A mini-series on the future of energy
By Dave Wilkin, P. Eng., M.Eng. and Tim Lutton, BSc., MBA
Our previous article, The energy big picture, showed global energy demand growing 25 per cent by 2040. Let’s take a closer look at this growth dynamic and its impact on CO2 emissions.
Energy-Demand growth is driven by Economic Growth (real GDP per capita) and Population Growth. Off-setting this growth is change in Energy Intensity (per unit of GDP), a measure of efficiency delivering the growth. Offsetting Emissions Growth is Carbon Intensity reductions, meaning energy is produced from lower emissions sources.
Canada’s 2015 Paris Agreement is a commitment of 30 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. To achieve this, we now need a combined 7.3 per cent annual reduction in Energy Intensity and Carbon Intensity. That’s more than double Canada’s historic average, and 50 per cent more than green-leader Sweden has achieved, despite their $150 US/ton carbon-tax, lack of oil and gas industry, and smaller, more temperate country. Quite simply, achieving Canada’s Paris Agreement commitment is currently not realistic. Our politicians are not accurately portraying the situation if they say it is.
On a grander scale, the challenge of meeting the global target of 50 per cent reductions by 2030 is much more difficult still. Using BP’s most likely Energy Demand forecast (1.4 per cent annual growth), the world’s Carbon Intensity reductions alone must increase to almost eight per cent annually, a 13-fold improvement over the past decade’s annual average! The emerging greener energy sources and new technologies can’t grow anywhere close to that rate. Getting to zero emissions by 2050 is even more unrealistic.
The United Nation’s Human Development Index suggests that energy consumption of 100 Gigajoules per person is necessary for substantial increases in human development, after which the relationship flattens out. Sadly, over 80 per cent of the world’s population currently does not meet this minimum threshold. (For comparison, Canada’s energy consumption is four times this minimum threshold.) It’s understandable that developing countries prioritize human development improvements over future uncertain climate change risks. It’s somewhat hypocritical for activists in wealthy countries to deny developing countries improvements and lifestyles that we take for granted today, but that’s what shutting down global carbon-energy would do to those countries.
The bottom line:
If another four billion people achieve middle-class lifestyle by mid-century, then energy demand growth will far out-pace both energy efficiency improvements and green energy growth combined, driving emissions up. A world population growing to ten billion people, driven by developing countries, combined with increased immigration from low CO2-intensity countries to high CO2 countries, only adds to the challenges.
This reality is ignored by most OECD political leaders, environmental activists and climate change ‘experts’. That’s unfortunate, because it’s the proverbial elephant in the room. This leads to our next article, the geopolitics surrounding energy. Watch for it!
Dave Wilkin is a Professional Engineer who lives in Huntsville. He is an electrical engineer with a career spanning 35 years in IT, banking and consulting.
Tim Lutton worked in the natural gas and LNG industry for 32 years; with Imperial Oil in Canada, and ExxonMobil in the USA, Australia and Qatar and now lives in Huntsville.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
Well said Murray.
I believe it is you who are wrong sir. Check your facts. Ontario and Quebec are the only provinces to reduce GG emissions. NFLD, BC, Man as well as Alta and Sask, increased theirs. The remainder were flat and inconsequential.
The biggest threat to climate change, a global problem, is the rapid population growth and industrialization of SE Asia…moving forward, you can include Africa in that given it will have 5 of the worlds most populous countries by the end of the century. All these places fall under China’s imperialistic umbrella with little regard for environmental issues and will be coal burning hotbeds for decades.
Paul, Canada has not reduced GHG 20% since 2005. Where did you find that number? There are a number of credible sources to verify where Canada really is at. In 2005, Canada produced about 730 MtCO2e, the lastest forecasts for 2019 range between 705 to 750 depending on source, with an average consensus view of about 720.
Here is a few links to check out: https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/canada/
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/22070/EGR_2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://thenarwhal.ca/canada-s-overall-emissions-are-going-down-we-re-further-away-meeting-our-climate-goals-guess-why/
Also, you seem to suggest we are blaming the developing countries for the current situation. That is not what we are going at all. In fact, if you read what we wrote more carefully, we’re stating the opposite… we suggested it’s hypocritical to deny the developing world the benefits we have received from cheap carbon energy over the past 100 years. We are just pointing out the facts and realities of the implication of future growth on energy demand and where its most likely to come from. Facts matter.
Good article. We cannot control the world but we can try to manage ourselves. 50% of Canada’s emissions come from transportation and burning oil and gas in Alberta and Saskatchewan to make electricity and heat for oil extraction. We can significantly reduce the transportation component by switching to 50% electric vehicles by 2030. We can eliminate the Alberta and Saskatchewan component if they would switch to advanced nuclear for co-generation of electricity and heat. But they only make the oil that we demand. The carbon tax is designed to reduce our demand for oil and gas by providing incentive for people to make their oil and gas tax smaller than their rebate. Those who filed properly got a rebate on their 2018 tax return for tax they never paid. I did. So we are ahead of the game. If we do not mitigate demand, our oil and gas producers will have a much more difficult and costly job of reducing emissions.
Hey folks .. take a look and ..
listen .. https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/2597225270320313/?t=37
Your conclusions are simply wrong. If what you said were inevitably true, then most of Canada could not have reduced their GIG emissions by more that 20% between 2005 and 2017 as per the Paris Accord Agreement. The only provinces to not have achieved that and indeed to have increased their output by more than 40% were Alberta and Saskatchewan with their “dirty” oil. What then this proves contrary to your simple and erroneous conclusions is that population and economic growth (which Canada has had between 2005 and 2017) do not guarantee increased emissions. There is plenty of opportunity to be smarter….Moreover this attitude of blaming the Third World for the climate crisis smacks of centuries old colonialism…The truth is that WE created the climate crisis and have used OUR share of the environment during the 1950’s through 1990’s
First, thanks to you both for attempting to explain this complicated subject to everyone. As you indicate, it’s true Canada will not be able to meet the impossible targets of the Paris agreement. We are a vast, cold country whose economy depends on the extraction and export of natural resources whether it be oil, gas, minerals or timber…all emissions intensive.
Looking at the problem through a country specific lens won’t do. It seems the Conservatives have the most sensible approach when they talk about how we can help the world reduce emissions. There is only one climate and it’s global. With all the talk on how China is leading in the adaptation of electric vehicles, they are still producing over two thirds of the electricity from coal fired plants. More concerning is that as part of their Belt and Road initiative, they are currently planning or building over 300 coal fired generation facilities in developing nations such as Vietnam and Bangladesh. Unfortunately, once built, these plants have a lifespan of 40 years or more.
If Canada can help to change these initiatives through the export of clean technologies as well as supplying cleaner natural gas to these plants instead of coal, I feel that contribute should be our real contribution to the Paris accord. Implementing a feeble carbon tax is simply virtue signaling and will have zero impact on overall climate change…think bigger.
WOW! Finally some ‘reality’ added to the climate change debate and CO2 issues. Folks you can not have it both ways! The nature of capitalism and progress and human growth and country growth GDP etc etc … all require and make co2 one way or the other! If you think the biggest producers and biggest exporters ie china are going to to stop their manufacturing of ‘everything’ .. smoke some more weed! It is not going to happen! The oil and gas products, combustion engines, and … human growth and demand for service and products are not going to stop! Taxes on this and that .. are nothing more than new revenue tools for governments that have exhausted every other option for tax revenue growth to continue there socialist SJW programs and SJW services! Google socialism countries, SJW initiatives, climate change hoaxes etc etc and see for yourself! Don’t be fooled into thinking ‘all’ the carbon taxes and everything else ..are for the benefit of people .. it’s for new revenue($$) for government .. plain and simple!
This is the first thing I’ve read that makes sense our politicians can say anything they want but likely know they can not live up to what they are committing too.
When we look at Sweden it shows us that taxing carbon wont work all it does is give the Govt more money to waste and puts a burden on the poorer people.