This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

COP-21, World Renewable Energy, and World Trade

This article describes eight major topics regarding the adequacy of COP-21 requirements: a survey of historic temperatures of the past 420,000 years; the status of the world renewable energy; the impact of COP-21 CO2 emission reduction measures on the US economy; and the US leaving COP-21.

– The Future impact of COP-21 on World temperatures in 2100

– Historic Temperatures of the past 420,000 years indicate 4 major cycles of temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere.

– The world is moving very slowly towards renewable energy during the past 10 years. A cost estimate of the investments required for the world to have 90% of all of its primary energy from renewables by 2050 or 2100.

– Summary of world CO2eq emissions, all sources

– Summary of world CO2eq emissions, energy-related

– Energy efficiency is better for CO2 emission reduction than wind and solar capacity build-outs.

– The future impact of reducing CO2 emissions on US international competitiveness.

– The US leaving COP-21

FUTURE IMPACT OF COP-21 ON WORLD TEMPERATURES IN 2100

Paris Conference of the Parties, COP-21 in 2015: COP-21 is a non-binding, CO2 emission reduction agreement, which aims to limit the world temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level during the 1861 – 1880 period by 2100. By 2015, the increase was about 1.0 C. That leaves just 1.0 C to go. This may appear minor, but is not.

The world CO2eq emissions, all sources, were about 52.7 billion metric ton in 2014 and are on a trajectory to become about 65 billion Mt by 2030. However, the UN Environment Program, UNEP, estimates the emissions would be about 60 billion Mt by 2030, if all current policies and pledges, made prior to COP-21, were fully implemented. If so, the world temperature increase is estimated to be at least 3.7 C above pre-industrial by 2100. See URLs and below table.

1) With full implementation of COP-21 pledges by 2030, the increase would be at least 3.5 C above pre-industrial by 2100.

2) With additional CO2eq reduction by 2030 (gap no. 1), the increase would be about 2 C above pre-industrial by 2100.

3) With even more CO2eq reduction by 2030 (gap no. 2), the increase would be about 1.5 C above pre-industrial by 2100.

– Item 1 would reduce emissions about 3.5 to 4.0 billion Mt less than in 2016 (the below table shows 4.0). Analyses by MIT; Lomborg, a Danish professor; UNEP; et al., agree on that quantity of emission reduction.

– The emissions reduction would become about 2.5 to 3.0 billion Mt, due to the US withdrawal from COP-21, which means other nations would have to make up the difference, not only regarding emission reduction, but also regarding the anticipated US contribution to the Green Climate Fund of about $25 billion in 2020, and much greater annual amounts thereafter. China and India, major polluters, would not pay a dime.

– The additional reduction of 12 – 14 billion Mt (gap no. 1) required for 2 C above pre-industrial by 2100 is not trivial, as it is equivalent to about 12 times to annual emissions of the entire EU-28 transportation sector.

– The UNEP aims to reduce emissions to ZERO by about 2080, which would require very significant sequestration and other measures. That would be a truly mind-boggling technical challenge and capital investments, especially with 10 to 12 billion people on the planet.

Based on outcomes of twenty prior COPs, starting with Kyoto in 1990, the many trillions of dollars required for additional investments to achieve such a huge emission reductions likely would not take place.

Whereas, China is praised for making investments of at least $100 billion/y, in reality, it is playing catch-up. It has to make those investments, as continuing its severe pollution problems likely would be politically untenable.

India, with similar pollution problems, expects multi-billion dollar annual payments form the Green Climate Fund.

World CO2eq

by 2030

by 2100

Chance

billion Mt

C incr.

%

Current Policy Trajectory

60.0

3.7

With COP-21 pledges

56.0

3.5

Gap no. 1

14.0

With COP-21 augmented for 2 C

42.0

2

66

Gap no. 2

3.0

With COP-21 augmented for 1.5 C

39.0

1.5

66

% Reduction from CPT, 2 C

30.0

% Reduction from CPT, 1.5 C

35.0

Capital Cost Estimate to Implement COP-21: It is always prudent to have some estimates of capital costs to implement any endeavor. The present world investments in RE systems to achieve the Current Policy Trajectory goal of 60 billion Mt is about $300 billion/y, of which China spends about $100 billion/y.

This spending rate likely is grossly inadequate, as the world primary energy of renewables has increased from 19.0% in 2011 to 19.3% in 2015. At that rate, the renewables percent would be too small to achieve 60 billion Mt by 2030. A more proper rate to bend downward the CO2 emission curve (presently on an upward path) would be at least $500 billion/y. See table.

The lower the goal of world temperature increase the greater the rate, $trillion/y, of capital investment. To achieve:

– 56 billion Mt, the investment rate would be at least $1.0 trillion/y during the 2016 – 2030 period.

– 42 billion Mt, the investment rate would be at least $2.5 trillion/y during the 2016 – 2030 period.

– 39 billion Mt, the investment rate would be at least $3.0 trillion/y during the 2016 – 2030 period. See summary table.

RE investments

CO2 goal by 2030

Temp Incr. by 2100

Annual

2016 – 2030

billion Mt

C

trillion$/y

trillion$

Current level for 3.7 C

60

3.7

0.5

7.0

COP-21 for 3.5 C

56

3.5

1.0

14.0

COP-21 for 2 C

42

2.0

2.5

35.0

COP-21 for 1.5 C

39

1.5

3.0

42.0

TWO ITEMS OF INTEREST

 

1) IPCC Climate Models Overestimating Global Warming?: A Guide to Understanding Global Temperature Data explains in detail the IPCC climate models significantly overestimate lower troposphere and surface temperatures by about a factor of 2. See pages 14 and 15 of URL.

2) US COP-21 Pledge: As part of COP-21, the US offered* a pledge to reduce US CO2 emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The emission reduction would be at a 14% more rapid rate during the 2015 – 2025 period, than during the 2005 – 2015 period, which greatly benefitted from the reduced burning of coal and increased burning of natural gas. See below table with 2025 targets based on data from Page ES-10 of URL.

* Obama did not submit the COP-21 agreement to the US Congress for ratification. Thus, COP-21 is not a US treaty obligation. Many other nations also have not ratified COP-21, including Russia.

More Near-CO2-Free Renewable Systems: In the US, the more rapid CO2 emission decrease would be accomplished by more rapidly displacing low-cost coal, and natural gas, and nuclear with much more costly, mostly wind and solar renewables, which, because of their weather and sun dependent variability and intermittency, would need massive TWh-scale storage systems, and a nationwide HVDC overlay grid (a $500 billion item), and other grid investments, to ensure reliable electricity service remains available throughout the US, Alaska, Hawaii, on a 24/7/365 basis, year after year. See URL regarding storage in Germany

Year

2005, base year

2015

2025

CO2 eq

MMt

MMt

MMt

Sources – Sinks

6582.3

5827.7

4805.1

Decrease, % from 2005

11.5

27.0

Decrease, % from 2015

17.5

Decrease, %/y

1.45

1.65

More rapid CO2 decrease, %

14.0

HISTORIC TEMPERATURES OF THE PAST 420,000 YEARS

During the past 420,000 years, various forces combined to cause 4 major glaciation and thawing cycles. The world temperature was about 2 – 3 C above and about 8 – 9.5 C below, the reference value of the past 10,000 years. The past four cycles indicate, the world, surrounded by outer space at near absolute zero, has a hard time warming up above reference, but a much easier time cooling down below reference, i.e., computer model global warming predictions of 4.3 C above pre-industrial likely are on the high side.

Cycle

High Temp

Temp

Low Temp

Temp

Delta T

BP

C

BP

C

C

1

420,000

+2.0

355,000 – 330,000

-8.0

10.0

2

325,000

+3.0

265,000 – 260,000

-8.5

11.5

3

240,000

+2.0

180,000 – 140,000

-9.5

11.5

4

130,000

+3.0

26,500 – 19,000

-9.5

12.5

5

8,200

+2.0

?

