Exponential Roadmap

Exponential Roadmap

If you haven't seen or heard about it, the ExponentialRoadmap.org initiative brings together technology innovators, scientists, businesses, and NGOs.   In 2019 they published their second version of a report, Exponential Roadmap which sets an ambitious course for employing 36 solutions, cutting emissions 50% by 2030.   Meeting the 1.5°C Climate Ambition is a condensed version.

The "exponential" refers to the goal of halving emissions every decade.  This is reflective of the urgency, the benefit of early adoption, and the reality that some "solutions" will be more difficult and time consuming to develop and deploy.

Exponential Roadmap divides the solutions into six sectors plus a carbon sink category as shown in the graphic below.

A few things to note:

The six sectors combine for an annual 54 Gtonnes of CO2e.  The Energy Supply sector totals 18.46 Gt which is distributed between the six.  The contributions of each sector are shown above the horizontal bar chart.  "Energy's own" emissions are those emissions that are not directly attributed to the other five, such as fossil fuel extraction, processing, and delivery.

Also note that most of the solutions take a few years to take off, with the bulk of the reductions occurring after 2025.

These are solutions and goals similar to Project Drawdown.  Drawdown slices and dices solutions into smaller pieces, sets 2050 goals, orders solutions by total potential CO2e removed rather than annual emissions, and proposes three separate scenarios -- Plausible, Drawdown, and Optimal.  The differences in approach, expectations, and time frame make comparison difficult.  Exponential Roadmap appears more aggressive and pragmatic while Drawdown is more focused on implementing specific, proven solutions.

1st 2020 Presidential Debate

The fist presidential election debate of 20 Democratic candidates took place last week and while it was notable that climate change was a topic (a first in itself), the questions and answers left a lot to be desired.

Granted, the format of 60 seconds with sporadic 30 second followups, didn't allow for much depth.  By my count, half the candidates did manage to say say something about climate change.  Six said it would be top priority or biggest threat (Warren, Inslee, O'Roark, Castro, Hickenlooper).  Some spoke of the urgency.  "Existential threat" said Harris and O'Roark.

Senator Sanders said,

The scientists tell us we have 12 years because there’s irreparable damage to this planet. This is a global issue. What the president of the United States should do is not deny the reality of climate change, but tell the rest of the world that instead of spending $1.5 trillion on weapons of destruction, let us get together for the common enemy and that is to transform the world energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency, and sustainable energy. The future of the planet rests on us doing that.

Senator Harris said,

Well, first of all I don’t even call it climate change. It’s a climate crisis. It represents an existential threat to us as a species. And the fact that we have a President of the United States who has embraced science fiction over science fact will be to our collective peril. ... And on this issue it is a–it is a critical issue that is about what we must do to confront what is immediate and before us right now. That is why I support a Green New Deal. It is why I believe on day one and as President will re-enter us in the Paris agreement because we have to take these issues seriously and frankly, we have a President of the United States we talked about you asked before what is the greatest national security threat to the United States? It’s Donald Trump. And I’m going to tell you why. And I’m going to tell you why because I agree climate change represents an existential threat. He denies the science.

Governor Inslee was given 60 seconds on his signature issue:

Look it, look it, we are the first generation to feel the sting of climate change, and we are the last that can do something it. Our towns are burning. Our fields are flooding. Miami is inundated.

And we have to understand, this is a climate crisis, an emergency (OFF-MIKE) this is our last chance in the administration, next one, to do something about it. ....

But the most important thing on this, in the biggest decision for the American public is, who is going to make this the first priority? And I am the candidate and the only one who’s saying this has to be the top priority of the United States, the organizing principle to mobilize the United States, so that we can do what we’ve always done, lead the world and invent the future and put 8 million people to work. That’s what we’re going to do.

