Looking at exactly the same numbers, it is fascinating, how we interpret them almost completely differently.
I view change in our energy mix in the context of an almost universal acceptance of a targeted net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 - this includes our Liberal Party (see:
https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan/environment) and even the more conservative Australian National Party (see:
https://nationals.org.au/supporting-regional-australia/).
Now why would the world be committed to reaching net zero by 2050, if not for the obvious reason of man made climate change?
Well yes, then there are the conspiracy theories from the lunatic fringe that this target is driven only by eco-nazis, China, George Soros and/or group-think.
It takes a special kind of stupid - in 2024 - to keep bashing your head against scientific consensus that the climate change we are witnessing is not man made. I actually had a climate change denier friend of mine last year point out how rather than sea surface temperatures, it is temperature measurements from the lower troposphere that are a more accurate reflection of global temperatures. He pointed to this chart from
UAH:
Being a climate change denier still stuck on the first stage of denial, he argued that this chart does not show a warming trend. He cherry-picked small time intervals to suit his argument. Same facts - just different interpretation.
Madam, your above arguments about there being no scientific proof about climate change being caused by man made activity reminded me of this old joke:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25855366
You are technically correct about - in an ideal world - holding all but one variable constant to obtain scientific proof. However, you are wrong about using this as an excuse to dismiss decades of careful scientific analysis which has examined many other variables that influence Earth's climate. It is after trying to consider all of these other variables that climate scientists have come to the conclusion that the most likely driver of the increasing temperatures that we are witnessing is indeed the burning of fossil fuels. You try to obfuscate by pointing to other potential factors driving climate change - as if you are the only person who can think of these.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that global weather patterns we have been witnessing aver the last 18 months are definitive proof of man made climate change. However, the last 18 months have provided us with yet another wake-up call, as they show what a world with just 1.5 degree above recent historic temperature looks like. Flash flooding, landslides, wildfires, multiple repeat crop failures around the world and drought - all happening at increased frequency, sometimes simultaneously, all around the globe. I also believe that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that man made climate change is steering us towards these higher temperatures.
A risk not worth taking!!!
I am not sure which "magic pudding promise" renewable energy sources are not living up to in your opinion, but from where I stand, they continue to become better and cheaper and for this reason renewable energy sources represent an ever increasing percentage of new generation capacity that is being installed.
Case in point, over the three years that have passed since you started this thread, global oil demand has risen from 96.6 m bbl/day to 103.9m bbl/day today (so by 7.5%... and that's with much of the global economy basically flat-lining in 2023), and is predicted by OPEC to reach 106 m bbl/day by then end of 2025.
You conveniently fail to mention that over these three years, demand had initially dropped due to COVID and then recovered, which somewhat distorts the picture. However, put that aside. Without ANY renewable energy, oil demand would have risen even more, so renewables - still coming off a low base - thankfully have slowed oil demand growth. I fail to see the point you are trying to make. Renewable generation capacity continues to be installed at a rapid rate, which - given they are coming off a low base - at this stage is only slowing fossil fuel demand. Yes, developing nations are on your oft mentioned S-curve of growth - imagine what man-made climate change would look like without any renewable energy being installed.
However, what really matters - irrespective of COVID, the war in Ukraine, the S-curve of energy demand that developing nations are on and hence the growth in fossil fuel demand, - is whether or not we are able to steer towards net zero by 2050. Because if we do not, then help us God!
That the EV cheerleaders and their ilk, thinking that EVs are going to be some kind of panacea, have failed to understand is how developmental economics works and how energy consumption rises exponentially during the part of the economic development S-curve passes between US$10,0000 to $25,0000 national income per capita.
I do not know which EV cheerleaders exactly you are referring to. Speaking only for myself, I believe I have made it quite clear on this thread that I see EVs as a stepping stone rather than the ultimate destination in terms fo achieving sustainable transportation. We are in the very early product development iterations for EVs. Battery technology is effectively in its infancy, with new battery chemistry still under early stage development. Battery recycling almost has not even begun, as EV batteries are still mostly in the vehicles on the road rather than junk yards. Again, I believe the materials in current batteries are too valuable to merely dump them in landfill at the end of their lives.
Also, the entire ethos of moving to EVs is driven by the aim of achieving sustainability. Hence EV manufacturers are applying this concern about sustainability across not only their supply chain but across the entire life-cycle of their products. Just look at how many lithium miners aim to have their energy needs met by renewable energy, when only a few years ago, they were still happy to only install diesel generators on their mining sites - because the EV manufacturers do not want to source high emission intensity product from their suppliers.
Looking to 2050, there will not be ICE cars on the roads.
As for your S-curve comment. You assume we do not understand, but people do. The 2050 net zero target accounts for this expansion of energy consumption in the developing world. However, this also makes it all the more urgent to push renewable energy and sustainable EV solutions in the developed world, so that developing nations do not have to lock-in obsolete transmission infrastructure and decades of emissions with every new coal power station they construct, but rather start building future ready transmission grids from scratch and distributed renewable energy distribution which will be required by 2050.
Several several billions of the planet's inhabitants are currently just entering that zone.
Yes, I agree, several several billions of people do - making it all the more urgent to push down the path of the transition to sustainable energy and transportation, rather than wasting time with pyrrhic arguments about man-made climate change.
Finally, I am sorry, but if ever there was anyone that I have ever met, to whom the catch-all slur "
climate change denier" most aptly applies Madam, then it is you. That is even without adding "man made", as that is implied.
By the way, as a little fun fact, I recently read that there will never be scientific proof of the effects of nano plastic particles on the brain, as - at least on this planet - there are no control specimens left that do not have plastic free brains. In other words, on all the far ends of the Earth, there is no control group to observe that has not already been contaminated with micro and nano-plastic particles in their brains to study the potentially detrimental impact of having plastics in our brains.
This should give pause to anyone who waxes lyrically about the ubiquitous nature and usefulness of plastics in our daily lives.
