A recent Canadian study reports that in 2017, between 6 percent and 19 percent of Canadian households experienced some form of energy poverty, with an above-average incidence in rural areas, Atlantic Canada and among people living in older single-family homes. For these households, the high cost of energy, which includes electricity, natural gas, heating oil and propane, means they may ration their use, leading them to live in energy poverty.
Jock Finlayson describes how climate change policies are depleting Canadians’ financial means in his article Millions of Canadians May Face ‘Energy Poverty’. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
The term “energy poverty” is not yet part of day-to-day political debate in Canada, but that’s likely to change in the next few years. In Europe, the high and rising cost of energy has become a political lightning rod in several countries including Britain and France. Something similar may be in store for Canada.
The Trudeau government and some of the provinces are aggressively pursuing the holy grail of decarbonization.
To achieve this, they’re engineering dramatic increases in carbon and other taxes on fossil fuels and promising to pour vast sums of moneyinto building new electricity generation and transmission infrastructure to help reduce reliance on oil, refined petroleum products, natural gas and coal. Both strategies point to higher energy costs.
Tax advocates say it is a small % of GDP. But it is still $10 Billion extracted from Canadian households
The Trudeau government has legislated a national minimum carbon tax set to reach $170 per tonne of emissions by 2030, up from $50 in 2022 and $65 currently. Ottawa has also imposed a “clean fuel standard” that will further raise the cost of fuel. These policies are driven by concerns over climate change, which is a risk, to be sure, but so is the prospect of rapidly escalating energy prices for Canadian households and businesses.
Energy poverty arises when households and families must devote a significant fraction of their after-tax income to cover the cost of energy used for transportation, home heating and cooking, and the provision of electricity. In 2022, the United Kingdom government estimated that 13.4 percent of households were in energy poverty, which it defined as needing to spend more than 10 percent of income to cover the cost of directly consumed energy.
There’s no single agreed methodology for assessing the prevalence of energy poverty. A recent Canadian study reports that in 2017, between 6 percent and 19 percent of Canadian households experienced some form of energy poverty, with an above-average incidence in rural areas, Atlantic Canada and among people living in older single-family homes. If accurate, this finding suggests that many more Canadians will soon become acquainted with the term as taxes on fossil fuels climband governments impose new regulations affecting the energy efficiency of buildings, vehicles, industrial equipment, appliances and agricultural operations.
Canada is blessed with plentiful and diverse supplies of energy. Over time, we have become an important global producer and exporter of energy, with oil, natural gas and electricity together expected to account for one-quarter of Canada’s merchandise exports in 2023. Canada is also an intensive consumer of energy, in part because of our cold climate, dispersed population and relatively high living standards.
80% of the Other Renewables is solid biomass (wood), which leaves at most 1% of Canadian total energy supply coming from wind and solar.
End-use energy demand in Canada is around 13,000 petajoules. Of this, industry is responsible for about half, followed by transportation, residential buildings, commercial buildings and agriculture. Refined petroleum products—all based on oil—are the largest fuel type consumed in Canada (around 40 percent of the total), followed by natural gas (36 percent) and electricity (16 percent). Biofuels and other smaller sources comprise the rest. These data underscore Canadians’ overwhelming dependence on fossil fuels to meet their energy needs.
Politicians in a hurry to slash greenhouse gas emissions via higher taxes and more regulations must be alert to the risk that millions of Canadians could find themselves in energy poverty by the end of the decade.
Jock Finlayson is a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute.
The fundamental problem with the climate crisis narrative is that it is simplistic and gives us only one side of the story. It is as though man-made climate change had been put on trial in the court of public opinion on a charge of crimes against the planet and humanity – but with only the prosecution case presented to the jury.
As explained in my new eBook, Climate Change: A Curious Crisis, the climate change ‘debate’ has long-since become a Manichaean, deeply polarized, ‘you are either with us or against us’ war of words in which both sides accuse the other of being closed-minded and refusing to accept the ‘facts’.
Instead of a respectful exchange of views and the seeking of mutual understanding and common ground we tend to find sarcasm and ridicule and ad hominem attacks, as mutually intolerant, entrenched positions have arisen based on different interpretations of the science and evidence and different perceptions of risk. What should have been a mutually cooperative, disinterested, value-free search for the truth (basically, ‘science’) has morphed into a combative, biased, value-laden promotion of positions and ‘point scoring’ over opponents (basically, ‘politics’). Lest they yield any dialectical ground to their opponents, ‘doomsters’ are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly natural and benign – and ‘deniers’ are deeply reluctant to admit (perhaps even to themselves) that climate change might actually be predominantly man-made and dangerous.
So what is the doomsters’ story? One of the most prominent and vocal doomsters is António Guterres, the UN Secretary General, who, in August 2021, described the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report as ‘a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse‑gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk’. And in response to the news that July 2023 was likely to be the warmest July since records began he stated, ‘The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.’ So what is all this ‘irrefutable evidence’ of the climate crisis that has so convinced Guterres and his fellow doomsters? Let’s examine a few representative examples:
(1) We know, based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (e.g. by burning fossil fuels) will cause global warming to occur.
(2) We know, based on ice core data (and more recently direct atmospheric measurements), that in post-industrialization times the carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere has already risen by about 50% to a level that is unprecedented in more than 14 million years – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(3) We know, based on the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, that the post-industrialization global warming cannot be explained by natural phenomena.
(4) We know, based on all the leading temperature datasets, that in post-industrialization times about 1.2ºC of global warming has already occurred, a level of warming that is unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years (and probably the last 125,000 years) – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(5) We know, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, that the last 8 years have been the hottest years since records began and each decade since the 1980s has been hotter than the previous one.
(6) We know, based on global tide gauge and satellite altimetry data, that in post-industrialization times the global mean sea level has already risen by about 9 inches as a result of global warming – and the rise rate is accelerating.
(7) We know, based on satellite observations, that Arctic sea ice has already declined by 50% and is declining at a rate of about 12% per decade as a result of global warming – and the decline rate is accelerating.
(8) We know, based on observations and attribution studies, that extreme weather around the world has already become more frequent and intense and, based on the world’s largest study of climate-related mortality, that that is already causing almost 10% (5 million) of global deaths each year.
(9) We know, based on the Paris Climate Accord, that warming must be limited to 1.5ºC to avoid the most dangerous climate change impacts – and that based on the current warming trends that critical threshold may be crossed by 2030.
(10) We know that by the end of this century there could be up to 6ºC of warming (i.e. exceeding the 1.5ºC critical threshold by 4.5ºC) potentially resulting in catastrophic climate change.
The adverse climate change impacts noted above are just representative – many more could have been added, such as ocean acidification, coral reef loss, biodiversity loss and species extinctions – and that’s even before the consideration of potential ‘tipping points’ into irreversible climate change impacts. The climate crisis narrative (i.e. the cause and effect storyline) based on such evidence is simple and certain and compelling: our escalating burning of fossil fuels has caused a huge and unprecedented and accelerating rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere which have in turn caused a huge and unprecedented and accelerating rise in global surface temperatures which has in turn already caused huge and unprecedented and accelerating climate change impacts on the planet and mankind – and very soon it’s going to get catastrophically worse, unless we stop climate change by stopping burning fossil fuels. In this narrative climate change is a new and terrifying man-made phenomenon, an existential threat that has arisen as an insidious ‘by product’ of rampant industrialization and capitalism and that it can, and must, be stopped by urgent global decarbonization.
So how many of the above ten statements are actually true? I would argue that all of them are true – at least exactly as worded – and assuming we accept as beyond reasonable dispute the ‘scientific consensus on climate change’, Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, climate models, analyses and conclusions of the IPCC, the ‘internationally accepted authority on climate change’. Trusting the IPCC and believing such evidence and the frightening story it apparently tells is entirely rational and reasonable; in fact, why would any rational, reasonable person doubt it? On the face of it this evidence alone makes an irrefutable case in support of the existence of a climate crisis and it’s surely not at all hard to understand why so many people accept it – and think that those who do not accept it (the so-called ‘climate deniers’) are deluded, badly-informed, badly-intentioned, scientifically-illiterate, irresponsible fools (or are perhaps covertly in the pay of Big Oil).
But what if we don’t just accept as ‘beyond reasonable dispute’ the IPCC’s ‘scientific consensus on climate change’, its Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, climate models, analyses and conclusions, but instead consider criticisms of them by ‘denier’ scientists? In that case we find that the ‘simple and certain’ climate crisis narrative unravels and becomes decidedly complex and uncertain. I deconstruct the ten statements above and set out some of the key complexities and uncertainties in my eBook, in which I conclude that we simply don’t know (with a confidence level sufficient to inform climate policy)
whether carbon dioxide is the main (let alone sole) controller of the Earth’s climate system
whether rising carbon dioxide levels are on balance good or bad for the planet and mankind
whether the post-industrialization global warming has been abnormal (even over the last 2,000 years)
how much of the post-industrialization global warming has been human-caused
whether global warming is currently accelerating
whether our warming climate system is on balance good or bad for the planet and mankind
how much of the post-industrialization sea level rise has been human-caused
whether the sea level rise is currently accelerating
whether global decarbonization would materially reduce future sea level rises – and whether global decarbonization is anyway the most cost-effective policy for addressing future sea level rise
whether the recent Arctic sea ice loss has been abnormal
how much of the recent Arctic sea ice loss has been human-caused
whether the Arctic sea ice loss is currently accelerating
whether recent extreme weather events have been abnormal
whether recent extreme weather events have been human-caused
whether extreme weather events will become significantly more frequent and intense as a result of global warming
whether exceeding 1.5ºC of warming would be ‘dangerous’
whether achieving net zero by 2050 (in order to limit warming to 1.5ºC) is technically feasible (never mind geopolitically realistic)
whether achieving net zero by 2050 would materially improve the climate in this century
how much further global warming there will be this century and whether it might lead to ‘catastrophic’ climate change.
All of this can be summarized in one word: doubt. Doubts about the reliability of the science, doubts about the reliability of the climate models, doubts about the scientific integrity and policy-neutrality of the IPCC, doubts about the scale of future warming, doubts about the scale of the climate change risks (i.e. doubts about the scale of the possible adverse impacts and the probability of their occurring), doubts about the wisdom of the 1.5ºC warming ‘threshold’ – and doubts about the wisdom, not of decarbonization, but of precipitate and precipitous decarbonization (as epitomized by ‘net zero by 2050’ policies) that may do more socioeconomic harm than good largely as a result of the vast transitional costs and societal impacts of such fast and radical decarbonization and the current lack of affordable and reliable carbon-neutral alternatives to fossil fuels. Basically, the ‘irrefutable evidence’ that there is a climate crisis is not, perhaps, so irrefutable. So when António Guterres asks, ‘Can anybody still deny we are facing a dramatic emergency?’, the answer is, yes, many people can – and for very good reasons.
The fundamental problem with the climate crisis narrative is that it is simplistic and gives us only one side of the story. It largely expunges all the scientific complexities, unknowns and uncertainties, all the benefits of global warming and higher carbon dioxide levels, all the serious difficulties, costs, impacts and risks of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels – as well as expunging the option of simply adapting to living in a warmer world as an alternative (to net zero) policy response. It is as though man-made climate change had been put on trial in the court of public opinion on a charge of crimes against the planet and humanity (with a presumption of guilt) – but with only the prosecution case presented to the jury. It has apparently been found guilty, not on the basis of certainty, not on the basis of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, not even on the basis of ‘on the balance of probabilities’ but simply on the basis of the possibility that it could be guilty, if not now, then in the future.
The ‘deniers’ (more accurately described as ‘doubters’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very high, that the possible worst case climate change outcomes are extremely unlikely to occur and that the socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are unacceptably high. The ‘doomsters’ (more accurately described as ‘believers’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very low and that however unlikely the worst case outcomes might be they are nevertheless possible and are so very bad that the very high socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are almost irrelevant. Both positions are rational and reasonable and worthy of intelligent debate – there is no ‘correct’ position. There does, however, appear to be a politically correct position and that, of course, is the position of the ‘doomsters’. To put it another way, the statements, ‘Climate change is probably not a very serious problem but net zero by 2050 probably is’ and ‘Climate change is possibly a very serious problem and net zero by 2050 possibly isn’t’ are not incompatible. Furthermore both sides agree that human activity, in particular our burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to a warming, changing climate – the debate is about how much we are contributing and how dangerous that warming actually is. On which basis there appears to be more uniting the two sides than dividing them.
