EU study predicts clean energy, climate failure by 2050

  

The EU's decarbonisation of its energy sector will only cut emissions by half the amount needed to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius in 2050, according to a business-as-usual scenario quietly released by the European Commission over the Christmas period.

Scientists and EU leaders agree that by mid-century, Europe must ramp up energy savings and green its power generation to slash CO2 emissions by 80-95% compared to 1990 levels, and so avoid catastrophic climate change. 

But according to a European Commission ‘Trends to 2050’ study, which was released below the radar over the Christmas period, the continent is only on track to reduce its emissions by around a third in 2030, and 44% in 2050.

The paper only considered existing CO2 reduction schemes, and assumed no new energy and climate policies after 2020. It was pounced on by clean energy advocates as evidence of the need for a new milestone in 2030.

“With the EU's power sector expected to still be pumping out almost 400 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2050, and the EU in an even worse energy security situation, an ambitious 2030 climate and energy framework, with targets for renewable energy and GHG reductions, is more critical than ever,” said Justin Wilkes, the deputy CEO of the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA).

“Without such targets energy security and a zero-carbon power sector will be impossible,” he added.

Rather than a zero-carbon power sector, the single greenhouse gas cut of 40% by 2030 that currently looks likely to be agreed would put Europe on track for an 80% cut by 2050, environmentalists say.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says this reduction would be in line with a target of containing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 450 parts per million. But that would only give the planet a 50/50 chance of keeping global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, according to the International Energy Agency.

In a letter to the European Commission last month, Kevin Anderson, the deputy director of the UK’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research accused its president, José Manuel Barroso of a “misrepresentation of probabilities [that] has dramatic consequences for the necessary scale of mitigation.”

Business as usual

The ‘Trends’ documents though simply present business-as-usual scenarios. The last such paper in 2009, before the EU's 2020 targets were announced, projected a 20% emissions cut by 2030.

The new paper predicts that by 2050, gas, wind and nuclear energy will each be providing around a quarter of Europe’s energy supply.

Efficiency gains will also be significant. “Despite significant economic growth making the EU economy 78% larger in 2050 than it was in 2010, there is a decline of total energy consumption by 8%,” the paper says.

But campaigners pointed out that this was not enough. “This trend shows the nonsense of pursuing only a business-as-usual scenario and underlines the need for coherent long-term policy development over the period to 2050,” Adrian Joyce, the secretary-general of EuroACE told EurActiv.

“Not putting greater effort into cost-effective energy efficiency improvements is particularly myopic in the current economic climate,” he added.   

Unconventional fuels

Fuel price projections over the longer term in the study are affected by the shale gas boom and exploration of unconventional fuel reserves, with gas straying from an upwards trend affecting oil prices.

After 2035, the study posits that “the limited availability of indigenous fossil fuel resources (due to depletion of domestic resources) as well as limited additional biomass imports lead to total net energy imports increasing again.”

“This mainly concerns natural gas, which according to the projection will play a crucial role in the context of emission reduction targets and as back-up for variable RES (renewables),” it adds.

A slower development of carbon capture and storage technologies is also forecast.

Positions: 

“By observing the forecast of the effects of energy efficiency policies both for 2020 and 2030, it is clear that the energy efficiency potential remains unexploited. This is due to the fact that the scenario assumes an ongoing low ambition on energy efficiency and the underestimation of the massive positive effects that a high EU binding target could bring to energy consumption scenarios”, said Monica Frassoni, President of the European Alliance to Save Energy (EU-ASE).

Timeline: 
  • 22 January 2014: EU climate package to be announced
  • May 2014: New EU Parliament to be elected
  • May 2014: EU member states must prepare schemes for their energy companies to deliver annual energy savings of 1.5% as part of the Energy Efficiency Directive
  • June 2014: Review of progress towards meeting the 2020 energy efficiency target
  • 2020: Deadline for EU states to meet binding targets for 20% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, improvements in energy efficiency, and market share for renewable energy
External links: 
Advertising