Time has a good editorial on how the Democratic candidates failed to deliver even passable answers in the first round of debates.  The Debates Showed America Still Doesn't Know How to Talk About Climate Change

...[the candidates had] answers that were either evasive, meandering or dry. Climate change was a subject at the debate, but it was not a subject of debate.

"That’s not just a problem for these candidates but also for voters and activists who care about climate change and the current and future generations who will have to deal with it. Until America learns how to have a serious conversation about climate change and the solutions needed to address dealing with the issue will remain frustratingly out of reach."

It goes on to say that the moderators contributed with poor questions, that the mainstream broadcast media has failed to address the issue, and how the candidates should focus on the urgency rather than bicker over policy differences.  Still....

It’s hard for a crisis that moves at a decade-long timespan to compete with President Donald Trump’s daily tweets. But given the urgency of the issue and the strong public interest now may be the time to invest in trying. America will never have a thoughtful conversation about climate change if networks and candidates can’t find a way to debate it.

So what do we take away from this debate?  My personal opinion is that the eventual nominee must do a better job at awaking the apathetic voter, the one who hasn't given much thought to the urgency of of climate change action.  Lay it out in simple, but compelling terms.  The other voters have already made up their minds.

Peak Indifference

Writer Cory Doctorow coined the term "peak indifference" for the moment where activists no longer have to convince others of the reality of a problem and need to switch over to convincing people it's not to late to do anything about it.  Friend and fellow writer Clive Thompson in Wired writes that we are at that point with climate change given the recent polling data due concern about weather related disasters.

As a society, we tend to be indifferent to slow growing problems, but wake up when they perceive it as a current crisis.  The indifference reached its peak and panic begins to replace it.  The big problem becomes the negativity that can quickly set in after such a long period of indifference -- It’s too late. We missed our chance to take action.   This is the despair I wrote about in my post Stop Self Shaming; Don't Despair; Fight Instead.

Clive Thompson elaborates:

That means the current political moment is incredibly interesting. Anyone who wants to deal with climate change may have only a brief window to sell the public on a plan. In his new book The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming, the writer David Wallace-­Wells talks about the value of panic to pushing collective action; Doctorow says it’s the point “where you divert your energy from convincing people there’s a problem to convincing them there’s a solution.”

This is the reason for the Hot Green Carrots blog, to convince the public there are solutions to global warming now at hand, we only need to help.  But the time is critical and the message needs to be clear, as Thompson notes (emphasis mine):

...the Yale survey question about the Green New Deal was vague and upbeat, and didn’t pose the tough-to-sell policy specifics ... or financial costs that the public might dislike. And even people terrified about climate change don’t always agree on what policies to pursue. But the Sunrise activists, and all of us who want action on this, have to push hard now. It’s only when you reach the peak that you can see where you need to go.

This was the message I conveyed in a different way in the post The New Debate.   It is fortuitous that the new upsurge in public concern is happening at a time when solutions are starting to take shape, tangible solutions we can show people, ones that they will agree to.

What worries me most is psychology, the human brain's often irrational behavior.  I fear taking advantage of "panic,"  of overstating the current disasters, of pushing peoples' crisis buttons too hard.  The other side can find other buttons to push.   It happens all too often in politics.

Global Warming Discussion

This week I held my first global warming discussion group meeting.  It came off pretty much as I expected.  We agreed on much and disagreed on other things. We have much to learn and much to share.  We managed to learn a lot from each other, and I got plenty of ideas for future blog posts.  All in all, it was a highly successful discussion.

Common ground included the belief that action is urgently needed.  What forms the action should take and how the methods get started are still vague in our minds, particularly how to convince the vast majority in the middle (80% of the population?) that action is needed now.  Questions abound as to what to do.  How much do we have to convince individuals to change their ways and how much do we need to focus on electing the right leaders?  How much can individuals acting alone to reduce their personal carbon footprint?  Is the cost worth it when others don't follow suit?  How do we get industry to do their part without government regulation?  There are no easy answers, of course, which means we have lots of work to do, so much to discuss.

