Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

[Lord of Planar]

Do I understand you correctly? That you really believe that manmade global warming is a conspiracy between politicians and the scientific community?

How can you make such idiotic assumptions of my beliefs with as many posts as I have made since you joined these discussions?

No. There is no conspiracy. If there are conspiracies in any form, they are small and among a very tiny group. The closest I have seen were the leaked emails some years back.

Also, it’s interesting that the people that deny manmade global warming are still after several all over the place.

I do not deny that we have an effect. I never have, and several times explained how we warm from aerosols and land use changes, and how the measurements get skewed.

Do you really want to look like the fool who attacks a person for things they have never claimed?

That some like you claim it’s politicians wanting to implement a tax on CO2 and at the same time you for example have Trump that have claimed that global warming is a Chinese hoax.

Yes, politicians like having power and control, but that is groupthink. Not conspiracy. They don't band together and figure out how to lie with the scientists.

Words have meaning. I see you received a substandard education. I understand. Schools today are so inferior to those 50 years ago. They started going downhill when the new bureaucracy was created called the Department of Education. Now you have more centralized control, and less in schools decided by the cities and states.

Sorry, I went off on a tangent, like I often do. The point is... WORDS HAVE MEANING!!! Get an education of them.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385

Whoop-te-do...

Why do you think I care what he thinks, and for that matter, what if he is correct?

Just what if... What if that statement is true?

What is it with all this hatred towards president Trump. I don't like him myself, but damn... Outsides must see us as a nation of hate!

While at the same time you both have those who accept that manmade global warming is real but claim it will not be that bad and those who claim that we will now have global cooling.

There are no scientific studies that show CO2 will be harmful. If you actually read the studies, and follow how they come to light by the pundits, you would see that the pundits took scientific "what if's" and then claim them as fact.

 

[Jack Hays]

Coal / Energy
[h=1]Time to Wake the Odd Man of Asia[/h]Guest essay by Viv Forbes Japan has 45 new high-energy, low-emission (HELE) coal-fired power plants on the drawing boards. These will probably burn high quality Australian coal. And despite the tsunami that hit Japan, nuclear power still generates about 20% of Japan’s electricity. Chinese companies have plans to build 700 new coal power plants all…

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]A question that gives pause: If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?[/h]By Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Over the last year, the media have published story after story after story about the declining price of solar panels and wind turbines. People who read these stories are understandably left with the impression that the more solar and wind energy we produce, the lower electricity prices will become. And yet that’s not what’s happening.…
Continue reading →

 

[longview]

[h=1]A question that gives pause: If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?[/h]By Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Over the last year, the media have published story after story after story about the declining price of solar panels and wind turbines. People who read these stories are understandably left with the impression that the more solar and wind energy we produce, the lower electricity prices will become. And yet that’s not what’s happening.…
Continue reading →

It is really simple accounting, the net metering, and feed in tariff laws, require utilities to buy surplus at greater than the
wholesale rate, but the utility has to maintain their same level of capacity for when the sun is not shining or the wind blowing.
The combination of these two things means the difference between gross profit and net profit drops.
To maintain the margin, the utility must raise the retail price.
The secondary effect is in a 1:1 net metering scenario, the increase in the retail rate, also increases
what they pay for the surplus. This sends the pricing into an inflation loop.
The bottom line, is that they have to fix net metering before solar can expand.

 

[Jack Hays]

It is really simple accounting, the net metering, and feed in tariff laws, require utilities to buy surplus at greater than the
wholesale rate, but the utility has to maintain their same level of capacity for when the sun is not shining or the wind blowing.
The combination of these two things means the difference between gross profit and net profit drops.
To maintain the margin, the utility must raise the retail price.
The secondary effect is in a 1:1 net metering scenario, the increase in the retail rate, also increases
what they pay for the surplus. This sends the pricing into an inflation loop.
The bottom line, is that they have to fix net metering before solar can expand.

I think you may be the only poster here who understands the complexities of this issue.

