Strong & Lasting Growth is Good: New «climate» report

[viddaloo]

New climate report presented in Norwegian media today, Sep 16th 2014. Main focus: Growth can continue while fighting the climate crisis.

My analysis: This is of course happy–go–lucky bovine excrement fiction, but popular as such, as most people do not want to use less.



What report is this about? As always, this question is quite obscured in the media. But it was presented by Mr Stoltenberg, former Norwegian PM, future NATO Secretary General and outgoing UN Special Envoy on Climate Change. It's probably Stoltenberg's first and last climate report, as he will now focus his deceptive resources on a meaningless war against big neighbour Russia.

«The New Climate Economy» seems to be the title of the report. It seems to have the newish TLD .report: newclimateeconomy.report. The PDF is here.

«Hovudkonklusjonen er at klimavenleg politikk ikkje er ein brems, men ein pådrivar for sterk og varig økonomisk vekst.» (The main conclusion is that climate friendly policy is not a brake, but a stimulation for strong and lasting economic growth, says commission leader Felipe Calderón, according to broadcaster NRK.)

[Laurent]

That is incredibe the amount of propaganda these last days...it is not only the amount of trollers on the blog and here but as you point the infos that is sent mainly by the bbc, gardian and huffington post and certainly many other (I do not check them all). There is also the comments about the last stern report that are very good for busyness as usual (green busyness)...
(I won't post this type of sh*t). There is something on the agenda...hum hum that does explain quite a bit...

[viddaloo]

Main Norwegian news broadcast for Tuesday quotes Mr Stoltenberg saying 'We've got 15 years to avoid a climate catastrophe'. Probably trying to paint this pro–growth report in a greenish light. Its mandate was to write about climate vs. growth, so an anti–growth conclusion was probably not an option.

Edit: For people unfamiliar with this Mr Stoltenberg, he is widely considered to be the father of the deceptive carbon quota system, a new profit and greenwashing scheme that has no positive effect on the carbon emissions, but is very effective in deceiving the voters and population into believing that authorities are handling the crisis in a meaningful and efficient way.

[Bob Wallace]

I wonder if some people understand what economic growth is.

I'm afraid some are operating from their reptilian brain "Growth = Bad".

There are billions of people in the world who lead lives most of us would find very uncomfortable.  Why should we not find ways to let them live comfortable lives as long as it can be done sustainably?

[viddaloo]

There are billions of people in the world who lead lives most of us would find very uncomfortable.  Why should we not find ways to let them live comfortable lives as long as it can be done sustainably?

I thought you'd never ask! Very happy to answer that one: We should of course let 100 billion people live super–comfortable lives with free intercontinental airplane commutes for thousands of years if it could be done sustainably. It cannot. This new mega–release from the polluticians is extremely dangerous for life on Earth, and must be fought with teeth and nails and whatever else we have available.

[Bob Wallace]

I said nothing about free intercontinental flights.

Now, why cannot people live a comfortable life?  What is unsustainable about decent housing and healthcare, ample food and electricity?

[viddaloo]

Now, why cannot people live a comfortable life?  What is unsustainable about decent housing and healthcare, ample food and electricity?

I suggest you start a new topic if you want to discuss the virtues of comfort vs. discomfort (although I fail to see the relevance of such a discussion at this forum). What is imperative about sustainability has to do with the virtues of life vs. death, being a species vs. being an extinct species and so on.

Do I need to specify why life is better than death? 

[Bob Wallace]

You only want people to post if they agree with you?

I understand that but it's an unrealistic desire.

You started out with a report which stated that  " Growth can continue while fighting the climate crisis." and you called it " happy–go–lucky bovine excrement fiction".

I suspect you don't understand sustainable growth.  Comfort comes into the discussion because we have billions who need their standard of living increased and that, my friend, means economic growth.  We have most of what we need to continue growth, to improve living conditions, in a sustainable fashion.  We have no shortage of building materials, of renewable energy materials nor inability to feed everyone adequately.

[viddaloo]

You only want people to post if they agree with you?

I understand that but it's an unrealistic desire.

You started out with a report which stated that  " Growth can continue while fighting the climate crisis." and you called it " happy–go–lucky bovine excrement fiction".

