That’s what it amounts to, even if the phrasing is different. Scenarios based on theories of climate that aren’t borne out by reality are the curse of modelling. All they seem to come up with is impossible demand reduction i.e. much less of everything – except renewables of course. It can’t get any better while their built-in CO2 obsession persists.
– – –
Renewable energy transition won’t come fast enough to solve the climate crisis—we also need to reduce global energy consumption, according to new research from UNSW Sydney.
The research, published recently in Climate Policy, models different energy-use scenarios for reducing global energy-related CO2 emissions to zero by 2050, says Phys.org.
It found that simply substituting fossil fuels with renewable energy at current energy usage levels is no longer enough.
To keep global heating below 1.5°C—the level necessary to avoid irreversible damage—total energy consumption itself needs to halve over the next three decades based on 2019 levels. Furthermore, to keep temperature from overshooting a 1.5°C increase by 2050, global CO2 emissions must decline by about half by 2030.
Despite significant growth in renewable energy, it is being outstripped by the parallel increase in total energy consumption, primarily driven by growth in fossil fuels for areas like transportation and heating. And while energy usage did slightly decline during 2020 due to the pandemic, the demand has since returned.
“We have a situation where renewable electricity and total energy consumption are growing quite rapidly alongside one another. So renewables are chasing a retreating target that keeps getting further away,” says Mark Diesendorf, author of the study and Honorary Associate Professor at the School of Humanities & Languages, UNSW Arts, Design & Architecture.
“The research shows it is simply impossible for renewable energy to overtake that retreating target. And that’s no fault of renewable energy. It’s the fault of the growth in consumption and the fact that action has been left too late.”
It found that simply substituting fossil fuels with renewable energy at current energy usage levels is no longer enough.
To keep global heating below 1.5°C—the level necessary to avoid irreversible damage—total energy consumption itself needs to halve over the next three decades based on 2019 levels.
Furthermore, to keep temperature from overshooting a 1.5°C increase by 2050, global CO2 emissions must decline by about half by 2030.
Despite significant growth in renewable energy, it is being outstripped by the parallel increase in total energy consumption, primarily driven by growth in fossil fuels for areas like transportation and heating. And while energy usage did slightly decline during 2020 due to the pandemic, the demand has since returned.
“We have a situation where renewable electricity and total energy consumption are growing quite rapidly alongside one another. So renewables are chasing a retreating target that keeps getting further away,” says Mark Diesendorf, author of the study and Honorary Associate Professor at the School of Humanities & Languages, UNSW Arts, Design & Architecture.
“The research shows it is simply impossible for renewable energy to overtake that retreating target. And that’s no fault of renewable energy. It’s the fault of the growth in consumption and the fact that action has been left too late.”
Full article here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
As they say, you can’t have their cake and eat it; but they do!!.
They know what they’re doing; parasitizing the taxpayer.
The twisted irony is is that the UN IPCC CMIP5/6 climate models assume that by 2100, the entire global population has a first-world living standard. I.e. every single person on the planet travels to Davos via Hawaii, business class. Literally.
Another hysterical and assumptive assumption designed to hype the narrative.
‘All they seem to come up with is impossible demand reduction i.e. much less of everything’
If you think, “As they were commissioned to do,” it all makes sense.
Will someone remind them that with ALL computer models the GIGO (garbage in = garbage out) rule rules. They should also be asked how do they propose to model a chaotic system when they can’t describe it mathematically to start with.
So much for using useless computer models – maybe that also describes the so called ‘climate scientists’ – useless, yet so many people bow down to them.
This research/modelling isn’t climate science itself, but assumes everything alarmist climate science says is reliable and goes from there.
‘Mark Diesendorf, author of the study and Honorary Associate Professor at the School of Humanities & Languages, UNSW Arts, Design & Architecture.’
@ Ivan “how do they propose to model a chaotic system when they can’t describe it…”?
Why, just emulate their own behavior!
In science, we have to wait for the old guard to die off for better ideas to take root.
With politics however, bad ideas never die. They increasingly fulminate with each succeeding generation. Its the Hegel-Mann effect.
re: “global CO2 emissions must decline by about half by 2030.” These folks have no grasp on reality. 2030 is less than 8 years way — no committee or group could even make a plan to do so in 8 years!
Is there a climate crisis at the UNSW School of Humanities & Languages?
Most greenhouse gas is water vapour so obsessing about CO2 reduction is futile.
It is also physically impossible to do so anyway.
We could water capture from Atmosphere- at least there is more water vapor than CO2.
Do want to turn Earth into Dune?
I think the best solution would be to stop funding these fools.
“even if the phrasing is different. Scenarios based on theories of climate that aren’t borne out by reality are the curse of modelling.”
Anyone who looks at the graphs of real world and climate models knows the models are incompetent. So here’s one of my favorite saws about models:
“Computer models are no different from fashion models. They’re seductive, unreliable, easily corrupted, and they lead sensible people to make fools of themselves” John in OK
and then this, right from the horses mouth:
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis