Tag Archives: energy

World Bank to focus on ‘all forms of renewable energy’ Updated for 2026





The World Bank will invest heavily in clean energy and only fund coal projects in “circumstances of extreme need” because climate change will undermine efforts to eliminate extreme poverty, says its president Jim Yong Kim.

Talking ahead of a UN climate summit in Peru next month, Kim said he was alarmed by World Bank-commissioned research from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, which said that as a result of past greenhouse gas emissions the world is condemned to unprecedented weather events.

“The findings are alarming. As the planet warms further, heatwaves and other weather extremes, which today we call once­-in­-a-century events, would become the new climate normal, a frightening world of increased risk and instability.

“The consequences for development would be severe, as crop yields decline, water resources shift, communicable diseases move into new geographical ranges, and sea levels rise.”

“We know that the dramatic weather extremes are already affecting millions of people, such as the five to six feet of snow that just fell on Buffalo, and can throw our lives into disarray or worse.

“Even with ambitious mitigation, warming close to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is locked in. And this means that climate change impact such as extreme heat events may now be simply unavoidable.”

‘Only in extreme need will we do coal again’

But the Bank, which has traditionally been one of the world’s largest funders of fossil fuel projects and has been accused of adding to the problem of climate change, said it could not ignore the poorest countries’ need for power.

“We are going to have to focus all of our energy to move toward renewable and cleaner forms of energy”, said Kim.

“But on the other hand we believe very strongly that the poorest countries have a right to energy and that we not ask these energy ­poor countries to wait until there are ways of ensuring that solar and wind power can provide the kind of base load that all countries need in order to industrialise.

“The stakes have never been higher. We cannot continue down the current path of unchecked growing emissions. The case for taking action now on climate change is overwhelming, and the cost of inaction will only rise.”

Kim was backed by Rachel Kyte, World Bank group vice president and special envoy for climate change. “It will only be in circumstances of extreme need that we would contemplate doing coal again”, she said.

“We would only contemplate doing [it] in the poorest of countries where their energy transition as part of their low-carbon development plan means that there are no other base load power sources available at a reasonable price.”

“The focus is on being able to ramp up our lending and the leveraging of our lending into all forms of renewable energy. That’s the strategy. It includes everything from all sizes of hydro through to wind, to solar, to concentrated solar, to geothermal. I think we’re invested in every dimension of renewable energy. That is what we’re concentrating on.”

Now, what about oil, gas and other fossil fuels

The bank’s report showed that with a 2C warming, soya and wheat crop yields in Brazil could decrease 50-70%: “In the Middle east and north Africa, a large increase in heatwaves combined with warmer average temperatures will put intense pressure on already scarce water resources with major consequences for food security.

“Crop yields could decrease by up to 30% at 1.5-2C and by almost 60% at 3-4C. Pressure on resources might increase the risk of conflict.”

Climate change posed a substantial risk to development and cutting poverty, the report said, adding that action on emissions need not come at the expense of economic growth.

But the bank made no commitment to cut funding for oil or other fossil fuel exploration. Analysis earlier this year by Washington-based NGO Oil Change International showed that the bank had funded $21bn (£13bn) of fossil fuel projects since 2008, including $1bn of oil and other fossil fuel exploration in 2013.

“The bank has taken an important first step in essentially stopping its support for coal-fired power plants, but climate change is caused by more than just coal”, said Stephen Kretzmann, director of Oil Change International.

“The vast majority of currently proven fossil fuel reserves will need to be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, but last year the bank provided nearly $1bn in support for finding more of these unburnable carbon reserves.”

 


 

John Vidal is Environment Editor for the Guardian.

This article was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced with thanks via The Guardian Environment Network.

 

 




387301

World Bank to focus on ‘all forms of renewable energy’ Updated for 2026





The World Bank will invest heavily in clean energy and only fund coal projects in “circumstances of extreme need” because climate change will undermine efforts to eliminate extreme poverty, says its president Jim Yong Kim.

Talking ahead of a UN climate summit in Peru next month, Kim said he was alarmed by World Bank-commissioned research from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, which said that as a result of past greenhouse gas emissions the world is condemned to unprecedented weather events.

“The findings are alarming. As the planet warms further, heatwaves and other weather extremes, which today we call once­-in­-a-century events, would become the new climate normal, a frightening world of increased risk and instability.

“The consequences for development would be severe, as crop yields decline, water resources shift, communicable diseases move into new geographical ranges, and sea levels rise.”

“We know that the dramatic weather extremes are already affecting millions of people, such as the five to six feet of snow that just fell on Buffalo, and can throw our lives into disarray or worse.

“Even with ambitious mitigation, warming close to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is locked in. And this means that climate change impact such as extreme heat events may now be simply unavoidable.”

‘Only in extreme need will we do coal again’

But the Bank, which has traditionally been one of the world’s largest funders of fossil fuel projects and has been accused of adding to the problem of climate change, said it could not ignore the poorest countries’ need for power.

“We are going to have to focus all of our energy to move toward renewable and cleaner forms of energy”, said Kim.

“But on the other hand we believe very strongly that the poorest countries have a right to energy and that we not ask these energy ­poor countries to wait until there are ways of ensuring that solar and wind power can provide the kind of base load that all countries need in order to industrialise.

“The stakes have never been higher. We cannot continue down the current path of unchecked growing emissions. The case for taking action now on climate change is overwhelming, and the cost of inaction will only rise.”

Kim was backed by Rachel Kyte, World Bank group vice president and special envoy for climate change. “It will only be in circumstances of extreme need that we would contemplate doing coal again”, she said.

“We would only contemplate doing [it] in the poorest of countries where their energy transition as part of their low-carbon development plan means that there are no other base load power sources available at a reasonable price.”

