Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond  (Read 406194 times)

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15625
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 446
  • Likes Given: 212
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1550 on: September 11, 2018, 01:54:06 AM »
The state of California is the fifth largest economy in the world.

California governor commits to 100 percent clean energy
Quote
The law requires utilities to source 60 percent of their power from renewable energy by the end of 2030, up from a prior goal of 50 percent. By 2045, all of the state's electricity must come from renewable or other zero-carbon sources.

In 2017, 32 percent of California's retail electricity sales were served by renewable energy facilities, according to the California Energy Commission.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california-cleanenergy/california-law-will-wean-power-sector-off-fossil-fuels-by-2045-idUSKCN1LQ28J

Cross-posted to the Renewables thread.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15625
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 446
  • Likes Given: 212
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1551 on: September 14, 2018, 02:32:06 AM »
U.S. on Track to Meet Some Paris Climate Goals, Report Says
Quote
The U.S. is on track to meet about two-thirds of its carbon-emissions goals under the Paris climate accord -- even without the support of President Donald Trump.

Cities, states, businesses and market forces are poised to trim carbon emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, according to a report presented Thursday by California Governor Jerry Brown and Michael Bloomberg, owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP. That compares with the 26 percent to 28 percent U.S. commitment under the Paris agreement. Trump said in 2017 that he intended to withdraw the U.S. from the accord. But the country can get within “striking distance” of the target by doing things like increasing renewable energy mandates and retiring coal power plants, the report said.

“We are getting it done, but we still have a very tall mountain to climb,” Brown said said at the Global Climate Action Summit, which he and Bloomberg are co-chairing in San Francisco. The report was produced by the University of Maryland and the Rocky Mountain Institute. It was funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies.
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-doesn-t-need-trump-to-tackle-carbon-goals-report-shows
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1552 on: September 22, 2018, 07:47:45 AM »
https://www.sciencealert.com/un-draft-report-says-we-must-transition-economy-to-tackle-climate-change
http://bios.fi/en/economic-transition-governance-a-scientific-background-document-to-the-un-global-sustainable-development-report-2019/
Adding the pdf below.

Read if you wish. Quoting the first part from the pdf.
Quote
GOVERNANCE OF ECONOMIC TRANSITION
We live in an era of turmoil and profound change in the energetic and material underpinnings of economies. The era of cheap energy is coming to an end (Murphy 2014, Lambert et al. 2014, Hall et al. 2014, Hall et al. 2009, Hirsch et al. 2005). Because economies are for the first time in human history shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient, production of usable energy (exergy) will require more, not less, effort on the part of societies to power both basic and non-basic human activities. Sink costs are also rising; economies have used up the capacity of planetary ecosystems to handle the waste generated by energy and material use. Climate change is the most pronounced sink cost.

What will happen during the oncoming years and decades when we enter the era of energy transition, combined with emission cuts, and start to witness more severe effects of climate change? That is the big question. What kind of economic understanding and governance models do we need, now that economies are undergoing dramatic rather than incremental change? While economists typically emphasize carbon pricing as a policy tool for tackling climate change, natural scientists and multidisciplinary environmental research groups argue for more profound political engagement and proactive governance of economic transition (Chapin et al. 2011, Steffen et al. 2018) – something akin to a global Marshall Plan (Aronoff 2017, Gore 1992). This difference in perspective is in part due to relatively recent advancements in environmental research, which have revealed a faster-than-expected decline in natural ecosystems and take into account the whole range of human-induced pressures, and not merely climate emissions (Barnosky et al. 2014).

New economic thinking for the turbulent years ahead
Decades of academic work in ecological economics have gone into integrating energetic and material stocks, flows, and boundaries into economic thinking (van den Bergh 2001, Røpke 2005). Although some progress can be seen on the economic-theoretical level, the economic models which inform political decision-making in rich countries almost completely disregard the energetic and material dimensions of the economy (Hall and Klitgaard 2011).
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6528
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1492
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1553 on: September 22, 2018, 10:49:58 AM »

Quote
GOVERNANCE OF ECONOMIC TRANSITION

The era of cheap energy is coming to an end

Because economies are for the first time in human history shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient, production of usable energy (exergy) will require more, not less, effort on the part of societies to power both basic and non-basic human activities. .

Hullo Sleepy.

I am not sure about either of these statements from the paper referred to you .

"The era of cheap energy is coming to an end". The papers referred to as justification for this statement are from 2009 and 2014, (using data from 2, 3 ? years before). The world has moved on

Electricity from onshore wind-power just about everywhere, and solar power in many locations is now cheaper than all other means of electrical production. EVs use far less energy per unit of distance travelled than ICE vehicles. That's about 2/3rds of total energy use?

"economies shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient,"

The EIEO of a solar panel installation (from construction through 20 years of use to recycling) must be better than a conventional power station. The same for wind.

Since I dispute the basic assumptions of the paper, the paper has zero value? Rather it may be the case that energy and most transport (being electricity powered) will be cheaper. It is that is therefore likely to increase demand on other resources being consumed beyond the planet's ability to supply.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

jacksmith4tx

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1554 on: September 22, 2018, 05:36:32 PM »

The EIEO of a solar panel installation (from construction through 20 years of use to recycling) must be better than a conventional power station. The same for wind.

Since I dispute the basic assumptions of the paper, the paper has zero value? Rather it may be the case that energy and most transport (being electricity powered) will be cheaper. It is that is therefore likely to increase demand on other resources being consumed beyond the planet's ability to supply.

I am very interested in this EIEO issue as it relates to PV panels. I was listening to a podcast from the founder of a company that has been in the solar panel business since 2003 as he discussed the coming crisis of recycling all the solar panels that will be reaching their service life. He has started a new business focused exclusively trying to make recycling of PV panels economically viable. He was not optimistic. Given current technology and material prices, recycling used PV is not economical. It's only going to get worse as tens of thousands of tons of obsolete panels flood into the waste stream in the coming years. A few companies have created a total life cycle program in an attempt to address the issue but by his calculations it's only a tiny fraction of the installed base of PV panels.
I have read research that offered some solutions but without a some kind of national or global policy to deal with the problem we are not putting the right price on PV renewable energy.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X18300576
Quote
Abstract

With the enormous growth in the development and utilization of solar-energy resources, the proliferation of waste solar panels has become problematic. While current research into solar panels has focused on how to improve the efficiency of the production capacity, the dismantling and recycling of end-of-life (EOL) panels are seldom considered, as can be seen, for instance, in the lack of dedicated solar-panel recycling plants. EOL solar-panel recycling can effectively save natural resources and reduce the cost of production. To address the environmental conservation and resource recycling issues posed by the huge amount of waste solar panels regarding environmental conservation and resource recycling, the status of the management and recycling technologies for waste solar panels are systemically reviewed and discussed in this article. This review can provide a quantitative basis to support the recycling of PV panels, and suggests future directions for public policy makers. At present, from the technical aspect, the research on solar panel recovery is facing many problems, and we need to further develop an economically feasible and non-toxic technology. The research on solar photovoltaic panels’ management at the end of life is just beginning in many countries, and there is a need for further improvement and expansion of producer responsibility.

Another article from business magazine Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#7afd92e121cc
Quote
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1555 on: September 23, 2018, 09:03:16 AM »
Hullo Sleepy.

I am not sure about either of these statements from the paper referred to you .
Correct. :)
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1556 on: September 23, 2018, 09:09:24 AM »
Related to rethinking our economic system, Anders Wijkman at Swiss ECS, from the 19th.
The root cause is the way we organized the economy. We don't distinguish between quality and quantity. Everything that is production, is looked upon as good. But of course this is a ridicoulous concept today.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6528
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1492
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1557 on: September 23, 2018, 11:50:36 AM »
Wishing but not expecting the report below was false.

Climate study ‘pulls punches’ to keep polluters on board
‘True risks’ of warming played down to placate fossil-fuel nations


Quote
The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C and its summary for policymakers were commissioned by governments following the UN meeting in Paris in 2015, when it was agreed to act to limit increases in global average temperature to less than 2C above pre-industrial levels and to try keep that increase nearer to 1.5C.

...... it is the report’s summary for policymakers that is causing concern. This is the document politicians will use as a key climate guide when making changes to legislation. Reviewers of earlier drafts say it is being altered to make the dangers of climate change seem less alarming. As a result, they say,, policymakers could seriously underestimate the risks of global warming. Cuts made to the final draft of the summary include:

• Any mention that temperature rises of above 1.5C could lead to increased migrations and conflict;

• All discussion of the danger of the Gulf Stream being disrupted by cold water flowing from the Arctic where more and more sea-ice is melting;

• Warnings about the dangers that 1.5–2C temperature rises could trigger irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet and raise sea levels by 1–2 metres over the next two centuries.

Other cuts from the summary include the sentence: “Poverty and disadvantage have increased with recent warming (about 1C) and are expected to increase in many populations as average global temperatures increase from 1C to 1.5C and beyond.”

The original summary also stated “at 2C warming, there is a potential for significant population displacement concentrated in the tropics”. Again this is not mentioned in the report for policymakers. “The scientists who produce reports like these try to summarise the latest knowledge, but they have a reputation for being conservative about the worst risks of climate change,” Ward said. “This time they have outdone themselves in pulling their punches, however.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/23/scientists-changing-global-warming-report-please-polluters
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1558 on: September 24, 2018, 07:03:45 AM »
Another from the "We Don't Have Time" series (posted earlier in this thread).

A message to all adults out there who are busy defending an obsolete lifestyle.



« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 07:10:38 AM by Sleepy »
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6528
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1492
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1559 on: September 27, 2018, 12:26:43 PM »
It seems that (at the moment) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which will be unveiled in South Korea next month, will say 1.5 degrees of warning is technically possible but extremely improbable.. and would require vast volumes of CO2 to be captured.

Will the report be doctored before unveiling?

World 'nowhere near on track' to avoid warming beyond 1.5C target
Key UN report says limiting temperature rise would require enormous, immediate transformation in human activity

Quote
The world’s governments are “nowhere near on track” to meet their commitment to avoid global warming of more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial period, according to an author of a key UN report that will outline the dangers of breaching this limit.

A massive, immediate transformation in the way the world’s population generates energy, uses transportation and grows food will be required to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5C and the forthcoming analysis is set to lay bare how remote this possibility is.

“It’s extraordinarily challenging to get to the 1.5C target and we are nowhere near on track to doing that,” said Drew Shindell, a Duke University climate scientist and a co-author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which will be unveiled in South Korea next month.

“While it’s technically possible, it’s extremely improbable, absent a real sea change in the way we evaluate risk. We are nowhere near that.”......

.......Shindell wouldn’t share exact details of the IPCC report, but he said that the more ambitious 1.5C goal would require a precipitous drop in greenhouse emissions triggered by a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, particularly coal, mass deployment of solar and wind energy and the eradication of emissions from cars, trucks and airplanes.

Even then, emerging technology will be required on a global scale to capture emissions at the source and bury them in the ground or remove carbon directly from the air.

“The penetration rate of new technology historically takes a long time,” Shindell said. “It’s not simple to change these things. There aren’t good examples in history of such rapid, far reaching transitions.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/26/global-warming-climate-change-targets-un-report
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1560 on: September 30, 2018, 08:51:30 AM »
2018 Q4 starts tomorrow, the first time in human history when we are about to consume 100 million barrels of oil per day, according to earlier forecasts from IEA. The exact amount doesn't matter much, it still tells a lot about how effective our mitigation efforts are.

Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15625
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 446
  • Likes Given: 212
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1561 on: September 30, 2018, 05:35:30 PM »
Most Dow 30 companies care about climate change; Microsoft is a global leader
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dow-30-companies-really-care-climate-change-microsoft-global-leader-123632186.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5220
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1562 on: October 01, 2018, 12:03:51 AM »
Thank god that America's Greatest Capitalists care about Climate Change.


Many will be relieved to know that Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Boeing, Caterpillar and their fellow Corporatists will be doing more than their fair share in fighting this existential battle.


With these Gigantic Guardians of Good at our back we'll surely prevail.


A short prayer of thanks to our corporate masters might be appropriate at this time. ::)
Terry

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1563 on: October 01, 2018, 07:10:45 AM »
Old sleepy men don't need lullabies...

But guess I was wrong above.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/why-oil-forecasts-keep-getting-it-wrong/ar-AAADt7d
Quote
Demand, in fact, has far exceeded expectations. Buoyed by robust economic growth, markets last month consumed 100 million barrels per day of oil, 400,000 more than were produced.

"The supply side, if anything, has outperformed expectations: In the last year, U.S. shale production growth has been 1.7 million barrels per day – that by itself should be enough to tank oil prices," says Steven Kopits, managing director of Princeton Energy Advisors. "Demand is very strong. And we don't have any real time metrics for global demand."

Quote
But one thing continuing to guide predictions will be the dwindling gap between the amount of oil being produced and the undiminished pace of consumption.

"There's been no economic slowdown, and no one's got spare barrels sitting around that can replace the million barrels or so that are going to go off the market," McTeague says. "One million barrels per day is a big number – it's substantial. To use the British expression, Mind the gap."

What a wonderful green world, buzy mitigating. Mitigating oil production that is, at least Russia seems to have spare capacity. They will happy to fill that gap.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,861.msg174021.html#msg174021

Anyone heard about AGW and that Paris Climate Agreement?
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1564 on: October 01, 2018, 08:01:14 AM »
Guess some have.
https://blog.ted.com/we-the-future-talks-from-ted-skoll-foundation-and-united-nations-foundation/
Quote
A quest for planetary balance. In 2015, we saw two fantastic global breakthroughs for humanity, says sustainability expert Johan Rockström — the SDGs and the Paris Agreement. But are the two compatible, and can be they be pursued at the same time? Rockström suggests there are inherent contradictions between the two that could lead to irreversible planetary instability. Along with a team of scientists, he created a way to combine the SDGs within the nine planetary boundaries (things like ocean acidification and ozone depletion); it’s a completely new model of possibility — the Earth-3 model — to track trends and simulate future change. Right now, we’re not delivering on our promises to future generations, he says, but the window of success is still open. “We need some radical thinking,” Rockström says. “We can build a safe and just world: we just have to really, really get on with it.”

A small basement window.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1565 on: October 01, 2018, 04:54:29 PM »
New study finds incredibly high carbon pollution costs – especially for the US and India
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/01/new-study-finds-incredibly-high-carbon-pollution-costs-especially-for-the-us-and-india
Links to the papers in the link.

Quote
The social cost of carbon is much higher yet

A new study led by UC San Diego’s Katharine Ricke published in Nature Climate Change found that not only is the global social cost of carbon dramatically higher than the federal estimate – probably between $177 and $805 per ton, most likely $417 – but that the cost to America is around $50 per ton.  That’s the second-highest in the world behind India’s $90, and is also higher than the current federal estimate for the global social cost of carbon.

That’s a remarkable conclusion worth repeating.  Ricke’s team found that the cost of carbon pollution to just the United States is probably higher than its government’s current estimate of costs to the entire world.  And the actual global cost is more than 10 times higher than the federal estimate.  And yet Republican politicians think that estimate should be much lower.
Quote
So, America is the country with the largest historical carbon emissions (and thus the most culpability for climate change), is among the countries that would benefit most from slowing global warming, and yet is the only country whose government rejects the Paris climate agreement.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6528
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1492
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1566 on: October 02, 2018, 11:40:01 PM »
The logic is - since we are stuffed, no point in doing anything. Beyond madness but due to be official USA environmental policy. I started to read it but the neurons between my ears went haywire.

Full statement is at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ld_cafe_my2021-26_deis_0.pdf

Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html?utm_term=.dece1b5f666b

Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100
Quote
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees by the end of this century.

A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6528
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1492
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1567 on: October 03, 2018, 11:24:22 AM »
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1200
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1568 on: October 03, 2018, 03:27:31 PM »
To get a reality check, we should go back and check the goals of Kyo to Copenhagen and Paris.

We should then check how much we reduced. Or even slowed, CO2 growth over that time.

It is also useful to validate that the Obama administration fully engaged in Kyoto, Copenhagen and, for a short while, Paris.

Accords are fine but we need global Action on CO2.  Selling green credits to wealthy countries won't cut it.

Not only was CO2 continuing to rise before Trump took over, it was continuing to rise at the fastest pace in the direct sensing record.

Whilst I believe Trump is wrong, we have to prove that these Accords actually mean something.  The UK has pretty much met the targets, Germany is going to miss for the hilarious reason that the Greens have forced the shutdown of the German Nuclear reactors.

Most of the Eastern EU is going to miss them as they ramp up production to get out of the last of the financial crisis.

As for Russia and China??

If we want to fight Trump on the climate we have to show that what we agreed to do is winning.  In fact it is losing.

In order to really get a grip of things we need to outline a realistic scenario where the developed AND developing nations transition to carbon neutral at the same time.

We also have to stop talking about renewable, in the short term and start talking about carbon neutral.

Of course everything I have just said will fall on deaf ears and when we write the next, already failed, accord, the annual decadal cadence for CO2 rise will be 2.5ppm.

