 from the atmosphere. 2.0 to 2.4 degrees celcius is a serious amount of temperature increase for the earth. 2023 is 1.3*C increase and we are in some serious heat waves this summer around the world. 2.0 to 2.4*C is really a big deal. The heat waves of the future at this temp increase are going to be far more deadly than what is happening this year.
RCP 3.4 represents an intermediate pathway between the “very stringent” RCP2.6 and less stringent mitigation efforts associated with RCP4.5. As well as just providing another option a variant of RCP3.4 includes considerable removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
A 2021 paper suggests that the most plausible projections of cumulative CO2 emissions (having a 0.1% or 0.3% tolerance with historical accuracy) tend to suggest that RCP 3.4 (3.4 W/m^2, 2.0–2.4 degrees Celsius warming by 2100 according to study) is the most plausible pathway.
Once upon a time I was also an idiot and believed in this climate change BS… 20+ years ago…
I was told the muskeg was gonna melt up in the north and release a massive does of methane and that the world would boil…
Never happened…
Gore said we’d be underwater by now… not happening…
Then I came to my senses… thought about it … and realized this is why they are playing us https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-three-pillars-of-bullshit
Bonus Post
A recent preprint study which relies on extensive data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) paints a concerning picture of the neurological health landscape in the United States. The study, which focuses on those aged 15-44, reveals a disturbing increase in deaths from neurological diseases both as the primary cause and among multiple contributing factors.
Perhaps most concerning, the study found an increase in neurological complications following COVID-19 vaccinations, including conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis.
According to Phinance principal Ed Dowd, “The results show a clear break from the prior historical trend in death rates from neurological diseases.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/study-finds-alarming-surge-deaths-neurological-disease-among-young-adults
More statistics:
A Systematic REVIEW of Autopsy findings in deaths after covid-19 vaccination: Forensic Science International
Highlights:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824001968?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR3Drfgmm2f7Uh8Y_Y6TkRn8syE4Kurn0qLU1zvIbdpBsRDyj1n-OE1PW10_aem_WKJiHuuhIoEJtQeGcJuw2g
My wife just received a message — our former neighbour who was a fit and healthy 60yr old… took the Pfizer Death Shots… is now dead.
After the second shot she had heart issues (congenital the doc said – not related to the Death Shots)…. so she takes a booster… arm they shot goes number within hours… doc says maybe the vax…
Over the next two weeks it spreads… tests indicate she has a deadly neuro disease… of course it’s now not the vax cuz the vax is Safe – and Effective…
Her body shut down to the point where she was bed ridden unable to speak or move … but coherent… quite the nightmare ending…
But hey — it’s not the vax right … it’s … climate change??? or whatever… but NOT THE F789ing Vax
So go get your boosters everyone…
Let’s not forget what they said
https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange/status/1463932846570192901
Covid itself seems to cause neurological complications
Although SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was initially identified as a respiratory virus, its effects on the nervous system have been profound. There were reports in the initial phases of the pandemic that the virus was contributing to large, severe strokes in individuals, including younger people typically at lower risk for such events. From the earliest stages of the pandemic, NINDS has been working diligently to support research to better understand the impact of the virus on the nervous system. For example, findings from NINDS intramural researchers and their collaborators showed the virus was causing severe inflammation around brain blood vessels, which could lead to strokes and other neurological complications. People who were hospitalized with severe illness experienced post-ICU syndrome, which has been known to result in long-term problems in cognitive and emotional function. Now, to help us gain a more complete understanding of the effects of the virus on the nervous system, NINDS recently issued two new funding announcements (RFA-NS-23-021 and RFA-NS-23-022) that will complement existing research opportunities to collectively provide a better understanding of the complications of COVID-19.
For complications from the mRNA Vax see above paper.
Swap out Covid for Covid Vaccines… and you’ll have nailed it
The thing is…
When you repeat lies of this nature… you kill people Jeff… because they rush out and shoot more Death Shots… and continue playing Russian Roulette…
People die .. when Jeff Lies
I like how they lied about safe and effective… then they blame the epic vax injuries on Long Covid…
And the CovIDIOTS believe it and they keep shooting the Rat Juice and dropping like flies hahahaha
They even blame the heart attacks and blood clots on Long Covid hahahahahahahahahaaha
More Long Covids…
Bowler David Lawrence has motor neurone disease, BBC’s David Owen, weeping, offers cancer update; Michael Flatley blames castle for his cancer; German rocker Hartmut Engler crippled by osteoarthritis
Brazilian rugby’s Raquel Kochhann getting over cancer; footballer Nabil Bentaleb in French hospital with “illness”; Austrian actor Katy Karrenbauer has a stroke; Italian rapper Fedez hit by “illness”
British swimmer Freya Anderson sidelined by “glandular fever”; “Virus lays flat French national team”; Dutch soccer boss Louis Van Gaal reveals that he’s “been living with catheters and urine bags for three years,” due to cancer; Italian TV star Francesco Chiofalo “rushed to hospital” after seizure (due, he says, to “surgery years ago”)
https://markcrispinmiller.substack.com/p/bowler-david-lawrence-has-motor-neurone
Some awful news to report late on a Wednesday night. According to Ligue 1 club LOSC Lille, former Tottenham Hotspur midfielder and current Lille player Nabil Bentaleb was hospitalized for what the club is calling an “illness.” Unconfirmed reports online are saying that Bentaleb suffered a heart attack. Bentaleb, who is somehow still only 29, was born in Lille making LOSC his hometown club.
https://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com/2024/6/19/24182064/tottenham-hotspur-news-nabil-bentaleb-hospitalized-heart-attack
There’s another job opening… Jeff can you play soccer?
Obviously staying is shape and being an athlete is dangerous to your health and well being.
Al Gore is just a politician. This is science. What is coming true about the science is that the earth is warming and that we are experiencing warming due to our own co2 pollution.
Fast Eddy is a f*cking moron. He has swallowed as much cult koolaid as he possibly can. He wouldn’t understand the actual science of global warming if it kicked him in the nuts. So he will continue to make shit up.
And you are a dreamer who thinks we can do something significant about this problem. We won’t. So yes, it’s going to get a lot worse.
That’s not schadenfreude; that’s just reality.
Wake me up when NYC is underwater… hahahahahahaha….
Clown World
Meanwhile … The Truth https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-three-pillars-of-bullshit
Nobody wants the truth … they prefer cnnbbc … idiots
Leo is another spokesman for the LIE… if he believed oceans were going to rise … why invest his money in this?
https://theculturetrip.com/central-america/belize/articles/blackadore-caye-leonardo-dicaprio-s-restorative-island
who is leo?
Click the link to find out
Non cagare dove dormi.
Do you know more Italian than this? This was funny.
Hey Jeff… make sure you are not near any sharp objects when your read this https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/fossil-fuel-co2-emissions-hit-record-high-2023
Dear Jeff –
Your help is needed.
Do your part.
Please buy a few hundred electric cars ASAP.
Thank you.
Useless replies do help me do my part.
I warned you jeff… you should have sold the fleet and exited the EV business
Jeff is the new Hertz.
Looking at the Military Growth across the Planet? All the Warships and Planes consume vast amounts of fossil fuels =(massive Pollution). Now a push by NATO to get even more involved into the Ukraine War. Many Governments are creating massive amounts of pollution from their Military strategies. But at the same time many of these Governments are pushing Green Policies onto their citizens. Governments Military increasingly pollute more but at the same time—want their citizens to pollute less?
The thing that gets me is that if the world is warming why is that a bad thing? Was the temperature in 1870 the most perfect ever for humanity and we must force mankind into a pretzel to keep it there? What about fewer people freezing, larger zones for crops and other pluses that come with this supposed change?