 

[longview]

I think you may be the only poster here who understands the complexities of this issue.

I was trying to do a spreadsheet of this to show the basic ideas, but if the current rate were $.10 per Kwh,
at 50% solar the rate would be about $.18 per Kwh, (and the taxes based on price would be higher also.)

 

[Jack Hays]

I was trying to do a spreadsheet of this to show the basic ideas, but if the current rate were $.10 per Kwh,
at 50% solar the rate would be about $.18 per Kwh, (and the taxes based on price would be higher also.)

I'll take your word for it.:mrgreen:

 

[Bergslagstroll]

How can you make such idiotic assumptions of my beliefs with as many posts as I have made since you joined these discussions?

No. There is no conspiracy. If there are conspiracies in any form, they are small and among a very tiny group. The closest I have seen were the leaked emails some years back.


I do not deny that we have an effect. I never have, and several times explained how we warm from aerosols and land use changes, and how the measurements get skewed.

Do you really want to look like the fool who attacks a person for things they have never claimed?


Yes, politicians like having power and control, but that is groupthink. Not conspiracy. They don't band together and figure out how to lie with the scientists.

Words have meaning. I see you received a substandard education. I understand. Schools today are so inferior to those 50 years ago. They started going downhill when the new bureaucracy was created called the Department of Education. Now you have more centralized control, and less in schools decided by the cities and states.

Sorry, I went off on a tangent, like I often do. The point is... WORDS HAVE MEANING!!! Get an education of them.


Whoop-te-do...

Why do you think I care what he thinks, and for that matter, what if he is correct?

Just what if... What if that statement is true?

What is it with all this hatred towards president Trump. I don't like him myself, but damn... Outsides must see us as a nation of hate!


There are no scientific studies that show CO2 will be harmful. If you actually read the studies, and follow how they come to light by the pundits, you would see that the pundits took scientific "what if's" and then claim them as fact.

You have both written, “The politicians have the ignorant convinced it's CO2, so they can form some type of a sin tax on CO2. I say the human component is primarily land use and aerosols.” While you also now write “No. There is no conspiracy. If there are conspiracies in any form, they are small and among a very tiny group. The closest I have seen were the leaked emails some years back.”

So what do you mean? For example, are you saying that all the leading scientific institutes that have concluded it’s C02 consists of ignorant people? Or are you saying that you have a very small but super effective group of politicians that somehow have convinced all those scientists. I just trying to understand what you mean.

Also, it’s probably very few that agrees with your theory that it’s primarily land use and aerosols that causes manmade global warming, that even amongst the ones who deny the need for action on manmade global warming caused by C02. Because amongst the people that question the scientific consensus you have some who acknowledge that its C02 but claim that the negative effect will be small are none. While other claims it’s the sun and even claim that we will now have a period of cooling.

You also have elected politicians like for example congressman Mo Brooks who claims that land erosions and falling rocks causes rising sea levels.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/05/go...laming-rocks-falling-ocean-rising-sea-levels/

While the president of United States has claimed that global warming is a Chinese hoax.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385

 

[Bergslagstroll]

[h=1]A question that gives pause: If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?[/h]By Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Over the last year, the media have published story after story after story about the declining price of solar panels and wind turbines. People who read these stories are understandably left with the impression that the more solar and wind energy we produce, the lower electricity prices will become. And yet that’s not what’s happening.…
Continue reading →

What condition the houses are in and how drafty is the big factors regarding the level of fuel costs as share of income, here in Europe. While how weak or strong the welfare state is also a big factor for the level of fuel poverty.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ.../uk-homes-most-expensive-heat-eu-fuel-poverty

That energy efficiency is a very important factor to consider. That for example the UK could save 9.7 billion dollars by 2035 and save the equivalent of six new nuclear power plants by spurring energy efficiency measures.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...omes-ban-may-save-power-of-six-nuclear-plants