?

?

During each cycle, CO2 in the atmosphere increased from about 180 ppm during the glaciation temperatures to about 280 ppm at the peak temperatures, because of CO2 released by oceans and subsequent biomass growth.

During the most recent cycle, CO2 decreased slightly over a period of thousands of years while temperature rapidly decreased, which indicates the other forces were more influential. See URL

The Most Recent Cycle: The peak temperature of the most recent cycle (the fourth) was about 125,000 years BP, and its maximum glaciation was from 26,500 – 19,000 years BP. The initial temperature decrease was from a peak of +3 C above reference about 130,000 years BP to 7 C below reference about 110,000 years BP, a delta T = 10 C over a period of about 20,000 years, which is not noticeable, on a human scale. The ultimate low temperature was about 9.5 C below reference about 20,000 years BP.

During the glaciation period, sea levels were about 120 meter (470 feet) below present levels. The world’s desert areas, including the Sahara, were much larger than at present. The world population (about 1 – 2 million) during that period (lasting about 7,500 years), likely had a tough time dealing with the cold. A rapid warming trend from 8 C below reference to about 2 C above reference, similar to the prior cycles, started about 18000 years BP and ended about 11,200 years BP. Unlike the prior cycles, this time the temperature did NOT rapidly decrease, but has been lingering for about 11,200 years. See upper left corner of URL

About 15000 – 12000 years BP, most of northern Asia, northern Europe, northern America, etc., were still covered with about one MILE of ice. Almost all of the world’s population (about 1 to 3 million) lived in small groups, mostly in hunter-gathering mode, with some agriculture, in areas of southern France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, the Caucasus, the Middle East, northern Africa, Iraq, Iran, southern India and Asia. North of those areas, with few trees, much frozen tundra and ice, there lived very few people.

By about 5000 years BP, much of the ice had melted, and the world population had increased to about 10 to 15 million people. The big question remains: Why is the temperature lingering for 11,200 years, unlike the prior cycles? Why are we not yet into another ice age?

NOTE: During the past 150 years, CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 ppm to 400+ ppm, due to various factors, such as a totally unsustainable population explosion (1.0 billion in 1804, 2 billion in 1927, to 7.3 billion in 2015, heading towards 10 billion by 2050), which required deforestation, urbanization, industrial agriculture, and the worldwide production and transport of goods and services, all requiring the use and burning of huge quantities of fossil and bio fuels, which release CO2 and methane, CH4, well beyond the 280 ppm of prior cycles. The world’s ecosystems and its fauna and flora are being irreparably fractured and debilitated by all those manmade activities. World-renowned biologists aver the world should have less than 1 billion people living on a minimal resources diet, and that over half of the world should be set aside/remain undeveloped to enable the other fauna and flora to survive and thrive.

NOTE: Based on a recent study, the temperature gradually increased from the glaciation low point until about 7000 years BP and then gradually decreased until about 1870, after which it increased from -0.4 C to +0.6 C, a delta T  = 1 C, concurrent with the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The warm part of this cycle started with a world having a lot of biomass, and CO2 in the atmosphere of about 280 ppm, but after about 1870 manmade CO2eq was added to the atmosphere. The temperature increased about 1 C, as CO2eq was added, which has been highly noticeable, on a human scale. According to the graphs in the URL, the 7000-year downward trend in temperature is being interrupted by manmade activities of the past 150 years. See URL.

THE WORLD MAKING ALMOST NO PROGRESS TOWARDS RE

Here is a table of global primary energy consumption percentages (fuels, electricity, etc.) during the 2011 – 2015 period, which, indicates hardly any progress towards RE, despite worldwide investments in renewables of $250 – $300 billion in each of these 5 years. The fossil fuel percentage likely remained about the same in 2016 and 2017.

The total primary energy of wind, solar, bio and geo electricity was only 1.6% in 2015, after about $3 trillion of investments in such renewable energy systems over the past 25 years, and that percentage likely was about 1.8% in 2016, for a growth rate 10.4%/y for the past 5 years.

If that growth rate were extended to 2030, that category would increased from 1.8% in 2016 to 7.2% in 2030, which would have a negligible impact on global temperatures. Google: “REN Renewables 2017” report.

Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Percent

 %

 %

 %

 %

%

Fossil fuels

78.2

78.4

78.3

78.3

78.4

Nuclear

  2.8

  2.6

  2.6

  2.5

2.3

Total renewables

19.0

19.0

19.1

19.2

19.3

Modern renewables

9.7

10.0

10.1

10.3

10.2

– Biomass, geo, solar heat

4.1

4.2

4.1

  4.2

4.2

– Hydro electricity

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.9

3.6

– Wind, solar, bio, geo electricity

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.6

– Biofuels, such as corn ethanol

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

Traditional biomass

9.3

9.0

9.0

  8.9

9.1

 

Capital Cost Estimate of Renewables Energy for All: Many people think we can have 90% of ALL primary energy from renewables for 10 billion people and their economies by 2050, or by 2100. Prorating the $33 billion cost of Vermont’s energy transformation* for 10 billion people would be $33 b x 10000/0.625 = $528 trillion, adjusting for per capita income would be 12,380/47,000 x 528 = $139 trillion.

* The Vermont goal is 90% of ALL primary energy from renewables by 2050, not just electrical energy.

NOTE: The gross world product was about $78 trillion, or $78 trillion/6.3 b = $12,380/capita, in 2014. Vermont’s GDP/capita was about $47,000 in 2015.

World Spending on RE is Grossly Inadequate for COP-21 Goals: World spending on renewables was about $300 billion in 2015, of which about $100 billion by China. Some RE people, during and after COP-21, called for RE spending to be increased to $1.0 trillion/y. The numbers indicate the world is under-spending by large factors.

 

– $139 trillion/34 y = $4.09 trillion/y would be required until 2050; under-spending factor of 13.6

– $139 trillion/84 y = $1.65 trillion/y would be required until 2100; under-spending factor of 5.5

However, significant categories of costs are not included in above estimates, such as having a transformed transportation system and other infrastructures, various transformed industries, healthcare systems, defense systems, education systems, etc., all that to be transformed with renewable energy, which is generally more expensive than traditional energy sources, if storage and grid costs are added and subsidies are taken away.

 

Huge Nuclear, Wind and Solar Build-Outs Are Needed: At present, Russia, China and India are the main actors in the world’s nuclear sector. All three have major building programs. Japan, the EU and the US have nearly abandoned the nuclear sector.

The transformation of the world’s economies and build-outs of systems for 90% RE will never happen, unless massive nuclear plant capacity, at least 1,000,000 MW, is built by 2050, and that capacity would have to provide much of the world’s electrical energy to replace fossil fuels with syn-fuels and other electrical consumption.

Modern renewables (wind, solar, hydro, bio, etc.) would provide part of the world’s electrical energy. At present modern renewables provide about 10%. See above table.

A future capacity build-out from 2020 to 2050, costing $18.6 trillion, or $620 billion/y, could be as shown in below table.

Source

Existing

Capacity

Life

Generation

Capital cost

2016 MW

2050 MW

y

TWh/y

$trillion

Nuclear

392,000

1,000,000

60

7.5

5.5

Wind, onshore

474,170

1,500,000

25

4.0

3.3

Wind, offshore

12,630

500,000

25

2.0

1.8

Solar, PV

303,000

2,000,000

25

3.5

8.0

Total

17.0

18.6

 

World Electricity Generation: Future electricity generation likely will increase by at least 65% from 2015 to 2050, due to 1) world economic and population growth, 2) continuing energy efficiency, 3) build-outs of heat pumps for heating and cooling of buildings and 4) plug-in electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, 5) production of syn-fuels. It is clear, the above build-outs of nuclear, wind and solar barely provide just half the projected electricity of 2050.

