COP28 Climate Science Denial – Avoiding Transition to Renewable Energy Sources

There were recent comments by the COP28 President in UAE denying climate science around fossil fuels, hence, no need to transition from the same; but no credible support for his claims?

These talking points are very common across right wing media for ageing and less educated voters to support fossil fuel right wing policies, often with ‘Koch Network’ in the background, but simply promoting deflection and conspiracies? 

In 2022 Burn-Murdoch showed in Financial Times how following economics makes for fast transition from fossil fuels & carbon emissions to renewable sources, result? Lower emission and higher economic growth.

‘FT Opinion Data Points Economics may take us to net zero all on its own. The plummeting cost of low-carbon energy has already allowed many countries to decouple economic growth from emissions’

‘COP28 president is wrong – science clearly shows fossil fuels must go (and fast)

Steve Pye

Associate Professor in Energy Systems, UCL

According to the president of COP28, the latest round of UN climate negotiations in the United Arab Emirates, there is “no science” indicating that phasing out fossil fuels is necessary to restrict global heating to 1.5°C.

President Sultan Al Jaber is wrong. There is a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating that a fossil fuel phase-out will be essential for reining in the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change. I know because I have published some of it.

Back in 2021, just before the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, my colleagues and I published a paper in Nature entitled Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5°C world. It argued that 90% of the world’s coal and around 60% of its oil and gas needed to remain underground if humanity is to have any chance of meeting the Paris agreement’s temperature goals.

Crucially, our research also highlighted that the production of oil and gas needed to start declining immediately (from 2020), at around 3% each year until 2050.

This assessment was based on a clear understanding that the production and use of fossil fuels, as the primary cause of CO₂ emissions (90%), needs to be reduced in order to stop further heating. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that net zero CO₂ emissions will only be reached globally in the early 2050s, and warming stabilised at 1.5°C, if a shift away from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources begins immediately.

If global emissions and fossil fuel burning continue at their current rates, this warming level will be breached by 2030.

Since the publication of our Nature paper, scientists have modelled hundreds of scenarios to explore the world’s options for limiting warming to 1.5°C. Many feature in the latest report by the IPCC. Here is what they tell us about the necessary scale of a fossil fuel phase-out.

Fossil fuel use must fall fast

A recent paper led by atmospheric scientist Ploy Achakulwisut took a detailed look at existing scenarios for limiting warming to 1.5°C. For pathways consistent with 1.5°C, coal, oil and gas supply must decline by 95%, 62% and 42% respectively, between 2020 and 2050.

However, many of these pathways assume rates of carbon capture and storage and carbon dioxide removal that are likely to be greater than what could be feasibly achieved. Filtering out these scenarios shows that gas actually needs to be eliminated twice as fast, declining by 84% in 2050 relative to 2020 levels. Coal and oil would also see larger declines: 99% and 70% respectively.

In fact, oil and gas may need to be eliminated even quicker than that. A study by energy economist Greg Muttitt showed that many of the pathways used in the most recent IPCC report assume coal can be phased out in developing countries faster than is realistic, considering the speed of history’s most rapid energy transitions. A more feasible scenario would oblige developed countries in particular to get off oil and gas faster.

A fair and orderly transition

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has added to evidence in favour of phasing out fossil fuels by concluding that there is no need to license and exploit new oil and gas fields, first in a 2021 report and again this year.

This latest IEA analysis also estimates that existing oil and gas fields would need to wind down their production by 2.5% a year on average to 2030, accelerating to 5% a year from 2030 (and 7.5% for gas between 2030-40).

A separate analysis of the IPCC’s scenarios for holding global warming at 1.5°C came to the same conclusion. Since no new fields need to be brought into development, global production of oil and gas should be falling.

A fair and orderly transition

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has added to evidence in favour of phasing out fossil fuels by concluding that there is no need to license and exploit new oil and gas fields, first in a 2021 report and again this year.

This latest IEA analysis also estimates that existing oil and gas fields would need to wind down their production by 2.5% a year on average to 2030, accelerating to 5% a year from 2030 (and 7.5% for gas between 2030-40).

A separate analysis of the IPCC’s scenarios for holding global warming at 1.5°C came to the same conclusion. Since no new fields need to be brought into development, global production of oil and gas should be falling.’

For more related articles and blogs on Climate Change, Economics, Environment, Fossil Fuel Pollution, Koch Network, Political Strategy and Science Literacy click through:

Environment – Fossil Fuels – Climate Science Denial – Populationism – Anti-Immigration – Far Right – Tanton Network

Jeff Sparrow in Overland rebuts a counter critique of his book ‘Crimes Against Nature’ by a faux expert Edward Smith who appears to be au faire with faux environmental and anti-immigrant arguments promoted by the US Tanton Network linked NGO Sustainable Population Australia.

One would not bother using high level analysis to rebut low level faux science nativist agitprop inspired by former ZPG Zero Population Growth types, namely deceased white nationalist John ‘passive eugenics’ Tanton whose colleague was Paul ‘Population Bomb’ Ehrlich, with support from the Rockefeller Bros., ‘limits to growth’ PR constructs promoted by Club of Rome and drawing on Malthus, Galton and Madison Grant.

