This week the latest edition of the BP Statistical Review of World Energy noted two important trends.

In 2014 global energy consumption growth fell to its lowest level since 1998: even better is that renewables made up 30% of that growth. While this is positive, the scale of the challenge can’t be underestimated: BP’s report shows that renewables still contribute just 3% of global primary energy.

Indeed, a new report from the IEA this week called for more policy supportfor the sector because the current rate of progress is not fast enough to meet the 2°C climate target. For the same reason, a group of scientists and economists led by Sir David King, former chief scientific advisor to the UK government, called for an Apollo-style mission to make renewable power cheaper than coal within a decade.

However, the emissions figures aren’t as positive as the IEA’s preliminary estimates which showed 2014 emissions stalling at 2013 levels. While it’s encouraging to see emissions growth starting to slow, we mustn’t forget that what we really need is a rapid decrease overall.

There has been some progress towards a meaningful emissions reduction agreement ahead of the climate talks in Paris in December. The G7 issued a statement committing some of the world’s richest nations to cuts of close to 70% of 2010 levels by 2050 – although the statement was light on detail.

The Norwegian parliament endorsed a decision to remove $900bn from its sovereign wealth fund in the largest ever fossil fuel divestment — a major blow to coal. And in Britain a group of 80 leading businesses called on the government to set an ambitious fifth carbon budget. Even big oil seemed to sense the direction of travel, as a group of European producers including Shell and BP issued an open letter calling for a global carbon tax to be introduced.

Former Shell Chairman Mark Moody Stewart dismissed the move as a gesture – “it is not new…they have been saying it for 15 years” – but agreed fossil fuel divestment is a “rational response” to climate change.

23 Comments on "Energy Crunch – tectonic shifts"

Plantagenet on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 12:22 pm 



Now that even the FF companies are calling for a carbon tax, the last obstacle to a carbon tax is cowardly politicians like Obama, who promised carbon trading and a carbon tax in his 2008 campaign, but promptly deep-sixed the idea after he become president.

GregT on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 1:12 pm 



The last obstacle to a carbon tax planter is economic growth. It’s a double edged sword. Economic collapse on one side, environmental collapse on the other. Both have the same outcome. A crash in our populations. One choice however, will lead to a larger die off than the other.

drwater on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 1:53 pm 



“The last obstacle to a carbon tax planter is economic growth.”

It doesn’t have to be. A revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend and/or payroll tax rebate actually grows the economy slightly compared to BAU according to the top economic modelers. The key is keeping it revenue neutral so that it doesn’t get wasted on a bunch of government programs.

rockman on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 1:55 pm 



So amazing. First, did anyone figure out what his “energy intensity” means? More import his own chart shows that global energy consumption has increased every year save one for the last 12 years. So whatever the f*ck energy intensity means it’s obviously not related to consumption. BTW China hasn’t reduced energy consumption: it continues to grow but at a slower rate. But I think most here already saw thru that bullsh*t.

GregT on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 2:08 pm 



drwater,

“A revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend and/or payroll tax rebate actually grows the economy slightly compared to BAU according to the top economic modelers.”

In herein lies the problem. GDP is not a true measurement of growth. We cannot print our way out of this predicament.

Growth requires energy.

Makati1 on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 7:45 pm 



More BS from the dreamers…

Nony on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 8:45 pm 



energy intensivity is a ratio of energy consumption to GDP. This should be obvious and has been written about several times before, Rock.

GregT on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 8:55 pm 



GDP is not a true measurement of economic growth Nony. It is also not a true measurement of well being, health, happiness, or anything else that remotely matters to the human experience. As a matter of fact, it is what will ultimately destroy all of the above. Economics is not only a failed ideology, it is evil.

Northwest Resident on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 1:25 am 



intensivity — A non-word used to make a non-point by a non-thinker. I know, you meant “intensity”. Couldn’t help nitpicking. But still, where do you find that energy intensity is a ratio of energy consumption to GDP. Sounds like gobbelty-gook to me. Reference?
(Let me guess — Nony’s book of made-up talking points?)

Northwest Resident on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 1:31 am 



GregT — If you ask me, GDP today is a true measure of creative (and previously fraudulent) accounting, made-up government numbers and a hefty helping of health care costs. GDP is that bright light that the unwitting masses are mesmerized by right before economic reality smacks into them like a semi truck at 70 mph.

Makati1 on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 4:14 am 



I just posted a quote in pic form on my Facebook site that sounds appropriate for the world we now inhabit.

“Due to recent budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.”

marmico on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 5:46 am 



A longer time horizon on oil intensity. Peakers always neglect efficiency, substitution and conservation when the typical apocalyptic declarations are made.

Oil Intensity of World GDP 1980-2013.

Davy on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 6:19 am 



Sure, Marm, standard Cornucopian response “technology, efficiency, and substitution will save us. You are looking tiered and worn out with that one. Times have change with limits and diminishing return. Your worn and tattered econ 101 can’t explain properly what is occurring in the global economy lately.

Your examples of efficiency are less than stellar. Often times the cost of the efficiency measure is more than the energy saved but hey makes ya feel good and that is what being a corn is all about. I see so many substitution ideas out there few scale with time or cost. I have yet to find substitution for food, water, and oil itself. Conservation has its limits and if practiced effectively conservation would collapse our growth based economy requiring robust growth to maintain and grow out of the multiple problems at every level. New technology, innovation, and more effective use of old technology is lackluster these days. I am see nothing new to indicate great leaps forward. Most is the same old stuff repackaged and touted with cornucopian fanfare IOW Photoshop tabloid advertisement.

Nope, Marm, your message is a dud. Try again with something of more substance than the usual cornbread. You have little to show that can amount to what is needed for the problems ahead. The cornucopian message is stalling. When progress stalls whether the message or the actual real world progress the optimism wanes. Your cornucopian system is all about confidence. If confidence cannot be maintained dangerous stress occurs. Liquidity is nothing more these days than global confidence in exchange. Without liquidity from a broad based confidence the system will grind to a halt. The time value question is will this happen quickly, in a long emergency, or with both in stair step. It will happen Marm get ready.

Boat on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 6:48 am 



Davy, I am see nothing new to indicate great leaps forward.

Yesterday I mentioned the recycle industry. How about the nat gas and oil industry using fracking.

I had a friend that just put in a new heating/cooling system in her home. Just the savings from her old unit saves her her $60 per month in energy savings. The savings alone will pay for her unit in 7 years.

Many times examples of energy efficiency have been posted and talked about. The replacement cycle of some products is 10-30 years when talking about semis, cars, refrigerators, heating systems, washers-dryers etc.

I guess if you want solutions tomorrow it won’t happen but if your willing to look at change over a decade it is awesome and happening.

PS….This is how a country survives degrowth and a shrinking GDP. Saving money and increasing discretionary spending through energy savings.

Davy on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 7:20 am 



Boat, I respect your optimism. I did not say there was no progress. What I am saying is the whole system is experiencing an inertia of a state of limits and diminishing returns of all kinds weighing on progress of all kinds. This is very dangerous for a system like ours with growing population. This growing population needs consumption growth to satisfy that population. The needed consumption growth is more than stimulation satisfaction it is integral to our financial system for economies of scale and debt repayment. We must generate activity to cover huge amounts of debt that represent future unrealized production IOW we must pay principal and interest and that requires growth.

There is nothing revolutionary with what you mentioned above in your comment. It is important but not revolutionary. Recycling is getting more efficient and effective sure but at a pace? Is recycling revolutionary? NO. If you look at the heating and cooling system mentioned whose numbers are you using to determine savings? What are the numbers based on? What is the total lifecycle cost of the new system verses the old system that is already paid for and running fine?

There are individual costs and societal costs. Which are we going to look at? We need to look at both. Phasing out old technology for new as a way to save is dubious because we generally do not look at the whole picture. We are selling ourselves on some abstract idea of efficiency just because the dollars look good. Who did the dollar analysis and is it really that much more efficient. There are so many businesses selling efficiency honestly and dishonestly.

The oil and gas industry is using old technology in new ways. Nothing special with the oil and gas industry except deep pockets and a bubble market allowed dubious innovation. Will fracking really produce a macro return? We won’t know that until we look back and see if all that huge investment of the last several years really was positive. We are seeing multiple examples of mal-investment and bad debt IOW private profit at the greater investor’s expense.

