Mid East COP 28 climate summit

[Seeds]

Due to finish later today.

Anychance we can get a global agreement to phase out fossil fuels?

This COP process has finally revealed to the public that the fossil fuel companies have infiltrated the summits and made it a sham. Hopefully this revelation can finally lead to real change and kick them out of the process. fossil fuels have no part to play in decarbonising emissions.

Things were getting pretty heated yesterday with some of the pacific island countries (and japan, usa, australia and uk) declaring they will not agree to any deal that does not involve a phase put of fossil fuels despite the likelihood of such a deal hanging by a thread now.

does anything happen today?

 

[Rob R]

Due to finish later today.

Anychance we can get a global agreement to phase out fossil fuels?

This COP process has finally revealed to the public that the fossil fuel companies have infiltrated the summits and made it a sham. Hopefully this revelation can finally lead to real change and kick them out of the process. fossil fuels have no part to play in decarbonising emissions.

Things were getting pretty heated yesterday with some of the pacific island countries (and japan, usa, australia and uk) declaring they will not agree to any deal that does not involve a phase put of fossil fuels despite the likelihood of such a deal hanging by a thread now.

does anything happen today?

They will come up with some token agreement that many countries won't follow through on but guarantees there will be continuing COP junkets in the future. I wonder how much carbon they have burnt on this one with all the luxury flights, hotels and parties?

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[dockerfemme]

I would like to see a broad feasibility statement showing scope and scale of what phasing out fossil fuels requires. For example, based on my very amateurish, back of a postage stamp calculations, by 2030 the world probably needs to be manufacturing at least 3 times the wind turbines and solar panels as it does now. There is attendant mining, ore processing, transport etc etc to support this. All buildings need to be converted off gas, world shipping needs to be addressed etc etc. Something high level, but practical would be a good step forward.

 

[barreness]

I would like to see a broad feasibility statement showing scope and scale of what phasing out fossil fuels requires. For example, based on my very amateurish, back of a postage stamp calculations, by 2030 the world probably needs to be manufacturing at least 3 times the wind turbines and solar panels as it does now. There is attendant mining, ore processing, transport etc etc to support this. All buildings need to be converted off gas, world shipping needs to be addressed etc etc. Something high level, but practical would be a good step forward.

There are two very large hurdles for net zero, agriculture and military

Every step of the modern agriculture system uses fossil fuels(tillage, fertiliser, pest/herbicides, harvesting, processing, transport), something like 9 joules of oil for 1 joule of food. Almost none of these are easily replaced by electric energy. We have entered a Faustian bargain

A modern military can't be run on renewables, this ends up in a bit of a prisoners dilemma between states

We will almost certainly keep running it until the the climate reaches extinction levels, if we haven't already with runaway feedback loops.

Yeh only considering the electricity side of things, it's technically possible with renewables. But try mining, refining, and manufacturing them without fossil fuels. Strip mining the globe isn't conducive for non human life also.

Localised agriculture and low level manufacture, lower standards of living and degrowth are anathemas to a democratic society. Try convincing an australian they can't have a car.
Good luck out there comrade

 

[barreness]

Due to finish later today.

Anychance we can get a global agreement to phase out fossil fuels?

This COP process has finally revealed to the public that the fossil fuel companies have infiltrated the summits and made it a sham. Hopefully this revelation can finally lead to real change and kick them out of the process. fossil fuels have no part to play in decarbonising emissions.

Things were getting pretty heated yesterday with some of the pacific island countries (and japan, usa, australia and uk) declaring they will not agree to any deal that does not involve a phase put of fossil fuels despite the likelihood of such a deal hanging by a thread now.

does anything happen today?

Can distinctly remember you saying we've solved climate change?

 

[Seeds]

Can distinctly remember you saying we've solved climate change?

Nope not me. I said the worst case scenarios of 3.5 - 6 degree average temperature warming I used to model were no longer realistic because renewable generation and evs are guaranteed to replace base load power and ICES.

Never said anything about keeping temp rises to under 2 degrees being guaranteed. If all countries Glasgow long term emission abatement pledges are achieved then the world is on a 1.8-2.1 degree pathway. But there is no guarantee that countries will achieve those goals on time. And to limit temp rises to 1.5 degrees then countries have to bring foward their net zero pledges by 10 years. cant see that happening without a major global climate disaster within the next 5 years to trigger accelerated policy action. So in my books constraining temp rises to only 1.5 degrees is now also unrealistic.

 

[Seeds]

I would like to see a broad feasibility statement showing scope and scale of what phasing out fossil fuels requires. For example, based on my very amateurish, back of a postage stamp calculations, by 2030 the world probably needs to be manufacturing at least 3 times the wind turbines and solar panels as it does now. There is attendant mining, ore processing, transport etc etc to support this. All buildings need to be converted off gas, world shipping needs to be addressed etc etc. Something high level, but practical would be a good step forward.