Another factor is how equal or inequal countries are, for how big share of income families has to spend on energy. That for example in USA, that is a more unequal country, you have the poorest 20 percent of the population spending 22 percent of their income on energy compared with 5 percent for the richest 20 percent. Even if the richest 20 percent probably spend a lot more on and use a lot more energy.

http://www.americaspower.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Family-Energy-Costs-2016.pdf

 

[Jack Hays]

What condition the houses are in and how drafty is the big factors regarding the level of fuel costs as share of income, here in Europe. While how weak or strong the welfare state is also a big factor for the level of fuel poverty.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ.../uk-homes-most-expensive-heat-eu-fuel-poverty

That energy efficiency is a very important factor to consider. That for example the UK could save 9.7 billion dollars by 2035 and save the equivalent of six new nuclear power plants by spurring energy efficiency measures.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...omes-ban-may-save-power-of-six-nuclear-plants

Another factor is how equal or inequal countries are, for how big share of income families has to spend on energy. That for example in USA, that is a more unequal country, you have the poorest 20 percent of the population spending 22 percent of their income on energy compared with 5 percent for the richest 20 percent. Even if the richest 20 percent probably spend a lot more on and use a lot more energy.

http://www.americaspower.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Family-Energy-Costs-2016.pdf

You are avoiding the point.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You have both written, “The politicians have the ignorant convinced it's CO2, so they can form some type of a sin tax on CO2. I say the human component is primarily land use and aerosols.” While you also now write “No. There is no conspiracy. If there are conspiracies in any form, they are small and among a very tiny group. The closest I have seen were the leaked emails some years back.”

Do you understand the differences between people acting upon their own best interests, individually, and actually colluding?

So what do you mean? For example, are you saying that all the leading scientific institutes that have concluded it’s C02 consists of ignorant people?

I never said that. The people in the positions of power do what is in their best interest to hold their job.

Or are you saying that you have a very small but super effective group of politicians that somehow have convinced all those scientists. I just trying to understand what you mean.

No, I said follow the money.

Research grants are given to prove AGW,. so that is what the scientists write their papers to do. In some cases, they get a cut of the research money as supplemental income. They are just doing what they are paid to do. If you have actually ever read such research papers, you would see how inconclusive the papers actually are, and based mostly on modeling and the best practices to active the results desired by the purse string holders of the grant money. The researcher gets to pick the model and data to achieve the desired results.

Also, it’s probably very few that agrees with your theory that it’s primarily land use and aerosols that causes manmade global warming, that even amongst the ones who deny the need for action on manmade global warming caused by C02. Because amongst the people that question the scientific consensus you have some who acknowledge that its C02 but claim that the negative effect will be small are none. While other claims it’s the sun and even claim that we will now have a period of cooling.

I know I have a minority viewpoint. I never said otherwise. That doesn't mean I am wrong, as consensus does not make fact. Think about the implications of how near more than 90% of the meteorological sites used are within the effects of urban sprawl. There is no way to properly account for the loss of natural evapotranspiration that these land use changes bring. I contend that they are not properly accounted for. Then with ice melt, I have no doubt that the loss of albedo has a more significant effect than any change of CO2 forcing can have. This becomes more apparent since the Antarctica and the Arctic sheet and shelf ice respond so differently. CO2 forcing on H2O is strong. So strong, it only affects the first few microns on the surface, where the heat is almost immediately radiated back out. This changes with loss of albedo. The correlation of CO2 and ice loss is actually from the soot created from burning fossil fuels. Not the CO2.

Think about the fact that CO2 creates around 31 to 32 W/m^2 of total forcing, and since 1750, only 1.8 W/m^2 was added. The idea that changing the temperature from say -20 degrees to -19 degrees will melt more ice, is ludicrous. Meanwhile, the solar changes take thousands of years to achieve full ECS, but the cycles of the sun are around 1500 years. The 22 year cycle complicates things too, as well as other cycles that are something like 143 years, etc. Then we have to remember that almost all the solar changes are in the shortwave frequencies rather than longwave, and the ovean is mostly transparent to such changes. This means the ocean nearly fully absorbs the changes of solar energy. Now figure in thermal inertial of such a massive system, and you have between 50 to 100 years before you actually measure temperature changes from the solar changes.

