G7 Vows To Phase Out Fossil Fuels By 2100

Taco Cowboy writes: The G7 group of countries has issued a pledge that they will phase out fossil fuels by the end of this century. The announcement was warmly welcomed by environmental groups. "Angela Merkel took the G7 by the scruff of the neck," said Ruth Davis a political advisor to Greenpeace and a senior associate at E3G. "Politically, the most important shift is that chancellor Merkel is back on climate change. This was not an easy negotiation. She did not have to put climate change on the agenda here. But she did," Davis said. The G7 plege includes a goal proposed by the EU to cut emissions 60% on 2010 levels by 2050, with full decarbonisation by 2100.

Comments

Wow such future

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we also do something about that cancer thingy by then?

Re:Wow such future

[davester666]

no, but we'll start working on it right after fossil fuels are completely phased out.

Re:Wow such future

[Rob Kaper]

Some forms of cancer are already treatable to the point where, like HIV, they are considered chronical instead of terminal. Getting there!

It will be too late. It probably already is

[TobiX]

If wee keep burning shit at the current rate for another 10 or 20 years, we are game, say the most recent researches.

But hey, none of those politicians will be in office by then, not even halfway or a quarter of the way by then, so who cares!

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Kokuyo]

None of them will be alive by then, most probably.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Mashiki]

If wee keep burning shit at the current rate for another 10 or 20 years, we are game, say the most recent researches.

And they've been saying that since the 1970's, that along with "we're going to run out of oil." And it's always "10 or 20 years in the future."

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs fossil fuel when there are so many straw men to burn for heat?

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[TheRaven64]

Keep burning them at current rates, and by 2100 we'll have run out. The headline really should have been 'Politicians promise their countries will do something that they'd have to do anyway, long after they'll have retired'

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[peragrin]

Funny I was always told that "cheap" oil would be gone by 2050. Which certainly will be true. After that it will have to come from far more expensive methods, which means a minimum of $150 a barrell.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[kick6]

Cool crystal ball you have there. Can I look into it?

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it's the same one Space Nutters use to predict the end of the human species.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[MightyYar]

I'm going to invent a new word called draggling, and that is how they will extract even more from the ground. Fracking is a stupid word, too, and we never heard of it until they "ran out" of oil the first time.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Jamu]

So they're going to phase out fossil fuels by the end of the century, by burning it all before the end of the century...

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Anonymous Coward]

Go read some more books then come back and try again.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Wycliffe]

So they're going to phase out fossil fuels by the end of the century, by burning it all before the end of the century...

Duh!! New technology doesn't replace old technology until it does something better than the previous. The government can *try*
to force it by taxing the old technology, outlawing it, etc.. but it only works halfway.

To make matters worse most "green" technology requires a ton of fossil fuels to make and will be almost impossible to produce once
oil is gone. I'm actually worried about this more than the loss of gasoline. It's not just the energy required to build stuff but also there
are a ton of products being produce with plastics, etc.. produced from the waste products of oil.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll run out of oil, we might run out of gas (although we have little clue what portion of the worlds gas deposits we have even discovered) but we won't run out of coal for a long, long time. With the dirtiest fuel being ridiculously abundant it is extremely important to take political action against its use.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Geoffrey.landis]

carbon dioxide is the most important gas on the planet, without it there would be no plants.

And water is the most important liquid on the planet, without it there would be no plants or animals. But that doesn't mean too much won't drown you.

Quoting Paracelsus, "dosis facit venenum" ("The dose makes the poison.")

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[CrimsonAvenger]

I read the same thing in the '70s, but with the date for "cheap" oil being gone set at 2000. Alas that we're living in an age of horrendously expensive oil! Woe!!!

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You have no evidence. Just fear mongering.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[dave420]

If it's the most important gas at ~400ppm, then it must be very powerful and we should ensure we don't have too much or too little of it. Wait - that's what the climatologists are concerned with. Weird.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[ShanghaiBill]

which means a minimum of $150 a barrel.

Except it doesn't. There are immense amounts of oil in shale, and tar sands. Extraction costs are below $50 a barrel, and falling. The era of expensive oil is over.

There are plenty of good reasons to stop burning fossil fuels. Cost is not one of them.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[JackieBrown]

Yeah - We can't even get them to follow through on two year plans. The idea of following through on an 80+ year plan is laughable.

Almost as laughable as those applauding this as real change.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Actually, we have a pretty good idea about gas reserves. Energetically, they're about equivalent to known conventional oil reserves. This sounds good and will extend us to the end of the century, despite the rapid increase in consumption rates and the energy penalty for trying to liquefy it into a petroleum substitute (i.e. take 30% of the top, energetically)

Coal? Hard to say. It's *there* but using it economically is doubtful. Moreover, the same rules apply. We've long since mined out the easy, very "net-energy-positive" stuff. What's left is a lot of brown coal and bituminous coal that's not so easy, or cheap to get.

The bottom line, however, is cost. Supplying globe spanning "just-in-time" supply chains requires *cheap* transportation fuel. The "cheap" part is what goes away long before we run out of hydrocarbons.

The casualty is an integrated worldwide industrial civilization (and about 6+ billion people who starve). Local areas with access to hydrocarbons and technology to use it survive. Everyone else? Not so much.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Anonymous Coward]

We have all heard this shit before. If it was all correct we would be out of fossil fuel by now and living with 140 degree days. When they get shit so grossly wrong it doesn't mean they can say "Well we were just a little off on the math, but it with surely happen by 2XXX date for sure" and people should put credence in to what they say. But hey, if they don't then there "scientists" might not got the millions in "research" grants anymore. Oh wait, that's right, "scientists" would never do anything crooked or back handed to get rich, would they??

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[tepples]

There are immense amounts of oil in shale, and tar sands. Extraction costs are below $50 a barrel, and falling. The era of expensive oil is over.

Does this include the cost of cleanup should fracking chemicals turn groundwater into a Superfund site?

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[rtb61]

The headline is false, the G1+6 vassals only said what should and not what will happen ie ", we emphasize that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required with a decarbonisation of the global economy over the course of this century". They only said what was needed not what they will do and the only real goal is "the global goal to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 ÂC". Note that is an average and does not even focus on the most important location, the Antarctic and keeping those temperatures low because that is the place that really counts. No mention at all of underwater front properties and protecting people from bad investments in properties that are going to be lost.

Not to forget a whopping great Foreign Policy hypocrisy "We, the G7, emphasise the importance of freedom, peace and territorial integrity, as well as respect for international law and respect for human right", basically US coup good and fair, thousands of dead Russians in what used to be Russia and now the Ukraine not a problem, Russian control of Crimea and no dead Russians a problem.

So G1+6 vassals is basically nothing but a PR stunt to push US corporate ideology on the rest of the world, complete with typical buckets of bullshit ie "We welcome progression major ongoing trade negotiations, including on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)" what a crock of shit. https://www.g7germany.de/Conte...

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Citizen of Earth]

China was recently praised for a similar thing: they pledged to exponentially increase their CO2 emissions for the next 15 years and then stop raising it, something various economic models said they were going to do anyway.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Jane Q. Public]

I guess you're not up on the latest news.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Anonymous Coward]

Any stated plan or promise from a politician that goes beyond his or her own term in office is completely worthless. This is a disturbing flaw in Western democracy I grant ... but marginally less disturbing than fact that even vast majority of plans or promises from a politcian that apply within his or her term in office are completely worthless :| And sadly this issue appears to be rather important -- our descendants are so screwed ...

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[ganjadude]

Although 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have occurred in the last 100 years,

by what readings ???

and how is the data abstracted?

technical instruments are much more reliable now then they were 100 years ago, at best our theories on the temperature globally is only a few hundred years going back, and only the last 50 years or so are accurate enough for scientific discussions

anything further back is simply an educated guess.

you say 14 of the last 15 months are the hottest on record... but when the records are only reliable to 50 years without crazy models, its not saying much

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[riverat1]

Accurate thermometers have been available for over 200 years. Any problems with older temperature records have more to do with the methods of data collection than any inaccuracy in the instruments.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[ganjadude]

fair enough but it goes to my point. we really cannot be sure if this information is even true.

Re: It will be too late. It probably already is

[ceoyoyo]

You must be too young to remember when oil was cheap. The price of oil has gone up by something like four times the rate of inflation, and has reached a point where things like shale and tar sand oil is economical. Oil is expensive, relative to the past. There's no reason to think it's going to get less so in the future.

I grew up in Alberta, Canada. When I was in junior high I was invited to Syncrude's research centre. They were trying to figure out the best way to extract oil from tar sands, planning for the day when oil was expensive enough to make if economical to do on a large scale. That happened ten or fifteen years ago, and the province has been booming ever since.

"We're going to run out of oil!" is clearly not true, but saying oil has gotten more expensive IS true, and there's no reason to expect it won't continue to do so.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[MightyYar]

I'll try to be more sarcastic next time.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Anonymous Coward]

You can drown in a teaspoon of water so your point is again?

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Rakarra]

Despite there having been NO increase in global temperature for the past EIGHTEEN years

You can usually tell when someone is being intentionally disingenuous. The above line is par for the course for them.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Rakarra]

But hey, if they don't then there "scientists" might not got the millions in "research" grants anymore. Oh wait, that's right, "scientists" would never do anything crooked or back handed to get rich, would they?

This has as little credibility as the leftist "pharma companies are hiding a cure for cancer" claptrap.
Stupid conspiracy theories are no less stupid just because you want to believe that they're true.