Yes they need to start proposing plans to achieve their goals. outlining goals alone is not enough.

 

[Seeds]

So theyve agreed to transition away from fossil fuels rather then phase out fossil fuels.

gotta love these international summits. I totally get the difference between the term "transition away" and "phase out".

In either case its still empty rhetoric without an actual timeline. Think the Saudis come away happy.

now on to Brazil.

 

[barreness]

Nope not me. I said the worst case scenarios of 3.5 - 6 degree average temperature warming I used to model were no longer realistic because renewable generation and evs are guaranteed to replace base load power and ICES.

Never said anything about keeping temp rises to under 2 degrees being guaranteed. If all countries Glasgow long term emission abatement pledges are achieved then the world is on a 1.8-2.1 degree pathway. But there is no guarantee that countries will achieve those goals on time. And to limit temp rises to 1.5 degrees then countries have to bring foward their net zero pledges by 10 years. cant see that happening without a major global climate disaster within the next 5 years to trigger accelerated policy action. So in my books constraining temp rises to only 1.5 degrees is now also unrealistic.

I mean, I'm glad you're coming round to radical change but

How are we destroying the planet with over consumption? What even is over consumption.

you cant point to climate change but we are about to solve this issue though clean technologies. You could point to waste but how do you define too much waste? Waste is having very little impact on society aand only minor impacts on the environment outside small pockets of the planet.

how have we overpopulated the planet? You could point to lack of land to grow food but all measures now suggest that the amount of land we need for food is now shrinking globally due to dramatic agriculture efficiency improvements. And these productivity improvements are only going to further accelerate going foward. In 100 years Im guessing we will only require a qtr of the land we need today to feed the world. So how do you define overpopulation?

ps. You raise a lot of interesting points. Some are right and some I think are wrong. But the semantic definition of conservative is the least interesting of the lot. who really cares in the grand scheme of things?

i think you will find climate change impacts will be minimal because cheap renewables, electric vehicles and hydorgen is now going to happen

There are similiar thoughts but thread locks ya know.

But anyway, changing your mind shouldn't be castigated

 

[barreness]

So theyve agreed to transition away from fossil fuels rather then phase out fossil fuels.

gotta love these international summits. I totally get the difference between the term "transition away" and "phase out".

In either case its still empty rhetoric without an actual timeline. Think the Saudis come away happy.

now on to Brazil.

COPE29 here we come

 

[Seeds]

I mean, I'm glad you're coming round to radical change but


There are similiar thoughts but thread locks ya know.

But anyway, changing your mind shouldn't be castigated

Havent changed my mind. Consumption and overpopulation have nothing to do with stabilising temperature rises. To stabilise temp rises net emissions need to fall to zero. Not 50 percent lower. But zero. Radical extreme population and consumption policies wont even halve emissions let alone bring them anywhere near to net zero. So temps will keep rising with the most extreme consumption reduction and population reduction policies. The only thing that can bring about net zero emissions is clean technology. In fact the economic and political consequences of extreme population reduction and consumption measures probably would slow the development of clean technologies which would probably make temp rises worse if anything in the long run. I.e. such policies are actually counterproductive to abatement if anything.

as for the rest of my post i was being a bit simplistic. The bad case scenarios of 3.5-6 degree temp rises that were base case views just 15 years ago are no longer realistic. This is because renewble generation and EV uptake (which are now inevitable given dramatic cost reductions in these techs) will prevent emissions rising to the level that would produce these outcomes.

climate change under current realistic emission pathways still has major consequences that we need to stop. But its not the global civilisation destroyer emission pathways that are realistic anymore that we all feared back during the Rio and kyoto climate summit days.

 

[barreness]

Havent changed my mind. Consumption and overpopulation have nothing to do with stabilising temperature rises. To stabilise temp rises net emissions need to fall to zero. Not 50 percent lower. But zero. Radical extreme population and consumption policies wont even halve emissions let alone bring them anywhere near to net zero. So temps will keep rising with the most extreme consumption reduction and population reduction policies. The only thing that can bring about net zero emissions is clean technology. In fact the economic and political consequences of extreme population reduction and consumption measures probably would slow the development of clean technologies which would probably make temp rises worse if anything in the long run. I.e. such policies are actually counterproductive to abatement if anything.

It's the main challenge, please look into things like Overshoot(Catton 1982) or the Limits to growth study

as for the rest of my post i was being a bit simplistic. The bad case scenarios of 3.5-6 degree temp rises that were base case views just 15 years ago are no longer realistic. This is because renewble generation and EV uptake (which are now inevitable given dramatic cost reductions in these techs) will prevent emissions rising to the level that would produce these outcomes.

