Climate accord 'irrelevant,' and CO2 cuts could impoverish the world: Scientist

The International Energy Agency issued a report saying that in order to reach the ambitious agreement made in Paris concerning the climate, we'd have to spend upwards of $15.4 Trillion within the next 40years. This is the projected amount necessary to de-carbonize the energy sector to ensure the world doesn't surpass the dreaded 2 degrees celsius. However, according to a scientist named M.J. Kelly, a University of Cambridge engineering professor, doing so would impoverish the world and lead to mass starvatiion and violkence as people fight for resources.

In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the "immense benefits" of a technologically advanced society. Cutting carbon, he added, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world's quality of life that would usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife. Massive decarbonization is "only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society." COP21 "will be an irrelevance within a few years," Kelly said to CNBC via email, "as the the bills pile up, and ... the promises are reneged upon."

n a report published this week, the International Energy Agency issued a call for "concrete action" to match the ambitions of last year's landmark climate change agreement, which was recently ratified by nearly 200 countries. The energy watchdog said the transition to a low-carbon future would require "massive changes in the energy system" to prevent the globe's temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius. Yet the agency also put a steep price tag on efforts to combat climate change. In order to decarbonize the power sector within the next 40 years, the world would have to invest at least $9 trillion — and an additional $6.4 trillion to make other industries more environmentally friendly.

While the world is heavily dependent on fossil fuels to fuel society, I don't think we should continue as-is as this professor states. Why can't we phase in a new powersource for our daily lives while we phase out fossil fuels as our powersource? If we do nothing we are assured our own destruction eventually. This is a dicey issue to say the least and I won't pretend to have all of the answers; since I don't. What is the answer? Let's see if we can find the solution right here.....What says ATS?

www.cnbc.com... headline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=103669175&yptr=yahoo

a reply to: lostbook

However, according to a scientist named M.J. Kelly, a University of Cambridge engineering professor, doing so would impoverish the world and lead to mass starvatiion and violkence as people fight for resources.

This sounds like he had identified the REAL reason the Elite are trying to shove the climate agenda down the throat of the world population. The Elute always do better when the people of the world are impoverished and fighting for limited resources.

a reply to: lostbook

Why can't we phase in a new powersource for our daily lives while we phase out fossil fuels as our powersource?

Now now.

Don't be trying to inject simple common sense resolutions...

You'll confuse our poor leaders who are just trying to make a buck so they can fly their private jets to these important climate conferences every 6 months.

originally posted by: lostbook
The International Energy Agency issued a report saying that in order to reach the ambitious agreement made in Paris concerning the climate, we'd have to spend upwards of $15.4 Trillion within the next 40years. This is the projected amount necessary to de-carbonize the energy sector to ensure the world doesn't surpass the dreaded 2 degrees celsius. However, according to a scientist named M.J. Kelly, a University of Cambridge engineering professor, doing so would impoverish the world and lead to mass starvatiion and violkence as people fight for resources.


While the world is heavily dependent on fossil fuels to fuel society, I don't think we should continue as-is as this professor states. Why can't we phase in a new powersource for our daily lives while we phase out fossil fuels as our powersource? If we do nothing we are assured our own destruction eventually. This is a dicey issue to say the least and I won't pretend to have all of the answers; since I don't. What is the answer? Let's see if we can find the solution right here.....What says ATS?

Those costs are for a phasing out simply because resources and industrial capabilities are not able to do some sort of an "instant fix" that many clueless activists call for. This assumes that there is something to phase in even if it is all PWR fission plants.

a reply to: lostbook

The problem in my opinion isn't energy consumption or what we burn. The problem is the consumerist lifestyle we humans live. The economy is set on a basis of consuming and it has a drastic effect, tackle the desire to replace everything constantly and we'll be moving in the right direction. energy is a tricky one but it need not be.

Near everything around is burnable, our waste itself could power quite a few furnaces and we are getting better at capturing carbon atoms. Burning waste is a very viable energy source. Hydro is very successful and the world needs to work on sustaining our water needs. so it's not all doom and gloom.

I'd like to add that the floating isle of rubbish in the Pacific would probably power a nation for a very long time and somebody does need to pick that crap up. Plenty of original ideas to tackle that problem too.

originally posted by: lostbook
...M.J. Kelly, a University of Cambridge engineering professor, doing so would impoverish the world and lead to mass starvation and violence as people fight for resources.

More and more, I am starting to believe that's the actual goal here.

Not to mention, CO2 is basically plant food.

This has been known but conveniently left out of many debates as a negative, I've seen some acknowledge a "recession" but really trying to lower co2 is a death sentence for developing countries. Don't worry the elites would have exemptions. Having the consent by law to restrict travel, energy, water, food...talk about the NWO's dream.

The only answer is to go full steam ahead into the singularity(human IQ ai and higher). Let the ai figure it out or kill us. Let's get it over with.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: lostbook

Why can't we phase in a new powersource for our daily lives while we phase out fossil fuels as our powersource?

Now now.

Don't be trying to inject simple common sense resolutions...

You'll confuse our poor leaders who are just trying to make a buck so they can fly their private jets to these important climate conferences every 6 months.

Oops!! How dare I...........

a reply to: Metallicus

Right? It distracts the common folk and allows the elite to do whatever they want without much opposition.

Why else would so many elites constantly argue for socialist policies?

originally posted by: jellyrev
This has been known but conveniently left out of many debates as a negative, I've seen some acknowledge a "recession" but really trying to lower co2 is a death sentence for developing countries.

You need to also include the middle class in developed countries.
Most cannot afford utility costs now.

As an aside, we need to start limiting our use of plastics....packaging, one use bottles that are not returnable, etc.

originally posted by: Metallicus

The Elute always do better when the people of the world are impoverished and fighting for limited resources.

That's just plain false.

Elites benefit the most when the system is prosperous and politically stable: they have the most to lose. Instability means revolution and destruction of the organizational structures which lead to profitability.

a reply to: lostbook

In order to decarbonize the power sector within the next 40 years, the world would have to invest at least $9 trillion — and an additional $6.4 trillion to make other industries more environmentally friendly.

That's a remarkably small investment given global GDP and expected growth and the length of time. US GDP is 17.5 trillion USD per year. So 9 trillion over the entire planet, and over 40 years, to perform a massively beneficial transformation?

And this should be compared with the investment which would be made in a critically important sector even in the absence of climate concerns.

a reply to: lostbook

In order to decarbonize the power sector within the next 40 years, the world would have to invest at least $9 trillion — and an additional $6.4 trillion to make other industries more environmentally friendly.

That's a remarkably small investment given global GDP and expected growth and the length of time. US GDP is 17.5 trillion USD per year, world GDP 2014 77 trillion. So spending 9 trillion over the entire planet, and over 40 years, to perform a massively beneficial transformation? Cheap to me.

And this should be compared with the investment which would be made in this critically important sector even in the absence of climate concerns.

Prices for solar and battery (energy storage) technologies are now in a clear and consistent downtrend which will likely persist for at least a decade and probably two, reducing costs further.

And yes, I believe in large scale deployment of economic, modular, factory constructed fission reactors along with all other clean generation technologies in a diversified manner.

a reply to: mbkennel

In addition to renewable energy getting cheaper, they are also looking at using renewable energy in building new infrastructure in growing cities as well as working with big corporations to get on board. It does seem like a daunting, slow process, but there are some brilliant minds at work ... read about the advances...

irenanewsroom.org...