Whether the IPCC’s theory and climate models are reliable (at least reliable enough to be fit to inform climate policy) is just a matter of opinion. Whether carbon dioxide is the ‘control knob’ of global warming is just a matter of opinion. How emissions will evolve this century is just a matter of opinion. Whether natural climate variability can partially (or even largely) explain the post-industrialization global warming is just a matter of opinion. Whether climate sensitivity is relatively low or high is just a matter of opinion. How much global warming there will be this century is just a matter of opinion. How much global warming is ‘dangerous’ is just a matter of opinion. Whether renewables technology will evolve quickly to deliver affordable and reliable carbon-neutral alternatives to fossil fuels is just a matter of opinion. Whether climate policy should be predicated on plausible/likely outcomes or worst case possible outcomes is just a matter of opinion. There is no ‘right’ answer to the climate change problem.
In summary, believing that we are experiencing a climate crisis and so we must eradicate fossil fuels as fast as possible is rational and reasonable – as is doubting that we are experiencing a climate crisis and so we must be very circumspect about how deeply and how quickly we eradicate fossil fuels (because the radical decarbonization ‘cure’ may be worse than the climate change ‘disease’). That simple claim may horrify ‘deniers’ and ‘doomsters’ alike, who both tend to a belief that they have the monopoly on rationality and reasonableness – which is why accepting this would be an excellent first step to reducing the current polarization of attitudes to the issue. To approach the truth about climate change you really do need to hear both sides of the story – and they are both good stories. At the very least, given all these doubts, if a climate crisis really exists then it is a very curious one.
The entire energy transition is a complete failure. Even with the redistribution of hundreds of billions of euros, more economic damage has been done than any benefit has been achieved. And yet we are extremely far from the so-called “climate targets” in terms of decarbonization. This has now also been noted by the financial news portal Bloomberg.
ARCHIV – Robert Habeck (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen), Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz, besucht die Total Raffinerie Leuna. Foto: Jan Woitas/dpa
Germans are already completely fed up and frustrated with the costly transition to green energies, and the target remains very far off.
Even Bloomberg calls it a “total failure”
Federal Economics Minister Robert Habeck, Green Party, has been called by many the most incompetent in modern German history. Public domain image.
Germany’s conservative Report 24 here looks at the country’s transition to renewable energies (die Energiewende), which despite earlier high hopes has since turned into an economic debacle under the leadership of Economics Minister Robert Habeck (photo above).
“Total failure”
“The entire energy transition is a complete total failure. Even with the redistribution of hundreds of billions of euros, more economic damage has been done than any benefit achieved. And still we are extremely far away from the so-called ‘climate goals’ in terms of decarbonization,” so starts Report 24’s analysis.
Even Bloomberg confirms the same.
Not only has the German Energiewende been exorbitantly expensive, but it has also brought very little in terms of actual decarbonization. Moreover, it has fueled inflation and demolished living standards for working Germans.
It’s been one giant wealth destruction machine.
Germans already frustrated, fed up
“Even the financial news portal Bloomberg states this total failure of politics, because the population simply does not want to carry these whole measures any more. A recent article by the portal discusses how the Green Minister of Economics, Robert Habeck, has a strict focus on the ‘climate targets,’ but is still rigorously failing to achieve them,” Report 24 continues. “At the same time, the economy is stumbling and frustration among citizens is growing steadily.”
The switch to predominantly unstable wind and sun as the primary source of electricity has also greatly magnified the risk of blackouts.
“Doomed to failure”
“Germany is thus impressively showing the world that the green craze is doomed to failure,” writes Report 24. “The people of Germany do not want to sacrifice their quality of life and their jobs to some utopian goals that are in any case based only on ideological assumptions and incomplete data sets.”
Fossil Fuels Are Back. Shell (SHEL.L) will cut at least 15% of the workforce at its low-carbon solutions division and scale back its hydrogen business as part of CEO Wael Sawan’s drive to boost profits.
Shell has taken another axe to its once lofty decarbonization plans, as the U.K. oil giant’s pivot back to fossil fuels picks up steam.
The group plans to cut at least 15% of staff working in its low-carbon solutions division while scaling back its hydrogen business, Reuters first reported Wednesday.
The move will see 200 jobs go in 2024, with another 130 placed under review by the company, according to a statement from Shell. [emphasis, links added]
The division specializes in solutions to decarbonize the transport and industry sector but is separate from its renewables business.
The focus of the cuts is its hydrogen light mobility unit, which develops technologies for passenger vehicles. The unit’s ambitions have been clipped as customers opt for EVs.
“We are transforming our Low Carbon Solutions (LCS) business to strengthen its delivery on our core low-carbon business areas such as transport and industry,” a representative for Shell told Fortune.
“We remain committed to investing in viable low-carbon business models and focusing on our strengths as we play our part in the decarbonization of the global energy system.”
There are 1,300 people working in the LCS division, Reuters reported, but the company has said that isn’t a full reflection of the people contributing to the unit.
It’s the latest move from CEO Wael Sawan, who joined in January, that pivots Shell back to fossil fuels.
Fossil Fuels Are Back
Across the globe, oil giants have been doubling down on their commitment to fossil fuels in the face of global plans to shift to sustainable energy.
Earlier this week Chevron, the second biggest oil company in the U.S., bought rival Hess Corp. in a $53 billion deal.
The group expanded its presence in the Permian region straddling Texas and New Mexico with the deal, and left the world in little doubt about its commitment to fossil fuels.
The fresh arms race to secure oil resources comes despite the International Energy Agency (IEA), the world’s leading energy agency, reaffirming its prediction that demand for coal, oil, and natural gas would peak in 2030.
Still, oil groups have been emboldened by rising prices in recent years tied to supply chain logjams following COVID-19 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has left the commodity in short supply and helped companies like Shell to eye-watering profits.
As the world struggles to battle the effects of climate change, not everyone benefits equally from the remedies. “Who’s going to win? Who’s going to lose as climate changes?
Decarbonization must become the ‘central organizing principle of human civilization’ – Al Gore
The real reason, says The New York Times, that Israel must accept the murder of 1,500 or so of its citizens and hundreds more held hostage even as rockets and missiles are still being fired by Hamas and a host of Iran-backed free-lancers, comes straight from Al Gore’s lips.
The fighting tempts countries to secure their supplies of oil and gas rather than abandon fossil fuels on the UN’s timetable. The historical echoes, laments the Times, “are chilling, coming 50 years after the Arab oil embargo roiled energy markets.”
Unless Israel surrenders (unspoken but implied), November’s climate negotiations (COP 28) in Doha, United Arab Emirates, will become “even more complicated.” An earlier Times article moaned that “defense stocks have rallied,” and oil producers are making profits.
“This is a fundamental test,” said Comfort Ero, president of the International Crisis Group, “of whether nations can firewall climate diplomacy from immediate crises.” But with the talks being held in the UAE petrostate, the deck is heavily stacked against the coveted Net Zero goals.
Dear Gray Lady, you write further that the Hamas-Israel “conflict” follows a global pandemic and comes amid a war in Ukraine that has pummeled economies, driven countries deeper into debt, raised food and fuel prices, and worsened hunger.
Curiously, Your Grayness, you seem to imply that neither the pandemic nor the Russia-Ukraine war threatened climate negotiations – something you apparently join President Biden as deeming far worse than a nuclear holocaust.
But No. You have a simpler solution to the climate apocalypse: If the Israelis would just lay down their weapons, sing Kumbaya with Hamas, and worship Gaia together, the planet will quickly heal.
Reminds me of an old song made popular by Frank Sinatra, “Fairy tales can come true, It can happen to you, If you’re young at heart.” Sadly, for the young in Israel, Gaza, Ukraine, Russia, and many other places around the world, the young at heart are being “pummeled.”
Yet the Times’ focus is on the West’s “failure” to share access to Covid vaccines (despite side effects just now being recognized) and provide “sufficient financial aid” to help poor countries “deal with climate hazards.” NOT to share access to fertilizers, infrastructure, electricity, and educational opportunities to bring them out of poverty!
The Times’ clever move to make Israel the bad guy on climate change is a far cry from the tone set in February by both the United Nations Environment Programme and Politico and followed up on in August by Scientific American.
The UNEP reported on preliminary monitoring of the Ukraine conflict during 2021 that pointed to a “toxic legacy for generations to come.” Thousands of possible incidents of air, water, and land pollution and the degradation of ecosystems – including risks to neighboring countries – had already been identified – with more bad news to come. Just chronicling all the damage will be, said UNEP, “a colossal task.” And that’s not including environmental damage in Russia.
The UNEP and its partners have uncovered incidents at nuclear power plants, energy infrastructure (including oil storage tankers), oil and gas facilities, mines, industrial sites, and agro-processing facilities.
Damage to the water supply has occurred at pumping stations, purification plants, and sewage facilities; hazardous substances have been released from explosions at fertilizer and nitric acid plants. All this on top of cleaning up military debris, destroyed housing, and livestock carcasses.
UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen made the shocking statement that “The mapping and initial screening of environmental hazards only serves to confirm that war is quite literally toxic.” Urging an end to the conflict, Andersen added that, “The environment is about people; it’s about livelihoods, public health, clean air and water, and basic food systems.”
Are we to conclude that the Times sees climate change as the only important human concern?
Politico reported in February that nearly 1,100 cases of environmental damage (out of over 2,300 identified) had been handed over to law enforcement agencies as part of an effort to hold Moscow accountable for environmental damage in Ukraine. Eight months ago, Ukraine environment minister Ruslan Strilets estimated the damage at US$51.45 billion.
As Scientific American reported in August, for Ukrainians to return to their homes, the rebuilding – assisted by up to $91.5 million from U.S. taxpayers – will need to include restoring drinking water and sanitation systems and the safe processing of solid waste.
The theme of the article (which reads like a green coalition press release) is, “When it’s time to rebuild, we must prioritize more sustainable and resilient infrastructure in Ukraine.” Might this also mean that Ukrainians all drive zero-emission vehicles and ban fossil fuels immediately as a condition of return?
Of course, none of this damage might have occurred had the Ukrainians followed the Times’ advice (to Israel, not Ukraine) to forgo a military response to the initial Russian assault and instead quietly allow Russia to take control of its eastern cities.
From another viewpoint, however, Russia would not have been in a position to try to impose its will on Ukraine and the West if Germany had not surrendered its nuclear power plants to the green agenda and if President Biden had not shuttered the Keystone pipeline and waged regulatory war against the fossil fuel industry that has kept the West free.
Similarly, Hamas would not have had the weaponry to mount its ongoing assaults had the West not welcomed the trade in sanctioned Russian, Venezuelan, and Iranian oil. The U.S. had been poised to profit from a booming oil market, but the Biden policy of phasing out U.S. oil and gas production opened the door for massive profits for rogue nations.
Green goals, it turns out, have fueled the fires of war and left the West awkwardly needing fossil fuel energy more than ever while publicly declaring fossil fuel energy as the greatest threat to humanity, dwarfing even an increasingly likely nuclear holocaust.
But then again, those who claim that fossil fuels inspired an artificial prosperity built on slowly destroying the planet may prefer a post-nuclear world without electricity and without the great majority of Earth’s current population.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first mandatory cap-and-trade program in the United States to limit carbon dioxide from the power sector. RGGI was established in 2005 and administered its first auction of carbon dioxide emissions allowances in 2008.
A case study on the challenges of controlling CO2 emissions.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a carbon dioxide control program in the Northeastern United States. One aspect of the program is a program review that is a “comprehensive, periodic review of their CO2 budget trading programs, to consider successes, impacts, and design elements”. On September 26, 2023 the RGGI States hosted two webinars describing technical modeling & analyses that examined the electricity market, emissions, and economic impacts of changes to RGGI. This post describes the disconnect between the results of RGGI to date relative to the expectations in the RGGI Third Program Review modeling that I addressed in my comments to RGGI.
Background
RGGI is a market-based program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to RGGI:
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia to cap and reduce power sector CO2 emissions.
RGGI is composed of individual CO2 Budget Trading Programs in each participating state. Through independent regulations, based on the RGGI Model Rule, each state’s CO2 Budget Trading Program limits emissions of CO2 from electric power plants, issues CO2 allowances and establishes participation in regional CO2 allowance auctions.
More background information on cap-and-trade pollution control programs and RGGI is available from the Environmental Protection Agency and my RGGI posts page. Proponents of these programs consider them silver bullet solutions. However, I agree with Danny Cullenward and David Victor’s book Making Climate Policy Work that the politics of creating and maintaining market-based policies for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions “render them ineffective nearly everywhere they have been applied”.
ICF’s Integrated Planning Model provides true integration of wholesale power, system reliability, environmental constraints, fuel choice, transmission, capacity expansion, and all key operational elements of generators on the power grid in a linear optimization framework. The model captures a detailed representation of every electric boiler and generator in the power market being modeled.