You also have elected politicians like for example congressman Mo Brooks who claims that land erosions and falling rocks causes rising sea levels.

That is a fact. I don't think it's a significant amount, but all this erosion of land does cause the oceans to rise.

While the president of United States has claimed that global warming is a Chinese hoax.

Are you saying that the right is wrong in their propaganda, but the left is not, when almost all politicians lie?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You are avoiding the point.

He also doesn't realize that facts make statistics, but statistics do not make fact.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

You are avoiding the point.

The more important point is how much of household’s income is going to energy consumption. That the 5.1 percent in Germany, who have invested a lot in renewable energy, is roughly the same as other European countries.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ.../uk-homes-most-expensive-heat-eu-fuel-poverty

Also, if you concern about how much money households have left after paying for energy you also have consider how unequal a country is. That for example in USA, that is a more unequal country, the poorest 20 percent must spend 22 percent of their income on energy.

http://www.americaspower.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Family-Energy-Costs-2016.pdf

Also, renewables are getting more and more competitive tower other energy sources like coal. Like for example that 65 percent of India’s coal power generation is being sold at higher rates than new renewable energy bids in competitive power auctions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energy...ts-more-than-new-wind-and-solar/#63d37f3c4c0f

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Do you understand the differences between people acting upon their own best interests, individually, and actually colluding?


I never said that. The people in the positions of power do what is in their best interest to hold their job.


No, I said follow the money.

Research grants are given to prove AGW,. so that is what the scientists write their papers to do. In some cases, they get a cut of the research money as supplemental income. They are just doing what they are paid to do. If you have actually ever read such research papers, you would see how inconclusive the papers actually are, and based mostly on modeling and the best practices to active the results desired by the purse string holders of the grant money. The researcher gets to pick the model and data to achieve the desired results.


I know I have a minority viewpoint. I never said otherwise. That doesn't mean I am wrong, as consensus does not make fact. Think about the implications of how near more than 90% of the meteorological sites used are within the effects of urban sprawl. There is no way to properly account for the loss of natural evapotranspiration that these land use changes bring. I contend that they are not properly accounted for. Then with ice melt, I have no doubt that the loss of albedo has a more significant effect than any change of CO2 forcing can have. This becomes more apparent since the Antarctica and the Arctic sheet and shelf ice respond so differently. CO2 forcing on H2O is strong. So strong, it only affects the first few microns on the surface, where the heat is almost immediately radiated back out. This changes with loss of albedo. The correlation of CO2 and ice loss is actually from the soot created from burning fossil fuels. Not the CO2.

Think about the fact that CO2 creates around 31 to 32 W/m^2 of total forcing, and since 1750, only 1.8 W/m^2 was added. The idea that changing the temperature from say -20 degrees to -19 degrees will melt more ice, is ludicrous. Meanwhile, the solar changes take thousands of years to achieve full ECS, but the cycles of the sun are around 1500 years. The 22 year cycle complicates things too, as well as other cycles that are something like 143 years, etc. Then we have to remember that almost all the solar changes are in the shortwave frequencies rather than longwave, and the ovean is mostly transparent to such changes. This means the ocean nearly fully absorbs the changes of solar energy. Now figure in thermal inertial of such a massive system, and you have between 50 to 100 years before you actually measure temperature changes from the solar changes.


That is a fact. I don't think it's a significant amount, but all this erosion of land does cause the oceans to rise.


Are you saying that the right is wrong in their propaganda, but the left is not, when almost all politicians lie?

What evidence do you have for what scientists need to acknowledge manmade global warming to keep their jobs and gets grants?