A couple of generations of this will strip mine the planet at current usage, let alone if the developing world catches up

climate change under current realistic emission pathways still has major consequences that we need to stop. But its not the global civilisation destroyer emission pathways that are realistic anymore that we all feared back during the Rio and kyoto climate summit days.

No, it's actually worse, they were making optimistic assumptions

Global warming in the pipeline
^for technical data

Or just check out the articles around James Hansen's newest paper

Or the sea surface temps, or the antarctic sea levels, or the extinction levels at all points of the food chain etc etc

 

[Seeds]

It's the main challenge, please look into things like Overshoot(Catton 1982) or the Limits to growth study



A couple of generations of this will strip mine the planet at current usage, let alone if the developing world catches up

No, it's actually worse, they were making optimistic assumptions

Global warming in the pipeline
^for technical data

Or just check out the articles around James Hansen's newest paper

Or the sea surface temps, or the antarctic sea levels, or the extinction levels at all points of the food chain etc etc

why do you think uptake of EVS and solar resources will strip the world of resources? Lithium used in batteries is indeed limited but sand isnt. batteries will soon be made of sand. So I dont share your concern and in fact see it as unintentionally dangerous because its the same thing being said by pro nuclear propogandists who claim nuclear is the only way to decarbonise. But they are using misinformation to claim this. Nuclear is not needed to decarbonise power cheaply.

As for the book you you are quoting, you know its from 1982 right? back when everyone thought population growth was on an exponential pathway. That has turned out to be utterly wrong. population growth has gone in the opposite direction and is now likely to peak and start falling before this century is over.

on top of this error, back in the 1980s (and 1990s) people also dramatically underestimated how much resources were left cos they failed to account for technology development which both improved the efficiency of how much resources we needed for a given service and improved our ability to extract resources that we previously thought were not possible. In school in the mid 1990s we were told the world would run out of oil by around 2005. 2005! I also went to peak oil conferences in around 2008 being told that peak oil was only a couple of years away. As a strong climate advocate i wish it was. But then came the oil shale revolution. We see these examples time and time again for resources that people previously thought would soon become constrained.

yes eventually in the long off distance future humans may run out of certain key finite resources that are critcial for our civilisation. But this is at best many centuries away and by then we will probably develop alternative renewable replacements like we are doing in energy right now.

 

[barreness]

Sorry, late reply

why do you think uptake of EVS and solar resources will strip the world of resources? Lithium used in batteries is indeed limited but sand isnt.

batteries will soon be made of sand.

Peak sand is in fact a thing. Look I hope so, batteries need to get a lot better to even get close to economists estimations

You're only thinking a few generations ahead, not a millennia or two. Doesn't give much hope for the species

So I dont share your concern and in fact see it as unintentionally dangerous because its the same thing being said by pro nuclear propogandists who claim nuclear is the only way to decarbonise. But they are using misinformation to claim this. Nuclear is not needed to decarbonise power cheaply.

I'm not particularly keen on nuclear, cost and it gets very sketchy with the breakdown of supply lines.
Nah, my preferred future is very low power. I would also say your viewpoint is unintentionally dangerous, it's also the status quo

As for the book you you are quoting, you know its from 1982 right? back when everyone thought population growth was on an exponential pathway. That has turned out to be utterly wrong. population growth has gone in the opposite direction and is now likely to peak and start falling before this century is over.

It only goes exponential for a while, it's a limited system. This is in fact the problem, the crash. 1900=1b 1970=4b 2022=8b 2050=????(I'm guessing 1b)

Check the book out, limits to growth is a real phenomenon

on top of this error, back in the 1980s (and 1990s) people also dramatically underestimated how much resources were left cos they failed to account for technology development which both improved the efficiency of how much resources we needed for a given service

Jevons paradox - Wikipedia

and improved our ability to extract resources that we previously thought were not possible. In school in the mid 1990s we were told the world would run out of oil by around 2005. 2005!

Conventional Oil did peak around 2006, now we've gone on to more environmentally destructive sources, surprise surprise

I also went to peak oil conferences in around 2008 being told that peak oil was only a couple of years away. As a strong climate advocate i wish it was. But then came the oil shale revolution. We see these examples time and time again for resources that people previously thought would soon become constrained.

Yeh well as above. As resources have become scarce more energy and destruction is needed to extract them, you can see the issue here

yes eventually in the long off distance future humans may run out of certain key finite resources that are critcial for our civilisation. But this is at best many centuries away and by then we will probably develop alternative renewable replacements like we are doing in energy right now.

It's not really a case of run out, we'll turn into venus before that. It's about whether its viable for the return

At best indeed. The old techno hopium