5 ms·

>But don’t be fooled. The world’s economies are moving away from fossil fuels. There is absolutely no evidence for this, and much to the contrary. Global CO2 p

• crunchyfrog 6y ago
  The report you link says the same thing: > Emissions trends for 2019 suggest clean energy transitions are underway, led by the power sector.
• Retric 6y ago
  US fossil fuel consumption has been dropping for a while, with per person emissions peaked in the 70’s. Population growth offset that, but total US CO2 emissions peaked in 2007. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carb... Globally population and economic growth has hidden the trends, but kg per PPP $ of GDP shows very steady improvements. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD This goes beyond simple efficiency gains, fossil fuels are inherently limited in what they can provide and we are moving past them.
  • caymanjim 6y ago
    You're citing evidence of falling emissions, but that doesn't mean consumption has fallen. It looks like US fossil fuel consumption peaked in 2005, slightly above the mid-70s peak, based on data from the US Energy Information Administration[1]. It's split out into petroleum/coal/natural gas categories, but some hovering and mental math shows 2005 was the peak. The preceding decade was about as high as the mid 70s. There's a significant drop after 2007, but still not below the early 70s level. US energy is cleaner now, and the percentage of total energy from fossil fuels has been steadily decreasing since 1970 [2], but total consumption of fossil fuels is still high. Edit: this isn't per-capita; the per-capita numbers would definitely be lower. [1]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10 [2]: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fossil-fuel-consumption https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/foss...
    • koheripbal 6y ago
      We have to mention that manufacturing moved out of the US, so of course emissions dropped. Look at Chinese emissions. We're just re-arranging chairs on the Titanic.
    • treis 6y ago
      Fossil fuel isn't really important when we're talking specifically about oil. And Oil production has been steadily increasing: https://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-production-since-in-barrels-per-day/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-produc...
    • JauntTrooper 6y ago
      The updated graph for [1] through 2018 is revealing: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40013 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40013 The big story looks like the huge transition from coal to natural gas. 2005 remains the peak for petroleum, but it's been increasing recently.
  • koheripbal 6y ago
    The planet doesn't really care about the per person data, nor is it reassuring since human populations continue to explode, and the fastest growing CO2 emitters are in the countries with the fastest growing populations. Per unit of GDP also should not reassure anyone since GDP is constantly growing even faster than CO2-pruduction-per-unit-of-GDP is dropping (according to the data you linked). Additionally, regional improvements in these metrics (prominently showcased for the US and EU) are driven by the fact that manufacturing has been relocated from the first world to developing countries - not because manufacturing is becoming significantly cleaner. In fact, the higher sulfuric acid levels in the Pacific are a direct consequence unfiltered coal burning in China - so we've actually made things worse by moving manufacturing to countries with poor environmental standards. Net total CO2 emissions are all that matter. Moreover, even ZERO growth of CO2 is insufficient to stop increasing temperatures since CO2 accumulates. The alternative to aggressive absolute level CO2 caps (something many countries openly refuse to agree to) some are quietly pursuing planning for failure. Planning for human migrations, sea level changes, and local precipitation changes, are things those with means are doing. ...and the more people with wealth and/or power begin to plan for failure, the fewer will work on preventing catastrophe. What emerges is an unfortunate game-theory dilemma without a solution where parties actually produce more CO2 in order to prepare for higher CO2-driven global temperatures, and the regional challenges they bring.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • Retric 6y ago
      As to GDP numbers being reassuring, economies slow down when they reach near parity with developed nations. Japan’s famous for rapid growth hitting the wall when they approached parity with first world countries. China for example already built the three gorges dam, they can’t benefit by simply building another a few feet down stream. Per person data is therefore important from a technology standpoint not an environmental standpoint. Existing infrastructure slows the transition for developed economies, but developing economies are far more agile because their infrastructure ends up using newer technology as they build it. Many countries effectively skipped landlines because cellphone infrastructure is cheaper to build out. Bangladesh is simply never going to see the same investment in IC cars that the US did. It’s not even aiming for the US’s 2020 numbers it’s aiming for the best tech available when they hit the wall.
  • cmrdporcupine 6y ago
    All that is happened is that the bulk of industrial production has been pushed overseas. Yes, personal emissions in automobiles has gone down and in many places the electricity grid is pretty green, but net emissions have gone up massively nonetheless.
• andrewtbham 6y ago
  The cost per kwh of renewable energy (solar, wind) is plummeting. So is battery storage. I assume that is the basis for that prediction. edit: a good source is tony seba
• jcranmer 6y ago
  Drill down in the data slightly: In the developed world, CO₂ emissions peaked in 2007 and have been declining since. It's only in the developing world that they're rising, and that's dominated by China and India.
  • koheripbal 6y ago
    Because that's where we moved our manufacturing.
    • yetanta 6y ago
      That is most certainly one component of it. Another is boiling water with burnt coal is still one of the cheapest ways to make electricity. Most of the US decline I would personally attribute to the massive switchover to NG from coal. If that price ratio flipped back around you would probably see a switch back to coal in the US.
      • TremendousJudge 6y ago
        ...electricity that is needed to manufacture the products consumed by the US
      • jes5199 6y ago
        as of about 2018, solar is cheaper than coal. natural gas is only cheaper because it's a byproduct of oil production. solar is still dropping in price due to technology improvements, and will beat natural gas within the next year or two. Coal mines have been shuttering - there's a feedback loop here, low demand will reduce the supply, low supply increases the cost, high cost reduces the demand.
        • marcusverus 6y ago
          Is solar cheaper than coal when excluding subsidies and including storage?
          • 6y ago
• martythemaniak 6y ago
  “How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” Investing in fossil fuels today really seems like collecting loose change before an oncoming train. Decreases in the price of solar panels and batteries are not linear and sometime now far from now it'll be economic madness to buy ICEVs, build NG peaker plants or even keep coal plants operating.
  • v77 6y ago
    Right, but oil as used for transportation is the far harder nut to crack.
    • ableal 6y ago
      The way car manufacturers are pumping out BEVs and PHEVs with 50+ km range, and buyers are gobbling them up, I think that nut is showing serious fissures ;-) Personally, I'm expecting to reduce fuel spending by about 80 or 90% ...
    • jes5199 6y ago
      there's a magic crossover point where cost-per-kwh for batteries gets low enough that it's cheaper to build an electric car than a gas car. There's some evidence that we've crossed that line in the last few months - now there's a bottleneck of how many batteries can be produced to meet demand - but that's changing fast, too. The transition is going to be faster than people expect.
• lm28469 6y ago
  > Global CO2 production, which is a good proxy for overall fossil fuel use as steadily risen Emissions reductions are much slower than the rate at which products are consumed. If every 10 years your planes get 2% more efficient but at the same time the air traffic jumps by 15% you're still fucked. Which is basically what's happening in every industries
• ArkVark 6y ago
  Not all demand is equal. If your customers are Indians, Chinese, and Filipinos, your ability to sell $100/barrel oil (needed to balance budgets in many of these countries) is much weaker than if your customers were Americans, Germans, and Japanese. It is unfortunate from a short-term local human perspective but Saudi Arabia devolving into anarchy would be excellent from a climate change point of view - a huge amount of CO2 would be locked into the ground and the price spike would dramatically speed up electrification of transport.
• simonh 6y ago
  It's important to bear in mind that this article isn't primarily about global fossil fuel consumption, it's almost entirely about the economic issues affecting petrostates. Two things are hitting oil states right now. One is that developing countries, which pay the best rates for oil, are consuming less of it. The remaining increases in demand are from developing countries, but they are following the same arc as developed countries, and on a relatively accelerated time frame. Their consumption will also decline. One thing TE doesn't address is that another factor is the diversification and increase in global oil supplies from new suppliers, including frackers. That's probably having a bigger impact on the traditional petrostates right now. Hoverver the article is mainly looking at where the puck is going, not where it is now.
  • iguy 6y ago
    More non-Arab suppliers is one side. The other is that these petro-states today have much larger populations, with much higher expectations, than they did in the 70s. Saudi oil is still cheap to pump, but instead of 6M people, they now have 33M, who each spend 20x what they did, and aren't on the whole accustomed to working for it.