That this idea gets even more absurd if you consider that Bush, that didn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol, was president for eight years, that you have American states controlled by Republicans that doesn’t want to see action on climate change, and now Trump, who have said global warming is a Chinese hoax, is president with a Republican congress.

That have according to you all those Republican politicians also conspired to only give grants to scientists that acknowledge global warming and fired scientists that doesn’t acknowledge global warming?

Also, fossil fuel companies have done their own studies that show that manmade global warming is caused by C02. That for example 80 percent of Exxon’s research and internal communications between 1977 and 2014 acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html

While Shell’s 1988 report “The Greenhouse Effect” warned that manmade global would affect living standards and food supplies and have social, economic and political consequences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ion-was/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5bc854ec05d6

 

[Bergslagstroll]

One intersting example of the transition towards 100 percent renewable energy is the increase of electric buses, where China is leading the way.

"Suddenly, buses with battery-powered motors are a serious matter with the potential to revolutionize city transport—and add to the forces reshaping the energy industry. With China leading the way, making the traditional smog-belching diesel behemoth run on electricity is starting to eat away at fossil fuel demand.


The numbers are staggering. China had about 99 percent of the 385,000 electric buses on the roads worldwide in 2017, accounting for 17 percent of the country’s entire fleet. Every five weeks, Chinese cities add 9,500 of the zero-emissions transporters—the equivalent of London’s entire working fleet, according Bloomberg New Energy Finance."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/electric-buses-are-hurting-the-oil-industry

 

[Jack Hays]

The more important point is how much of household’s income is going to energy consumption. That the 5.1 percent in Germany, who have invested a lot in renewable energy, is roughly the same as other European countries.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ.../uk-homes-most-expensive-heat-eu-fuel-poverty

Also, if you concern about how much money households have left after paying for energy you also have consider how unequal a country is. That for example in USA, that is a more unequal country, the poorest 20 percent must spend 22 percent of their income on energy.

http://www.americaspower.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Family-Energy-Costs-2016.pdf

Also, renewables are getting more and more competitive tower other energy sources like coal. Like for example that 65 percent of India’s coal power generation is being sold at higher rates than new renewable energy bids in competitive power auctions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energy...ts-more-than-new-wind-and-solar/#63d37f3c4c0f

Just more arm waving to dodge the point.

 

[Jack Hays]

One intersting example of the transition towards 100 percent renewable energy is the increase of electric buses, where China is leading the way.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/electric-buses-are-hurting-the-oil-industry

Where that electricity will no doubt be generated by the 700 new coal-fired electricity generating plants the Chinese plan to build.

 

[longview]

What evidence do you have for what scientists need to acknowledge manmade global warming to keep their jobs and gets grants?

That this idea gets even more absurd if you consider that Bush, that didn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol, was president for eight years, that you have American states controlled by Republicans that doesn’t want to see action on climate change, and now Trump, who have said global warming is a Chinese hoax, is president with a Republican congress.

That have according to you all those Republican politicians also conspired to only give grants to scientists that acknowledge global warming and fired scientists that doesn’t acknowledge global warming?

Also, fossil fuel companies have done their own studies that show that manmade global warming is caused by C02. That for example 80 percent of Exxon’s research and internal communications between 1977 and 2014 acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html

While Shell’s 1988 report “The Greenhouse Effect” warned that manmade global would affect living standards and food supplies and have social, economic and political consequences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ion-was/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5bc854ec05d6

It might help to read the Nature article about Dr. Judith Curry being labeled a climate heretic.
https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html

 

[jc456]

What evidence do you have for what scientists need to acknowledge manmade global warming to keep their jobs and gets grants?

That this idea gets even more absurd if you consider that Bush, that didn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol, was president for eight years, that you have American states controlled by Republicans that doesn’t want to see action on climate change, and now Trump, who have said global warming is a Chinese hoax, is president with a Republican congress.

That have according to you all those Republican politicians also conspired to only give grants to scientists that acknowledge global warming and fired scientists that doesn’t acknowledge global warming?