I have not, quite, given up on resolving the CO2 issue, but it is getting pretty close and environmentalists shouting about their GREEN credentials whilst we burn more coal to offset their actions is driving me away faster.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1569 on: October 04, 2018, 08:34:46 AM »
Nice post Neil. We might have another couple of years before I give up. And yes, we need to stop talking about renewables as a saviour and focus on getting carbon neutral. If top ten percent of emitters got down to the level of the average European we would cut 1/3 of the emissions world wide.

One little thing though, while I do not live in, or understand Germany fully, I don't think it's that easy either. Germany's electricity generations by Fraunhofer:
https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm
Also adding an old post by Folke Kelm containing a link to their historical coal subsidies and some comments around their nuclear plants. "Drift" is Swedish and he means operation. There's also a follow up comment by SATire worth reading, while lacking direct links to facts I think both of them sound reasonable.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1021.msg66729.html#msg66729

First Dog on The Moon asks is the Paris Accord is Kaput?
It was kaput when it was signed. Here's an image and comment I made back then.
Quote
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who is chairing the summit, promised a new text on Saturday morning at 08:00 GMT - and suggested it would be the final version, to be ratified at lunchtime.

The end.


While the personal perspective of mitigation for us westerners is in the bathroom mirror every morning, this might be a more interesting read for the larger perspective:
The Circular Economy - a Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation
http://materialeconomics.com/latest-updates/the-circular-economy
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1200
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1570 on: October 04, 2018, 06:22:44 PM »
One little thing though, while I do not live in, or understand Germany fully, I don't think it's that easy either.

Let me explain.  Germany, over more than a decade, put €500bn into renewables.  They shut down their Nuclear reactors, under pressure from the Greens and started having to burn Coal to cope.

Had Germany spent €250bn on Hinckley Point C type reactors, they would have introduced around 35GW of always on baseload power, which could then be augmented by wind and solar, from additional initiatives once the baseload was assured.  35GW nuclear nameplate power delivers half of the average GW used by Germany on any day.

If they had then invested the other €250bn in investments that only return 1% over inflation, they would, after 40 years, have a fund of €350bn (equivalent at today’s value), to work on either extension to 80 years or decommissioning activities for the expired reactors.

Instead what do we have?  The ideologically pure, failed, renewables that see Germany “clean” of Nuclear but dumping their “dirty” CO2 on the rest of the world.  Germany generates some 40% of its power via Coal.

This is the kind of environmental thinking which is damaging to the fight to reduce climate change.  The fight against climate change has absolutely Nothing to do with Green and Everything to do with CO2 Neutral existence.

The Faustian bargain forced by the German Greens has ensured that we are one step closer to losing that fight.

Yet all I hear is how wonderful the German government has been in driving “green” initiatives.  I guess it is true in some ways, extra CO2 will drive more verdant flora in the temperate zones…..

Contrast the UK.  WHinckley Point C goes online in 2025/26, depending on construction issues and when it goes live, all coal power stations in the UK will finally be shut down.  When that happens, the UK will be beyond the commitments made for Paris as it is already mooted that the UK is already there or thereabouts.

The plans for the UK to replace the entire remaining reactors with new HP-C type stations are still under way.  Three more should about do it.

Unless the greens get their way!!

Carbon Neutral is the way.  Green is a nice to have.  After all, if we fail to control CO2, we will kill more species off than any amount of safe nuclear reactors.  Including a significant portion of the human race.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4461
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 863
  • Likes Given: 1283
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1571 on: October 04, 2018, 08:45:52 PM »
I think that in 2005 or 2010 when Germany made some of its renewable decisions, nuclear probably was the more economical choice (though the 2011 decision was driven by fear, not by "green ambition" per se).
However, in 2018 things might be different. Hinkley Point C lead time from decision to power generation is almost 15 years. Renewable projects start producing in <5 years (guesstimate). I think this is a big difference at the late stage we are in. In addition, renewable costs have come down sharply in the last few years. Even when including some grid storage and natgas backup for 5% of the year, I'm not sure nuclear wins in terms of total lifetime cost vs. power produced. This needs some hard apples-to-apples numbers.
Small note: nuclear is not always on. Its capacity factor is normally around 90%.
Quote
Germany, over more than a decade, put €500bn into renewables.
It finally occurs to me to ask for a source for this number, though I've seen it many times before. Specifically I wonder if this cost includes the high tariffs paid by German consumers to subsidize solar and wind. If so, then the Hinkley cost should include that too, changing the equation dramatically as HPC cost £20B for its 3.2 GW (assuming no further overruns) but consumers will pay an extra £50B for its above-market feed-in tariff.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1200
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1572 on: October 04, 2018, 10:25:34 PM »
Specifically I wonder if this cost includes the high tariffs paid by German consumers to subsidize solar and wind.

No, it is direct subsidies from the Government.

Quote
The German government has spent about €500 billion on electricity subsidies to date.

It is also interesting to see the projected EU costs for the 2050 renewable project.

Quote
Minimum additional total system cost of 15 percent in the “green” scenario.
Com-
pared with the “lean” scenario with its total system cost of roughly EUR 5,700 billion
until 2050, achieving the “green” scenario would increase the total system cost of the
European power sector by about 15 percent to EUR 6,600 billion. The increase is driven
by achieving the two targets in the “green” scenario: achieving low emissions would
add EUR 500 billion to 600 billion (“clean” scenario) and meeting the renewables target
in parallel would add a further EUR 300 billion to 400 billion.

A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, pretty soon we're talking REAL money.

Never mind the interesting stuff in the grid transmission paragraphs.

Quote
Cost-optimal 80 percent renewables generation requires five times larger trans
-
mission grid capacities by 2050.
 Generating 80 percent of European power from
renewables at optimal cost in 2050 (“green” scenario) requires a steep buildup of trans
-
mission capacities, reaching a larger than fivefold increase in trans-regional transmission
capacities in 2050 compared with today. As optimal locations for wind and solar power
are at the outer areas of Europe (coastal for wind and southern for solar) rather than at
the center, renewable power needs to be transmitted to Central European demand
centers via massively increased transmission grid capacities.