You can’t survive degrowth and shrinking GDP with the system we have. We can’t even survive a little degrowth and shrinkage very long. That is why the powers to be are trying anything and everything to keep growth going. Degrowth means bankruptcy and unpaid debt obligations all the way up to insolvent sovereigns.

We need to be perusing efficiency and innovative ideas but we also need to stop fooling ourselves this will save us or is best. There has been nothing revolutionary happen on the fronts of technology, efficiency, substitution, and knowledge in the last decade I could crow about. There has been some advancements absolutely but at what cost and what benefits. Many times the advancements are actually not beneficial.

We are advancing just because we think we must advance but what are the consequences and unintended consequences. We rarely consider this side of the equation and once we have embraced new technology we rarely look back at the true cost and benefits. We are always looking forward. This is why plan B’s don’t amount to anything. They are not optimistic and forward thinking.

Risk management if it is more than just part of a standard business plan is dangerous for society as a whole because it becomes the knowledge that something is or could be wrong. There is nothing more important to the system itself now than confidence. We can shut down everything quickly with panic. This is why we must look forward and be optimistic. We have little choice as a society in our current global interconnected complex economy of dispersed production, distribution, and financial exchange.

marmico on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 8:14 am 



What prattle. Fast forward 35 years – 50% EV, 50% ICE vehicles, ridesharing, autonomous, etc.

How many gallons per capita of gasoline will that require? Substantially less than today. That’s called improving oil intensity.

Davy on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 9:38 am 



Dream on Marmi with your happy endings. You are going to get your low budget investor clock cleaned when SHTF. No wonder you are such a hardcore optimist it’s your tiny investment you are worried about and your overleveraged lifestyle. You could give a shit about society and others. It is your selfish ass you are worried about, NOo, I mean Marm. Whoever your sock puppet of the day is.

Makati1 on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 10:59 pm 



marm, +50 years: bicycles, horses and shoe leather, if we are lucky. Gasoline will be a word in old dictionaries, and oil will be the stuff you get from animal fat. Anything else is nothing but a crack dream.

Apneaman on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 11:38 pm 



Better watch out nony-marm, big Papa is gunning for your kind and he has got a lot of back. This battle is gonna be so much fun. Never in my wildest dreams would I imagine my atheist ass saying Go Pope Go! ROTFLMAO………………………………

Pope Francis Encyclical to Set Divine Imperative — Halt Climate Wreckage, Help the Poor

“The Pope equates the current incarnation of neo-liberal (read US conservative) market capitalism and hyper-individualism to the ancient golden calf idol of the Bible saying:

We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money. Trickle-down economics is a failed theory. Excessive consumerism is killing our culture, values and ethics. The conservative ideal of individualism is undermining the common good.

The Pope sees greed-based economic systems as tyrannical, unjust and destructive, forcing unhealthy consumption, and calls for a radical new financial system to avoid human inequality and environmental devastation:

It is no longer man who commands but money. Cash commands. Greed is the motivation. An economic system centered on the god of money needs to plunder nature to sustain the frenetic rthymn of consumption that is inherent to it. [A] radical new financial system [is required] to avoid human inequality and ecological devastation.”

https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/pope-francis-encyclical-to-set-divine-imperative-halt-climate-wreckage-help-the-poor/

Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 11:48 pm 



he needs to stick to sin. liberal politics is a total distraction.

Apneaman on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 12:12 am 



It’s past politics nony-marm. Climate change is destroying infrastructure, personal property and killing people in red states too and it’s guaranteed to pick up – cannot be stopped now. Soon we will all be united in common cause – survival…….and then we will tear each other apart.

Northwest Resident on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 1:42 am 



Nony — I thought that greed, plundering nature to feed greed at the expense of all others, and worship of money ARE a sins?

When I read the Bible, I don’t see “thou shalt not practice liberal politics”. But I do see where the Bible explicitly condemns greed, worship of money and destruction of God’s creation.

I hate to see you playing an active role as an agent for “the other side”. Your posts tell me that you’ve been suckered big time, that you’ve bought into the dark side, that you are in fact a supporter of SIN.

Davy on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 6:25 am 



NR/Ape Man, The NOo will find some way to twist climate destruction, greed, and plunder to show a mental profit in his sick mind. People like NOo find value in death and destruction. You can rationalize most anything into value. In this sense the NOo is a moral relativist in relation to GDP and market price.