Re:It will be too late. It probably already is

[Geoffrey.landis]

My point is that the statement "carbon dioxide is the most important gas on the planet, without it there would be no plants" misses the point.

Right

[fustakrakich]

Let's see if anyone remembers what the G7 was by then.

Re:Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see if anyone remembers what "electricity" was by then.

Re:Right

[NotQuiteReal]

Exactly.

While the G7 represents half the wealth, it is only 15% of the population of this planet.

Who is going to make the other 85% stop using fossil fuels?

As long as it is economical to burn, someone will do it.

Re:Right

[microbox]

Who is going to make the other 85% stop using fossil fuels?

Technology.

Re:Right

[jfengel]

They'll be able to Bing it.

Re:Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see if anyone remembers what the G7 was by then.

Like a G6? :P lol

Noocular

[Noughmad]

Does this mean Germany will start building nukes instead of coal plants again?

Re:Noocular

[mean pun]

You're going for the loaded question of the week award?

Re:Noocular

[Anonymous Coward]

I think coal would be an improvement, Germany burns more lignite than coal.

Re: Noocular

[Maritz]

Oo edgy.

Re:Noocular

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say that it's currently the front runner in that competition.

Re:Noocular

[Anonymous Coward]

The article says they will retire all fossil fuels. Nuclear fuel is also fossil.

Re:Noocular

[wvmarle]

Uranium is a mineral deposit, not fossilised material (which is formed from dead organisms).

Re:Noocular

[Crashmarik]

The article says they will retire all fossil fuels. Nuclear fuel is also fossil.

Actually its renewable

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fasbre.html

Re:Noocular

[Crashmarik]

Oh if you don't like that one, theres' the Thorium breeder.

Re:Noocular

[AmiMoJo]

By then energy storage will almost certainly make nuclear and fossil fuels unnecessary.

Re:Noocular

[Phil Karn]

Yes. I think cooler heads will eventually prevail, and they'll reverse their knee-jerk decision to phase out nuclear. One only has to look at German CO2 emissions over the past few years to see why. Of course, until they do I'm sure the French and Czechs will be happy to sell Germany their surplus nuclear power.

Re:Noocular

[monkeyxpress]

No, they will just get France to build them instead.

While I'm sure France has a very competent nuclear industry, you would have thought that if you were concerned about the safety of nuclear reactors, throwing the problem over the fence and having the neighbour run them is not the most logical solution.

Re:Noocular

[Anonymous Coward]

No, They will pay the French and Swiss for Nuke power - but it will be nuclear.

Re: Noocular

[Anonymous Coward]

Rofl, I'm sorry, I barely understood your illiterate ass, was that an attempt at racism?

Re: Noocular

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol

Humans and ESPECIALLY capitalists are too stupid and careless to operate and maintain a nuke plant.

Suggesting nuclear is a total fail esp with all the disasters, all due to human stupidity. If nuclear power generation is a profitable enterprise they will cut corners everywhere imaginable to keep costs down even if it creates an enormous risk. They will let the infrastructure degrade until it is a safety risk, this happens all the time.

Re: Noocular

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, you retarded shill. Do you know how many people would have not died from fossil fuel related problems around the world, had fucking panicking idiots like you not kneejerked and stopped nuclear development in its tracks?

You're a murderer.

Re:Noocular

[Misagon]

You could expect Germany to phase out lignite before they phase out coal. There is a wide-spread public resistance against it and it is likely that it will be taxed out of being profitable.
Many "blocks" (lignite-burning power plants) will reach end-of-life in the next one or two decades anyway so if power companies would want to continue burning lignite then they would have to invest heavily in new plants and that wouldn't be a good financial decision.

Re:Noocular

[Anonymous Coward]

please stop commenting with hilarious jokes, my ribs can't take anymore....

Re:Noocular

[LWATCDR]

Of course not. Coal is just a bridge fuel until solar works 24/7 365.
"We put the goal so far out that we will be out of office and retired when we don't do it.

Re:Noocular

[Anonymous Coward]

So there's gonna be another Hitler?

Re:Noocular

[Coren22]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Re: Noocular

[Guildor]

I guess you missed the Thorium suggestion above? It's the western world that's ignored nuclear development, simply because it was considered "good enough", where as the Russians at some point thought it might be a good idea to try theorize and see what other options are open, and hence, the're the world leader in nuclear power technologies. Not that I like nuclear one little bit, but Thorium sounds like a dream come true! That's probably why we don't see thorium reactors everywhere though - maybe it's just a pipe-dream?

Re:Noocular

[Nukenbar]

Lucky for us we are just 30 years away until fusion energy solves all of our problems.

Re:Noocular

[microbox]

There is some truth to what you say, but you are neglecting the bigger picture. German (and Danish) engineers are being pressed into solving a difficult but not insurmountable problem: how do you build a robust grid from renewable energy sources. The critics said they wouldn't get past 3%. There will always be nay-sayers. Still your point stands: for the time-being Germany is depending, in part, on the French nuclear industry, and the Russian gas industry too.

Re:Noocular

[danlip]

Uranium is made from dead stars. The point being that it is a limited supply and there is no way for us to make more.

Re:Noocular

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially not your upwind neighbor.

But really, this isn't about rational decisions, but emotional ones.

Re:Noocular

[ganjadude]

by that logic, so is everything else in the universe. therefore why do anything?

Re: Noocular

[ChrisMaple]

The Western world has negligible development of nuclear power technology because leftist anti-nuclear panic mongers, in league with lawyers, have made it impractical or impossible to build new nuclear power plants.

Re:Noocular

[danlip]

Um, no. We can, for example, make ethanol which we can use for fuel (not that I am endorsing that particular strategy). And sunlight and wind are effectively unlimited (until the sun burns out, in which case we would need to find a new home anyway). Uranium, coal, oil, and gas will run out long before that. That is difference between "fossil" and "renewable".

Re:Noocular

[BranMan]

From numbers from an earlier comment Germany is at about 15% non-baseload renuables (i.e. power that can come and go like wind and solar) and 15% baseload renuables (i.e. power that is constant like hydro and biomass). So they are definitely doing something right.

It's a Little

[Anonymous Coward]

Little Little Too Late.

Live la vida loca.

Die young! Stay pretty!

Besides, unless you are born tomorrow, you'll be long dead by then.

By then...

[toonces33]

There won't be much left to burn anyways..

Re:By then...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the whole point really. Pretend to do something, while actually not needing to do anything. That way, success is guaranteed.

However, while oil is already getting hard to find in large pools, there is enough coal for several hundred years of smoking the planet up, so that is really what this is all about. It is not about oil.

Re:By then...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that simple - the estimates of coal reserves are based on the assumption of a 'business as usual' supply of oil to allow for the coal production. Once the oil is gone, it drags the coal production down with it.. Fossil fuels (coal,gas,oil) will die in unison I expect.

Re: By then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oil is not getting hard to find. That problem is trying to get it from the deeper locations in the ocean. The USA hasn't even started to tap all the oil it has on federal land. Right now only oil on private land is being developed. Not sure how true it is but I read somewhere that the US has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia does and it hasn't been tapped yet due to federal regulations.

Ass Analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a number: 2100. Where did it come from? Well, I just pulled it out of my ass, probably because my apish brain is partial to whole, round numbers... but hey, that's how government works, amirite?

Not that ambitious

[Roodvlees]

When it's so far in the future.

Re:Not that ambitious

[Anonymous Coward]

We could do it tomorrow, but it would be a pretty shit time until we've somehow built enough power plants to cover for it. And, you know, cars, planes, ships.

Re:Not that ambitious

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, by 2100, the world will have stopped using fossil fuels without this statement. If they had any courage, or ambition, they would have said 2050. Even that wouldn't take too massive of a push. If you wanted to go on an JFK'esque level, you would shoot for 2030. That would be revolutionary.

Re:Not that ambitious

[CaptSlaq]

I agree, by 2100, the world will have stopped using fossil fuels without this statement. If they had any courage, or ambition, they would have said 2050. Even that wouldn't take too massive of a push. If you wanted to go on an JFK'esque level, you would shoot for 2030. That would be revolutionary.

Pray tell, what does that massive push look like, and be sure to list all the caveats that go with it.

Re:Not that ambitious

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet it would look kind of like what France did in the 1960s(ish?). Simultaneous construction of a shit ton of nuclear plants that all use the same interchangeable parts. We could/should keep some fossil fuel plants standing by because they're good a load following and handling annual peak loads. If you want to get really crazy, go full nuke and find something to do with excess power most of the year... something like desalinating sea water and pumping it inland (cough, cough california).

The announcement was "warmly" welcomed

[Spy Handler]

I see what you did there, Taco.

Anyways I seriously doubt we'll be burning fossil fuels as our primary energy source in 2100. This is probably like politicians in 1880 signing a pledge to limit horse emissions before our cities drown in horse poop (a real concern at the time). Nice gesture but rendered moot by later technological advances.

Seriously ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The best estimate for quite a few fossil fuels is (or atleast used to be) 2050. So SUURE lets half them in 2050 and stop using them in 2100. When they are actually USED UP.

I fully support this

[little1973]

I swear that, by 2100, I will not use any fossil fuels.

Re:I fully support this

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be the fossil fuel though...

Re:I fully support this

[Anonymous Coward]

Specially if you end up in Soviet Russia!

Re:I fully support this

[Anonymous Coward]

Big party for the worms first!

Re:I fully support this

[Anonymous Coward]

- Soylent Green is people!
- Yah whatevs, will you fill my tank with it please?

Re:I fully support this

[UncleWilly]

I promise that my great-great grandchildren will be unable to obtain fossil fuels legally.

