The Guardian is not alone this morning in reporting the latest report from theInternational Energy Agency
The world's existing climate policies will not be enough to end the upward march of record energy emissions rising beyond 2040 without a “grand coalition” of governments and investors, according to the global energy watchdog.
The International Energy Agency said carbon emissions from the global energy industry reached a new record in 2018 despite progress in renewable energy in recent years.
The IEA expects the growth of renewables to accelerate over the coming decades, but warned it would not be enough to put a ceiling on the energy sector's emissions before 2040.
As a spokesperson noted:
We will need to see great political will around the world. This is why I believe that the world needs to build a grand coalition encompassing governments, investors, companies and everyone else who is genuinely committed to tackling climate change.
But in the current UK election we have heard the Tories say that Labour's Green New Deal is 'unaffordable'. They are not, then, part of that political process willing to tackle the climate issue. Their message is that we cannot afford to maintain life on earth. Their message is that a nice tidy government balance sheet is more important than life itself.
I despair of them.
I wish more people would.
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!
Indeed. Hard to escape conclusion that the Tory failure to fight climate change with investment is the 21st century’s Beeching error, just on a far more dangerous level (although both issues are linked). Seeking to ‘balance books’ regardless of future need. We’ll never learn.
It is possible that the Tories message on financing the GND mostly aimed at those that still think in terms of corner-shop financing as a model for national financing – this is an explanation – rather than an excuse (for the tories).
The IEA for almost 20 years has over-estimated the cost of renewables and under-estimated the growth of renewables. This is because the IEA is, for the most part, a fossil-fuel focused organisation. If it has changed its spots, it has done some only in the past year or so. It & the reports it produced – widely used by governments – are one (note that word) of the reasons we are where we are. Their record on lying (& it is nothing more or less than that – they knew what they were doing) is on a par with that of the fatberg.
Pretty much the only bunch to get things about right with respect to renewables (and the developing climate disaster) over the last 20-odd years were the NGOs such as WWF and FoE.
Thus the current output from the IEA is nothing short of brass bollocked cheek & firmly in the fatberg-class.
“The IEA expects the growth of renewables to accelerate over the coming decades, but warned it would not be enough to put a ceiling on the energy sector’s emissions before 2040″………..and only carbon capture & storage can do that – thus keeping the fossil-fools show on the road. Proof if it were needed that the IEA is part of the problem and if the EU had any self respect would pull out of this lying organisation immediately.
Thanks Mike
I appreciate your commentary
An opposition that was on the ball might choose to counter the Tories’ claims by using their own slogan of “living within our means” against them. Just apply it to the environment instead of the economy and repeat at every single opportunity.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/earth-overshoot-day-planets-resource-2019-eod-a9025126.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11339904/Conservatives-reveal-new-election-slogan.html
I’m not and never have been a member of the Bacofoil Hat wearing community but I do increasingly wonder whether the motivation for reluctance to move away from fossil fuels & relentless extraction of finite natural resources at the levers of power is less to do with “denial”, ignorance or stupidity and more to do with cynical acknowledgement that the game is probably up and that to put the pedal to the metal and go full throttle to the finish is the most lucrative, short term survival instinct for those with ocean going super yachts and bunkers on 20,000 acres in NZ or Wyoming. But maybe that’s just me being cynical….
Tesla has just announced that because of Brexit they will be investing in a high tech manufacturing facility to produce both cars and batteries in Germany instead of the UK. The Brexit bill for opportunity loss just gets bigger and bigger.
No they didn’t. They referred to the uncertainty around Brexit. The uncertainty that is being driven significantly by the opposition who think that the best solution is continued uncertainty, further negotiation of a new deal, which they would campaign against and then have another referendum.
You couldn’t make it up.
Except you did.
Hi Steve Moffett – I’ve been trying to work out whether your reply to me is an attempt at humour or are you just a little confused. It may have escaped your notice but your first 2 sentences directly contradict each other. It also appears to be more than a little perverse of you to blame the Labour opposition for the Tory’s inability to persuade their own MPs to support Tory legislation and policies. The Tories own this mess 100% from start to
finish(when is it going to finish, has Boris come up with another die in a ditch date yet?)So which is it, are you attempting to have a laugh or are you just a little confused?
“The Tory message is that we cannot afford to maintain life on earth.”
OH YES WE CAN – IMPLEMENT THE PARIS AGREEMENT!
A National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) report [1, 2] gives the clearest picture of the “Long-Term Macroeconomic Effects of Climate Change: A Cross-Country Analysis”; worth a look. Both ‘cold’ and ‘hot’, ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ countries do not fare well (large losses of GDP) if climate change agreement e.g. Paris, is not acted on. US and Russia are set to come off worse. If the Paris agreement is enacted then most countries will see much smaller GDP reductions, the EU will retain its GDP and Russia and China predicted to increase their GDP.
[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w26167 National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138
[2] Reported in the November issue of Scientific American, 2019, p12.
(If you get to the November issue of Scientific American it also features a (physicist’s) model of wealth distributions and GINI coefficient, in modern economies, showing clearly wealth moves up – not down, unless there is intervention.)