About Social Media Today
Comments by David Hone Subscribe 
On Thoughts on 10 Questions about Climate Change from Australia
Paul,
These are two entirely different points. In the case of nuclear, I was only making the point in response to the question that a single focus on nuclear isn't the answer. Even in France where the power sector has been largely decarbonized by the application pf nuclear total national emissions haven't fallen by that much. This is because of the use of oil, gas and even coal in other sectors.
In the case of renewables, much of that industry still remains in its infancy (although not all) and our own analysis of historical rates of deployment of new technologies (and their supporting infrastructure) doesn't point to renewables as being ready or able to fill the gap in sufficient time.
If anything this is a bias to the status quo, but that isn't sustainable either due to the level of emissions.
Regards
David
On Back to Basics on Climate Science
The short answer here is "Yes". The original application of Plank's Law to calculate the temperature of the surface of the planet fell far short of the observed temperature. Since Plank's Law seemingly worked in other applications it implied that another process was underway - which turned out to be the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This was the work done by the likes of Arrhenius about 120 years ago. Even at that point he was able to calculate the temperature variation that would occur if the level of CO2 was adjusted and that was long before anybody even imagined that such a thing might be possible, other than say through volcanic action. What we see today is a dynamic process underway where the temperature is still catching up to the change in CO2, but of course the level of CO2 continues to rise as well. The secondary effects that are less certain and may either counter some of this or add to it are effects on cloud cover (as water levels in the atmosphere also rise), albedo in the arctic etc. But I think we need to stand by the basic physics.
On Renewable Energy – What Is The IPCC Telling Us?
David,
Thanks for your comment. I would recommend that you read the Shell scenarios. The point I was trying to make is that Blueprints looks like the fastest at which the energy system can change - at least in our view. It significantly outpaces historic rates of change. But Blueprints doesn't deliver the result that is needed (in terms of ppm), in fact it is quite some way from it, so there is real cause for concern. Many of the scenarios that IPCC have analysed do seem to deliver on <450 ppm, but we would argue based on the analysis we have done that such an outcome, while clearly needed, cannot be delivered. A scenario update posted on shell.com very recently (Signals and Signposts) shows that at least wind is keeping pace with the Blueprints scenario, but the rest of the low carbon technologies are already falling short - hardly surprising given the absence of carbon policy development in key economies.
Regards
David
On Renewable Energy – What Is The IPCC Telling Us?
David,
Thanks for your comment. I would recommend that you read the Shell scenarios. The point I was trying to make is that Blueprints looks like the fastest at which the energy system can change - at least in our view. It significantly outpaces historic rates of change. But Blueprints doesn't deliver the result that is needed (in terms of ppm), in fact it is quite some way from it, so there is real cause for concern. Many of the scenarios that IPCC have analysed do seem to deliver on <450 ppm, but we would argue based on the analysis we have done that such an outcome, while clearly needed, cannot be delivered. A scenario update posted on shell.com very recently (Signals and Signposts) shows that at least wind is keeping pace with the Blueprints scenario, but the rest of the low carbon technologies are already falling short - hardly surprising given the absence of carbon policy development in key economies.
Regards
David
On The Problem With 2 Carbon Prices
Dan,
It would appear that this was done to underpin the desired nuclear investments and to add further support for offshore wind, rather than let the market determine the way forward. Both of these are relatively expensive technologies in the UK context, but seen as necessary by the government to meet their own target of zero emissions in the power sector by 2030 - although this target is also out of line with the broader ETS as well.
David
On 100% Renewables in my Lifetime
In a word, yes.
But that being said, one of my colleagues pointed out that the WWF scenario has a similar level of renewables in it as the Shell Blueprints scenario (although that is still very challenging and even more so given the lack of progress on a carbon price which is an underpinning assumption of Blueprints). The big difference between the two is the huge gain in energy efficiency assumed by WWF, so it just doesn't need to use the fossil fuel that Blueprints does to make up the difference in demand.
But their energy efficiency gains depend on radical changes to the built environment in particular and very radical although technically possible changes in future buildings. So WWF have presented more of a grand Amory Lovins story than a grand renewable energy story.
But it is still hugely ambitious.
On Short and long term strategies
There is no doubt that the global response to rising levels of CO2 and the impact it will have falls far short of the necessary response. But there are at least the makings of a widespread understanding and recognition of the need for action. Four or five years ago in the same region the typical response was very different and often very negative. So significant progress has been made, but more is needed.
Similarly in the USA it would be far better had an economy wide cap-and-trade been created, but showing that the current US 2020 pledge can at least be met by some course of action (even if not all agree that it is the right one) hopefully keeps the offer on the table which in turn keeps other nations at the table. Without that, there is little hope of any real progress at all.
On Short and long term strategies
There is no doubt that the global response to rising levels of CO2 and the impact it will have falls far short of the necessary response. But there are at least the makings of a widespread understanding and recognition of the need for action. Four or five years ago in the same region the typical response was very different and often very negative. So significant progress has been made, but more is needed.
Similarly in the USA it would be far better had an economy wide cap-and-trade been created, but showing that the current US 2020 pledge can at least be met by some course of action (even if not all agree that it is the right one) hopefully keeps the offer on the table which in turn keeps other nations at the table. Without that, there is little hope of any real progress at all.
On A Lost Opportunity?
Ed,
In this case the "final goal" is an economy wide (or nearly wide) cap-and-trade approach to managing emissions. I am not referring to any particular emissions target here.
David
On Thoughts on 10 Questions about Climate Change from Australia
Willem,
Completely agree - it is just a hypothetical case to illustrate the point in the text - i.e. even if the USA, EU and China were to aggressively tackle emissions but others did little, global emissions would at best plateau. I am not trying to argue that this will happen, rather only address the issue that comes up a lot in Australia, "Why should we bother when our emissions are small compared to the global total?".
David