“The focus is on being able to ramp up our lending and the leveraging of our lending into all forms of renewable energy. That’s the strategy. It includes everything from all sizes of hydro through to wind, to solar, to concentrated solar, to geothermal. I think we’re invested in every dimension of renewable energy. That is what we’re concentrating on.”

Now, what about oil, gas and other fossil fuels

The bank’s report showed that with a 2C warming, soya and wheat crop yields in Brazil could decrease 50-70%: “In the Middle east and north Africa, a large increase in heatwaves combined with warmer average temperatures will put intense pressure on already scarce water resources with major consequences for food security.

“Crop yields could decrease by up to 30% at 1.5-2C and by almost 60% at 3-4C. Pressure on resources might increase the risk of conflict.”

Climate change posed a substantial risk to development and cutting poverty, the report said, adding that action on emissions need not come at the expense of economic growth.

But the bank made no commitment to cut funding for oil or other fossil fuel exploration. Analysis earlier this year by Washington-based NGO Oil Change International showed that the bank had funded $21bn (£13bn) of fossil fuel projects since 2008, including $1bn of oil and other fossil fuel exploration in 2013.

“The bank has taken an important first step in essentially stopping its support for coal-fired power plants, but climate change is caused by more than just coal”, said Stephen Kretzmann, director of Oil Change International.

“The vast majority of currently proven fossil fuel reserves will need to be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, but last year the bank provided nearly $1bn in support for finding more of these unburnable carbon reserves.”

 


 

John Vidal is Environment Editor for the Guardian.

This article was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced with thanks via The Guardian Environment Network.

 

 




387301

World Bank to focus on ‘all forms of renewable energy’ Updated for 2026





The World Bank will invest heavily in clean energy and only fund coal projects in “circumstances of extreme need” because climate change will undermine efforts to eliminate extreme poverty, says its president Jim Yong Kim.

Talking ahead of a UN climate summit in Peru next month, Kim said he was alarmed by World Bank-commissioned research from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, which said that as a result of past greenhouse gas emissions the world is condemned to unprecedented weather events.

“The findings are alarming. As the planet warms further, heatwaves and other weather extremes, which today we call once­-in­-a-century events, would become the new climate normal, a frightening world of increased risk and instability.

“The consequences for development would be severe, as crop yields decline, water resources shift, communicable diseases move into new geographical ranges, and sea levels rise.”

“We know that the dramatic weather extremes are already affecting millions of people, such as the five to six feet of snow that just fell on Buffalo, and can throw our lives into disarray or worse.

“Even with ambitious mitigation, warming close to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is locked in. And this means that climate change impact such as extreme heat events may now be simply unavoidable.”

‘Only in extreme need will we do coal again’

But the Bank, which has traditionally been one of the world’s largest funders of fossil fuel projects and has been accused of adding to the problem of climate change, said it could not ignore the poorest countries’ need for power.

“We are going to have to focus all of our energy to move toward renewable and cleaner forms of energy”, said Kim.

“But on the other hand we believe very strongly that the poorest countries have a right to energy and that we not ask these energy ­poor countries to wait until there are ways of ensuring that solar and wind power can provide the kind of base load that all countries need in order to industrialise.

“The stakes have never been higher. We cannot continue down the current path of unchecked growing emissions. The case for taking action now on climate change is overwhelming, and the cost of inaction will only rise.”

Kim was backed by Rachel Kyte, World Bank group vice president and special envoy for climate change. “It will only be in circumstances of extreme need that we would contemplate doing coal again”, she said.

“We would only contemplate doing [it] in the poorest of countries where their energy transition as part of their low-carbon development plan means that there are no other base load power sources available at a reasonable price.”

“The focus is on being able to ramp up our lending and the leveraging of our lending into all forms of renewable energy. That’s the strategy. It includes everything from all sizes of hydro through to wind, to solar, to concentrated solar, to geothermal. I think we’re invested in every dimension of renewable energy. That is what we’re concentrating on.”

Now, what about oil, gas and other fossil fuels

The bank’s report showed that with a 2C warming, soya and wheat crop yields in Brazil could decrease 50-70%: “In the Middle east and north Africa, a large increase in heatwaves combined with warmer average temperatures will put intense pressure on already scarce water resources with major consequences for food security.

“Crop yields could decrease by up to 30% at 1.5-2C and by almost 60% at 3-4C. Pressure on resources might increase the risk of conflict.”

Climate change posed a substantial risk to development and cutting poverty, the report said, adding that action on emissions need not come at the expense of economic growth.

But the bank made no commitment to cut funding for oil or other fossil fuel exploration. Analysis earlier this year by Washington-based NGO Oil Change International showed that the bank had funded $21bn (£13bn) of fossil fuel projects since 2008, including $1bn of oil and other fossil fuel exploration in 2013.

“The bank has taken an important first step in essentially stopping its support for coal-fired power plants, but climate change is caused by more than just coal”, said Stephen Kretzmann, director of Oil Change International.

“The vast majority of currently proven fossil fuel reserves will need to be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, but last year the bank provided nearly $1bn in support for finding more of these unburnable carbon reserves.”

 


 

John Vidal is Environment Editor for the Guardian.

This article was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced with thanks via The Guardian Environment Network.

 

 




387301

China leads the world in green energy – despite US Senate Leader ‘do nothing’ claims Updated for 2026





“As I read the agreement it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years while these carbon emissions regulations are creating havoc in my state and around the country.”

So said US Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell on 12th November 2014 as the news of the US-China climate deal were announced.

But far from ‘doing nothing at all’, China will be building the world’s largest renewable energy system over the next 16 years. This is something that China has already started doing – so the targets agreed upon are feasible – if arduous.

As part of the US-China climate deal announced on Wednesday, China is committing to raise the proportion of renewables in its total energy system to 20%. As renewables and nuclear power currently account for 10% of China’s total energy consumption, this implies a doubling of its renewables commitment. The challenge is illustrated in the graph below.

This is why Chinese president Xi Jinping can commit China to peaking its carbon emissions by 2030. In reality, we and many other observers expect China’s carbon emissions to peak well before that date, so there is room for more dramatic announcements to come from the Chinese side.

China’s energy is already on a strong green track

In fact, at the recent APEC meeting in Beijing, China’s national Energy Bureau stated that China’s coal consumption would probably peak by 2020, at about 4.2 billion tonnes per year. So carbon emissions could peak just a little after that – and certainly before 2030.

Mitch McConnell and many other commentators have placed all their emphasis on China’s building of a “black” energy system, comprising new coal and other fossil fuel facilities, while ignoring the enormous commitments already made to renewables and a complementary green energy system.

By our reckoning, the leading edge of change in China’s energy system is already more green than black, and the total system is greening at such a rate that the goals just announced as part of the climate deal should certainly be met.

The White House, in its statement announcing the joint deal, said that for China to meet its commitment

” … it will require China to deploy an additional 800-1000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission generation capacity by 2030 – more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States.”

These are enormous numbers, but they fit with China’s current capacity and goals. In 2013 China’s generating capacity from all sources reached 1,247 gigawatts.

Its generating capacity from water, wind and sun (leaving nuclear to one side) has already reached 378 gigawatts, far in front of all other industrial countries (see here).

Aiming to build over 1GW of renewable capacity per week

China’s National Development and Reform Commission has already announced plans to raise that total to 550GW by 2017. This is a commitment to renewables on a colossal scale that dwarfs that of other countries.

This goal would call for an additional 1,000GW of renewable generation capacity to be built over the next 15 years – or 1.33 GW (equivalent to a large nuclear power station) every week.

The difference between the commitments made by China and those by other countries is that China is committing to renewables as part of an industrial strategy to focus its industrial growth around such clean industries and technologies.

As part of the 12th Five year Plan, China has singled out seven strategic industries that it sees as being the pillars of its economy – including electric vehicles, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.

There is likely to be even greener tinge to the 13th Five Year Plan, currently under discussion and due to run from 2016 to 2020.

So far from ‘doing nothing’ over the next 16 years, China is transforming its economy and energy system so that water, wind and solar power will be its driving forces. Other countries – not least close US allies such as Australia and Canada – would be wise to pay attention.

Verdict

False. China has an extensive plan to curtail its emissions between now and 2030, including building renewable energy facilities on a far larger scale than any other nation. Honouring its new climate pact with the United States will involve doing a lot more than nothing.

Review by Frank Jotzo: ‘it’s even better than that!’

The view that China’s announced target is feasible but arduous is correct. It is also true that a peaking of carbon dioxide emissions in China is possible before 2025, given strong Chinese policy efforts and future changes to the rate and nature of China’s economic growth.

China has extensive policies in place to constrain the growth in energy use and to shift away from coal, and under this commitment China will intensify those efforts.

It is important to understand that China’s effort is much broader even than the authors of this FactCheck suggest.

The text correctly points out the importance of renewable energy expansion, but improvements in energy efficiency and the transformation of China’s economic structure towards high-value manufacturing and services will do more to dampen carbon emissions growth.

In my own analysis, my colleagues and I found that a carbon dioxide peak around 2025 would be achieved by maintaining a 4% per year improvement in economy-wide energy productivity, and a 1.0-1.5% annual reduction in the carbon intensity of energy supply.

The former comes through better technical efficiency and structural change, the latter through a shift from coal to gas, renewables and nuclear power.

 


 

John Mathews is Professor of Strategic Management, Macquarie Graduate School of Management at Macquarie University.

Hao Tan is Senior Lecturer in International Business at the University of Newcastle.

Frank Jotzo (reviewer) is Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at the Australian National University.

The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




386873

China leads the world in green energy – despite US Senate Leader ‘do nothing’ claims Updated for 2026





“As I read the agreement it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years while these carbon emissions regulations are creating havoc in my state and around the country.”

So said US Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell on 12th November 2014 as the news of the US-China climate deal were announced.

But far from ‘doing nothing at all’, China will be building the world’s largest renewable energy system over the next 16 years. This is something that China has already started doing – so the targets agreed upon are feasible – if arduous.

As part of the US-China climate deal announced on Wednesday, China is committing to raise the proportion of renewables in its total energy system to 20%. As renewables and nuclear power currently account for 10% of China’s total energy consumption, this implies a doubling of its renewables commitment. The challenge is illustrated in the graph below.

This is why Chinese president Xi Jinping can commit China to peaking its carbon emissions by 2030. In reality, we and many other observers expect China’s carbon emissions to peak well before that date, so there is room for more dramatic announcements to come from the Chinese side.

China’s energy is already on a strong green track

In fact, at the recent APEC meeting in Beijing, China’s national Energy Bureau stated that China’s coal consumption would probably peak by 2020, at about 4.2 billion tonnes per year. So carbon emissions could peak just a little after that – and certainly before 2030.

Mitch McConnell and many other commentators have placed all their emphasis on China’s building of a “black” energy system, comprising new coal and other fossil fuel facilities, while ignoring the enormous commitments already made to renewables and a complementary green energy system.

By our reckoning, the leading edge of change in China’s energy system is already more green than black, and the total system is greening at such a rate that the goals just announced as part of the climate deal should certainly be met.