Details, details, details. In any discussion it is easy to get sidetracked and bogged down in the minor details and peripheral issues. Global warming and its solutions are no exceptions.  Whole books are written which only scratch the surface, leaving out tons of detail information.  A face-to-face discussion doesn't have a book's relative luxury of depth.  Although often interesting, the excursions into more minor points should be kept from overwhelming the big picture when having a discussion.

Quite often I hear an interview where the word "conversation" is used.  Some social topic is often framed with something like, "We need to have a conversation about ....."   Global warming is a social issue.  It needs more conversation.

Such discussions, if carried out throughout the country, could be a starting point of a grass roots movement toward the economic and social policies needed to avert disaster. Consider starting your own periodic discussion group.

Carbon Price Tag

How should we price carbon dioxide emissions?

Americans emit 6 gigatons of CO2 each year, about 20 tons¹ per person.  Most of that is from the energy industry, which accounts for about $1 trillion a year, or about 5% of GDP.  If we spent just 20% of that amount, $200 billion a year, for carbon emission reduction, would that be acceptable?  Would the average person pay $625 per year?

$625 per year would be $31.25 per year per ton of CO2.  That value is roughly in the middle of most carbon taxes and carbon offset programs.  Cap and trade² numbers come in a bit lower.

In terms of gasoline, that $31.25/ton would be about 28 cents per gallon.  Not very much, not enough to make people stop driving.  But what it could do is generate revenue to fund carbon emission projects like wind and solar farms, subsidize hybrid and electric vehicles, and cut costs of energy efficient products.

The social cost of carbon (SCC), the additional cost to the economy of an extra ton of CO2 in the atmosphere if the "business as usual" (BAU) path is followed, is another measure of the price of carbon.  One estimate in 2015 put the cost at $31.20/tCO2. Another study, in 2019, put the average cost of multiple studies at $54.70. The idea behind SCC is that it is better to spend the money to avoid warming than to build a pool of money to pay for damages.  Naturally, it does not include the incalculable costs of the loss of human life, lower quality of life, and the extinction of species.

Of course, how that dollar amount per ton is spent toward abatement, that is what it goes toward, determines the true cost for a given ton.  In other words, not all tons are equal.  For example, replacing regular light bulbs with LED bulbs saves the consumer money over the life of the bulb -- the emissions reduction has a negative cost.  On the other hand, carbon capture and sequestration (CSS) schemes are very expensive.  The chart below shows the marginal cost of many of the actions to reduce emissions, sorted by price. Width of individual bars shows total gigatons saved.

Source: McKinsey & Company

Notice in the chart that the "no brainer" measures total less than 20 Gt of CO2. One can expect this low hanging fruit to be among the first actions to be taken.  As 2030 comes and we proceed further, the focus will turn to the more expensive abatement efforts, ones that come with fewer options.   We can hope that the global warming science will be more convincing by then and the political will to spend money will come easier.

We've briefly explored what is a reasonably painless expenditure, the cost of doing business as usual, and the actual cost of various emission mitigation measures.  We could dig deeper to come up with a definitive single value for the carbon price tag, but the many uncertainties and estimations would still leave large room for error.

So how do we use a number like $32.50 per ton of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere?  How can we apply it to our personal expenditures and societies expenditures in the fight against global warming?  Here's the best answer I can come up with, from the World Bank:

The World Bank Group, together with the OECD and with input from the IMF, set up the FASTER Principles. The FASTER principles are: F for fairness, A for alignment of policies and objectives, S for stability and predictability, T for transparency, E for efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and R for reliability and environmental integrity. The research draws on over a decade of experiences with carbon pricing initiatives around the world. It points to what has been learned to date: a well-designed carbon pricing initiative is a powerful and flexible tool that can cut GHG emissions, and if adequately designed and implemented, it can play a key role in enhancing innovation and smoothing the transition to a prosperous, low-carbon global economy.  -- link

I will continue to explore the cost of carbon in future posts.  The economics of preventing global warming is the heart of the debate.  It's not a fixed cost or one easily determined.  There will much disagreement on both sides.  Coming to a compromise on the price to be paid is the essence of the politics of global warming.

