Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

G7 Vows To Phase Out Fossil Fuels By 2100

Posted by samzenpus on from the power-up dept.

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.

195 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. Wow such future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Wow such future by davester666 · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Wow such future by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

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

  2. It will be too late. It probably already is by TobiX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by Kokuyo · · Score: 2

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

    2. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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'

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by peragrin · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by kick6 · · Score: 1

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

    5. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by Jamu · · Score: 2

      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...

      --
      Who ordered that?
    7. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      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.

    8. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.")

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    9. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      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!!!

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      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.

    11. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by JackieBrown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    13. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by tepples · · Score: 1

      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?

    14. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    15. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

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

    17. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    18. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      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.

    19. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by ganjadude · · Score: 1

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

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    20. Re: It will be too late. It probably already is by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      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.

    21. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'll try to be more sarcastic next time.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    22. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      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.

    23. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      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.

    24. Re:It will be too late. It probably already is by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  3. Right by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Right by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    2. Re:Right by microbox · · Score: 1

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

      Technology.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    3. Re:Right by jfengel · · Score: 1

      They'll be able to Bing it.

  4. Noocular by Noughmad · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    1. Re:Noocular by mean+pun · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Noocular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re: Noocular by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Oo edgy.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    4. Re:Noocular by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    5. Re:Noocular by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

      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

    6. Re:Noocular by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

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

    7. Re:Noocular by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

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

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Noocular by Phil+Karn · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:Noocular by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Noocular by Misagon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    11. Re:Noocular by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    12. Re:Noocular by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re: Noocular by Guildor · · Score: 1

      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?

    14. Re:Noocular by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

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

    15. Re:Noocular by microbox · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    16. Re:Noocular by danlip · · Score: 1

      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.

    17. Re:Noocular by ganjadude · · Score: 1

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

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    18. Re: Noocular by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    19. Re:Noocular by danlip · · Score: 1

      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".

    20. Re:Noocular by BranMan · · Score: 1

      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.

  5. By then... by toonces33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  6. Not that ambitious by Roodvlees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When it's so far in the future.

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    1. Re:Not that ambitious by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      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.

  7. The announcement was "warmly" welcomed by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Seriously ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  9. I fully support this by little1973 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
    1. Re:I fully support this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You may be the fossil fuel though...

    2. Re:I fully support this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:I fully support this by UncleWilly · · Score: 1

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

  10. A bunch of politicians who won't be around... by SlovakWakko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)...

    1. Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around... by Whiteox · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    2. Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around... by umghhh · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around... by SlovakWakko · · Score: 2

      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.

    4. Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around... by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around... by SlovakWakko · · Score: 2

      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...

    6. Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

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

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

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

    8. Re:A bunch of politicians who won't be around... by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

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

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

  11. Completely irrelevant by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Completely irrelevant by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:Completely irrelevant by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  12. Easy Promises When You're Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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. :/ :/

    1. Re: Easy Promises When You're Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

  13. Feel good "commit nothing" by aepervius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Feel good "commit nothing" by Kartu · · Score: 1

      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).

    2. Re:Feel good "commit nothing" by jandersen · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Feel good "commit nothing" by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Feel good "commit nothing" by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      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...."

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  14. Re:Cue randroids losing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    After the Ukraine, Slovakia is next.

  15. Empty promise by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 2

    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".

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  16. Re:Cue randroids losing by Maritz · · Score: 2

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

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  17. Re:Replace with what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  18. You mean run out by warewolfsmith · · Score: 2

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

  19. Year 2100 is by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
    past the life expectancy of anyone we could conceivably give a crap about.

    Equivalently, "Fuck you".

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Year 2100 is by stjobe · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    2. Re:Year 2100 is by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

      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.

  20. No, not really by Kartu · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      $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.

    2. Re:No, not really by jblues · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    3. Re:No, not really by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re: No, not really by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Troll

      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!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:No, not really by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      the German people like it that way

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

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re: No, not really by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

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

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re: No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 ?

    8. Re:No, not really by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:No, not really by abies · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:No, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:No, not really by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

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

    13. Re: No, not really by Computershack · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
    14. Re: No, not really by Computershack · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
    15. Re: No, not really by dave420 · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re:No, not really by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      That last paragraph is one big oxymoron.

    17. Re: No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

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

    18. Re:No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      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.

       

    19. Re:No, not really by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      $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".

    20. Re:No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      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 ?

    21. Re:No, not really by microbox · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    22. Re: No, not really by Chas · · Score: 1

      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?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    23. Re: No, not really by microbox · · Score: 1

      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!!!

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    24. Re: No, not really by microbox · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    25. Re:No, not really by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      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!

    26. Re:No, not really by jfengel · · Score: 1

      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.

    27. Re:No, not really by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:No, not really by jblues · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    29. Re: No, not really by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    30. Re:No, not really by ganjadude · · Score: 1

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

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    31. Re:No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      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 ?

    32. Re:No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Thanks for admitting you can't read.

    33. Re: No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Need to take that log out of your eye.

    34. Re:No, not really by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    35. Re:No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

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

    36. Re:No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

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

    37. Re:No, not really by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Money is an evil upon our world.

      Such arrogant stupidity completely disqualifies you from rational discussions.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    38. Re:No, not really by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    39. Re:No, not really by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

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

    40. Re:No, not really by Kartu · · Score: 1

      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

    41. Re:No, not really by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Lighten up

    42. Re: No, not really by Ferretman · · Score: 1
      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

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    43. Re:No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

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

    44. Re:No, not really by abies · · Score: 1

      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.

    45. Re:No, not really by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

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

  21. Re:Cue randroids losing by someone1234 · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  22. 85 years from now eh? by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:85 years from now eh? by Karmashock · · Score: 2

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

      What do they teach you kids these days?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  23. Will there be any left by then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Will there be any left by then? by ledow · · Score: 1

      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.

  24. Reminds me of League of Nations by IHTFISP · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    Error: NSE - No Signature Error
  25. Been saying this for years by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re: Been saying this for years by rkcth · · Score: 1

      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.

  26. Why not 2025? by DMJC · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Why not 2025? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      "Coal is good for humanity"

      Inaction is a political issue.

    2. Re:Why not 2025? by sectokia · · Score: 1

      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.

  27. partially Incorrect by aepervius · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  28. Re:Here's what Germany should really do by mujadaddy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    start paying for your oil in Euro

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

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  29. Re:Replace with what? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  30. Not quite twenty years, tho you could split hairs by jabberw0k · · Score: 1

    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").

  31. Actually much sooner by utahjazz · · Score: 1

    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 ?

    1. Re:Actually much sooner by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      > how do you travel to Europe without oil ?

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

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    2. Re:Actually much sooner by godrik · · Score: 1

      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".

    3. Re:Actually much sooner by utahjazz · · Score: 1

      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.

  32. Other uses for fossil products. by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 1

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

  33. Re:Replace with what? by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  34. We pretty much have to do this by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    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.

  35. Re:Replace with what? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

    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.

  36. plastics by BradMajors · · Score: 1

    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?

  37. Re:Cue randroids losing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  38. By 2100? by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  39. Angela Merkel, wrangler of unicorns by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:Angela Merkel, wrangler of unicorns by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Angela Merkel, wrangler of unicorns by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

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

  40. Thank goodness ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    .... 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.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  41. What is the point.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... 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.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:What is the point.... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      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.

  42. China not part of G7 by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Informative

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

  43. just in time by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    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.

  44. 2100? Hmmmm. It will never work. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  45. Nuclear Fossil by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    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.

  46. LOL. What a gutsy promise! by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  47. That's a boring song by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

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

  48. Re:Nuclear Fossil by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    I think you meant to reply one post up.

  49. Everyone is booing this? Why? by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

    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.

  50. Biodiesel equivalent for plastics by tepples · · Score: 1

    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?

  51. Re:Replace with what? by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

    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.

  52. Re:Replace with what? by russotto · · Score: 1

    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.

  53. No more fossil fuels by 9pm? by ganiman · · Score: 1

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

    --
    geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
  54. Re:Replace with what? by CWCheese · · Score: 1

    The Matrix, perhaps?

    --
    Have a Day!
  55. Useful by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    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.

  56. Yes by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    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.

  57. job done. by MossStan · · Score: 1

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

    --
    It is what it is.
  58. Re:Too late? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

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

  59. Morons by TaleSpinner · · Score: 1

    > 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...

  60. Re:Replace with what? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  61. Global warming has continued unabated since 1950 by PatientZero · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
    I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
  62. Re:Nuclear Fossil by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

    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.

  63. Still a few cases of contamination by tepples · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:Still a few cases of contamination by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      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.

  64. No good choices by Keith+Henson · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
  65. Re:Global warming has continued unabated since 195 by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    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

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  66. Grab your wallets by pebear · · Score: 1

    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...

    --
    Paul E. Bahre
  67. Automatic by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

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

  68. Re:Global warming has continued unabated since 195 by PatientZero · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
    I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!