Twelve More Years To Do Nothing
“The future is changing, with or without us.“
“There have been many climate warnings issued in the past few decades, but the latest one is more like an air-raid siren than an alarm clock with an overworked snooze button.”
Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate (high confidence). — IPCC
To keep global warming to 1.5 degrees, the report says that human emissions of carbon dioxide must fall dramatically: by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, and to “net zero” around 2050. The real situation is worse than that.
Depending on where you start, we are already close enough to 1.5 that we can feel its hot breath on our collar. The IPCC did a nifty trick of shifting the starting point nearly a century forward from its earliest reports, the ones the set the temperature goal. They literally moved the goal posts. If they can keep doing that, we will never warm 1.5 degrees. Pretty cool, huh? The report’s authors say that 1.5 degrees is still financially and technologically feasible, and maybe this is why. We can always just manipulate the numbers.
For its part, deep in a 500-page
Transportation Department environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling admission: On its current course, the planet will
warm 4°C by end of century. Placed against that background, it is foolish to tweak minor things like automobile fuel standards because they would have almost zero impact in comparison.
The magnitude of the changes in climate effects that would be produced by the least stringent action alternative (Alternative 1) by the year 2100 is roughly a 0.6 ppm higher concentration of CO2, three thousandths of a degree increase in temperature rise, a small percentage change in the rate of precipitation increase, about 0.06 centimeter (0.02 inch) of sea-level rise, and an increase of 0.0004 in ocean pH.— NHTSA
“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,”
said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.
Avoiding overshoot and reliance on future large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well before 2030 (high confidence) — IPCC
Alternative 7, the lowest CO2 emissions alternative, would result in CO2 concentrations of 687.4 ppm, an increase of 0.15 ppm compared with the No Action Alternative. — NHTSA
You have to wonder why the administration made such a stark admission. MIT Sloan School of Management professor John Sterman
explained it this way:
“First, the administration proposes vehicle efficiency policies that would do almost nothing [to fight climate change]. Then [the administration] makes their impact seem even smaller by comparing their proposals to what would happen if the entire world does nothing.”
NHTSA’s 4°C rise revises IPCC’s chart to look like this:
As we have observed in this space before, to have a realistic chance of averting disaster, the global economy would need to reach an 11 percent decline rate per annum from 2036 (preventing catastrophic climate change above 2 degrees) or better, a 20 percent decline slope from 2037 (limiting ourselves to dangerous climate change at around 1.5 degrees).
An 11 percent decline slope is the inverse of doubling your fossil economy every 7 years — so, halving every 7 years. Try to imagine half the numbers of commercial passenger flights in 2025 as today, or half the numbers of gas-powered engines. Half the numbers of WalMart SuperStores bringing full cargo ships from Shenzhen to Houston. Then halve that by 2032 and again by 2039. You get the picture. Phasing out the worst fossil fuels in favor of the less evil heritage fuels (sunlight, wind, firewood), will not bring carbon back into the safety zone fast enough.
— Bates and Draper, Annual Meeting of International Society for Biophysical Economics (2018)
Human economics, like modern humans themselves, evolved in an era of favorable climate and nearly unfathomable natural abundance. To classical economists, nature’s abundance was never really in the equation. Merely an endowed capital resource. A given. A neglected externality. It is just always there. Sure, you can run it down, deplete it, use it up. The cost is still just the extractive cost — paying for miners or lumberjacks. The penalty is having to meet the higher replacement costs. Whether there even is a replacement is seldom considered. As long as the money is there it is assumed there will always be replacements, and probably better ones. And you can always just print more money.
Some peak oil theorists, eschewing classical economics, imagined twenty years ago that climate change, like many other types of pollution, would suddenly abate when we ran out of economically extractable fossil reserves. That assumption failed to account for atmospheric residence times, lag and feedback effects and thermodynamic inertia.
The warming from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea-level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C (medium confidence).
