the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

IEA Solves Climatechange – Guardian

Posted by Jeff Id on November 10, 2011

Fantastic news.  We don’t have to worry about blogging on climate anymore.  It turns out that in 5 years we can’t do anything anyway.

The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be “lost for ever”, according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this “lock-in” effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the world’s foremost authority on energy economics has found. If this is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the results are likely to be disastrous.

“The door is closing,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. “I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever.”

They don’t know that they are nuts do they? We’ll just shut down those evil money-making factories and save the earth from warming.  Haha.  Everyone who volunteers for unemployed starvation, raise your hands now.  All that to prevent what looks ever-more like very minimal warming through CO2.   One point made by Steve McIntyre at CA is that the BEST data already shows 2C of warming.  It seems to me that this created a net ZERO detectable change in weather patterns.    But for the next degree C we should shut down everything NOW!!

Well, maybe later guys.

If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available “carbon budget” will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA’s calculations.

Those must be some very interesting calculations.   Since the claim is that carbon stays in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, how is it that our current production doesn’t exceed the “budget”?   Still, all of it doesn’t matter because we will cross the threshold in  5 years and everyone “sane” knows we will still be doing the same thing in five years.  Therefore the best answer is to disband the IPCC, UN, WMO etc.  so that we can save the cash for air conditioners and tunnel diggers to survive the doom to follow.

Thank god for the enlightened writers at the Guardian to get the message out for the IEA.

There is a maximum line for extreme and when the enlightened leaders  cross it, the answer to the shrill cries becomes pretty clear.  Stop listening because we can’t solve that problem anyway.


26 Responses to “IEA Solves Climatechange – Guardian”

  1. Neil said

    Thank goodness we can stop worrying, the stress was killing me🙂 Perhaps that is the plan, reduce the population through early stress related death?

    Given the issues in Europe and elsewhere, spending money to save us from climate change will be the last plave they send money. The plus side is that the rate at which countries are destroying their economies, output will fall and maybe carbon emissions too.

  2. Don B said

    I suppose that is why the Obama administration has stopped trying to solve the climate crisis and all the economic crises , and focused instead on improving the image of Christmas trees, with a 15¢ per tree tax.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/08/obama-couldnt-wait-his-new-christmas-tree-tax/

  3. sigurbola@internet.is said

    Well well , and the deputy executive officer of IEA seems to think that at least some of the environmentalists have been infusing their brains with loco weed fumes, according to this:

    http://business.financialpost.com/2011/11/10/renewable-energy-expansion-believers-smoking-dope-iea-official

    So I can not help wondering if he has perchance noticed some strange herbal smell originating from the economic analysis department at the IEA offices.

  4. M. Simon said

    China.

  5. John M said

    If I wasn’t so lazy, I’d spend a few hours trolling the internet to find examples of “if we don’t do something by x, we’re doomed!”. I recall a big batch of them around Copenhagen. I’m willing to bet that many of those would have values of x &#60 today().

  6. John M said

    Dang, site doesn’t support the html “less than” command.

  7. Brian H said

    John M;
    try < which is ampersand lt semi-colon (‘lt’ is letters for less than).
    Works wherever HTML is found.

  8. klem said

    And the timing of the IEA report has nothing to do with Durban next week. No seriously.

  9. M. Simon said

    John M said
    November 10, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    If I wasn’t so lazy, I’d spend a few hours trolling the internet to find examples of “if we don’t do something by x, we’re doomed!”. I recall a big batch of them around Copenhagen. I’m willing to bet that many of those would have values of x &#60 today().

    They have a fear for everyone.

  10. M. Simon said

    x <60

  11. Frank K. said

    It’s ALWAYS five years from now, isn’t it? Never next week, next month, next year. And the five year warning period always seems to move one year each year. Oh well, if we didn’t have a crisis, climate scientists would have nothing to put in their abstracts…

  12. @Jeff Id

    Where exactly do you get your assumption “less GHG emissions => unemployment & starvation” from? I do hope you’re aware that this conviction is just nothing more than a baseless assumption. Are you?

  13. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: Grzegorz Staniak (Nov 11 19:45),

    Where exactly do you get your assumption “less GHG emissions => unemployment & starvation” from?

    The obvious answer is this quote:

    The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be “lost for ever”, according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

    If the power stations, factories and buildings aren’t built, which would be the quick and dirty approach to limiting ghg emissions, that would have an obvious effect on employment. As far as starvation, that’s already happening in a large part of the world. The cure requires the building of power stations (access to electricity), factories and buildings. If that doesn’t happen, starvation will continue.

  14. Edward. said

    In five years time will the UN IPCC be – ‘no more’? That would be five years to long in my estimation.
    Five years ago, they said the Arctic sea ice would all be melted or was that ten years ago?
    I’ll have to ask Jim @ GISS, or read it in the tea leaves.

  15. @DeWitt Payne

    Sorry, I don’t get it. Do you mean that if we refrain from building coal power plants, we are somehow magically forbidden to built solar/wind power plants? Or that building other kinds of plants, factories or buildings does not require labor and doesn’t create demand for supplies?

  16. Greg F said

    Sorry, I don’t get it. Do you mean that if we refrain from building coal power plants, we are somehow magically forbidden to built solar/wind power plants?

    Unless someone come up with a way to store huge amounts of energy “solar/wind” won’t cut it.

  17. @Greg F
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night

  18. John M said

    #17

    Ultimately, it will come down to how much value policymakers and consumers put on electricity that is renewable and emissions-free. “If we start valuing carbon and force a coal plant to go carbon-free via sequestration then we’re at or over 10 cents per kilowatt-hour from coal,” Mancini says. “Any of these technologies can get to that same 10 cents level with [molten salt] storage. Then the market will make the call.”

    Translation. All it needs is “policies” make regular electricity generation more expensive.

  19. John M said

    And speaking of renewables and reliability…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/14/us-markets-iberia-power-idUSTRE7AD1QG20111114?type=GCA-GreenBusiness

  20. Greg F said

    #17

    Only if we all lived in Arizona. You obviously have no idea the amount of energy were talking about.

  21. Brian H said

    #20;
    Not to mention that the cost per delivered kwh is (without subsidies) many times higher than current sources, which chokes off energy use, which collapses economic activity.

  22. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: Grzegorz Staniak (Nov 14 20:12),

    The greenies are opposing hydraulic fracturing for gas and oil recovery by claiming it will affect water supplies. Good luck with getting molten salt heat reservoirs approved. The obvious answer with current technology is nuclear breeder reactors and reprocessing plants. But building the infrastructure to manufacture reactors fast enough to do any good would take quite a few years and couldn’t be done unless the permitting process were streamlined so it doesn’t take a decade or more to ‘build’ a nuclear plant (most of that decade isn’t actual construction). Good luck with that too. Proposed EPA rules would shut down ~10% of US electricity generating capacity within 5 years with nothing to replace it. The grid is fragile enough as it is now.

  23. kim said

    When they threaten you with ‘All Aboard’ it’s time to make sure they haven’t shoved your baggage onto the Train to Nowhere without your permission.
    ===================

  24. Nike said

    This has been obvious for at least 10 years. Only the magnitude of the futility has changed, as 10 years ago it looked like China would become the worlds leading emitter in 2017. 10% Chinese growth rates made all policies useless. Canada wants to cut emissions by 20%. China will increase emissions by 10 times as much by the time you pass the bill.

  25. @Nike

    Your sources of information are seriously outdated. Chinese people aren’t magically resistant to smog, and China’s intentions are very clear: they’re testing a cap-and-trade system, and moving to implement it by 2015, with a goal of returning to the 2005 level of emissions by 2020 — and they might very well achieve the goal, exactly because their legacy, dirty industry can be relatively easily upgraded in this respect. This takes money, of course, but they have the money: last year China led the world in the amount of investment in the green energy research (USD 54 bln), and their market for renewable energy technologies is estimated (by US business and experts) at USD 500 bln-1 trillion yearly this decade. The USA could have a share of the market (and restore some balance in the USA-China trade in the process) if they invested in keeping on the edge of the technology, but it seems unlikely: China now has a share of over 50% in the market for solar, with the USA at 7%. Apparently, for the USA it’s much more imperative at the moment that the Koch brothers and a few Saudis keep on earning on oil.

  26. รายได้เสริมทางเน็ต…

    […]IEA Solves Climatechange – Guardian « the Air Vent[…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: