Risks to Global Economy

[TimG]

Earlier in the thread, I listed some reasonable actions we could take that would reduce emissions and you yourself agreed...

I agreed they would have the effect of reducing emissions that they are worthwhile looking at. I did not agree that the net effect of those reductions would have much of an impact on global emissions. They would only slow the rise driven by increasing population. Edited February 2, 2016 by TimG

[Bonam]

I agreed they would have the effect of reducing emissions that they are worthwhile looking at. I did not agree that the net effect of those reductions would have much of an impact on global emissions. They would only slow the rise driven by increasing population.

Population growth is slowing rapidly as more countries develop. Also, most population growth is occurring in countries with very low levels of CO2 emissions per capita. Emission growth is mostly associated with industrialization of formerly underdeveloped countries, rather than population growth. A significant reduction in emission growth can be achieved by providing means of industrialization that are less CO2 intensive.

[TimG]

Emission growth is mostly associated with industrialization of formerly underdeveloped countries, rather than population growth.

This is true. But I was pointing out the different IPCC scenarios vary widely in their population growth estimates: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=4-5

The IPCC scenarios dominated by high population growth show continuous increases in emissions no matter what assumptions are made about technology.

I was also thinking of the Canadian picture where our per capita emissions have been largely constant but with a population that will double over the next 30 years that means our emissions will double. This growth makes the task of reducing emissions in Canada next to impossible. I believe similar math applies to the US.

A significant reduction in emission growth can be achieved by providing means of industrialization that are less CO2 intensive.

At this point in time electric power is an essential component and it can only be practically provided by coal or gas in most developing countries. Nuclear is expensive and too hard to manage. Hydro is limited and wind and solar may be great for a village that currently has no power but you can't build a modern society with it. That is why India and Africa are building state of the art coal plants and don't care much about finger waving from the developed world. Edited February 2, 2016 by TimG

[Bonam]

This is true. But I was pointing out the different IPCC scenarios vary widely in their population growth estimates: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=4-5

The IPCC scenarios dominated by high population growth show continuous increases in emissions no matter what assumptions are made about technology.

I was also thinking of the Canadian picture where our per capita emissions have been largely constant but with a population that will double over the next 30 years that means our emissions will double. This growth makes the task of reducing emissions in Canada next to impossible. I believe similar math applies to the US.

Canada's population is growing only because of massive immigration. That same population is merely population that isn't living somewhere else. The effects of CO2 emissions are global not local so a movement of population is not particularly relevant, except in that once they move here they have a higher CO2 footprint... but that differential will continue to decrease as source countries industrialize.

As for the IPCC world population growth estimates, the upper one where the population reaches ~15 billion by 2100 seems unlikely. I agree that if the population really goes to 15 billion, mitigation efforts will be largely swamped by the effects of population growth. But in the more likely middle scenario where the population plateaus around 10 billion, that's not necessarily the case. For example, I'd estimate if a good chunk of the policies I mentioned earlier were adopted, that'd probably reduce emissions by ~25%, so 10 billion people would emit like 7.5 billion people do today. So adopting those kinds of policies and implementing them over the next several decades would more or less halt emission growth and as other viable technologies enter the mix, overall emissions could perhaps even be reduced.

[TimG]

So adopting those kinds of policies and implementing them over the next several decades would more or less halt emission growth and as other viable technologies enter the mix, overall emissions could perhaps even be reduced.

I think we are mixing two different important questions. What we see today are emissions are growing at a greater rate each year because more people are getting access to a modern lifestyle. This year over year acceleration of emissions can be mitigated by some intelligent policy choices and the eventual human population peak.

However, even if we stop the year over year growth, emissions will still continue and CO2 levels will rise. The eventual consequences of CO2 induced-warming depend only on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. That absolute increase in Co2 levels is next to impossible to stop with the technology we have today because it would require CO2 emission reductions to near zero.

Now some people have looked at the data and suggested there is a 'safe' level of human CO2 emissions that would be absorbed by the natural systems, however, if you go back and look at trends you will see that CO2 increased by about 1ppm/year even in the 1960s when human population was 40% of what it is today and global emissions were ~90% less than current levels. This suggests that stopping the long term rise would likely require that humans start extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it in solid form (a task that is not remotely feasible at the necessary scale at this time).

That is why I say CO2 mitigation is futile exercise.

