If you are anything like me you will be frustrated as all hell in not being able to get a clear picture of what is happening with climate change.
On the one hand we have scare mongering and dire predictions laid out. According to various populist advocates we should have all been flooded, baked, starved or died of asphyxiation by now (remember Al Gores "An inconvenient Truth?"). Talk about so called climate change scientists ruining the credibility of those actually doing the hard yards to present something that is not cheap populist.
On the other hand we have governments also setting the narrative to suit their goals instead of giving good solid advice founded in all the facts - although I can understand their dilemma is who to turn to that will not twist the narrative as well. Unfortunately the perception is that as a government, Canberra is even less trustworthy than others around the world.
Maybe all these custodians of the truth think we are just too stupid to understand ? All we get instead are dogma driven utterances. You watch the talking heads in the media and just see a mouth moving and vast empty spaces behind it. Oh my kingdom for an ethical reporter who understands the argument well enough to ask the right questions !
UN IPCC report
So it was with some relief that I heard of the latest UN report, and more relief in that they had tried to frame it in terms of actions that could be taken, rather than focusing on the "sexy" negatives. While I will still remain very skeptical, at least it seems to offer some science, open to peer review behind the report. Unfortunately no-one has looked at the credibility of those behind the report. All we know is that it is a UN Intergovernmental panel on climate change with the acronym IPCC.
Anyway the report highlights that transformational change is required to limit global temperature rise to 1.5℃. Without this change, the world will see an increase in drought, heat waves, floods and poverty for millions of people within 12 years (here we go again :(.) The poverty aspect was particularly interesting as that is the nature of the argument used by those to justify the continued use of climate change agents. Wouldn't it be great it we could have an impartial panel discussion by either side !
High(low?) lights
The report says (and acknowledgement to WePower for the summary) that if we are to limit human-induced global warming to the suggested 1.5℃, we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030, reaching near-zero by around 2050.
Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, and transport.
By 2050, 70-85% of electricity globally will need to be supplied by renewable's. Investment in low-carbon and energy-efficient technologies will need to double, whereas investment in fossil-fuel extraction will need to decrease by around a quarter. This ties in with a great prediction and graph provided by DNV-GL (a reputable consultancy) presented at a recent breakfast briefing. The chart on the left shows sources meeting global energy demand generally, and serves to remind us that energy is just not electricity. The chart to the right then breaks out predictions for the sources of electricity generation.
Investment
According to the report the world must invest US$2.4 trillion in clean energy every year through 2035 and cut the use of coal-fired power to almost nothing by 2050. Note that, the US$2.4 trillion needed annually is an almost sevenfold increase from what was invested in renewable energy last year.
In order to reach the $2.4 trillion investments needed annually, the world needs solutions eliminating main obstacles in the finance and energy markets. This includes the Power sector red tape and a Government to have the backbone to do something about it - i.e. take on both vested commercial interests and the unions.
And frankly (see our previous articles) unless the network is upgraded to Grid 2.0 all the localized energy sources in the world will not do much good.