As a loyal reader, I demand a retraction and clarification of several points which are clearly UNTRUE.
1. Your first line in this piece says: "Carbon emissions stopped growing in 2015 for the first time in 10 years ". That is clearly FALSE. Last year CO2 levels peaked at just under 404 ppm. This year it rose to just under 408ppm.
That chart shows the last two years of official CO2 measurements from Hawaii (aka 'the keeling curve'). Did "Carbon emissions stopped growing in 2015"? NO!
2. The sub headline says: "Move towards renewable energy and away from coal power helped stall emissions growth last year ..." Again, this is FALSE. There was no stall as the measurements in the link above clearly show.
3. The link to the BP website is farcical. It's slick PR. And suggests that the article is based on exactly that - a BP press release.
This article misleads the public - most of whom probably don't completely understand the science and the observations - or the statistical distortions of the fossil fuel industry. Worse yet, the article's headlines may be quoted by those who oppose the Guardian's 'Keep It In The Ground' campaign. It certainly makes me wonder at the sincerity of your divestment efforts.
The real story is this: Last year the CO2 level was nearly 404 ppm, but if you add the equivalent warming from the other GHGs it adds another 79 ppm. So while CO2 alone is 404 ppm, the other gases raise the warming equivalent to 483ppm. In other words, CO2 + other GHG = CO2e (equivalent CO2) which is currently at 483 ppm. And that number is growing rapidly. Why? Because natural gas (methane) is leaking from fracking sites and leaky gas pipes as other Guardian articles have mentioned.
I would urge you to go to http://www.roastedelephant.net and sign up for the free courses on climate change. CC102 - Understanding Climate Science is useful as a first point of exposure for those who do not understand the basics.
Please, explain the Guardian's position. Are you a crusading independent newspaper, or are you resigned to follow the fossil energy industry PR line?
Finally, the thing that people need to understand before they get irrationally excited about wind and solar is who is burning the coal.
As usual, its the Chinese. Who are burning more than half of it. Around 3.5 billion tons a year, and about 4 or 5 times the amount the next biggest (America) is doing. America is about on a par with India, from memory around 800 million.
So the idea that every little helps, we all have to do our bit, bike to work etc, live a low carbon lifestyle, and that the UK can have any more effect on all this than Tuvalu by its own actions....
Its pure fantasy and wishful thinking. Its denialism.
Generating stations are not cars. and the only thing your reply shows is that you don't have the numbers.
The question is, which country has lowered its emissions by installing wind and solar. And the answer seems to be that we do not know one.
The question is, how does coal consumption vary when plotted against wind and solar generation output. And the answer is, we do not know.
But we are still dead sure that its a great idea, and we should install as much wind and solar as possible, and anyone who doubts it is a denier, and no we don't have the numbers.
We are thinking about the future of the planet. Don't both us with asking for evidence!
Its also worth looking hard at what is actually going on in Germany with the Energiewende. If you read what Gabriel has been saying over the last couple of years - the latest is the interview with Wustenhagen in March this year in Die Zeit - the reality on the ground is not what people who comment here think. There were earlier presentations and reports, one in De Welt in I think January of this year, and an earlier one to the renewables industry which was very blunt indeed.
They are just not getting to where you all want to go, and think you can go, by the means which you all are claiming will infallibly get us there.
In 2000 Germany had under 10,000 MW installed capacity of wind and solar. In 2013 it had 70,000 and rising. During this same period, with a dip in 2008 probably due to the recession, coal consumption started at 85 Mtoe and ended at about 80.
If you were right, there should be a case of a country which has seen falls in coal burning which is proportional to the rise in installed wind and solar capacity. If you were right, it should be possible to produce monthly charts of coal consumption by the grid and they should show falls in coal consumption in line with wind and solar generation.
Just produce them. It would be very interesting. With some sort of statistical analysis.
The idea that wind and solar can be integrated into the grid and will simply reduce the coal consumption of the existing stations by an amount proportional to the generation of electricity by wind and solar is, like most of the green arguments on climate matters, a vast over simplification of a very complex issue. No, it is not 'just 200 year old physics'.