Stop Self Shaming; Don't Despair; Fight Instead

There's no denying it.  Unless you are a native living deep in the Amazon jungle, your carbon footprint is probably pretty large.  Too large.  Everything you buy, eat, wear, or travel on involves a lot of carbon dioxide producing fossil fuels.  But it's not your fault, at least not as an individual.

It is a guilt that is misplaced.  This guilt drives some to reduce their carbon footprint, expending large sums of personal time, money, and emotional energy.   Some of those valuable resources are best channeled elsewhere.

Mary Annaise Heglar, writing in Vox, says:

The belief that this enormous, existential problem could have been fixed if all of us had just tweaked our consumptive habits is not only preposterous; it’s dangerous. It turns environmentalism into an individual choice defined as sin or virtue, convicting those who don’t or can’t uphold these ethics. When you consider that the same IPCC report outlined that the vast majority of global greenhouse gas emissions come from just a handful of corporations — aided and abetted by the world’s most powerful governments, including the US — it’s victim blaming, plain and simple.

When people come to me and confess their green sins, as if I were some sort of eco-nun, I want to tell them they are carrying the guilt of the oil and gas industry’s crimes. That the weight of our sickly planet is too much for any one person to shoulder. And that that blame paves the road to apathy, which can really seal our doom.

She goes on to say consumer actions aren't enough, that people need to fight the corporations and elect the right leaders then hold their feet to the fire. "[T]he more we focus on individual action and neglect systemic change, the more we’re just sweeping leaves on a windy day. So while personal actions can be meaningful starting points, they can also be dangerous stopping points."

You can take yourself off the streets and highways and take the bus.  Your personal carbon footprint will go down a bit.  Good for you!  But someone else may decide the bus is too full and take your place driving the road.  It's a zero sum game. It's the tragedy of the commons at play.

You may take solace that you are contributing tons less of carbon dioxide each year.  Satisfied you did your part, that's the end of your efforts.  Meanwhile, the bus still runs on diesel oil, your electrical utility still burns coal and natural gas, and the factories, farms, and delivery trucks that give you the products you buy are still using fossil fuels.

You may despair that it looks like so few of your fellow citizens are following your admirable example.  You are correct that few are following, but wrong to despair.  You need to join the bigger fight, the one against the bigger picture.

We need to fight the causes, not treat the symptoms.  The IPPC has said we really must be on the path to a carbon-free economy by 2030.  Systemic changes need to happen quickly, not wait for consumers to slowly "send a message."   We need to elect officials that are willing to enact legislation, regulations, and rules to switch us away from the causes of increasing atmospheric CO2.  Let them know if they do not come up with the new laws every session, every year, that you will vote for someone who will.   Write them.  And while you are at it, write to corporations and tell them what they should do, how you plan to spend your money.  Join a protest march.  If you have money you want to spend to reduce emissions, contribute to where it will do the most good.   It could could go to an activist organization, to a new hybrid or plug-in electric car, to solar panels on your roof, or to buy good carbon offsets.  Do your homework, do the math, make your money do the most good.

It's the Economy, Stupid

I have long felt that the problem of global warming required an overhaul of our economic system, if not a new one entirely.  It is still possible, but recent events have lessened that need.

First I will explain why a new economic system is in order.

Consider cigarettes.  Growing tobacco requires land, labor, fuel, machinery, and chemicals among other things. The harvesting and processing of the tobacco into tobacco products requires more of these costly resources.  Then there is advertising, shipping, retail sales, etc. before it gets to the consumer.  The burden on our healthcare system presents more costs.  Yet all these costs are part of the Gross National Product (GDP).  Gross is right.  More gross is the idea that growth of our economy, i.e. growing GDP, by growing industries that are harming society is the same as "progress."