The White House, in its statement announcing the joint deal, said that for China to meet its commitment

” … it will require China to deploy an additional 800-1000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission generation capacity by 2030 – more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States.”

These are enormous numbers, but they fit with China’s current capacity and goals. In 2013 China’s generating capacity from all sources reached 1,247 gigawatts.

Its generating capacity from water, wind and sun (leaving nuclear to one side) has already reached 378 gigawatts, far in front of all other industrial countries (see here).

Aiming to build over 1GW of renewable capacity per week

China’s National Development and Reform Commission has already announced plans to raise that total to 550GW by 2017. This is a commitment to renewables on a colossal scale that dwarfs that of other countries.

This goal would call for an additional 1,000GW of renewable generation capacity to be built over the next 15 years – or 1.33 GW (equivalent to a large nuclear power station) every week.

The difference between the commitments made by China and those by other countries is that China is committing to renewables as part of an industrial strategy to focus its industrial growth around such clean industries and technologies.

As part of the 12th Five year Plan, China has singled out seven strategic industries that it sees as being the pillars of its economy – including electric vehicles, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.

There is likely to be even greener tinge to the 13th Five Year Plan, currently under discussion and due to run from 2016 to 2020.

So far from ‘doing nothing’ over the next 16 years, China is transforming its economy and energy system so that water, wind and solar power will be its driving forces. Other countries – not least close US allies such as Australia and Canada – would be wise to pay attention.

Verdict

False. China has an extensive plan to curtail its emissions between now and 2030, including building renewable energy facilities on a far larger scale than any other nation. Honouring its new climate pact with the United States will involve doing a lot more than nothing.

Review by Frank Jotzo: ‘it’s even better than that!’

The view that China’s announced target is feasible but arduous is correct. It is also true that a peaking of carbon dioxide emissions in China is possible before 2025, given strong Chinese policy efforts and future changes to the rate and nature of China’s economic growth.

China has extensive policies in place to constrain the growth in energy use and to shift away from coal, and under this commitment China will intensify those efforts.

It is important to understand that China’s effort is much broader even than the authors of this FactCheck suggest.

The text correctly points out the importance of renewable energy expansion, but improvements in energy efficiency and the transformation of China’s economic structure towards high-value manufacturing and services will do more to dampen carbon emissions growth.

In my own analysis, my colleagues and I found that a carbon dioxide peak around 2025 would be achieved by maintaining a 4% per year improvement in economy-wide energy productivity, and a 1.0-1.5% annual reduction in the carbon intensity of energy supply.

The former comes through better technical efficiency and structural change, the latter through a shift from coal to gas, renewables and nuclear power.

 


 

John Mathews is Professor of Strategic Management, Macquarie Graduate School of Management at Macquarie University.

Hao Tan is Senior Lecturer in International Business at the University of Newcastle.

Frank Jotzo (reviewer) is Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at the Australian National University.

The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




386873

China leads the world in green energy – despite US Senate Leader ‘do nothing’ claims Updated for 2026





“As I read the agreement it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years while these carbon emissions regulations are creating havoc in my state and around the country.”

So said US Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell on 12th November 2014 as the news of the US-China climate deal were announced.

But far from ‘doing nothing at all’, China will be building the world’s largest renewable energy system over the next 16 years. This is something that China has already started doing – so the targets agreed upon are feasible – if arduous.

As part of the US-China climate deal announced on Wednesday, China is committing to raise the proportion of renewables in its total energy system to 20%. As renewables and nuclear power currently account for 10% of China’s total energy consumption, this implies a doubling of its renewables commitment. The challenge is illustrated in the graph below.

This is why Chinese president Xi Jinping can commit China to peaking its carbon emissions by 2030. In reality, we and many other observers expect China’s carbon emissions to peak well before that date, so there is room for more dramatic announcements to come from the Chinese side.

China’s energy is already on a strong green track

In fact, at the recent APEC meeting in Beijing, China’s national Energy Bureau stated that China’s coal consumption would probably peak by 2020, at about 4.2 billion tonnes per year. So carbon emissions could peak just a little after that – and certainly before 2030.

Mitch McConnell and many other commentators have placed all their emphasis on China’s building of a “black” energy system, comprising new coal and other fossil fuel facilities, while ignoring the enormous commitments already made to renewables and a complementary green energy system.

By our reckoning, the leading edge of change in China’s energy system is already more green than black, and the total system is greening at such a rate that the goals just announced as part of the climate deal should certainly be met.

The White House, in its statement announcing the joint deal, said that for China to meet its commitment

” … it will require China to deploy an additional 800-1000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission generation capacity by 2030 – more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States.”

These are enormous numbers, but they fit with China’s current capacity and goals. In 2013 China’s generating capacity from all sources reached 1,247 gigawatts.

Its generating capacity from water, wind and sun (leaving nuclear to one side) has already reached 378 gigawatts, far in front of all other industrial countries (see here).

Aiming to build over 1GW of renewable capacity per week

China’s National Development and Reform Commission has already announced plans to raise that total to 550GW by 2017. This is a commitment to renewables on a colossal scale that dwarfs that of other countries.

This goal would call for an additional 1,000GW of renewable generation capacity to be built over the next 15 years – or 1.33 GW (equivalent to a large nuclear power station) every week.

The difference between the commitments made by China and those by other countries is that China is committing to renewables as part of an industrial strategy to focus its industrial growth around such clean industries and technologies.

As part of the 12th Five year Plan, China has singled out seven strategic industries that it sees as being the pillars of its economy – including electric vehicles, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.

There is likely to be even greener tinge to the 13th Five Year Plan, currently under discussion and due to run from 2016 to 2020.