Re:I fully support this

[Anonymous Coward]

more like biofuel to me...

A bunch of politicians who won't be around...

[SlovakWakko]

A bunch of politicians who won't be around in 10 years agree to do something in 85 years? Wow, that's a real commitment to our future :) Especially since there won't be anything left to burn by then, and nobody to burn it (unless the cockroaches get on top of things really fast)...

Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's just stop the whole world today!

Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around...

[Whiteox]

Totally off topic, but is it true that the Slovaks make ice-cream out of margarine?

Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around...

[umghhh]

If not for that they would not have anything useful or good to announce. From what one sees the group is committed mostly to fighting Rusksis because they are evil and should rot in hell especially Putin. But as they have less guts than Reagan had (could not be less reckless really or?) they would not provoke Ruskis they way he did. Or maybe they do, who knows, either way nothing to tell the public so we get this strategic plan announced.
I understand this even. Not even great philosophers had something meaningful to note after every dispute. The bastards at the top shall chat with each other. Makes sense to me. Only they should meet somewhere where costs are limited - almost half a billion for a few days session of chatting is a bit excessive me thinks.

Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around...

[SlovakWakko]

I don't think so - I can't even see how that would work, AFAIK solid fats don't go into ice cream at all. But I have no idea really, all I know is that the ice cream you get here tastes the same as everywhere else in Europe I've had the chance to try it.

Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around...

[wvmarle]

Most constitutions in force today were written more than 85 years ago and have only seen minor adjustments. That's an example of a political long term commitment. So it can be done.

Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around...

[SlovakWakko]

Well, I don't expect that the G7 will put the agreement into their respective constitutions. I don't even expect them to put it into writing, show it to their respective parliaments for ratification and then sign it. That would make this business too difficult to weasel out of later...

Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Most constitutions in force today were written more than 85 years ago [...]

While I'd like to share your optimism (and I do try hard), I've got the impression that advances in "politics" concentrate on how to bypass those pesky constitutions for "getting stuff done" (for any disgusting value of "stuff" -- typically at the service of the rich).

Still trying out things and hoping for a change, though.

Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around...

[AmiMoJo]

If your country can't plan more than 10 years into the future, you are screwed.

Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around...

[ChunderDownunder]

Most only plan for the next election, which in my country is a mere 3 years.

Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around...

[CaptainLard]

A bunch of politicians who won't be around in 10 years

Well, we can always dream about that anyway....

Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around...

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon. Plans are for socialists. Let the invisible hand take care of it all.

Replace with what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Question is what they hope to replace fossils with? Hydrogen, electricity or something else?

Re:Replace with what?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have to harvest all the fossils from museums first. I believe that there's a whole mess of them in China and Australia and no-one yet has looked for any in Antarctica.

Re:Replace with what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect they will be replaced with 'not using so much energy', i.e. smaller population and a sparing energy use.

Re:Replace with what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't. The "Replace" option will have to include a brand new social structure which means far less energy per capita than today. Hopefully we can get rid of the toxic notion of continuous growth and all the weird ideas we have today like: requiring a PhD for everyone, cars, houses and kids for everyone, and we definitely need to stop fantasizing.

Re:Replace with what?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I don't usually reply to ACs but this level of stupid needs a rap on the knuckles. You do realise that covering a single digit portion of the uninhabited sections of the Sahara desert with inefficient old PV cells could supply enough power to satisfy the needs of the European Union right? We haven't even BEGUN to tap into the potential of renewables.

And before you start paddling your keyboard about how the sun goes down at night, rap yourself on the knuckles and think.

Re:Replace with what?

[DarkOx]

You do realize that even the dessert is a complex ecosystem of micro flora and fona that would be greatly harmed by being permanently covered in solar cells. You must also be aware that transmission loss with electricity is well HUGE. So you are discussing a large ecosystem altering deployment of solar cells, much larger than anticipated, in place where there is nobody to maintain them. Sounds like a pretty stupid plan.

Right up there with daming another river or installing another giant bird migration path altering wind farm. Those are okay in Europe because the Europeans already killed all the birds in past centuries but they kinda suck in the states.

Someday folks are going to wake up and realize their is more to protecting our the environment than CO2 emissions. All the greenies want to do is run around and spoil the last few unspoiled places are earth to stand up their renewables; personally I'd rather burn a little more oil.

Re:Replace with what?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

You do realize that even the dessert is a complex ecosystem of micro flora and fona that would be greatly harmed by being permanently covered in solar cells.

The Sahara desert was a jungle a few thousand years ago, for all we know it could be a jungle again in a few thousand years, and what little life exists there won't enjoy that much either. Following your train of thought to its logical conclusion people may as well just curl up into a ball and die for fear of harming anything anywhere. Feel free to do so but don't expect many to follow suit. And again, we're talking about an insignificant percentage of the desert, used to illustrate a point - there's no shortage of renewable energy.

You must also be aware that transmission loss with electricity is well HUGE.

No, it isn't. HVDC lines have been around for a while and have been deployed in many locations. That you weren't aware of this fact says all it needs to say.

in place where there is nobody to maintain them.

That's like asking why would anyone build roads, since there's nobody out there right now to maintain them. Wow.

Re:Replace with what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sandstorms would cover those PV panels in no time.

Re:Replace with what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't think of anything worse than smug douchebaggery.

You know, it is possible to educate people without ripping them a new asshole.

BTW, I'm not the A/C you replied to. I'm just someone who thinks you're a dick.

Now, go fuck yourself.

Re:Replace with what?

[Mab_Mass]

The Sahara desert was a jungle a few thousand years ago

This is an oft-quoted partial truth. Parts of the current Sahara were jungle, but the desert as a whole has existed for millions of years.

Re:Replace with what?

[russotto]

Following your train of thought to its logical conclusion people may as well just curl up into a ball and die for fear of harming anything anywhere.

Of course. Environmentalists would prefer we freeze in the dark rather than harm the fragile desert ecosystem or reduce the albedo of the desert or whatever. So they can't be reasonably satisfied. Once satisfying them is off the table, we may as well burn coal and oil; advantage there is there's already powerful lobbying groups dedicated to keeping those going in the face of environmentalist opposition.

Re:Replace with what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You realise that ocean acidification will decimate corals and shellfish?

You realise that the arctic ecosystem will collapse as the sea ice disappears?

You realise that all ecosystems will be severly stressed by the temperature changes?

Lets get some priorities straight. All energy sources have an environmental impact. It's a matter of sensible priorities. There is more to protecting the environment than CO2 emissions, but CO2 emissions are the biggest single long-term threat to our environment.

Re:Replace with what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who modded up this moron?

Re:Replace with what?

[CWCheese]

The Matrix, perhaps?

Re:Replace with what?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to ecofascists, and they say this with a straight face, moving stones in the countryside should be forbidden by law because it "alters derlicate microenvironments".

Re:Replace with what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Those are okay in Europe because the Europeans already killed all the birds in past centuries but they kinda suck in the states."

What? I have it on good authority that the European Swallow still exists.

Re:Replace with what?

[ChrisMaple]

You do realize that even the dessert is a complex ecosystem of micro flora and fona that would be greatly harmed by being permanently covered in solar cells.

Mars is covered with a reddish dust that would be greatly harmed by painting it green. The importance of that damage is about as great as "harming" a desert.

Completely irrelevant

[thisisauniqueid]

First law of politics: any resolution adopted by a political figure that requires action beyond the end of the next election cycle can be safely ignored, and will soon be completely forgotten.

Second law of politics: most resolutions that claim future action within the current election cycle can also be safely ignored.

Re:Completely irrelevant

[Hadlock]

Wind and Solar are already lightyears cheaper than fossil fuels in remote areas like islands and the third world. Remember how we skipped providing land lines to Africa, and everyone there got cell phones instead? How Facebook has a mobile app specifically directed towards those mobile users in Africa? Solar and Wind will come from the bottom up (Africa, SE Asia) and from the top down (Germany, Netherlands, Sweden). As capacity increases and price decreases you'll start seeing middle-tier economies like the United States and Canada finally adopt them. Taking a train through the countryside you'll see hundreds of houses with solar panels on their roofs already. While the legislative push isn't needed, it will help move other countries in that direction, as the G7 acts as a leader and weathervane for countries worldwide.
 
TL;DR Solar and Wind will drive the price of fossil fuels in to the ground in 20 years, anyways.

Re:Completely irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

The house's you see are only due to subsidies, which make the poor worse off...

solar/wind are useless distractions

Re:Completely irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Plenty(including myself) go solar and find it economical without a penny in subsidies... THe problem with subsidies is they require a customer purchase specific equipment and hire approved installers which drives up the cost so much you may as well not have any subsidies.... So if one is competent and you can get around the laws designed to discourage solar, DIY works quite nicely.

Of course the REAL problem is human overpopulation first, secondly the wastefulness of most of the energy consumers.. Through a little communism towards manufacturing and it would help immensely... ie: make designed obsolescence illegal, and set much higher minimum efficiency requirements (400Wh/day for deep freezer maximum, etc).

Re:Completely irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you write house's, but not subsidie's?

Re:Completely irrelevant

[ChrisMaple]

Through a little communism towards manufacturing

Why to I even bother replying to someone who hasn't achieved literacy? ... Communism destroys human action, including manufacturing.

make designed obsolescence illegal

1.Try proving that obsolescence had been deliberately designed. Well, you favor communism, so a communist level of proof (i.e. zero) would be considered adequate.
2.Please learn about the "time value of money".

set much higher minimum efficiency requirements

And the hell with freedom, or whether the legislatively determined efficiencies are even possible.

