During the last ten years over 12 trillion dollars has been spent globally building-out ‘clean’ energy infrastructure, to include solar and wind generation capacity. In spite of this investment, the global consumption of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) continued to increase, as did CO2 emissions, which set a record in 2023.
Here is the problem….
During the ten years from 2014 to 2023, the global economic output grew annually by an average of 2.7 percent. Projecting this forward results in a doubling of global economic output by 2050 (Year Net-Zero). During the same ten year period, global population grew by an average of 1.1 percent annually (750,000,000 people over ten years). Projecting this rate of population growth forward results in a global population by 2050 (Year Net-Zero) of over ten billion people (25 percent more than we have today).
That 12 trillion dollar investment in ‘clean’ energy merely helped to partially cover the increase in energy demand due to the growing global economy and population growth. It did nothing to contribute to an absolute reduction of CO2 emissions. Net-Zero at 50 is an unattainable goal under current trends of global economic and population growth.
Complex technological fixes are not going to do the job. Green ammonia, green hydrogen, battery storage, Carbon Capture and Underground Storage, and all the rest of the magic and make believe that is supposedly going to save us is an exercise in wishful thinking. These ‘solutions’ overpromise now and will underperform when attempts are made to scale them up. Recall what was said about electricity produced by nuclear fission in the late 1950s. The industry boosters said that nuclear generation was going to provide electricity so cheap that there would be no point in metering it at the point of consumption. And how did that fairy-tale turn out?
The global population has already overshot any reasonable number that can be sustained within a true renewable energy economic system. Economic growth will have to end in order to have any chance of bringing the needs of humanity into balance with the preservation of the biosphere (which we require for our own survival). The solution will involve a radical change in how we live; something close to how the Old World Amish of Lancaster County PA live. Are readers ready to embrace that lifestyle?
Since 1979 there have been 36 global climate conclaves where John Kerry clones flew in their private jets to exotic locales to blah, blah, blah about the existential threat of climate change. All their hot air has done nothing to impact the trajectory of global CO2 emissions. Nothing! Might was well worry about animal welfare or some other cause with a higher probability of making a difference.
This is the BIG PICTURE; what happens in the ‘Golden’ State doesn’t matter.
Ed is mostly right, but he doesn't tell us the solution which is not an easy one. We have to voluntarily reduce our own population. Drastically and quickly. We are the problem and reducing our numbers significantly is a step in the right direction. But Ed is correct in some of his cynicism. We're unlikely to take truely effective measures.
During the last ten years over 12 trillion dollars has been spent globally building-out ‘clean’ energy infrastructure, to include solar and wind generation capacity. In spite of this investment, the global consumption of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) continued to increase, as did CO2 emissions, which set a record in 2023.
Here is the problem….
During the ten years from 2014 to 2023, the global economic output grew annually by an average of 2.7 percent. Projecting this forward results in a doubling of global economic output by 2050 (Year Net-Zero). During the same ten year period, global population grew by an average of 1.1 percent annually (750,000,000 people over ten years). Projecting this rate of population growth forward results in a global population by 2050 (Year Net-Zero) of over ten billion people (25 percent more than we have today).
That 12 trillion dollar investment in ‘clean’ energy merely helped to partially cover the increase in energy demand due to the growing global economy and population growth. It did nothing to contribute to an absolute reduction of CO2 emissions. Net-Zero at 50 is an unattainable goal under current trends of global economic and population growth.
Complex technological fixes are not going to do the job. Green ammonia, green hydrogen, battery storage, Carbon Capture and Underground Storage, and all the rest of the magic and make believe that is supposedly going to save us is an exercise in wishful thinking. These ‘solutions’ overpromise now and will underperform when attempts are made to scale them up. Recall what was said about electricity produced by nuclear fission in the late 1950s. The industry boosters said that nuclear generation was going to provide electricity so cheap that there would be no point in metering it at the point of consumption. And how did that fairy-tale turn out?
The global population has already overshot any reasonable number that can be sustained within a true renewable energy economic system. Economic growth will have to end in order to have any chance of bringing the needs of humanity into balance with the preservation of the biosphere (which we require for our own survival). The solution will involve a radical change in how we live; something close to how the Old World Amish of Lancaster County PA live. Are readers ready to embrace that lifestyle?
Since 1979 there have been 36 global climate conclaves where John Kerry clones flew in their private jets to exotic locales to blah, blah, blah about the existential threat of climate change. All their hot air has done nothing to impact the trajectory of global CO2 emissions. Nothing! Might was well worry about animal welfare or some other cause with a higher probability of making a difference.
This is the BIG PICTURE; what happens in the ‘Golden’ State doesn’t matter.
Ed is mostly right, but he doesn't tell us the solution which is not an easy one. We have to voluntarily reduce our own population. Drastically and quickly. We are the problem and reducing our numbers significantly is a step in the right direction. But Ed is correct in some of his cynicism. We're unlikely to take truely effective measures.