Examples of this absurdity abound. War, natural disasters, and man-made disasters create construction bursts that boost the economy. Waste management contributes to GDP, so producing more waste improves it.  Waste of any kind helps the economy, even government waste.  Improving efficiency, such as higher gasoline mileage hurts sales of fuel and thus hurts GDP.  Cutting the lifespan of products improves GDP by forcing consumers to buy products more often.  But there is more to the problem than a poor metric for policy makers to gauge the success of new legislation. 

Our economic system is built on free enterprise, an economic system in which private business operates in competition and largely free of state control.  The main, if not only driver of the system, is profits.  If a product or service does not provide an adequate return on the capital (profits), then the entrepreneur(s) will not pursue that line of business.  Nowhere in that equation suggests the greater good of society or "the commons," let alone the benefit of the planet.  Sure, some business can be had selling to a relative handful of do-gooders, but that is not enough to do the task in front of us.

Consider the situation where some people, those wishing to reduce their carbon footprint, buy less gasoline.  Sounds good.   Demand declines.  But the price of gasoline goes down as a result.  Cheaper gasoline compels others to buy more gasoline. It's a social dilemma.

The atmosphere is part of the commons, something the public owns together.  That the fossil fuel industry and industries that use fossil fuel products are harming the common atmosphere without consequences to their bottom lines is not part of our economic system.  It is built into our current economy to harm the atmosphere.

The government normally tries to hold the line in this kind of exploitation of the commons through regulations and taxes.  Is it enough this time?  The political debate could be long and nasty.

On a more encouraging note, however, is the dropping of prices of solar and wind energy, electric vehicles, and batteries.  It is possible that these prices could drop below the current prices of fossil fuels and petroleum driven vehicles.  If they do, it could take a heavy burden off the upcoming policy changes.

It would be a tasty carrot.

Electric Vehicles

When discussing fossil fuels increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, most Americans think of their cars.  So how much do they contribute, overall?  By switching to plug-in electric cars, how much will CO2 emissions decline?

Transportation causes 28.9% of U.S. emissions (2017). 60% of that is caused by cars and small trucks.  So that means 17% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions could be saved in that part of the problem.

The amount of actual energy to move vehicles is really quite small compared to the thermal energy in petroleum.  In fact, about 80% of the thermal energy is wasted.

With electric vehicles, inefficiencies show up in the charging circuitry and the batteries during the charge and discharge cycle, as well as in the small amount of heat given off by the motors.  A Ford Focus electric car gets 3.5 times more miles per gallon equivalent than the gasoline version.  That's about 30% of the energy of a gas car.  (note: Current MPGe ranges from 72 to 136 MPGe.)

U.S. transportation consumes about 5.95 quadrillion BTUs a year, or 1,740 billion kWh of energy.  (Note:  BTUs and kilowatt-hours are both units of energy.)   30% of that is 552 billion kWh.  Add transmission and distribution losses, and of electricity and 580 billion kWh is needed at the power plants to power all vehicles.  For just cars and light trucks, about 350 billion kWh is needed.

Total U.S. production of electricity is 4,178 billion kWh, so we need 8% more to power cars.   This adds about 2.5% to total emissions from all sources.  So the net reduction is 17% minus 2.5% or about 14.5%.  If we don't build new clean energy and that new energy comes from natural gas, then that emissions savings drops to 14%.

The cost of a new EV today is perhaps $10,000 more than a gas powered car.  Applied to all 250 million cars, that amounts to $2.5 trillion for just 14% of our problem.  If that level of spending were applied to the rest of carbon emissions, the cost would be $17.5 trillion.  Spread over 30 years, that's over half a trillion a year, nearly $100 a year per metric ton of CO2.  We may have the economy to suffer through that, but the rest of the world?  Forget it.

