An Outbreak of Climate Optimism
But only if politicians keep their promises.

Ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) issued its Emissions Gap Report 2021, declaring that the world is on track for a global average temperature rise this century of at least 2.7°C (4.9°F). The UNEP found that the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction pledges made by signatories to the Paris Agreement back in 2015, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), are far too modest to keep average temperatures from rising by less than the 2.0°C (3.6°F) threshold set by the treaty, much less the more stringent limit of 1.5°C (2.7°F), by 2100.
The UNEP report calculated that current global GHG emissions must be cut by 55 percent before 2030 in order the sustain the trajectory toward the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal. According to the UNEP, global GHG emissions including carbon dioxide, methane, and fluorinated gases amounted to nearly 60 gigatons in 2020. A 55 percent cut would mean lowering emissions by 33 gigatons, or 3.6 gigatons per year, until 2030.
Keep in mind that the U.S. emitted 4.6 gigatons of carbon dioxide in 2020, the lowest amount in 40 years. This is largely because of the ongoing switch from coal to lower-carbon, cheap natural gas to generate electricity, as well as the pandemic's effects on the economy and travel.
The agency found that the new and updated NDCs only take a predicted 7.5 percent off 2030 global emissions, putting the world on track for an average temperature increase of 2.7°C by 2100. The report did note that if countries' announced net-zero emissions targets were fully implemented, that could shave an extra 0.5°C off global warming, bringing the predicted temperature rise down to 2.2°C.
Now, two brand new analyses suggest that the UNEP report may be too pessimistic, largely because of new pledges made at the COP26 summit. Let's take the more optimistic one first. Yesterday, International Energy Agency (IEA) Executive Director Fatih Birol tweeted:
BIG NEWS ???? #COP26 climate pledges mean Glasgow is getting closer to Paris!
New @IEA analysis shows that fully achieving all net zero pledges to date & the Global Methane Pledge by those who signed it would limit global warming to 1.8 C
A big step forward, but much more needed!
— Fatih Birol (@fbirol) November 4, 2021
In mid-October, the IEA calculated in its World Energy Outlook report that if countries actually implemented their announced GHG reduction policies, then the demand for fossil fuels would peak by 2025, and annual global carbon dioxide emissions would drop by 40 percent by 2050. In that scenario, the global average temperature rise in 2100 would be around 2.1°C.
In its new quick analysis, the IEA assumes that every country that has pledged to achieve net-zero GHG emissions over the next few decades will keep its promises. It also takes into account the new agreement by 100 countries to cut methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030. "Our updated analysis of these new targets – on top of all of those made previously – shows that if they are met in full and on time, they would be enough to hold the rise in global temperatures to 1.8°C by the end of the century," notes the new IEA commentary.
Science has just published a new analysis, "Can Updated Climate Pledges Limit Warming Well Below 2°C?," parsing how the implementation of the newly announced NDCs could affect future average global temperature trends. The answer to the question posed in the article's title is "perhaps," assuming that the new pledges are fulfilled.
"We find there's a roughly one in three chance that we'll stay under 2 degrees Celsius," said lead author Yang Ou, a researcher at the Joint Global Change Research Institute, in a press release. "But even with increased ambition, we're still far away from getting down to 1.5 degrees in this century." Furthermore, the new analysis has "practically ruled out the possibility of the worst climate outcomes of 4 degrees or higher," added corresponding author Haewon McJeon, a researcher at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Failures to enact and meet previous emissions pledges, as under the Kyoto Protocol, call for a bit of skepticism about these new ones. Politicians easily make promises that other leaders and future generations are supposed to keep 30 years from now.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It is about control and power. Just ask any of these politicians when their jet lands after making the long flight back from the climate gathering.
"We want to live" chant the climate activists, as they step in front of Mancin's SUV.
Too bad his SUV didn’t mow them all down.
I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i'm my non-public boss.
that is what I do...... READ MORE
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FGh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW
I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. Hav simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now……………… Visit Here
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.YJg Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website now.......... Pays 24
Sarah getting Paid upto $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.GVe Everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……
So I started.............. E-CASH
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…VRs And i get surly a check of $12600 what's awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won't regret it! ……...........VISIT HERE
I am taking in substantial income two Hundred$ dollar online from my PC. A month ago I GOT check of almost $31k, this online work is basic and GHl direct, don’t need to go OFFICE, Its home online activity.
For More Information Visit…………Pays24
Consolidate power.
Declare victory.
