This Report Card for Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions Is Not Encouraging

Background.  The International Energy Agency (IEA) issued its assessment, “Global Energy and CO₂ Status Report, 2017” (Report) on March 22, 2018.  The IEA reviews aspects of global energy use and greenhouse gas emission rates annually.  This schedule has become even more important since the Paris Climate Agreement among virtually all nations of the world was concluded, under the auspices of the United Nations-sponsored organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in December 2015.

The essence of the Paris Agreement is first, setting the goal of keeping the global average increase in temperature, measured from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, under 2°C (3.8°F), and second, having every nation individually commit voluntarily to embark on its own program to reduce annual emission rates for CO₂ to achieve the temperature objective.  The emissions originate from humanity’s burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) to provide energy for buildings, industry, and transportation.  An analysis of those promised emission rates, however, showed that they were inadequate to limit the global temperature rise as intended.

The Report finds that, for 2017 world-wide demand for energy increased 2.1% over that for 2016.  CO₂ emission rates derived from that demand increased by 1.4%.  The total amount of CO₂ emitted during the year was the highest recorded to date, showing that the world, instead of making progress toward attaining the goals of the Paris Agreement, is actually regressing.    

Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director, said of these findings “The robust global economy pushed up energy demand last year, which was mostly met by fossil fuels….The significant growth in global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2017 tells us that current efforts to combat climate change are far from sufficient.”  Use of all three fossil fuels increased in 2017, providing 81% of total energy demand, even as renewable energy generation (from solar, wind and hydropower) increased dramatically, by 6.3%.  The United States was among just a handful of nations whose emission rates actually decreased.

Conclusion.  Worsening of global warming and its consequent climate change effects cause major harms, and inflict costly damages the world over.  For example, “the most severe drought [on ] record” in the Middle East, made worse by human activity,  created sociopolitical conditions that contributed to the start of the Syrian civil war. The has led to dire consequences for security and stability in the region.  Many instances of extreme weather and climate events, such as the 2017 hurricanes affecting the Caribbean and southern U. S., have been at least partly attributed to global warming.  Warmer temperatures adversely alter ecological balances such as with pine bark beetle infestations.

All nations of the world, including the U.S., must redouble their efforts to minimize further emissions of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases, with great urgency.   Without concerted, assertive action keeping the global temperature increase to less than 2°C will not be possible.

© 2018 Henry Auer

Worldwide Emissions of CO2: Background for the Durban Conference

Summary.  Energy use by developing countries of the world increased dramatically between 1972 and 2008.  During this period energy use by the developed countries increased at a far lower rate. 

The U. S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), in recent reports, project energy use by developing countries to continue to grow at very high rates through 2035, while use by the developed countries is projected to grow much more weakly, in the absence of new climate policies to limit energy use.  In an IEA scenario intended to keep atmospheric CO₂ concentration below 450 parts per million, most CO₂ emission is committed due to facilities already in service; only the few facilities to be placed in service are available to mitigate CO₂ emission.  The IEA warns that effective policies to limit energy use and CO₂ emission should be operating by 2017 in order to avoid emergency expenditures on a much larger scale for infrastructure at a later date.

At the time of this writing, about 1 week before the 2011 U. N. Durban conference on climate change, a news report states that major rich countries of the world have determined that a new climate agreement cannot be negotiated and implemented any sooner than about 2020.

Rich nations delay climate agreement.  On Nov. 20, 2011, the Guardian (UK) published a report (accessed Nov. 21, 2011) that the richest countries of the world have abandoned the goal of negotiating a climate change treaty that would have gone into effect in the present decade.   (This news item appeared just as this writer was completing his draft of this post.)  This news emerges just one week before the worldwide UNFCCC meeting is scheduled to begin in Durban, South Africa.  The report states that the UK, European Union, Japan, U.S. and other rich nations, with the acceptance of the UN, all agree to delay a treaty.  The new timeline envisions a treaty finalized by 2016, entering into force in 2020.  This delay represents a serious setback for mitigation efforts, having serious effects, or worse, on vulnerable regions and populations across the globe.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports that the U. S. will require stringent, reciprocal terms for all emitters including China for any treaty taking effect after 2020.  One objective at the Durban conference will be to extend the Kyoto Protocol, which does not include the U. S. or China, to 2020.  Another goal is to proceed to implement (nonbinding) commitments made last year at the Cancun conference.

Introduction. Climate scientists the world over (working under the United Nations as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) have reached a consensus that the long-term average of the temperature of the earth has increased since the start of the industrial revolution due to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases. The IPCC further predicts that the earth’s average temperature will continue to increase in this century, leading to a variety of serious, potentially harmful, extreme weather and climate events.

Agreements reached at the 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Cancun, Mexico, drew from the IPCC.  The agreements acknowledged that “climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet, and thus [must] be urgently addressed by all [194] Parties [to the UNFCCC]”, and that the parties must strive to constrain the average global rise in temperature to 2ºC (3.6ºF) or less.

The previous post on this blog summarized the present status of actions taken since the conclusion of the Cancun conference, and outlined some outstanding policy issues.  In this post we expand on prior worldwide greenhouse gas emissions history, and examine expected future emissions in considerable detail.  This background establishes the major concerns affecting negotiations on the policies directed toward mitigation of the increased global average temperature.

Selected historical data from the International Energy Agency (IEA). The following graphic illustrates historical data for fuel-derived energy in Asia, excluding China but including India, from 1972 to 2008.  The overall growth over this period was about 340%.

Mtoe: million tonnes of oil equivalent.  From bottom to top the bands are: purple, coal and peat; blue, oil; green, gas; yellow, nuclear energy; navy blue, hydroelectric energy; orange, combined renewables and waste fill fuels; and red, combined geothermal, solar and wind energy.

Source: IEA; http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/12TPES.pdf

The corresponding graphic for China is shown below.  Two features distinguish 

                         Source: IEA

this diagram from the one above for Asia excluding China.  First, the vertical scales show that China consumes much more energy than all the rest of Asia.  Second, there is a distinct upward break in China’s energy usage at about 2001, which originates entirely from coal.  China vastly expanded its coal-based electricity generating capacity over the last decade, with about 80% of its electricity generated from coal-fired plants.  In the 29 years from 1972 to 2001, energy supply increased about 180%, while in the short period from 2001 to 2008 the energy use grew steeply, by about 90%.

In contrast to the rapidly developing countries of Asia, the total energy supply for the developed countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD; includes, for example, the U. S., Europe, Japan and Australia) grew much more slowly, as seen in the graphic below. 

                                    Source: IEA; http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/28TPES.pdf

In these countries the principal fuel is oil rather than coal.  The increase over the entire period shown is about 50%.  The energy supplied is much larger than the combined supply for all of Asia in the first two graphics.

Projected energy use and emission of CO₂. 

The U. S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) issued its report, International Energy Outlook 2011  (designated IEO 2011 here), on Sept. 19, 2011.  The report presents historical worldwide energy usage data to 2008 and forecasts worldwide energy usage from 2008 through 2035.  The projections in the graphics below use the IEO 2011 Reference case scenario, which assumes that no new national or international policies govern energy use beyond those in place in 2011.

The first graphic illustrates historical (up to 2008) and projected (after 2008) total energy consumption worldwide, showing yearly consumption for OECD and non-OECD countries of the world.  Two factors are important in this and the next following graphic.  First, since most energy will continue to be derived from

Historical (1990 to 2008) and projected (2015-2035) annual worldwide consumption of energy, using the Reference scenario.  Btu, British thermal unit (the heat required to increase the temperature of 1 pound of water by 1ºF). Source: EIA; http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/howard_09192011.pdf

fossil fuels during the projected period, the sharp rise in total worldwide energy use each year translates to a corresponding increase in annual emission of CO₂.  Second, since both of these graphics present data for annual energy use, they likewise represent the corresponding annual rate of emission of CO₂. Energy use by the non-OECD countries surpassed that of the OECD countries at about 2006.  The projected growth in energy use by the non-OECD (developing) countries, including China and India, is much higher, about 90% from 2008 to 2035, than the corresponding growth by the OECD (developed) countries, about 18%.

A complementary view of the same information is shown in the bar graph below.  As stated in the caption, China and India, which are included

Historical (1990 to 2008) and projected (2015-2035) annual worldwide energy consumption for: pale green, non-OECD (developing) countries of Asia; dark green, other non-OECD (developing) countries; blue, OECD (developed) countries, for the years shown.

Source: EIA; http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/howard_09192011.pdf

in the pale green bars for non-OECD Asia, are responsible for fully half of the increase in the world’s energy use. Non-OECD Asian countries are projected to increase their energy use by about 110% between 2008 and 2035, in the Reference case.  The use of energy by the other non-OECD countries grows slightly less strongly over this time, and the OECD countries’ use of energy grows by only 10%.

EIA projects that in 2035 under the Reference Scenario, 80% of the world’s energy demand remains filled by fossil fuels.  Renewable sources of energy grow by 2.8% per year, fulfilling about 15% of energy demand by 2035.  Thus, as fuel use increases between 2008 and 2035, the corresponding annual rate of emission of the greenhouse gas CO₂ likewise increases, under the Reference scenario.  This is broken down in the graphic below.

Annual emissions of CO₂ historically up to 2008, and projected for decadic years between 2015 and 2035, in billions of metric tons of CO₂ released. Non-OECD Asiatic countries (developing countries including China and India; pale green), non-Asiatic, non-OECD countries (other developing countries; dark green), and OECD countries (developed countries; blue).

Source: EIA; http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/howard_09192011.pdf

As the caption shows, annual CO₂ emissions for Asian developing countries increase by about 75% between 2008 and 2035.  The annual rates for the other two categories increase much more slowly.

In the Reference scenario annual emissions of CO₂ are projected to grow drastically between 2008 and 2035.  Each year’s emissions are added to the atmospheric CO₂ content already present.  Thus each succeeding year will see the addition of larger and larger amounts of CO₂ to the atmosphere, worsening the increase in the long-term global average temperature we are already experiencing.

The International Energy Agency published its World Energy Outlook 2011 (WEO 2011) on Nov. 9, 2011.  It includes projections based on three scenarios.  The Current Policy Scenario (CPS) assumes no additional emissions policies implemented beyond those already in place in 2011.  This inaction is projected to lead to an increase in long-term global average temperature of 6ºC (10.8ºF) by 2035.  The intermediate New Policies Scenario includes policies intended to reduce emissions, but not by enough to stabilize atmospheric CO₂ levels. It is projected to lead to an increase in long-term global average temperature of 3.5ºC (6.3ºF).  The 450 Policy Scenario (450 PS) implements strict controls on new emissions that are intended to stabilize the atmospheric CO₂ concentration at 450 parts per million; this is the level deemed adequate to keep the increase in long-term global average temperature within 2ºC (3.6ºF) above the pre-industrial level.

The IEA graphic below compares projections of Total Primary Energy Sources by global regions for two scenarios, CPS and 450 PS. It is seen that, compared to

Comparison of total world energy use under the CPS and the 450 PS. Historical data for 1990 and 2008, and projected results under the two policies for 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2035.  Blue: OECD+ (OECD countries plus others in the European Union; developed countries); Green: OME, other major economies (Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russian Federation and Middle East; developing countries); Purple: OC, other countries(world excluding OECD+ and OME countries; developing countries); Orange: Intl. bunkers, international air and marine transportation.

Source: IEA, 2011 Key World Energy Statistics; http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2011/key_world_energy_stats.pdf

current policies, adopting the stringent 450 Policy Scenario results in an overall projected decrease of 22% in total energy needed by 2035.  The largest reduction in energy use is from the large economies of the developing world (OME), about 23%; followed by reductions in energy use by other developing countries (OC), about 17%, and reductions by OECD+ (developed countries) of about 13%.

The IEA warned in WEO 2011, according to its press release, that the world will enter “an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system” unless it implements strong new policies to lower future emissions of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases.  The report points out that there is still time to act, but the time for implementing new policies is short.  Recent developments that signal  this urgency include the Fukushima nuclear accident which has deflated enthusiasm for nuclear energy, turmoil in the Middle East which creates instability in oil supplies and costs, and a strong increase in energy demand in 2010 which led to record high emissions of CO₂.

Fatih Birol, IEA’s Chief Economist, points out that as time passes without significant action to mitigate emissions, the world is becoming “locked in” to a high-carbon energy infrastructure.  Up to the point of changing policy, all preexisting energy-producing and –consuming infrastructure commits the world to continuing its carbon-inefficient energy economy.  This is illustrated in the following graphic, considering that 2010 is the year of commitment.  

Lock-in of annual CO₂ emissions from energy-producing and energy-consuming physical installations as of 2010, shown in the various SOLID colors.  Projected additional annual emissions from facilities newly installed after 2010, allowable under the 450 Policy Scenario, are shown in the HATCHED GREEN area at the top of the diagram.

Source: IEA, World Energy Outlook 2011; http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/key_graphs.pdf

This notion had been described earlier in a publication by Davis and coworkers in 2010, reported in an earlier post on this blog.  They pointed out that these physical installations have long service lifetimes, and that they continue to emit CO₂ annually according to their originally designed (inefficient) operating specifications.

In the graphic above emissions from committed infrastructure are projected to decrease year by year as the various facilities age and are removed from service.  Significantly, the graphic illustrates the maneuvering leeway in annual CO₂ emissions that are consistent with the 450 Policy Scenario, which is intended to ensure that the long-term average increase in global temperature is constrained to 2ºC (3.6ºF).  The IEA press release states

“Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permitted to 2035 in the 450 Scenario are already locked-in by existing capital stock…. Without further action by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place would generate all the CO2 emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035. Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.”

The leeway emissions are the only portions of the world’s energy economy available for manipulation to reduce overall CO₂ emissions.  

Discussion

Use of fossil fuels accelerated radically among developing nations such as China and India between 1972 and 2008, while use by developed nations, such as those in the OECD, rose much more slowly. 

In the absence of any change from current climate policies, the U. S. EIA envisions major increases in the use of fossil fuels among non-OECD nations, with more gradual increases among OECD countries, by 2035.  China and India are expected to be responsible for about half of the increase in energy use worldwide.  This results in major increases in emission of CO₂.  Developing countries in Asia, including China and India, would account for 75% of the increased emission of CO₂.

Generally similar conclusions are reached by the IEA.  Their 450 Policy Scenario, if implemented now, would lead to a decrease in annual energy usage by about 22% by 2035, referenced to the Current Policy Scenario.

The IEA warns that, in view of the large emissions burden imposed by existing energy infrastructure, a policy reflecting the objectives of the 450 Policy Scenario has to be agreed to by the world’s nations, and be implemented by 2017 in order to avoid much higher infrastructure expenditures in an emergency environment at a later time.

This writer would have concluded this post by urging the world’s nations to strive to finalize a climate agreement at the upcoming UNFCCC in Durban at the earliest opportunity.  However, the news report from the Guardian that many developed countries have delayed reaching such an agreement now precludes such a statement.  It is unfortunate that the nations of the world cannot come together to act in their own interests, and the interests of all peoples of the world, to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

© 2011 Henry Auer

From Copenhagen to Cancun – Pursuing a Global Climate Agreement

Summary:  The United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in convened in Copenhagen during December 2009, under the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change, to negotiate an agreement to combat global warming due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.  The deliberations were contentious and failed to arrive at a definitive agreement.  Upon the personal intervention of President Barack Obama the nonbinding Copenhagen Accord was ultimately agreed to.  A renewed gathering of the participating nations is to convene in Cancun, Mexico for two weeks starting November 29, 2010.  An atmosphere of continued distrust, with divergent points of view, appears to persist.  In view of the urgent need for worldwide efforts toward deep reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, it is hoped that significant progress can be made.

Introduction.  The Copenhagen Conference (United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen) was convened with the objective of agreeing on a follow-on procedure after the Kyoto Protocol, negotiated in 1997, expires in 2012.  Heads of state, presidents, prime ministers and others with authority from their states gathered, representing 192 nations of the world.    The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated among 37 developed nations including the U. S. and European countries, but excluding developing countries.  It went into force in 2005 after the requisite number of nations ratified it, although the U. S. has not.

Deliberations at the Copenhagen Conference. Over the two weeks of the Conference considerable wrangling broke out among various parties and factions.  Issues under discussion, or forming a backdrop to the deliberations, included:

• The Kyoto Protocol excluded developing countries of the world from its terms, yet by the time of the Copenhagen Conference, the principal developing countries, China and India, had become major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.  China overtook the U. S. in total amount of emissions around 2009. 