But we don't have to spend that much.  The $7,500 incentive to offset the higher cost of electric cars is just a kick starter, designed to get auto manufacturers into the business and lower the costs through mass production.  Since 2010, over a million EVs have been sold.  EVs are poised to take off, and by 2025 should be cost competitive with gasoline vehicles.  Significantly, a bi-partisan proposal in the Senate will extend the tax credit by raising the caps, while costing less than $16 billion total.

(For an interesting view of the production by various car makers month by month, see this animated graph.)

Once consumers become convinced electric cars are a cost effective choice, meets their range needs, and understand the benefits of ownership (like snappy acceleration, lower cost per mile, and reduced maintenance costs), the sales will pick up exponentially.  Initially, those wishing to buy a new second car, one they use for commuting and errands in town, will find a plug-in EV to be the best choice.  

Drivers' needs are mostly met by today's Electric cars.

Bottom line:  Be prepared to take a close look at EVs if you plan to buy a new car in the next few years.

The Path Forward

While there has been lots of speculation as to how the world can achieve zero CO2 emissions, it is becoming clear which technologies will dominate in the next few decades.

First, it has been long acknowledged that natural gas would be the interim solution to slow the rate, and we are seeing that happen.  Natural gas, essentially methane gas or CH4, produces 50 to 60% less carbon dioxide than coal.  Since about 2007 energy from coal in the U.S.has declined while natural gas energy has increased. A lot of this may be due to declining gas price, but we can hope that decisions by policy makers played a major role.  Coal is primarily used in electricity generation, and will fade out as coal fired plants age and are closed down.

The next good news is the growth of renewable energy, particularly wind and solar.

From the graph above, is is clear solar and wind make up most of the recent increase of renewable energy.  The annual increase in new capacity is only growing about 8% a year, but more like 16% in the last few years, far less than our historical examples.

Wind energy has steadily been expanding both worldwide and in the U.S. We add about 6 gigawatts of wind power each year.   Wind now supplies 6% of the U.S. electrical needs, and is projected to supply 20% by 2030 and 35% by 2050.

Solar is really starting to pick up steam. In 2018 the U.S. installed 10.6 gigawatts of PV power, a rate of 20% increase per year.  The installation rate is expected to reach 15 gigawatts each year and the total installed base doubling in 5 years.



The driver behind solar's exponential growth has been declining solar PV panel prices.  From 2010 to 2018 utility scale scale electrical generation has reduced in cost by 84%.  The U.S. Dept. of Energy's 2020 goal of 6 cents per kWhr for utility scale electricity was met in 2017.  (The SunShot Initiative is a federal government aimed at making solar energy affordable.)

 The final piece of good news is the declining cost of batteries as evidenced by the sudden emergence of electric cars.

 While batteries have yet to make a dent in the electrical grid, the role of electrical energy storage of some sort is part of the SunShot goal, starting around 2030:

 Storage becomes important once the amount of solar energy becomes cheap and abundant enough to be needed during nighttime hours, allowing a time lag between generation and consumption.

 These developments hint at how the U.S. can achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Emissions from coal is declining at bout the amount natural gas is increasing. Since natural gas gives more energy per pound of CO2 emitted, there is a net increase in energy. Natural gas, the rise of renewable energy, and increases efficiency, are supplying the growing demand for energy.


The Path:

By combining all these facts, a path forward toward a planet free of fossil-fuels starts to become clear.

2020-2030

• Production of electricity from energy sources other than fossil fuels is ramped up at an exponential rate, increasing about 30% each year.
• Solar and wind energy will continue to be the biggest gainers.  
• Hybrid and electric vehicles will grow at a steady rate.

2030-2040

• Renewable energy growth will continue at a steady, linear rate. 
• Electric vehicles will increase in number, powered by these new sources of energy.
• Batteries will become affordable, making electric vehicles cheaper than internal combustion cars.