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FA And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it!…………… Click & Chang your ._________foxlineblog.Com
Why Aren't Democrats Protesting the Biden DOJ Over Lack of 1/6 Insurrection Charges?
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA! WORSE THAN 9/11!!11!!1!!1!!!
*White Mike and Shrike shuffle their feet nervously*
Glenn Greenwald is the fucking GOAT.
I dare Laursen and sarcasmic to watch Greenwald's analysis and explain themselves.
Fat brown envelopes, giant yachts and thousands of private jets, Bottles of Cristal and caviar canapes, gift bags from Dior, Hermès, Rolex and the Agricultural Bank Of China, exotic hookers flown in from around the world, hobnobbing and networking with the rich, the royal and the famous... It must be wonderful to be dedicated to saving the planet.
They are making all the big decisions so you don’t have to.
I've heard you can score major tail while caring.
Seems unlikely. The "hooker" budget has likely been reduced. They'll have to settle for hooked who could come in by train....
**** autocorrect.
So imagine where you live now.
Then imagine going someplace 4 degrees warmer.
Sort of like a vacation.
We'll be fine.
LOL! Austin, TX and Mexico City. The only difference at all is the temperature.
Keith Morrison was narrating one of the murder shows my s.o. loves so much and he says "it was one of those warm Texas summers" lol
The looter press in the 1960s and 70s was soothsaying global cooling. The actual articles are online at realclimatescience dotcom at the "1970's Global Cooling Scare" page. The clippings are so shrill, single-minded and simple that even Bailey could see it for the fraud it was. Suddenly, it became the "1984" chapter where Oceania was no longer at war with Eastasia and at peace with Eurasia. Climate prophesying underwent a similar Hitler-Stalin pact and overnight "we" were doomed to broil rather than freeze--unless we repent under duress.
"We will break you upon the Wheel" is a promise from the politicians you can always count on them keeping.
I am underwhelmed by additional calculations of warming from the same unvalidated computer models that have so consistently failed to match either the geologic or current temperature records.
But even if you assume all of their calculations and projections, that temperature increase is roughly equivalent to moving 200 miles south. So roughly the climate distance between Boston and Philadelphia or Baltimore to Richmond. Scary indeed.
In mid-October, the IEA calculated in its World Energy Outlook report that if countries actually implemented their announced GHG reduction policies, then the demand for fossil fuels would peak by 2025, and annual global carbon dioxide emissions would drop by 40 percent by 2050. In that scenario, the global average temperature rise in 2100 would be around 2.1°C.
Haha! As you say, the models are never, ever wrong! Because they are never held to account. Just re-calibrated to be correct based on past data.
Mathematics is hate speech.
I'm an optimist without the criminals criminaling behind the climate curtain
They don't want much, they just want more - - - - - -
"That's right, l want more!"
-Johnny Rocco in Key Largo
Yes, absolutely. And you know where they give away the game?
"cut methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030."
That is a direct attack at eating meat. There is an active attack on the left to move the Masses off of meat. Oh, right now it is just cheering on Meatless products, and giving recommendations, and maybe a little tut-tutting. But that is how it started with internal combustion engines.
In 5 years, once they have established all the "grass roots" groups, normalized the language, and gotten some backing from government critters, the Right will wake up and see that once again, a basic tradition we took for granted is already on the defensive.
When the Left is done, meat will be the type of luxury that only the rich can afford regularly. The rest of the masses will have to make do with their Nutrient Paste- I mean, Beyond Beef- and lentils.
The best thing that could happen is for the Book of Armaments to be translated into Lamb and Sloth and Carp and Anchovy and Orangutan and Fruit Bat. Let the animals see who the enemy is. As the Turkeys say - Çok yaşa Devrim!
I love the assumption that we will develop no new technologies in the next 80 years. The COP zero summit held in 1900 would have assured us that unless we change our lifestyles, we'll all be hip deep in horse manure by 1925.
The world's first power-generating nuclear reactor went critical at Los Alamos 77 years ago. Socialist dictatorships have since that time striven to brainwash and inflame fools against such newfangled anti-socialist gadgetry. Thanks to The Kleptocracy monopolizing the educational system to imitate national and international socialism, dolts incapable of long division form protest mobs to keep energy unaffordable out of ignorance and terror.
I have absolutely no trust in any modeling, anymore. Everything written about here is a projection based on a model. From good things happening to bad things happening, humans aren't sophisticated enough to be able to model it.
I'm so tired of the oversized role that models play in our society. Especially when it is shown over and over again that we are terrible at predicting the future.