• The United States, historically the greatest contributor to global emissions of greenhouse gases, failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, so was never bound by its constraints.  The U. S. Senate refused to do so in view of the exclusion from the Protocol of developing countries, and because it was felt that ratification would limit job creation and economic growth within the U. S.

• China’s position was that terms of any new accord be based on carbon intensity, i.e., the amount of greenhouse gas emitted per unit of economic activity (e.g., gross domestic product), rather than the absolute amount of emissions.  As measured in this way, China’s greenhouse gas intensity was trending lower year-by-year, though still higher than the U. S. or India.  The Chinese feel they should not be bound by limits to be placed on absolute amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, and should not be restricted from seeking to achieve a higher standard of living.

• In general, developing countries object to being placed under future restrictions because of the past history of greenhouse gas emissions from the industrialized countries of the West.

• Poor nations are insisting that they be granted financial help in developing power sources that would comply with any agreement put in place.  They also foresee unbearable expenditures that might be needed in the future to adapt to adverse effects of climate change within their boundaries, such as floods or drought, or a rising sea level. Their poverty level otherwise would preclude them from ever developing to a living standard prevalent elsewhere in the world.

The Copenhagen Accord. U. S. President Barack Obama personally intervened at the Conference in its last days, as it become clear that the initial objectives of negotiating a final agreement could not be met.  The resulting Copenhagen Accord included the following nonbinding pledges:

• Recognizing that climate scientists believe the overall increase in average global temperature above the level of the pre-industrial period should be kept below 2 deg C, the Accord pledged to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations within accepted limits of man-made emissions that threaten the climate.  Although not explicitly stated in the Accord, it is generally agreed that this corresponds to limiting greenhouse accumulation to about 450 parts per million CO2-equivalents.

• Deep cuts in overall emissions “consistent with science and on the basis of equity” will be made.  Equity includes recognizing that the time frame for achieving this objective will be longer in developing countries.

• Adaptation to the detrimental effects of climate change, especially in developing countries and small island countries, will require that developed countries contribute financial and technological assistance to developing countries.

• Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and the corollary effect of promoting removal of atmospheric CO2 by forest growth is recognized as being a significant factor in certain countries for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, and is to be a supported activity of the Accord.

• Collective commitment of up to US$30 billion during the period 2010-2012 is pledged to promote mitigation, REDD, adaptation and technology transfer with respect to developing countries, with a further pledge of US$100 billion by 2020.

The Cancun Conference, 2010. The Cancun, Mexico Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is due to convene for two weeks beginning November 29, 2010 in order to continue the negotiations that were begun in Copenhagen in 2009.  During the intervening year, discussions have been held at G-20 summit meetings in June and November 2010.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (email dated Nov. 19, 2010), the U. S. committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent of levels that were emitted in 2005 by the year 2020, and to further reduce emission by more than 80 percent by mid-century.  Commitments of this kind have not been codified yet because of the failure of the U. S. Congress to pass the required law.

Prospects for progress at the Cancun Conference are not high.  Areas of disagreement persist.   The U. S. insists on verifiable inspection and measurement of greenhouse gas emissions under an agreement.  China, on the other hand, alleges the U. S. and other developed countries have failed to undertake measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission that cause global warming, and that therefore the U. S. cannot be sincere in its negotiations.  Fulfillment of financial commitments appears to be failing.  Developed countries insist on deep world-wide verifiable reductions in global warming-producing gases.  Developing countries regret the unfettered emission of greenhouse gases by the developed countries for the last century, and the apparent lack of initiative currently among the latter nations to reduce their own emissions.  Nevertheless, in October 2010 the U. S. delegate, Todd Stern, reiterated that the Obama administration stands by its commitment to reduce emission by 17% by 2020.

Conclusion. Recent agency, scientific and governmental reports (International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2010; Hoffert, Science, 2010, Vol. 329, p. 1292-4 (see Note 1); United Kingdom National Weather Service) emphasize the dire situation the world faces currently if “business as usual” is continued.  These reports and others make clear the immediate and urgent need for major efforts at mitigation of greenhouse gas emission, leading to a stabilized level of atmospheric greenhouse gases such as 450 ppm, as well as financial assistance to less developed countries.  It is to be hoped that the Cancun meeting will make meaningful progress toward achieving these goals.

Note 1. Abstract available online free, or the full article for a fee or through personal or institutional subscription.  Many public libraries, and university libraries open to the public, receive the journal.

References:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_nations_framework_convention_on_climate_change/index.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20copenhagen%20climate%20conference%202009&st=cse

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/the-copenhagen-accord.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/unfccc-treaty-negotiations.html

http://warmgloblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-we-need-massive-effort-for.html

http://warmgloblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/we-need-to-achieve-alternativesustainab.html

http://warmgloblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/todays-co2-emitting-devices-add-to.html

© 2010 Henry Auer

World Energy Outlook 2010: Climate and Energy Projections 2008-2035

Summary: The International Energy Agency recently published its World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2010.  The Outlook analyzes the commitments that nations of the world made at the 2009 Copenhagen climate change conference.  It finds that these measures are inadequate to restrict greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to keep the global average temperature within 2 deg C above the temperature that prevailed in the pre-industrial revolution period.  The Outlook instead demonstrates that only more drastic actions, begun immediately, can achieve this objective.  This conclusion is in agreement with those expressed recently by individual climate scientists and other organizations.

Introduction. The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an autonomous organization associated with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).  The IEA has 28 member states among developed countries of the world, including most European countries, the U. S., Japan, and Australia. 

The IEA recently published its World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2010, which analyzes present and projected world-wide production and consumption of energy over the period 2010-2035, and assesses scenarios for meeting various objectives for limiting the effects of global warming.  This posting is based on the WEO 2010 Press Release of Nov. 9, 2010, and the WEO 2010 Executive Summary, both of which are available as linked without charge.  The full publication is available for purchase.

The Copenhagen Accord of 2009.  The United Nations conference on climate change held in Copenhagen in 2009 was convened to establish an updated agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol.  Considerable disagreement among the participants led to a weakened result.  The Copenhagen Accord is a nonbinding commitment to limit the increase in global temperature to 2 deg C (3.6 deg F) above pre-industrial levels.  (Currently the global average temperature is 0.7 deg C above this baseline.)  In addition the Accord set the goal for industrialized countries to provide funding directed toward reducing global warming and for remediation in developing countries, amounting to US$100 billion per year by 2020. 

WEO 2010.  According to WEO 2010, however, the actual commitments made, even if fully placed in effect, would fail to achieve the stated objective of limiting global warming to 2 deg C by in turn limiting emissions of greenhouse gases.  The significance of this finding is that considerably greater effort and higher expenditures will be needed in coming years, for example after 2020, to achieve the original objective.  The feasibility of this scenario is deemed questionable.  An important aspect of achieving this goal would be eliminating various national subsidies promoting the “wasteful” use of fossil fuels.

Three energy scenarios appear in WEO 2010.  The Current Policies Scenario projects developments in the global energy economy in the absence of overt actions limiting fossil fuel use or developing alternative energy sources.  The New Policies Scenario offers predicted changes in energy demand resulting from measures to be taken in response to the Copenhagen commitments (nonbinding and inadequate though they may be).  WEO 2010 judges that under this Scenario CO2 emissions continue to rise, by 21% over the level of 2008; this “trend would make it all but impossible to achieve the 2 deg C goal, as the required reductions in emissions after 2020 would be too steep” (emphasis in the original).  Rather, this Scenario would likely lead to an atmospheric concentration of 650 ppm CO2-equivalents, corresponding to a likely temperature rise of more than 3.5 deg C (6.3 deg F).

The more rigorous 450 Scenario, first presented in the WEO 2008 document, has the objective of restricting global average temperature rise to 2 deg C (3.6 deg F) above the average temperature of the pre-industrial revolution period, by limiting atmospheric greenhouse gas content to about 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalents (ppm).  Climate scientists concur that limiting global warming to 2 deg C requires very drastic reductions in CO2-equivalent emissions, including removal of fossil fuel subsidies, and pricing CO2-equivalents at about US$90-120 per ton by 2035.

A somewhat detailed summary of WEO 2010 appears directly below.  Those readers not wishing to go through those details can skip to the Conclusion at the end of this posting.

Projected Energy Demand Through 2035. The following table summarizes annual rates of increase in energy demand projected for each the three scenarios mentioned above.  As a point of reference, for the New

Energy demand, Annualized rates of increase

Scenario	Historic (past) Change 27 yrs, %/yr	Projected change 2008-2035, %/yr
Current Policies	2	1.4
New Policies		1.2
450		0.7

Policies Scenario, the overall projected increase is 36%, and represents an increase from the equivalent of about 12,300 million tons of oil-derived energy (Mtoe) as of 2008 to about 16,700 Mtoe in 2035 (see the graphic below).



Reproduced from World Energy Outlook 2010 © OECD/IEA.  The OECD has essentially similar membership as the IEA, plus 5 additional nations.   Data to the left of the solid vertical line at the year 2008 are actual.   Energy demand beyond 2008, to the right of the vertical line, is a projection based on the New Policies Scenario.  The dashed line indicates predictions based on the Current Policies Scenario (Reference Scenario).  Mtoe, energy demand (consumption) expressed as equivalents of millions of tons of oil.



The graphic above shows that the developed countries of the world, as represented by OECD (blue band), are projected not to contribute significantly to any increase in energy demand over the next 25 years.  Rather, China (orange band) and India and the rest of the countries of the world (yellow band) are projected to account for essentially all the increase in demand.  Together, nations outside the OECD account for 93% of the increase in overall energy demand in the New Policies Scenario (see the graphic above).  For example, the rate of growth of energy demand in China is projected to be 75%. 

This general result is understandable in view of the facts that

1.      these nations have populations far exceeding those of the OECD,

2.      their populations are growing at far faster rates than in the OECD, and

3.      their economic growth rates (and hence growth in energy demand) are higher than in the OECD, since they have only recently begun industrialization and urbanization.

The following Table illustrates some of these factors, for selected nations.  The U. S. and France are intended to exemplify OECD nations, whereas the other examples show data for developing, non-OECD, 

Nation	Population 2008, millions	Est. pop. 2050, millions	GDP, US$, billions, 2008	Rate of growth of GDP 2003-8, %
China	1,336.3	1,417	4,327	10.9
India	1,186.2	1,614	1,159	8.7
U.S.	308.8	404	14,093	2.4
Philippines	89.7	146	167	5.5
France	61.9	68	2,857	1.8

Source: The Economist, Pocket World in Figures, 2011 Edition, Profile Books, London, 2010.

nations.
The demand for energy is projected to be satisfied largely by conventional fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas).  Costs for these sources are likely to rise, contributing to a modulation in the demand for their use, being highest in the 450 Scenario.  Even so, the mix among these fuels is projected to shift, with demand for oil diminishing somewhat, and demand for coal and natural gas increasing.

China. WEO 2010 writes “[i]t is hard to overstate the growing importance of China in global energy markets.” China is now the largest national consumer of energy in the world in 2009, even though as recently as 2000 the country consumed only about half as much energy as the U. S.  Even so, its per capita energy use is still one third that of the OECD average.  China’s use of energy is expected to continue growing at similar high rates in coming years.  These observations may be visualized in the first graphic, presented above, and the following one, which includes China’s share of projected growth in sources of energy demand.

Reproduced from World Energy Outlook 2010 © OECD/IEA. 

The color scheme is the same as in the first graphic, above.  The bars for coal and oil to the left of the “0” line represent decreases in usage for these fuels over the period 2008-2035 in the OECD countries.  Single-handedly China accounts for profound increases in demand for fossil fuels over this period, as well as for renewable sources of energy.  Mtoe, energy demand (consumption) expressed as equivalents of millions of tons of oil.

Coal. According to WEO 2010, use of coal in the generation of electricity will expand greatly in the period 2008-2035 (see the following graphic).  Already in the period leading up to 2008, China was bringing new coal-burning facilities on line at a pace of 1-2 per week (note the expanding use of coal in that period).



Reproduced from World Energy Outlook 2010 © OECD/IEA.  Data to the left of the solid vertical line at the year 2008 are actual.   Coal-fired generation beyond 2008, to the right of the vertical line, is a projection based on the New Policies Scenario.   A watt-hour (Wh) is a unit of energy used in characterizing electricity generation and usage. TWh, terawatt-hours, or thousands of billion watt-hours.  The author presumes TWh refers to annual production of electric energy.



China has extensive domestic supplies of coal.  Use of coal is projected to almost double through 2035.  India is also greatly increasing its use of coal for electricity, whereas the OECD countries are projected to lower the use of coal for this purpose.

Oil.  Oil pricing has less than expected effects on supply and demand.  It is costly to identify and exploit new reserves, driving up the price, but demand does not respond accordingly, in part because of the use of oil in transport for which there is no alternative.  The graphic below depicts the projected growth in number of cars for 2020 and 2035.



Reproduced from World Energy Outlook 2010 © OECD/IEA.  Data through the year 2008 are actual.



In addition, many nations provide subsidies for purchase of oil products, as well as other fossil fuels, to their citizens.  Unconventional oil sources are being increasingly exploited, including tar sands in Canada and shale oil.  These sources require higher input of energy to extract the intended product than conventional drilling and pumping.

In the New Policies Scenario oil production grows to about 99 million barrels per day in 2035, up from 84 million barrels per day in 2009.  In this Scenario, production barely reaches a peak by the end of the period.  In the 450 Scenario, in contrast, oil production is seen to reach a maximum by 2020, and falls considerably thereafter.

Gas.  Use of natural gas increases strikingly in the projected period.  In the New Policies Scenario, its use grows by 44% by 2035, or about 1.4% per year.  Demand in China increases the most, averaging almost 6% per year.  Most expanded production originates in the Middle East.

Electricity Generation.  The global demand for electricity is projected to grow most intensely of all final forms of energy consumed.  In the New Policies Scenario it is expected to grow 2.2% per year, 80% of which occurs in non-OECD nations.  The profile of electricity generation is seen as shifting profoundly to use of alternative energy sources.  Coal, the least efficient source for generating electricity, is projected to fall from 41% of supply in 2008 to 32% by 2035.  Natural gas production, which is considerably more efficient both in terms of power generated and in terms of emitting less greenhouse gas, grows in absolute quantities but remains at about 21% of the overall mix. 

Renewable sources for electricity generation grow considerably (see the graphic below),

Reproduced from World Energy Outlook 2010 © OECD/IEA.  Mtoe, energy demand (consumption) expressed as equivalents of millions of tons of oil.

but will rely heavily on continued sizeable government support to sustain its growth.  The shift away from fossil fuels for electricity generation should reduce the emission of CO2 per unit of electricity provided by about one-third over the time period considered.  In order to make renewable fuels and biofuel production significant in the global energy economy, government support should increase from about US$57 billion in 2009 to about US$205 billion (present value) by 2035.

Conclusion.  WEO 2010 considers that the goal of limiting global warming to 2 deg C above pre-industrial levels is achievable using the 450 Scenario.  Oil demand would peak by 2020.  Coal demand likewise would peak at about the same time.  New coal-fired power plants to be built would largely be fitted with carbon capture and storage capability (which this author believes is unproven as of today), keeping their CO2 emissions out of the atmosphere.  Nuclear energy and renewable energy sources are foreseen playing a large and increasing role in the energy economy by 2035.

Because of global political delays in embarking on policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the recent past, WEO 2010 projects the additional expense to implement the more vigorous measures needed to compensate for the delay would add about US$1 trillion to the cost estimate of about US$11 trillion that was proposed in WEO 2009. 

Overall, WEO 2010 deems that achieving the Copenhagen goal of limiting global warming to 2 deg C is “still (just about) achievable”, by embarking on the 450 Scenario.

This conclusion is in accord with other evaluations of the present status of global warming.  Davis, Caldeira and Matthews showed that even if no new installations burning fossil fuels were put in operation in the future, existing facilities would still emit atmospheric CO2 that would lead to further global warming.  In view of this result, Hoffert, in his commentary on the Davis article, emphasizes the very dire situation that we will actually face in the future.  Recent predictions of future global warming from the United Kingdom and the United Nations suggest that average global temperatures could rise 4 deg C (7 deg F) or more from today by the end of the century.  Hoffert emphasized the immediate need to undertake major, drastic efforts to cut back on global greenhouse gas emissions, and to develop renewable and sustainable energy sources.

In summary, it is clear that both individual climate scientists and official organizations agree on the need for bold, rapid, large-scale programs to supplant a fossil fuel-driven energy economy with a renewable, sustainable one.

© 2010 Henry Auer