World set to heat up despite clean-energy efforts, IEA warns

November 12, 2013 by Marc Preel
Traffic moves during rush-hour in Tianjin, China on October 10, 2013

Global warming is set to heat up with temperatures rising to nearly twice targets set by the United Nations, the International Energy Agency warned on Tuesday.

This is despite pushes towards and a raft of international pledges to curb , the IEA said.

Greenhouse gas emissions will rise by 20 percent by 2035, putting the world on track for a temperature increase of 3.6 degrees, far above the UN target of 2.0 degrees.

In the past, the IEA has said that the world temperature would shoot up by six degrees if all efforts to limit human-based emissions were abandoned.

The IEA's forecast of a 3.6-degree rise in global temperatures, came just as nations launched a new round of talks in Warsaw for a 2015 deal to cut Earth-warming .

The global sector is responsible for two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions and whatever trends emerge in the coming years will be pivotal to determining whether climate change commitments are met, the Paris-based International Energy Agency said.

But in its annual report on long-term trends in the sector, the agency said that the increase was to be expected despite a substantial rise in energy efficiency and usage of renewable energy.

The agency is the energy policy arm of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development which advises 34 advanced democracies on policies.

Smoke rises from a chimney at a coal chemical factory in Huaibei in east China's Anhui province on August 14, 2013

The IEA praised recent initiatives in many of the world's biggest economies to curb , which all had the potential to effect change, it said.

But despite the best efforts, climate-changing energy consumption was still on a sharp rise.

In its long-term forecast, the agency said that global demand for oil would hit 101 million barrels per day, a rise of 14 mbd in less than a quarter of a century. This ocean of oil is the equivalent to about 16.1 billion litres of oil being burned every 24 hours.

The use of coal meanwhile, which is the worst performer when it comes to carbon emissions, will rise by 17 percent between now and 2035, primarily because the fossil fuel remains far cheaper than the cleaner but harder-to-ship natural gas.

Any prospect of reversing the continuing increase in the use of coal depended mostly on China, the world's biggest energy consumer, which burns as much coal every year as the rest of the world combined.

In the report, the IEA was sceptical about the benefits of stocking carbon, which had once been seen as a possible solution to the inexorable rise of greenhouse gases.

The IEA said the technology was unwieldy and too expensive, and that only one percent of energy producing plants would include it in 2035.

The use of nuclear energy will rise despite a recent slowdown, the IEA said, with demand being led by China, South Korea, India and Russia.

Dry sunflowers are seen on September 11, 2012 in Toulouse, southwestern France, during a drought leading to low groundwater levels

The one silver lining for those worried about climate change is renewable energy, especially electricity. The agency believes that by 2035, one third of electrical energy will be generated from renewable sources, led by solar and wind power.

With the economy still very much a priority for governments since the worst of the financial crisis, the IEA insisted tackling climate change did not necessarily mean sacrificing growth.

It repeated several suggestions on how countries can overhaul their energy sector to greener norms without destabilising the overall economy including embracing efficiency and scaling back fossil-fuel subsidies.

The UN has set a target of limiting global average warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels—at which scientists believe we can avoid the worst effects of .

A girl stands in a dry lake in Dala township on the outskirts of Yangon, Myanmar, in a picture taken on May 8, 2013

The talks and the IEA's gloomy foreact come just as the world comes to grips with the aftermath of the devastating typhoon in the Philippines with over 10,000 people feared dead.

Scientists say the frequency storms of such murderous power will only increase with the rise in the earth's temperature.

Explore further: IEA: Energy emissions rose to record high in 2012

Related Stories

IEA: Energy emissions rose to record high in 2012

June 10, 2013

The world's energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rose 1.4 percent in 2012 to a record high of 31.6 billion tons, even though the U.S. posted its lowest emissions since the mid-1990s, the International Energy Agency said ...

Global oil demand 'to rise 14% by 2035': IEA

November 9, 2011

Global oil demand is set to grow by 14.0 percent by 2035, pulled by China and emerging economies and the price could reach 120 dollars per barrel, the IEA said in its annual report on Wednesday.

Carbon dioxide emissions reach record high

May 29, 2012

Emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide reached an all-time high last year, further reducing the chances that the world could avoid a dangerous rise in global average temperature by 2020, according to the International ...

Clean energy 'more urgent', energy watchdog says

December 3, 2012

The need for a more sustainable global energy system is more urgent than ever, energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency warned on Monday as UN climate talks went into a second week.

Two-degree global warming limit 'ever more elusive': UN

November 5, 2013

The chance of limiting global temperature increases to two degrees Celsius this century are swiftly diminishing, a new United Nations report warned Tuesday, ahead of the body's annual climate talks next week.