The problem isn't modeling, it's modelers that refuse to correct their errors no matter how many times the predictions fail - and by now, they've failed more than the end-of-the-world predictions of the 19th century Millerites and 20th century Jehovah's Witnesses combined. These so-called scientists act much more like apocalyptic religious leaders. Real scientists change their hypotheses when new data shows they're wrong. Religious nuts double-down on failure - and so do the "climate scientists".
And the real reason for optimism is that, based on the consistent differences between their predictions and the small actual temperature rises, there's nothing to worry about.
It's sad to see reason magazine printing this type of garbage.
"Climate change" is simply a vehicle for implementing collective rights and banning Individual Rights.
Anyone with any ability to think critically can see this.
"Environmentalists" are like watermelons: a thin veneer of green, but inside nothing but red.
Reason used to print articles by Dr. Petr Beckmann...
MMGW is a hoax
For those who believe in a god of creation; man cannot change what that god created.
For those who believe in "the science", extinction of a species, including all species, is a part of nature. You cannot overrule mother nature.
Give it up! We will move a bit away from the waters, we will move a bit north, we will enjoy longer planting and harvesting in the north, and man will survive.
Tony Hendra was right:
"You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
Whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back."
'Tony Hendra was right:
"You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.'
We are as Flounder, so we'd better get good at it.
As I recall, Russia and China didn't bother to show up. China is building new coal-fired plants as quick as they can.
Politicians easily make promises that other leaders and future generations are supposed to keep 30 years from now.
It won't be 30 years. Those politicians will be replaced as soon as the lights start going off and refrigerators quit working. Unless you live in California, and can buy fossil fuel power from neighboring states.
Yeah, WRT China the, "if countries actually implemented their announced GHG reduction policies, then the demand for fossil fuels would peak by 2025" really caught my eye. China promised peak *building* in 20*30* and, as of March, showed no real signs of meeting it. The idea that the plan works without China *and* Russia (and other developing countries) is laughable. A failed, non-starter on its face.
Someone needs to take all of the Greta Thunbergs of the world, sit them down, and rationally explain to them that they are being lied to when someone tells them that the world will be ending in X years. (The religious kooks are always claiming the same thing, but their timelines are always short enough, and specific enough, that when it doesn't happen, it's pretty apparent that they are just kooks.)
When they Gretas still refuse to accept that they are simply being manipulated, then I would suggest a deprogramming such as is used by parents of children that have been brainwashed by any other cult.
All these gloom and doom predictions are based on ‘worse case scenarios’ which happen as often ‘best case scenarios’ which is - never. This why explain why none of their climate disaster predictions never actually come true.
which happen as often ‘best case scenarios’ which is - never
Incorrect. You're being too generous to them and not generous enough otherwise. The US (and, to a lesser degree and if only nominally, other countries) has repeatedly exceeded conditions set in accords that it has voided or ignored.
declaring that the world is on track for a global average temperature rise this century of at least 2.7°C (4.9°F).
The 'optimism' that results from that projection is according to this article nothing but bureaucrats pretending that this time people will adhere to agreements that the bureaucrats want them to negotiate. That isn't optimism. It is pimping their own portfolio of tricks.
Especially since I've heard almost nothing about what a 2.7C increase is expected to look like. The entire 1.5c projection did have projections - but as that became practically unattainable, almost nothing has been done to project what is more likely and instead those folks just started hyping up the panic about not achieving the unattainable. And I seriously doubt (though I will skim) the Emissions Gap Report will actually identify what a 2.7c increase actually results in if it is being called a 'Gap' report. The purpose of that sort of title is simply to stoke up the panic more.
The only scenarios/outcomes I've seen that go above 2.0c is the Carbon Brief. And mostly what you see above 2.0c is a bunch of empty data points. The ONLY things at around 3.0c are:
Probability of ice-free Arctic summer in any year goes from 3% at 1.5c to 63% at 3.0c
Average drought length increase goes from 2 months at 1.5c to 10 months at 3.0c.
Proportion of species losing 50% of their climate range goes from 2-8% at 1.5c to 40-70% at 4.5c (which is nowhere near 3.0c).
Global impact of GDP on energy demand for heating/cooling from 0.05% at 1.5c to 0.9% at 4.0c. Which doesn't matter much because reducing heating demand partially offsets increased cooling demand.
There is some stuff at regional levels but not much.
Having skimmed that Emissions Gap Report, it is what I thought. Nothing about what 2.7c might look like. All about bureaucrats identifying ways to {work harder}{panic more} to achieve a 1.5c goal.