So far from ‘doing nothing’ over the next 16 years, China is transforming its economy and energy system so that water, wind and solar power will be its driving forces. Other countries – not least close US allies such as Australia and Canada – would be wise to pay attention.

Verdict

False. China has an extensive plan to curtail its emissions between now and 2030, including building renewable energy facilities on a far larger scale than any other nation. Honouring its new climate pact with the United States will involve doing a lot more than nothing.

Review by Frank Jotzo: ‘it’s even better than that!’

The view that China’s announced target is feasible but arduous is correct. It is also true that a peaking of carbon dioxide emissions in China is possible before 2025, given strong Chinese policy efforts and future changes to the rate and nature of China’s economic growth.

China has extensive policies in place to constrain the growth in energy use and to shift away from coal, and under this commitment China will intensify those efforts.

It is important to understand that China’s effort is much broader even than the authors of this FactCheck suggest.

The text correctly points out the importance of renewable energy expansion, but improvements in energy efficiency and the transformation of China’s economic structure towards high-value manufacturing and services will do more to dampen carbon emissions growth.

In my own analysis, my colleagues and I found that a carbon dioxide peak around 2025 would be achieved by maintaining a 4% per year improvement in economy-wide energy productivity, and a 1.0-1.5% annual reduction in the carbon intensity of energy supply.

The former comes through better technical efficiency and structural change, the latter through a shift from coal to gas, renewables and nuclear power.

 


 

John Mathews is Professor of Strategic Management, Macquarie Graduate School of Management at Macquarie University.

Hao Tan is Senior Lecturer in International Business at the University of Newcastle.

Frank Jotzo (reviewer) is Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at the Australian National University.

The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




386873

China leads the world in green energy – despite US Senate Leader ‘do nothing’ claims Updated for 2026





“As I read the agreement it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years while these carbon emissions regulations are creating havoc in my state and around the country.”

So said US Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell on 12th November 2014 as the news of the US-China climate deal were announced.

But far from ‘doing nothing at all’, China will be building the world’s largest renewable energy system over the next 16 years. This is something that China has already started doing – so the targets agreed upon are feasible – if arduous.

As part of the US-China climate deal announced on Wednesday, China is committing to raise the proportion of renewables in its total energy system to 20%. As renewables and nuclear power currently account for 10% of China’s total energy consumption, this implies a doubling of its renewables commitment. The challenge is illustrated in the graph below.

This is why Chinese president Xi Jinping can commit China to peaking its carbon emissions by 2030. In reality, we and many other observers expect China’s carbon emissions to peak well before that date, so there is room for more dramatic announcements to come from the Chinese side.

China’s energy is already on a strong green track

In fact, at the recent APEC meeting in Beijing, China’s national Energy Bureau stated that China’s coal consumption would probably peak by 2020, at about 4.2 billion tonnes per year. So carbon emissions could peak just a little after that – and certainly before 2030.

Mitch McConnell and many other commentators have placed all their emphasis on China’s building of a “black” energy system, comprising new coal and other fossil fuel facilities, while ignoring the enormous commitments already made to renewables and a complementary green energy system.

By our reckoning, the leading edge of change in China’s energy system is already more green than black, and the total system is greening at such a rate that the goals just announced as part of the climate deal should certainly be met.

The White House, in its statement announcing the joint deal, said that for China to meet its commitment

” … it will require China to deploy an additional 800-1000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission generation capacity by 2030 – more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States.”

These are enormous numbers, but they fit with China’s current capacity and goals. In 2013 China’s generating capacity from all sources reached 1,247 gigawatts.

Its generating capacity from water, wind and sun (leaving nuclear to one side) has already reached 378 gigawatts, far in front of all other industrial countries (see here).

Aiming to build over 1GW of renewable capacity per week

China’s National Development and Reform Commission has already announced plans to raise that total to 550GW by 2017. This is a commitment to renewables on a colossal scale that dwarfs that of other countries.

This goal would call for an additional 1,000GW of renewable generation capacity to be built over the next 15 years – or 1.33 GW (equivalent to a large nuclear power station) every week.

The difference between the commitments made by China and those by other countries is that China is committing to renewables as part of an industrial strategy to focus its industrial growth around such clean industries and technologies.

As part of the 12th Five year Plan, China has singled out seven strategic industries that it sees as being the pillars of its economy – including electric vehicles, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.

There is likely to be even greener tinge to the 13th Five Year Plan, currently under discussion and due to run from 2016 to 2020.

So far from ‘doing nothing’ over the next 16 years, China is transforming its economy and energy system so that water, wind and solar power will be its driving forces. Other countries – not least close US allies such as Australia and Canada – would be wise to pay attention.

Verdict

False. China has an extensive plan to curtail its emissions between now and 2030, including building renewable energy facilities on a far larger scale than any other nation. Honouring its new climate pact with the United States will involve doing a lot more than nothing.

Review by Frank Jotzo: ‘it’s even better than that!’

The view that China’s announced target is feasible but arduous is correct. It is also true that a peaking of carbon dioxide emissions in China is possible before 2025, given strong Chinese policy efforts and future changes to the rate and nature of China’s economic growth.

China has extensive policies in place to constrain the growth in energy use and to shift away from coal, and under this commitment China will intensify those efforts.

It is important to understand that China’s effort is much broader even than the authors of this FactCheck suggest.

The text correctly points out the importance of renewable energy expansion, but improvements in energy efficiency and the transformation of China’s economic structure towards high-value manufacturing and services will do more to dampen carbon emissions growth.

In my own analysis, my colleagues and I found that a carbon dioxide peak around 2025 would be achieved by maintaining a 4% per year improvement in economy-wide energy productivity, and a 1.0-1.5% annual reduction in the carbon intensity of energy supply.