The following is an interesting read on the subject. I do not know the answer in quantitative terms, I just know its not at all simple, and that citing amounts generated over a month is not illuminating at all. Any more than claiming that GDP rose, when it rose due to manufacture of goods which were not needed is illuminating. I am still struck by the remarks in the article that attribute the reduction in coal to a rise in gas.
No, its not what happens. What happens is they keep on burning the fuel but they do not generate electricity and feed it to the grid. This is because you cannot turn off the plants and then turn them back on again in any reasonable time and without destroying them.
The result is that you can generate several hundred percent of your electricity from solar and wind, especially wind, and not save materially on coal burning.
I already read @Mazter's response correcting you, but thought it would be good for you to understand that you are talking 100% rubbish in saying such things.
I've seen you before saying the same stuff too and it would be good if you would stop.
Have you heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
If a power station is converting the chemical potential energy from coal, oil or gas into heat energy, and a large portion of that heat is not subsequently being converted into electrical energy which is absorbed by demand from the grid, what do you think would happen?
Do you have the slightest idea how large the boilers are on a coal-fired power station?
Let's just play a thought experiment - I have a 2.4GW power station built in the 70s and the grid has contracted me to run it as 'spinning reserve'.
So I allow the steam turbines to run at 10% of their rated power (typical stable minimum output). So the grid is now absorbing only 240MW.
You seem to think that I would need to continue burning 2.4/0.4 (typical thermal efficiency of such a plant) = 6GW's worth of coal.
Now, where do you think that 5.76GW of power is going to be absorbed?
Would you like to stand next to a boiler the size of a very large building as it absorbed so much energy every second that wasn't going anywhere?
Or even several miles away?
But even before you turned your asset into a very large bomb, have you never stopped to think that the grid is not going to pay you to burn 5.76GW of coal if you are only 'spinning reserve'.
So please stop being silly and start understanding how the grid actually works rather than spouting such ignorant guff.
I posted already a link to an article showing gas reducing in line with wind generation. Renewables are not the whole answer, but saying "they keep on burning the fuel but they do not generate electricity and feed it to the grid" is just wrong.
Lets see the numbers. When Portugal produced all its electricity from renewables the other month, how much coal did it burn? How has coal burned fluctuated in the UK in recent months? Why is it that coal consumption fell as a result of the US converting to gas, rather than the huge increase in wind and solar?
Yes, maybe you burn a bit less. But if you sincerely want to get CO2 emissions down by significant percentages, neither wind nor solar are going to do it for you. Far better to put the money into reducing demand, going nuclear. Or abolishing automobiles and all that goes along with them.
It can be done. But if the goal is emission reduction, rather than the merits or otherwise of wind and solar, the task is to get the most reduction for the investment fastest.
No-one has ever made the case that wind and solar (still less biofuels) are the way to do this.
It is possible but I would wait for the actually most reliable sources which include things like construction which BP don't include. These come out in about November / December because the verification process to come through.
The current level of accounted emissions would be to add over 4ppm from man made emissions. The record increase in CO2 is not the same as stating that the CO2 emissions necessarily increased but mainly that the sinks were struggling.
We've turned the corner and things are looking up. In 20 years people will have forgotten about global warming just as we have about the Ozone layer which was once ecotopic number one.
Most likely, in 20 years time people will be crying out to have politicians' heads put on spikes. We have just passed 1.5C in the instrumental record with lags in the system. By 2030, 450ppm CO2 will be locked in which is above the level for 2C.
You haven't got a clue about this or what it would take to fix the problem.
Then also when they say carbon emissions that is without including methane which is far less well accounted but again increased in the atmosphere when stable emissions would be flat.
No, its not what happens. What happens is they keep on burning the fuel but they do not generate electricity and feed it to the grid
We've had this discussion before when I gave you info on the restart procedures to get plants back up to temperature. So you are well aware that they do reduce or stop burning fuel as generation reduces or stops.
Only a fool would think a FF plant continues to burn the same fuel, whilst having no outlet for the heat/energy.
You're right to be skeptical: "zero emissions biofuels" is OK in principle.
As long as you absorb CO2 from the atmosphere into growing plant matter at the rate rate as you emit it from power stations by burning plant matter.
That's the first and most fundamental point.
Furthermore, you burning and growing at the same rate is not the end of the story. You cannot reduce vast tracts of land to monoculture without risking a range of side effects including
- Food price increases (displaced crops) - Environmental degradation: species displacement, land impoverishment, reduced parallel CO2 or equivalent removal from the atmosphere.
In short, you can have a lovely balanced zero net CO2 emission thing with vast palm monocultures or whatnot, and nevertheless have a net CO2 emission from the collateral damage to the environment.
The answer, as fas as I can tell:
Biofuel is OK as long as it is only waste matter which is regenerated at the same rate. Which is the same as when humanity lived by burning fallen branches and trees in forests: waste wood.
As the article points out, you can save on coal burning. Convert the plants to gas. That replaces one quality of supply with the same quality, by burning a different fuel. That really does lower coal burning. So does nuclear. This is why wind is so totally useless.
No, its not what happens. What happens is they keep on burning the fuel but they do not generate electricity and feed it to the grid. This is because you cannot turn off the plants and then turn them back on again in any reasonable time and without destroying them.
The result is that you can generate several hundred percent of your electricity from solar and wind, especially wind, and not save materially on coal burning.
These are not ways of generating electricity for which there is demand when there is that demand. Its a bit like Soviet Russia, meeting its five year plans by producing far more tractors than anyone could use, just at the time of year when they were not needed, and failing to make the t-shirts that everyone was desperate for.
Its not about the gross electricity produced. Its about the match to the demand and the consistency of delivery. Failing that, all you are doing is generating garbage at enormous expense.
2 different things. If global carbon emissions never change again, ppm will continue to increase, because the amount we're emitting is unsustainable. To stop growth in ppm, we need to stop the annual increase in emissions, and then rapidly reduce emissions levels. This article is suggesting that maybe we have nearly achieved part 1.
That's nowhere near good enough to avoid dangerous global warming. The remaining carbon budget per person in the world is 85 tonnes CO2 to (optimistically) stay below 2˚C.
Current emissions of 5 tonnes per person mean a reduction of 5% a year is needed - in order make 85 tonnes last until the magic of large scale carbon extraction can save the climate in the second half of this century. (http://ow.ly/c9Nv3014SWS )
No - it means burning ethanol from sugarcane. There are serious problems with the land use change associated with energy crops, but it's not as direct as clearing rainforest to grow them. you could read this if you're interested.
What is happening is that installing renewables does not reduce emissions, because it does not reduce conventional fuel consumption.
Yes it does. When FF generation is reduced or halted, the FF plants burn less fuel. That's the desired, and actual result of deploying renewables.
Hopefully in the longer run, we'll also be able to remove the need for FF capacity, but that is, admittedly, a more difficult challenge. For now, let's just use them less.
What is happening is that installing renewables does not reduce emissions, because it does not reduce conventional fuel consumption.
That's just not true, and I struggle to see how you take that from the paragraphs you quoted. I've just been pointed to this article which gives empirical evidence of how renewables reduce gas use.
What on earth are you talking about Frank ? Let's just quote directly from BP's report :
"Renewable energy used in power generation grew by 15.2%, slightly below the 10-year average growth of 15.9% but a record increment (+213 terawatt-hours), which was roughly equal to all of the increase in global power generation. Renewables accounted for 6.7% of global power generation."
Since we are only expecting renewables to contribute to electricity generation at this stage, this is pretty good.
Where did you get the figure of 0.2% increase for renewables ? Made it up ?
Coal consumption fell worldwide by 1.8% last year even as the price slumped by 20%, the latest BP statistics show. Much of the decline was a result of the US switching from its own coal supplies to shale gas for generating electricity at power stations.
But
Wind power capacity grew by 17.4% and solar by 32.6% last year with China overtaking Germany and the US as the largest generator of solar. America’s overall renewable energy capacity increased by 19.7%, Germany’s by 10.9% and Britain’s by only 4.8%.
What is happening is that installing renewables does not reduce emissions, because it does not reduce conventional fuel consumption.
Ask: how much did coal consumption in the UK fall during the last month when solar supposedly generated more than coal?
"BP says..." there are already comments - first throw garbage, then talk about the distaster; finally give order to collect the garbage. It's excactly like listen to bankers for the solution of financial crisis (the one of 2008)
Hooray! The rate of CO2 emission only grew by 0.1%. From it's highest ever values. Using stats that are dubious at best. From actors who need to lie to justify their position. While the actual annual growth jump in measured atmospheric CO2 concentration is the biggest ever.
Does anyone believe a word any oil company says these days as their record for lying is now cast in stone? These fools have not the sense to know that a liar can 'never' be trusted even if they tell the truth at some stage vis 'cry wolf'!
To boot there's another article on Exxon's CEO Rex Tillerman, imagine that the Exxon CEO a tillerman rather than drillerman. Anyway, Mike Maccracken's "Challenging ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson on Climate Change" June 8, 2016:
"Exxon’s leading climate change scientist for the past several decades, Dr. Brian Flannery, co-authored the chapter on projecting climate change. His chapter concluded that “climate models currently available, when run with standard scenarios of fossil fuel CO2 emissions, indicate a global warming of the order of 1ºC by the year 2000, relative to the year 1850, and an additional 2º-5ºC warmingover the next century.” That projection was made three decades ago and is still the case today.": http://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/challenging-exxonmobil-ceo-rex-tillerson-on-climate-change?_ga=1.102659842.207012257.1465437929
World carbon emissions stopped growing in 2015, says BP
Comments
BP!Liars and Disaster, Oil Spill on Gulf of Mexico. ...incompetence and Catastrophy. My Compliments!
As a loyal reader, I demand a retraction and clarification of several points which are clearly UNTRUE.
1. Your first line in this piece says: "Carbon emissions stopped growing in 2015 for the first time in 10 years ". That is clearly FALSE. Last year CO2 levels peaked at just under 404 ppm. This year it rose to just under 408ppm.
CO2 emissions are continuing to grow as we can see here: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.png
That chart shows the last two years of official CO2 measurements from Hawaii (aka 'the keeling curve'). Did "Carbon emissions stopped growing in 2015"? NO!
2. The sub headline says: "Move towards renewable energy and away from coal power helped stall emissions growth last year ..." Again, this is FALSE. There was no stall as the measurements in the link above clearly show.
3. The link to the BP website is farcical. It's slick PR. And suggests that the article is based on exactly that - a BP press release.
This article misleads the public - most of whom probably don't completely understand the science and the observations - or the statistical distortions of the fossil fuel industry. Worse yet, the article's headlines may be quoted by those who oppose the Guardian's 'Keep It In The Ground' campaign. It certainly makes me wonder at the sincerity of your divestment efforts.
The real story is this: Last year the CO2 level was nearly 404 ppm, but if you add the equivalent warming from the other GHGs it adds another 79 ppm. So while CO2 alone is 404 ppm, the other gases raise the warming equivalent to 483ppm. In other words, CO2 + other GHG = CO2e (equivalent CO2) which is currently at 483 ppm. And that number is growing rapidly. Why? Because natural gas (methane) is leaking from fracking sites and leaky gas pipes as other Guardian articles have mentioned.
I would urge you to go to http://www.roastedelephant.net and sign up for the free courses on climate change. CC102 - Understanding Climate Science is useful as a first point of exposure for those who do not understand the basics.
Please, explain the Guardian's position. Are you a crusading independent newspaper, or are you resigned to follow the fossil energy industry PR line?
Finally, the thing that people need to understand before they get irrationally excited about wind and solar is who is burning the coal.
As usual, its the Chinese. Who are burning more than half of it. Around 3.5 billion tons a year, and about 4 or 5 times the amount the next biggest (America) is doing. America is about on a par with India, from memory around 800 million.
So the idea that every little helps, we all have to do our bit, bike to work etc, live a low carbon lifestyle, and that the UK can have any more effect on all this than Tuvalu by its own actions....
Its pure fantasy and wishful thinking. Its denialism.
At this point you should realise that only a fool would think a FF plant continues to burn the same fuel, whilst having no outlet for the heat/energy.
Generating stations are not cars. and the only thing your reply shows is that you don't have the numbers.
The question is, which country has lowered its emissions by installing wind and solar. And the answer seems to be that we do not know one.
The question is, how does coal consumption vary when plotted against wind and solar generation output. And the answer is, we do not know.