Recommended for you


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Joe Science
1.9 / 5 (37) Nov 12, 2013
ALL the previous models put forth by alarmists and socialist propagandist have been WRONG, but surely one day we will have a warm year and they will shout "hooray." Too funny...
1.1 / 5 (28) Nov 12, 2013
Best solar is photovoltaic. Now if we can put in jail those pesky folks that do not want to use our deserts for this....on specious grounds too, it might be added; then without the economic saboteurs we can move forward to energy independence. One provision....ALL energy created by out solar plants should be used only in the United States. Not one watt should be exported to anywhere, as this exports jobs.
1.4 / 5 (30) Nov 12, 2013
Osiris1, you are truly stupid
2 / 5 (24) Nov 12, 2013

If the U.S. could produce a surplus of renewable energy from wind and solar, which is not about to happen soon, but if we could, it would be hugely beneficial to sell this excess to Canada, particularly during the colder months when they'd need it most.

If China truly is consuming over half of the world's Coal then we aren't going to see the pollution from Coal decrease much any time soon. China has some of the worst emissions standards of any major country in the world. Even if they cleaned up the particle emissions standards, there's still the CO2 to deal with.

Fortunately, as we've seen elsewhere, engineers are starting to figure out ways to recycle CO2 to make plastics and chemicals for other purposes. China could become a huge part of the solution, if they want to get rid of all this CO2 pollution.
3.1 / 5 (13) Nov 12, 2013
ALL the previous models put forth by alarmists and socialist propagandist have been WRONG, but surely one day we will have a warm year and they will shout "hooray." Too funny...

*All* scientific models are wrong, whether in material, biological, quantum or --- funnily enough --- climate science. They are all wrong.

Now, if you actually have a model that is less wrong than the previous iteration get it out there! It will be used faster than you can say "Watts Up With That?" http://arstechnic...-method/ Otherwise you're no different to creationists decrying evolution, because scientists the precise process that did occur.

As for the glee warmists express, I've only seen it occur when national or international organisations take reasonable steps against the expected and probable major cause(s). Can you give a realistic example of a group of people happy that temperatures are going up?
3.1 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2013
Lurker and Sennekuyl - thanks for reasoned, and reasonable comments - it seems to be unusual these days.
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 12, 2013
at least the air will return to its natural state and be a pleasure to breathe
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 13, 2013
ALL the previous models put forth by alarmists and socialist propagandist have been WRONG, but surely one day we will have a warm year and they will shout "hooray." Too funny...

*All* scientific models are wrong, whether in material, biological, quantum or --- funnily enough --- climate science. They are all wrong.

Now, if you actually have a model that is less wrong than the previous iteration get it out there!

Erm...No they aren't.

The model of gravity means we can predict exactly what objects will reach what speeds in certain conditions and the length of time it will take to fall, with 99.999999% accuracy, every time it is performed.

No climate model ever yields any accurate predictive power.

You are twisting the terms that science gives large confidences rather than 100% proofs which only pure mathematics can achieve. The point is, climate models are LAUGHABLY bad at predicting even VAGUE future climate, let alone exact.

1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 13, 2013
I have a rule which protects me from "shock" media about the environment. Any agency, organization, or group that espouses concern for the planet's disruption by human activities - that doesn't first have and offer a plan to limit population growth and or eventually manage it back to sustainable levels - simply has zero credibility. Instead they have an obvious self interest agenda to benefit from the concerns they generate rather than solving the source of anthropogenic problems - too damned many people. Show me a solution to the continued unsustainable growth of the human population and its inevitable catastrophic collapse ("bloom" crash) when critical resources become to thin to support it, and then we have something to discuss. Until then - kindly bugger off.
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 13, 2013

So you must have a number of human beings that the planet can sustain. If you have a rule that says any origination, group, or agency must have a plan to reach this number. What is it? Please include all your data and statistics which give you this number.

If you can't give that number, according to your own rule, you can't really listen to anyone...
1.8 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2013
So you must have a number
It is a very complex issue which cant be expressed in any one 'number' mm. Here is a group which is dealing with it

-and has links to other groups at the bottom of the page. But there are far more powerful Groups committed to preserving the planet. Heres one such Player explaining the Effort.

-The rockefeller foundation has been instrumental in spreading family planning worldwide. There have been over ONE BILLION ABORTIONS since the beginning of the 20th century; russians abort nearly 50%, americans 1/2 that.