— IPCC
We passed that peak point for conventional fossil sources around 2005, but kept going, moving into the domain of more expensive, still marginally affordable, unconventional sources (oil shale, tar sands, fracked gas). Now unconventional sources, along with what remains of coal and sweet crude, are being exhausted more quickly than ever before, their discovery, extraction and refining costs ratcheting up but subsidized to the tune of $5.6 trillion per year, not counting military adventures and foreign intrigues (add another trillion for just the US military). At some point the unconventionals, like the conventionals, will move over into the “unaffordable” column because the Paris Agreement, like the new IPCC report, puts subsidies on death watch, and without those they are, each and every one eventually,
money losers for those who mine and drill. When that process will start is anyone’s guess. For now, buying politicians is a better business model for oil companies than exploring biofuels.
We use dinosaur carbon in many ways. Look around you. Almost everything you touch owes its existence to an invisible army of fossil energy slaves. From your computer, to the truck that transported it, to the road the truck drove down, to the chair, bed or floor you are sitting on. Fossil slaves cater your most basic needs. They provide food from farm to factory to store. They shear the sheep and weave your sweaters.
Energy is their heartbeat. If the energy flow slows, the blood flow weakens, slave labor grinds to a halt, and the invisible army falls dead in its tracks. Unless we can summon new reserves of energy, or learn to do with far less, a withering away of the industrial economy is inevitable.
We should free our fossil energy slaves as quickly as possible and recruit solar replacements. Down that road lies clean, renewable energy — carbon neutrality — and farther along, the cleansing transformations of agricultural and consumer wastes into continuous soil amendments and enduring passive sequestration — carbon drawdown. But make no mistake, after the revolution, it will not look like your daddy’s industrial world any more.
If only by virtue of the fact that we are going to be running on a budget of sunlight and not a million-year savings account of hi-octane fossil energy our future will be much more sedate. As science fiction writer Bruce Sterling says,
“Switchgrass is also aptly known as “Panic Grass,” a pretty good coinage for an attempt to run a superpower on hay.”
Until now, biomass energy crops like corn or cane have pushed their negative impacts onto ecosystems — deforestation, land and sea degradation, loss of biodiversity, erosion, water pollution, coral destruction and scarcity. With the newest IPCC report urgently telling us we need Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) for carbon dioxide removal, governmental and non-governmental institutions, academy, and society in general have raised concerns about the whole Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) scheme. What is the sustainability of using land to grow crops for energy? What is the longevity and safety of geological storage of CO2? What will this mean for forest and farm communities? What will all this cost?
Pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems (high confidence). These systems transitions are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors, a wide portfolio of mitigation options and a significant upscaling of investments in those options (medium confidence).— IPCC
Despite what modern herdsmen might tell you about the power of managed grazing to store carbon in grassland soils, nothing matches trees when it comes to socking away greenhouse gases. Even when the leaves have dropped for the winter, leaving only bare bristles raking the sky, they are still atmospheric scrub brushes. At their roots mycelia never sleep, transporting carbon exudates below erodible soil crusts, snow and respiring humates.
A plantation is not a forest any more than a CAFO is a farm. We need more forests, all over the planet, to remove more carbon and return it where it belongs. Old growth should be protected. Newer forests should be managed, at least in the near term, to optimize growth and carbon drawdown, and that will involve the gainful employment of hundreds of millions of us. China had the right idea when it
deployed 60,000 soldiers to plant trees over an area the size of Ireland.
Broadscale reforestry must also consider the social, economic and environmental dimensions of that social restructuring — including: food competition, basic services, family involvement, equal opportunities, land tenure rights, access to land tenure, retirement benefits, regulatory regimes, scientific and technological innovation, self-financing, income diversification, soil health, chemical safety, net land use degradation, biodiversity, waste management, availability and reuse of water, training, family health care, childrens’ education, child labor, lateral organization, and open, transparent participation.
From the standpoint of ecosystem services and biodiversity both above and below ground — not to mention the human social impacts — the industrial bioenergy model imagined by climate capitalists would be a disaster. Bioenergy as a side-product of forest harvesting, food and wood processing, can be inherently a local enterprise — optimally a family enterprise. We should plant healthy forests everywhere, not ship forest products halfway around the world.
