Posts Tagged ‘climate change’
“It always seems impossible until it is done”*…
Adam Tooze unpacks a recent report from the clean energy think tank Ember— one that heralded a profoundly important historical turning point…
Electrification is key to the new energy system that is being built around the world. Electricity generation is one process we do know how to decarbonize. With concerted action, net neutrality is within reach in electric power generation for OECD countries by the 2030s and for the whole world by 2045. Furthermore, as Ember points out, electrification will replace “fossil fuel burning that currently takes place in car and bus engines, boilers, furnaces and other applications.”
Green electrification is the key to the future. And in 2023, according to Ember’s report, almost the entirety of new power demand was covered by growth in renewables, above all solar. Though there was growth in demand for electricity around the world, fossil fuel generation barely increased. Growth in solar and wind alone were sufficient to cover 82 percent of new electricity demand.
This is not new in rich countries. In the OECD demand growth for electricity is not strong or is even negative and renewable investment has been ongoing for two decades. The sensation is that this is now happening at the global level where the growth in demand for electric power is relentless.
In 2024 Ember expects the trend to be even more pronounced. This year, for the first time there will be substantial growth in global demand for electricity, whilst fossil fuel generation will likely fall…
… There is an obfuscation involved in talking about “the global” when, in fact, there is one country that dominates the entire dynamic of the energy transition: China.
As Ember’s data show: “China remained the main engine of global electricity demand growth. China’s rapid growth (+606 TWh, +6.9%) was just 21 TWh lower than the net global increase. India’s growth (+99 TWh, +5.4%) was the next largest contributor.”
Until the 2010s China fed its voracious demand for new power with coal-fired power stations. The energy transition in the advanced economies was never going to be sufficient to offset this. Of course, the renewable energy transition in the West was also painfully slow. But even if the USA and the EU had taken more drastic action, China’s growth was simply too large and too dirty. The fact that we are now reaching a turning point in the balance between fossil and clean power generation is due to a turning point in China: a huge surge in renewable energy investment.
In 2023 China alone accounted for more than half of the new global additions in wind and solar…
Measured in terms of power consumed China’s electrification of road transport is 3.5 times larger than that of the entire rest of the world. That is the EV revolution that the West is so worried about….
It is also the largest heat pump market in the world with more installations per year than any other country. Electrolysers, used mostly in demonstration plants by chemical and petrochemical companies, have also grown faster in China than the rest of the world. As a result, China accounted for 50% of global electrolyser capacity in 2023…
But as Ember notes, this process of applying electricity to new uses, is only at the beginning.
“Even in China, electrification is still in its infancy. Only a fifth of China’s electricity demand growth in 2023 (124 TWh of 606 TWh) was from the three electrification technologies, but this share will rise in time. These technologies added 1.4% to China’s electricity demand in 2023, up from 1.1% in 2022. Meanwhile in the rest of the world, electrification added 0.25% to electricity demand in 2022 and 0.28% in 2023. As China further accelerates the deployment of key electrification technologies and the world continues to catch up, the contribution of electrification will expand even further.“
At COP28 in 2023 many countries around the world committed to tripling global renewable electricity capacity by 2030. This has the potential to almost halve power sector emissions by 2030, as coal-fired power generation will be replaced first. Furthermore, it will provide enough new electricity to replace drive forward the electrification of transport, home and industrial heating with a 32 percent increase in electricity demand.
Having shattered all previous experience of renewable power rollout, China’s huge surge in solar now actually puts us within striking distance of achieving a net zero path, driven by green electric power…
What we are witnessing is the most rapid take-up of a significant energy technology in history.
The response of Western politicians? Protectionism. Of course there are complex motives. They need to build coalitions to sustain the energy transition. They are worried about the CCP regime in China. They want to escape extreme dependence on imported sources of energy (though of course in the renewable space it is capital equipment not energy they are importing). But the more basic question is simply this. Are Western government and societies willing to prioritize the energy transition if it is not their drama, not their success story? Or, if the PV panels and the electric vehicles are from China, do other interests take priority?
