The phasing out of fossil fuels by 2100 has been announced by the G7.
The issue is, of course, dependent upon investment and as the Guardian reports, Angela Merkel said the leading industrialised countries were committed to raising $100bn (£65bn) in annual climate financing by 2020 from public and private sources.
Four things. First, note the delay, as ever.
Second, I do not think we have that long.
Third, note how low the estimate is. There has been many higher estimates.The International Energy Agency estimates that energy investment in excess of US$ 50 trillion will be needed by 2035 if we are to prevent more than 2°C of warming. The disparity is enormous.
Fourth, if you want proof of the need for Green Infrastructure Quantitative Easing then this is it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I had to laugh at this.
Those nations (who are technically still growing) could do with some of that investment to help curb emissions as they grow. I wonder if they will get any or is this a cynical attempt to move pollution production for the West off shore?
Then there is the huge and powerful coal lobby in the US who I’m sure would love to put a spoke in the wheels of this plan and no doubt will when the Republicans win the next election.
For action to address climate change to be effective we have to stop carbon extraction.
The problem is that our economic model is built on carbon extraction and enabling growth at all costs.
The leaders of the rich countries and their financiers prefer to see the immense human suffering that will result from business as usual rather than contemplate beginning that brave transition to an economy based on renewables and sustainability.
Real change can only come from below. In the meantime there is going to be a lot of pain.
And it is not fair because those underdeveloped least polluting countries are going to hurt first and most, not those countries historically responsible for spewing greenhouse gasses into a shared atmosphere since the mid 18th century.
Agreed
That’s why all change is always postponed
The mismatch between what’s actually required and this figure can be explained quite simply, Richard. The promised action is simply a continuation of the policy of deceit that has marked out governmental responses (whether at national, regional or international level) to climate change for more than a decade. By deceit I mean that governments and their corporate puppet masters recognise they need to be seen to be doing something but don’t actually want to upset in any way the current models of economic growth (and thus profit making). So, they talk the talk at regular events such as this, and promise money and actions, and so on, but actually it’s all largely PR.
Today’s politicians and captains of industry know (though they may be caught out if current evidence is correct) that most/all of them will be long gone before the worst impacts of the environmental catastrophe of global warming is upon us, so why make themselves unpopular with their peers, masters – and I have to say most of their populace – by doing anything effective now.
Furthermore, the impacts we see now – and probably for another ten years or so are mainly visited on poor people – and we well know the attitude of the governing classes and the 1% to the poor. Additionally – but not to be dismissed – is the underlying belief that when the worst of climate change is finally upon us those that govern us and the rich will always have the resources to buy their way out, whether by the use of select technologies and/or owning those parts of the planet (not to mention the resources necessary to sustain their existence) that escape the worst impacts of climate. The 2013 SciFi film Elysium captured it well – though the happy ending is the usual Hollywood cop-out.
I am sure you are right
The believe that the gated community will be OK is very strong – and wrong
“financing…from…private sources.”
Is an absolute red flag they are NOT taking climate threat seriously.
On hearing there was a financial meltdown / war / giant earth-threatening meteor etc. would they spend even one nanosecond thinking ‘My God what are we going to do? Quick! launch a PFI scheme’?
Of course not, this is all fake window dressing from people who clearly don’t genuinely feel the threat is real.
There is no doubt that the unpredictability of our weather has something to do with global warming/carbon emissions. Organisations are accepting that weather conditions are getting more extreme.
For example, Insurers have started to insist that we now use more nails to fix roof tiles on newly built homes. Just a small form of recognition that things are actually getting worse environmentally – but nevertheless a another step forward for the legitimacy of the need for change.
“For example, Insurers have started to insist that we now use more nails to fix roof tiles on newly built homes”
That’s because builders neglected to use the correct (and recommended) amount of nails and clips that they are/were required to in the recent past.
Depending on the angle of the roof, the quantity of fixings varies…..
Note also that some of the tiles used now are “eco-friendly” (made from recycled plastic) and require and increase in fixings…which many tilers were not using.
Also note that the nails used are now not plated to the same degree as used in the past…so they rust faster.
Weather has always been unpredictable. Forecasts are frequently wrong, and the further into the future you forecast the more errors will occur. The weather system is what is known as “chaotic”
http://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/butterfly.html
“This led Lorenz to realize that long-term weather forecasting was doomed”
Weather is chaotic and therefore you cannot forecast with any degree of accuracy beyond a certain timeframe. The climate however can be forecasted far into the future given a certain set of conditions (a linear or non-linear rise of CO2 for example).
Laughable. Saying fossil fuel use will cease by 2100 is essentially meaningless.
”G7 announce jet packs for everyone and eternal life by 2100 !” – see anybody can make stuff up.
Its quite probably the most pathetic governmental statement on climate change i’ve ever heard, it doesn’t even try to be semi serious. It doesn’t even give a timescale for which my preschool children will most likely be around to see.
A nonsensical and utter waste of time, they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
“Weather is chaotic and therefore you cannot forecast with any degree of accuracy beyond a certain timeframe. The climate however can be forecasted far into the future given a certain set of conditions (a linear or non-linear rise of CO2 for example)”
“When predicting the weather, forecasting 10 days in to the future is considered a long range forecast. When predicting the climate, long range forecasts are generally on a seasonal timescale or longer. Forecasting the climate months and even years ahead is a very complex process”
https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/long_range_forecasting.php
Bearing in mind that long-term climate forecasting not only has to take account of terrestrial conditions, in all their complexity, but also extra-terrestrial conditions.
Note that we are, at present, still in an ice-age; albeit inter-glacial.
if we cease to be interglacial, and slip into glacial, then we are in very, very, serious trouble.