Edited February 2, 2016 by TimG

[Bonam]

I think we are mixing two different important questions. What we see today are emissions are growing at a greater rate each year because more people are getting access to a modern lifestyle. This year over year acceleration of emissions can be mitigated by some intelligent policy choices and the eventual human population peak.

However, even if we stop the year over year growth, emissions will still continue and CO2 levels will rise. The eventual consequences of CO2 induced-warming depend only on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Oh I definitely get that, but the point is that the more you slow down emission growth, the less quickly the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise. Ignoring the effects of sinks/feedbacks, if emissions stay constant for the next 50 years, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will grow linearly for the next 50 years. If emissions grow linearly for the next 50 years, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will grow quadratically for the next 50 years, ending up at a higher final value. The less quickly CO2 concentration rises, the less quickly warming will occur. If mitigation policies can stop or even just slow emissions growth, we can still end up with far lower CO2 concentrations over time.

As technology progresses, we may develop economical ways to scrub large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and thereby reduce CO2 concentrations, but until then, limiting emissions as much as is economically feasible makes sense if one assumes that the consequences of climate change are substantial and negative.

[TimG]

The less quickly CO2 concentration rises, the less quickly warming will occur. If mitigation policies can stop or even just slow emissions growth, we can still end up with far lower CO2 concentrations over time.

Now the question is how much can reasonable policies affect this curve? The math I have seen suggests not much. Increasing renewables to 15% of grid capacity would help but global need for electricity is set to double over the next 20 years which means the emissions offset by the renewables would be swamped by the increases in demand. Wide spread deployment of electrical vehicles would only make this problem worse. Investments in transit are no panacea either because, if not done right, transit can increase emissions due to empty trains expending energy to ensure people have enough confidence in the system.

On top of that you have the log-like relationship of CO2 to temperature so 1ppm at 300ppm causes a larger increase than 1ppm at 500ppm. This does not change the basic theory that reduce now less later but it does mean that the benefits of CO2 reduction tech decreases as CO2 levels rise.

As technology progresses, we may develop economical ways to scrub large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and thereby reduce CO2 concentrations, but until then, limiting emissions as much as is economically feasible makes sense if one assumes that the consequences of climate change are substantial and negative.

FWIW, I think the case has been made that it is a possible risk that is worth doing something about if cost effective options are available. The trouble with the current debate is the focus on emissions targets or caps which eliminates any possibility of rational decision making because meeting the arbitrary target always becomes the most important consideration.

These targets inevitably result in resources being directed to finding ways to game the system instead actually reducing CO2 emissions (a.k.a carbon credit scams, carbon leakage, et. al.). For that reason, I do not believe it is possible to craft "economically feasible" CO2 reduction policy in today's environment and that doing nothing is preferable alternative.

Edited February 3, 2016 by TimG

[Bonam]

Now the question is how much can reasonable policies affect this curve? The math I have seen suggests not much. Increasing renewables to 15% of grid capacity would help but global need for electricity is set to double over the next 20 years which means the emissions offset by the renewables would be swamped by the increases in demand. Wide spread deployment of electrical vehicles would only make this problem worse. Investments in transit are no panacea either because, if not done right, transit can increase emissions due to empty trains expending energy to ensure people have enough confidence in the system.

On the contrary, electric cars would allow an increased contribution of renewables to the power grid because they are just batteries, which can be charged when power is available, matching peak production of renewable sources. The more electric cars are out there, the more "grid storage" there is.

As for transit, the emissions due to congestion are a huge part of urban emissions. Reducing traffic significantly reduces commute times and the amount of time people spend circling looking for parking, etc, which more than makes up for trains running at below capacity. Additionally, the trains can and should also be electric, which means they are powered by various energy sources which are at worst fossil fuels, but modern large fossil fuel power plants can be close to ~60% efficient while ICEs are ~30% efficient, so another huge gain there.

On top of that you have the log-like relationship of CO2 to temperature so 1ppm at 300ppm causes a larger increase than 1ppm at 500ppm.

Thought it was the other way around. Each extra ppm of CO2 causes less warming than the previous extra ppm. Either way, the curvature of this relationship is small over the next 100ppm or so, so it can be treated as linear for practical purposes.

FWIW, I think the case has been made that it is a possible risk that is worth doing something about if cost effective options are available. The trouble with the current debate is the focus on emissions targets or caps which eliminates any possibility of rational decision making because meeting the arbitrary target always becomes the most important consideration.