No, sir. I stated clearly that My analysis was that This is of course happy–go–lucky bovine excrement pop–fiction. «Our» prime–minister's (and I believe also your) analysis is that this is a very fine «climate» report that lets us continue polluting as much and as long as we possibly can or want to.

I suspect you don't understand sustainable growth.  Comfort comes into the discussion because we have billions who need their standard of living increased and that, my friend, means economic growth.  We have most of what we need to continue growth, to improve living conditions, in a sustainable fashion.  We have no shortage of building materials, of renewable energy materials nor inability to feed everyone adequately.

I suspect you don't have the most basic clue, sir, as to what sustainability means and implies. Alternatively, you do understand what it is, and trolling is your way of avoiding it.

[Bob Wallace]

I have a very good idea of what sustainability is and how we achieve it.

Do you not?  Which might explain why you resort to name-calling.

[viddaloo]

I have a very good idea of what sustainability is and how we achieve it.

Do you not?  Which might explain why you resort to name-calling.

Asking you to please discuss elsewhere «whether» comfort is better than discomfort is not name–calling, sir. But you're just trolling, so you knew that already. Is there a way to ignore certain people on this board?

[Rubikscube]

This is of course happy–go–lucky bovine excrement fiction, but popular as such, as most people do not want to use less.

Haha, good one. I tend to agree.

That said I think Bob is right when he says that we have no shortage of building material, renewable energy and ability to feed the earth's population, but I'm not sure if this implies that we can create truly sustainable growth. There are so many aspects of our modern civilization that are non-sustainable, that includes that way we currently produce food and acquire resources in general, not just the way we acquire energy to perform these tasks.

The way I see it, economic growth is in essence increase in production. I think we can (the theory at least) acquire much more energy from renewable sources than we currently consume, but can it really be sustainable to use all that energy to produce something that will increase our standard of living? I doubt it very much.

[viddaloo]

The way I see it, economic growth is in essence increase in production. I think we can (the theory at least) acquire much more energy from renewable sources than we currently consume, but can it really be sustainable to use all that energy to produce something that will increase our standard of living? I doubt it very much.

It's impossible, Rubikscube, and the authors of this drivel know this very well. They just want to make a quick buck for themselves and their families before the shop closes.

BTW, this story about the Stoltenberg report probably should have been posted over at the Cli Fi thread.

[Laurent]

Yes, you can ignore, go to : profile>modify profile>Buddies/ignore list

[Bob Wallace]

There are so many aspects of our modern civilization that are non-sustainable, that includes that way we currently produce food and acquire resources in general, not just the way we acquire energy to perform these tasks.

Correct.  We cannot, for both supply and climatic reasons, continue to use fossil fuels.  But we can do everything we now do with fossil fuels with renewable energy.

We can't continue to build on our best agricultural land.  But we can move our building to marginal land and, to some extent, build up and not out.

[crandles]

Correct.  We cannot, for both supply and climatic reasons, continue to use fossil fuels.  But we can do everything we now do with fossil fuels with renewable energy.

Everything? Including as many passenger air miles in fast moving aeroplanes? What renewable energy would they use? Biofuel? Is there sufficient land for this as well as the food we need?

Also can electric cars be used for 500+ miles in a day? I guess exchanging batteries so you don't have to wait for recharge time could work. Electric/biofuel hybrid might work for those long journeys but would add to pressure on ability to grow enough food.

There are some materials that we only get as by-product of refining crude oil. Probably can get along OK with replacement materials for most of them. Not sure that really passes a 'we can do everything we now do with fossil fuels' test.

However in the main, I agree with you that growth is possible. We may need to curtail flights but economy can grow in different directions favouring less energy intensive activities where the energy cannot be from a sustainable source.

[Bob Wallace]

Everything? Including as many passenger air miles in fast moving aeroplanes? What renewable energy would they use? Biofuel? Is there sufficient land for this as well as the food we need?

We can move people long distance with renewables by taking them off planes and putting them on high speed rail.  Not over oceans and probably not all the way across continents, but a large portion of the travel we now do by plane can be reasonably done with electrified rail.

