[Graeme]

Fossil fuels ‘will still dominate in 2050’

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n spite of the worldwide interest in developing alternative energy sources, fossil fuels are expected to provide the bulk of energy in 2050, according to a study conducted by the World Energy Council and Switzerland’s Paul Scherrer Institute.
The next generation will produce and consume between 30 and 60 per cent more energy, with the biggest challenge being producing enough cheap and sustainable energy, the study found.

“It is a time of unprecedented uncertainty in the energy sector,” it said.

The authors of the study – which was presented Monday at the WEC’s World Energy Congress in South Korea – investigated two potential scenarios, one relying on a market economy to produce cheap electricity for all, the other providing more stringent market regulation in order to achieve international environmental goals.

Under the market economy scenario, it was unlikely that the overall objective of restricting global warming to two degrees Celsius would be reached by the end of the century; emissions were projected to increase by 50 per cent compared with today.

Both scenarios saw the greatest proportion of energy needs being met by fossil fuels such as gas and coal. Renewable forms of energy were expected to provide 20 to 30 per cent of needs by 2050, and 30 to 50 per cent for electricity.

The Swiss government’s Energy Strategy 2050, developed in the wake of the March 2011 nuclear disaster at Fukushima, includes the phasing out of nuclear power, and calls for energy consumption to be reduced by more than a third by 2035 and nearly half by 2050.

[Plantagenet]

Fossil fuel dominance for the foreseeable future was baked into the cake when the UN climate treaty process collapsed in Copenhagen in 2010 and China was left free to continue building coal-fired power plants.

[Graeme]

"Baked into the cake" was really an unfortunate choice of words. The worst news is the following paragraph:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nder the market economy scenario, it was unlikely that the overall objective of restricting global warming to two degrees Celsius would be reached by the end of the century; emissions were projected to increase by 50 per cent compared with today.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '
')Rather than pointing the finger at climate negotiations or China's policy, the Huffington Post blames the Koch brothers.

[Graeme]

You're not correct. Growth will occur in all regions according to WEC. And it's not silly to blame the Koch's; they have led a public disinformation campaign, which has succeeded!

[ROCKMAN]

Pstarr - "The Kock Broes are in the oil business, after all". And so am I. And I dare say if I had their money and used every penny to support developing all evidence about AGW and then broadcast it on every channel 24 hours a day I'm pretty sure we would see little change in the public's consumption habits. The people will demand the political system to do everything possible to maintain BAU as close as possible. Which is exactly what we see happening in the US, Canada, Russia, the ME, etc. today. Why would there be any honest expectation for a change...as least a positive change. The Woods Group, with a solid history of projections, anticipates coal to take dominance in the fossil fuel arena. The Kock Bros not withstanding, the path seems very well set IMHO.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', ' ')I'm pretty sure we would see little change in the public's consumption habits. The people will demand the political system to do everything possible to maintain BAU as close as possible.

[Graeme]

What absolute nonsense. The US public perception of climate change has actually got worse since 2007 because of "many confusing messages this year from conservative media". This report was released by Worldwatch Institute on October 8 updated today.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ewer U.S. citizens consider climate change to be a "serious threat" compared to two years ago, even as scientific evidence demonstrates that the problem has become increasingly severe, according to a recent nationwide public opinion poll.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey suggests that climate change campaigns are not adequately explaining the latest science to an audience that needs to reduce emissions substantially in order for the world to avoid the most damaging effects of global warming.

The survey, conducted between September 30 and October 4 among a sample of 1,500 telephone respondents, suggests that 65 percent of the U.S. public considers climate change to be a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem. The results mark a decline in public concern from January 2007, when 77 percent of participants told a Pew survey that they were seriously concerned about climate change.

The difference could be a matter of statistics. However, U.S. residents have been subjected to many confusing messages this year from conservative media, fossil fuel-dependent industries, and politicians who question the scientific certainty of climate change. The rise in contrarian voices coincides with the passage of a cap-and-trade bill by the U.S. House of Representatives and consideration of similar legislation by the Senate.

Intense political debate, coupled with colder weather in recent months, may have led to the increased doubt about the climate science, said Riley Dunlap, an environmental sociologist at Oklahoma State University.

"We're starting to see the effect of this constant barrage of [climate change] denial penetrating society," Dunlap said. "There is a constant belittling of climate change."

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'F')ewer U.S. citizens consider climate change to be a "serious threat" compared to two years ago, even as scientific evidence demonstrates that the problem has become increasingly severe, according to a recent nationwide public opinion poll.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'F')ewer U.S. citizens consider climate change to be a "serious threat" compared to two years ago, even as scientific evidence demonstrates that the problem has become increasingly severe, according to a recent nationwide public opinion poll.