Also, fossil fuel companies have done their own studies that show that manmade global warming is caused by C02. That for example 80 percent of Exxon’s research and internal communications between 1977 and 2014 acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html

While Shell’s 1988 report “The Greenhouse Effect” warned that manmade global would affect living standards and food supplies and have social, economic and political consequences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ion-was/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5bc854ec05d6

While Shell’s 1988 report “The Greenhouse Effect” warned that manmade global would affect living standards and food supplies and have social, economic and political consequences.

Why wouldn't he say that? he knew where the deep state was eventually heading. can you say paris accord? haaha what a joke. how about Germany going back to coal?

oh wait, how can that be?

https://stopthesethings.com/2017/08...al-renewable-energy-push-smacks-into-reality/

"Germany has spent a colossal amount in its attempt to run on the sun and wind. However, just like everywhere else on the planet, the sun sets and the wind blows at its convenience, rather than at the convenience of industry and households.

After a near death experience in January this year (when wind and solar power output collapsed for weeks and the grid nearly collapsed, too), Germans, and German industry in particular, got serious. Its power generators were forced to fire up mothballed coal-fired power plants and accelerated their efforts to build new and more efficient plants.

 

[longview]

While Shell’s 1988 report “The Greenhouse Effect” warned that manmade global would affect living standards and food supplies and have social, economic and political consequences.

Why wouldn't he say that? he knew where the deep state was eventually heading. can you say paris accord? haaha what a joke. how about Germany going back to coal?

oh wait, how can that be?

https://stopthesethings.com/2017/08...al-renewable-energy-push-smacks-into-reality/

"Germany has spent a colossal amount in its attempt to run on the sun and wind. However, just like everywhere else on the planet, the sun sets and the wind blows at its convenience, rather than at the convenience of industry and households.

After a near death experience in January this year (when wind and solar power output collapsed for weeks and the grid nearly collapsed, too), Germans, and German industry in particular, got serious. Its power generators were forced to fire up mothballed coal-fired power plants and accelerated their efforts to build new and more efficient plants.

I think in the long term, Germany's knee jerk reaction to Fukushima to move away from nuclear, will hurt them.
Solar and wind may one day be viable, but that goal is still currently elusive.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It might help to read the Nature article about Dr. Judith Curry being labeled a climate heretic.
https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html

People should start listening to her. I read up to this point so far:

"I was actually a reviewer for the IPCC Third Assessment Report," Curry says, "on the subject of atmospheric aerosols [that is, particles such as dust and soot that affect cloud formation]. I told them that their perspective was far too simplistic and that they didn't even mention the issue of aerosol impacts on the nucleation of ice clouds. So it's not so much as finding things that were wrong, but rather ignorance that was unrecognized and confidence that was overstated." In retrospect, she laughs, "if people expert in other areas were in the same boat, then that makes me wonder."
​

 

[Bergslagstroll]

It might help to read the Nature article about Dr. Judith Curry being labeled a climate heretic.
https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html

Even if some people have said “mean things”, you still have the fact that the fossil fuel companies are amongst the profitable in the world, so it wouldn’t have prevented research into alternative theories. Also, that Bush, Trump and the Republican congress would have started inquiries if there had existed evidence that governmentally funded scientists were prevented from looking into alternatives theories.

The negative effect of manmade global warming has also been known for a very long time. That for example the American oil industry was provided evidence of the negative effect of global warming in 1968. So, it has been a very long time to question the evidence and come up with alternative theories.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

While the result is still that the people that deny the need for action on manmade global warming from C02 are all over the place. That some acknowledge that manmade global warming is real and caused by C02 but claim that the negative effect will be smaller. Some acknowledge manmade global is real but claim that the cause is aerosol and land use while other claims that the climate will cool because of the sun.