Comments

international foundation for research and innovation  's picture

Beside some conventional measure it must be implemented programmes which will motivate companies to make businesses which do not consume resources and polution For this purpose every country must creat a list of businesses opportunities which bring more than 25 % in less than 75 days and which do not consume energy and resources

international foundation for research and innovation  's picture

Apart of conventional measure every world wild country not just Europe Union must also
1) Make researches in order to identify new businesses opportunities which bring high profit in very short time and in the same time do not consumme energy and produce pollution
2) In paralel wit this it must be included in every world wild education programme special courses which will teach
a) how to work from home
b)Economics activities which bring high profit in short time but do not consume energy and make pollution
Those programmes must be implemented in every World wild country and with priorities in those which have a very big rate of pollution

international foundation for research and innovation  's picture

As Europe Union has 3 capital cities ,Viena ,Helsinki ,Stcokholm which are on the list of the less pollueted cities in the world and a big parte of strategics investors want to get high profit in short time and live in a low pollueted city ,those countries must organize conferences about
1) Business opportunities which bring more than 25 % in less than 75 days but do not consumme resources and make pollution
2) How to work from home get enough money and have time to engoy live with your family and friends

Mats Jangdal's picture

The Euractive staff, The European Commission, The European Parliament, the employees of the European union and all of the constituents of Europe needs to understand that carbon-dioxide is not able to cause a catastrophic climate change.
Therefore the measures called for by the EU and the Euractive are not only unnecessary, they are outright harmful to our society, to Europe.

Take a close look at what the new Australian government thinks of CAGW and what it is doing about it. Look at Canada, Japan, Russia, China, Brazil and tell me Europe needs to ruin her self in vain to save the planet.

The fear of being dependent on arab oil, russian oil or american oil, needs to addressed in a completely different manner. By finding our own for example. Or utilizing the known depots of natural gas in our territory.

NP's picture

@ Mats - one thing is clear: you certainly can't save yourself while the planet is being ruined..

Mats Jangdal's picture

@NP
The planet isn't being ruined, our society is!

Gerry's picture

@ Mats,
There is no point using the new Australian government's environmental policies as an example for Europe to follow. Australia's economy is entirely dominated by mining industries and the countries biggest earners are coal mining and coal exports to Asia. The politicians greatest priorities are too protect these industries at all cost and expand into new areas to compensate for diminishing exports to China. To achieve this a mix of willful ignorance and disbelief towards climate science is employed, as well as a tea party like climate denial attitude.

Mats Jangdal's picture

@ Gerry
You (and lots of other are people) are unfortunately the ones being fooled by the IPCC. To make it even worse you seem to be in denial about it too.

Gerry's picture

And no doubt you will have the evidence to prove that? If so, I would like to see it, I'm always ready for a good laugh at another poor, confused, gullible fool and their conspiracy theories. How can you even begin to think that we can just plough into this planet the way we have done without any consequences is just totally beyond me.

Mats Jangdal's picture

@Gerry

The burden of proof is on you my friend. Since you claim our emissions of CO2 is ruining our planet, you have to show us how.
The IPCC models hav all been proven wrong and are therefore not admissible. The warming hiatus has not been explained, The tropospheric equatorial hot spots predicted are nowhere to be found, the ice sheets are intact, polar bears thrive.

Come on, show us your proof!

Mike Parr's picture

The quietly released "Trends to 2050" report is an interesting piece of work. A request to the EC - please print it on soft and absorbent paper (or perhaps don't print it at all).

I'll start by asking why the EC continues to fund E3-M lab and its PRIMES (non) model? EWEA have a long history of attacking PRIMES (and its outcomes - see some of their reports). The twaddle that describes it at the start of the report e.g. "The modular structure of PRIMES reflects a distribution of decision making among agents that act individually about their supply, demand, combined supply and demand, and prices" -, shows the simple minded tosh that its keepers subscribe to.

Moving on to data, last night I had a chat with a Spanish colleague about PV capital costs - he is looking at Euro1/Watt fully built. Page 18 of the report shows large-scale PV at Euro2/Watt in 2015. On-shore wind was estimated at Euro1.4/Watt, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (April 2012) Euro0.8/Watt. A suspicious mind would think that the figures were deliberately biased to show fossil in a better light - surely not?.

My suggestion to the Commission - show a bit of honesty, we all know that E3-M and its PRIMES "model" is garbage - do the decent thing, junk it (& them) and start again.

One of the areas of action wrt the reduction of CO2 emissions is the residential sector. The report shows exactly zero reduction in emissions from the residential sector from now to 2050. Really? Zero? despite all the actions to insulate homes, electrify heating
etc etc.

As they say, rubbish in rubbish out - in this case we have a model that might be presented with OK data but only ever produces rubbish. I do hope the EU will not bas policy making on this joke called Primes

Bob Armstrong's picture

The global statist war against the building block of life , which is visibly greening the planet as seen from space , is criminally stupid nonscience . Only the power sucking politicians and their eco-crapitalist cronies refuse to recognize their conceit is being debunked by the planet itself .

Content Partners