It is obvious to anyone that no one other than those bureaucrats cares about the impact of 1.5c because - as everyone admits, it is the temperature change that doesn't have a significant impact. AFTER we hit a temperature impact that has a serious impact, THEN people will start to care about that.
All of the lying impersonators shrieking against the world's safest and lowest-carbon energy conversion since the 1970s are without exception now claiming that global warmunism is poised on the brink of killing us all. The only person countering this hysteria with real data is Tony over at RealClimateScience. But nobody takes him seriously because of his dancing around the witch's cauldron of televangelist looter prohibitionism in a Maga cap. Ya can't win!
Well, glad you think there is something to hope for. For, you see, the one person who really matters has pronounced COP26 an abject failure; Greta Thunberg.
I used to think that girl needed a good spanking, or at least a time out or two. Now that she's grown some, I think someone should just get her laid.
As a general rule I agree with most of the points of view expressed by Reason, but on climate change you are WRONG. Humans are NOT the primary driver of any change to the earth's climate. That belongs to the sun. We are entering a solar minimum, that will last until after 2050. Expect more extreme weather in both summer and winter. Did you like what happened in Texas last winter? Good, cause you are going to get more of it. Do some research.
In almost every other topic of interest Reason takes a position counter to the gov'ts, but on climate you are in lock step. Why it that?
"But only if politicians keep their promises."
So if all the children clap real loud, Tinkerbell won't die?
BTW, the banner is quite clear about a CLIMATE EMERGNECY!!!!!
Well, if it's been going on without causing any real harm for nearly 20 years, it ain't an emergency.
I hope they can come to some protocol to make people pay for the effects of their pollution. It feels like there will be a lot of climate change resulting from our activities now, and future generations will have to find a way to deal with it. It's hard to know how much that will cost them. But we're pushing the costs onto them by not acting now.
I found them! Right there! Two, 6-foot-tall fire extinguishers! Either side of the sign! How did no one see this before?
What the envoronmentalists should actually promote is nuclear power. That is probably the only source of energy that can reduce Co2 omissions the next 50 years.
The world population will grow to about 12 billion people, if we manage globally to have only 2 kids per family on average. This is due to that the most of the world population still is young. So even if the birthrate gets down to 2 kids per familiy we will still be 12 billion people wandering aroun earch in about 20 year or so. Bite on that one.
12 billion people will mean that the demand for energy will go up, no matter what you try to do. More cars, more houses, more food production and you name it.
The only realistic way to deal with future omission problems is to bild a lot of new, modern and effective nuclear power stations around the world. And at the same time get rid of coal. A nuclear power plant have about 0 CO2 omissions. What comes out of a nuclear station is evaporated water.
The risk of dealing with nuclear waste is way lower than the risk of ruining the world climate. In Tjernobyl in the 80-ies only about 90 people died from radiation. The most of the people that died after the Tjernobyl accident was older people that died of stress having to move from their old homes. Unfortunately people and media seem to not have got this.
Contrary to builidng mor nuclear power plants, as the world should do, unintelligent politicians have decided to get rid of nuclear power, like Germany. This is probably one of the worst energy decisions the last couple of 100 years.
Still we have time to save the world if we just focus on good nuclear power again.
https://byttstrømmen.no
What the envoronmentalists should actually promote is nuclear power. That is probably the only source of energy that can reduce CO2 omissions the next 50 years.
The world population will continue to grow to about 12 billion people, if we manage globally to have only 2 kids per family on average. This is due to that the most of the world population still is young. So even if the birthrate gets down to 2 kids per familiy we will still be 12 billion people on earth in about 20 year or so. Bite on that one.
12 billion people will mean that the demand for energy will go up, no matter what you try to do. More cars, more houses, more food production and you name it.
The only realistic way to deal with future omission problems is to build a lot of new, modern and effective nuclear power plants around the world. And at the same time get rid of coal. A nuclear power plant have about zero CO2 omissions. What comes out of a nuclear station is evaporated hot steam, due to the cooling process within the plant.
The risk of dealing with nuclear waste is way lower than the risk of ruining the world climate. In Tjernobyl accident in the 80-ies only about 90 people died from radiation. The most of the people that died after the Tjernobyl accident was older people that died of stress having to move from their old homes. Unfortunately people and media seem to not have got this.
Contrary to builidng more nuclear power plants, as the world should do, unintelligent politicians have decided to get rid of nuclear power, like Germany. This is probably one of the worst energy decisions the last couple of 100 years.
Still we have time to save the world if we just focus on good nuclear power again.
https://byttstrømmen.no
keep it up for more information like this.