While the evidence for manmade global warming now is so strong that not only are the world’s leading scientific institutes concluding the need for action on climate change but also the fossil fuel companies acknowledge the need for action on climate change.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ammer-congress-on-climate-change-mdash-again/

https://www.total.com/en/commitment/environmental-issues-challenges/climate-change

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change/a-low-carbon-future.html

 

[Bergslagstroll]

While Shell’s 1988 report “The Greenhouse Effect” warned that manmade global would affect living standards and food supplies and have social, economic and political consequences.

Why wouldn't he say that? he knew where the deep state was eventually heading. can you say paris accord? haaha what a joke. how about Germany going back to coal?

oh wait, how can that be?

https://stopthesethings.com/2017/08...al-renewable-energy-push-smacks-into-reality/

"Germany has spent a colossal amount in its attempt to run on the sun and wind. However, just like everywhere else on the planet, the sun sets and the wind blows at its convenience, rather than at the convenience of industry and households.

After a near death experience in January this year (when wind and solar power output collapsed for weeks and the grid nearly collapsed, too), Germans, and German industry in particular, got serious. Its power generators were forced to fire up mothballed coal-fired power plants and accelerated their efforts to build new and more efficient plants.

During 2017 the percent of electricity usage from renewables in Germany have increased from 29 to 33 percent while coal have declined to 37 percent from 40 percent.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/20/germany-predicted-set-renewable-energy-record-2017/

Other countries have also come farther than Germany, for example Denmark that got 43 percent of electricity from wind power in 2017.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-d...cent-of-power-from-wind-in-2017-idUKKBN1F01VD

While in UK, wind power plants generated more electricity than coal plants on more than 75 percent of days.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/28/renewables-power-coal-2017-uk-figures

 

[Jack Hays]

During 2017 the percent of electricity usage from renewables in Germany have increased from 29 to 33 percent while coal have declined to 37 percent from 40 percent.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/20/germany-predicted-set-renewable-energy-record-2017/

Other countries have also come farther than Germany, for example Denmark that got 43 percent of electricity from wind power in 2017.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-d...cent-of-power-from-wind-in-2017-idUKKBN1F01VD

While in UK, wind power plants generated more electricity than coal plants on more than 75 percent of days.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/28/renewables-power-coal-2017-uk-figures

[h=1]Friday Funny: European Union’s failing grade on CO2 emissions[/h]But, but, THE PARIS ACCORD! BRUSSELS (Reuters) – European Union carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels increased in 2017, statistics office Eurostat said on Friday, indicating that the reduction of emissions blamed for climate change remains a challenge. Josh has his take on the issue: Image source: Eurostat report (PDF) Carbon emissions in the EU were up…

May 4, 2018 in Climate News.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Friday Funny: European Union’s failing grade on CO2 emissions

But, but, THE PARIS ACCORD! BRUSSELS (Reuters) – European Union carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels increased in 2017, statistics office Eurostat said on Friday, indicating that the reduction of emissions blamed for climate change remains a challenge. Josh has his take on the issue: Image source: Eurostat report (PDF) Carbon emissions in the EU were up…

May 4, 2018 in Climate News.

2017 was the first time in seven years that the C02 emissions increased in EU.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...r-first-time-in-7-years-in-2017-idUSKCN1HA1J7

Also, that greenhouse gas emissions in the EU were reduced by 23 percent between 1990 and 2016, while the economy grew by 53 percent.

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/eu-cut-emissions-23-1990-2016-while-economy-grew-53_en

So, it can only be a temporary setback, still EU countries and regions can of course do more. Where one important factor is to learn from all the positive examples both in Europe and in the rest of the world. For example, that India is projected to exceeds its goal from Paris agreement and have nearly 60 percent of electricity capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2027.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/india-renewable-energy-paris-climate-summit-target

While in Norway electric and hybrid cars rose above half of new car registrations in 2017 and the right-wing government also set a target that all cars sold should be zero emissions by 2025.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ar-sales-now-electric-or-hybrid-idUSKBN1ES0WC

You also have Scotland that got 68 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2017, that was a rise of 14.1 percentage points from the 54 per cent in 2016.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html