But we are still dead sure that its a great idea, and we should install as much wind and solar as possible, and anyone who doubts it is a denier, and no we don't have the numbers.
We are thinking about the future of the planet. Don't both us with asking for evidence!
Here's a thought - since I doubt any information you are given will convince you otherwise - why not do your own research.
See how much fuel you car burns on full power at high load, then compare that consumption to:-
1. Your car parked and idling under no load.
2. Your car parked with the engine off.
At this point you should realise that only a fool would think a FF plant continues to burn the same fuel, whilst having no outlet for the heat/energy.
Its also worth looking hard at what is actually going on in Germany with the Energiewende. If you read what Gabriel has been saying over the last couple of years - the latest is the interview with Wustenhagen in March this year in Die Zeit - the reality on the ground is not what people who comment here think. There were earlier presentations and reports, one in De Welt in I think January of this year, and an earlier one to the renewables industry which was very blunt indeed.
They are just not getting to where you all want to go, and think you can go, by the means which you all are claiming will infallibly get us there.
Only a fool would think a FF plant continues to burn the same fuel, whilst having no outlet for the heat/energy.
In 2000 Germany had under 10,000 MW installed capacity of wind and solar. In 2013 it had 70,000 and rising. During this same period, with a dip in 2008 probably due to the recession, coal consumption started at 85 Mtoe and ended at about 80.
If you were right, there should be a case of a country which has seen falls in coal burning which is proportional to the rise in installed wind and solar capacity. If you were right, it should be possible to produce monthly charts of coal consumption by the grid and they should show falls in coal consumption in line with wind and solar generation.
Just produce them. It would be very interesting. With some sort of statistical analysis.
The idea that wind and solar can be integrated into the grid and will simply reduce the coal consumption of the existing stations by an amount proportional to the generation of electricity by wind and solar is, like most of the green arguments on climate matters, a vast over simplification of a very complex issue. No, it is not 'just 200 year old physics'.
The following is an interesting read on the subject. I do not know the answer in quantitative terms, I just know its not at all simple, and that citing amounts generated over a month is not illuminating at all. Any more than claiming that GDP rose, when it rose due to manufacture of goods which were not needed is illuminating. I am still struck by the remarks in the article that attribute the reduction in coal to a rise in gas.
http://euanmearns.com/the-balancing-capacity-issue-a-ticking-time-bomb-under-the-uks-energiewende/
Yes, it is in a blog. And worse, its in a blog on the Climate Index. Never mind, its the arguments that count not where they are published.
I already read @Mazter's response correcting you, but thought it would be good for you to understand that you are talking 100% rubbish in saying such things.
I've seen you before saying the same stuff too and it would be good if you would stop.
Have you heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
If a power station is converting the chemical potential energy from coal, oil or gas into heat energy, and a large portion of that heat is not subsequently being converted into electrical energy which is absorbed by demand from the grid, what do you think would happen?
Do you have the slightest idea how large the boilers are on a coal-fired power station?
Let's just play a thought experiment - I have a 2.4GW power station built in the 70s and the grid has contracted me to run it as 'spinning reserve'.
So I allow the steam turbines to run at 10% of their rated power (typical stable minimum output). So the grid is now absorbing only 240MW.
You seem to think that I would need to continue burning 2.4/0.4 (typical thermal efficiency of such a plant) = 6GW's worth of coal.
Now, where do you think that 5.76GW of power is going to be absorbed?
Would you like to stand next to a boiler the size of a very large building as it absorbed so much energy every second that wasn't going anywhere?
Or even several miles away?
But even before you turned your asset into a very large bomb, have you never stopped to think that the grid is not going to pay you to burn 5.76GW of coal if you are only 'spinning reserve'.
So please stop being silly and start understanding how the grid actually works rather than spouting such ignorant guff.
I posted already a link to an article showing gas reducing in line with wind generation. Renewables are not the whole answer, but saying "they keep on burning the fuel but they do not generate electricity and feed it to the grid" is just wrong.
Lets see the numbers. When Portugal produced all its electricity from renewables the other month, how much coal did it burn? How has coal burned fluctuated in the UK in recent months? Why is it that coal consumption fell as a result of the US converting to gas, rather than the huge increase in wind and solar?
Yes, maybe you burn a bit less. But if you sincerely want to get CO2 emissions down by significant percentages, neither wind nor solar are going to do it for you. Far better to put the money into reducing demand, going nuclear. Or abolishing automobiles and all that goes along with them.
It can be done. But if the goal is emission reduction, rather than the merits or otherwise of wind and solar, the task is to get the most reduction for the investment fastest.
No-one has ever made the case that wind and solar (still less biofuels) are the way to do this.
Who would ever trust BP to tell the truth EVER?
Remember the Gulf oil spill... and everything they said then?
Que? You won't have seen any isotopic ratios for 2015. Nor does it define in the short-term what the source was?
It is possible but I would wait for the actually most reliable sources which include things like construction which BP don't include. These come out in about November / December because the verification process to come through.
The current level of accounted emissions would be to add over 4ppm from man made emissions. The record increase in CO2 is not the same as stating that the CO2 emissions necessarily increased but mainly that the sinks were struggling.
NASA now have a satellite which shows where the high emissions into the atmosphere are coming from. It was launched in 2014.
This was their simulation in 2006
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=11719
And this is the data from OCO-2 which is now orbiting the earth and monitoring CO2 in the atmosphere
http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/nasas-spaceborne-carbon-counter-maps-new-details
Most likely, in 20 years time people will be crying out to have politicians' heads put on spikes. We have just passed 1.5C in the instrumental record with lags in the system. By 2030, 450ppm CO2 will be locked in which is above the level for 2C.
You haven't got a clue about this or what it would take to fix the problem.
It is probably reliable, it most certainly is not the gold standard
The only verifiable set of statistics at this stage though are for the ppm in the atmosphere and 2015 showed a record rise in atmospheric CO2 ppm.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
Then also when they say carbon emissions that is without including methane which is far less well accounted but again increased in the atmosphere when stable emissions would be flat.
We've had this discussion before when I gave you info on the restart procedures to get plants back up to temperature. So you are well aware that they do reduce or stop burning fuel as generation reduces or stops.
Only a fool would think a FF plant continues to burn the same fuel, whilst having no outlet for the heat/energy.
You're right to be skeptical: "zero emissions biofuels" is OK in principle.
As long as you absorb CO2 from the atmosphere into growing plant matter at the rate rate as you emit it from power stations by burning plant matter.
That's the first and most fundamental point.
Furthermore, you burning and growing at the same rate is not the end of the story. You cannot reduce vast tracts of land to monoculture without risking a range of side effects including
- Food price increases (displaced crops)
- Environmental degradation: species displacement, land impoverishment, reduced parallel CO2 or equivalent removal from the atmosphere.
In short, you can have a lovely balanced zero net CO2 emission thing with vast palm monocultures or whatnot, and nevertheless have a net CO2 emission from the collateral damage to the environment.
The answer, as fas as I can tell:
Biofuel is OK as long as it is only waste matter which is regenerated at the same rate. Which is the same as when humanity lived by burning fallen branches and trees in forests: waste wood.
It's a tricky and important issue because biofuel is still used more than one might think.
As the article points out, you can save on coal burning. Convert the plants to gas. That replaces one quality of supply with the same quality, by burning a different fuel. That really does lower coal burning. So does nuclear. This is why wind is so totally useless.
No, its not what happens. What happens is they keep on burning the fuel but they do not generate electricity and feed it to the grid. This is because you cannot turn off the plants and then turn them back on again in any reasonable time and without destroying them.
The result is that you can generate several hundred percent of your electricity from solar and wind, especially wind, and not save materially on coal burning.
These are not ways of generating electricity for which there is demand when there is that demand. Its a bit like Soviet Russia, meeting its five year plans by producing far more tractors than anyone could use, just at the time of year when they were not needed, and failing to make the t-shirts that everyone was desperate for.
Its not about the gross electricity produced. Its about the match to the demand and the consistency of delivery. Failing that, all you are doing is generating garbage at enormous expense.
So the only source of CO2 is our emissions? No feedback loops?
I am interested. Thanks very much - biofuels described as a renewable fills me with scepticism
2 different things. If global carbon emissions never change again, ppm will continue to increase, because the amount we're emitting is unsustainable. To stop growth in ppm, we need to stop the annual increase in emissions, and then rapidly reduce emissions levels. This article is suggesting that maybe we have nearly achieved part 1.
"Carbon emissions stopped growing in 2015"
That's nowhere near good enough to avoid dangerous global warming. The remaining carbon budget per person in the world is 85 tonnes CO2 to (optimistically) stay below 2˚C.
Current emissions of 5 tonnes per person mean a reduction of 5% a year is needed - in order make 85 tonnes last until the magic of large scale carbon extraction can save the climate in the second half of this century. (http://ow.ly/c9Nv3014SWS )
To achieve this we need degrowth.
P.S. Green growth is a fantasy (http://ow.ly/A8nk3014T54 )
Yet any temp rise of 0.1% is frowned upon as meagre by these same people. Are they mad or what?
Were you at Eton with Cameron and co?
No - it means burning ethanol from sugarcane. There are serious problems with the land use change associated with energy crops, but it's not as direct as clearing rainforest to grow them. you could read this if you're interested.
Yes it does. When FF generation is reduced or halted, the FF plants burn less fuel. That's the desired, and actual result of deploying renewables.
Hopefully in the longer run, we'll also be able to remove the need for FF capacity, but that is, admittedly, a more difficult challenge. For now, let's just use them less.
That's just not true, and I struggle to see how you take that from the paragraphs you quoted. I've just been pointed to this article which gives empirical evidence of how renewables reduce gas use.
What on earth are you talking about Frank ? Let's just quote directly from BP's report :
"Renewable energy used in power generation grew by 15.2%, slightly below the 10-year average growth of 15.9% but a record increment (+213 terawatt-hours), which was roughly equal to all of the increase in global power generation. Renewables accounted for 6.7% of global power generation."
Since we are only expecting renewables to contribute to electricity generation at this stage, this is pretty good.
Where did you get the figure of 0.2% increase for renewables ? Made it up ?
No, then they'd go bust and we'd all have to buy our oil from the Saudis and gas from the Russians.
What is happening is that installing renewables does not reduce emissions, because it does not reduce conventional fuel consumption.
Ask: how much did coal consumption in the UK fall during the last month when solar supposedly generated more than coal?
Yes, indeed.
Does "Brazilian biofuels" just mean burning the Amazon?
"disaster" and "exactly" - sorry
"BP says..." there are already comments - first throw garbage, then talk about the distaster; finally give order to collect the garbage. It's excactly like listen to bankers for the solution of financial crisis (the one of 2008)
Hooray! The rate of CO2 emission only grew by 0.1%. From it's highest ever values. Using stats that are dubious at best. From actors who need to lie to justify their position. While the actual annual growth jump in measured atmospheric CO2 concentration is the biggest ever.
So that's all good then.
Growth in CO2 emissions have flattened while your stupidity knows no bounds...congrats (slow clap)
And from Fox News,
"Fox bravely defends himself from angry mob of chickens in unprovoked attack whilst on a sight seeing visit"
I was having a split second positive moment, got carried away...pigs indeed!
And shit all over us
From the mouth of the beast itself!
If pigs had wings they could fly!
I thought it was because of his noodley goodness the flying spaghetti monster, Ramen.
How sweet: 5 deg c means we are all dead in century, now that is ignorance!
Does anyone believe a word any oil company says these days as their record for lying is now cast in stone? These fools have not the sense to know that a liar can 'never' be trusted even if they tell the truth at some stage vis 'cry wolf'!
To boot there's another article on Exxon's CEO Rex Tillerman, imagine that the Exxon CEO a tillerman rather than drillerman.
Anyway, Mike Maccracken's "Challenging ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson on Climate Change"
June 8, 2016:
"Exxon’s leading climate change scientist for the past several decades, Dr. Brian Flannery, co-authored the chapter on projecting climate change. His chapter concluded that “climate models currently available, when run with standard scenarios of fossil fuel CO2 emissions, indicate a global warming of the order of 1ºC by the year 2000, relative to the year 1850, and an additional 2º-5ºC warmingover the next century.” That projection was made three decades ago and is still the case today.":
http://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/challenging-exxonmobil-ceo-rex-tillerson-on-climate-change?_ga=1.102659842.207012257.1465437929
Sign in or create your Guardian account to recommend a comment