-But the only way to create sustainable growth is to destroy the religionist cultures which enforce maximum growth as a means of aggression. We can watch this destruction taking place at the moment throughout the middle east, africa, and southern asia.
3 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2013
500 million
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2013
ALL the previous models put forth by alarmists and socialist propagandist have been WRONG, but surely one day we will have a warm year and they will shout "hooray." Too funny...

No one would shout hooray you idiot. ALL the previous models? Such a moron, it's barely worth the effort to respond.
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2013
500 million
Ah. A tourist.
1.6 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2013
I'm not sure a "modern mystic" is prepared to understand this, but the number is fairly apparent. Humans have one critical resource that limits their existence - phosphorus. All living things require adequate phosphorus. Phosphorus is naturally recycled in soils, but very slowly. The natural phosphorus replenishment cycle of soils limits human food production to under 2 billion people. Since the industrial revolution the advent of NPK fertilizers and the so-called "Green Revolution" the human population has nearly increased by seven fold in less than two hundred years. The phosphorus of NPK comes from mineral phosphates which are now considered a resource that will peak in less than 30 years and confluently limited by peak petrochemicals. Whether we like it or not our population is going to be limited by its food production ability, limited by phosphates and petrochemical-economics. The solution is less people - by management or by catastrophe (famine, disease, war) - our choice.
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2013
Looks like P is recycled and if it is so important, more will be mined and recycled more efficiently.
1 / 5 (14) Nov 14, 2013
I'm not sure a "modern mystic" is prepared to understand this, but the number is fairly apparent.

No, it's far from apparent, which is why I asked for your research and sources (which I didn't see). The number is probably highly contentious. So quit listening to anyone until you've got some hard data on what's sustainable.
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 16, 2013
Apparently the IEA is located on the planet Mongo where the Lava people live. Here on earth there's been no global warming for 17 years while the CO2 has continued to rise at a record breaking pace pretty much destroying the hypothesis that man generated CO2 is causing warming.
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 16, 2013
World set to heat up despite clean-energy efforts, IEA warns

like a chihuahua barking at the moon
4.7 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2013
@Dug - Phosphate rock is indeed a resource that we could run out of, although at current consumption (~200 megatons of phosphorus per year) we have quite a few decades of known reserves.

But after the high-quality phosphate rock runs out, there is still plenty of phosphorus left. The earth's crust averages roughly one part per thousand phosphorous (which is ~20 times more phosphorus than copper, and we already use roughly 20 megatons of copper per year).

While low-grade ores are currently not economical, when the good phosphate rock runs out the price of phosphate fertilizer will go up. Then people will figure out both how to use it more efficiently (reducing run-off, which will also help clean up our waterways) and how to extract it efficiently from lower-grade sources.
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2013
"The model of gravity means we can predict exactly what objects will reach what speeds in certain conditions and the length of time it will take to fall, with 99.999999% accuracy, every time it is performed."

So by your admission the model is wrong in the 8th decimal place, after claiming the model has no error.

I take it that thinking isn't one of your strengths.

3.1 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2013
"Here on earth there's been no global warming for 17 years" - Jack Retard

And yet the global temperature record shows a rise of 0.08'C over that time period.


So your claim is just another lie.
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 17, 2013
"Greenhouse gas emissions will rise by 20 percent by 2035, putting the world on track for a temperature increase of 3.6 degrees, far above the UN target of 2.0 degrees."

The illustrious year 2035 enters the fray again, after the caveman looking steamy spiritual-guru-novel writing head of the IPCC called it "voodoo science" as skeptics successfully issued a correction of glacier melt down by 2035 that was a convenient *typo*:

Meanwhile, the *real* climate forecasters at the UK MET Office which airports and poor rural folk rely on to plan for safe winters, just revised their hothouse former projections, way *down* instead of up:

Real rate of warming is holding steady according to the NOAA's own plot:

At ~0.1° C/decade you get ~0.2° more by 2035.
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 17, 2013
Notice the way they use a press release to try to spoof journalists into reporting a 3.6° burst in temperature by 2035 by leaving out "by 2100" anywhere in the text, which is what the IPCC projections actually refer to.
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 17, 2013
Note *how* Climategate Rogue University (CRU) achieved Vendicar(E)'s significant instead of formerly insignificant recent warming: 2012 ADJUSTMENTS! That's what HadCRUT4 is, a modification of HadCRUT3 retroactively applied in 2012:

"We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." - Phil Jones, head of the CRU but *also* with a Saudi University:

"For your eyes only…Don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone….Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it...." - Phil Jones
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 17, 2013
This article confirms that emissions are indeed booming beyond former predictions, since China is industrializing like mad, and this represents a wonderful *scientific* opportunity to estimate real climate sensitivity, something any kid can now do thanks to the availability of full globe coverage thermal imaging satellites and something called the Internet. Of course the kid will then become a skeptic since the satellite version of Vendicar(E)'s continued warming actually show a sliver of cooling:

I chose the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) data set since the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) series is run by an outspoken skeptic who also has a fancy for Intelligent Design. His shows *some* warming though!