In the European case one can see a compromise based on a balance between domestic and Chinese-sourced energy transition solutions. As Martin Sandbu has remarked there is at least the possibility of a grand bargain. In the case of the United States it seems increasingly clear that the energy transition as such is a second order concern, and geopolitical confrontation and the struggle to form domestic coalitions take precedence. That is depressing. And it matters. But, as Ember’s data make clear, it is far from being a decisive obstacle. The global energy transition will go on anyway…
“The beginning of a new era: How the ‘global’ energy transition is happening in China,” from @adam_tooze and @EmberClimate. Eminently worth reading in full (both Tooze’s summary and the Ember report).
Apposite (and divergent, though not opposite, from Tooze): “The climate case for Biden’s new China tariffs,” from @timmcdonnell in @semafor.
And this: “We might be closer to changing course on climate change than we realized,” from @voxdotcom.
* Nelson Mandela
###
As we find solace where we can, we might spare a thought for Joseph Wood Krutch; he died on this date in 1970. An author, critic, and naturalist, he began his career in New York City, where he was a professor at Columbia and theater critic for The Nation, and where he wrote The Modern Temper (challenging the then-fashionable notions of scientific progress and optimism), biographies of Samuel Johnson and Henry David Thoreau, and (inspired by Thoreau) The Twelve Seasons, Krutch’s first nature book.
In 1952, on doctor’s orders, Krutch left the East for Tucson and the Sonoran Desert, where he began writing about ecology, the southwestern desert environment, and the natural history of the Grand Canyon. He won renown as a naturalist, nature writer, and an early conservationist for works like The Voice of the Desert and The Desert Year, arguing that human beings must move beyond purely human centered conceptions of “conservation” and learn to value nature for its own sake.
“Biodiversity is our most valuable but least appreciated resource”*…
As Chris Armstrong reminds us, the environment is about so much more than climate…
Later this month [May 22] it will be World Biodiversity Day, and we will again celebrate the remarkable contributions that biodiversity makes to the resilience and productivity of the earth’s ecosystems. But it will also be a fitting time to face the continued failure of our institutions to grasp the scale of biodiversity loss. Or, if not to grasp it, to respond in any way adequately.
The figures speak for themselves. Since 1992, the Convention on Biological Diversity has been charged with agreeing global targets for biodiversity conservation. The Aichi Biodiversity Targets for 2011-2020, for instance, aimed to halve the rate of habitat loss, protect 17% of terrestrial ecosystems, and much else besides.
None of those targets were met. In response, the Kunming-Montreal Agreement recently agreed to protect 30% of ecosystems by 2030, to restore 30% of degraded ecosystems, and so on and so on and so on. On current projections, these targets are going to be missed too, by some distance. Like Canute ordering the tides to stop, it turns out that setting targets, by itself, achieves nothing.
So why has the biodiversity governance regime failed so spectacularly?…
Read on learn: “Why has global biodiversity governance failed so badly?” from @crookedtimber.
(Image above: source)
###
As we value variety, we might recall that it was on this date in 1908 that President Theodore Roosevelt convened a three-day Conference of Governors. Largely driven by U.S. Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot, the gathering was focused on the problems of conservation. The Conference was a seminal event in the history of “conservationism,” most fundamentally in drawing public attention to the issue in a highly visible way. More concretely, there were two outgrowths of the Conference: the National Conservation Commission, (which Roosevelt and Pinchot set up with representatives from the states and Federal agencies, and which prepared the first inventory of the natural resources of the United States), and the first National Conservation Congress, which Pinchot led as an assembly of private conservation interests. Not long after, annual governors’ conferences became a regular event, and 38 state conservation commissions were created.
“Food is simply sunlight in cold storage”*…
Increasingly, as Patrick Sisson explains, that’s literally true…
If you had to identify a specific type of real estate that has seen its value increase because of changing consumer eating habits, global demographic shifts, worldwide pandemic preparedness, and US export policy — while its importance to reducing global carbon emissions and adapting to climate change rise in tandem — refrigerated warehouses may not be your first pick.