How come only the supposed negatives – which never happen as promised or predicted – are the only things ever discussed? And why is it that whatever happens warming is to blame? More hurricanes in a season: global warming. Fewer hurricanes in a season: global warming. It’s not disprovable to its adherents, making it a religion, not a science.
And the next time there is a natural volcanic eruption, oh like the ones in the past year in both Hawaii and Iceland – I want to see its output against the “savings” in CO2 that are forced in the world each year.
if you read history warming periods = prosperity … more food
Trees LOVE warmth and C02
A lot of numbers.
Another way to drill down to the reality of the situation is to ask for a calculation of how much of the human population needs to be sacrificed to attain the goal?
The graph showing the gradual decline in copper quality from Chile occurs over less than 20 years. Not good.
Oil is less easily available of late. No more “gushers” from near-surface oil domes. We have to frack oil, requiring a higher energy-in to energy-out ratio for oil at the well-head, so it’s a less efficient process. Also not good.
To have a chance of continuing our well-lived 1st-world life, we’ll need to reduce the human population back to 1750 AD levels, of about 750 Million. Large wars. Not good, but somewhat effective. Widespread famine. Not good, but more effective, and without a lot of the chemicals spewed into the atmosphere by wars. Lab-produced deadly diseases. Not good, but as we just recently saw, effective. though we’ll have to fine-tune the effectiveness to increase the “yield”. Maybe we can just eat all of those damn Chinese bats and avoid this one.
Every 3rd-world inhabitant wants what we have in the 1st world. It will become increasingly less efficient, and more expensive, to continue as we’re doing – either with carbon fuel, or green energy ones. Small, or large, fusion can’t come soon enough. Matter-anti-matter batteries anyone?
We also steam oil out of sand and drill miles beneath the ocean.
DESPERATION
Scotty, where did you stash those dilithium crystals!
If the world population goes back to 1750 levels, material well-being will drop back to 1750 levels. It’ll take a while, what with there being lots of canned foody kinds of things already produced by a larger population. But, the modern world is cushy simply because there enough people to build and run such a world.
What is wealth? It’s being able to waste as much energy and resources as you can afford. Does Bernie Sanders care about wasting energy with 3 homes? No. He does not. Does Bill Gates care with one house almost the size of a Walmart? No. I could go on but the best way to defeat climate change is not be poor and ignorant. Do that any you have defeated climate change.
Yup.
Die prematurely, but educated.
Mish, I admit that I cherry picked 3 points you made, and stopped, because these 3 say all you need to see, hear or read, to understand the situation is exactly as you stated!
1. Primary electricity (hydro, nuclear, wind, solar), accounted for no more than about 18 percent of the world’s primary energy consumption, which means that fossil fuels still provided about 82 percent of the world’s primary energy supply in 2022.
2. 70 percent of the world’s steel comes from basic oxygen furnaces (BOF) using cast (pig) iron smelted in blast furnaces (BF) fueled with coke (made from coking coal), coal dust, and natural gas. In 2022, the output of this primary BF-BOF steel reached 1.4 billion tons. The forecasts are that no less than 2.6 billion tons of the metal will be needed in 2050.
3. Less than 5 percent coming from electrolysis of water (green hydrogen). In 2022 the annual output of ammonia reached about 150 million tons; forecasts are that at least 200 million tons will be needed by 2050.
We are nowhere near the end goal as stated originally, and won’t be any closer in 10 years would be my guess, based on all the info I just absorbed. We don’t have the Will, as a Country (or the World for that matter) to rid ourselves of Oil, so that’s not happening anytime soon.
Green Energy is being pushed, but not responsibly imo, and as a result, nobody is getting satisfied with what they are hearing. You have to feed all the needs or none to get this off of the ground, and there is the problem.
They only want to feed the ones they wish to feed, so as not to disrupt or disturb their own situations during the changeover. That can’t happen, as it cannot be done all at once. As a result, they are not getting a consensus or even a group think effort on the topic. Everyone is tight to the vest, and wants theirs, so nobody may get anything, as usually is the case in these situations… Gridlock!
It can’t work – see intermittency
Stu, you forgot my favorite essential.
How much energy does it take to make cement from rocks?
And how much CO2 is released?
One thing these discussions skip is that oil demand destruction would make oil cheaper.
Look up any global oil production cost curve. If demand falls, prices fall. Possibly by a lot.
If you are in a low income country, this means the rich countries have to pay you even more to avoid using oil. Without permanent and ever-increasing payments from rich nations, low income nation oil demand will grow. High emissions industry will move to these nations to avoid regulations in rich countries. Low income nations – and their emissions – will grow.
Until there are zero emissions technologies that are cheaper and better than oil (when oil is $50 or $10/bbl) without subsidies, there can by definition be no emissions reductions.
Fusion and cheap Chinese EVs have a chance to matter. Nuclear is too regulated to compete. Fusion plants can’t emit radiation or proliferate.
Chinese reactor plans commercial demonstration by 2030
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202406/1314447.shtml
Good to know that fusion is not nuclear.
On another note: fusion will create quite a number of long-lived radionuclides in the containment requiring storage and disposal.
Facts don’t really matter. Regulations do.
Regulators have decided to treat fission plants like bombs and thus regulated them out of the market. They’re treating fusion closer to scientific or medical equipment, so they have a shot at real market share.
Time to pump up the bicycle tires. I hope it never snows in Colorado.
It is insane to store electricity generated in a battery at a cost significantly greater than the cost to generate it. It’s like putting a Casio in a Rolex box.
If you put 100 watts into a battery you only get 90 watts out. There’s always losses. Heat.
You can neither create or destroy energy – just transform it.
Thermo 101: can’t win, can’t tie, have to play the game.
My favorite tee shirt: Entropy always wins.
It has been evident for decades that climate change can’t be averted unless everyone stops burning fossil fuels. And that India and China will not stop. Ipso facto the climate will get warmer.
The climate change crowd have been told this. A large number of them are too dumb to do anything except accuse the messenger of being a climate denier. The more intelligent of them continue advocating for an end of fossil fuels because they hate all the externalities of fossil fuel use, such as all the open pits left by coal mining, the urban sprawl, 8 lane highways, tailpipe emissions, etc. and junkyards from using fossil fuels. After all, who wouldn’t hate all that?
Take the advocacy of that crowd all together, and yes, they do want electric blackouts and they do want personal transportation to become unaffordable and your day-to-day travel limited to where you can get by walking.
nope https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-three-pillars-of-bullshit
The green net zero scam only runs on subsidies and fossil fuels. Take either one away & it falls apart.
Meanwhile a warning for the US. Its disastrous energy green net zero scam plus short term energy profit taking will take a toll sometime in the future. Australia, one of the largest natural gas exporters now running out of gas. This will definitely be coming to the US. Only question is how long?
JoNova (joannenova.com.au)
“It takes some skill to run out of gas when we are also one of the Big Three LNG exporters in the world, but the Australian government has achieved this. Incompetence knows no bounds:”
You can interchange Australian government with US government.
Noo Klee Errrrr … Small reactors, molten salt etc. But nuclear is controlled in the US by the MIC, because plutonium is still a benefit to giga blasts. Its a problem.
The nuclear industry has to show that it can build a reactor on a predictable schedule and cost and be operated economically. The political opposition of the public is no longer a significant problem, it’s the bill when the reactor is finallycompleted. A bigger problem is that that the skilled nuclear workforce has aged/retired/died and not been replaced. Not so much engineers but electricians, ironworkers, welders etc.
It’s not because of plutonium which is recycled from obsolete warheads.
I was in favor of nuclear until the DEI CRT BLM soxial engineer attempts chased away those who know and can make things.
Nobody in their right mind ever thought net zero was anything but another Democratic hoax power grab.
Invest in geo engineering startups!