Easy Promises When You're Dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Title says it all. B$ from people who will live out their rich-ass lives while we and our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren twist in the wind from choices made in this generation. :/ :/

Re: Easy Promises When You're Dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly as it should be. Wealthy people make things progress, and that's why they're wealthy. You small folk think you're so important because there are so many of you but guess what? Numbers do not matter anymore. The 2100 deadline is perfectly feasible because by then there will be no more 99 percenters to clutter up the place and waste resources. The bigenerational culling program will have been completed.

Re: Easy Promises When You're Dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol no no we will be lynching your asses long before that happens, fag

Feel good "commit nothing"

[aepervius]

Pretty much any commitment for 2030-2100 is so far in the future that it is utterly worthless. In a decades from now political party will have changed, government will have changed, and commitment can be reneged. By 2100 in all practically all politician of today will be long dead. They can commit whatever they want, they will not have to carry any consequence. A small commitment for 2020 or 2025 is much MUCH better than a big commitment for the far flung future. Why ? Because you can step by step reach the target and you can harmonize those little steps by lowering disrupting economy for all. By committing a far future date you have only enforcement legally once 2100 is reached, and you make sure it is a race to the bottom : the one committing more will make its economy far worst comparing to those who commit less, and thus those who do nothing will be better off.

Re:Feel good "commit nothing"

[Kartu]

2030 commitment implies 2020 commitment (as you are not expected to get there overnight)
Besides, there already is 2020 commitment (EU):

The Renewable Energy Directive sets rules for the EU to achieve its 20% renewables target by 2020.

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en...

Germany is already beyond that, though, with 30%+ of electricity coming from renewable sources (as of 2014).

Re:Feel good "commit nothing"

[jandersen]

Pretty much any commitment for 2030-2100 is so far in the future that it is utterly worthless

That is of course the worry, but I think in some ways this represents a real change, if only symbolically. Just think back a few years, when climate change first grabbed headlines, and all industrialized countries went "Oh no, we will not even discuss this, because it might hurt our short term profits". Now, at least, it is a goal of sorts, and you get taken seriously if you suggest ways to move away from fossil fuels; this is not a small thing. It is not ambitious enough, clearly, but I think it will now become a lot easier to move towards a carbon free world, new technologies that enable us to do so will be developed much faster than the pessimists think. What has held us back was not so much technological ability as it was unwillingness on the part of the politicians and their masters.

Re:Feel good "commit nothing"

[monkeyxpress]

Absolutely agree. When I started my career in engineer I quickly discovered the folly of the manager who keeps shooting for the stars. Basically everyone who knows that the target is completely unrealistic just gives up and starts planning for how to deal with the failure rather than move the project forward. The key is to have bite sized goals that people can achieve if pushed, then leaning on them to get there.

If climate prediction are right, then we are pretty screwed anyway. I think it is time we just figured out some goals that could actually be met (such as nations agreeing to bring as much renewables online as the existing grids can manage) and chug away at those. If we start meeting a few of them, we might actually be able to get a bit of enthusiasm about doing some bigger stuff.

Re:Feel good "commit nothing"

[DarkOx]

2030 commitment implies 2020 commitment

If you actually plan to meet your stated goal yes. If the objective is to score some political points by saying something that sounds good, than it means no such thing. 5 years out and then 10 years out, then 20 years out, when opponents are making noise that threatens you political you just tell supports that "there is still plenty of time, and with the economy....now isn't the time to...."

Re:Cue randroids losing

[Anonymous Coward]

After the Ukraine, Slovakia is next.

Less talk, more actions...

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to have viable replacing technology available by then. They need to push money to research. It's the only way!

Empty promise

[fph il quozientatore]

I can almost hear them thinking "LOL who cares we won't be in charge by then, we can as well make this empty promise to get some more votes".

Re:Cue randroids losing

[Maritz]

Lots of Ukraine left to go. Don't hold your breath.

You mean run out

[warewolfsmith]

It's easy, we'll run out long before then.

Re:You mean run out

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the price of a gallon of gas will adjust to the supply as long as people are willing to travel 50 miles per day going to and from meaningless jobs.

Year 2100 is

[Required Snark]

past the life expectancy of anyone we could conceivably give a crap about.

Equivalently, "Fuck you".

Re:Year 2100 is

[stjobe]

past the life expectancy of anyone we could conceivably give a crap about.

I'll be long dead in 2100.
My son will be dead in 2100.
His children though, my grandchildren, may very well be alive in 2100.
Their children, my grand-grandchildren, are very likely to be alive in 2100
My nieces and nephews, born between 2009 and 2015, may very well be alive in 2100.

And conceivable for you or not, but I do "give a crap" about them, even the ones not born yet.

Re:Year 2100 is

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not in the 1% your children and grandchildren will be dead long before 2100. If you don't have any grandchildren now, you should advise your son(s)/daughter(s) to refrain from reproduction. It will save them the pain of choosing between starvation and euthanasia.

Re:Year 2100 is

[monkeyxpress]

past the life expectancy of anyone we could conceivably give a crap about.

Equivalently, "Fuck you".

Yeah, it is basically saying we'll enjoy ourselves and the next generation can deal with the mess. Pretty much sums up the boomer generation to be honest.

Commit to an absolute carbon budget

[Anonymous Coward]

This "we'll cleanse our shit by some imaginary date" is somewhat pointless. The earth cannot take any more of these asshat politicians kicking the can down the road.

What is REALLY needed is an ABSOLUTE carbon budget. That is ... 'we resolve to only put X amount of CO2 more in the atmosphere'. This is the language our planet can understand and interpret.. not some feel-good announcement.

Human activity has already caused our planet to cross many safe operating boundaries; our impact is being compared to the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs - a sixth mass extinction. The era of half-promises is over ... but sadly out political systems don't quite work that way.

No, not really

[Kartu]

Nuclear power in Germany
In 2001 a law was passed requiring the closing of all nuclear power plants within a period of 32 years. The shutdown time was extended to 2040 by a new government in 2010. After the Fukushima incident, the law was abrogated and the end of nuclear energy was set to 2022

Renewable energy in Germany
Net-generation from renewable energy sources in the German electricity sector has increased from 6.3% in 2000 to about 30% in 2014

Renewable sources:
40% - wind
30% - biomass
16% - solar
14% - hydropower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

There are countries which are way ahead of Germany in this regard, for instance, Sweden.

Re:No, not really

[Crashmarik]

$0.3625/ KWH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Sounds like a god damn brilliant plan to me. Triple the cost of electricity and then no one will want to buy an Electric Vehicle or use it for anything else.

Re:No, not really

[jblues]

And one of those countries, believe it or not, and despite all kinds of competing interests, is the USA. In 1997 installed capacity in Germany surpassed the U.S. and led until once again overtaken by the U.S. in 2008.

Re:No, not really

[geoskd]

Triple the cost of electricity and then no one will want to buy an Electric Vehicle or use it for anything else.

As opposed to what? gasoline? You probably didn't notice while you were so busy trying to support your idiotic American centric beliefs , but in much of Europe, gas costs many times what it does in the US. This is not a result of economics, but a result of regulation. It is deliberate, and the German people like it that way. Whether it fits with your world view or not, there are whole countries of people who actually like clean air and unpolluted land. The German people are one such people, which is why they are *actively* switching to renewable energy. They know it costs more. This is what they have chosen to buy with their wealth. But its OK, you're American. you can drive that SUV to the local convenience store to pick up a bag of Doritos and you'll fit right in with your neighbours, and fuck everyone else. You can use the money you saved to buy a new sprinkler system to water that lush green lawn that uses more water every year than Bangladesh.

To all Americans, the world is not about money, fucktards. Money is an evil upon our world. Whether it is a necessary evil is open for debate, but it is evil none-the-less.

Re:No, not really

[dunkelfalke]

Not really difficult, given four times the population and way more sun (the most southern German towns are on the same latitude as Seattle).

Re:No, not really

[Crashmarik]

but in much of Europe, gas costs many times what it does in the US.

Unlike the EU we usually aren't fond of self inflicting wounds at the behest of our betters.

Re: No, not really

[DigiShaman]

America could burn 5x as much oil and still be cleaner than China by orders of magnitude. So if you truly care about the wellbeing of people, you'll promptly STFU because CO2 isn't a toxic threat!

Re:No, not really

[MightyYar]

the German people like it that way

All of them, or just the ones who are in power?

Re: No, not really

[dunkelfalke]

You have been just as dirty as China for about a century, but with a much smaller population.

Re: No, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

That's actually how much my electricity costs. It's always painful to listen to yanks and their rising costs when it's their low costs that cause so many issues. Tax it, fix the damn roads, make people give a shit about efficient vehicles.

Re: No, not really

[Crashmarik]

Jesus Christ man why do you tolerate it ?

You have a labor force participation rate in the 50% range (guessing you are English). You are being robbed left and right by people that tell you they know what's good for you, why aren't you doing something about it instead of wishing bad fortune on others ?

Re:No, not really

[AmiMoJo]

The headline figure I'd misleading. A lot of people either have solar or get subsided electricity. Electric cars are still quite attractive. Remember that Germany is a socialist country, particularly compared to the US. They actually like socialism and doing something for the collective good. See the other story on free education, for example.

Re:No, not really

[Crashmarik]

You know what the greatest collective good I know is ?

It's having an economy with enough demand for labor that people can get jobs and earn their own way without relying on forced charity from their neighbors.

Re: No, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah more aryan superiority complex. Just what the world needs. BTW once you climb down from that mountain and look at the top 10 vehicles sold in the USA and you won't find any SUVs. You would even be surprised to find out how many wind farms have been slowly going up too. I watch the giant blades heading out on the highway north of my little town.

Re:No, not really

[abies]

One of my friends was so early adopter of the hybrid cars that he got one as soon as possible, with considerable premium paid - because it got transported to Germany by plane. He was so proud touting his environmental friendliness until I asked him to compute when his car will save enough gas/pollution to save extra things which had to be used to transport it by plane instead by ship...
Another, living in quite cloudy/rainy part of Germany, installed solar panels on his roof to save environment. This was in 90ties... you can imagine pollution cost/effectivness of producing/transporting panel back then to what he was getting in terms of electricity.

Anyway, a lot of 'normal' German people are very eco-oriented, but they look at it with specific approach - they are early adopters of anything sounding 'green', regardless of actual benefits or cost to environment.

Re:No, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what the greatest collective good I know is ?

It's having an economy with enough demand for labor that people can get jobs and earn their own way without relying on forced charity from their neighbors.

The problem is that when there's a demand for labor, business simply increase the size of the labor pool (See, H-1b visas).

Re:No, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Little bit presumptuous there? Not all Americans are like that, and saying that is as stupid as Americans saying that all Germans are Nazis.

Germany isn't exactly lily-white either. Trading their sovereignty to Russia for natural gas isn't a wise maneuver, nor is the constant flogging of the Greeks. Nor is recognizing ISIS as a sovereign state for oil purchases a wise thing, because those are tactics that Chamberlain tried, and history showed that they didn't do that well.

Germany right now is in a good spot. They have no enemies at their borders, are not besieged by insurgents yet, and the fact that the Euro was based on the DM has done them well. However, there is a lot of smug pride, as displayed in the parent post.

However, if Germany doesn't realize that the barbarians are at the gate, the current population of German sybarites today will have sons and daughters who have to become soldiers fighting for their country's existence in 10-20 years (that or face extinction, just like the Kurdish massacres.) Germany is a lot closer to the Middle East than the US, and hiring Turks for cheap labor has created a very large pool of potential recruits for ISIS to pick from for insurgent duty.

There are also military threats from established powers. With Snowden selling out secrets to Russia, and those being passed along, who knows who might threaten the Fatherland not on an economy level, but a purely physical level? Right now it just doesn't seem like it will happen... but the times we are at with Russia, Europe, the US, China, and the Middle East have a lot of echos to 100 years ago, and how quickly the world went from an uneasy peace to all out war.

tl;dr, $DEITY has granted Germany with the mantle of leadership in the free world, to be the light on the hill. Some things are good, like offering educations. However, smug pride no thought for the future, aiding/abetting hostile forces, and ignoring the issues of other countries, is only going to cause major problems down the road.

Re:No, not really

[CaptainLard]

Too bad the "greatest" or best possible anything is always a theoretical construct that's unattainable in the real world.

Re: No, not really

[Computershack]

You would even be surprised to find out how many wind farms have been slowly going up too. I watch the giant blades heading out on the highway north of my little town.

The worlds' largest offshore windfarm is in the UK. Its about to be dwarfed by one currently being constructed which is 4 times the size which is being built just a few miles off the east coast of the UK. In my county in England there is not a single place you can stand and not see a wind turbine. The USA has a long way to go.

Re: No, not really

[Computershack]

Jesus Christ man why do you tolerate it ?

Because the £8Billion the British motorist pays more in tax than is spent on the roads goes on funding the NHS so we don't end up in the situation that you have in the USA where the prime cause of bankruptcy is medical bills and people die from really easy to treat shit because they can't afford treatment.

Re: No, not really

[dave420]

You get some very basic facts incredibly wrong, so why should anyone listen to you again? You have an uncanny gift of getting really confused about something but believing yourself to be 100% right, and even after people point that out to you, you ignore it and power on through being wrong anyway. I'm not saying you're wrong this time, but your track record really isn't helping.

Re:No, not really

[Oligonicella]

That last paragraph is one big oxymoron.

Re: No, not really

[Crashmarik]

Oh hi again. Ad Hominem this time ? I suppose I should be honored I rate a stalker.

Re:No, not really

[Crashmarik]

You are of course wrong. What you mean to say is that perfect anything is an impossibility.

When I say "The Greatest I know", I am referring to a member of the finite set of things that I know.
The same holds true for any other greatest, where it always refers to the element in the universe of discussion that has the highest rank.

 

Re:No, not really

[tlhIngan]

$0.3625/ KWH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Sounds like a god damn brilliant plan to me. Triple the cost of electricity and then no one will want to buy an Electric Vehicle or use it for anything else.

Except gasoline/diesel is much more expensive in Europe (take your per-gallon price, change the currency symbol to Euro, and change "gallon" to "litre" and you'll get the idea of prices).

Basically, an EV went from a "you're an idiot not to" to "damn, where am I gonna stuff all the money I'm saving".

Re: No, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you ranting against the US medical system when the subject is UK electric energy prices? It sounds like a pensioner ranting about some foreign minority or another in attempt to blame them instead of facing up to their own problems.

Re:No, not really

[Crashmarik]

Let Me understand this.

The government robs you on the cost of gas.
Then they rob you on the cost of your electricity
Your result, You're ecstatic because you got to spend lots of upfront money so they could rob you a little less ?

Re:No, not really

[microbox]

It's having an economy with enough demand for labor that people can get jobs and earn their own way without relying on forced charity from their neighbors.

The German mixed-market economy is underwritten by sound economic analysis. They 3% during the great recession. When was the last time the USA had 3% growth? If you grow the pie, then the "forced charity" is free.

Most people in the USA want to run the economy according to the moral code: "what is mine is mine". That is great and all, but it just isn't serious economics.

Re: No, not really

[Chas]

The US is also 37x the total land area, has 5x the populace, and isn't anywhere CLOSE to as uniform in the sense of general climate as the UK is.

Remember, you can't simply install wind turbines "anywhere". Wind conditions have to be right. Too little, as your turbine sits idle most of the time. Too much, and it sits idle all the time as you don't want excessive wear on the turbine. And there's an area in the US known as "Tornado Alley" It's roughly the size of the entire UK. Installing wind turbines down in that region would be insanity.

Also, the sheer size of the country introduces logistical problems in terms of power transmission. Sure, it's all well and good to set up a wind farm in BFE. But what do you do when your nearest grid tie-in is several hundred miles away?

Re: No, not really

[microbox]

So if you truly care about the wellbeing of people, you'll promptly STFU because CO2 isn't a toxic threat!

You wouldn't care less about the science if it had nothing to do with economic change. But because it does, the science must be wrong. And you know this because you read blogs!!! You are so SMART!!!

Re:No, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Places where the government doesn't rob you: Somalia, Yeman, Libya. You don't pay taxes there.

Re: No, not really

[microbox]

The "most informed" are usually the most misled. Bertrand Russell's famous quote about ignorance and bluster is about you. It doesn't always have to be that way.

Re:No, not really

[CaptainLard]

Thanks for proving my point. I had an idea to write the most infallible and relevant rebuttal to your original post but it all blew up from mutual misinterpretation!

Re:No, not really

[jfengel]

When was the last time the USA had 3% growth?

Last year, at 3.7%. And the year before, and the year before, and the year before. The last time it was under 3% was 2010, when it was 2.1%. For the first quarter of 2015, it was an annualized growth of 3.6% (second estimate; the Q2 estimates aren't due until the end of next month).

The US did, indeed, decline during the recession: growth was flat or negative in 2008 and 2009. But GDP increase year on year has been pretty consistently in the 3.5-4.5% range since the close of the recession. Source.

Not that GDP is a great measure of economic success, but you were the one who brought it up. Practically all of that GDP increase goes to a tiny percentage of the population, and they fight hard to keep it that way. The rest is treading water or falling back. But as a whole, by the coarse measure of GDP, the US has been doing quite well ever since the end of the recession.

Re:No, not really

[AmiMoJo]

Nice dream but in reality it never seems to work out, does it? Some people just can't work to a level that gets them out of poverty, e.g. because of disability. Many companies want to pay less than a living wage, and consumers tend to want them to as well because they want low cost goods and services. So either the price of everything goes up and some people still fall through the cracks though no fault of their own, or we have some socialism.

Personally I'm happy to pay taxes that subsidise others, as long as I know that if I ever can't work for some reason there is a safety net, if I get sick I will get free high quality healthcare and if there aren't desperate people with nothing willing to commit crimes against me. I also recognize the benefit I get from promoting clean energy and improvement of the environment. Then again I'm also for redistribution of wealth so you probably think I'm some kind of communist.

Re:No, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

That price is very similar to the Netherlands (In fact we import cheap electricity FROM Germany!), And in the Netherlands it's just taxes without a plan.
(also, the wikipedia data looks suspicious, and the euro/dollar conversion has a large effect when some of the data is very old.)

We have paid almost 2 Euro’s per Litre of petrol here, so be warned that there will be sufficient demand for fuel at those price levels.

Re:No, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Biomass is still burning stuff.

The only upside is that presumably growing it takes out of the air the same amount of CO2 that burning it puts back ... not accounting for whatever energy is used to grow and harvest the stuff.

Re:No, not really

[jblues]

The statistic that I quoted was just for wind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power) so I'm not sure how much influence sun would have. And watts per capita might still place Germany in front.

Certainly USA has more space for both wind and solar.