Comic relief for poor satellite averse Vendicar(E):
1 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2013
Seems like the people in Xi'an could do with a hand.. http://www.ukti.g...640.html
Renewable energy should be installed, it's a simple and immediate solution. From large scale generation to micro generation the technology is available. China manufactures a lot of renewable energy systems so it's surprising how this hasn't already been done!
It's possible that China could become a lot greener in as little as 20 years with a helping hand.
However to take this further to reduce total CO2 production to the advised safe levels our own policies need to reflect what we preach before any other country will take us seriously.
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 17, 2013
Note the anti-human, near doomsday vibe in this thread so far, as *normal* people live their lives generationally, doing the real work of the world. The Reverend Thomas Malthus initiated this disaster meme way back in the late 1700s and his claims of doom were revived by Stanford's Paul Ehrlich and is now called neo-Malthusism, something Buckminster Fuller railed against as he inspired tree hugging hippies to build geodesic domes in the countryside.

The head of the WWF environmental organization is Prince Philip, who embodies this profoundly anti-human cult:
"I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus."

Obama's own top science advisor is a frequent coauthor with Paul Ehrlich, and Ehrlich is also a major mentor of Evangelical Christian John Cook of the recent junk science use of the bizarre cherry-picked term "global climate change" to jury rig a so-called confirmation of political activist Orsekes' original 97% consensus claim.
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 17, 2013
Flat satellite temperature data and reports of booming emissions suggest that climate sensitivity to emissions is zero, likely due to perfectly expectable negative feedbacks in a vastly complex system, which means that recent warming before the current lull was mostly natural, a boring continuation of our rise out of the mysterious Little Ice Age that appears in history books and old paintings.

For claiming this I have oddly and ineffectively been called crazy by quite evident members of an online-organized doomsday cult, but the null hypothesis isn't crazy at all, it's Science 101 discipline, merely.

"The null hypothesis is the proposition that implies no effect or no relationship between phenomena. The null hypothesis is popular because it can be tested and found to be false, which then implies there is a relationship between the observed data."

Kevin "Missing Heat Travesty" Trenberth, testy thesis advisor of skeptic John Christy, pleads, nay demands, that we reverse it.
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 17, 2013
We still live in the Steam Age, as you can see from their backlit photo of a coal fired steam turbine power plant exhaust. Also, when coal itself is burned, a hydrocarbon, steam is produced chemically as CH reacts with O₂ to emit H₂O and CO₂.

Even a perfectly clean, fully scrubbed coal plant will billow steam that appears black after you Photoshop a backlit photo. Naughty environmentalists! They even do this to nuclear plants that don't even need scrubbers:

Doomsday cults hate clean low emissions fracking and nuclear power!

Hey Al Gore, whaddabout nukes?

Al: "Nuclear energy is not the panacea for tackling global warming."


It's good you invested in fracking then, Al.
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 17, 2013
Just as Anonymous goes after wacky Scientology, skeptics now go after wacky Climatology.

-=NikFromNYC=-, award winning Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard), formerly -=Xenon=- of the hardware backdoor (Clipper Chip) busting 1994 Macintosh Cryptography Interface Project, a GUI for PGP.


More comic relief out of carbon tax dismissing Australia, referring again to their CSIRO sponsored brief wedding of Climatology to $$$$$:
1 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2013
I knew Scott had lots of sockpuppets but this list is ridiculous. Voleure | Sinister1811 | Maggnus | open | VendicarE | toot | Nikolaus | goracle | Colombe | Father Brrenk | VendicarH | TheSicilian | Ballerina |
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2013
Oh wow, VENDItardE, I think I got a star on Scott's sidewalk, Nikolaus being registered this year.

His madly dangerous cult is still popular in climate talks:

"He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last "time of crisis" in the 1930s and 40s. / This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture. / "The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face," he said."

...but when Doomsday is called off, cults turn actively psycho, en masse.

Uh oh.
2.5 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2013
"I think I got a star on Scott's sidewalk, Nikolaus being registered this year." - NikkieTard

Registerd as a voter or as a sex offender for your actions in that JC-Penny?

Curious minds want to know?
1 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2013
Witness the actual crime of defamation being used by yet another Climate Crusader. These are people you want advising our policy makers? They called Enron executives "the smartest guys in the room," you know, the ones who invented carbon trading.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.