The former comes through better technical efficiency and structural change, the latter through a shift from coal to gas, renewables and nuclear power.

 


 

John Mathews is Professor of Strategic Management, Macquarie Graduate School of Management at Macquarie University.

Hao Tan is Senior Lecturer in International Business at the University of Newcastle.

Frank Jotzo (reviewer) is Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at the Australian National University.

The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




386873

China leads the world in green energy – despite US Senate Leader ‘do nothing’ claims Updated for 2026





“As I read the agreement it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years while these carbon emissions regulations are creating havoc in my state and around the country.”

So said US Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell on 12th November 2014 as the news of the US-China climate deal were announced.

But far from ‘doing nothing at all’, China will be building the world’s largest renewable energy system over the next 16 years. This is something that China has already started doing – so the targets agreed upon are feasible – if arduous.

As part of the US-China climate deal announced on Wednesday, China is committing to raise the proportion of renewables in its total energy system to 20%. As renewables and nuclear power currently account for 10% of China’s total energy consumption, this implies a doubling of its renewables commitment. The challenge is illustrated in the graph below.

This is why Chinese president Xi Jinping can commit China to peaking its carbon emissions by 2030. In reality, we and many other observers expect China’s carbon emissions to peak well before that date, so there is room for more dramatic announcements to come from the Chinese side.

China’s energy is already on a strong green track

In fact, at the recent APEC meeting in Beijing, China’s national Energy Bureau stated that China’s coal consumption would probably peak by 2020, at about 4.2 billion tonnes per year. So carbon emissions could peak just a little after that – and certainly before 2030.

Mitch McConnell and many other commentators have placed all their emphasis on China’s building of a “black” energy system, comprising new coal and other fossil fuel facilities, while ignoring the enormous commitments already made to renewables and a complementary green energy system.

By our reckoning, the leading edge of change in China’s energy system is already more green than black, and the total system is greening at such a rate that the goals just announced as part of the climate deal should certainly be met.

The White House, in its statement announcing the joint deal, said that for China to meet its commitment

” … it will require China to deploy an additional 800-1000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission generation capacity by 2030 – more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States.”

These are enormous numbers, but they fit with China’s current capacity and goals. In 2013 China’s generating capacity from all sources reached 1,247 gigawatts.

Its generating capacity from water, wind and sun (leaving nuclear to one side) has already reached 378 gigawatts, far in front of all other industrial countries (see here).

Aiming to build over 1GW of renewable capacity per week

China’s National Development and Reform Commission has already announced plans to raise that total to 550GW by 2017. This is a commitment to renewables on a colossal scale that dwarfs that of other countries.

This goal would call for an additional 1,000GW of renewable generation capacity to be built over the next 15 years – or 1.33 GW (equivalent to a large nuclear power station) every week.

The difference between the commitments made by China and those by other countries is that China is committing to renewables as part of an industrial strategy to focus its industrial growth around such clean industries and technologies.

As part of the 12th Five year Plan, China has singled out seven strategic industries that it sees as being the pillars of its economy – including electric vehicles, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.

There is likely to be even greener tinge to the 13th Five Year Plan, currently under discussion and due to run from 2016 to 2020.

So far from ‘doing nothing’ over the next 16 years, China is transforming its economy and energy system so that water, wind and solar power will be its driving forces. Other countries – not least close US allies such as Australia and Canada – would be wise to pay attention.

Verdict

False. China has an extensive plan to curtail its emissions between now and 2030, including building renewable energy facilities on a far larger scale than any other nation. Honouring its new climate pact with the United States will involve doing a lot more than nothing.

Review by Frank Jotzo: ‘it’s even better than that!’

The view that China’s announced target is feasible but arduous is correct. It is also true that a peaking of carbon dioxide emissions in China is possible before 2025, given strong Chinese policy efforts and future changes to the rate and nature of China’s economic growth.

China has extensive policies in place to constrain the growth in energy use and to shift away from coal, and under this commitment China will intensify those efforts.

It is important to understand that China’s effort is much broader even than the authors of this FactCheck suggest.

The text correctly points out the importance of renewable energy expansion, but improvements in energy efficiency and the transformation of China’s economic structure towards high-value manufacturing and services will do more to dampen carbon emissions growth.

In my own analysis, my colleagues and I found that a carbon dioxide peak around 2025 would be achieved by maintaining a 4% per year improvement in economy-wide energy productivity, and a 1.0-1.5% annual reduction in the carbon intensity of energy supply.

The former comes through better technical efficiency and structural change, the latter through a shift from coal to gas, renewables and nuclear power.

 


 

John Mathews is Professor of Strategic Management, Macquarie Graduate School of Management at Macquarie University.

Hao Tan is Senior Lecturer in International Business at the University of Newcastle.

Frank Jotzo (reviewer) is Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at the Australian National University.

The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




386873

Britain’s ‘energy policy’ – carried out by Tories, made by UKIP? Updated for 2026





The coalition government’s muddled approach to renewable energy is beginning to undermine climate change mitigation and technological innovation say industry leaders.

It’s also starting to hurt the viability of both UK businesses driving the development of alternatives to fossil fuels and of hard-pressed English farmers.

Panic over the rise of UKIP and policy u-turns aimed at placating the most ferociously conservative of Tory constituents are playing a role in the disarray.

This is combined with ministers looking for easy popularity points and a willingness to make blanket statements presented as facts, despite a complete lack of evidence.

This jostling for profile and power – both within the Tory ranks and as a response to voters switching party allegiance – is playing into the hands of Lord Lawson and Owen Paterson‘s anti-renewables crusade.

