One of the key arguments that Norway uses to continue oil & gas developments, is that under BAU it is expected that oil & gas production will decline in line with <2°C scenarios, even with continued investment.
Let's look closer at these projections & reality...
1/
Here is the projections from the 2003 report from the petroleum agency.
In reality (tweet 1) there was a dip around 2010, but production is now up around 250 million cubic again.
The forecast was totally & utterly WRONG!
2/
In 2011 there was a forecast for an increase in production to 2020, but then a decline. This is probably since they started to put the Johan Sverdrup field on the books.
The increase in production was way too low, again, they got it wrong.
3/
In 2016, the forecast seemed to have lost the peak around 2020, but with a slower decline in production.
Again, according to history, they were wrong, even with a forecast window of only a few years!
4/
And here we are today. With a new high (local minima), currently over 250 million cubic, but an expectation of a decline afterwards.
The forecasts made have so far all been wrong!
Production has not declined as the petroleum agency has predicted.
5/
This is not uncommon, Norway is not alone. Everyone thought US oil production had peaked, until they found shale oil / gas.
6/
The important point is that technology constantly proves these forecasts wrong.
Based on history, there is little evidence that Norwegian oil & gas production will fall as forecast.
Continued investment & technology evolution will make these forecasts wrong.
7/
Norwegian climate policy is currently based on incorrectly telling people these forecasts are accurate, when they know they are not.
8/
CO2 emissions by fossil fuel:
* We thought coal peaked in 2014. No, & up another 1.1% in 2023
* Oil up 1.5%, on the back of a 28% increase in international aviation & China, but oil remains below 2019 level. 🤞
* Has the golden age of gas come to an end thanks to Russia?
2/
By top emitters:
* China up 4.0% & a peak this year would be a surprise
*US down 3.0%, with coal at 1903 levels
* India up 8.2%, with fossil CO2 clearly above the EU27
* EU27, down 7.4% with drops in all fuels
* Bunkers, up 11.9% due to exploding international aviation
Is the new @DrJamesEHansen et al article an outlier, or rather mainstream?
At least in terms of the key headline numbers, it seems rather mainstream, particularly if you remember most headline key numbers have quite some uncertainty!
The Remaining Carbon Budget for 1.5°C is now smaller because: 1) We have not reduced emissions in three years 2) Updated simple climate models because of updated historical aerosol emissions 3) Some new method choices
The update for 2°C has similar changes for each component, but because the budget is much bigger, the changes don't seem that dramatic. Not Nature Climate Change worthy...
The changes to the 1.5°C budget seem dramatic, because the budget is basically gone.
2/
These updates are not new. A few years back 1.5°C was considered "geophysically impossible", but not after a revised budget:
I wrote a post on the utility of 1.5°C budgets back then, obviously ignored. Also on non-CO2.
Following an @IPCC_CH workshop on scenarios in April 2023 (Bangkok), a few of us decided to put together a peer-reviewed paper to feed into ScenarioMIP. We invited more authors to contribute.
This is eminently sensible & I would encourage other communities as well!
3/
I think the first paragraph of Brian's article highlights a problem.
First, reference 6, @OurWorldInData does not support this statement, only the last phrase.
Second, our current modelling framework simply cannot answer the question, & is arguably unable to.
2/
Nearly all emission scenarios assessed by the IPCC use the principle of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (in fact, >90% use SSP2, but that is another story).
The SSP structure makes socioeconomic development, climate policy, & climate impacts completely independent.
3/
To get to net zero CO2 emissions in 2050, the @IEA laid out a range of key milestones. There is so much work to do, in so many sectors. We know what to do.
There is also some Carbon Dioxide Removal. The IEA had ~2GtCO2 removed & stored, different to the 7.6GtCO2 'captured'.
1/
The IEA has key pillars:
* energy efficiency
* behaviour (yes, even the IEA)
* electrification
* renewables
* hydrogen
* bioenergy
* CCUS
An industry like steel will have measures in all these pillars.
2/
The IEA scenario uses quite some CCS, though, only a small amount of that is BECCS & DACCS (CDR). Of the 7.6GtCO2 CCS, only 1.9GtCO2 is CDR (with storage).