I can't give you a number for the amount of biofuel we can produce from non-agricultural land but it is significant.  We're already flying on biofuels.

Also can electric cars be used for 500+ miles in a day?

We can, right now.  The cars are expensive but one can drive a Tesla S for 250 miles, stop for 30 minutes and charge up another 170 miles, stop for a few more minutes at a supercharger and finish their 500 mile drive.  Someone driving an ICEV is going to stop for a meal and for a refill, about the same amount of time.

EV prices will come down as production volumes go up. 

[viddaloo]

There is also the comments about the last stern report that are very good for busyness as usual (green busyness)...

A certain Nicholas Stern has co–chaired this report, yes.

[Rubikscube]

If one were to answer whether it is possible to have a sustainable society with 7 billion humans living at generally higher standards of living than today, one must think of what such a society would look like.

First, all energy must somehow be supplied by the sun, thus eliminating both fossil fuels and nuclear. Some quite large solar farms and algae plants will be required, but I would say it is possible.

Then comes the bigger challenges such as agriculture. There is nothing sustainable with the current methods used to feed the world, erosion, soil depletion, pesticides and artificial fertilizing are all parts of the problem. On top of that comes the sheer size of land required to grow food for 7 billion of us, and I see no other solution than vertical farming, which may in it self be possible, but terribly expensive with current technologies (or would it?). Keeping up the supplies of meat and fish in a sustainable way wouldn't be any easier , perhaps in it self impossible (again that is with current technologies).

And how about construction and mining. Use of concrete surely has to be abandoned as construction grade sand in a non-renewable resource which is already becoming hard to access, and I don't know of any technology that would allow us to recycle this material properly. Biodegradable materials such as hay and wood can to some extent be used, but that would again require quite some effort to gather in the first place, hardly sustainable in a "7 billion+ world". In fact, traditional mining of any recourse is a non-sustainable activity, so in a sustainable world any metal or commodity that we would be dependant upon must be 100% recyclable.

Again I cannot see how further economic growth is todays world can be sustainable, degrowth, less consumption and less use of resources has to be the only options, though it might just be me misinterpreting the terms. If I were to be really mean though, I would say that the term "sustainable growth" is in the first place utter rubbish, growth can obviously not be sustained for more that a limited period of time.

[viddaloo]

Again I cannot see how further economic growth is todays world can be sustainable, degrowth, less consumption and less use of resources has to be the only options, though it might just be me misinterpreting the terms. If I were to be really mean though, I would say that the term "sustainable growth" is in the first place utter rubbish, growth can obviously not be sustained for more that a limited period of time.

[viddaloo]

There's no quota, Bob. No cake to share during the next 50 years or whatever time limit you imagine we have. The calculation was flawed, just as ALL the IPCC reports have been flawed. The Panel has decided that it doesn't have to consider the strong methane feedback, the permafrost thawing, the boreal and tropic forests burning, and so on and so forth.

Your generation - my parent generation - destroyed everything. Now we are left with survival in an unmanaged crash. Plus all your lies, of course.

[Bob Wallace]

Thank you for calling me a liar.

That's such a pleasant way to run a discussion.

[Bob Wallace]

Now that I've reacted to your dickish behavior let me respond to the topic.

I've been watching to see how the greater community of climate scientists is reacting to the IPCC "40% to 70% by 2050".  I see no outcry about it being too conservative.  The people making noise, as far as I can tell, have no background in climate science and are just reacting out of emotion, not facts.

And a bit from Krugman's recent piece on renewables...

"I’ve just been reading two new reports on the economics of fighting climate change: a big study by a blue-ribbon international group, the New Climate Economy Project, and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both claim that strong measures to limit carbon emissions would have hardly any negative effect on economic growth, and might actually lead to faster growth. This may sound too good to be true, but it isn’t. These are serious, careful analyses.

But you know that such assessments will be met with claims that it’s impossible to break the link between economic growth and ever-rising emissions of greenhouse gases, a position I think of as “climate despair.” The most dangerous proponents of climate despair are on the anti-environmentalist right. But they receive aid and comfort from other groups, including some on the left, who have their own reasons for getting it wrong."