But there’s a strong case to be made that the expansion and evolution of the cold-storage industry — often called the “cold chain” — will play a significant role in energy, environmental, and economic news in the 21st century. Cold storage facilities aren’t fun places to visit; some are kept so frigid, at minus 50 degrees Fahrenheit, that the workers who toil in these windowless spaces rotate in 15-minute shifts, despite their heavy protective gear…
… refrigerated warehouses are great to build and own. Investors and developers expect 8 to 10% annual growth in this specialized real estate, according to Adam Thocher, SVP of Global Programs and Insights at the Global Cold Chain Alliance (GCCA). That’s made it a profitable real-estate niche…
The ability to more easily cool and freeze food for storage, preparation, and distribution has revolutionized grocery shelves, home cooking, and restaurants for decades, and will continue to do so for years because it taps into every trend all at once. Growing fast-casual restaurant chains, last-mile delivery, a surging global middle class seeking more protein, and the explosion in healthy, organic produce and industrialized frozen food, all need cold storage…
The pandemic accelerated these trends, spiking frozen-food sales in the US to over $74 billion in 2023, a $10 billion increase in just three years, and leading to a wave of refrigerator purchases by Chinese consumers. The need to refrigerate Covid vaccines underscored how important these sites are to global health. Even Ozempic and similar blockbuster anti-obesity drugs need to be stored at 46 degrees F. And the rest of the world is increasingly asking why, if you can always get a Granny Smith apple in New York, can’t you get one in Beijing or London?…
The GCCA estimates there is at least 7.4 billion cubic feet of cold storage worldwide, and 3.7 billion in the US alone, but that’s a vast understatement, Thocher said. The alliance only looks at partial data from 92 countries (not including China) and governments tend to be cagey about sharing his kind of data because of economic and food-security concerns, since these sites are crucial parts of food infrastructure and can reveal levels of economic activity…
Food security has become a global challenge with a growing population, Peters said, especially since roughly 30% of global food production is lost, making increasing supply and reducing food waste imperative. That’s extremely tricky when the critical loss of arable land and desertification, due to climate change, strengthens the case for cold-storage warehouses, which, because of their vast energy use, contribute to that very problem. A 2023 Columbia University study found the sector responsible for 3.5% of total global emissions. The cold-storage industry has responded with more energy-efficient designs and less harmful ammonia-based refrigerants, but it adds an additional challenge to efforts to ramp up sustainable energy production.
“This is a real system-level challenge, a wicked problem,” [Toby Peters, professor of the cold economy at the UK’s Birmingham Energy Institute] said. “My exam question is, how do we feed 9 billion people while economically empowering 400 million small farmers, all without using diesel?”…
Diets, demographics, desertification are all fueling “The Hot Business of Cold Storage,” by @patrickcsisson in @sherwood_news.
* John Harvey Kellogg
###
As we chill, we might recall that it was on this date in 1903 that Carl von Linde received two U.S. patents for his Linde oxygen process and associated equipment (Nos. 728,173 and 727,650). Linde had already invented the first industrial-scale air separation and gas liquefaction processes, which led to the first reliable and efficient compressed-ammonia refrigerator (in 1876).
In 1901, Linde had began work on a technique to obtain pure oxygen and nitrogen based on the fractional distillation of liquefied air. His 1903 patents were steps in that direction.
Linde founded a company to commercialize access to these pure gases. Now known as Linde plc (but formerly known variously as the Linde division of Union Carbide, Linde, Linde Air Products, and Praxair), it has become the world’s largest producer of industrial gases– and ushered in the creation of the global supply chain for industrial gases that serves the global cold chain.
“I’m having a magenta day. Not just red, but magenta!”*…
Your correspondent is still on the road; regular service resumes on or around May 6. Meantime, a colorful update…
Forget about red hot. A new color-coded heat warning system relies on magenta to alert Americans to the most dangerous conditions they may see this summer.
The National Weather Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Monday — Earth Day — presented a new online heat risk system that combines meteorological and medical risk factors with a seven-day forecast that’s simplified and color-coded for a warming world of worsening heat waves.
“For the first time we’ll be able to know how hot is too hot for health and not just for today but for coming weeks,” Dr. Ari Bernstein, director of the National Center for Environmental Health, said at a joint news conference by government health and weather agencies.
Magenta is the worst and deadliest of five heat threat categories, hitting everybody with what the agencies are calling “rare and/or long-duration extreme heat with little to no overnight relief.” It’s a step higher than red, considered a major risk, which hurts anyone without adequate cooling and hydration and has impacts reverberating through the health care system and some industries. Red is used when a day falls within the top 5% hottest in a particular location for a particular date; when other factors come into play, the alert level may bump even higher to magenta, weather service officials said.
On the other hand, pale green is little to no risk. Yellow is minor risk, mostly to the very young, old, sick and pregnant. Orange is moderate risk, mostly hurting people who are sensitive to heat, especially those without cooling, such as the homeless.
“When red-hot isn’t enough: New government heat risk tool sets magenta as most dangerous level,” from @AP.
* Stephen King, Needful Things
###
As we reassess risk, we might recall that it was on this date in 1986 that Russia announced the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, two days after it happened.
“The American really loves nothing but his automobile”*…
FT correspondent John Burn-Murdoch on America’s infatuation with large personal vehicles, and its consequences…
For all the grim tales of guns and opioids, the thing that really hits you as a visitor to the US these days is the cars. Literally, for too many people. In 2021, road fatalities were the second leading cause of death among Americans aged under 45, ahead of Covid-19, suicides and gun violence.
On a visit to the US last month, three things made a strong impression: the sheer size of the cars; the relative lack of electric models with their characteristic hum; and speed limits that seem entirely optional. All, I think, stem from the same underlying tendency: to see driving as an expression of personal freedom.
To an extent, a similar dynamic plays out the world over. Just look at the furor that has accompanied recent schemes to curb residential traffic in the UK. But, when it comes to vehicles, the US really is exceptional.
The average new American car purchased in 2021 weighed 1.94 tonnes, fully half a tonne more than the European average. Purchases of SUVs and “light” trucks together now account for four out of every five new vehicles bought in the US, up from one in five 50 years ago…
… This would all be a mere curiosity except that these vehicles have a variety of lethal qualities. As American cars have bulked up, the number of fatalities for the drivers and passengers inside these rolling fortresses has fallen by 22 per cent. But the number of pedestrians killed has risen by 57 per cent. According to an estimate by Justin Tyndall, assistant professor of economics at the University of Hawaii, the lives of 8,000 pedestrians could have been saved between 2000 and 2018 if Americans had stuck to smaller vehicles.
For many inside the cars, too, the association of individualism with driving proves lethal. Almost one in 10 drivers and passengers in the front seat of US cars do not wear a seatbelt, and 45 per cent say they often drive at least 15 miles per hour above the speed limit on motorways. In the UK, both measures are way lower, at 3 per cent.
The grim result is that half of the car occupants killed in the US in 2020 were not wearing seatbelts vs 23 per cent in the UK. Speeding is implicated in 30 per cent of fatal crashes in the US but just half of that in Britain. All told, 43,000 people died on America’s roads in 2021, the highest mortality rate in the developed world by some margin. By my calculations, a fifth of those could be averted every year if rates of speeding and seatbelt-wearing matched peer countries.
Finally, there’s the environmental impact. Less than 5 per cent of new US cars last year were either partly or fully electric, compared with 17 per cent in Europe (rising to 86 per cent in Norway). As a result, the average new US car emits twice as much carbon dioxide per mile as its European counterpart, all while carrying the same number of occupants as in the UK — 1.5 people per trip, weighted for distance driven…
When bigger isn’t better: “America’s obsession with big cars has fatal consequences” (gift article), from @jburnmurdoch in @FT.
See item #2 in this post from @Noahpinion for a gentle critique of Burn-Murdoch’s charts, resulting in a (slightly) more positive take on U.S. road safety… though it seems to your correspondent that Burn-Murdoch’s fundamental point still hold.
* William Faulkner, Intruder in the Dust
###
As we scale back, we might recall that it was on this date in 1986 that President Ronald Reagan issued Proclamation 5457, designating 1986 the Centennial Year of the Gasoline Powered Automobile.
You must be logged in to post a comment.