The two key reasons the world can't reverse climate emissions

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613236/the-two-key-reasons-the-world-cant-reverse-climate-emissions/

The two key reasons the world can’t reverse climate emissions

New figures show we’re using more energy and still pumping out more emissions—so why aren’t we moving the dial?

by James Temple March 28, 2019

Global energy demand and related carbon emissions both rose again in 2018, according to new figures out this week.

This comes as no surprise. The analysis from the International Energy Agency is in line with other preliminary reports from other organizations. But it raises an awkward question: if renewables are growing and the prices of solar, wind, and batteries are falling, why is the world’s climate pollution still going up?

The first answer is the growing global economy, which pushed energy demand up by 2.3% last year, the IEA says. A contributing factor was that more energy was needed for extra heating and cooling in regions hit by unusually severe cold snaps and heatwaves. These were at least partly driven by our shifting climate. All of that drove increases in generation from coal and natural gas, both of which spew greenhouse gases that warm the planet.

Ultimately, those fossil fuel increases outpaced sharp improvements in solar and wind generation, both of which climbed by double digits in 2018. Even nuclear generation grew at modest levels, rising 3.3%, mainly due to new turbines in China and four reactors that went back online in Japan, according to the IEA.

…

[pscot]

1. population growth

the elephant in the room

[NNadir]

3. The real issue is that citizens in high population countries, China and India, want to live like...

...Americans. The average continuous power consumption of an American is on the order of 9,000-10,000 watts, an average Indian, less than 1,000.

Thus we can avoid the climate impact of ten Indians not being born, by eliminating one American.

Indians and Chinese haven't agreed to remain desperately impoverished so Americans can pretend to care about the environment by posting on the internet how, "by 2030" or "by 2040" or "by 2050," or "by 2100," they'll all live in a solar and wind nirvana driving around in Elon Musk's stupid car for millionaires and billionaires, cars featuring batteries laced with cobalt mined by enslaved children in the Congo region who probably don't account for an average continuous power consumption of 50 watts in their short and miserable lives.

We need lots and lots and lots of these children to dig cobalt for our cars, and tantalum for our cell phones.

Americans have nothing to say about over population. It's an issue, but we depend heavily on disposable human beings.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. You know... I'm not as impressed with population growth

Last edited Sat Mar 30, 2019, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)

A small percentage increase in population doesn't compare to a much larger increase in “per capita” carbon emissions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194

China's per capita carbon emissions overtake EU's
By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News, New York

21 September 2014

New data on carbon shows that China's emissions per head of population have surpassed the EU for the first time.

The researchers say that India is also forecast to beat Europe's CO2 output in 2019.

Scientists say that global totals are increasing fast and will likely exceed the limit for dangerous climate change within 30 years.

The world has already used up two thirds of the warming gases researchers calculate will breach 2 degrees C.

…

All other things being equal, eliminating all population growth tomorrow would lead the same amount of carbon emissions as today.

On the other hand, eliminating all carbon emissions per capita tomorrow would have a dramatic effect.

However, neither will stop the warming.

[progree]

5. Population growth rate: 1.2%/year. CO2 emissions from 2014 - 2018: 0.85%/year

Last edited Sun Mar 31, 2019, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

2000 to 2014

CO2 emissions rose rapidly from 2000 to about 2014. From 23.2 GigaTonnes CO2 to 32.1, an increase of 38.4% in 14 years (2.35%/year)

The world population increased from 6.122 billion to 7.271 billion, an increase of 18.8% in 14 years (1.24%/year)

That's a percapita increase of 16.5% (1.097%/year or about 1.10%/year ) (1.384/1.188 = 1.165) (1.01097^14 = 1.1650)

It has been a slower increase in emissions since.

Source of CO2 emissions: https://www.iea.org/geco/emissions/

2014 to 2018

Reading the first chart, the area chart "Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by source, 1990-2018, the GigaTonne CO2 emissions are:

(Year, Other fossil fuels, Other Coal Use, Coal-fired power generation, Total):

(2014, 17.2, 5.1, 9.8, 32.1 ) and (2018, 18.6, 4.5, 10.1, 33.2), an increase of 32.1 to 33.2 = 3.43% increase over 4 years, which is an 0.85%/year increase. (1.00846)^4 = 1.0343

So over this period, population growth (1.2%/year) exceeded CO2 emission growth (0.85%/year), meaning per-capita CO2 emissions fell.

2016 to 2018

Although sadly there were large increases in 2017 and 2018.

The increase in CO2 emissions from 2016 to 2018 is:

(2016: 17.8, 4.7, 9.5, 32.0) and (2018, 18.6, 4.5, 10.1, 33.2), an increase of 32.0 to 33.2 over 2 years, which is a 1.86%/year increase, surpassing the population growth increase of 1.2% per year. So the percapita increase was about 0.65%/year.

(1.0186/1.012 = 1.00652)

World Population

World population in billions: 2000: 6.122, 2014: 7.271, 2016: 7.444, 2017: 7.530, 2018: 7.620*
Source: World Bank
*2018 wasn't given, I, Progree, increased it from the 2017 figure by 1.2%. The 1.2% growth rate also comes from the World Bank

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&ifdim=region&tdim=true&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

[progree]

6. Added substantial information to above -- added population numbers and a 2000-2014 section n/t

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. OK, here's the thing. We need to cut emissions dramatically in a matter of decades.

Let's say people stop having babies altogether tomorrow… How long before emissions are eliminated?

[progree]

8. I don't know. Neither is going to happen.

Neither of us has a magic wand to wave -- I don't have one to cut the population, and you don't have one to cut per capita emissions.

This from an older posting of mine:

According to last November's IEA World Enegy Outlook report, even in 2040, 21 years from now, (a whole human generation) under the very optimistic (to me) New Policies Scenarios (described next to that graph), is that "other renewables", which encompass solar and wind, will be only 1223 MTOE (51 exajoules), compared to fossil fuel of 13,139 MTOE (550 exajoules), summing up oil + coal + natgas. IOW in 2040, the "other renewables" will be 9.3% of the fossil fuel total. https://www.iea.org/weo/

Or to represent it graphically: in 2040:
the first line on the bar graph below is other renewable which includes solar and wind
the second line is fossil fuels

##                                                solar, wind, geothermal
##################### fossil fuels

And oh, another note on the fossil fuel totals from the graph: 2017: 11,292 MTOE (473 exajoules). 2040: 13,139 MTOE (550 exajoules). Under the optimistic New Policies Scenario.

I'd add that there are many other issues than emissions that an excessive and excessively growing population causes. Food, water, and resource shortages...

In 2010 Africa reached 1 billion. In 2050 it is projected to reach 2.5 billion, a 2.5 fold increase in just 40 years. And their per capita emissions and resource consumption is many-fold less than ours, and I predict that will increase, not decrease as they continue to improve their standard of living. For awhile anyway, until the climate effects of all of our emissions get to be too much.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Cutting the birth rate will not dramatically cut emissions

It's just that simple.

[progree]

9. And there is the consideration that a rapid buildup of wind and solar would be so resource

intensive that we would see little net improvement for a long time ...

Metals for a low-carbon society (Olivier Vidal, Bruno Goffé & Nicholas Arndt, Nature Geoscience volume 6, pages 894–896 (2013)) https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1993 .
Free version: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258514690_Metals_for_a_low-carbon_society

…this transition [to so called "renewable energy"] will also cause much additional global demand for raw materials: for an equivalent installed capacity, solar and wind facilities require up to 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum, and 50 times more iron, copper and glass than fossil fuels or nuclear energy (Supplementary Fig. 1). Yet, current production of wind and solar energy meets only about 1% of global demand, and hydroelectricity meets about 7% (ref. 2)...

... If the contribution from wind turbines and solar energy to global energy production is to rise from the current 400 TWh (ref. 2) to 12,000 TWh in 2035 and 25,000 TWh in 2050, as projected by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)7, about 3,200 million tonnes of steel, 310 million tonnes of aluminium and 40 million tonnes of copper will be required to build the latest generations of wind and solar facilities (Fig. 2). This corresponds to a 5 to 18% annual increase in the global production of these metals for the next 40 years.

Then there is a graph of This rise in production will be added to the accelerating global demand for ferrous, base and minor metals, from both developing and developed countries, which inflates currently by about 5% per year5,6..

12,000 TWh ((the 2035 figure) is 43 exajoules ((true per kylesconverter.com)), this on a planet where humanity was, as of, 2016, generating and consuming 576 exajoules of energy, 81% of which was generated using dangerous fossil fuels

"The demand for base metals is currently increasing by 5% annually, and if this trend continues, the quantity of metal productionfor the next 15years will need to match that from the start of humanity to 2013."

the two material costs, steel and concrete are the largest contributors to climate change, steel at well over a billion tons out of the rising 35 billion tons we dump on future generations each year, concrete another billion or so

Ripped off from NNadir https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127119712

with a few added bits by Progree. My notes got so entangled with my abridged copy of his post that it would take me more time than I care to spend to try to disentangle the two.

[progree]

2. global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2018 increased to 33.1 Gigatonnes -- AN ALL-TIME RECORD HIGH.

As a result of higher energy consumption, global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2018 increased to 33.1 Gigatonnes -- AN ALL-TIME RECORD HIGH. This is a 1.7% INCREASE over the 2017 level. (Folks, we need to be drastically REDUCING emissions in the next few years in order to avoid drastic climate consequences!)

The increase in renewable energy only met around one-quarter of the growth in total primary energy demand, thus the large fossil fuel increase (nuclear also increased a modest amount -- 23 Mtoe, less than the 27 Mtoe increase in coal, the 54 Mtoe increase in oil, and the 143 mtoe increase in natural gas. The renewable energy increase was 81 mtoe. There's a bar chart of that -- the first bar chart on the page -- hover your mouse over whatever to see the corresponding mtoe - Million Tonnes of oil equivalent. 1 Exajoule = 23.8846 mtoe ).

New IEA (International Energy Agency) report (the same one discussed in the OP). Full of graphs. Check out the links at the top of the page too (Global trends, CO2 emissions, Oil, Gas, Coal, Renewables, Electricity, Efficiency, and Data tables).
https://www.iea.org/geco/