The effects of climate policies

Interesting chart. Unfortunately it omits the other part of the equation:

We are a species for which there seems to be no upper limit. As soon as we find a way to conserve a natural resource we find another way to use more of it, ad infinitum. We are the tragedy of the commons. When there is enough wealth to give a good life to every human on the planet we elect to build mega-yachts for a few and consign others to live under bridges. 640k of ram is not enough, we must have 8M. And 8M is not enough so now we have 256M, with a terabyte hard drive on the desk to preserve every receipt and out of focus photo we’ve ever taken.

If we have 40 amps of service in the house we need 100; when we get 100 we need 400. Everyone must have their own swimming pool and we must burn energy to heat it to our liking. One car is surely not sufficient, we need two, sometime three in every household, and even when more efficient public transport is at our doorstep we eschew it in favor of four wheels per person instead of 10 people per wheel.

We will not stop until we are stopped, and in a past historical era that might have meant by being conquered by other humans with superior weapons, I am quite sure that now it means being stopped by planetary forces we are capable of, but unwilling to consider. Malthus was wrong as to the mechanism, but right as to the conclusion, it’s just a matter of time, and will. And we do not have the will, and so it is that Time will win, it’s just a matter of when.

Pessimist? Me? Nah, I’m beyond that, all the way to full blown misanthropic, defeated nihilist.

Have a nice weekend.

4 Likes

The Captain

2 Likes

Somebody else actually gets it! Welcome aboard.

JimA

3 Likes

Humans innovate. Always have, always will find a way.

Bezos in an interview with Lex said that we will have Trillions of humans in the universe.

Thanks for the Carlin!~!~! Made my day.

JimA

1 Like

My pleasure!

The Captain

1 Like

Then why are you advocating improved medical services and public health?

No their conclusion is as follow:

6. Conclusion

This paper contributes to the on-going debate on the feasibility of rapid energy transitions to mitigate climate change. Our focus is to examine whether and how climate policies have so far altered the nature and speed of energy transitions beyond historical trends, and analyse the implications for future transitions. To achieve this, we developed a new approach to systematically categorise, trace, and compare energy transitions across countries and time-periods. We applied this approach to analyse the historical electricity transitions in the G7 countries and the EU where the majority of climate policies has been introduced. We also compared this historical observation to the required transition to keep the global temperature increase below 1.5°C.

We find that the impacts of climate policies on energy transitions have been limited: while they may have influenced the choice of deployed technologies and thereby affected the type of transitions, they have not accelerated the speed beyond historical trends in the G7 and the EU. Instead, electricity transitions have strongly correlated with the changes in electricity demand throughout the last six decades. The recent growth of low-carbon electricity with modern renewables remains 50% slower as compared to the historically fastest speed achieved in 1980–1985 with nuclear power when climate policies were largely absent. The recent decline of fossil fuels in the G7 and the EU has therefore been facilitated by the overall decrease in electricity demand, enabling the substitution by relatively slowly growing renewables.

Meeting the decarbonised electricity target by 2035 in the G7 and the EU is extremely challenging. It requires to achieve immediate and unprecedented supply-centred transitions, with rates and duration of technological growth and decline that have never been observed simultaneously in history. None of these countries achieved such transitions in 2020–2022; in fact, in most of the G7 countries and the EU, more fossil fuels were added and low-carbon electricity generation stagnated and declined, making the achievement of the target even more difficult. Counteracting this trend and meeting the target, therefore, requires unprecedented and drastically different measures rather than incremental changes including finding and enforcing new mechanisms to develop low-carbon electricity and to facilitate a more rapid and continuous decline of fossil fuels.

There are several limitations to our study, which call for further research. First, it is important to note that the G7 countries and the EU are heavily industrialised economies, which may not necessarily represent energy transitions in other countries. Existing literature, however, debates on whether the rest of the countries, particularly those in the global south, can sufficiently develop without industrialisation and the increased use of fossil fuels [58,61]. Therefore, more research is necessary to investigate the similarities and differences in their development trajectories and potential future paths, and the role of policies in them.

Second, while we do not find evidence that the increased number of climate policies has correlated with faster or radically different energy transitions, this does not mean climate policies did not have effects. It is possible that the effects of climate policies were cancelled out by confounding factors including other policies and non-policy factors. To precisely isolate the effects of climate policies, one would need to either compare situations identical in all aspects except the presence of climate policies (but finding such ideal natural experiments is very difficult) or trace causal mechanisms connecting climate policies to energy transition outcomes. This is an important area for future studies.

As a concrete example for such investigation, while we show that low-carbon electricity grew slower in the recent decades in the G7 and the EU, a more comprehensive analysis is necessary to examine its underlying causes. In particular, it is crucial to investigate why, despite the significant increase in climate policies and substantial cost reductions, modern renewables have not developed faster than nuclear power in the past. Given that only France and Sweden achieved the necessary growth rate of low-carbon electricity through the deployment of nuclear power in the 1970–1980s, it is important to investigate whether and how a similar level of acceleration can be replicated in today’s more liberalised and democratised energy markets. More broadly, the role of democracy in energy transitions requires further scrutiny as its effects are contested in the literature, ranging from slowing down to accelerating sustainable transitions [[88], [89], [90]].

To conclude, climate policies have so far had limited impacts on energy transitions in the G7 and the EU, significantly falling short of the required transition to meet climate targets. Further work is necessary to examine whether this is the case in other countries as well as other sectors. The systematic comparative approach we developed in this paper can be useful for future studies for example to analyse energy transitions in developing countries or to examine the progress of transitions in other sectors such as transport (e.g. e-mobility), buildings (e.g. net-zero buildings), and industry (e.g. low-carbon steel and cement production). This approach also enables identifying historically relevant cases for future transitions, as we demonstrated particularly in Section 4.4. Only through systematic identification and thorough examination of these cases, while exploring ways to replicate and potentially expedite their rate of acceleration, can we address the questions that remain underexplored in the literature: ‘What does it take?’ [31], and ‘How much does it cost?’ [9] to mitigate climate change, including the feasibility and desirability of these actions.

3 Likes

As quoted in the OP:

“We find that climate policies have so far had limited impacts: while they may have influenced the choice of deployed technologies and the type of transitions, they have not accelerated the growth of low-carbon technologies or hastened the decline of fossil fuels .”

Seems pretty clear.

DB2

This is a limited study and analysis and only applies to G7 and EU countries for electrical generation. It leaves out the major low carbon electrical generation develpment of China- ignoring how rapidly China develped hydropower, wind power, solar power and nuclear power. It does not deal with transportation and other non-electrical generation carbon energy.

2 Likes

It is not just a disagreement. They are wasting space. You can not paper over BSing just claiming you have a college degree or advanced degree. Crap is crap.

It takes a special kind of special to have something like $500k in education and only BS.

1 Like

What it truly is ignoring is the recent history of renewables becoming economical. The paper is treating a long history prior to economic viability which is recent as one thing going forward. As if the dent in CO2 production is on a flat line when in fact the change over to renewables will continue to accelerate.

The paper does not discuss deflationary energy policies. It is a waste of time. A form of ignorance.

Granted I have not wasted reading the study because it is long winded. I am sure every thing is hedged including economic viability. It is being used in this thread to spread garbage. The study is open to that because the wrong conclusion is presented. The ongoing deflationary forces in renewables is the only conclusion that should matter. The authors came up with words to nowhere as a conclusion.

And in New Zealand they have discovered that there are other policies that need money.

The budget prioritizes spending on law and order, education, and health, with no significant new investments in climate-related projects.

DB2

1 Like

What??!!. Spending money on education and health, instead of tax cuts for the “JCs”? Clearly the Kiwis are a bunch of Commies!!!
/sarcasm

Steve

2 Likes

Meanwhile right wing candidates won in EU elections this weekend in France , Germany, and Italy. Anti-immigration, anti-inflation, anti-climate change. Support for Ukraine? Implications for the US?

They will run a trade imbalance with the US and Mexico that favors us.

1 Like

They won more seats, but they are not in control of the EU or France, Germany and Italy. The EU is still firmly behind support for Ukraine, the US and climate change.

1 Like

I think this is mostly about immigration and the fear of losing one’s “culture”. I think it is time for the Center and Left to acquiesce on the issue and substantially curb immigration. If my understanding of the European and US economies are right, then it won’t be long for businesses to see labor shortages and begin clamoring for immigrants.

Let the business sector confront the right-wing.

2 Likes

Hence, the push to increase use of child labor. I hear the narrative all the time “learn the dignity of work”.

Steve