These targets inevitably result in resources being directed to finding ways to game the system instead actually reducing CO2 emissions (a.k.a carbon credit scams, carbon leakage, et. al.). For that reason, I do not believe it is possible to craft "economically feasible" CO2 reduction policy in today's environment and that doing nothing is preferable alternative.

I agree with your assessment that the politics around climate change often emphasizes symbolism over useful action, and that rationality often takes a back seat. However, your relatively common refrain on this forum is that there are no policies available that would meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions without being economically ruinous. I don't think this is true. There are such policies available. Whether the people advocating CO2 emission reduction would be rational enough to advocate these policies rather than other policies which would are more costly and less effective is another question entirely.

[TimG]

On the contrary, electric cars would allow an increased contribution of renewables to the power grid because they are just batteries, which can be charged when power is available, matching peak production of renewable sources. The more electric cars are out there, the more "grid storage" there is.

In theory, yes. In practice electric cars will need to reach a critical mass before such balancing will be possible. All of the power required to get electrical cars to that critical mass will have to come from our existing base load driven grid.

]Thought it was the other way around.

What you said is the same thing as what I said - just inverted.

However, your relatively common refrain on this forum is that there are no policies available that would meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions without being economically ruinous.

Well, the phrase 'meaningfully reduce' is vague and subjective. Usually I am defining meaningful in terms of the targets set out by various activist groups like the UNFCCC (the latest fiction is limiting to ensure no more than a 1.5degC rise). I also take into account that reductions driven by a desire to meet targets will likely be bookkeeping tricks and will not be real reductions. For the purposes of this conversation you wanted to define 'meaningful' as anything which reduces CO2 emissions enough to be better than doing nothing. I concede your point within that context but I still take the position that UNFCCC objectives (such as keeping the concentration below 350ppm which the 1.5degC rise implies) are not achievable without either creating large bookkeeping loopholes that defeat the purpose or by driving the economy into a tailspin (a mass cull of humans would work too). Edited February 3, 2016 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

Sure. Come up with a plan to kill of 5 billion people or so and it would certainly reduce emissions. But the premise behind my statement is there are no reasonable actions that would result in a significant reduction in global emissions given the technology available to us. That could change if new tech appears but we can't count on that. We can only plan based on the assumption that we have the tech available to us today and that is not enough to reduce emissions while keeping a modern society functioning.

The thing is I'm not an expert on the costs of different sources of energy, and few people are. I'd have to do more research on that. No idea on how much nuclear costs per unit of energy on the grid vs a coal plant. I don't know how solar and wind compare to those as well.

Of course a huge issue for adopting any new forms of energy production is economies of scale. The price of solar, wind, nuclear etc. will go down significantly (and R&D probably would increase too) if it's used on a far larger scale. What if there's an energy source already available that is more expensive than coal currently, but could be similar expensive or even cheaper if it was used on the massive scale that fossil fuels are. There's already massive infrastructure in place for coal/oil etc. so that's a big barrier of entry for any other power sources to compete with fossil fuels. If significantly increasing use of, say, nuclear or solar, would be more expensive in the short and medium term but cheaper in the long term (even ignoring the environmental effects of these sources) would businesses, consumers, or governments even be willing to pay the price now for benefit later? Doubtful. And of course there's the political aspects as barriers, like fossil fuel lobbies.

The biggest factor in all of these scenarios: population growth estimates. Slow population growth equals slow CO2 emissions growth. So it seems to be the only discussion should be about stopping population growth if this was about solving the problem in the most efficient way possible. But I am pretty you don't want to talk about such policies for ethical and pragmatic reasons which is fine.

Why would you assume i wouldn't want to talk about policies limiting population growth? The world is probably overpopulated as it is, though reducing or reversing growth would also mean a reduction in economic growth as well, unfortunately. Still, I have no problems discussing policies that might make sense overall.

[Bonam]

There's no need for policies limiting population growth. Birth rates are plummeting rapidly all across the world, and are usually a feature of the transition of a country to an advanced economy as well as greater personal freedoms and gender equality. Therefore, no policies aimed specifically at limiting population growth are necessary - rather, policies that encourage economic growth and the proliferation of basic freedoms will do the job.

Also, policies meant to limit population growth (like China's one child policy) usually have terrible long term demographic consequences, the cost of which is far worse for the societies that implement them than adapting to changing climate would be. They usually result in skewed population ratios with lots of males and fewer females - which have proven over and over again to be a recipe for unrest and warfare.

[ReeferMadness]

The thing is I'm not an expert on the costs of different sources of energy, and few people are. I'd have to do more research on that. No idea on how much nuclear costs per unit of energy on the grid vs a coal plant. I don't know how solar and wind compare to those as well.

In many parts of the world, solar is already cost competitive with coal. And that's without subsidies. Countries that burn a lot of coal are subsidizing their economy with their health. It's a false economy and a bad deal no matter which way you look at it.

And I don't think there is any country in the world that has a viable long term strategy to dispose of nuclear waste. When it comes to nuclear, your grandchildren's grandchilren's grandchildren's great grandchildren will be subsidizing your power because they're going to be caring for the wastes.

Of course a huge issue for adopting any new forms of energy production is economies of scale. The price of solar, wind, nuclear etc. will go down significantly (and R&D probably would increase too) if it's used on a far larger scale. What if there's an energy source already available that is more expensive than coal currently, but could be similar expensive or even cheaper if it was used on the massive scale that fossil fuels are.

The big advantage of wind and solar is that they are scalable. You can add capacity as needed. For nuclear and coal, you need to build massive plants and once running, you need to keep them running.

There's already massive infrastructure in place for coal/oil etc. so that's a big barrier of entry for any other power sources to compete with fossil fuels. If significantly increasing use of, say, nuclear or solar, would be more expensive in the short and medium term but cheaper in the long term (even ignoring the environmental effects of these sources) would businesses, consumers, or governments even be willing to pay the price now for benefit later? Doubtful. And of course there's the political aspects as barriers, like fossil fuel lobbies.

The IMF pegs worldwide energy subsidies at $US5.3 trillion, the vast majority of which is attributable to subsidization of fossil fuels. If energy were priced appropriately, we wouldn't be agonizing over paying a few cents more for solar power, we would be screaming for it because it is so much less expensive.

Why would you assume i wouldn't want to talk about policies limiting population growth? The world is probably overpopulated as it is, though reducing or reversing growth would also mean a reduction in economic growth as well, unfortunately. Still, I have no problems discussing policies that might make sense overall.

Environmental impact = average impact per person * number of people. Controlling the number of people is only half the equation. The other half is limiting our own resource demands.

It's been shown in country after country that when the economy develops to the point where children stop being economic assets, the birth rate fixes itself. That may seem cold be it's true. And it's a lot less draconian than a lot of other ideas I've heard on MLW.

[TimG]

The thing is I'm not an expert on the costs of different sources of energy, and few people are. I'd have to do more research on that. No idea on how much nuclear costs per unit of energy on the grid vs a coal plant. I don't know how solar and wind compare to those as well.

The trouble is cost is not the primary concern since not all power sources are equal and one power source cannot simply replace another. In our grid today there are 3 types of power sources: baseload (always on), dispatchable (only on when needed) and variable (may be on or off when needed). The trouble with variable power sources is they always need dispatchable sources as backup when they are not available and that is where the real cost comes in. If variable sources are limited to about 10-15% of grid capacity then the redundancy built into the grid can handle them without great cost. But as soon as they make up a significant portion the costs of compensating for renewables goes through the roof.

In short, renewables are grid freeloaders that can only exist because they impose costs on other players. Anyone who says they are anywhere near 'grid parity' is not properly accounting for the costs of renewables.

Of course a huge issue for adopting any new forms of energy production is economies of scale. The price of solar, wind, nuclear etc. will go down significantly (and R&D probably would increase too) if it's used on a far larger scale.

As I explained above, renewables could be free and they still would be costly because of the need to provide dispatchable sources that can compensate for their lack of reliability.

If someone wanted to create a business model where renewables would pay the true cost of connecting to the grid they would require all sellers of renewable power to sign up as baseload or dispatchable. If the renewable source cannot provide the contracted power they would have to pay someone else to provide it in their stead. This kind of thinking has led to some solar-gas hybrid facilities which are viable from a grid perspective but obviously they increase the cost of the facility (which is the point since we want renewables to pay their true costs).

What if there's an energy source already available that is more expensive than coal currently, but could be similar expensive or even cheaper if it was used on the massive scale that fossil fuels are.

If there was a better alternative that could provide an equivalent source of baseload power then then the world would be rushing to adopt it. The trouble is all alternatives have limitations which make them technically inferior to coal or natural gas and this technical inferiority cannot be simply ignored because people wish there was a better option. Edited February 7, 2016 by TimG

[Topaz]

The news is reporting that many billionaires in the world are now millionaires, how will they ever survive!

[eyeball]

The income gap is shrinking?

Oh the humanity.