Time for climate change fix running out, IEA warns

The world is hurtling toward irreversible climate change, the International Energy Agency warns, saying that bold action must be taken in the next five years.

The IEA, in its annual World Energy Outlook released Wednesday, said that the world will lose the chance to limit warming if it doesn't act now.

The IEA’s members include 28 consuming nations. It was formed in response to the oil crisis in the 1970s, but since then its mandate has expanded beyond energy security to include environmental awareness.

The agency prescribed what needs to be done to cap global temperature increases at two degrees above preindustrial levels and predicted the consequences if those steps aren't taken.

A two-degree increase is the threshold beyond which some scientists have said catastrophic changes could be triggered.

The warning came a day after Canada's Environment Minister Peter Kent acknowledged in a speech in Toronto that his government expects to face international pressure at upcoming climate change talks over its refusal to sign on for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

Kent said Canada has already declared that it will hold to that position "however acute the international pressure."

The talks begin in Durban, South Africa, on Nov. 28.



The IEA report pushes for greater energy efficiency and reduced fossil fuel subsidies.

It considers increased efficiency the easiest way to reduce consumption since it has a price incentive built in.

That has become even more important since Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident sparked a rethinking of the use of atomic technology previously seen as key to cutting emissions.

"The most important contribution to reaching energy security and climate goals comes from the energy that we do not consume," the report says.

The report says that the current promises to reduce emissions, when taken together, will likely result in an increase of more than 3.5 degrees — and there isn't any guarantee those commitments will even be carried out.

Without them, the picture is bleaker: an increase of six degrees or more.

Despite that. the IEA’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, is not optimistic world leaders are willing to make the necessary sacrifices involved in taking its recommended steps.

"We are going in the wrong direction in terms of climate change," he said in an interview Monday, noting that although governments around the world have put increasing energy efficiency at the top of their to-do lists, efficiency has worsened for two years in a row now.

"After 2017, we will lose the chance to limit the temperature increase to two degrees Celsius," he said.

Birol said the world doesn't lack the technology to tackle the problem — just the political will.

"Even with existing technologies, you can improve substantially, but to do that, you need some price incentives and these price incentives are not there," he said.

In fact, the incentives to consume more have increased: The report said subsidies for fossil fuels have risen past $400 billion US.

Birol said those need to be cut and instead a price needs to be levied on carbon.

Only when "dirty" fuels become more expensive, he said, will governments follow through on their commitments to increase energy efficiency.

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fa...

So much for the green socialist myth perpetuated by fools.

Ajax wrote on Sep 20^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:
The greatest fool knows no fear.

# wrote on Sep 20^th, 2013 at 8:17pm:


If it is real world data I might sit up and take notice.

But as long as the IPCC doomsday prophecies are coming from computer circulation models (CCM).....???

No need to worry dude relax enjoy life and take it easy...we're not going to be destroyed by AGW.....

Remember in 2005 those same CCM predicted that the arctic would be ice free in the year 2013.

They also said temperature will just keep rising in step with manmade CO2 emissions.

Well we have had 17 years of NO warming..!!!!!

And one third of ALL that's ALL manmade CO2 emissions have gone up into the atmosphere since 1998.

Must I go on......!!!!!!

viewpoint wrote on Sep 20^th, 2013 at 9:03pm:

Says the depressed waffler made only interesting by war!

muso wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 1:16pm:


Playing with words again......!!!!!!

Apart from their behinds...
Where do the IPCC get all these forecasts from....???

Ajax wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 1:52pm:


I think half the things that you attribute to the IPCC were never stated in any of their reports.  I'd suggest that they come from your blog friends in the form of  Strawmen.

Unless you provide links, we should make the assumption that they were the invention of Christopher Monckton.

Now tell me more about these magic "Computer Circulation models" that predict everything from Ocean levels to Sea Ice extent.

Ajax wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 1:54pm:


You do.

Truth is Soon said around 100mm.

Then when I look up other references they said down to about 20mm.

So now i'm using the most recent data.

not lying just getting an education.

So are you going to answer the question....???

If satellites can only measure down to 20mm how did they measure the 7mm drop in 2011.....?????

Ajax wrote on Sep 20^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:


You do realize that the article, that started this thread, was reputedly derived for comments by the IEA, which could not possibly be considered as a natural ally of the IPCC???

The IEA head honcho's following comments are of interest, at least to some?  -

"Birol said those need to be cut and instead a price needs to be levied on carbon.

Only when "dirty" fuels become more expensive, he said, will governments follow through on their commitments to increase energy efficiency."
 

Ajax wrote on Sep 20^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:




It's far easier to control a frightened population.

Those with weak minds succumb to the fearmongering quite quickly.

muso wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 2:16pm:

So, muso o dearest of the dearest,  , is the statement
""  actually true or untrue?

 

I wish someone would make a cartoon, where climate change happened despite cutting out all c02 and the children ask why they wasted their time preventing the inevitable and why all of the people in poverty had to suffer as a result of taxes etc.

Would greatly sum up the skeptics point of view. Then you could have both cartoons side by side at the start of a debate so everyone knows where everyone's coming from instead of the use of arbitrary labels.

Just saying is all....

muso wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:



Fixed.

muso wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:



Simple question, that requires no more than a 'yes' or 'no' answer:  is there any possibility at all that AGW may not be happening?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 6:24pm:


What percentage of the CO2 release was absorbed by the earths oceans?

What is the change in mean temperature for the earths entire surface?

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:


Sweden has had a price on carbon for almost 25 years. It is currently hovering around the $140 per tonne mark. Pretty high hey?

Swedish carbon emissions are down 8% ON 1990 LEVELS.

Did you get that? DOWN 8% ON 1990 LEVELS.

the Swedish economy has also grown nearly 50% during this period.

Why do you believe that a carbon price and emission trading scheme will destroy your beloved socialist corporate welfare economic insanity?

You have a lot to answer for batman

The argument I have against that, is that some countries are doing very well both in terms of wealth and the use of renewable technology. You cited Sweden as an example.  Sweden is a very good example  (and I'm sure that you appreciate their past reliance on nuclear fission that helped them along that road)

Premise # 1.Nobody wants to be poor.

I think that's the main stumbling block that leads to all these meticulously constructed arguments  that, although patently false and mind-numbingly superficial, are aimed at dismantling any attempt to divert from the status quo of financial growth.

In the same way, salmon will always swim upstream to spawn regardless of the fact that they will die in the process.

If we have any chance of transitioning to renewable technology, it must preserve wealth. Is renewable technology compatible with wealth and financial growth?

Of course it is, but as long as we have the deep greens who'd rather weave (and smoke) hemp and sing Kumbaya, then there will remain an obstacle to that goal. Those people are the biggest single obstacle to the continuation of civilisation, and they are every bit as bad as denialists, if not worse. 

Our best chance of survival is to create wealth while pursuing clean technology.  - and guess what? I like having the benefits of a market economy. I like technology.

This is where I differ with many posters, but I think that the key to success is environmental capitalism, where capitalism is just an extension of natural processes.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:


You bet your inflated red arse it is............?????



Quote:


Have a look here banana breath............!!!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379999189/0

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:03am:


The answer you're looking for, is YES and it is a logical answer, for various reasons!

That said, let's change the question a little and ask -
"is it likely that Climate Change is Real and that on the balance of probabilities, humanity has impacted & continues to impact on the directions of that Changing Climate?

And again, the logical answer is YES!
 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 6:24pm:


It's close enough if you exclude CO2 from land use changes.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:


Roughly 30% to date, or 167 GtC.

muso wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 7:29am:

If we have any chance of transitioning to renewable technology, it must preserve wealth. Is renewable technology compatible with wealth and financial growth?

I agree: so at some point we have to ask what wealth is, surely?!!?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 6:44pm:


Astute. Is this what you mean?

Quote:


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

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 9:41am:




The IPCC is NOT on the side of BIG Oil, because BIG Oil and the other Fossil Fuels, are where a large % of the CO2 impacting Climate Change, comes from!

BIG Oil & the IPCC are at opposing ends of the spectrum and as I have already said, if you think otherwise, then your logic is Batty!

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 12:39pm:


Why?

Ajax wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:


The main reason for the higher Prices, IS CALLED SCARCITY!

That said, why would BIG Oil want to take action on anthropogenic Co2 emissions, IF co2 EMISSIONS ARE NOT A PROBLEM?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

Really? And, what urgent action/s have they taken?

Really? Even those on "Hopium" in the fossil Fuel camp have said we have probably already used between 33%-50% of all the likely extractable Oil and that, together with "exponential Economic Growth optimists" are the main reasons for Oil Price increases of 1,000% plus, since around the end of the last century.
Supply & Demand, those are the 2 Economic basics!

Oh and Coal & Gas are not far behind! 

I think it comes down to coming to grips with the reality of the situation. Denial is not a useful corporate strategy.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 3:28pm:

I find the words in red interesting: where did you get this from may I ask???