Yes, well, Green and all that....
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1573 on: October 05, 2018, 08:35:30 AM »
Thank you for your reply Neil.

I think that in 2005 or 2010 when Germany made some of its renewable decisions, nuclear probably was the more economical choice (though the 2011 decision was driven by fear, not by "green ambition" per se).
However, in 2018 things might be different. Hinkley Point C lead time from decision to power generation is almost 15 years. Renewable projects start producing in <5 years (guesstimate). I think this is a big difference at the late stage we are in.
I'll agree with that oren, Merkel was also a bit fortunate, the last scentence with the available time frame is my main concern as well.
-
Played with the chart from energy-charts.de above. Childish but it also provides some food for thought.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1200
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1574 on: October 05, 2018, 09:24:25 AM »
Played with the chart from energy-charts.de above. Childish but it also provides some food for thought.

That chart is interesting because the literature I was reading had coal a lot higher than that.

However it does beg the question as to how the gap will be closed.

The other issue I have with that chart is that it appears to be installed capacity, not actual generation capability.  Germany, just like the UK, experiences near 0 wind days.

I recall the three day weeks in the UK in the 1970's when the miners strikes shut down the coal power stations and we only had manufacturing 3 days a week.  I remember the homes without power too.  In those days it was not that much of a hardship to live without TV, using battery radio and using paraffin lamps for light.  I wonder how the people of today would take that....
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4930
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 335
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1575 on: October 05, 2018, 09:59:05 AM »
"I remember the homes without power too.  In those days it was not that much of a hardship to live without TV, using battery radio and using paraffin lamps for light.  I wonder how the people of today would take that...."

Heeheehee. Think Amish.

Like the old Amish guy said, "I dont have a TV, bcoz if I had a TV i would watch it."

And there's work to be done, was the unspoken implication.

sidd

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1576 on: October 05, 2018, 10:56:22 AM »
Neil, you are correct and yes, the link I posted above referred to installed power. Should have noted that again and maybe also removed gas and replaced it with nuclear, á la 2009.

About closing the gap, how much energy do we need, playing with a short timeframe and not building more than necessary?
If it was a personal paycheck; we know how much we can spend, using it wisely and keeping some headroom would be the obvious choice for most.
But energy is perceived as an abundant supply that must work 24/7. That spoiled attitude began in the 70's here, with our commercial nuclear plants and cheap electricity.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1200
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1577 on: October 05, 2018, 02:46:49 PM »
Small note: nuclear is not always on. Its capacity factor is normally around 90%.

Maybe small, but it is a criticality important and profound 'note'.

The 10% is for maintenance and fuelling.  The more nuclear you have the more you can stagger it.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 681
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1578 on: October 05, 2018, 03:26:54 PM »
The linked article (& attached image) show where the IEA thinks that crude oil use will be going by 2030; and cites that growing use of petrochemicals will be an important source of GHG emissions that is typically overlooked by policymakers:

Title: "Where oil is going"

https://www.axios.com/where-oil-is-going-pretrochemicals-demand-8f2fe40e-5bd6-4923-8230-087294954959.html

Extract: "Rising use of petrochemicals that make plastics and other products will be the largest source of crude oil demand growth in coming decades, the International Energy Agency said in a new report.

The big picture: "Petrochemicals ... are set to account for more than a third of the growth in oil demand to 2030, and nearly half to 2050, ahead of trucks, aviation and shipping," the report shows.

Why it matters: The IEA report calls the topic a "blind spot" in energy policy debates.
Petrochemicals are fundamental and helpful parts of the global economy, but also pose major pollution problems and represent a growing source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1579 on: October 05, 2018, 03:42:10 PM »
Small note: nuclear is not always on. Its capacity factor is normally around 90%.

Maybe small, but it is a criticality important and profound 'note'.
Those who don't comply are shut down, like Oskarshamn-1 last year:
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=534
Energy Availability Factor: 62.2%. Our best, Forsmark-3 is at 85.2%.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1580 on: October 08, 2018, 04:16:43 AM »
SR15 is out, have fun...
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Live conference going on here:
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

silkman

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 305
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1581 on: October 08, 2018, 09:05:40 AM »
The response in the early Monday morning press - mixed but entirely predictable:

Top story and opinion pieces in the Guardian

Lead news item on the BBC

Page 13 in the Times, just behind the new, first female, Dr Who

Nothing in the Daily Mail unless you track down the Australian edition story on the Great Barrier reef

WUWT was well prepared with a predictable response though.


Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1582 on: October 08, 2018, 10:22:40 AM »
The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation's member journal headline was hilarious:
clear-message-from-IPCC-15-degree target-still-attainable
 ::)
They were probably not among those ~450 viewers that watched the press conference live.

Personally, I would vote for banning all new ff-construction right now. But that. or rather those parts, was left to policy makers... So in essence, nothing new happened tonight.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2356
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1583 on: October 08, 2018, 12:06:12 PM »
But something did happened. Acceptance at the highest level. Acceptance is the first step.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Hefaistos

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1584 on: October 08, 2018, 12:50:19 PM »
IPCC states that "B4.1. There is high confidence that the probability of a sea-ice-free Arctic Ocean during summer is substantially lower at global warming of 1.5°C when compared to 2°C. With 1.5°C of global warming, one sea ice-free Arctic summer is projected per century. This likelihood is increased to at least one per decade with 2°C global warming. Effects of a temperature overshoot are reversible for Arctic sea ice cover on decadal time scales (high confidence). {3.3.8, 3.4.4.7}"

One wonders about the timing. Currently, we're locked on 1.5C, so we likely to get one BOE within 100 years. In 3.3.8 they say: "The Arctic is very likely to have experienced at least one ice-free Arctic summer after about 10 years of stabilized warming at 2°C compared to after about 100 years of stabilized warming at 1.5°C"

They apparently haven't looked at our polls here at ASIF. :)

 
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 12:56:15 PM by Hefaistos »

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2356
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 283
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1585 on: October 08, 2018, 03:05:37 PM »
US economists win Nobel prize for work on climate and growth

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/08/two-us-economists-win-nobel-prize-for-work-on-climate-and-growth-william-nordhaus-paul-romer

Quote
Two American economists at the forefront of work on climate change and the role of governments in boosting growth have been jointly awarded the prestigious Nobel Memorial prize for economics.

The article is thin on the substance of work of these people. Anyone know any good links about their work?
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1586 on: October 08, 2018, 03:20:12 PM »
There is no (real) Nobel Prize in Astrology (or Economy).

But something did happened. Acceptance at the highest level. Acceptance is the first step.
But we've had acceptance at highest level for decades. In Sweden also along with huge amounts of positive thinking on mitigation for a decade, which still has led to zero emission reductions compared to the 90's. Which is the reason for my rolling eyes about that headline above (clear-message-from-IPCC-15-degree target-still-attainable) and also why I wrote this three years ago:
Maybe they are just trying to be positive.
But maintaining a positive attitude, while beeing lazy, will fail. It doesn't matter if you want to be successful in marathon, or be successful in mitigation.

Something like this would be better:




It's from this one (hope it's watchable elsewhere):
https://urplay.se/program/205843-ur-samtiden-baltic-sea-future-stabilitet-eller-kaos-vagval-for-klimatet
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1587 on: October 08, 2018, 08:51:15 PM »
Another way to read it, by Piers Forster:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049205023593230336.html
Quote
Too lazy to read our 30 page Summary For Policy Makers and report? Well here it is in tweets @IPCC_CH (1/n) where n is likely greater than 10 and less than 30 - now trying to thread them together - #twitterincompetence : real thing is here ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1200
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1588 on: October 09, 2018, 12:12:33 AM »
I read the summary for policy makers.  To be honest it reads like pure fantasy.

Instead I went and turned the CO2 Growth figures from NOOA into a chart.

Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1436
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 183
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1589 on: October 09, 2018, 04:06:24 AM »
Fresh from the NYT:

To Tackle Climate Change, a New U.N. Climate Report Says Put a High Price on Carbon
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/climate/carbon-tax-united-nations-report-nordhaus.html

"In its landmark report on the fast-approaching dangers of climate change, a United Nations scientific panel said on Sunday that putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions would be central for getting global warming under control....

"The concept of carbon pricing received another implicit endorsement on Monday from the Nobel Prize committee, which awarded Yale’s William D. Nordhaus a share of the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science for, among other things, making a case that “the most efficient remedy for the problems caused by greenhouse gas emissions would be a global scheme of carbon taxes that are uniformly imposed on all countries.”"
----------------------------------------------------------

The article discusses the political difficulty of carbon pricing.  Somewhat disappointingly, it doesn't mention Hansen's proposal of rebating the revenue to the citizens.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1590 on: October 09, 2018, 07:16:09 AM »
it doesn't mention Hansen's proposal of rebating the revenue to the citizens.
That part would've been in the true spirit of Alfred Nobel. Equity, peace and improving human conditions. The fake nobel prize in economy is not, it was conceived by Sweden's central bank in 1968 to celebrate themselves.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1591 on: October 09, 2018, 08:18:57 AM »
An opinion piece written in 2010 by Peter Nobel:
The young cuckoo in the Nobel prize's nest
https://www.svt.se/opinion/gokungen-i-nobelprisens-bo
A couple of quotes, hopefully understandable to native English speakers:
They got her (Martha Nobel) written permission for the economic prize "under specified conditions", namely that the new prize in all official documents and statements would be divorced from the Nobel Prize by being termed "award in economic science to Alfred Nobel's memory."

Something must be wrong, when all economic prices except two are awarded Western economists whose research and conclusions focus on the events there and under its influence. I can imagine Alfred Nobel's sarcasm if he had been told about such laureates. He wanted his prizes awarded to those who made mankind the greatest benefit, all of humanity!

From yesterday:
Nobel Prize for the economics of innovation and climate change stirs controversy
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/roles-ideas-and-climate-growth-earn-duo-economics-nobel-prize
Quote
Nordhaus's model was relatively crude, but the IPCC relies on four newer, far-more-detailed IAMs to make its predictions about how emissions and the global economy will respond to various policy measures. Crucially, Nordhaus's work suggested that carbon emissions would plummet if governments could place a price on CO2 emissions. The European Union has tried to implement such a scheme in its EU Emissions Trading System.

However, this is where some economists object to Nordhaus's work. The debate underscores a rift between environmental economists on one side and ecological economists on the other. As does Nordhaus, environmental economists apply the tools of mainstream economics to the climate problem, so their models focus on economic growth as the measure of a policy's success. That approach is problematic, ecological economists say, because it leads to trade-offs to increase growth in the short term on the assumption that it will make it easier to deal with the increased environmental damage in the long term.

But, instead of spurring governments to take action against climate change, Nordhaus's approach has been used to justify putting it off, Steinberger argues. "His kind of analysis has been used to delay, delay, delay," she says. In 1992 Nordhaus published an analysis in which he identified 3 degrees Celsius as the optimum temperature increase for the growth of capital, although he has since modified that position.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 08:39:07 AM by Sleepy »
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5220
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1592 on: October 09, 2018, 01:10:42 PM »
Sleepy
Thanks so much for exposing the economic prize & the economic prize committee.
Their selections in the past had given me pause, and caused me to doubt the whole Nobel Prize concept.
Terry

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1200
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1593 on: October 09, 2018, 06:30:48 PM »
It never fails to amuse me when scientists come up with a "carbon tax" as a way of "fixing" the fossil fuel issue.