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/opinion/paul-krugman-could-fighting-global-warming-be-cheap-and-free.html

[ccgwebmaster]

There's no quota, Bob. No cake to share during the next 50 years or whatever time limit you imagine we have. The calculation was flawed, just as ALL the IPCC reports have been flawed. The Panel has decided that it doesn't have to consider the strong methane feedback, the permafrost thawing, the boreal and tropic forests burning, and so on and so forth.

Your generation - my parent generation - destroyed everything. Now we are left with survival in an unmanaged crash. Plus all your lies, of course.

Actually I think the IPCC did consider those things - generally you'll find they're mentioned, just excluded from consideration due to being insufficiently known/understood.

That of course makes no difference to the underlying balance of near certainty that those things actually make the probably situation far worse than stated, and they are too conservative in that respect. There are an increasing number of individual scientists who are to be found in positions significantly worse than the IPCC.

And while I agree about the key role played by the last two generations in bringing us to this pass - my generation is not entirely exempt (possibly yours too I suspect), and almost universally failing to engage with the responsibility it has to deal with the problems inherited from the past and to do something productive moving into the future. You'd need to be pretty young not to fall within that range? I mean - being old enough to understand the problem and engage with it here - likely means being old enough to act solidly with respect to it, right?

[viddaloo]

Thank you for calling me a liar.

That's such a pleasant way to run a discussion.

Bob, please show me where I call you a liar.

You present lies, that doesn't necessarily make you a liar. Maybe you even believe the US & Europe have peaked in CO₂ emissions? That's hard for me to know. If so, you are not really lying about those all–important things, just spreading misinfo.

[Bob Wallace]

I post lies but that doesn't make me a liar.

What a wonderful tap dance. 
---

European total GHG emissions...




US CO2 emission post 2005




Now, do you have data that  proves those graphs incorrect?

[viddaloo]

Apples and oranges, Bob. Last night I caught fewer fish than some weeks ago. Does that mean Norwegian CO₂ emissions went down in that period? Of course not.

[ccgwebmaster]

Now, do you have data that  proves those graphs incorrect?

You're cherry picking the data though. So you can show US and European carbon dioxide emissions went down? Great - except the actual emissions continued to rise if you take into account consumed products. Just because you play some sleight of hand and outsource your manufacturing (mostly to China) doesn't suddenly make you a paragon of virtue when your resource footprint as measured through consumption is continuing to rise. And in the end, who cares where in the world the carbon is emitted - we're all cooked the same in the end regardless.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2011/apr/28/carbon-emissions-imports-exports-trade

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13187156

So you get to be all virtuous and all, but really - nothing has changed. That's what makes this argument so dangerous and disingenuous. The modern system continues unchecked, consuming resources and polluting rampantly, until resource supply is insufficient to operate it - or pollution overtakes our capacity to survive in the numbers that we do.

This is of course why Kyoto proved entirely useless, achieving nothing more than shuffling emissions around the globe somewhat as far as I can see. Oh, but now we get to blame China and use them as an excuse for inaction, right?

[Bob Wallace]

OK, you can't disprove the data presented in the graph.  Both the US and the EU have cut CO2 emissions since 2005 and 1990, respectively.

You're not a big enough person to admit that you might have been mistaken when you called me a liar?

BTW, here's the data I find for Norway's CO2 per capita emissions. 

2004 = 10.1
2005 = 10
2006 = 10.6
2007 = 9.5
2008 = 9.4
2009 = 8.9
2010 = 9.4
2011= 9.1
2012 = 8.8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Lacking any 2013 data, it certainly looks like Norway's emissions may have peaked later than most of the EU but they do seem to have peaked and dropped.  Down 17% from the peak. 

And down 12% since the IPCC reference year of 2005.  That makes for a good start on the 40% to 70% goal.

[Csnavywx]

http://www.withouthotair.com/

I suddenly feel the need to post this here again. Unlike the report, he actually did his math on what it would take to implement the renewables that are necessary to achieve a 'low-carbon growth economy'.

The math isn't all that pretty, at least yet.

[Bob Wallace]

You're cherry picking the data though. So you can show US and European carbon dioxide emissions went down? Great - except the actual emissions continued to rise if you take into account consumed products.

Most of the industrial movement from the US to China happened long before 2005.  The US is down 10% since 2005.

[Bob Wallace]

http://www.withouthotair.com/

I suddenly feel the need to post this here again. Unlike the report, he actually did his math on what it would take to implement the renewables that are necessary to achieve a 'low-carbon growth economy'.

The math isn't all that pretty, at least yet.

And I'll copy over the first two paragaphs of Krugman's article published a couple days ago -

This just in: Saving the planet would be cheap; it might even be free. But will anyone believe the good news?

I’ve just been reading two new reports on the economics of fighting climate change: a big study by a blue-ribbon international group, the New Climate Economy Project, and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both claim that strong measures to limit carbon emissions would have hardly any negative effect on economic growth, and might actually lead to faster growth. This may sound too good to be true, but it isn’t. These are serious, careful analyses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/opinion/paul-krugman-could-fighting-global-warming-be-cheap-and-free.html

I took a very quick look at your linked paper and found the author using data from 2008 -

. As a very rough ballpark figure in 2008, installing one watt of
capacity costs one pound; one kilowatt costs 1000 pounds; a megawatt of
wind costs a million; a gigawatt of nuclear costs a billion or perhaps two.
Other renewables are more expensive.

The cost of wind and solar look nothing at all in 2014 like 2008 prices. 

*The costs of generating electricity from all forms of utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) technology continue to decline dramatically. The study estimates that the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of leading PV technologies has fallen by nearly 20% in the past year, and nearly 80% in the last five years.

*Land-based wind-generation costs also continue to decline dramatically. The study estimates that the LCOE of leading technologies has fallen by more than 15% in the past year, and nearly 60% in the last five years.

http://www.evwind.es/2014/09/19/levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis/47531

[viddaloo]

Europe certainly didn't peak its CO₂ emissions in 1990, and USA surely didn't peak its in 2005. Europe != EU, and America != its energy sector. So yeah, the word cherrypicking comes to mind. And oh, I never called you a liar, so there's a lie, right there.... 

[Bob Wallace]

You're an interesting character.

Present you data you don't like and you call it a lie.

[Csnavywx]

Bob,

Yes, the book was written a few years ago.

Even with further reductions of cost in solar and wind, and a very significant reduction in consumption (40% per capita), it's still not enough. Flip to the next page, and you'll see what I'm talking about. It requires massive build-out, NOW. That takes a LOT of space and a LOT of time. To be sure, the building bonanza would create a big boom.

[Csnavywx]

To clarify, my point is:

Emissions MUST go to zero. Even a very aggressive carbon reduction plan from here on out would not do that for ~50 years, making 2+C a reality. This means we will also have to offset emissions from the PCF (Permafrost Carbon Feedback), which are likely to be in the 2 Gt/C per year range by then (enough to offset the ocean sink) if we are to get back to a safe level of CO2.

[Bob Wallace]

No, a wind and solar build out will not require a large amount of space.

For example, were we to power the US 100% with solar panels the space required for all 50 states would equal 0.3% of the contiguous 48.   We won't use 100% solar, perhaps 40% so we're talking largely existing rooftop, parking lot and brownfield space.

Were we to power the US 100% with 3 MW wind turbines we'd use 147 square miles or 0.004% of all US land area.  Since onshore wind will likely be no more than 40% then we'd use less than one "Disney World" or less than three "Manhattan Islands".  And the industry is starting to move to larger turbines.  (Lots more electricity from the same footprint.)

Time?  The US is transforming about 1% of its electricity production from fossil fuels to wind this year and is on track to transform about 0.5% to solar next year.  We're only getting warmed up.

Moving from 70% fossil fuels, worldwide, to 0% fossil fuels over a 35 year span means changing over 2% a year.  That is doable.  And, if you read the Krugman piece, practically free.

Yes, this will create a lot of growth over the next 35 years.  Not only due to building capacity but also fueled by lower energy costs and lowered heath costs.  After the "boom" is over we'll be left with cheaper, healthier energy and the jobs needed to maintain the renewable infrastructure will likely equal or exceed the number of jobs lost in fossil fuel industries.

Do remember, there is hardly a single thermal plant on the globe today that will still be in working condition 35 years from now.  Some gas plants which run at very low capacity should be in good shape and a few recently built reactors and coal plants.  But, in general, we are going to replace most of today's generation with something over the next 35 years.  It's work and cost already scheduled.  It's simply a matter of whether we install fossil fuels or renewables.

 

[Bob Wallace]

To clarify, my point is:

Emissions MUST go to zero. Even a very aggressive carbon reduction plan from here on out would not do that for ~50 years, making 2+C a reality. This means we will also have to offset emissions from the PCF (Permafrost Carbon Feedback), which are likely to be in the 2 Gt/C per year range by then (enough to offset the ocean sink) if we are to get back to a safe level of CO2.

Can you show me a scientific organization that supports your claim that emissions must go to zero?

I don't mean an environmental group making that claim, but an organization of climate scientists.

The IPCC says a 30% to 60% reduction by 2050.  Have you seen a climate science organization disagree?

[Csnavywx]

Bob,

For a look at the PCF and how it relates to the IPCC's emission scenarios:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Macdougall.html

The IPCC does not explicity consider PCF in these scenarios in AR5.

There are other issues as well, but that's one of the big ones. I'm not faulting them for it because the process and the amount of time it takes to compile the report always precludes newer science.

[Csnavywx]

To clarify, my point is:

Emissions MUST go to zero. Even a very aggressive carbon reduction plan from here on out would not do that for ~50 years, making 2+C a reality. This means we will also have to offset emissions from the PCF (Permafrost Carbon Feedback), which are likely to be in the 2 Gt/C per year range by then (enough to offset the ocean sink) if we are to get back to a safe level of CO2.

Can you show me a scientific organization that supports your claim that emissions must go to zero?

I don't mean an environmental group making that claim, but an organization of climate scientists.

The IPCC says a 30% to 60% reduction by 2050.  Have you seen a climate science organization disagree?

Sure, the IPCC.

If you'll notice, RCP 2.6 assumes zero emissions around 2070 and then net negative thereafter. This is also the only one of the 4 scenarios that avoids 2C.

[Csnavywx]

I have to emphasize that the only reason RCP 2.6 doesn't go over 2C is due to net negative emissions in ~55 years. Simply going to zero probably wouldn't do it.

[Bob Wallace]

Thanks, I'll have to chew on that SS article for a while.  (I'm kind of worn out from mixing/pouring part of my garage floor at the moment.)

"RCP 2.6 assumes zero emissions around 2070 and then net negative thereafter"

I'm not really looking that far ahead.  I generally don't find it productive to attempt long term predictions/plans, even out 20 years.  Thinking back to  what we knew 20 years ago and how much more knowledge we have now it would have been impossible to predict then what is now possible.

I think what we do right now is set a reasonable target.  One that is reachable.  If we can put ourselves on track to cut CO2 40% to 70% (70% is better) by 2050 then we don't leave the people 20, 30, 40 years from now with a potentially impossible task.

It seems to me that 70% is very reachable by 2050 using only today's technology.  Between now and 2070 we're going to need to figure out how to drop to 0% and then start removing CO2. 

The worst thing we could do right now, IMHO, it to declare that we don't know how to get to zero and start a decline, therefore do nothing.  Let's do what we can and try to improve what we can do as we go along.

[viddaloo]

This analogy is a pretty accurate description of the Norwegian Parliament's climate promises through the years, only adjusted for time of the onset: I start (thinking about) quitting the cigaret in 2014, they do the same for CO₂ emissions in 1989:

Smoking is fatal and dangerous, so I've decided to quit smoking. To show that I really mean this, I will here and now commit myself to stabilizing my cigaret consumption to 2014 levels by 2025. And if I somehow should not find the time for such an important stabilization during just 11 years, then I will in 2037 commit myself to becoming cigaret neutral by 2075, to later reevaluate my promise once more, in 2038. I will then promise to become cigaret neutral by 2055. For real!

[viddaloo]

Paying other people in poorer countries to quit smoking instead of me is of course the cheapest and most efficient way to achieve cigaret neutrality....

[wili]

And then there's:

http://www.cheatneutral.com/