Planting and then keeping healthy forests is going to be very challenging in a rapidly warming world. One thing we know will help is biochar, confering upon every seedling the blessings of favorable soil biology, fungal mass, drought and flood resilience, and pest resistance required to reach maturity.
 |
|
Air Burner turning forestry slash to biochar—courtesy Kelpie Wilson
|
Fortunately there is no shortage of waste biomass to be carbonized. That orphaned resource represents energy, which means economy, which can mean happiness. Look around! We are positively drowning in wasted organics; sewage sludge, livestock manure, invasive species of plants attacking mono-crops, green waste, food waste, and woody biomass scraps from various industries from papermaking to home furnishings, pallets to packaging, and the list goes on.
Apart from bacteria, the total live biomass on Earth is about 560 billion tons C. The total annual primary production of biomass, wild and domesticated, is just over 100 billion tons C/yr. Of that, farmed annual cereal crops are about 2.3 billion tons. And more than half the cereal biomass by weight is considered “waste.”
When we consider available “food-grade” wastes that could be turned into biomass energy, bio-fertilizers, pharmaceuticals and other uses, there is ample supply waiting to be tapped to turn the carbon cycle around and begin drawing down legacy emissions. Are those sources enough to accomplish the task of avoiding “dangerous” or “catastrophic” climate change? Probably not, so we can go beyond “food-grade” wastes to employ municipal solid wastes or hog manure to blend into carbon polymers, cement buildings and asphalt highways. There are untapped gigatons of unconventional feedstocks, and many more potential products and services that can cascade into fun and profit.
Cereal and agroforestry crop waste can go through several transformations — mashed for leaf protein extraction, fed to cattle or fish, fermented and distilled, dried for barn fodder, placed into rainwater filters, and carbonized for energy — before returning to the soil to support new crop growth as compost and biochar. Ultimately rewarded in this way, soils are rejuvenated, robust, resilient and ready to provide again for future generations.
If we begin to look at paper mill waste, poultry litter, waste treatment plant slurries, mountains of old tires, red tides of seaweed and algae or any of scores of present-day pollution nightmares, we quickly discover how easy it is to pyrolyze those feedstocks at local scale and at negative cost, with negative emissions and positive energy yielding a future we can all live with. It just needs a more honest form of economics to support it, or at least stop knocking it down.
When the latest IPCC report landed with a thud on government desks around the world, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists opined: 
Depending on where you start, we are already close enough to 1.5 that we can feel its hot breath on our collar. The IPCC did a nifty trick of shifting the starting point nearly a century forward from its earliest reports, the ones the set the temperature goal. They literally moved the goal posts. If they can keep doing that, we will never warm 1.5 degrees. Pretty cool, huh? The report’s authors say that 1.5 degrees is still financially and technologically feasible, and maybe this is why. We can always just manipulate the numbers.
Cloggie on Sun, 14th Oct 2018 12:16 pm
This just in: Barnier and Raab are rumoured to have reached a Brexit agreement:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6274789/Raab-holds-talks-Barnier-amid-signs-close-Brexit-divorce-deal.html
This doesn’t mean in any way that a no-deal Brexit has been staved off, because there is still the aligator swamp, aka British politics, to be dealt with.
Cloggie on Sun, 14th Oct 2018 12:25 pm
Bavaria election:
populists (11.0+11.5=22.5%) + greens (18%) win:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/wahl-in-bayern-erste-hochrechnung-sieht-herbe-verluste-fuer-csu-a-1233201.html
System parties CSU and socialists lose big time, 10+10%=20%
rockman on Sun, 14th Oct 2018 12:46 pm
I find it very interesting that so many still think that a lack of belief in climate change is what’s keeping the vast majority of fossil fuel consumers from changing their attitude about such consumption. IOW if enough warnings were given citizens would accept giving up the benefits they receive from fossil fuels today for the sake of FUTURE citizens. Even switching the threat to a more current time line appears to have little hoped for results: most still believe they’ll be the lucky ones who won’t pay the price.
Reaching a record 100 million bopd seems to prove the point IMHO. As does the EIA’s marginal increase in global coal consumption over the next 5 years. And as does its projection for NG consumption: “Consumption of natural gas worldwide is projected to increase from 120 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2012 to 203 Tcf in 2040 in the
International Energy Outlook 2016 (IEO2016) Reference case.”