Do they understand nothing about economies and how they work?  Introduce a carbon tax and it will introduce inflation, inflation increases wages and devalues the impact of the carbon tax.  Economies adjust to shocks like tax.

Then there is the other part.  Taxes are political.  Politicians are responsible to the people.  People vote.  It is no surprise that the most movement to get carbon out of the system has happened in China and the EU.  Why?  Because the EU commission and council are unelected, China can elect one party.  So what the "party" EU or Chinese wants, cannot be overruled by the people.

This is not the same in most of the rest of the world.  The most recent manifestation of that was in Australia.

Then there is the other factor.  Oil prices.  Check out the inflation adjusted figures.

Just how do we expect that a single "tax" is going to take care of that kind of fluctuation?  We already have so many taxes on fuels that adding another one is not going to make that much of a difference.  We have seen Oil more than double in price over a two year period, more than once.  How exactly we "tax" that kind of fluctuation so it will influence consumers is an interesting story, not one I'd like to defend.

Then we have the producers.  Tax their produce to reduce take up and they will simply increase production to the point where the price overwhelms the tax increase.  Especially where inflation has already rebalanced the budgets.  Making carbon fuels even cheaper.

Tax is an incredibly blunt instrument which is designed to be absorbed.  Otherwise how would governments ever get people to agree to tax rises without voting for the other guy???

There is only one way out of this.  Provide the alternative, make it appealing so that the mass market will buy in, then start to regulate (not tax), the carbon alternative out of the environment.  This is what Obama did.  I may hate a lot of his politics and also his attitude to the UK (even though I understand it), but I laud his achievements.

Every time I see people going on about taxing carbon I see a bunch of kids in short trousers, in the school yard, trying to fix the world's problems...  Given that I have Aphantasia, you can imagine just how evocative that image is to make it through.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1594 on: October 10, 2018, 07:22:34 AM »
Taxes are at the bottom on Meadows list.
http://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/

Quote
PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM

(in increasing order of effectiveness)

12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards).
11. The sizes of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows.
10. The structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport networks, population age structures).
9. The lengths of delays, relative to the rate of system change.
8. The strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the impacts they are trying to correct against.
7. The gain around driving positive feedback loops.
6. The structure of information flows (who does and does not have access to information).
5. The rules of the system (such as incentives, punishments, constraints).
4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure.
3. The goals of the system.
2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises.
1. The power to transcend paradigms.

I think 3,4 & 5 are the really interesting one's.

Sleepy
Thanks so much for exposing the economic prize & the economic prize committee.
Their selections in the past had given me pause, and caused me to doubt the whole Nobel Prize concept.
Terry
Thank's Terry, not much exposing on my part. Peter Nobel's critisism is merely drowning in media. Or maybe purposely drowned? Remembering is a radical act.
Peter Nobel is still alive. Here's an even older and rarer one, since it's in English:
https://www.thelocal.se/20050928/2173
Quote
(Alfred) Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being, Peter says, reiterating his vehement criticism of the Nobel Economics Prize which he says Alfred Nobel would never have created.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1595 on: October 11, 2018, 12:21:03 PM »
Guest post at SkS.
https://skepticalscience.com/SkS_Analogy_14b_Inertia_and_Inevitability.html
Quote
Inertia is your friend … until it isn’t.
Elevator Statement

Inertia delays the response …
  But for each CO2 level there is a guaranteed response …
        Be patient, the response is coming …
                     And when it finally comes there’s no going back.

Edit; adding a part of the text for the second image.
Quote
The red circle represents what Climate-Change deniers focus on (i.e., the current temperature anomaly), the blue circle represents what optimists focus on (i.e., the temperature we’ve locked in), and the black circle represents what the realists focus on, where we’re heading under current policies.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 681
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1596 on: October 14, 2018, 07:00:53 PM »
For decades James Hansen has been calling for more investment in tropical (& other) forests, but today while deforestation is 8% of the GHG problem & represents 23% of the cost-effective mitigation potential, it only receives 3% of climate mitigation funding. 

Homo sapiens is Latin for 'wise man', but I have my doubts:

Title: "By the Numbers: The Value of Tropical Forests in the Climate Change Equation"

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/numbers-value-tropical-forests-climate-change-equation

Extract: "About 8 percent of global emissions currently come from tree cover loss in tropical forests, but these same forests can provide 23 percent of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed before 2030. NDCs still fall far short of the total mitigation needed to keep 2030 emissions in line with a two degrees Celsius scenario, and about 7.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide can be mitigated annually through the management, protection, and restoration of tropical forests, mangroves and peatlands. That's equivalent to the total carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions of Russia, the European Union and Japan combined in 2014. This potential comes from the avoided emissions through stopping deforestation and degradation as well as the removal of atmospheric carbon that takes places through forest growth and restoration.

Despite this potential, forest-related finance, even for countries with high rates of deforestation, accounts for less than 3 percent of global climate mitigation-related development funding. To reach global climate goals it's critical that national and local actors alike double down on the proven strategy of reducing deforestation to mitigate climate change."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 17483
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 681
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1597 on: October 14, 2018, 07:30:05 PM »
For those who aren't aware, the IPCC carbon budget time projections make a number of incorrect assumptions, including:
1. Policymakers will act so quickly that the budgets use TCR (Transient Climate Response) values rather that ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) values.  So as policymakers are not acting quickly, climate response will be higher than the IPCC projections.

2. Recent research indicates that the mean value for the current ECS of ~3C assumed by the IPCC is too low and is currently likely in the 3C to 4C range; which means again that the IPCC projections are too low.

3. Recent research confirms that both TCR and ECS increase with continued warming; thus as policymakers are acting slowly, the IPCC projections are again too low.

4. James Hansen has repeatedly warned that climate projections should consider the combined impact on climate sensitivity of abrupt ice mass loss from ice sheets and his ice-climate feedback mechanism, and per DeConto & Pollard this sizable feedback could begin in the 2040's, but currently all IPCC projections ignore this positive feedback mechanism. 
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2589
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 301
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1598 on: October 14, 2018, 08:11:34 PM »
ASLR, thanks, as always, for that article on forest loss and cc.

I plan to dig into it further later, but did you happen to notice if it said what the major causes of deforestation were?

As I recall, clearing land for cattle grazing and for growing soy and other crops mostly used to feed cattle was one of the main causes. I do wonder whether, in most sources on the subject, the GW effects of a meat-centered diet are greatly under estimated.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Red

  • Guest
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1599 on: October 14, 2018, 10:36:28 PM »
It's always fun to journey into the past to help get a feel for how we got to Paris. A few quips from Cory Morningstar's expose.
http://www.theartofannihilation.com/part-1-expose-the-2º-death-dance-the-1º-cover-up/
The Origins of 1ºC – United Nations 1990

“…eyond 1 degree C may elicit rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage.”

– United Nations Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases

In 1986, three international bodies, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), who had co-sponsored the Villach Conference in 1985, formed the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG), a small international committee with responsibility for assessing the available scientific information about the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the likely impact.

In 1990 the AGGG calculated what level of climate change our planet could tolerate, also referred to as “environmental limits.” These levels and limits were summarized in the document, “Responding to Climate Change: Tools For Policy Development,” published by the Stockholm Environment Institute.

The targets and indicators set limits to rates and total amounts of temperature rise and sea level rise, on the basis of known behaviour of ecosystems. The AGGG report identified these limits in order to “protect both ecosystems as well as human systems.” The report states that the objective is: “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [human made] interference with the climate system.”

It adds: “Such a level should be achieved within a timeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.” Thus the report requires limits to both the total amount of change and the rate of change.

Further, they warned that a global temperature increase “beyond 1 degree C may elicit rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage.” A temperature increase of 2ºC was viewed as “an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of non-linear responses, are expected to increase rapidly.” [For “non-linear,” read “runaway global climate change.”][2]
                                               ...............................

Hansen says Arctic sea-ice passed its tipping point decades ago, and in his presentations has also specifically identified 300-325ppm as the target range for sea-ice restoration (see slide image), as did the paper: Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2:217-231. This view, by perhaps the most eminent climate scientist in America, is reinforced by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, head of the Potsdam Institute who goes further stating “Our survival would very much depend on how well we were able to draw down carbon dioxide to 280 ppm”.

2008: Hansen – Where should Humanity Aim?

A further imbalance reduction, and thus CO2 ~300-325 ppm, may be needed to restore sea ice to its area of 25 years ago.

Assessment of Target CO2

PhenomenonTarget CO2(ppm)

1. Arctic Sea Ice                                 300-325

2. Ice Sheets/Sea Level                     300-350

3. Shifting Climatic Zones                   300-350

4. Alpine Water Supplies                    300-350

5. Avoid Ocean Acidification              300-350

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf

2010: Hansen: French National Assembly May 2010

Assessment of Target CO2

PhenomenonTarget CO2 (ppm)

1. Arctic Sea Ice                                 300-350

2. Ice Sheets/Sea Level                     300-350

3. Shifting Climatic Zones                   300-350

4. Alpine Water Supplies                    300-350

5. Avoid Ocean Acidification              300-350

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2010/May2010_FrenchNationalAssembly.pdf

                                         ................................
An excerpt from Climate Code Red: ‘350 is the wrong target: put the science first’ :

… But that is only half the story. Here’s what else Hansen et al. said (emphasis added) in their article in Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2:217-231:

“Equilibrium sea level rise for today’s 385 ppm CO2 is at least several meters, judging from paleoclimate history. Accelerating mass losses from Greenland and West Antarctica heighten concerns about ice sheet stability. An initial CO2 target of 350 ppm, to be reassessed as effects on ice sheet mass balance are observed, is suggested”

It is important to note that this paragraph is not about the Arctic sea-ice tipping point, it’s about Antarctica. Hansen explains in the same article that 350ppm is a precautionary target to stop global loss of ice-sheets, because the paleoclimate record shows 450ppm ± 100ppm as boundary for glaciation/ deglaciation of Antarctica. In the next paragraph, attention turns to the question of Arctic sea ice:

“Stabilization of Arctic sea ice cover requires, to first approximation, restoration of planetary energy balance. Climate models driven by known forcings yield a present planetary energy imbalance of +0.5-1 W/m2. Observed heat increase in the upper 700 m of the ocean confirms the planetary energy imbalance, but observations of the entire ocean are needed for quantification. CO2 amount must be reduced to 325-355 ppm to increase outgoing flux 0.5-1 W/m2, if other forcings are unchanged. A further imbalance reduction, and thus CO2 ~300-325 ppm, may be needed to restore sea ice to its area of 25 years ago.”

The central point is that Arctic sea-ice is undergoing dramatic loss in summer, having lost 70-80% of its volume in the last 50 years, most since 2000. Without summer sea-ice, Greenland cannot escape a trajectory of ice-sheet loss leading to an eventual sea-level rise of 7 metres. Regional temperatures in the Arctic autumn are already up about 5C, and by mid-century an Arctic ice-free in summer, combined with more global warming, will be pushing Siberia close to the point where large-scale loss of carbon from melting permafrost would make further mitigation efforts futile. As Hansen told the US Congress in testimony last year, the “elements of a perfect storm, a global cataclysm, are assembled”.

In short, if you don’t have a target that aims to cool the planet sufficiently to get the sea-ice back, the climate system may spiral out of control, past many “tipping points” to the final “point of no return”.

And that target is not 350ppm, it’s around 300 ppm.