Great glad to hear it and glad you enjoy the articles.
It's partly helping scared people over the last many years, you need to explain simply and clearly and I think I've come better at explaining things as a result. Both in messaging - and also when I do a post and then I get people confused by it and it matters to them to understand so I get feedback pretty fast if I have explained things in a way that was confusing.
When I go back to posts I wrote a few years ago I generally find many ways to improv them to make them much easier to read - and when I wrote them they seemed clear as clear and they were certainly the best I could do at the time.
Hey Robert question, you said in a previous article that the most important factor in this decade in the fight against climate change was what India and China did, I already know the progress they're making and even the us is making and the continued progress despite whatever Trump does, but what about Russia? I know they're not like the top three emitter but I know they're like the top 5 I think?
Anyway I've read that Putin watered down Russia's main environmental law and it looks like they're not doing anything else, so I guess I'm wondering is because their not like the top three emitter does their actions not exactly matter right now or what?
Correct it doesn't matter much. It's about 2 gigatons out of around 40 gigatons. See my diagram here with the graphic half way down the page with the pie chart.
BLOG: Paris agreement 1.5°C still alive by tripling renewables by 2030 - NOT yet committed to 1.6°C or 1.7°C - helping weaker economies and protecting nature is as important as an extra -0.2°C reduction
To put that in perspective at 2 gigatons a year, that's 40 gigatons in 20 years for one year of current emissions.
If Russia never did anything to reduce emissions then that 2 gigatons a year is 200 a century and as a rough estimate divide by 2222 to give the temperature increase 200/2222 = 0.09 C per century. That is a level of warming that our ecosystems can easily adapt to given that they year to year variation is around +- 0.2 C and that is less than 0.1 C.
It would take a thousand years to increase the warming by 1 C assuming Russia kept at it for 1000 years.
In practice as the cost of renewables keeps going down then Russia is sure to transition to renewables eventually for economic reasons alone.
Solar power is currently increasing in Russia with a doubling time of around a decade. Wind power is increasing faster, roughly tripling every decade. Hydro isn't increasing at all.
This is about the share of electricity by renewables.
QUOTE STARTS
Of all renewable energy sources, the share of hydro power generation capacity is forecasted to change from 20% in 2023 to 19% in 2035.
The share of wind power is expected to reach 3.4% in 2035, compared with a 1% share in 2023. Solar PV is forecast to account for 1.9% share of Russia’s total electricity generation capacity in 2035, as against 0.8% share in 2023.
...
Wind power is expected to record highest growth rate of 12.31% by 2035, followed by solar PV with 9%
A growth rate of 12.31% per year is 1.1231^10 or 3.19 fold increase per decade.
In the 15 years from 2035 to 2050 if it continued that rate it would increase to 3.4*1.1231^15 = 19.4% by 2050. That is wind alone.
If it kept going like that then by 2070 it would be 3.4*1.1231^35 = 198%
Add the solar too 1.9*1.09^35 = 39% and hydro at 19%
Total 198+39+19 = 256%.
The total energy from all sources even if you power everything that can be powered by renewable electricity is far less than 200% of electricity generation.
So even allowing for all cars being electric by then and transition of the industry to renewables it would be more than enough.
From that you can see that a 2070 net zero target is very plausible.
Their actual target is 2060.
The calculation then is
Wind: 3.4*1.1231^25 =62%
Solar: 1.9*1.09^25 = 16%
hydro at 19%
62+16+19 = 97%
So they may achieve 100% renewables by then. Again without doing much.
So it seems likely they reach net zero between 2060 and 2070 based on those figures.
And some time between now and 2060 - well Putin will be long gone. He is 72. Surely won't still be president when he is 100 if still alive - he would be 108 by 2060.
So it depends on policies under future Russian presidents not Putin if they reach net zero by 2060.
It's not going to make a big difference and they have decades to step up on ambition to get more compatible with 1.5 C.
This assumes they don't rapidly industrialized the poorer areas of Russia.
The population is expected to fall by 25% to 50% by the end of the century.
QUOTE United Nations scenarios project Russia’s population in 2100 to be between 74 million and 112 million compared with the current 146 million. The most recent UN projections are for the world’s population to decline by about 20 percent by 2100. The estimate for Russia is a decline of 25 to 50 percent.
But it could be that they become more progressive, they rapidly industrialize and they become a more attractive place for Russian expats to return to
That could change the calculation and mean it takes longer for them to reach net zero - but it could work the other way around that a more progressive Russia is more committed to reducing emissions.
And anyway all of this will be hugely affected by future technology which may reduce costs of solar especially, hugely.
Thank you Robert! You have a great way of explaining things that make complicated topics more easily understood. I so enjoy your articles.
Great glad to hear it and glad you enjoy the articles.
It's partly helping scared people over the last many years, you need to explain simply and clearly and I think I've come better at explaining things as a result. Both in messaging - and also when I do a post and then I get people confused by it and it matters to them to understand so I get feedback pretty fast if I have explained things in a way that was confusing.
When I go back to posts I wrote a few years ago I generally find many ways to improv them to make them much easier to read - and when I wrote them they seemed clear as clear and they were certainly the best I could do at the time.
So it is certainly something you learn by doing.
Hey Robert question, you said in a previous article that the most important factor in this decade in the fight against climate change was what India and China did, I already know the progress they're making and even the us is making and the continued progress despite whatever Trump does, but what about Russia? I know they're not like the top three emitter but I know they're like the top 5 I think?
Anyway I've read that Putin watered down Russia's main environmental law and it looks like they're not doing anything else, so I guess I'm wondering is because their not like the top three emitter does their actions not exactly matter right now or what?
Correct it doesn't matter much. It's about 2 gigatons out of around 40 gigatons. See my diagram here with the graphic half way down the page with the pie chart.
BLOG: Paris agreement 1.5°C still alive by tripling renewables by 2030 - NOT yet committed to 1.6°C or 1.7°C - helping weaker economies and protecting nature is as important as an extra -0.2°C reduction
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/paris-agreement-15-c-is-still-alive
China is top with over 12 Gigatons. USA is next with over 5 gigatons.
EU and India next at over 3 gigatons. Then it's Russia at just under 2 gigatons
https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?end_year=2021®ions=TOP&start_year=1990
To put that in perspective at 2 gigatons a year, that's 40 gigatons in 20 years for one year of current emissions.
If Russia never did anything to reduce emissions then that 2 gigatons a year is 200 a century and as a rough estimate divide by 2222 to give the temperature increase 200/2222 = 0.09 C per century. That is a level of warming that our ecosystems can easily adapt to given that they year to year variation is around +- 0.2 C and that is less than 0.1 C.
It would take a thousand years to increase the warming by 1 C assuming Russia kept at it for 1000 years.
In practice as the cost of renewables keeps going down then Russia is sure to transition to renewables eventually for economic reasons alone.
Solar power is currently increasing in Russia with a doubling time of around a decade. Wind power is increasing faster, roughly tripling every decade. Hydro isn't increasing at all.
This is about the share of electricity by renewables.
QUOTE STARTS
Of all renewable energy sources, the share of hydro power generation capacity is forecasted to change from 20% in 2023 to 19% in 2035.
The share of wind power is expected to reach 3.4% in 2035, compared with a 1% share in 2023. Solar PV is forecast to account for 1.9% share of Russia’s total electricity generation capacity in 2035, as against 0.8% share in 2023.
...
Wind power is expected to record highest growth rate of 12.31% by 2035, followed by solar PV with 9%
https://www.energymonitor.ai/data-insights/energy-transition-in-russia/
A growth rate of 12.31% per year is 1.1231^10 or 3.19 fold increase per decade.
In the 15 years from 2035 to 2050 if it continued that rate it would increase to 3.4*1.1231^15 = 19.4% by 2050. That is wind alone.
If it kept going like that then by 2070 it would be 3.4*1.1231^35 = 198%
Add the solar too 1.9*1.09^35 = 39% and hydro at 19%
Total 198+39+19 = 256%.
The total energy from all sources even if you power everything that can be powered by renewable electricity is far less than 200% of electricity generation.
So even allowing for all cars being electric by then and transition of the industry to renewables it would be more than enough.
From that you can see that a 2070 net zero target is very plausible.
Their actual target is 2060.
The calculation then is
Wind: 3.4*1.1231^25 =62%
Solar: 1.9*1.09^25 = 16%
hydro at 19%
62+16+19 = 97%
So they may achieve 100% renewables by then. Again without doing much.
So it seems likely they reach net zero between 2060 and 2070 based on those figures.
And some time between now and 2060 - well Putin will be long gone. He is 72. Surely won't still be president when he is 100 if still alive - he would be 108 by 2060.
So it depends on policies under future Russian presidents not Putin if they reach net zero by 2060.
It's not going to make a big difference and they have decades to step up on ambition to get more compatible with 1.5 C.
This assumes they don't rapidly industrialized the poorer areas of Russia.
Their per capita emissions are steady,
https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?calculation=PER_CAPITA&end_year=2021®ions=RUS§ors=total-excluding-lucf&start_year=1990
The population is expected to fall by 25% to 50% by the end of the century.
QUOTE United Nations scenarios project Russia’s population in 2100 to be between 74 million and 112 million compared with the current 146 million. The most recent UN projections are for the world’s population to decline by about 20 percent by 2100. The estimate for Russia is a decline of 25 to 50 percent.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/russia-tomorrow/a-russia-without-russians-putins-disastrous-demographics/
But it could be that they become more progressive, they rapidly industrialize and they become a more attractive place for Russian expats to return to
That could change the calculation and mean it takes longer for them to reach net zero - but it could work the other way around that a more progressive Russia is more committed to reducing emissions.
And anyway all of this will be hugely affected by future technology which may reduce costs of solar especially, hugely.
Thanks Robert.