In March the RGGI States explained that they planned to use IPM to evaluate several issues. One problem is “fluidity of state participation”. Nine states have been members of RGGI since its inception. New Jersey was a charter member, got out, and now is back in; Virginia was in but is now getting out; and Pennsylvania is trying to get in but participation has been stalled by litigation. RGGI planning must address climate and complementary energy policies that will dramatically impact electricity load such as electric vehicles and EV infrastructure, electrification in the building sector, and aggressive energy efficiency efforts. A major concern of the program review was allowance availability so the decarbonization timeline for the electricity sector was considered. This is complicated because participating State timelines vary, implementation of offshore wind deployment affects decarbonization rates and grid-scale battery storage deployment, duration, and supply certainties affect the outcomes.
The September 26 webinar described three key observations from the modeling results:
Modeling shows how current state decarbonization and renewable requirements can significantly reduce emissions;
Federal incentives for clean energy have the potential to rapidly transform the RGGI region generation mix; and
Scenarios modeled to date show relatively low allowance prices compared to the ECR/CCR price triggers in the Model Rule
The RGGI States have not proposed their plans for the Third Program Review. The modeling observations support the idea that the RGGI allowance availability can be made more stringent. So much so that the modeling plans changed from the spring to add a more stringent trajectory to reach zero emissions by 2035 rather than just looking at a zero emissions by 2040 trajectory. My comments addressed these key observations .
I will summarize my concerns below but first it is necessary to review RGGI results to date.
RGGI Results to Date
There is an unfortunate disconnect between the results of RGGI to date relative to the expectations in the Third Program Review. During the September 26 meeting the explanation of cap-and-trade systems stated that “States reinvest the proceeds in decarbonization and other programs to deliver benefits to their communities.” What was missing was any mention of the efficacy of those investments relative to the emission reductions observed.
The primary cause of the observed RGGI emission reductions has been the fuel switch from coal and residual oil to natural gas. Table 1 lists the emissions by fuel types for the nine RGGI states that have been members since the start. I believe that RGGI had very little to do with these fuel switches because fuel costs are the biggest driver for operational costs and natural gas was cheaper. The cost adder of the RGGI carbon price to date has been too small to drive the conversions from coal and oil to natural gas.
Table 1: RGGI Program Unit CO2 Emissions (tons) by State and Year
RGGI sources within the nine-state region have already implemented most of the coal and residual oil fuel switching opportunities available so this control strategy will be less impactful in the future. For example, in New York coal-fired electric generation has been banned and the remaining units that burn residual oil primarily run to only provide critical reliability support so their emissions are not expected to change much from current levels. In the future, RGGI affected source emission reductions will rely on the displacement of natural gas fired units with wind and solar zero emitting sources.
The 2021 investment proceeds report released on June 27, 2023 provides insight into the success of RGGI investments as an emission reduction tool. The report breaks down the investments into five major categories:
Energy efficiency makes up 51% of 2021 RGGI investments and 55% of cumulative investments. Programs funded by these investments in 2021 are expected to return about $418 million in lifetime energy bill savings to more than 34,000 participating households and over 570 businesses in the region and avoid the release of 2.3 million short tons of CO2.
Clean and renewable energy makes up 4% of 2021 RGGI investments and 13% of cumulative investments. RGGI investments in these technologies in 2021 are expected to return over $600 million in lifetime energy bill savings and avoid the release of more than 1.7 million short tons of CO2.
Beneficial electrification makes up 13% of 2021 RGGI investments and 3% of cumulative investments. RGGI investments in beneficial electrification in 2021 are expected to avoid the release of 370,000 short tons of CO2 and return nearly $164 million in lifetime savings.
Greenhouse gas abatement and climate change adaptation makes up 11% of 2021 RGGI investments and 8% of cumulative investments. RGGI investments in greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement and climate change adaptation (CCA) in 2021 are expected to avoid the release of more than 10,000 short tons of CO2 and to return over $20 million in lifetime savings.
Direct bill assistance makes up 14% of 2021 RGGI investments and 13% of cumulative investments. Direct bill assistance programs funded through RGGI in 2021 have returned over $29 million in credits or assistance to consumers.
There is an important caveat to the emission reductions reported in the report. The RGGI compliance metric is annual emissions and the above quote lists the lifetime emission reductions. The sum of the lifetime emission reductions from the 2021 investments is 4.38 million tons but the annual emission reductions due to RGGI investments were only 235,299 tons (Figure 1). The 9-state allowance allocation annual reduction in 2021 was 2,275,000 allowances so RGGI was only responsible for around 10% of the emission reductions required.
The results in 2021 are consistent with historical observations. To make a comparison to the CO2 reduction goals I had to sum the annual values in the previous reports because RGGI does not report the annual RGGI investment CO2 reduction values accumulated since the beginning of the program. Table 2 lists the annual avoided CO2 emissions generated by the RGGI investments from previous reports. The accumulated total of the annual reductions from RGGI investments is 3,893,925 tons while the difference between the three-year baseline of 2006-2008 and 2021 emissions is 58,334,373 tons. The RGGI investments are only directly responsible for 6.7% of the total observed annual reductions over the baseline to 2021 timeframe!
Table 2: Accumulated Annual RGGI Benefits Through 2021
Dividing the total RGGI investments by the total tons reduced provides the cost per ton reduced. The cumulative RGGI investment cost effectiveness is $927 per ton reduced. That is far more than the Resources for the Future Social Cost of Carbon estimate of $185 per ton and indicates that costs exceed societal benefits.
Concerns with Results – Recommendations are highlighted in bold
The September 26 RGGI meeting observed that “Modeling shows how current state decarbonization and renewable requirements can significantly reduce emissions”. There is a unique aspect of the Third Program Review modeling process that has not been available previously. There are two independent modeling projections of the New York electricity system resources necessary to meet a zero-emission target by 2040. The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) has evaluated scenarios that project the resources necessary to achieve the New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act goal of a zero-emissions electricity generating system by 2040. New York’s Scoping Plan was guided by an Integration Analysis that modeled the transition. Comparison of those projections with the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) projections enables a check on how these requirements can reduce emissions using different methodologies.
It turns out that there are significant differences between the RGGI IPM modeling and the other analyses. The most glaring difference between the RGGI IPM modeling of New York and the New York analyses is the generation fossil-fuels sector (Table 3). The table subtracts the NYISO Resource Outlook Scenario 1 projected generation from the RGGI IPM modeling allowance supply scenarios for Assumption Set B and Integration Analysis Scenario 2. The percentage difference shows that the IPM projects substantially more generation than NYISO and the Integration Analysis.
Table 3: Fossil Resource Sector Difference in Generation (GWH) Between the NYISO Resource Outlook and the RGGI IPM and Scoping Plan Integration Analysis Strategic Use of Low-Carbon Fuels Scenario
Because RGGI affected source emissions are so strongly correlated with operations these higher operating rates mean that the RGGI IPM modeling projects lower fossil-fired emissions than either model. In Table 4 I estimated New York CO2 emissions by multiplying these projected generation differences times the 2022 calculated CO2 emission rate per MWh. In the NYISO Resource Outlook column the emissions are relative to those scenario differences. Similarly, the emission differences in the Integration Analysis are relative to the Scoping Plan projections. IPM underestimates the fossil sectors emissions significantly.
Table 4: Fossil Resource Sector Difference in Projected CO2 Emissions (tons) Between the RGGI IPM and NYISO Resource Outlook and Scoping Plan
The RGGI States chose not to include any allowance supply numbers so I was forced to make my own estimates to determine the significance of these emissions. I projected allowance availability using a linear interpolation between 2023 allowance allocations and zero by 2035 and 2040. For the zero by 2040 allowance supply scenario, the 2030 emissions difference represents 27% of my estimated allowance allocation. For the zero by 2035 allowance supply scenario, the 2030 emissions difference represents 42% of my estimated allowance allocation. This suggests that this modeling difference needs to be reconciled to determine its impact on the RGGI State allowance allocation trajectory proposal.
There is another issue associated with the modeling results. The ICF description of these modeling results notes that “due to the stringency of the program after 2040, the model shows an over-compliance of emissions in the early years (2025-2030) and banking of those allowances for when the cap is reduced in 2035 and beyond. “ This is an artifact of the perfect foresight methodology of IPM and, I believe, is unlikely to occur.
I think this is wrong because the modeling approach claims affected sources “over-comply”. RGGI sources do not “over-comply” but rather acquire allowances to meet their compliance obligations with a slight surplus to ensure compliance My primary concern is New York and in New York sources that could fuel switch to natural gas have already done so. They cannot directly affect their compliance except by limiting operations. Thus, RGGI sources in NY are at the point where they must rely on renewable energy to displace their need to operate. This means that they only purchase the allowances they expect to use for their compliance obligations plus a small compliance cushion.
Based on the modeling description, IPM “perfect foresight” projects results over longer planning horizons than used in practice. I believe that affected-sources across RGGI treat the allowance requirements as a short-term, no more than a couple of compliance periods, compliance obligation. It is highly unlikely that most affected sources are making plans beyond short-term compliance periods so the idea that affected source would over-comply in early years for more stringent limits ten years ahead is incorrect. The open question is how does this affect the allowance trajectories. It might also account for differences between the NYISO and Integration Analysis projections. The best way to reconcile this is in an open public forum with the modeling groups.
The September 26 RGGI meeting also observed that “Federal incentives for clean energy have the potential to rapidly transform the RGGI region generation mix” but recent developments suggest that this may be overly optimistic. Renewable developments are struggling due to soaring interest rates and rising equipment and labor costs. Reuters describes two “procured” projects in the RGGI region that have been cancelled:
On Monday, Avangrid (AGR.N), a U.S. subsidiary of Spanish energy firm Iberdrola (IBE.MC), said it filed agreements with power companies in Connecticut to cancel power purchase agreements for Avangrid’s proposed Park City offshore wind project.
“One year ago, Avangrid was the first offshore wind developer in the United States to make public the unprecedented economic headwinds facing the industry,” Avangrid said in a release. Those headwinds include “record inflation, supply chain disruptions, and sharp interest rate hikes, the aggregate impact of which rendered the Park City Wind project unfinanceable under its existing contracts,” Avangrid said.
Avangrid has said it planned to rebid the Park City project in future offshore wind solicitations. Also over the past week, utility regulators in Massachusetts approved a proposal by SouthCoast Wind, another offshore wind developer, to pay local power companies a total of around $60 million to terminate contracts to provide about 1,200 MW of power.
In New York, on October 12, 2023 the Public Service Commission turned down a request to address the same cost issues. Times Union writer Rick Karlin summarizes:
At issue was a request in June by ACE NY, as well as Empire Offshore Wind LLC, Beacon Wind LLC, and Sunrise Wind LLC, which are putting up the offshore wind tower farms.
All told, the request, which was in the form of a filing before the PSC, represented four offshore wind projects totaling 4.2 gigawatts of power, five land-based wind farms worth 7.5 gigawatts and 81 large solar arrays.
All of these projects are underway but not completed. They have already been selected and are under contract with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, or NYSERDA, to help New York transition to a clean power grid, as called for in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, approved by the state Legislature and signed into law in 2019.
Developer response to the PSC decision suggests that “a number of planned projects will now be canceled, and their developers will try to rebid for a higher price at a later date — which will lead to delays in ushering in an era of green energy in New York”. Karlin also quotes Fred Zalcman, director of the New York Offshore Wind Alliance: “Today’s PSC decision denying relief to the portfolio of contracted offshore wind projects puts these projects in serious jeopardy,”
These issues impact the proposed RGGI allowance trajectories based on the “potential to rapidly transform the RGGI region generation mix”. The IPM modeling projects significant emission reductions presuming that procured renewable energy projects will come on line consistent with the contracts at the time of the modeling. The two cancelled projects in New England total 2,000 MW and the threatened New York wind projects total 11,700 MW. Any projects delayed mean RGGI-affected source emissions will not be displaced as originally expected. If the allowance trajectory proposed does not account for this new information, then compliance will be threatened because affected sources have so few options available to reduce emissions. I recommended that a RGGI IPM modeling scenario be run to consider the effect of a delayed implementation schedule before finalizing Third Program Review recommendations. In fact, given the importance of renewable development on the emission trajectories it might even be appropriate to delay the timing of completion of this program review.
There is another consideration regarding feasibility. As noted above, the accumulated annual emission reductions due to RGGI investments is 3,893,925 tons and RGGI investments over the same time frame total $3,608,950,013 so the cost per ton avoided is $927. If the only source of future emission reductions were the result of RGGI investments, then RGGI allowance prices would have to equal $927 to get the necessary reductions. Of course, other investments will also reduce emissions but the RGGI States should consider cost considerations for the viability of renewable energy resources needed to get RGGI affected source emissions to zero. None of these models address this uncertainty.
The final observation noted at the September 26 webinar was that “Scenarios modeled to date show relatively low allowance prices compared to the ECR/CCR price triggers in the Model Rule”. Low allowance prices indicate that emissions are lower than the allowances auctioned so there is a surplus of allowances. My description of RGGI results to date noted that RGGI-affected sources have limited options to switch from coal and residual oil to natural gas. I expect that as the opportunities to switch fuels diminish that the allowance market will get tighter and allowance prices will go up. This could trigger the RGGI cost containment reserve. If allowance prices exceed predefined price levels, this RGGI feature will release additional allowances to the market. If the allowance trajectory is too aggressive and emissions do not decrease as expected because wind and solar do not come on line as planned or there is an abnormal weather year increasing load and decreasing wind and solar availability, then there could be a situation where there simply are not enough allowances available for compliance. The Cost Containment Reserve could prevent this from occurring. However, no scenarios with this feature have been modeled yet. I recommended that the RGGI States should model a scenario where the renewable implementation is delayed and the Cost Containment Reserve is employed.
Conclusion
I am afraid that the RGGI States are placing so much reliance on the IPM analysis results that they could propose unrealistic allowance reduction trajectories. It is naïve to treat any model projections of the future energy system without a good deal of skepticism because the electric grid is so complex and currently dependent upon dispatchable resources. Replacement of RGGI-affected sources with intermittent and diffuse wind and solar resources that cannot be dispatched is an enormous challenge with likely unintended consequences. Therefore, the results should be considered relative to historical observations.
I don’t see much indication that the RGGI States are considering the results of RGGI to date. I am leery of any model projections of this future system but I have much greater faith in projections by the NYISO because they are responsible for electric system reliability. I think there are significant differences between the NYISO projections and IPM. Until those differences are reconciled, I will be skeptical. Kevin Kilty summed up a rational approach to the use of model results that I fear the RGGI States will ignore:
“Beware. Expect Surprises. Expensive Ones”.
Personal Background
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. He blogs about the RGGI program because he has been involved with it since its inception and nobody else apparently wants to critically review it. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has gone over the top on climate change. Their solution to the intermittency of renewables is for heavy industry to learn to live with it. I am not making this up.
They have a whole study on this nonsensical idea, reported at: “With Planning, Heavy Industry Can Use Wind and Solar Power”
Here is their central concept: “The growth of renewable power is key to helping industrial companies decarbonize quickly and economically, but it will also require them to adapt. While many facilities operate 24/7, they will need to accommodate the effects of weather conditions, the season of the year, and the time of day on wind and solar power generation.“
So stop operating continuously and just do it intermittently, when the wind blows or the sun shines? Seriously?
We are talking about the most energy-intensive industries, such as iron and steel, cement, bulk chemicals, refining, and food and beverage manufacturing. I doubt any of these can switch on and off, or even quickly ramp up and down, the way renewables do. What are they smoking at ACEEE?
Even worse, they are not just talking about today’s use of electricity. They specifically point out that: “Currently less than 15% of industrial energy consumed is electricity.“ What they propose is that all of that energy be electrified. Then it is used intermittently.
Okay this is just nuts, because electrifying heavy industry is impossible, even without intermittency. But the rest of the story is interesting. ACEEE used to be the energy efficiency (EE) people. In America EE has long been a big dollar, regulation driven industry unto itself. Most States and Utilities have big EE programs, as do the Feds.
Now the EE folks are trying desperately to find a place in the so-called energy transition. They are watching billions, going on trillions, being spent on renewables and such, with little or nothing new on EE. A recent ACEEE article title puts it succinctly: “Utility Scorecard: Energy Efficiency Efforts Stagnating Amid Climate Crisis”.
Their solution is to forget EE and jump on the climate alarmism bandwagon. Here is their new persona: “The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a nonprofit research organization, develops policies to reduce energy waste and combat climate change. Its independent analysis advances investments, programs, and behaviors that use energy more effectively and help build an equitable clean energy future.”
So now the mission is expanded to “combat climate change” and “help build an equitable clean energy future”.
The colossal irony is that renewables are the epitome of inefficiency. Their capacity factors are very low, especially compared to industrial heating with fossil fuels. Even worse, renewables make the mandatory fossil fueled backup generation highly inefficient. See my https://www.cfact.org/2023/06/26/offshore-wind-is-a-terrible-way-to-reduce-co2-emissions/ as an example.
In fact the renewables stampede threatens to make EE obsolete. EE programs are supposed to reduce the need for new generating capacity. That is their sole justification. But we are building new wind and solar capacity as fast as possible with no end in sight. No one is not building wind or solar because of an EE program.
ACEEE is grasping at the straws of climate alarmism. They would be better off trying to keep the EE industry alive during the impossible energy transition. Hyping the electrification of heavy industry, with 85% of its energy presently coming from fossil fuels, has nothing to do with energy efficiency.
The first step out of grinding poverty starts with access to energy-rich hydrocarbons: ie coal, oil and gas.
Third World governments are continually berated by opportunistic globalists who claim to be saving the planet by forcing them to take up insanely expensive and thoroughly unreliable wind and solar.
Some are duped, sure enough. But it never takes the proletariat long to work out that wind and solar power provide no answer to their desperate energy needs; sitting in the dark, night after night, generally does the trick.
In the piece below, Vijay Jayaraj makes the case for hydrocarbons and their ability to convert permanent poverty into general wealth and prosperity.
Saying ‘no’ to green energy: Mexico and South America must tap fossil fuels to fight poverty American Thinker Vijay Jayaraj 7 June 2023
Despite intense news coverage of issues surrounding the U.S. southern border, it is rare to see headlines about the energy policy of Mexico and the rest of Latin America.
Nonetheless, much as in other regions, energy is a major concern inextricably tied to economic well-being.
Poverty remains pervasive in Mexico and various countries to its south.
Hunger, malnutrition, poor health, lack of education, and limited access to basic services are the symptoms of destitution challenging millions of lives.
Hence, it would be disastrous for these countries to adopt policies disruptive to their economy.
This is why many of them are being careful about falling into the trap of the global net zero agenda being promoted as a way to avert a fabricated climate emergency.
Regardless of pressures from international leaders to join the campaign to “decarbonize,” overcoming poverty with economic growth powered by fossil fuels is taking precedence in these countries.
Mexico, for instance, has made bold decisions about its position on decarbonization. Eighty-nine percent of all primary energy consumed in Mexico comes from fossil fuels. Mexico’s current administration understands the serious problems that intermittent wind and solar could pose to the growing economy of the country.
This is why it has approved a bill to reverse existing laws that require the prioritization of renewable energy. The bill would require the power grid to receive its primary electricity supply from state-owned plants that mostly run on fossil fuels.
The two main state energy companies, Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) and Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), are viewed as critical to meeting Mexico’s economic ambitions.
“We need to strengthen Pemex and the CFE, we need to rescue them, because deliberate moves have been taken to destroy them, so that the energy market could be left in the hands of private, national and above all foreign companies,” Mexican president López Obrador said in February 2021.
The online news outlet Equal Times reported that the president had “launched a crusade against private companies in the renewables sector, which he accuses of making millions in profits, in cahoots with previous governments, at the expense of” Pemex and CFE.
Seventy-five percent of the country’s electricity already comes from fossil fuels, and Obrador’s approach almost certainly ensures that this percentage does not change drastically.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA) forecasts that Mexico’s oil production is set for a revival: “Recently, increasing private investment and rising condensate production helped reverse a downward trend in Mexico’s oil production that began in 2004. In 2022, Mexico’s oil production was nearly two million barrels per day (b/d), similar to levels since 2019. As of the March 2023 Short-Term Energy Outlook, we forecast that Mexico’s petroleum and other liquids production will average 1.93 million b/d in 2023 and 1.91 million b/d in 2024.”
“Mexico will almost certainly fail to meet its pledge to the world to reduce its carbon output,” according to analysts.
Brazil and Peru Need to Utilize Fossil Reserves to Move Forward
Like Mexico, countries in South America hope to utilize fossil fuels to propel their economies forward. Brazil is the largest by population on the continent and also the largest oil producer.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that Brazil will “become responsible for the production of about 50 percent of the world’s offshore oil in 2040, or about 5.2 million b/d.
Brazil’s western neighbor, Peru, is predicted to be among the three fastest-growing economies in South America in the next few years. In 2021, fossil fuels accounted for nearly 72 percent of the primary energy consumption in Peru.
But still the country is in the primitive stages of energy consumption, ranked at a dismal 116th position for per capita primary energy consumption. If the country is to meet the growing energy demand in the coming years, it needs to ramp up its energy production.
According to USEIA, the country is the “seventh-largest crude oil reserve holder in Central and South America, with 741 million barrels of estimated proved reserves, as of January 2015.” Earlier this year, in an effort to boost reserves, the state petroleum agency offered areas for oil and gas exploration through negotiations and 31 technical contracts.
There has been a similar pattern in Africa, too.
In the frenzied world of net zero and green energy obsessions, it is not easy for aspiring young economies to remain committed to their use of fossil fuels, which to this day remain the bedrock of economic progress. But they must. American Thinker
On June 14, 2023, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published its medium-term oil market report including its projection of global oil supply and demand over the period from 2022 to 2028. The IEA, formed in the early 1970’s as a vehicle for the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to improve their collective energy security in the wake of the first oil embargo, has transformed itself into one of the leading proponents of decarbonization policies. The headline for its most recent report was therefore that oil use for transport is projected to go into major long-term decline by 2028.
Unfortunately for the IEA’s public relations objective, that is not what the report actually showed, which can be summarized in the following points:
• Global oil demand, which has already made a huge recovery since the pandemic, will continue to increase for the entire projection period. • Demand in 2023 will rise by almost 3 million barrels per day over 2022, one of the largest growths in history. • Demand will continue rising until at least 2028, by which time it may reach 105.7 million barrels per day. • Oil demand in the OECD countries is projected to decline from 45.8 million barrels per day in 2022 to 44.3 million barrels per day in 2028, a 3% decline, but far less than the rate needed to meet the region’s 2030 emissions objective. • These trends are the opposite of what many OECD governments have been advocating in their climate policies. In fact, among other global energy developments, they will call seriously into question the attainability of the “net-zero emissions” objective for 2050.
The IEA attempted to salvage a good news story from the perspective of decarbonization advocates by claiming that the rate of annual oil demand growth will “shrivel” to just 400,000 barrels per day per year in 2028. To come to this conclusion, however, it relied on some key assumptions. Notably, it assumed that there will be a strong global shift to electric vehicles, sharply increased vehicle fuel efficiency, and a large growth in the use of biofuels in transportation in the US, Europe and China. EV sales, which totaled 10.8 million in 2022, are projected to rise to 25.9 million in 2028, with more than one in every four new cars being an EV.
There are good reasons to question such a projection. The largest increases would be in China, but in 2022 China ended its decade-long program of providing large subsidies for EV purchase. Those subsidies were up to 60,000 yuan, almost $11,200 Canadian dollars, and they will no longer be available. The Biden Administration has introduced generous subsidies and set a goal of making zero emission vehicles half of new sales by 2030, but a different US Administration might take a different view of the need for such incentives. It is not at all clear what would be the source of the greatly increased biofuels production. Finally, while the IEA assumes that India will increase vehicle fuel efficiency standards, the effect of these could easily be exceeded by one of the fastest growing vehicle markets in the world.
There of course is also the possibility of higher global GDP growth rates, however much that would frustrate climate campaigners’ aspirations.
As almost a footnote, the IEA report acknowledged that global upstream investments in oil and gas exploration and production are on course to reach their highest level since 2015, growing 11% year-on-year to US $528 billion in 2023. This, and other factors, are projected to ensure that global oil supply increases fast enough to more than keep pace with demand.
While the latest IMF forecasts were mostly lost in the din surrounding the start of earnings season, besides the now standard cuts to global growth forecasts, there was one standout item.
As National Bank of Canada points out, the IMF’s projections forecast U.S. net debt to rise from 95% of GDP in 2023 to 110% by 2028, which actually is a conservative estimate when comparing a similar, if even more concerning longer-term forecast from the Congressional Budget Office, which effectively projects hyperinflation.
But while the fate of US debt/GDP in 2050 may feel like someone else’s problem to most Americans, NBC warns that a far more pressing issue may emerge as soon as a decade from today. That’s because unless Washington raises taxes more or slashes benefits (an unlikely outcome), the Social Security fund will hit net zero – i.e., will be exhausted – in just 10 years.
And as U.S. social security becomes a pay-as-you-go system, sovereign debt issuance will increase at an accelerated rate to offset the statutory decline in the social security fund balance. That, combined with the global “Net Zero” cost forecast of $150 trillion over the next 30 years – or some $5 trillion per year – most if not all of it courtesy of the Federal Reserve…
… means that in the very near future, the Fed will be drawn back in to monetize debt (read restart QE) at a pace that has never been seen before. The only question is which crisis will get us there first.
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