2040-2050

• Few gas powered cars made after 2040.   
• Slower progress will be made where dense or lightweight fuel is required. Cement production and methane emissions are also  concerns, time-wise.
•  By 2050 solar will comprise about 50% of the energy needs, wind 35%, with nuclear, hydro, and other renewable energy sources making up the rest.  We don't know that mix for sure, but the trends at this time suggest it.

Bottom line:  Encouraging recent developments point to wind and solar as the probably course of action in replacing carbon based fossil fuels with renewable energy over the next three decades.

How Soon? How fast?

How soon do we need to get started reducing greenhouse emissions?   And when we do start, what speed do we need to switch over to alternative fuels?

To avoid despair at seeming impossibility or complacent waiting for the right time to act, a close look at the parameters is required.

Before you answer the "how soon" question with "Twenty years ago!", the good news is that we already have.  We have long had hydro and nuclear power stations delivering carbon free electricity. Had we not, emissions and atmospheric concentrations would be higher today.  More good news is that non-hydro renewable energy in the U.S. is now greater than hydro.

 Fig. 1.  Renewable Energy Electricity Generation

To answer the "how fast" question, we look at the Paris Agreement global targets in annual billion metric tons of combined greenhouse gas emissions in CO2-equivalents (CO2e).  Charted below, we find both the time period and the slope:

Fig. 2.    Global Annual Emissions (gigatons/yr)

By 2050, over a span of thirty years, emissions are reduced to a level where most of the temperature increase has already happened.  (Temperature rise roughly follows total emissions, the area under each line.)   Thirty years for one technology to take over another is quite common.  Automobiles replaced horses in 30 years.  Cell phone are replacing land lines at that rate.

Figure 2 assumes an immediate level of replacement energy, added every year.  Reaching that level won't happen overnight.  Factories need to be built, workers trained, and power sources installed. 

How does the U.S. achieve this?  Fossil fuels make up about 80% of U.S. energy consumption.  To make the 2 degree goal we need 10-fold increase over our existing rate of new renewable energy.  For the 1.5 degree goal, the factor is 15.  If we delay 15 years, the required increase becomes 20x.

Is this level of industrial increase doable?  A look back at a couple examples tells us, yes, easily.  One is the combat aircraft production during World War II compared to production in 1941. Another is Ford Model T after its first year of production.

Fig 3.    Increase in Production

  (Note how the war's rapid increase in production rate contrasts to Ford's 14 year build-up.)

The aircraft production grew from 1,771 a year to 74,564 per year, a 42x increase.  Ford increased production from 10,666 to 170211, a 16x increase.  Then Ford went on to make as many as 2 million Model T cars a year, 187 times the first year production.

We don't need rates of that sort, unless we wait too long. We can achieve ellimination f fossil fuels by 2050 by implementing a 30% growth in our current growth of carbon-free energy each year for the next ten years, then maintain the 2030 replacement rate for the next 20 years.  This 30% increase is far below Ford's 10 year average of 55%/year.

 Fig 4.   Total Global Emissions - projected

Figure 4 shows the accumulation of annual carbon emissions for the next 40 years.  Estimates center around 1500 gigatons CO2e for a 2 degree rise.  A 1.5 degree target calls for no more than 1000 gigatons.  Lines A and B represent immediate and steady replacement of fossil fuels as shown in Figure 2.

If we keep on with business as usual, we will have reached the 1.5 degree level by 2036, and the 2 degree level around 2043.  These are estimates, but they point to a date of 2030 by which significant progress must be made. 

What this means is the window of opportunity is small.  Ideally, we ramp up renewable energy production to a reasonably high level by 2030, replacing fossil fuel's 80% share of energy in the following twenty years.

Waiting too long, where we need a three or four year crisis mode push starting in 2037 is not a desirable choice.

Bottom line:  The Paris Agreement targets demand a 30 year time frame, a ten year ramp up in production is achievable, and historically both are quite normal.