Re: No, not really

[ganjadude]

In my county in England there is not a single place you can stand and not see a wind turbine.

you say this as if its a good thing. When I am out enjoying nature, I cant stand to see power lines let alone noisy wind turbines.

Re:No, not really

[ganjadude]

sun does actually have a lot to do with the wind. with the heating and cooling cycles and all

Re:No, not really

[Crashmarik]

Nice dream but in reality it never seems to work out, does it? Some people just can't work to a level that gets them out of poverty

Haven't been alive very long have you ?

Re:No, not really

[Crashmarik]

Thanks for admitting you can't read.

Re: No, not really

[Crashmarik]

Need to take that log out of your eye.

Re:No, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

The figures on that page are just hilarious. It's as if someone picked a random power company in each country, searched around their website until they came up with a price list - one of, probably, several hundred such lists used just by that company - and published that as the price for that country. (Looking at the page sources, I can see that's exactly what they did, at least in the case of Australia.)

And they they give the price to 4 significant figures, which means either someone has to be updating every one of them at least once a day as currencies fluctuate, or the figures are all bullshit anyway.

That page... does not meet my minimum expectations of quality of information from Wikipedia. And that's saying something.

Re:No, not really

[MightyYar]

I'm as skeptical of "green" marketing as anyone, but I fully recognize that early adopters ultimately help the technology progress. Solar panels spent over 50 years in development before finally becoming cost effective over their lifetime.

Re: No, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like the guy that sued to get a hospital shut down. To build it, they had to run power lines to it. He objected to the power lines, so sued to shut the hospital down so he could get rid of the power lines.

Re:No, not really

[Crashmarik]

That's nice do you have the correct average price ?

Re:No, not really

[Crashmarik]

Oh btw. Price is a defined quantity so significant figures isn't a relevant concept.

Re:No, not really

[ChrisMaple]

Money is an evil upon our world.

Such arrogant stupidity completely disqualifies you from rational discussions.

Re:No, not really

[ChrisMaple]

Did you really not understand the point, or is your misdirection deliberate?

Re:No, not really

[Jack Griffin]

Triple? I pay 44c/kwh and our generation is all coal.

Re:No, not really

[Kartu]

Well, there is quite a bit of tax in that price (although 36 cent is a bit high, I pay about 28 $ cent) and clearly, you cannot switch to renewable energy, without huge investments and that money should come from somewhere.

Note that gasoline is also quite expensive in Germany (again, taxes).
1 liter of 95 ROZ ("Eurosuper") costs about 1.45Euro, i.e. about $6.22 per gallon

Re:No, not really

[CaptainLard]

Lighten up

Re: No, not really

[Ferretman]

Um, that's not what Kelly Blue Book says for 2014:

http://www.kbb.com/car-reviews...

• #8 Honda CR-V
• #3 Dodge RAM Trucks (not technically SUVs but similar gas mileage)
• #2 Chevy Silverado (again a pickup, but similar mileage to an SUV)
• #1 Ford F-Series Trucks (as above)

Ferret

Re:No, not really

[Crashmarik]

I'd try but it looks like electricity is going to get rather expensive.

Re:No, not really

[abies]

Not at all. 'sounding' is a key phrase here. Most people don't care about over-lifetime ecological cost of product, they just look at the most efficient period and ignore the rest. Example of old-tech, inefficient solar panels - they ignore cost (and by cost I mean pollution/carbon-footprint rather than money) of manufacturing the panel and transporting it, then they focus on energy gains on sunny days again ignoring possible maintenance/replacement costs and finally disposal costs.

As MightYar said, it might end up being beneficial in long run because of drive/money to improve the solution, but nobody is saying "I'm green, so I'll increase pollution by using inefficient and crappy 'greenish' technology, so it can improve and in 20 years has net benefits". They all think that direct benefits are there from day one, just because technology _sounds_ green.

Re:No, not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Longer than you, long enough to know a racist when I see one.

Re:No, not really

[Crashmarik]

https://nicedeb.files.wordpres...

Re:Cue randroids losing

[someone1234]

You surely meant Moldavia. Slovakia is a bit far from Russia with minimal russian population.

85 years from now eh?

[Karmashock]

And who cares what the G anything said so much as 10 years ago? This more worthless than when China said they'd cut the GROWTH of their PROJECTED CO2 increase and that they would be the only ones permitted to determine if they were in compliance with their non-binding agreement.

85 fucking years? Who here thinks that anyone will even remember what the G anything said in 85 years? None of it is binding. It is all gentleman's agreements.

Which means you can rebut any of them with this argument "well you see... ehm... I wanted to do that... so... I ehm... I just did."

Totally valid response by any G anything member to any other G anything member about whatever.

So... allow me to calculate the number of shits anyone should give about this little announcement... carry the one... divide by zero... and... yes, that works out to exactly zero shits.

Re:85 years from now eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

So... allow me to calculate the number of shits anyone should give about this little announcement... carry the one... divide by zero... and... yes, that works out to exactly zero shits.

No, that works out to a divide-by-zero error.

Re:85 years from now eh?

[Karmashock]

You're apparently not familiar with give-o-fuck mathematics.

What do they teach you kids these days?

Here's what Germany should really do

[Anonymous Coward]

in the meantime, start paying for your oil in Euro. And let the other countries of Europe follow suit.

Re:Here's what Germany should really do

[mujadaddy]

start paying for your oil in Euro

Speaking of things that won't be around in 2100...

Re:Here's what Germany should really do

[Anonymous Coward]

It may or may not, but if Europe changes to buy oil in Euro TODAY, it will definitely be around.

Will there be any left by then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any realistic estimate that gives us any fossil fuels still left in the earth by 2100? I guess coal, but I would be surprised if efficiency alone didn't make coal be no longer used by 2100.

Re:Will there be any left by then?

[ledow]

Yes.

Depending on which report you read, oil, coal, gas etc. may have at least 100 years left. It depends on fracking and shale gas and all kinds of things that we aren't using at the moment but about 100 years isn't seen as a major obstacle - it'll be harder and go up in price and then no doubt it will be the end of it not long after, but it'll still be around until then.

We've found an awful lot of deposits that weren't viable 50 years ago to be viable now, based on the cost of the oil they'll give, and the technology now available to reach it.

However, that said, fossil fuels will be the first major category of fuels to disappear, beyond all certainty. Uranium etc., however, is destined to give us several hundred years more (if not nearer 1000 years) if we use that in current-day processes. Fact is, we're running scared of it because it's not politically-compatible, not because it's not viable.

The bigger problem is not use as fuel, but as a resource. Plastics, etc. are going to suffer before we can't burn the stuff. There are synthetic alternatives but they aren't used en-masse (or require a lot of energy, other precious resources like crops, etc.). If you can't get the plastics and the oils and the various things we use to keep machines operational, then it's a struggle to maintain hardware with in-specification materials. That's the real big problem, and one not solved by the wind-farm / solar crowd.

Energy is one part. Use of the oil itself is much more important. We'll lose a lot of materials that make up our modern world due to rising costs before we can't afford a tank of petrol.

And though we can find energy in other ways, and in abundance it has to be said, we can't find materials that can replace everything we currently use.

Reminds me of League of Nations

[IHTFISP]

I recall at the end of World War I (then called The Great War) that the great nations of the world agreed to eliminate all future wars by forming an international body to formally instill world peace. It was called the League of Nations. But then came the second war to end all ways (WWII) some 30 or so years later. So the present day United Nations was formed so the world wouldn't destroy itself and, while we're at it, so we could eliminate pestilence, famine and plague as well (along with war).
    Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it. I suspect that the only way to ensure the elimination of all human use of fossil fuels is to eliminate all humans. Welcome to The Futurama!

    --Bender

Been saying this for years

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The writing's been on the wall for decades now and the process has been visible to anyone who cared to look - fossil fuel sources are being phased out entirely long term. The only thing objectionable about this story is the idea that Merkel could claim any sort of responsibility for it.

Re: Been saying this for years

[rkcth]

Ironically, Europe has been switching from HFC refrigerants (which are safe and non-flammable, as well as energy efficient) to hydrocarbon (fossil fuel) based refrigerants (which are flammable, and use more energy to transfer heat). HFC refrigerants are major greenhouse gas contributors, hence the shift.

Why not 2025?

[DMJC]

Why not make it 2025? Melbourne University did a study on it, it only costs $400 billion to decarbonise all of Australia. Surely we can afford $40 billion/year for 10 years. After which point we don't have to spend a single cent on it and can stop spending that money or redirect it elsewhere in the economy.

Re:Why not 2025?

[ChunderDownunder]

"Coal is good for humanity"

Inaction is a political issue.

Re:Why not 2025?

[sectokia]

Have you actually read it? It's pie in the sky wishful thinking stuff. There is no little substance here it's honestly border line joke report. Take this sentence: "the transformation of transport away from its present mode to the proposed ZCA2020 mode will be cost negative". The proof they provide of this is.... nothing. Just some ramblings about how car production grew after ww2 and that the same thing can happen again (presumably by forcing everyone to buy an electric car). Honestly the whole thing seems to be designed as a back slapping exercise. There is essentially nothing in it that can be used for a serious cost benefit analysis. At the start it says proven present day technology is all that's needed, but then it goes on to say that everyone needs electric cars with charges at home and at work that dynamically turn off and on with solar/wind and that thermal salt heat storage of a scale and design never tried before anywhere is also needed to for energy storage, again with prices that are made up and not based on an actual construction company estimates. Plus if something pays for itself in X number of years they consider it cost free, which is absurd. For example, they want 300,000 electric cars per year made, at a cost of $15b per year. Yet that doesn't get counted into their figure.... because the government can just force us to buy the cars. The number fudging is a joke, if you gave them $400b they couldn't do it, you would also need to force everyone in the country to buy certain things only consume power at certain times and basically take over control of the entire economy. Pie in the sky commie stuff.

And

[Anonymous Coward]

They also vowed to phase out smallpox by 2200. Such an ambitious plan.

partially Incorrect

[aepervius]

Renewable production reached 30% roughly, but 1) that is gross production not usage AFAIK, and 2) this is only electricity production. Does not count heating (40% energy usage). It is inreality more like11% , a feat, but shows that fully removing CO2 geenrating method a far flung goal:

 

As of the end of 2014, renewable energy sources, such as biomass, biogas, biofuels, hydro, wind and solar, accounted for11.1% of the country's primary energy consumption, a more than doubling compared to 2004, when renewables only contributed 4.5%. Renewable contribute most to the electricity sector with 27.8% (gross-generation), followed by the heat and transportation sector with 9.9% and 5.4%, respectively.

 
You should not use energy==electricity as it is misleading. Always precise what you are speaking of. In the case of the 27% it is gross electricity generation.

It's like promising to quit alcohol

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time you've emptied your wine cellar.

Excellent News.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gives ample time for sanity to return.

Not quite twenty years, tho you could split hairs

[jabberw0k]

The Anschluss (the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany), March 1938, wasn't even twenty years after 11 November 1918 (the Armistice to the "War to End All Wars").

Actually much sooner

[utahjazz]

We will definitely be off fossil fuel by 2100, because we will be out of coal in 23 years http://www.dailykos.com/story/... out of oil in 50 years http://www.cnbc.com/id/4222481... and out of natural gas in 87 at the current rate http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/... (much faster assuming consumption goes up when we run out of oil and coal)

The world is going to become a very different place, in our lifetime. OK so we all have electric cars, but how do you travel to Europe without oil ? In an electric plane ? A battery powered boat ?

Re:Actually much sooner

[MagickalMyst]

> how do you travel to Europe without oil ?

Like they used to before the last century - wind in your sails!

Re:Actually much sooner

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we can go back to sail boats... Add in some solar tech and it wouldn't be too crazy.

I already have my electric car, solar panels, and bicycles ready to go.

Re:Actually much sooner

[godrik]

Actually that is the reason why I think we should keep oil for precisely these applications. It seems like there are applications where fossil fuel can be replaced by renwable energies and places where it can not.

Instead of treating fossil fuel like a commodity, maybe we should treat it like "an endangered resource".

Re:Actually much sooner

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like that. I guess we'll be back to plant and animal based grease. I don't know what to do about the aircraft... Synthetic hydrocarbons?

Re:Actually much sooner

[utahjazz]

You're right I forgot we know how to put a nuclear power plant on a boat, and that it's possible to make synthetic fuel. So we'll still be going to be able to travel the world, it will just be really expensive. Like a modern version of the 19th century.

Other uses for fossil products.

[Stephen Chadfield]

How about the other uses for fossil products: fertilizers, plastics etc. Will we also have alternatives for those by 2100?

Too late?

[Anonymous Coward]

By 2100 there will be no functioning states due to the dire consequences of going down the fossil fuel path.
No North pole, California uninhabitable as well as most of the West, no Florida, no transportation system, fuel system, electrical transmission system. Serious lack of agriculture, wildly fluctuating weather. And that is just what we know. At that point there will have been many years of intensifying wars over the remaining petrochemical reserves between Russia, China, Europe, India, Pakistan, the Mideast, and the USA. Get ready, it's an action thriller, ; ) Unfortunately, you are the protagonist.

Re:Too late?

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up, kid.

Re:Too late?

[rogoshen1]

Wow, you read the backstory to Fallout as well???

We pretty much have to do this

[kilodelta]

Because the oil that can be drilled out is almost tapped out. Of course we could start scraping all the plastic out of the ocean and using thermal depolymerization on it. But fat chance that'll happen.

Instead we'll start mining the asteroids and gas giants for methane.

plastics

[BradMajors]

Wind turbines are made out of plastic. What are they planning to make them out of if not fossil fuels? Will they switch to making turbines out of wood?

Re:Cue randroids losing

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not far from USSR. Ethnicity does not matter. It is USSR soil. Putin wants it. It is precious to him.

By 2100?

[MagickalMyst]

2100? Around the time when everyone involved in this today is likely to be dead and nobody will be there to blame if (when) things don't work out.

Read BOOKS?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Read books?! This is Slashdot. What do you think we are, a buncha innelektuals? We watch Fox News, get filled up with lies, and then whine and yell about them.

Angela Merkel, wrangler of unicorns

[Applehu Akbar]

Currently she is building the world's largest strip mine, for brown coal, as a replacement for the nuclear plants that she closed to assuage the Greens after Fukushima. So at some point between now and 2100 a new and magical energy source will appear to make all that coal unnecessary without the use of nuclear?

Re:Angela Merkel, wrangler of unicorns

[CaptainLard]

So at some point between now and 2100 a new and magical energy source will appear

If the past 3 centuries are any kind of precedent then yes, we'll probably find several.

Re:Angela Merkel, wrangler of unicorns

[Applehu Akbar]

Sure, but will the flat-earth lobby be any more inclined to let us have them?

Re:Angela Merkel, wrangler of unicorns

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh.

Re:Cue randroids losing

[Anonymous Coward]

Slovakia was not part of the USSR. It was part of the Warsaw pact, which was like NATO for central and eastern Europe, and now it is a member of NATO.

Thank goodness ...

[PPH]

.... the G7 has stepped up to do something about emissions. Now people can leave me alone about my stinky old truck, since that is a vanishingly small amount compared to the entire G7.

What is the point....

[mark-t]

... of vowing something when you aren't going to be held accountable for it?

In 85 years, I could all but guarantee that practically everyone will have forgotten that they ever "vowed" to do this, and in reality, this so-called promise is a just a whole lot of hot air.

Re:What is the point....

[riverat1]

This particular vow may have been forgotten by then but the pressure to reduce and eventually eliminate fossil fuel burning will continue for the rest of your life. There's no getting away from the the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

A completely worthless, scumbag, feel good move.

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists have said oil would run in in ~2038. http://www.imeche.org/knowledg... (closest link I could find to this in 1 Google)

So without the anhydrous ammonia injections, crops like corn will only produce ~10% of what they do (think 1970s bumper crops). Not that it matters as we will not be able to move the food to the people.

If 10+ billion people don't have any food, the problem is self solving.

But wait, alternative energy will save us! http://thebulletin.org/reality.... Nope. Besides with people like the Koch's paying to brainwash the public, how much lag does that put on developing alternative fuels?

So when someone says "In 2050 X will happen!" just slap them in a then junk as they are just making stuff up. In 2050 your family line will be dead (Oh, you are one of the Long Island Humunguses? Well then old bean, your family should be just fine).

When someone goes on and on and on about having babies... It is possible they are planning to kill so many people that no one will remember Stalin or Hitler or the Black Plague.

But what if we stop having babies right now?
Well in 20 years we would be down 1 billion people if the world stopped having babies this instant.. that will not do the trick.

So sit back, grab a bucket of popcorn, case of beer, and a comfy chair.

Most Insane G7 Pledge Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

So, both Obama and Merkel wont be alive come 2060.

The EU may not be around in 2020.

Obama wants the US Navy to re-institute Sails and Ors for Global Sea Power, return the US Army to real Horse Power (pulled) Howitzers and the Air Force to Hot Air Balloons?

China not part of G7

[rubycodez]

China and India's road map are the important ones for the world, G7 doesn't matter

just in time

[slashmydots]

I recall hearing that there won't be any more easily accessible fossil fuels by 2042. Good job, guys! Plus, 2100 is just in time for everyone to be dead from climate change.

verbal masturbation

[Anonymous Coward]

totally completely useless , there will be numbers of political generations to kill this 10 times over by 2100

How does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

We will stop using fossil fuels when there are no more fossil fuels.

2100? Hmmmm. It will never work.

[WindBourne]

While the west IS dropping their emissions, the REAL issue is that China and others continue to grow. Worse, the REAL emissions from China (as shown by OCO2) is much higher than the estimates (which is all based on false number from the CHiense gov. combined with the idiots in the far left liberals).

The ONLY way to solve this is for the west to slowly increase a tax on consumed goods (both local-made and imported) based on where it and sub-parts come from.
The numbers should be based on sats that show the CO2's flow into and out of nations.
And the normalization should be based on emissions / GDP (real, not PPP). The reason is that emissions are NOT tied to people, but to business, and to bad choices by utilities (which are businesses).

With the above, it will reward nations that have/do drop their emissions. Likewise, it punishes nations that do not lower their emissions or continue to increase them.

What G7?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps G1 plus six junior members would be more adequate term for this meeting.

Nuclear Fossil

[Bruce66423]

Fossil has something to do with living creatures; both coal and oil exist because the carbon in them derives from dead biological material. By contrast nuclear power comes from uranium which isn't anything to do with fossils in that sense.

LOL. What a gutsy promise!

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Since there's virtually no chance that we have enough energy positive, affordable oil to run an industrial civilization by that time anyway.

You GO guys.

That's a boring song

[Bruce66423]

The 'peak oil' claims have persisted for many a decade, and always look silly in retrospect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Nuclear Fossil

[Crashmarik]

I think you meant to reply one post up.

Everyone is booing this? Why?