Year

TWh

2050

40000

2015

24097

2014

23894

2013

23336

2012

22753

NOTE: France generates about 80% of its electricity with nuclear plants, equivalent to about 35% of its primary energy. France has among the lowest electric rates in west Europe.

US Electricity Generation: Total US net electricity generation was 4079.079 TWh in 2016. Wind and solar became 5.55 + 0.90 = 6.45% of electricity generation after subsidizing them for 25 years. Data for 2014, 2015, and 2016 are shown in below table.

Year

Net generation

Renewables

Source

TWh

TWh

%

2016

4079.079

609.087

14.93

EIA

2015

4077.601

567.348

13.91

NREL, page 29

2014

4093.606

554.274

13.54

NREL, page 29

Net Electricity generation 2016

%

TWh

Natural gas

33.84

1380.295

Coal

30.40

1240.108

Nuclear

19.74

805.327

Renewables (total)

14.93

609.087

– Hydropower

6.52

265.829

– Wind

5.55

226.500

– Biomass

1.55

63.288

– Solar; PV and CSP

0.90

36.754

– Geothermal

0.41

16.716

Petroleum

0.63

25.874

Other gases

0.31

12.537

Other nonrenewable sources

0.31

12.537

Pumped storage hydroelectricity

-0.16

-6.686

Total utility-scale

100.00

4079.079

Small-scale PV solar

19.467

Total solar; PV and CSP

56.221

US Electricity Generation in 2050: The present level of subsidies (which will be decreasing in future years), market conditions, etc., draws enough capital for annually adding renewable generation of about 27.373 TWh/y, which is the average annual increase of the past 5 years. Such additions would reach a level of 958.055 TWh/y after 35 years (2015 to 2050), for a total of 567.348 (in 2015) + 958.055 (addition) = 1525.403 TWh from renewables in 2050. See NREL URL

As above mentioned under World Electricity Generation, US net generation is assumed to also increase by about 65% from 4077.601 TWh in 2015 to 6728.042 TWh in 2050. Renewables would become 1525.403/6728.042 = 22.67% of net generation in 2050.

The goal of 90% renewable electricity by 2050 would not be achievable without at least doubling or tripling the subsidies to attract capital to build out wind and solar systems, concurrent with highly visible, nationwide transmissions systems and TWh-scale energy storage systems to cover variability, multi-day wind lulls and seasonality.

The energy cost, $/MWh, of all that would be at least 2 – 3 times more costly than from the existing systems, as proven by Denmark and Germany, which have the highest household rates in Europe.

Coal Particulate Air Pollution: The world’s fossil fuel consumption has been about 78% of all primary energy* for the past 10 years, despite several trillion dollars of investments in renewable electricity systems.

* The energy from wells, mines, forests, etc., is called source energy, which requires exploration, extraction, processing and transport to provide a proper supply of primary energy to power plants, buildings, vehicles, etc.

Current coal consumption is about 8000 million metric ton per year. China and India use about half of that IN AN INEFFICIENT AND DIRTY MANNER; low efficiency plants with high CO2/kWh, and low efficiency pollution control systems with high pollution/kWh.

Modern coal plants in Europe and the US have pollution control systems with efficiencies of 0.995 (about 5 lbs per 1000 lbs of flyash particulates is released to the atmosphere), whereas in China and India the norm is 0.950 or less (at least 50 lbs or more is released to the atmosphere).

SUMMARY OF WORLD CO2eq EMISSIONS, ALL SOURCES

The EPA and IPCC determined the emissions of agriculture, forestry and other land use were 12.648 billion Mt of CO2 eq. in 2014, or about 24% of the world’s manmade CO2 eq. emissions. Biological sources such as cattle, landfills and agriculture account for up to 67 percent of total human-caused methane emissions. See below table and URLs

CO2eq Emissions in 2014

%

Billion Mt CO2 eq.

Electricity and Heat

25

13.175

Agriculture, Forestry, Other land use

24

12.648

Industry

21

11.067

Transportation

14

7.378

Buildings

6

3.162

Other energy

10

5.270

World CO2eq in 2014, per UNEP

100

52.700

SUMMARY OF WORLD CO2eq EMISSIONS, ENERGY-RELATED

The below table shows, since Kyoto in 1990, the world’s energy-related CO2eq emissions (million metric ton), have been steadily increasing, largely due to increased combustion of coal by China, India and Brazil. During 2014, 2015, and 2016, there has been a reduction in the rate of increase, largely due to the US and China burning less coal. See URL

Year

World

US

CO2 MMt

CO2 MMt

Energy-related
1990

22,292

5032

Kyoto base line
2002

25,668

5792

2006

30,593

5898

2007

31,206

5989

2008

32,208

5797

2009

31,918

5374

2010

33,499

5571

2011

34,876

5433

2012

35,500

5220

59% greater than Kyoto
2013

35,867

5349

2014

36,168

5394

2015

36,300

5248

2016

36,400

5200

Estimates

ENERGY EFFICIENCY BETTER FOR CO2 EMISSION REDUCTION THAN WIND AND SOLAR

It would be much more cost-effective to concentrate on:

 

– Increasing the energy efficiency of existing buildings.

– Requiring “zero-net-energy”, and “energy-surplus” of all NEW buildings A “zero-net-energy” building would have very low requirements for heating, cooling and electricity. It would be grid-connected, have heat pumps and a PV solar system on its roof to offset the building energy requirements. An “energy-surplus” building would be similar, but the PV solar system capacity would be greater to offset the building energy requirements and enable charging electric vehicles.

– Increasing the mileage of the traditional vehicle population and increase the use of electric vehicles. The CO2 intensity, lb CO2/kWh, of the US grid would need to be significantly reduced by means of increased build-outs of low-CO2 energy sources, such as nuclear, hydro, wind and solar, to ensure source-to-wheel CO2 emissions would be minimal for such vehicles.

These measures would reduce the energy bills of households and businesses, and likely would reduce CO2 emissions by at least 50%, with:

 

– Minimal government regulations, taxes, fees and surcharges.

– Minimal capital cost.

– Near-zero visual and other adverse impacts.

COP-21, US COMPETITIVENESS AND WORLD TRADE

The big political debate is: should the US stay with the COP-21 agreements to reduce CO2 emissions or not. The real issues are about international trade, bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US and paying for world peacekeeping. The US would be less competitive in world markets if:

– The US invested more in RE, such as expensive offshore wind, which would increase its cost structure.

– The US continues to overinvest in defense to maintain world peace, while others continue underinvesting.

NOTE: The Trade Expansion Act, signed by Kennedy in 1962, significantly reduced US import tariffs, opened US markets to a flood of imports, and led to decades of increasing US trade deficits ever since 1967, the demise of trade unions, and the creation of rustbelt conditions in many parts of the US.

NOTE: Massachusetts has a new energy law requiring utilities to procure electricity generated by 1,600 MW of offshore wind turbines (name plate capacity) by June 30, 2027. The turnkey capital cost of such wind turbine plants, plus wiring to shore, plus onshore grid modifications would be at least $9 billion (not counting financing costs, return on investment, O&M, etc.), and the electricity cost would be at least 25 c/kWh (NE wholesale prices have been a steady 5 c/kWh for the past 5 years). Construction would require huge sea-going tugs, cranes and other specialized vessels to assemble those 600-ft tall wind turbines. Europe has perfected that equipment, but the US does not even have it. Europe offshore capacity is 12,600 MW, US 30 MW. European companies, such as Vestas and DONG of Denmark, Siemens of Germany, and others will be making big profits. Wall Street financiers will collect fees for managing the tax shelters for the multi-millionaire investors. New Englanders get to pay for the outrageously high cost of electricity. Just another way for Europe, Japan and others to hamstring the New England and US economy into a higher cost structures and make them less competitive, all under the false flag of fighting GW and saving the world. Read this article about the Rhode Island wind turbine folly.

Trade Agreements: In the past, US negotiators were out-negotiated by EU and Japanese counterparts. The US felt rich after the WWII and could afford to be generous. Those days are over. In fact, those days were over at least 30 years ago. The US, under Trump, is finally publicly admitting it. As a result treaties need to be renegotiated to level the playing field. Example:

– A Mercedes assembled in Mexico faces no EU import duty, because of a bilateral trade agreement.
– A Mercedes assembled in the US faces the full EU import duty. See URL.

The US worker is being disadvantaged and Mexican worker is being helped. In this manner, the EU is actively undermining the US, and on top of that 5 of 29 NATO nations are not paying 2% of GDP for their OWN defense. Canada is also in on the act.

The Trump administration aims to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, increase goods exports and reduce trade deficits, primarily with bi-lateral trade agreements, but Europe, Japan and others prefer to apply WTO rules (more to their advantage) and presented uniform opposition during the G-7 meeting of May 2017.

Europe, Japan and others have invested for decades to built up the skills of their technical personnel, the technologies and production facilities to support the most profitable part of the value chain of goods supply (paying good wages, benefits and profit taxes in home countries).

They ship finished products and sub-assembles all over the world, including the US and Mexico, for assembly into end products, such as cars, which is the much less profitable part of the value chain of goods supply (low-skill assembly labor jobs, mediocre benefits, and paying almost no profit taxes in host countries by means of clever transfer pricing). Europe, Japan and others have systematically tilted world trade in their favor and do not want to renegotiate any treaties, i.e., they dug their way to the vault and do not want the Trump Administration to move the vault.

THE US LEAVING COP-21

The four largest CO2eq emitters are shown in the below table. The world CO2eq emissions, all sources, was estimated at about 50 billion Mt in 2012.

– US CO2eq emissions, based on staying with COP-21, would have been about 5.0 billion Mt, but they would be about 6.4 billion Mt, based on leaving COP-21. In the US people live in a spread-out manner, which requires more energy per capita. It would have required several trillion dollars of investments in RE systems and efficiency to achieve the 2030 INDC targets agreed to by Obama.

China and India would continue to increase their CO2eq emissions. This was agreed to during COP-21 negotiations, because of their low energy per capita. Neither country is making a contribution to the Green Climate Fund, which were scheduled to become quite large for other countries by 2020. See below. China’s energy per capita is at least 2 times that of India, which likely will receive funds from the Green Climate Fund.

– The EU 2030 INDC target would achieve a slight decrease compared to 2030, as planned. In the EU people live close together, which requires less energy per capita. EU transformations likely would require significantly less investments for its 2030 INDC target, than the US would need for its 2030 INDC target. No wonder, Germany, France and Italy immediately declared “no renegotiations” of COP-21, after Trump stated he wanted to renegotiate.

The upshot is, the US would have to make major adjustments to its economy to achieve the overly ambitious INDC targets agreed to by Obama. Trump was absolutely correct to insist on renegotiating the COP-21 agreement.

Share of 2012 CO2eq

Share of 2012 CO2eq

2030 INDC

2030, as planned

Billion Mt

%

Billion Mt

Billion Mt

China

11.875

23.75

12.8-14.3

12.2-13.7

US

6.050

12.10

5.0

6.4

EU

4.485

8.97

3.3-3.5

3.3-3.9

India

2.865

5.73

5.2

4.5

Obama, without permission from the US Congress, committed $3 billion to a Green Climate Fund to literally buy the votes of poor countries, so they would commit to COP-21. Some of these countries are among the most corrupt in the world. Some of that money likely will disappear into Swiss bank accounts, instead of being used for COP-21 goals, as there is NO monitoring mechanism in place. Obama paid $1 billion to the Fund just before Trump was sworn in. Because the US is leaving COP-21, the other $2 billion STAYS IN THE US. See URL for full transcript of COP-21 withdrawal announcement.

Green Climate Fund: A total of 193 countries signed on to COP-21, but that means nothing, unless they agree to do something, to undertake pain. The majority of these countries are underdeveloped and developing countries. They signed on to COP-21 in expectation of payments from the Green Climate Fund. Only a few countries have made financial contributions to the Green Climate Fund. See below URLs

The Fund is administered by the UN. As of 17 May 2017, a total of $10.3 billion had been pledged to the Fund.

– EU member states pledged $4.7 billion (UK $1.2 b; France $1.0 b; Germany $1.0 b; Others $1.5 b)
– US $3.0 billion; already paid $1 billion.
– Rest of World $2.6 billion (Japan $1.5 b; China $0; India $0; Others $1.1 b). See table in URL.

The Fund’s initial goal is to distribute to recipient countries $100 billion in 2020, and much more in EACH YEAR thereafter. The US, about 20% of gross world product, likely would be hit up for $20 billion in 2020, and much more in EACH YEAR thereafter. That Fund likely would become the mother of all boondoggles.

No. Thank you, said Trump. He was not about to let the UN do boondoggle projects with US taxpayer money, especially when considering the insufficient outcomes of almost all prior COP events.

If the world is making so little progress towards RE, then the US, “doing its RE part” by staying with COP-21, would be engaging in an expensive exercise in futility.

The RE movement is primarily driven by Europe, Japan and others, because they have insufficient domestic energy resources. Europe, Japan and others want the US to stay with COP-21, as a big source of cash for future financing of the Green Climate Fund, and because they would become less competitive versus the US, if they increased investments in RE and the US did not.

The US, with chronic budget deficits of about $500 billion/y, already has a huge trade handicap, largely due to overinvesting in defense spending to maintain its world leadership peacekeeping role, and underinvesting in the goods and service sectors. For decades, Europe, Japan and others have underinvested in defense, because of the US protection guarantee; only 5 of 29 NATO nations spend at least 2% of GDP on their own defense.

Country

Defense Spending

% of GDP

US

3.61

Greece

2.38

UK

2.21

Estonia

2.16

Poland

2.00

Europe, Japan and others have been shirking the world peacekeeping burden, as it would divert investments from their goods and services sectors. Instead, they invested in producing and exporting superior goods and services, which the US did not. This causes the US, hamstrung by having to adhere to World Trade Organization rules, to have chronic trade and budget deficits, each about $500 billion/y.

Europe, Japan and others want to keep the good times rolling, i.e., have the US protect them for free, if possible, in hamstrung mode, with chronic trade and budget deficits, WTO rules, and COP-21 requirements.

Photo Credit: Kevin Talec via Flickr

Willem Post's picture

Thank Willem for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

John Miller's picture
John Miller on Jun 6, 2017 11:03 pm GMT

Willem, you have done an outstanding job in covering a very complex subject. Yes, projections of future global warming is far more complex than the past and recent climate models have predicted. As I am sure you are very aware, what’s rarely covered in the Media is the accuracy/probability of the climate simulation models. One major factor is the accuracy of the past (pre-1900) temperatures using ‘proxy’ measurements. Proxy temperatures estimates are based on trees and coral growth patterns, which have very significant levels of uncertainty. Yes, tree rings growth is generally narrower during hotter, drier summers. But they also would be narrow during unusually cold annual seasons, snow vs. rain, and possibly impacted by animal-insect infestations that inhibit growth patterns by reducing the tree’s health and growth rates for varying time periods. The net result of these tree ring variables can indicate higher proxy temperature estimates than actually occurred. We could highlight other accuracy issues, but I am sure you very fully understand these temperature projection accuracy-inaccuracy issues that contribute to lower climate models’ accuracies.

The economic impacts are also very significant as you state. Another factor rarely highlighted in the Media is the fact that fossil fuels heating and motor fuels in Europe, Japan and most other Developed Countries (outside North America) are double the U.S. on average. In addition, Europe, Japan and other Countries have power costs 2-3 times the U.S.; Germany generally being the highest at 3-times U.S. market prices. However, those who support a ‘carbon tax’, probably don’t consider this issue significant. And yes, renewable energy such as solar and wind have created increasingly levels of jobs in the U.S. and Europe, but once again, a subject not covered in the Media is the ‘productivity’ (costs & revenue per hour labor) being fairly low. Increased green energy jobs are likely increasingly contributing to the decade-low U.S. economy productivity statistics.

I could reference many other related WTO, COP-21 and other Developed Countries’ agreements that are less than balanced in costs-benefits overall to the U.S., but the real debate is: “do U.S. Citizens (majority of voters) support future increased energy costs, growing Federal Deficits + Taxes and probably reduced-lost benefits (Social Security, Medicare, average living standards, etc.) with minimal impact on possible future climate change?”. A better solution is possibly a more balanced approach to reducing fossil fuels via increased efficiency and renewables, and, increased focus on climate change ‘adaptation’. Since the sea levels will possibly continue to increase and weather patterns deteriorate, more focus needs to be placed on mitigating these weather physical environmental impacts. Yes, the world definitely has limited fossil fuels and someday peaking oil & gas will become a reality. The real question then becomes, what level of world total human population is sustainable with up to 100% renewable energy? It could be significantly less than the 11 billion level currently projected for 2100.

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Jun 7, 2017 9:48 am GMT

Please correct spelling “Lomborg” not Lomberg.

Hard to disagree with your facts. Too many people consuming too much food + energy + etc., and don’t know how to produce anything and clean up their mess. So they turn to desperate behavior like shouting, violence, drugs, political promises.

Bjorn Lomborg urges a “green” Apollo (technology R&D) Program. I couldn’t find any specifics, but what else in new??

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 7, 2017 11:18 pm GMT

John,

Thank you for the compliment.

I have made some revisions and additions to the article, and you may find that version here.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop-21-world-renewable-energ...

Lomborg stated the pledged COP-21 CO2 emissions reductions need to be increased by a factor of 100 to achieve 2 C by 2100.

Currently the world is spending about $300 billion/y on RE.
That would have to become about $2000 to $3000 billion per year, seven to ten times as much to achieve 2 C by 2100; there is even talk of 1.5 C by 2100.

There is no question regarding CO2 increasing the world’s temperature by about 1 C during the past 150 years.

Such a fast change has not occurred since the peak temperature of about 125,000 PB and since the peak temperature of about 11,200 BP.

If you view this URL on an iPad, you can enlarge it and more detail shows up. See upper left corner.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/younger_dryas_to_pre...

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 8, 2017 1:17 am GMT

Rick,

Thank you. I did correct the spelling. See URL.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop-21-world-renewable-energ...

Total world GHG emissions were 52.4 billion metric ton, excluding international aviation and shipping.

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india.html
https://www.carbonbrief.org/paris-2015-tracking-country-climate-pledges

– US CO2eq emissions, based on staying with COP-21, would have been about 5.0 billion Mt, but they would be about 6.4 billion Mt, based on leaving COP-21. In the US people live in a spread-out manner, which requires more energy per capita. It would have required several trillion dollars of investments in RE systems and efficiency to achieve the 2030 INDC targets agreed to by Obama.

– China and India would continue to increase their CO2eq emissions. This was agreed to during COP-21 negotiations, because of their low energy per capita. Neither country is making a contribution to the Green Climate Fund, which were scheduled to become quite large for other countries by 2020. See below. China’s energy per capita is at least 2 times that of India, which likely will receive funds from the Green Climate Fund.

– The EU 2030 INDC target would achieve a slight decrease compared to 2030, as planned. In the EU people live close together, which requires less energy per capita. EU transformations likely would require significantly less investments for its 2030 INDC target, than the US would need for its 2030 INDC target. No wonder, Germany, France and Italy immediately declared “no renegotiations” of COP-21, after Trump stated he wanted to renegotiate.

The upshot is, the US would have to make major adjustments to its economy to achieve the overly ambitious INDC targets agreed to by Obama. Trump was absolutely correct to insist on renegotiating the COP-21 agreement.

Green Climate Fund: The Fund is administered by the UN. As of 17 May 2017, a total of $10.3 billion had been pledged to the Fund.
– EU member states pledged $4.7 billion (UK $1.2 b; France $1.0 b; Germany $1.0 b; Others $1.5 b)
– US $3.0 billion; already paid $1 billion.
– Rest of World $2.6 billion (Japan $1.5 b; China $0; India $0; Others $1.1 b). See table in URL.

The Fund has a goal of distributing to recipient countries $100 billion in 2020, much more in EACH YEAR thereafter. The US, about 20% of gross world product, likely would be hit up for $20 billion in 2020, and much more in EACH YEAR thereafter. That Fund likely would become the mother of all boondoggles.

No. Thank you, said Trump. He was not about to let the UN do boondoggle projects with US taxpayer money.
http://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/contributors/resources-mobilized

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Jun 8, 2017 7:53 am GMT

Indeed, thank you Willem. Your article is the best reference numbers I’m aware of. So I’ll keep a link to it.

Those urban beggars have no idea how fake their “green” ideas sound in rural Minnesota. We’re supposed to assure clean food, water, labor, energy by their stupid design, and give them cash to have a seat at THEIR table.

Just as stupid were all the NATO beggars.

Spoiled brat children in a dangerous world, at a dangerous time in history. Worse than useless partners.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on Jun 8, 2017 2:55 pm GMT

I don’t care much for North American complaints that it has to have higher CO2 emissions because of it being more “spread out”. Urban sprawl is a choice, and so is the infrastructure choices. More importantly, a coal/natgas based grid with 2x the demand of Europe, along with far, far worse MPG ratings on personal transport, is not reasonable if you can’t get emissions under control. This is a matter of survival so excuses aren’t very interesting.

If we check emissions per capita, the US lags far behind Europeans. Nuclear France is less than a third of US emissions per dollar while coal-based rogue state Germany is at almost half US emissions. If you can’t even beat Germany that has given up on nuclear and has lousy RE resources, there’s a lot to be ashamed of:
http://media.nejdetkanviinte.se/2016/10/co2-pop-2015.png

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 8, 2017 4:29 pm GMT

Jesper,

That graph is flawed.

It is best to look at Primary energy/$ of GDP and Primary energy/($ of GDP/capita)

Countries with low values have efficient economies.

The US has plenty of resources to support its lifestyles.

Unfortunately, prior US negotiators were out-negotiated by EU and Japanese counterparts.

Also the US felt rich after the war and could afford to be generous. Those days are over. In fact, those were over at least 30 years ago.

The US, under Trump, is finally on the verge of realizing it and publicly admitting it. As a result treaties need to be renegotiated to level the playing field.

During a recent US/EU meeting in Brussels, EU people looked like they held a winning hand and the US looked like they held a losing hand.

Example:

– A Mercedes assembled in Mexico faces no EU import duty, because of a bilateral trade agreement.
– A Mercedes assembled in the US faces the full EU import duty.

The US worker is being screwed and Mexican worker is being helped.

This the EU actively undermining the US, and on top of that 5 of 29 NATO nations are not paying 2% of GDP for their OWN defense. Canada is also in on the act.

This is just one of many examples.

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on Jun 8, 2017 4:51 pm GMT

Urban sprawl is a choice, and so is the infrastructure choices.

It’s not a choice when your former home becomes a no-go zone and your physical survival is at stake.  The people who created the urban sprawl out of Detroit were driven out by burglary, armed robbery, aggravated assault and arson.  This problem continues to this day even if you haven’t heard anything about it.  The only defense that’s still legal is sheer distance.

More importantly, a coal/natgas based grid with 2x the demand of Europe, along with far, far worse MPG ratings on personal transport, is not reasonable if you can’t get emissions under control. This is a matter of survival so excuses aren’t very interesting.

