BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Latest IPCC Report Predicts Disaster - Yet Again. But Not Much Will Happen - Yet Again.

This article is more than 2 years old.

This week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released part of its Sixth Assessment Report, which warns that we will not be able to limit global warming to even 2°C unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Spoiler Alert – it’s already too late. And that’s because the developed world has chosen natural gas over nuclear, and the developing world just wants any energy source they can get so they won’t starve, coal included.

I’m really losing my patience with humanity’s response to climate change. Too little, too late doesn’t begin to describe the willful ignorance that many climate activists and policy-makers have used to hobble efforts to actually decarbonize the world.

The report concludes that it is now beyond doubt that its member nation’s renewable energy policies have failed to halt, or even significantly slow, the relentless rise in global CO2 emissions.

Over ten years ago, in their 2007 Nobel Prize-winning report, the IPCC declared that the world would have to decarbonize rapidly and completely by 2050 (sound familiar?) and that the rate of decarbonization would depend on when we started that decline (see figure below).

Thus, began a major push for renewables that has been a miserable failure. Referring to that same figure, we missed the 2011 deadline for beginning to decrease emissions, and that would have needed only a 4% or so annual decrease. Starting then would have allowed a bit of anthropomorphic emissions to remain after 2040.

But we blew that one. The same for the 2015 deadline, then requiring about a 5% annual decline. But we blew that one, too. Then we blew the 2020 deadline that required almost 10% decreases each year.

There are lots of pathways we have all come up with to show how we need to decrease emissions, but they are all similar to the IPCC 2020 path shown, about 10% decrease each year starting now.

But global emissions keep increasing even after the world has spent a few trillion dollars over the last ten years trying to decarbonize, $503 billion in 2020 alone And all serious projections indicate emissions will continue to rise until at least 2040. Pretending the opposite won’t help.

Thus, the willful ignorance.

The IPCC recommended that we expand nuclear power significantly, but the climate activists and policy-makers surprisingly did not care about that, since they actually think you can pick and choose which science you like and still be effective.

So instead, they keep trying to close existing nuclear plants, something the IPCC says is anathema to any real solution.

The IPCC, EIA, IEA, IAEA, and all other serious energy agencies, insist that nuclear must be a major part of the energy mix if we are to achieve our climate goals, especially since most everyone feels we need to electrify everything from transportation to heating to industry. That means about 50 trillion kWh/year of low-carbon electricity by 2040. We are presently at 25 trillion kWh/year, mainly of high-carbon electricity plus about 10 trillion kWh/year-equivalent of petroleum for transportation.

In the response to the IPCC report, there are a couple of references to nuclear. Dr. Benny Peiser, Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, states, "Gas and nuclear have to be fast-tracked if there is any chance of publicly acceptable, long-term climate policies.”

But installing new gas just locks us into another fossil fuel for decades. That’s the problem with renewables, they are generally backed up with lots of gas, except in the few cases where abundant hydro is available.

Dr. Darryl Siemer, long-time nuclear scientist at DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory, noted that “European energy policies have destroyed some of their heavy industries and exported their production, jobs and CO2 emissions to countries that are still using low-cost fossil fuels, such as China. The proper conclusion should be obvious. Climate policies are failing not because of a lack of political will, but because the technologies being promoted/selected are extortionately expensive and ineffective, and thereby stimulating public backlash.”

Siemer further notes that the “gilets jaunes” (yellow vest) protests in France were an early sign and Switzerland’s anti-carbon tax referendum represents its latest manifestation. The fierce public push-back against Boris Johnson’s attempt to ban gas boilers in the UK is yet another example. Income support subsidies to renewables in the UK alone cost consumers over £10 billion a year, a total that continues to rise.

Many entities have come out with statements about last week’s IPCC report, and they all say, or don’t say, the same thing. I accept their noble sentiments but they really say nothing new.

Michael R. Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg Philanthropies and United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions, released the following statement in response to the IPCC report, “To respond to the climate crisis with the urgency that is required, it’s clear what we need to do: Drive down carbon emissions and transition to a clean energy economy – and quickly. We’ve made some great progress recently, but this report is sounding an alarm about how much more we need to do, and how tight time is getting. If more governments and businesses take bold action, we can still avoid the worst impacts of climate change and build a better future for our children and grandchildren.” 

But we haven’t made some great progress recently. Emissions have grown and will continue to increase for at least a decade.

Sir David King, Chair of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group (CCAG) and previously the U.K. Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor said, “Today’s IPCC report…serves as a stark and urgent reminder to governments and policy makers that there is absolutely no room left for maneuver. While reducing emissions is critical to our survival, we must now also rapidly start repairing the climate. This requires removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere at scale and buying time by rapidly researching ways to protect the ice caps. A key objective is to protect the Arctic Circle while we reduce emissions and return it to a state where the Arctic Sea is once again covered with ice during the Arctic Summer.”

Again, no mention of nuclear.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) weighed in as well. Dr. Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS, noted, “For far too long, policymakers have placed their short-term political interests and the greed of corporations ahead of the needs of their constituents. After spending decades raising the alarm about the overwhelming threats posed by unchecked climate change, our organization is beyond concerned; we’re heartbroken to see worsening, grossly inequitable impacts that could’ve been avoided harm people and critical ecosystems.”

Of course, the UCS never mentions their own role in this failure - their long-standing opposition to nuclear power and exaggeration of the risks of nuclear, only recently ameliorated by their late and lackluster support for nuclear power.

The Sierra Club’s International Climate and Policy Campaign Director Cherelle Blazer issued the following statement, “These latest findings from the IPCC affirm what we already know: the climate crisis is picking up speed at an alarming rate and we are long past the point of debating about it. Congress must pass bold infrastructure legislation now...Swift and decisive climate action is necessary to preserve our home, our planet.”

“…we must transition to a 100 percent clean economy without delay. We have the tools and the information in hand, and the choices we make now will shape our future. Congress must act with haste to pass bold infrastructure legislation that centers climate action at its core, including through major clean energy tax credits, a Clean Energy Payment Program, a Civilian Climate Corps, expanded electric vehicle investments, and much, much more.”

Of course, the Sierra Club also never mentions their role in this failure - their long-standing and continuing opposition to nuclear power. Even though the IPCC itself, along with all leading climate scientists, says no successful pathway to decarbonization can succeed without significantly more nuclear power.

Just decarbonizing isn’t the only track we need to go down. The Refugees International Climate Displacement Program Manager Kayly Ober said, “The latest IPCC report shows us that we are already in the midst of a climate crisis - and that without swift action, climate-related hazards will only get worse. This trajectory will mean more disruptive and deadly events, such as extreme heatwaves and precipitation, which may force more people from their homes around the world. This future reality means that we need—now more than ever—to extend more robust and humane protection for families and communities that will be forced to move in the face of these ever-increasing events. 

But this will take more energy. And that means renewables and nuclear, that’s all the energy sources we have to work with if we want to decarbonize.

The IPCC report brought out a statement from Kate Williams, CEO of 1% for the Planet, “Today’s IPCC/UN Climate report sheds stark light on the challenges and urgency of the climate crisis and its impact on our lives, our communities, and our planet. 1% for the Planet’s global network consists of thousands of businesses, individuals, and environmental nonprofits working toward a better future for all.”

“As citizens of a global community, we have no choice but to channel this news to positive action. From daily decisions to issues and actions that we support and engage in on the largest scale, each of us must join this call to confront the devastating reality of climate change. Collective action is at the core of our model and we’re committed to driving positive change—together—so that our planet and future generations can thrive.”

Williams’ statement, like many, is technology neutral, but I’m not sure we have the luxury of being neutral that way anymore. Only a few things work, and nuclear is one of them. It’s why every time a nuclear plant closes, carbon emissions go up.

Overall, in the global response to the IPCC report there is no mention of nuclear in any statement from almost anyone in the world, except nuclear agencies themselves, like the Nuclear Energy Institute.

On the other hand, China is planning 180 GW of new nuclear plants, big ones, by 2035. If the rest of the world followed suit in proportion, we might have a chance.

But don’t hold your breath.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn