Clean energy, largely wind and solar, have grown significantly over the last decade, due largely to policies by a range of countries, including China, Germany and the U.S.
Clean energy, largely wind and solar, have grown significantly over the last decade, due largely to policies by a range of countries, including China, Germany and the U.S.
Who was projecting that global energy related CO2 emissions would increase from 34 gigatons to 50 gigatons between 2014 and 2040? Was that a reasonable projection? What was it based on? Is this evidence of “progress” or inaccurate projecting into the future?
I can project that the murder rate will increase 50% between now and 2050, and then when the murder rate only goes up 10% I can say, “omg, we’ve made such great progress on the murder rate,” even though it still went up, because it didn’t go up as much as I projected it would. But was my projection likely or even feasible in the first place?
From the article:
I haven’t chased up the data myself, but that seems like a reasonable baseline to use.
This is whose data they’re using. The IEA has made notoriously bad predictions of renewable deployment. They’re a body heavily entrenched in the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. This is why the progress reported in the original article isn’t so. We’re measuring against the projections of people opposed to renewables.
Yes, that shows that the curve we’re on is a distinct improvement against the ‘no renewables added’ baseline, which we’ll get if we don’t keep pushing. It’s shows some progress, but it’s also a warning that that progress is both fragile and insufficient. Even the lower projection, which shows emmisions decreasing is not enough. As they put it in the article it’s bad vs. worse.
A bit of perspective, and arguably positivity, is no reason to slacken effirts, but a call to redouble them.