Conspiracy of Denial – COVID-19 and Climate Science

Some would not be surprised with the doubts and confusion being created round the COVID-19 crisis, especially by those wanting all economic activity to continue and ignore the human costs. 

However, much of this agitprop, astro-turfing and junk science used by non experts has much in common with the information, media and political techniques used by radical right libertarian think tanks funded by the fossil fuel sector and related media, to influence society on climate science to avoid constraints and preserve income streams, with some eugenics in the background.

Nativist Conservative MPs for Fossil Fuels versus Science, Education, Research, Analysis & Society

Interesting article from a science journalist at The Guardian on comments made about ‘woke’ science by the Tories in the UK at the Conservative Conference in  ‘Science hasn’t gone ‘woke’ – the only people meddling with it are the Tories’ by Philip Ball.

However, this is neither unique to the UK Conservatives nor dissimilar elsewhere, but it is a long game strategy against grounded science, research and analysis, like Trojan horses to disrupt curricula and universities, why? 

Climate Change Science Attitudes Australia and Koch in USA

Climate science or climate change denialism have been apparent for some decades since the 1970s with Koch Industries being central along with ‘big oil’ of Exxon Mobil etc. in funding through ‘Dark Money’ academia, research, think tanks, media, politicians and PR techniques to influence society.  Now we see the results including wide-spread climate denialism, avoidance of environmental protections and negative media PR campaigns; meanwhile the roots of this strategy have become more transparent with legal action following.

Degrowth and Steady State Economy or Eugenics for the Environment Debunked

In recent years with pressure on fossil fuels and the need to transition to renewable sources, now compounded by Russian invasion of Ukraine, has seen renewed promotion of ZPG Zero Population Growth with Herman Daly and Club of Rome inspired ‘steady-state economy’ and ‘degrowth’ as scientific theories; part of a crossover between nativist Tanton Network and libertarian Koch Network.

However, there is little if any evidence to show a direct correlation or causation of the simplistic presentation between economic growth and environmental degradation or carbon emissions; in fact there is contradictory evidence that shows many advanced economies which have grown while reducing carbon emissions.

Accordingly, why are these theories being developed and promoted in the first place?

There are multiple reasons including the citing of ‘population growth’ as an environmental hygiene issue, deflecting from fossil fuels and carbon emissions in the developed world, hence, the need for immigration restrictions on developing nation citizens as the solution, based upon the old pseudoscience of eugenics, masquerading as liberal and environmental.

The following recent article excerpts from Deutsche Welle explain further the contradictions and counter examples. 

‘Can degrowth stop climate change and end poverty?

A growing movement of researchers want to shrink rich economies to stop the planet from heating — but both supporters and critics are gambling on prosperity and climate stability for billions of people across the world.

It is one of the most daunting tasks humanity faces: stopping climate change and ending poverty at the same time.

But the best-laid plans to do so are dangerously speculative, a DW analysis shows. Betting on green growth risks overheating the planet, while degrowth in rich countries could worsen poverty elsewhere.

In 2015 world leaders promised to try and cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) by the end of the century — but temperatures are hurtling toward that threshold, which is likely to be crossed in a decade, and current policies are set to heat the planet 2.7 C instead. Sticking to even that level of heating assumes humanity will suck pollutants out of the atmosphere with costly technologies that are unproven at scale. 

Alarmed, some researchers want the countries most responsible for having warped the climate to abandon their pursuit of economic growth and use less energy — most of which comes from burning fossil fuels. But cheerleaders of degrowth lack the detailed modeling to show what these policies would mean for poverty across the world.

There is no academic literature at a global level to show removing that much carbon or degrowing economies works, said Yamina Saheb, a lead author of a review of climate solutions published by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in April 2022. “We don’t have the answers.”

Decoupling GDP growth from greenhouse gas pollution

Supporters of green growth — the pathway most world leaders are taking to tackle climate change — want to break the link between economic (GDP) growth and greenhouse gas emissions.

Bigger incomes are correlated with higher standards of living. As people get richer, they can afford healthier and happier lives.

But data for many economies around the world shows that more money means more pollution. The more things people buy, the more energy they use.

Most of that comes from burning fuels that clog the atmosphere with heat-trapping gas.

Humanity has begun to buck that trend.

For decades, countries like Germany and the UK have grown their economies while cutting their carbon pollution. Policymakers have shuttered coal plants, forced factories to work more efficiently and built wind turbines and solar panels that make clean electricity. 

An analysis published last year found 32 countries had decoupled GDP growth from greenhouse gas emissions. After accounting for emissions embodied in goods they imported from abroad, this fell to 23 countries.

But in big economies from Brazil to Indonesia, growth and pollution are still tightly linked.

The sluggish pace of change has led degrowth researchers to sound alarm bells. A 2020 review paper found decoupling rates were too low to hold global warming to 1.5 C. 