Since leaving his position as environment secretary, Paterson has called for the Climate Change Act to be dismantled and spoke at the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

In a Pickle – 17 of 19 wind farms shot down

RenewableUK‘s Rob Norris said: “The likes of Pickles and Paterson are using the vital issue of renewables to raise their own profiles and promote themselves within their own fiefdoms.

“Ministers are making statements espousing emotive, populist viewpoints that are based on no evidence whatsoever but rather on prejudice and a fetish for technologies such as nuclear and shale.”

Ministers – from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Department for Energy, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) – responsible for local and rural economies as well as the environment are not only actively working against these interests but are doing so with scant regard for economic or scientific fact.

DCLG’s secretary of state, Eric Pickles, for example, has now weighed in on 50 onshore windfarm applications, rejecting 17 of the 19 decided on so far.

This has led Ed Davey – the Lib Dem actually in charge of energy and climate change – to claim: “Mr Pickles doesn’t seem worried about climate or energy bills. Pickles, who claims to be a champion of localism, has been calling in every onshore wind planning application he can, interfering with the independent Planning Inspectorate process [and] over-riding decisions of elected councillors.

“Pickles is in danger of bringing the planning system into disrepute, of abusing ministerial power and so preventing Britain getting the green power revolution it needs.”

New Defra head Liz Truss has also announced changes to the Common Agricultural Policy aimed at thwarting solar farm developments as she “does not want to see the productive potential of English farmland is wasted and blighted by solar farms”.

Shortly after, however, it was shown in the Commons she had no evidence to suggest this is happening.

Amber Rudd, another Tory at DECC under Davey and in charge of solar, climate science and innovation, has also waded in saying: “Solar farms are not particularly welcome because we believe that solar should be on the roofs of buildings and homes, not in the beautiful green countryside. We are proud to stand on that record.”

Investment at risk

Not only do these ministers have real power to undermine the increase in renewable generation they’re tasked with supporting but their actions risk choking off investment, sinking start-ups and depriving the very farmers whose votes they’re after of much needed income.

“Pickles running riot has resulted in a pathetic amount of consents, chilling the blood of investors, who are likely to go elsewhere with their money, driving up cost and putting innovation at risk when we need to be encouraging developers and taking the technologies forward”, said Norris.

“UKIP has banged on about three ‘big issues’ – the EU, immigration and bizarrely onshore wind – which they say represent everything that’s wrong with modern Britain. Pickles is using his position to intervene as often as possible in an attempt to recapture lost ground.

“He now wants to take away the right of local government altogether to approve wind developments, a development that would be sinister as well as against his professed policy of localism.”

Climate-skeptic Owen Paterson a future Tory leader?

The rightwards drift of the Tory party is illustrated by the celebrity status of the sacked environment secretary Owen Paterson on the right-wing think tank circuit – notably the ‘free market’ Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) and Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which is fanatically opposed to renewable energy, most of all on-shore wind.

After a recent IEA ‘political economy supper‘ Paterson dodged questions on whether he’s organising a challenge to the Conservative Party leadership in the run-up to next May’s general election, answering only “it’s a private dinner, you better ask the organisers.”

Bankrolled by Big Oil and Big Tobacco, the IEA helped Thatcher’s rise to power. More recently, DeSmog UK revealed in September that Neil Record, IEA trustee and Lord Vinson, ‘Life Vice-President’ of the IEA are both funders of the GWPF.

Paterson, who gave the keynote speech at the GWPF last month arrived at the event with the head of his newly launched conservative think tank UK2020. Among its goals, UK2020 seeks to free Britain from climate change regulations and targets.

While Paterson mentioned UK2020 “several times” at the IEA event according to dinner guest Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, MP for the Cotswolds, the event was not connected to the new think tank, and the 20-30 male dinner guests mostly talked public policy.

“We didn’t talk much about climate, it was really free market stuff”, he explained. “It was a discussion about how we win the ideas of the centre-right of British politics … How are we going to promote those [free market ideas] and be able to make sure the electorate actually votes for a centre-right government?”

UKIP brothers under the skin

In addition to IEA staff, those in attendance included former conservative MP and current UKIP deputy chairman, Neil Hamilton, Alistair Hide of British American Tobacco, Allan Rankine of BP and Edgar Miller, a Texan-born venture capitalist and GWPF funder.

Several MPs were also there such as Julian Smith, MP for Skipton and Ripon, as well Lord Glentoran and academics Jeremy Jennings, head of department and professor of political theory at Kings College London and David Myddelton, professor at Cranfield School of Management.

Daniel Johnson, founding editor of Standpoint, and Sir John Craven, a director of Reuters and former director of Deutsche Bank, were also there. Christopher Chope, conservative MP for Christchurch said: “I think most of us are singing off of the same hymn sheet as one might say.”

Lord Howard Flight, deputy chair of the Conservative party and member of the IEA’s advisory board, described the evening’s conversation as “fundamentally [about] why the economic model that Russia and China used to employ was such a disaster and caused so much starving and death and why by contrast the model which the West has followed has been successful.”

None of which explains their enthusiasm at throwing vast public subsidies at nuclear power, fracking and other fossil fuel developments – in far larger volumes than ever granted to renewable energy generators.

 


 

This article was originally published on DeSmog UK. It also contains additional reporting from DeSmog UK.

 




386867

Britain’s ‘energy policy’ – carried out by Tories, made by UKIP? Updated for 2026





The coalition government’s muddled approach to renewable energy is beginning to undermine climate change mitigation and technological innovation say industry leaders.

It’s also starting to hurt the viability of both UK businesses driving the development of alternatives to fossil fuels and of hard-pressed English farmers.