I AM THE MOB on Sun, 14th Oct 2018 12:47 pm
Clogg
Nobody fucking cares about your stupid European politics..And the more populist who win just prove that your economy is in a deep depression with no way out..And if you think voting for anti vaxxers like Le Pen and that nut in Itlay are going to save you..You are dumber than dirt..
Once the oil starts to run out that is the ball game for the global economy..
Sleepwalking Into The Next Oil Crisis
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/03/23/is-the-world-sleepwalking-into-an-oil-crisis/#509edc8b44cf
Go Speed Racer on Sun, 14th Oct 2018 5:33 pm
A brief Fairy Tale
The great Socialist Queen of the North,
Ocasio-Cortez, said that nobody should
ever burn gasoline, not ever again.
And the people asked,
Who will be first to park their car forever?
“Not I”, said the conservative
“Not I”, said the liberal
“Not I”, said the hard working sheetrocker
“Not I”, said the Ivory Tower Fusion Professor
“Not I”, said the fast food worker driving
his beat-up jalopy to the pot shop,
“Not I”, said the fake news journalist
speeding to his next onsite to bash Trump.
And after that, then
they all booked weekend-getaways
to The Bahamas, and they burnt up more and
more gasoline and jet fuel,
and they lived happily ever after.
Anonymouse1 on Sun, 14th Oct 2018 6:05 pm
When they got there GSR, did they all go down to the beach and sit around a sofa-fire, singing some classic beach-boys songs? Bet they did!
Cloggie on Sun, 14th Oct 2018 7:11 pm
Nobody fucking cares about your stupid European politics.
People often have long in advance an intuition about what is going to happen to them, like millimind and his upcoming suicide:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6274459/Melania-Trump-predicts-ABC-kind-lady-dating-Donald-Trump-1999.html
‘I will be very traditional like Jackie Kennedy’: Melania Trump predicts what kind of first lady she will be while dating then-boyfriend Donald Trump in 1999 interview
Cloggie on Sun, 14th Oct 2018 7:31 pm
Bizar weather yesterday in the Netherlands… the leafs are falling, as they should in mid-October, and very windy, but freaking hot and dry, like in a Hitckcock movie. 27C (81F), for a third day in a row.
Go Speed Racer on Mon, 15th Oct 2018 1:28 am
Hi Anonymouse,
Let’s have us a beach party.
I will bring the Volleyball net
and soda pop and sandwiches,
if you will bring the potato salad and
some boom boxes.
I will even bring some cord wood, cardboard
and pallets to start the fire.
I think we should have at least 20 people
attending our party.
However we also should bring 4 sofa’s.
Two we can all sit in, while listening
to the beach boys songs.
The other two, we will throw onto the
campfire once its dark enough that the
cops wont see all the black smoke.
Sound good? OK! C U there!
Cloggie on Mon, 15th Oct 2018 1:40 am
Nobody fucking cares about your stupid European politics.
We are talking about nothing less than the breakup of the post-1945 West, Sunny, not a minute too early.
The DailyMail has to backtrack. There is no Brexit-agreement, not even close, thank God:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6274109/DUP-warns-no-deal-Brexit-likely-outcome.html
“DUP leader Arlene Foster warns a no-deal Brexit is now the ‘MOST LIKELY outcome’ after her furious row with ‘difficult and hostile’ Michel Barnier over the Irish border”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6274789/Raab-holds-talks-Barnier-amid-signs-close-Brexit-divorce-deal.html
“Brexit hopes dashed AGAIN: EU’s Barnier says ‘key issues remain open’ after Dominic Raab made fruitless rush to Brussels for ‘last-gasp’ talks amid Tory backlash over concessions by May”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6275859/Boris-Johnson-calls-stand-bullies-Brexit.html
“‘We are now entering the moment of crisis’: Boris calls on May to ‘stand up to EU bullies’ as she ‘pulls the plug on AGREED Brexit deal amid fears Cabinet would reject it'”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6275711/Four-ways-critical-week-Brexit-talks-play-fears-grow-Cabinet-revolt.html
“Brexit talks hit deadlock: Four ways this critical week could play out… and how Pizza Club could play a key role as fears grow over Cabinet revolt”
Excellent, the more shit, the better! Anything that destroys the libtard status quo. British and French navy clashing in the “English” Channel over fishing rights. Massive European armament programs in line with the demands of DJT. Secret talks with Moscow and Beijing about how the new world should look like, after empire. Withdrawal from the UN and its global immigration pact, which would imply the death of Europe and white America. Spain occupying Gibraltar. The possibilities are endless.