[Nukenbar]

To get anything done you have to set attainable goals.

It is not reasonable to stay that we will be off of all fossil fuels by 2040. It just isn't, baring some technological breakthrough.

So what you do is set goals and milestones to reach that end results. If you want to be 100% sustainable energy at some point in the future, you try to be 20% less by some milestone and then another 20% less by another.

2100 may be too long for some people, we need to start somewhere. No agreement at all is the same as setting the year at 2200.

Too late....

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, it's nearly already too late, delaying that for another 85 years is ridiculous, especially when you just KNOW that the fat cats relying on oil and coal to make their money will not let it go by that point either.

Biodiesel equivalent for plastics

[tepples]

It's not just the energy required to build stuff but also there are a ton of products being produce with plastics, etc.. produced from the waste products of oil.

Could these plastics be synthesized from vegetable oil?

it's about time.

[Anonymous Coward]

wow! 2100! hope to be around to celebrate it : )
it is sad that again the much-loved government is tasked with the job.
let's do just a tiny bit of math and argumentation:
it is a undisputed fact that the advent of the first iPhone cured cancer, ended world hunger and brought global peace to the world.
this invention was so great that it went on to be improved 6 more times.
it was sold ..oh god, i don't want to do the sum ... alot:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-iphone-sales-since-3rd-quarter-2007/
it also cost alot.
let's say 400 million times.
if people wouldn't have bough a iPhone but instead bought a solar panel and a grid-tie inverter and let's say you could get a two-panel= 500 watt system for the same amount as a iPhone .. well we would have:
400'000'000 times 0.5 kW which would amount to 200'000'000 kW or 200 Gigawatt *free* generation capacity.
multiple by your regional hours of daylight to get actual energy values (kwh).
of course nobody cares about solar energy ... the iPhone is WAAAYYYY more important to overall well-being of the human population, which is well reflected in the fact that some people bought all 6 iterations of the ...phone.
thus again, the government is tasked with the shitty job of cleaning up the toys at the kindergarden after all the kids have left.

No more fossil fuels by 9pm?

[ganiman]

Wow, I didn't realize government could move so quickly! 9pm is a very ambitious goal.

Cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I read the entire article and not one mention of the fucking cost. Pathetic.

Taxpayer Value

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just glad that, we the tax payers, got to pay for all these people to fly together and have such a productive meeting.

But, but... fusion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why so late? That's 85 years from now. Isn't commercial fusion power just 20 years away?

(Like it has been for the last 50?)

Useful

[Roger W Moore]

That would probably be a good idea because if we had to replace all our fossil fuel plants today it would involve building a lot of nuclear fission plants.

Yes

[Roger W Moore]

Yes they can, at least for some plastics and I would bet that if we started to run out of oil based plastics the chemists woudl start to come up with replacements for the rest as well.

job done.

[MossStan]

so in eighty-five years the irreversible problem we have now will begin to take shape.

Designed obsolescence

[Anonymous Coward]

Designed obsolescence doesn't need to be illegal. Just require that certain electronic devices have five year warranties.

Morons

[TaleSpinner]

> G7 group of countries has issued a pledge that they will phase out fossil fuels by the end of this century.

So we're going to try to shut down the global economy for the rest of the century. Obama's insanity is catching. I would've thought a bunch of countries shutting down all of their nuclear power plants would be a bit more careful about announcing plans to return the world to feudalism, grinding poverty, a male life expectancy in the 30's and a female one in the high teens. Yay for progress...

Because there is no more fossil fuels to burn

[Anonymous Coward]

If fuel consumption rises in the next 80 years like the previous 80 years there will be no fossil fuels left in 2100!

Global warming has continued unabated since 1950

[PatientZero]

As evidenced by satellite data, the Earth has experienced a positive energy imbalance since 1950, accumulating more heat than it radiates into space. This additional heat warms the land, melts the ice, increases the air temperature, and accumulates in the ocean.

The 2014 global land-ocean temperature index data produced by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies shows an average rise of 0.12C per decade from 1950 to 2014. In 2012 Nuccitelli et al combined the ocean heat content measurements (surface and subsurface) with the land, ice and atmospheric measurements, showing a global energy increase of 20×10J since 1960.

There is a myth that global warming stopped in 1998—often called a pause or hiatus—because the surface air temperature rose only 0.05C per decade from 1998 to 2012 while atmospheric CO2 levels continued to rise. This argument is flawed for several reasons.

The myth ignores the surface temperature data before 1998 and after 2012. This is an example of cherry-picking: choosing a subset of data to fit an argument while ignoring the data that contradict it. By taking the fifteen year period starting in 1996, one could claim that global warming has increased since the rise for that period was 0.14C per decade. It is only by considering the entire dataset that we see an accurate picture.

The myth ignores the natural variability in the Earth’s climate due to trade winds, sun intensity, and volcanos and assumes the data measures only AGW (anthropogenic global warming). This is an example of misrepresentation. For example, due to the El Niño Southern Oscillation cycle, 1998 saw a particularly strong El Niño warming while 2012 saw a weak La Niña. This caused a considerable ENSO cooling during that period that partially masked the warming trend from AGW.

The myth jumps to the conclusion that a short-term slowdown in the temperature rise will continue forever. There have been similar short-term pauses throughout the twentieth century, but each was followed by a larger short-term rise that offset it. The long-term record shows a clear warming trend of 0.12C per decade.

Finally, the myth focuses on the surface air temperatures and ignores the increasing ocean heat content, increasing sea level, and decreasing arctic sea ice mass—another example of cherry-picking. For example, the Nuccitelli data shows an energy increase of 6×10J since 1998. Taken together, these demonstrate the simple fact that the Earth is warming overall, matching the satellite data.

You can find more at Skeptical Science.

Re:Nuclear Fossil

[Jack Griffin]

Fossil has something to do with living creatures; both coal and oil exist because the carbon in them derives from dead biological material.

Is it really? I've heard this story too but it doesn't really seem to make sense. Don't you find it convenient that dead creatures all died in huge localised areas, so close that they formed were able to form massive wells containing trillions of litres of material? How many organisms does it take to make such a thing?
Seriously, how many? I just did some quick sums and an average oil field would take at least 10 Billion humans to create, and that's assuming 100% of a dead human turns into oil. The equivalent of 10 billion humans all died on top of each other, got squashed, and millions of years later we have oil? And this happened in a hundred different places around the world? That's what you trying to convince us of?
This doesn't sound plausible to me.

Still a few cases of contamination

[tepples]

Scott K. Johnson's article states that the EPA's investigation "found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells." So though contamination is not as widespread as some opponents fear, it still occasionally happens. Does this $50 per barrel include insurance to cover cleanup costs for aquifers that do get contaminated, or are losses socialized?

Re:Still a few cases of contamination

[Jane Q. Public]

I have no doubt it can happen once in a while.

As for losses being socialized, perhaps you should ask your elected Federal officials who love to subsidize it so much?

Nowhere near as much per BTU as wind and solar, though.

Molten Salt Thorium Reactors

[Anonymous Coward]

The world will be buying LFTR / MSTR from China inside 20 years and after that we are good for the next 2-4 thousand years. The fact that it was invented in the USA will become one of histories great ironies. China will become an OPEC like exporter of reactors with huge profits while we will continue to wallow in first gen junk and intermittent solar/wind unless someone solves the storage problem.

Until then China and India will continue to burn coal like crazy and boost the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to over 500 PPM (perhaps 600). More plant food is good but they need to burn it cleaner as their air is "firm to the touch". The CO2 will be a benefit and the other stuff coming out (sulfur, nitrous, mercury, etc) is a detriment.

A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?

All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and almost 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.

No good choices

[Keith Henson]

A solution by 2100 is about what I expect from the political world, i.e., put it off far beyond their term in office. Good reason actually. The existing renewable "solutions" are so expensive that coming down hard on carbon (that's coal for electrical generation and oil for transport) would kill the economy, the government that tried it would be replaced and the new government would repudiate the policies.

What's needed is a renewable energy source that's cheaper than coal. Then carbon emissions would fall fast and the economy would boom.

I can't say we have a solution yet, but we might have one. Here is a proposal to build solar power plants where the Sun shines close to 99% of the time. This video of transporting parts to GEO and building a thermal power satellite was recently made public. It was in a contest, but a team supported by the Chinese government won.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

3000 of these could entirely replace the three cubic miles of oil (equivalent) of fossil fuel the human race uses each year. By the early 2030s if we got on it soon.

Cheaper than coal or oil too. Because Skylon is a UK project, the UK has the lead in fixing energy, carbon, climate and the difficult economic times due to expensive energy. Japan is paying close attention and actually spending serious money on power satellite development.

The most serious current problem is the NOx generated by vehicle reentry. Some atmospheric chemists are looking into the problem to see how much damage the traffic would cause to ozone.

Re:Global warming has continued unabated since 195

[Ferretman]

If the pause is a myth it's a got a lot of folks who believe in it--the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, the various European climate centers....

Ferret

Grab your wallets

[pebear]

All of this just a money grab. And a promise to be off fossil fuels by the end of the century? Who knows what's going to happen in 80 years and making promises for those people is just wrong...

Automatic

[MoarSauce123]

By 2100 there are no fossil fuels left....so "Mission accomplished!"

Re:Global warming has continued unabated since 195

[PatientZero]

While surface temperatures have slowed somewhat (though 2013 and 2014 saw them jump right back up), global warming itself--which includes ocean heat content, glacier and sea ice melting, and atmospheric temperatures in addition to surface temperatures--has not slowed. Their statements are consistent with this.