If governments were to cut emissions fast enough to get there, it would imply a drop in energy use so great that GDP would likely decline, too, said Lorenz Keysser, a researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich who has published studies on degrowth. “It’s not a goal of degrowth to reduce GDP. It’s just an anticipated consequence — and one which needs to be prepared for.” 

Scientists lack research on degrowth and carbon dioxide removal

Green growth and degrowth supporters agree poor countries should grow richer so living standards can rise. Their dispute centers around whether the rich world — which has eaten more than its fair share of the carbon cake and refuses to divide the rest up equally — should be allowed to grow as well.

But scientists have no clear answers — because they lack in-depth modeling showing what degrowth policies would do to society. All 3000 scenarios for cutting emissions evaluated in the latest IPCC report assume countries will keep growing richer.

That has created a conundrum for scientists trying to show policy makers how they can keep global warming to 1.5 C even as energy demand rises and the carbon budget shrinks. The solution their models came up with is to overshoot the 1.5 C target before sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere and bringing temperatures back down later in the century.

This pathway — green growth followed by carbon dioxide removal — is baked into political commitments to reach net-zero emissions. Without relying on these technologies, the remaining carbon budget for hitting the 1.5 C target will be exhausted by about 2044 if countries cut emissions at a constant rate.

The IPCC report found that removing some amount of carbon dioxide is now unavoidable to counter emissions in sectors that are hard to clean up. But the technologies to do so are expensive and untested at the large scales used in the models. Some forms of carbon dioxide removal take up such vast amounts of land that many scientists are reluctant to bet on their widespread use.

Degrowing rich countries could slow fight against poverty

But calls to cut energy demand could make poverty worse, critics of degrowth counter. Protestors pushing for an end to growth often overlook the distinction that academics make between targeting rich countries and not poor ones.

In fact, the net result of degrowth in rich countries and growth in poor ones may be enough to make the global economy bigger. The answer depends on the scale of growth needed to bring people out of poverty.

“To get anywhere close to an end of poverty very large growth is needed, even in a future in which the inequality in the world would be reduced massively,” said Max Roser, an economist at the University of Oxford and director of the platform Our World in Data. An analysis he published last year found the world economy would need to grow five-fold for everybody to reach an income level of US$30 per day, which is roughly the poverty line in a rich country.

But focusing on growing the economy to end poverty is a poor way to achieve well-being, supporters of degrowth argue.

A 2021 study found world leaders could stop climate change at 1.5 C and raise living standards by consuming less energy. Providing people with enough energy for a decent standard of living – with good food, shelter, health, education and transport – would require one-fourth of the energy demand projected by 2050, the researchers found.

Such a proposal would upend big, energy-intensive economies but reduce pressure on the climate. It will be very difficult to stay within planetary boundaries if we take our inefficient way of delivering wellbeing in rich countries and continue to scale it up, said Jarmo Kikstra, a climate modeler at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and lead author of the study.

So far, calls for degrowth have been limited to activists and academics rather than policymakers in countries suffering most from climate change. They have demanded rich polluters cut emissions and pay for the destruction wrought by violent weather extremes — but have not demanded they consume less. 

Experts fear that cutting growth in rich countries could also hurt growth in poor ones. Stopping luxury consumption like fast-changing fashions and foreign holidays would be a blow to industries that form the engine of growth in countries from South Africa to Sri Lanka.

In response, degrowth researchers say they are trying not just to stop climate change but also fight for economic justice. Curbing growth in the rich world would need to happen alongside policies to support domestic industries in poor countries and end unequal trade relationships, they say, though they do not have models to show these effects.

The economic hit could be offset if the countries most responsible for climate change paid reparations in the form of money and patented technology needed to decarbonize, said Fadhel Kaboub, an economist at Denison University in the US who studies financial sovereignty in poor countries. “We’re really talking about a climate debt that needs to be paid.”

Yet even while scientists are undecided on the need for degrowth to stop climate change, they are clear that technological solutions alone are not enough.

In homes, for instance, improvements in efficiency have so far been matched by increases in living space. On roads, the pollution avoided by electrifying cars has been offset by the rise in heavier SUVs.

The latest IPCC report found policies to slash energy demand can cut emissions 40-70% by 2050 through measures like flying less, insulating homes and replacing meat in diets with plants. It highlighted the need for policies to increase sufficiency — meeting human needs within the boundaries of the remaining carbon budget — as well as continuing to improve technological efficiency.

“The choice today is between saying we need sufficiency policies right now … or continuing with incremental improvements,” Saheb said.

For more articles related to demography, economics, environment, GDP growth, limits to growth, population growth and white nationalism click through below:

Malthus on Population Growth, Economy, Environment, White Nationalism and Eugenics

Economic Growth of Transactions vs. Consumption of Resources

Greenwashing – Club of Rome – Limits to Growth – Astroturfing Fossil Fuels – The Guardian

Adam Smith – Classical Liberal Economics or Conservative Calvinist Christianity or White Christian Nationalism?

Buy Local – Not Global – Issues of Nationalist Trade Policies

Population, Environment and White Nationalists in Australia – US Links

Tactics Against Bipartisan Climate Change Policy in Australia – Limits to Growth?