Eurasia #1!
But don’t cry victory too early. There is still the possibility that the evil Tony Blair, the Butcher of Eyeraq, will manage to sabotage Brexit, for which he would be rewarded by the many Anglophiles in the EU with the successor job of Juncker, a total nightmare:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6264205/Tony-Blair-urges-MPs-block-Brexit-deal-gets.html
Bring on Brexit, the harder the better.
Free Speech Forum on Mon, 15th Oct 2018 1:45 am
Trump supporters are never accused of defending freedom.
Davy on Mon, 15th Oct 2018 5:27 am
“Bring on Brexit, the harder the better.”
neder, the “harder” the more stress on the EU and the Euro. This is why this Brexit deal will be muddled through and made ok just like the big Italian problem will be. All Europeans know how to do anymore is kick the can down the road. Europe is a committee of nations these days that can’t agree on much but the status quo. Unfortunately for Europe the status quo is in flux and this does not bode well for the Eurozone. The Eurozone has many of the ingredients that tear an organization apart. It is probably the most at risk of all major powers.
Davy on Mon, 15th Oct 2018 5:54 am
“The Inevitable De-Industrialization Of Europe”
https://tinyurl.com/yd84aerf
EU ministers agreed to binding cuts in CO2 emissions of 35% by 2030. The German auto industry won’t be able to deliver.
“Car Sales Plunge The FT reports that Volkswagen global sales fell by nearly 20% in September as a direct result of the new worldwide light vehicles test procedure, which took effect last month. The fall was expected to some extent, and followed an increase in sales in August. The fall in deliveries in Germany alone was almost 50%, Sueddeutsche Zeitung quotes the head of VW as saying that the number of jobs in its German factories will fall by 100,000 in the next decade, an estimate we still consider relatively optimistic. Now that cities are imposing diesel bans, the car industry’s plan B had been to step up production of petrol cars, but this strategy is now double-crossed by the new CO2 emissions targets. Quota for Electric Cars FAZ thus calls the decision a quota for electric cars. While this is technically not correct, it has a similar effect. It is a development the German industry had sought to avoid because it is not one in which they have a natural leadership. We would add to that a forecast of our own: the import quota for cars will have to rise substantially for the EU to meet its own emission standards. This will become of the biggest factors driving the inevitable de-industrialisation of Europe – a socio-economic shift which nowadays has widespread political support but for which the EU and its member states are not prepared. Years Behind the US and China Germany is years behind the US and China when it comes to producing electric cars. It is also years behind the US on self-driving cars. Eventually, Germany will catch up, but that may take many years, if not a decade. This is what happens to cheaters when politicians can no longer protect them.”
Sissyfuss on Mon, 15th Oct 2018 8:31 am
For Europe it will be oxcarts and serfdom. The rhymes of history.
Cloggie on Mon, 15th Oct 2018 9:37 am
“The Inevitable De-Industrialization Of Europe”
Moneymaven.io
io = domain British Indian Ocean Territory
LOL
Just another resentful Brit trying to write Europe into the ground, after they failed to blow up the EU from within.
Germany “years behind the US” with e-vehicles? Now let me see:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/08/27/european-electric-car-sales-increased-42-in-h1-2018-vs-h1-2017/
Scroll down to “Europe deliveries”
The only US manufacturer Tesla lands at #6, the rest is European and Japanese.
Moneymaven is an idiot and the result of one of a large number of Davy’s infamous Google searches like “Europe collapse”, “Europe outshined by the US”, “the holocaust happened”, etc., etc.
