Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets

Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets
A hybrid wind and solar power system in Zirje, Croatia, includes 2,400 Watts of wind turbines and 4,000 watts of solar cells. Credit: Nenad Kaji via Wikimedia Commons

The global spread of green technologies must quicken significantly to avoid future rebounds in greenhouse gas emissions, a new Duke University study shows.

"Based on our calculations, we won't meet the climate warming goals set by the Paris Agreement unless we speed up the spread of clean technology by a full order of magnitude, or about ten times faster than in the past," said Gabriele Manoli, a former postdoctoral associate at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, who led the study.

"Radically new strategies to implement technological advances on a global scale and at unprecedented rates are needed if current emissions goals are to be achieved," Manoli said.

The study used delayed differential equations to calculate the pace at which global per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide have increased since the Second Industrial Revolution—a period of rapid industrialization at the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th. The researchers then compared this pace to the speed of new innovations in low-carbon-emitting technologies.

Using these historical trends coupled with projections of future global population growth, Manoli and his colleagues were able to estimate the likely pace of future emissions increases and also determine the speed at which climate-friendly technological innovation and implementation must occur to hold warming below the Paris Agreement's 2o C target.

"It's no longer enough to have emissions-reducing technologies," he said. "We must scale them up and spread them globally at unprecedented speeds."

Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets
Models of future CO2 emissions and temperature changes show the Paris Agreement's warming target of 2oC won't be met unless clean technologies are developed and implemented at rates 10 times faster than in the past to avoid future CO2 emissions. Credit: Duke University

The researchers published their peer-reviewed findings December 29 in the open-access journal Earth's Future.

The analysis shows that per-capita CO2 emissions have increased about 100 percent every 60 years—typically in big jumps—since the Second Industrial Revolution. This "punctuated growth" has occurred largely because of time lags in the spread of emission-curbing , which are compounded by the effects of rapid population growth.

"Sometimes these lags are technical in nature, but—as recent history amply demonstrates—they also can be caused by political or economic barriers," Manoli explained. "Whatever the cause, our quantification of the delays historically associated with such challenges shows that a tenfold acceleration in the spread of is now necessary to cause some delay in the Doomsday Clock."

Manoli, who is now on the research staff at ETH Zurich's Institute of Environmental Engineering, conducted the new study with Gabriel G. Katul, the Theodore S. Coile Professor of Hydrology and Micrometeorology, and Marco Marani, professor of ecohydrology. Katul and Marani are faculty members at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment with secondary appointments in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Duke's Pratt School of Engineering.


Explore further

Global water use may outstrip supply by mid-century

More information: "Delay-induced Rebounds in CO2 Emissions and Critical Time-Scales to Meet Global Warming Targets," Gabriele Manoli, Gabriel G. Katul, Marco Marani. Earth's Future.  Dec. 29, 2016. DOI: 10.1002/eft2.2016EF000431
Provided by Duke University
Citation: Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets (2017, January 3) retrieved 25 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-01-tenfold-green-tech-global-emissions.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
510 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 03, 2017
Its not enough to just make a big bundle of expensive tech and label it green.
It has to be manufacturable/maintainable/recyclable with a net carbon reduction or it's just greenwash. You even have to factor in the carbon cost of making the yachts owned by the rich bar-stewards who own the companies.
It may be that usefully burning methane at sewerage works or burning renewable grasses in a third world stove is more green than many high tech green solutions.

Jan 03, 2017
France de-carbonized its entire electricity supply in 15 years after the oil supply shortage in the 70's.

It's possible. The question is, whether the solutions that would make it are the "wrong solutions" by the people who have an economical and political interest riding on the other stuff that won't make it.


Jan 03, 2017
"The study used delayed differential equations to calculate the pace at which global per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide have increased since the Second Industrial Revolution"


The question is, whether the solutions that would make it are the "wrong solutions" by the people who have an economical and political interest riding on the other stuff that won't make it.


..........Nope, he couldn't be wrong about this, he used delayed differential equations to figure this out. Imagine the gall of telling readers at a science site that you can do DEs, of course you would expect anything you write to rate no less than a 5 Star vote.

Gabriele Manoli- 0 Star


Jan 03, 2017
We have to forcefully & quickly improve our technology. Not only we'll glimpse into the world of tomorrow, we'll also saving the climate.

Jan 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

KBK
Jan 03, 2017
Since solar power is now quite inexpensive, we need to see solar power powering solar panel production plants. As a major cost of solar panel production (from zero to full panels) is the power usage itself.

The cost saving multiply the effectiveness of the given panel production plant, and allow for enlarging the plant's production levels... over taking the savings--- as higher profits.

You scale such a plant every year or less, and it can happen fairly fast.

And, we need to simultaneously drive a vampire stake through the heart of the petrochemical industry and associated enablers. With extreme directed unyielding prejudice.

Jan 03, 2017
Ten fold? Hardly.

I'll bet one Trump to your Ten Fold.

Jan 03, 2017
If they divert the billions, being squandered on AGW Cult propaganda... er...excuse me..."science", to this...well...

Jan 03, 2017
"the other stuff that won't make it"
--------------------------------------
What stuff is that? The PV panels on my roof or the house and EV they power?

Looks to me like they "made it".

Jan 03, 2017
Given the rapid arctic warming and the release of CH4 and CH3OH, we need to seriously think of geoengineering to reduce global temperatures.

Jan 03, 2017
Let the greens pay for this, all of it. Tax them and do not tax people who want no part of it. If you force this on people, don't expect them to pay more for it than they pay now. $0.11/kwh and not $0.30/kwh for power. Greens are always saying the U.S. has to lead as an example, it's time the greens themselves did.

Jan 03, 2017
I paid for mine already. Why don't you?

My PV system powers the house and car.

Clean up your own act.

Jan 03, 2017
If they divert the billions, being squandered on AGW Cult propaganda... er...excuse me..."science", to this...well...


If they divert the trillions wasted on fossil fuel cartels towards renewable energy. The Earth would have a better future as Real science proved the destruction of what filthy oil had been doing to earth for decades. Your rambling as usual quote points to nothing but hot air.

Jan 03, 2017
Let the greens pay for this, all of it. Tax them and do not tax people who want no part of it. If you force this on people, don't expect them to pay more for it than they pay now. $0.11/kwh and not $0.30/kwh for power. Greens are always saying the U.S. has to lead as an example, it's time the greens themselves did.


It's time you ie you and your sockpuppets all the same monkey, shooty , rrandy and antigorilla grow some brain capacity to understand scientific data and what destruction filthy oil has been doing for decades to the earth.

Jan 03, 2017
So over the doomsday announcements.

We know you and your puppetry which is you alone are overly limited in understanding real science, so no biggy here

Jan 03, 2017
"Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets"

Sounds like it's time to roll up the sleeves and get to work then......

Jan 04, 2017
Let the greens pay for this, all of it. Tax them and do not tax people who want no part of it. ...

The people who "want no part of it" are the cause of global warming just as much as most of us. They are just too selfish and immoral to take responsibility for their own actions and they do not care about their impact on future generations of people. So why should it be only the people that care about future generations that must pay for the harm done to future generation by those who don't care? I say, if anybody, it should be the selfish uncompassionate immoral people who "want no part of it", who are the main cause of the problem, that should pay more for it.

Jan 04, 2017
Let the greens pay for this, all of it.

Deal. If you pay for all the damages by fossil fuels in return. Hope your pockets are deep.

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