[Graeme]

Yes, Plant and ROCKMAN are part of the FF industry who are constantly posting messages to confuse us.

[rollin]

"Under the market economy scenario, it was unlikely that the overall objective of restricting global warming to two degrees Celsius would be reached by the end of the century; emissions were projected to increase by 50 per cent compared with today."

If we stopped pumping SO2 into the atmosphere, we would soon pass the 2 degree C mark. The 1960's pollution slowed GW to a crawl, the 2000's pollution seems to be slowing it down again. There is no way to avoid 2 degree C. With BAU continuing for another 30 years, there is no way to avoid 4 to 6 degree ( and more from feedbacks) by 2070.

"The next generation will produce and consume between 30 and 60 per cent more energy, with the biggest challenge being producing enough cheap and sustainable energy, the study found.

“It is a time of unprecedented uncertainty in the energy sector,” it said."

Now that is an understatement. Where are they going to get it all from?

"The Swiss government’s Energy Strategy 2050, developed in the wake of the March 2011 nuclear disaster at Fukushima, includes the phasing out of nuclear power, and calls for energy consumption to be reduced by more than a third by 2035 and nearly half by 2050."

So the Swiss do not think that a huge increase in energy use is possible, They plan to run hard in the other direction, down half by 2050 from current levels. A much better plan. Good luck to them.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'Y')es, Plant and ROCKMAN are part of the FF industry who are constantly posting messages to confuse us.

[Graeme]

Well, thanks for the compliment. I've seen some quite outstanding posts from you but sometimes as you know I don't always agree with you. So that makes me suspicious of your responses above. I think admin knows who I am but I have been asked to try be anonymous. Revealing what I do will not help in that regard. We are in deep trouble. Relying on ff for future energy is simply insane policy especially coming from WEC. Surely the world can do better and must if the world's children are to survive later this century. I see our hopes dashed or raised depending on what I find on a daily basis. The final outcome is far from certain either way. Can't wait to see what we'll do next. . .

[ralfy]

Most people worldwide lack one or more basic needs, and to meet them more goods and services will have to be provided. If much of manufacturing and food production are dependent on fossil fuels, then such fuels will still dominate.

However, significant amounts of fuel and probably other resources are used to maintain middle class amenities not only for 15 pct of the world's population but for a growing global middle class. Likely, most profits and the bulk of wealth (consisting of credit) rests on sales of goods and services to this class.

This might explain why the denial machine is needed to give counterarguments regarding not just global warming but even environmental damage and peak oil. The public must be told that these problems don't exist, probably don't exist, exist but are caused by nature, or exist but can be solved through technology, other sources of energy, new discoveries of oil, market forces, etc. The main advice is dependent on the conclusion: do nothing, study the matter further, take advantage of nature, or wait for technology and capitalism to come up with solutions.

However, there is a possibility if every effort is taken to teach more people how to localize, then fossil fuel consumption might go down, and with that, more CO2 emissions, environmental damage, etc. But to do that will require the financial elite and government partners to acknowledge that a global capitalist system that requires continuous economic growth, as well as the financial speculation and the use of money in general, is not sustainable due not only to global warming but also to peak oil.

[SeaGypsy]

Well put Ralphy. It is time for a new economic paradigm.

[Graeme]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'P')starr - "The Kock Broes are in the oil business, after all". And so am I. And I dare say if I had their money and used every penny to support developing all evidence about AGW and then broadcast it on every channel 24 hours a day I'm pretty sure we would see little change in the public's consumption habits. The people will demand the political system to do everything possible to maintain BAU as close as possible. Which is exactly what we see happening in the US, Canada, Russia, the ME, etc. today. Why would there be any honest expectation for a change...as least a positive change. The Woods Group, with a solid history of projections, anticipates coal to take dominance in the fossil fuel arena. The Kock Bros not withstanding, the path seems very well set IMHO.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')International oil companies have a natural interest in following overall energy developments to see where their fortunes fit. The rising role of electricity makes the competition among energy sources more pronounced as switching from one source of energy to another becomes easier. This is why a long-term energy outlook from BP is worthy of consideration, for oil and gas producers and consumers alike. The latest outlook is based on a number of scenarios and have different assumptions for developments from now until 2040. The main scenario is rightly called the “evolving transition” scenario to reflect the speed of change in energy markets noticeable in recent years. The assumptions are the usual parameters that all forecasters must be aware of. World economic growth would more than double GDP by 2040 and 2.5 billion people lifted from low incomes; the world population increases to 9.2