Panic over the rise of UKIP and policy u-turns aimed at placating the most ferociously conservative of Tory constituents are playing a role in the disarray.

This is combined with ministers looking for easy popularity points and a willingness to make blanket statements presented as facts, despite a complete lack of evidence.

This jostling for profile and power – both within the Tory ranks and as a response to voters switching party allegiance – is playing into the hands of Lord Lawson and Owen Paterson‘s anti-renewables crusade.

Since leaving his position as environment secretary, Paterson has called for the Climate Change Act to be dismantled and spoke at the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

In a Pickle – 17 of 19 wind farms shot down

RenewableUK‘s Rob Norris said: “The likes of Pickles and Paterson are using the vital issue of renewables to raise their own profiles and promote themselves within their own fiefdoms.

“Ministers are making statements espousing emotive, populist viewpoints that are based on no evidence whatsoever but rather on prejudice and a fetish for technologies such as nuclear and shale.”

Ministers – from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Department for Energy, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) – responsible for local and rural economies as well as the environment are not only actively working against these interests but are doing so with scant regard for economic or scientific fact.

DCLG’s secretary of state, Eric Pickles, for example, has now weighed in on 50 onshore windfarm applications, rejecting 17 of the 19 decided on so far.

This has led Ed Davey – the Lib Dem actually in charge of energy and climate change – to claim: “Mr Pickles doesn’t seem worried about climate or energy bills. Pickles, who claims to be a champion of localism, has been calling in every onshore wind planning application he can, interfering with the independent Planning Inspectorate process [and] over-riding decisions of elected councillors.

“Pickles is in danger of bringing the planning system into disrepute, of abusing ministerial power and so preventing Britain getting the green power revolution it needs.”

New Defra head Liz Truss has also announced changes to the Common Agricultural Policy aimed at thwarting solar farm developments as she “does not want to see the productive potential of English farmland is wasted and blighted by solar farms”.

Shortly after, however, it was shown in the Commons she had no evidence to suggest this is happening.

Amber Rudd, another Tory at DECC under Davey and in charge of solar, climate science and innovation, has also waded in saying: “Solar farms are not particularly welcome because we believe that solar should be on the roofs of buildings and homes, not in the beautiful green countryside. We are proud to stand on that record.”

Investment at risk

Not only do these ministers have real power to undermine the increase in renewable generation they’re tasked with supporting but their actions risk choking off investment, sinking start-ups and depriving the very farmers whose votes they’re after of much needed income.

“Pickles running riot has resulted in a pathetic amount of consents, chilling the blood of investors, who are likely to go elsewhere with their money, driving up cost and putting innovation at risk when we need to be encouraging developers and taking the technologies forward”, said Norris.

“UKIP has banged on about three ‘big issues’ – the EU, immigration and bizarrely onshore wind – which they say represent everything that’s wrong with modern Britain. Pickles is using his position to intervene as often as possible in an attempt to recapture lost ground.

“He now wants to take away the right of local government altogether to approve wind developments, a development that would be sinister as well as against his professed policy of localism.”

Climate-skeptic Owen Paterson a future Tory leader?

The rightwards drift of the Tory party is illustrated by the celebrity status of the sacked environment secretary Owen Paterson on the right-wing think tank circuit – notably the ‘free market’ Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) and Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which is fanatically opposed to renewable energy, most of all on-shore wind.

After a recent IEA ‘political economy supper‘ Paterson dodged questions on whether he’s organising a challenge to the Conservative Party leadership in the run-up to next May’s general election, answering only “it’s a private dinner, you better ask the organisers.”

Bankrolled by Big Oil and Big Tobacco, the IEA helped Thatcher’s rise to power. More recently, DeSmog UK revealed in September that Neil Record, IEA trustee and Lord Vinson, ‘Life Vice-President’ of the IEA are both funders of the GWPF.

Paterson, who gave the keynote speech at the GWPF last month arrived at the event with the head of his newly launched conservative think tank UK2020. Among its goals, UK2020 seeks to free Britain from climate change regulations and targets.

While Paterson mentioned UK2020 “several times” at the IEA event according to dinner guest Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, MP for the Cotswolds, the event was not connected to the new think tank, and the 20-30 male dinner guests mostly talked public policy.

“We didn’t talk much about climate, it was really free market stuff”, he explained. “It was a discussion about how we win the ideas of the centre-right of British politics … How are we going to promote those [free market ideas] and be able to make sure the electorate actually votes for a centre-right government?”

UKIP brothers under the skin

In addition to IEA staff, those in attendance included former conservative MP and current UKIP deputy chairman, Neil Hamilton, Alistair Hide of British American Tobacco, Allan Rankine of BP and Edgar Miller, a Texan-born venture capitalist and GWPF funder.

Several MPs were also there such as Julian Smith, MP for Skipton and Ripon, as well Lord Glentoran and academics Jeremy Jennings, head of department and professor of political theory at Kings College London and David Myddelton, professor at Cranfield School of Management.

Daniel Johnson, founding editor of Standpoint, and Sir John Craven, a director of Reuters and former director of Deutsche Bank, were also there. Christopher Chope, conservative MP for Christchurch said: “I think most of us are singing off of the same hymn sheet as one might say.”

Lord Howard Flight, deputy chair of the Conservative party and member of the IEA’s advisory board, described the evening’s conversation as “fundamentally [about] why the economic model that Russia and China used to employ was such a disaster and caused so much starving and death and why by contrast the model which the West has followed has been successful.”

None of which explains their enthusiasm at throwing vast public subsidies at nuclear power, fracking and other fossil fuel developments – in far larger volumes than ever granted to renewable energy generators.

 


 

This article was originally published on DeSmog UK. It also contains additional reporting from DeSmog UK.

 




386867