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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Right

[fustakrakich]

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

Noocular

[Noughmad]

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

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

[AmiMoJo]

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

By then...

[toonces33]

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

Not that ambitious

[Roodvlees]

When it's so far in the future.

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.

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...

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...

[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...

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.

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"

[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...."

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:Wow such future

[davester666]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[Karmashock]

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

What do they teach you kids these days?

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

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.

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: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.

China not part of G7

[rubycodez]

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