IEA: Four energy policies can keep the 2 °C climate goal alive

The International Energy Agency suggests four ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 8% by 2020 so as to stay under the arbitrary 2-degree C global temp goal.

“In the 4-for-2°C Scenario, global energy-related greenhouse-gas emissions are 8% (3.1 Gt CO2‑equivalent) lower in 2020 than the level otherwise expected.

  • Targeted energy efficiency measures in buildings, industry and transport account for nearly half the emissions reduction in 2020, with the additional investment required being more than offset by reduced spending on fuel bills.
  • Limiting the construction and use of the least-efficient coal-fired power plants delivers more than 20% of the emissions reduction and helps curb local air pollution. The share of power generation from renewables increases (from around 20% today to 27% in 2020), as does that from natural gas.
  • Actions to halve expected methane (a potent greenhouse gas) releases into the atmosphere from the upstream oil and gas industry in 2020 provide 18% of the savings.
  • Implementing a partial phase-out of fossil fuel consumption subsidies accounts for 12% of the reduction in emissions and supports efficiency efforts.

Read more from the IEA.

One thought on “IEA: Four energy policies can keep the 2 °C climate goal alive”

  1. Item 1 has never paid off in the past; the “savings” from “efficiency” have been illusory when set against the cost to get the “efficiency”.
    Coal-fired power is a big deal; cutting back on it will perhaps reduce CO2, which is pointless, but it will raise energy poverty, which is serious.
    Human production of methane is meaningless in the climate equation, but interfering with it will either increase CO2 or increase energy poverty; more likely both. Bonus: energy poverty is also a major drag on the economy and results in high unemployment, worsening energy poverty.
    The US, at least, doesn’t have fossil fuel subsidies. Subsidies are suspect anywhere and everywhere, but I think these people want the subsidies to go to things that don’t work.

Comments are closed.