Next.
Cloggie on Mon, 15th Oct 2018 9:54 am
“For Europe it will be oxcarts and serfdom. The rhymes of history.”
Another resentfull Anglo and his good wishes for Europe.
Yawn.
Back to reality…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/10/13/turbocharge-clean-energy-drive/
“Shell set to ‘turbocharge’ its clean energy drive in the 2020s”
Royal Dutch Shell is preparing to “turbocharge” its bid to become a global leader in clean energy in the coming years as it seeks to overcome the “existential” challenge posed by climate change, boss Ben van Beurden has told The Sunday Telegraph.
Deindustralization of Europe is good.lol I have not the slightest doubt that Shell will succeed in its to morph from an oil giant into a renewable energy giant, greatly enabled by the unique EU renewable energy strategy.
As a result, continental Europe will become the #1 economic powerhouse on the planet.
Davy on Mon, 15th Oct 2018 10:06 am
Neder, do the math with the drop off in Euro car sales then compare that to your techno optimistic link. in particular look at the part with EV related sales. Anyone not driven by a self serving agenda motivations would clearly see some issues surfacing.
Cloggie on Mon, 15th Oct 2018 10:21 am
Aha, the imagined/wished-for “deindustriization of Europe”, scaled back to some undefined “issues” regarding EV-sales.Check
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-14/stronger-euro-area-economic-growth-defies-trade-war-threats
Your concern for European economic wellbeing is touching, it really is, but fortunately unfounded.
Cloggie on Mon, 15th Oct 2018 10:33 am
More signs hard Brexit:
“Merkel rejects Brexit deal at any price”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-latest-uk-leaders-allies-issue-threats-over-brexit/2018/10/15/2b9d590c-d058-11e8-a4db-184311d27129_story.html
A hard, ugly Brexit will initiate the independence of continental Europe from the empire and the UK becoming a full US client state.
The British, not European, but Anglo all along. De Gaulle was right. It should have been Russia. Time to fix the mistake.
Davy on Mon, 15th Oct 2018 10:56 am
Neder, you are deflecting. Did you see my comment and the point concerning Euro auto sales? I don’t think I mentioned anything about August growth forecasts which are now likely obsolete you replied with. Would you not agree the Euro auto industry is facing increasing headwinds in a Euro wide economy slowing? In a global economy that is slowing. This is not at all helped by policy or trade war issues. BTW, I am not anti-Europe just Anti-neder extremist agenda. Also. BTW when you reference a link it is more intellectually valid to show content that agrees with your assertion. This shows you have read the article and understand it. It also shows the article is relevant.
Davy on Mon, 15th Oct 2018 12:36 pm
“Apple Earnings In Jeopardy: Goldman Sees “Unheard” Of Collapse In Chinese Smartphone Demand”
https://tinyurl.com/ycmqke4p
https://tinyurl.com/ydc9fjpu
“It’s not just auto sales that are tumbling in China: according to Goldman there are “multiple signs” of rapidly slowing consumer demand in China across all products.”
“How would this plunge in smartphone demand impact Apple’s bottom line? According to Goldman, China currently contributes ~13 million of Apple’s ~80m total iPhone unit forecast in the Dec ’18 QTR. That 13 million unit forecast implies that Apple will continue to lose share in the high end smartphone category (to 30% in Q4’18 from 32% in Q4’17) though it also assumes demand in that category is unaffected by macro.”
“The key takeaway from Goldman’s analysis is that Apple’s Dec ’18 EPS could end up dropping 4% in a worst case scenario if China’s weakness is indeed as bad as indicated.”
Darius on Fri, 19th Oct 2018 10:26 am
I understand that the U.S. is back to coal , oil and natural gas and less renewables, but Europe and Asia are back massively investing in solar and wind power.
Mankind needs to understand that by 2050 at least, we will both use fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas (less coal) and nuclear fuels to generate energy, and an increasing share of renewable energy in the energy mix of all countries.
However, by the mid of this century, oil will still remain an important source of energy and fuels.
https://www.alternative-energies.net/oil-energy-pros-and-cons/