The USA was on course to nuclearize (as France did a decade later) but the economics of nuclear were destroyed by hostile regulation.  The same thing is on-going to this day; the designs of the Vogtle/Summer expansions were shaken up by the imposition of a brand-new aircraft impact rule on plants whose designs were already signed off for construction.

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Jun 8, 2017 7:28 pm GMT

This is a matter of survival so excuses aren’t very interesting.

Many things are a matter of survival, the use of energy itself for instance. If understanding history and principle causes are dismissed as an ‘excuse’ then I think the chances of identifying effective solutions to recent problems are diminished.

Global emissions will be eventually curtailed, or not, by first focusing on clean, low carbon energy production, and secondarily on energy consumption itself. The latter has many fundamental causes including geography, manufacturing intensity, and legacy infrastructure. Conflating the two leads to mistakes, such as viewing the US as monolithic consumer of energy*, or possibly missing that the chart above hides the millions in some Chinese cities which are already over 20 tons-CO2/yr/person, topping all country averages.

*Seasonal climate extremes, industrial intensity, and transportation in a bi-coastal country separated by great swaths of farm and ranch land matter. Legacy infrastructure matters. For illustration, see the Empire State Building (100 stories) which went up in 1931 along with energy use of the period, and see the UK’s tallest, The Shard (72 stories), which opened in 2012. The recently opened One World Trade Center in NY of course uses all the latest energy conservation features, but we won’t see the Empire State Building raised to the ground because of cries of ‘shame’ from an energy nun ringing a bell in the streets.

Wyoming: 110 tons-CO2/yr/person; New York: 8 tons-CO2/yr/person (Germany 9 tons-CO2/person)
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/images/figure_2...

State energy CO2 emissions shares by sector:
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/excel/table4.xlsx

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Jun 8, 2017 8:08 pm GMT

Jesper, everybody on the planet needs quality food, air, and water, every day.

We in the US understand nukes, CO2, and many of the very limited number of issues we are lectured on, including (we agree) some embarrassing pig US drivers.

But clearly you don’t understand cheap food for 7 billion++ people, grown, transported, processed, cooked and served, perpetually. Our North American high energy use per GDP has no correlation with anything else in the world.

I learned a lot about starving Swedes from my grandparents. And regularly seek to learn on TEC. Without considering agriculture, you ignore something that can’t be ignored.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on Jun 8, 2017 8:22 pm GMT

That graph is flawed.

My graph isn’t flawed just b/c you would like to see another one. But of course you can have the same graph in per-GDP-dollar. It’s the same story, at least in relation to Europe.
http://media.nejdetkanviinte.se/2016/10/co2-gdp-pop-2015.png

Of course, China and India looks a bit wasteful, but poorer economies simply doesn’t have as high a share of services and are still building physical assets and infrastructure, so they are naturally more energy intense. The US doesn’t have that excuse.

The US has plenty of resources to support its lifestyles.

Unfortunately, we are sharing the same atmosphere. When you guys put that much CO2 in it, mostly just for fun, other nations in much worse positions will be unable to use their fossils resources for their more basic needs.

Unfortunately, prior US negotiators were out-negotiated by EU and Japanese counterparts.

Perhaps the rest of the world looked for leadership from the US, but didn’t get it. And what we get from the US today is far worse than the absence of leadership.

As a result treaties need to be renegotiated to level the playing field.

So, what would that level playing field look like? Should the US simply retain its share of emissions, like 16% with 4% of population, thus possibly retaining its share of the global economy? Hindering convergence and keeping the poor poor, is that it?

A Mercedes assembled in the US faces the full EU import duty.

Don’t you think there are import duties in the other direction? And does Trump want the TTIP? Please read this simple policy document:
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_152998.1%20Tra...

5 of 29 NATO nations are not paying 2% of GDP for their OWN defense.

It is, or should be, a free world. But the US is not within its moral right do destroy global climate because of import duties or the failure of others to spend a lot on war machines.

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Jun 8, 2017 10:52 pm GMT

Another perspective on (declining) US emissions in the context of ‘survival’:
US 2016 carbon emissions were 1.5 Gt-C/yr, with per capita C emissions declining from 4.5 tC/person/yr at a rate of ~0.1 ton/person/yr.
– Some of the IPCC ‘A’ emission scenarios model 30 Gt-C/yr by 2100, with perhaps ~800 Gt-C collective emissions over the period 2020-2100.

If US emissions zero’d today, by itself, i.e. the US left the planet, and the future world continued along an IPCC scenario ‘A’ path, there would be little difference in a 2100 climate outcome.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on Jun 9, 2017 7:03 am GMT

So although the US pay significant less than other industrialised countries for the decarbonisation of poor countries, Trump says this is still too much, and you expect the nations paying more per capita to accept another renegotiation, after the plenty renegotiations befre signing the treaty. And now you complain if they don’t like to negotiate again with the one getting the better part but is breaking the deal. Strange view on the world.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on Jun 9, 2017 7:06 am GMT

This is why TTIP was negotiated, to remove the duties in both directions between US and EU. But that was cancelled by Trump.
EU countries pay more than the US for paris ttreaty, and you claim the US would be generous. Usually the ones who pay more per head (whle being about as wealthy) are looked at to be more generous.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on Jun 9, 2017 7:19 am GMT

One of the few points where I have to agree to you. Sweden has a 50 % lower population density than USA, and while being similar wealthy, it has a much lower CO2 emission, and would still have it with a coal and gas fueled power generation. Although according to willem post’s argumentations, it would have to be much higher.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on Jun 9, 2017 12:18 pm GMT

AFAIK, carbon emissions from the food industri isn’t that big. Btw, given the obesity epidemic in the US, perhaps you could learn something useful from contemporary “starving” Swedes?

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on Jun 9, 2017 12:22 pm GMT

If US emissions zero’d today, by itself […] there would be little difference in a 2100 climate outcome.

I’ve heard that argument many times in my little Sweden, but it’s the first time I heard it coming from the great America. Of course, citizens of all countries can reason like that and then, that A scenario is exactly what we’ll get.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on Jun 9, 2017 12:31 pm GMT

To me, the US is large enough to not have any valid excuses. A single state might be another matter. I’m a Swede, so you might be able to find it in your heart to forgive me for viewing the US as a monolith. Don’t let that keep you from deciding among yourselves which states should have which emissions, as long as you on average reduce by 80-90% in short order.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on Jun 9, 2017 1:25 pm GMT

The US is free to learn from many other industrialised countries how to avoid bulgary, armed robbery etc in cities with structural problems. Or you have to accept the results of not dealing with the problems. It’s no excuse for high emissions.

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 10, 2017 2:00 am GMT

Jesper,

Could you prepare a chart as I suggested, based on primary energy?

Italy want to protect its motorcycle sector, so it invents a charge of 100% on an imported Harley Davidson.
Hurts US workers, helps Italian workers.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop-21-world-renewable-energ...

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 10, 2017 2:02 am GMT

Jesper,
Will you be holding a gun to our heads to help us make that decision?

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 10, 2017 2:05 am GMT

Mark,
IPCC and its computer models may be overstating global warming by a factor of 2.

MIT claims, with FULL implementation of the voluntary, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) agreed to during the COP-21 conference, and kept in place till 2100, COP-21 would prevent about 0.2 C of any warming that would occur by 2100, i.e., instead of 4.3 C from pre-industrial baseline, it would be 4.1 C by 2100. See Page 2 of MIT URL.
https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/newsletters/files/2015 Energy %26 Climate Outlook.pdf

Bjorn Lomborg estimates COP-21 would prevent about 0.17 C, in close agreement with the MIT estimate.

The UN climate chief Christina Figueres estimates the COP-21 promises will reduce CO2 emissions by 33 billion metric ton by 2100, which is a very small quantity considering the total CO2 emissions of the 2017 – 2100 period. To limit the temperature increase to 2.7°C by 2100, about 3,000 billion metric ton by 2100 would need to be reduced, or about 100 times the COP-21 promises. See Lomborg URL.
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-...

NOTE: To achieve an increase of 2 C or less by 2100 is even more difficult, as it would require a CO2 emission reduction much greater than 3,000 billion metric ton. There is even talk of achieving 1.5 C or less by 2100. All of that is not optimism, but wishful thinking.

NOTE: A Guide to Understanding Global Temperature Data explains in detail the IPC climate models significantly overestimate lower troposphere and surface temperatures by about a factor of 2. See pages 14 and 15 of URL.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/ffp-global-t...

Based on outcomes of about twenty prior COPs, the RE investments required for such a huge CO2 emission reduction likely will not take place.

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 10, 2017 2:08 am GMT

Helmut,
Regarding Sweden electricity, most of it is nuclear and hydro, which have near zero CO2, and Sweden has strict building energy codes, which reduces the building sector CO2.

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 10, 2017 2:10 am GMT

Helmut,

In the past, US negotiators were out-negotiated by EU and Japanese counterparts. The US felt rich after the WWII and could afford to be generous. Those days are over. In fact, those days were over at least 30 years ago. The US, under Trump, is finally publicly admitting it. As a result treaties need to be renegotiated to level the playing field. Example:
– A Mercedes assembled in Mexico faces no EU import duty, because of a bilateral trade agreement.
– A Mercedes assembled in the US faces the full EU import duty. See URL.

The US worker is being disadvantaged and Mexican worker is being helped. In this manner, the EU is actively undermining the US, and on top of that 5 of 29 NATO nations are not paying 2% of GDP for their OWN defense. Canada is also in on the act.

The Trump administration aims to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, increase goods exports and reduce trade deficits, primarily with bi-lateral trade agreements, but Europe, Japan and others prefer to apply WTO rules (more to their advantage) and presented uniform opposition during the G-7 meeting of May 2017.

Europe, Japan and others have invested for decades to built up the skills of their technical personnel, the technologies and production facilities to support the most profitable part of the value chain of goods supply (paying good wages, benefits and profit taxes in home countries).

They ship finished products and sub-assembles all over the world, including the US and Mexico, for assembly into end products, such as cars, which is the much less profitable part of the value chain of goods supply (low-skill assembly labor jobs, mediocre benefits, and paying almost no profit taxes in host countries by means of clever transfer pricing). Europe, Japan and others have systematically tilted world trade in their favor and do not want to renegotiate any treaties, i.e., they dug their way to the vault and do not want the Trump Administration to move the vault.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/05/hopes-of-eu-us-trade-ag...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop-21-world-renewable-energ...

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 10, 2017 2:34 am GMT

Helmut,

A total of 193 countries signed on to COP-21, but that means nothing, unless they agree to do something, to undertake pain. The majority of these countries are underdeveloped and developing countries. They signed on to COP-21 in expectation of payments from the Green Climate Fund. Only a few countries have made financial contributions to the Green Climate Fund. See below URLs.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate-agreem…

The Fund is administered by the UN. As of 17 May 2017, a total of $10.3 billion had been pledged to the Fund.
– EU member states pledged $4.7 billion (UK $1.2 b; France $1.0 b; Germany $1.0 b; Others $1.5 b)
– US $3.0 billion; already paid $1 billion.
– Rest of World $2.6 billion (Japan $1.5 b; China $0; India $0; Others $1.1 b). See table in URL.

The Fund’s initial goal is to distribute to recipient countries $100 billion in 2020, and much more in EACH YEAR thereafter. The US, about 20% of gross world product, likely would be hit up for $20 billion in 2020, and much more in EACH YEAR thereafter. That Fund likely would become the mother of all boondoggles.

No. Thank you, said Trump. He was not about to let the UN do boondoggle projects with US taxpayer money, especially when considering the insufficient outcomes of almost all prior COP conferences.

http://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/contributors/resources-mobilized

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop-21-world-renewable-energ...

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 10, 2017 2:39 am GMT

Jesper,

There is a lot of fantasizing going on regarding reducing CO2. 99% of folks have no idea what is required. I recommend you read Note 2.

MIT claims, with FULL implementation of the voluntary, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) agreed to during the COP-21 conference, and kept in place till 2100, COP-21 would prevent about 0.2 C of any warming that would occur by 2100, i.e., instead of 4.3 C from pre-industrial baseline, it would be 4.1 C by 2100. See Page 2 of MIT URL.
https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/newsletters/files/2015 Energy %26 Climate Outlook.pdf

Bjorn Lomborg estimates COP-21 would prevent about 0.17 C, in close agreement with the MIT estimate.

The UN climate chief Christina Figueres estimates the COP-21 promises will reduce CO2 emissions by 33 billion metric ton by 2100, which is a very small quantity considering the total CO2 emissions of the 2017 – 2100 period. To limit the temperature increase to 2.7°C by 2100, about 3,000 billion metric ton by 2100 would need to be reduced, or about 100 times the COP-21 promises. See Lomborg URL.
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-...

NOTE: To achieve an increase of 2 C or less by 2100 is even more difficult, as it would require a CO2 emission reduction much greater than 3,000 billion metric ton. There is even talk of achieving 1.5 C or less by 2100. All of that is not optimism, but irrational fantasizing.

NOTE: A Guide to Understanding Global Temperature Data explains in detail the IPC climate models significantly overestimate lower troposphere and surface temperatures by about a factor of 2. See pages 14 and 15 of URL.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/ffp-global-t...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop-21-world-renewable-energ...

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Jun 10, 2017 4:35 am GMT

The non-negotiable, non-binding, non-approved, non-treaty doesn’t want the US involved at this point. Everybody is happy; they can insult, we can try new ideas.

Some day I would like to see you try do some negative carbon calculations. The US has added extraordinary areas of watered land since the Great Depression. California, Colorado, Nebraska, the Dakotas are but a few former dry regions now sucking up Carbon, at least short term. Emission is only half the CO2 climate story.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Jun 10, 2017 5:06 am GMT

“…what level of world total human population is sustainable with up to 100% renewable energy?”

Well, with a hydrogen economy, high dependence on desert solar power, large scale storage, broad acceptance of time-of-use electricity pricing, the answer is very much higher than the predicted populations.

Of course as of today:
– the hydrogen economy has not materialized; BEV deployments are growing and helping suppress interest in FCEVs.
– people would much rather have energy jobs stay local rather than being outsourced to a far away desert, especially considering international borders.
– storage is still much too expensive to compete on the grid.
– people want energy services that are affordable during weather extremes, for heating and cooling (i.e. during times of high grid demand).

Note that these factors all tend to favor nuclear over renewables.

The result is that 30-50% renewable will be much more acceptable to the public than 100% renewable. In contrast, France has shown that 80% nuclear + 15% renewable works just fine.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on Jun 10, 2017 10:27 am GMT

Could you prepare a chart as I suggested, based on primary energy?

You mean primary energy/$ on the Y-axis and $ on the X-axis? I could, but you haven’t really explained why. CO2 is the problem. I’m fine with countries having high primary energy use, as long as they have low CO2 emissions.

Hurts US workers in the motorcycle industry, helps Italian workers in the motorcycle industry, hurts workers of non-motorcycle industries in both countries, and especially hurts Italian consumers. Trade barriers are generally irrational. Avenging trade barriers with more trade barriers is not a good idea.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on Jun 10, 2017 10:41 am GMT

No, Willem, I simply expect leadership and responsibility from major rich countries, and the US is _the_ major rich country. But right now, watching US politics is like watching an episode of Fawlty Towers.

Jesper Antonsson's picture
Jesper Antonsson on Jun 10, 2017 4:20 pm GMT

Europe, Japan and others have invested for decades to built up the skills of their technical personnel, the technologies and production facilities to support the most profitable part of the value chain of goods supply

Where “others” include the US.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TTiZNWWehRI/AAAAAAAAO18/lrP17Bc9Lr...

Europe, Japan and others have systematically tilted world trade in their favor/

How?

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Jun 11, 2017 12:20 am GMT

Throw in all the European countries *trending down* in emissions into the leave-the-planet bucket if you like to see the point, as 2100 outcomes still don’t significantly change.

I see the benefit of working with others when possible, but not at the expense of math.
Countries trending down in emissions like the US are not how the globe adds up to 30 Gt-C/yr come 2100. Should the US (or Sweden) reverse practice and begin increasing, then they too join the path to scenario A.

You’ve made the point before: the emissions math is all about the wide spread success of clean power, with nuclear the only feasible route at this time. Reverting to the like of the turn-your-thermostats-down mantra only undermines that point: “Okay, I turned down the ‘stat, I drive an EV, stopped eating meat, scrapped the jet, read Jacobson before bed, and made sure my local nuke closed, is AGW down a degree?” No.

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Jun 11, 2017 12:28 am GMT

I dont argue for COP 21 or the US Clean Power plan or any other unserious notion that obfuscates the fact nuclear power is the only viable method of decarbonizing emissions. And not just in the developed world, but everywhere. Anything else is cover for another hundred coal plants.

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Jun 11, 2017 12:31 am GMT

Reduce your coal plant capacity Helmut Coal.

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Jun 11, 2017 12:47 am GMT

long as you on average reduce by 80-90% in short order.

Getting there, but can’t go back to 1931 and not build the Empire State Building, nor eliminate 120F seasonal temperature swings, nor dream up 53% hydro power as in Sweden. Most contemporaneous US construction is tight enough to fill the order.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on Jun 12, 2017 6:09 am GMT

And noone hinders the US to have the same strict building standards, and noone hinders toe US to use as little energy for transportation as sweden does. Which would reduce the US CO2 emissions drastically, even if power production remains in its share of fuels as it is today.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on Jun 12, 2017 6:21 am GMT

Wenn if Euroean countries and Japan pay more per head or GDP, than the US, then US out-negotiated Europe and Japan, not the other way round. Don’t produce fairy tales.
The share of cars of US manufacturers sold in germany is higher than the share of german car manufacturers in the US. So don’t produce another story here.
Mecedes asssembeled in Europe faces full US import duties as well. Dont blame the fact thet Trump canceled TTIP on Europe.

About paying for NATO:
The US pays 2,96% of the costs of NATO, the europeans the remaining 78%. Germany alone 15,3%. So US pays by far the lowest amount per head or per GDP. The rise of defense spendings up to 2% of GDP was sheduled for 2024, not today. Due to the rising problems with russia germany started increasing defense spendings already before trump. So don’t compy Trumps fake news here, too.

Training workers and building efficient manufacturing is no “tilt of the world trade”. It’s just doing good business. Germany hinders that companies pay too low taxes by raising minimum taxes when companys try to evade paying taxes by moving earnings to tax paradises. The US actively supports such practices when earnings made in non US countries by US countries are concerned. This is a permanent problem in all efforts to dry up the tax paradises in the world. Another fairy tale which is going around in the US as it seems, based on not knowing what happens in the rest of the world.
Europe is alwas willing to negotiate if there is a fair deal in sight for both sides. But renogiationg treaties where the US already has all advantages will not do.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on Jun 12, 2017 6:27 am GMT

So the US pays the smallest dhare calculated per GDP and a smaller share per head than UK, germany, france, Japan…
So in a renegotiation the share of the US should rise. that countries like India which are undeveloped and where people are still starving should not pay, but get support should be obvious to reasonable thinging people. Chinas per head income is also not that high, so ty my feeling they should be in the area which pays nothing, but also receives nothing. China cuts it’s coal consumption already, and india also scaled down coal production from planned 660 Mio t to 600 Mio t this year as I could read.
Many develpong countries invest in renewable poer generation now without support from the fund, because of falling costs.
And they signed the treaty because climatic changes will hurt most of them much more than the industrialised countries in the north.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on Jun 12, 2017 6:45 am GMT

If you would dig a bit deeper, than you would find that the politics recommendation for CO2 reductions go on after 2050. 2050 is a milstone, a important one, but not the end of the way. For germany it means to go carbon-negative past 2050 to avoid unacceptable temperature rises. Which is possible e.g by CO2 sequestarion and storage from cement production and buiomass power generation.
Power generation from biomass in germany starts with 30-50% CO2 and 50-70% Mehtan. It’s easy to collect CO2 here. No nead for giant amounts of technical equipment than for CCS.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on Jun 12, 2017 12:44 pm GMT

Already happening in germany, Mark Coal.

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 12, 2017 5:58 pm GMT

Jesper,

“It is best to look at Primary energy/$ of nominal GDP and Primary energy/($ of nominal GDP/capita)

Countries with low values have efficient economies.”

I did explain why.

The US uses an average primary energy quantity per $ of nominal GDP, other, less efficient countries, use high primary energy quantities per $ of nominal GDP.

Such a comparison can also be made on a per capita basis, i.e., primary energy/($ of nominal GDP/capita)

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 12, 2017 6:11 pm GMT

Helmut,
Trump cancelled TPP not TTIP.
TTIP was placed on hold last October, before Trump was elected. TTIP is opposed by German unions.
The US is seeking to get it out of the hold situation. So far, the EU has refused, or is to busy dealing with China.

https://europeansting.com/2017/06/06/the-us-may-be-open-to-reviving-ttip...

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 12, 2017 6:19 pm GMT

Jesper,

Underdeveloped and developing countries are a big CO2 sources.
China is about 2 times the US.
Note the slow increase of wind, solar, bio geo electricity

Huge Nuclear, Wind and Solar Build-Outs Are Needed:

At present, Russia, China and India are the main actors in the world’s nuclear sector. All three have major building programs. Japan, the EU and the US have nearly abandoned the nuclear sector.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles.aspx

The transformation of the world’s economies and build-outs of systems for 90% RE will never happen, unless massive nuclear plant capacity, at least 1,000,000 MW, is built by 2050, and that capacity would have to provide much of the world’s electrical energy to replace fossil fuels with syn-fuels and other electrical consumption.

Modern renewables (wind, solar, hydro, bio, etc.) would provide part of the world’s electrical energy. At present modern renewables provide about 10%. See above table.

A future capacity build-out from 2020 to 2050, costing $18.6 trillion, or $620 billion/y, could be as shown in below table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

See latest update of my article on this website
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop-21-world-renewable-energ...

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 12, 2017 6:20 pm GMT

Mark,

See latest update of my article on this website

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop-21-world-renewable-energ...

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 12, 2017 6:23 pm GMT

Jesper,

The people in advanced countries do not want to spend trillions of dollars per year on COP-21.

If politicians go overboard insisting, they will just vote them out.

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 12, 2017 6:24 pm GMT

Mark,

See latest update of my article on this website

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop-21-world-renewable-energ...

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 12, 2017 6:31 pm GMT

Helmut,

Note Germany’s stagnant CO2 since 2009

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/german-renewable-energy-gene...

Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 12, 2017 6:35 pm GMT
Willem Post's picture
Willem Post on Jun 12, 2017 6:46 pm GMT

Helmut/Mark,

2009, 907, CO2eq million metric ton
2016, 906
2020, 751, target 40% reduction,
2030, 563, target 55% reduction

There is no way Germany will meet its 2020 target and its 2030 target.

Helmut Frik's picture
Helmut Frik on Jun 13, 2017 7:49 am GMT

Look at the numbers for the power sector. We do not talk about the traffic or building sector here, where germany has problems with stagnant CO2 emissions. And we talk especially about closing coal power stations. The US uses more kWh from coal power stations per head and per $GDP than germany. So should I say Willem Coal?

Pages

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »