On the 12th of November, the Hague Court of Appeal ruled in the “climate case of the century” that Milieudefensie (“FoE”) filed against Shell in 2019. FoE demands that Shell reduce emissions throughout the entire chain by at least 45% by 2030. The foundation “Man & Environment” (M&E) joined the case to represent the interests of Dutch citizens.
The Court of Appeal was not impressed by FoE’s “go green or go extinct” rhetoric and rejected its claims. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal’s ruling leaves much to be desired and did not eliminate the threat of activist NGOs launching climate cases to effect “system change,” i.e., set aside democracy, subordinate citizens and destroy the economy.
Climate science
Although M&M had offered strong rebuttals with expert reports, the Court of Appeal uncritically adopted many of FoE’s factual statements about the urgency and seriousness of the climate problem. In doing so, the Court relied on the authority of the IPCC and the alleged “consensus” that would emerge from their reports, in particular the SPMs.
The Court not only took the IPCC reports as irrebuttable proof, but also attributed normative force to them. For example, the Court ruled that climate scientists have determined that the average temperature on earth may not rise by more than 1.5 degrees. In doing so, the Court, like the Dutch Supreme Court, ignored that science cannot set norms and that scientists are not authorized to set social standards. The Dutch judiciary’s scientistic tendency is extremely worrisome and does not bode well for future climate-related judgments.
Dangerous climate change
A case in point, the Court arrives at the alarmist conclusion that “the climate problem is the biggest problem of our time” and that the danger of climate change is great and even “life-threatening”. Based on the non-factual findings of fact and obligatory references to the Paris climate agreement, the Urgenda judgment and the Klimaseniorinnen ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court confirmed a right to protection against “dangerous climate change.”
“Protection against dangerous climate change,” the Court says, “is a human right,” without any caveats or qualifications. Obviously, realizing this human right will be at the expense of all kinds of other human rights and interests, such as the right to (or interest in) reliable and affordable energy. Inevitably, the right to protection against “dangerous climate change” will harm the realization of other “sustainable development goals.” Although M&E had flagged these kinds of trade-offs extensively, the judges did not bother to deal with these implications of climate morality.
Dog whistle
This new human right must be respected not only by states, but also by large corporations, the Court found. In civil liability law, this right translates into a duty of care for companies. According to the Court, the Paris goals require measures to reduce the demand for fossil fuels and to limit the supply of fossil fuels. Oil and gas companies should therefore consider “the negative impact on the energy transition when investing in the production of fossil fuels.”
With this line of reasoning, the judgment suggests that “saving the climate” legitimizes creeping expropriation of oil and gas companies. This dog whistle did not escape the attention of FoE’s lawyer, who has hinted at further legal proceedings to prevent the development, expansion and financing of oil and gas production, referring to forthcoming climate finance case against ING, the largest Dutch bank.
Reduction Percentage
FoE lost the case based on two lucid moments of the judges. FoE had demanded that Shell reduce scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. With regard to scope 1 and 2, the Court of Appeal ruled that Shell had committed itself to this objective and is on track to achieve it, so that claim was rejected.
With regard to scope 3 emissions, the Court of Appeal concluded that neither the law nor climate science sets specific reduction standards for a company such as Shell. The 45% invoked by FoE, the Court found, is only an “average global reduction in all sectors” that does not apply to each country and each business sector individually. Indeed, this point had been well explained in M&E’s submissions to the Court.
In this regard, the judgment serves as a dialogue between the courts and the climate movement. Climate science therefore knows what is expected of it: set reduction standards for the oil and gas sector and the courts (at least, the Dutch courts) will enforce them.
Effectiveness
The Court of Appeal also undermined FoE’s lawsuit by finding that the reduction order sought by FoE would be ineffective. This too had been explained in detail in M&E’s expert opinions. As the Court confirmed, there is no reason to believe that a reduction obligation imposed on a specific company will have any positive effect: if Shell sells less oil and gas, other suppliers will simply take its place and any “climate gain” will be illusory.
Progressive realization
In line with the human rights theory of ‘progressive realization’, the court-made right to protection against ‘dangerous climate change’ is slowly but surely being realized. Two steps forward, one step back: first governments, then companies, then a specific reduction percentage, and then no such percentage.
This week, it was a step back, but the District Court’s verdict in first instance has already had its effect. With that verdict in hand, many other lawsuits have been launched and the climate movement has been able to persuade the European Union to oblige companies to implement a “climate transition plan” in accordance with 1.5 degrees. Judges have learned rapidly how to play the political climate game.
Threat remains
This is the first climate ruling in the Netherlands that is favourable to citizens who are suffering under the ever-rising prices of energy and other products. M&E’s intervention has had its effect, as it demonstrated for the Court that there are other interests affected by these kinds of cases and that other valid perspectives on the issues generate dramatically different conclusions. Moreover, as the main reasons for denying FoE’s claims are rather factual in nature, it will be difficult to find a good angle to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, which review only points of law.
A battle has been won, but the climate war will rage on. Activist NGOs will be able to derive new legal bases from the Court’s ruling for further climate cases.
NGOs for the people
To prevent that democracy is set aside and the people are subordinated to climate activists supported by the judiciary, interventions by NGOs that are sympathetic to the interests of citizens will continue to be essential. There is much enthusiasm around this idea, but the financing of the activities continues to be the biggest challenge.
All in all, the ruling of the Hague Court of Appeal is an important first step towards restoring rationality and balance in judicial decision-making in climate cases. The rejection of the case against Shell will have ripple effects on many other climate cases throughout the world, and should cause the EU to rethink the obligation for companies to implement a climate transition plan consistent with 1.5C.
In all things climate, to use a Chinese proverb, “the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”
Most incoming solar radiation is intercepted by tropical oceans. This is where most of the heat comes from, the real heat on Earth.
The world’s oceans move some heat to the higher latitudes including North America and Europe by ocean currents.
Should a lot of solar radiation come in on one exceptionally sunny day, the oceans still won’t overheat because excess energy can always move vertically by which I mean up. I have observed that this is especially the case late in the afternoon through the formation of cumulonimbus clouds as part of thunderstorms.
Once high up in the atmosphere all this energy can be radiated to space. And there is a lot of space, I mean there is still a lot of room in outer space.
This is why, despite more than one billion people, with so many cars, and all the factories producing plastic straws and bottles, the oceans on planet Earth are still not boiling.
Heat energy can be lost as noisy electro-magnetic radiation. The tiny moving charges move more and faster on hotter things. This means they generate more electrostatic and magnetic field changes.
When I go out on boats over the ocean late in the afternoon, I can be a part of thunderstorms that include light shows and so much crackling and banging. There was a big thunderstorm and light show just yesterday, late in the afternoon not far from the Tropic of Capricorn above the western Pacific Ocean where I live.
Meanwhile the people with much of the economic power in this world, they mostly don’t live in the tropics. And they don’t take the time to observe the different components of the atmosphere or even to sit outside during a tropical thunderstorm.
I wonder if they even know what rain smells like. I wonder if they think the smell of rain has changed with the climate that is always changing.
It was a few white men sitting inside, around a table in Massachusetts that is even further north than New York in another hemisphere, that came up with the idea that a doubling of carbon dioxide would cause global temperatures to increase by exactly 3 degrees Celsius and for the whole Earth.
They came up with this idea while acknowledging they had little idea about clouds – and had never visited the tropics.
That was in 1979, the same year that Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the same year that Rupert Murdoch founded the global media holding company the News Corporation Ltd. Suddenly there was a push for globally relevant temperatures, news and within a few years the coal miners who had underpinned British manufacturing were to become villains in a new narrative about global overheating.
******
I am considering beginning a monthly Zoom group, to discuss these things. If you would like to be invited, leave a public comment in the thread that follows. Your email address will be visible only to me, and I can then use it to send the Zoom invite.
The Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Finland “publishes the results of scientific research that is thematically or geographically connected to Finnish or Fennoscandian geology.” Bulletin 416 Special Issue publishes two articles by Simon P. Michaux that are of interest to anyone concerned about challenges of the transition away from fossil fuels.
The Preface to the Bulletin explains the purpose of the report:
The two contributions published in this Special Issue of the Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Finland highlight that a successful transition to renewable energy requires a comprehensive raw materials strategy that considers both the upstream metal demands and the downstream infrastructure needs. In technological and innovation space, exploring alternative battery chemistries, improving recycling rates, and developing more resource-efficient technologies will be crucial to mitigating the strain imposed on metal supply chains.
The earlier work of the sole author of these two papers has been widely quoted, debated, and criticized in the media and amongst policy makers and academic audiences in the past few years. The premises, process, and conclusions of these studies have questioned the validity of some of the basic assumptions underlying the current energy and natural resource policy, but have still, largely mistakenly, been taken as a statement in favor of the status quo. On the contrary, these contributions are intended as the beginning of a discourse and attempt to bring alternative, often overlooked, views into the discussion about the basic assumptions underlying the material requirements of the energy transition. Out of necessity, they make simplifications in recognizing and mapping out the scale of some key challenges in the raw materials sector that need to be overcome if the energy transition is to be realized. Calculations and estimations need to be refined and, naturally, in addition to raw materials production and the material transition, other crucial aspects such as technology and infrastructure development, workforce requirements, land use changes, and societal impacts, among others, also need to be considered.
Nevertheless, the challenges related to the complex and interconnected nature of the problem should not be taken as a cause to halt the development and innovation needed to overcome it. Further research, policy interventions, and international collaboration are all essential in securing sustainable supply chains, promoting responsible sourcing practices, and ensuring a just and equitable green and digital transition for everyone.
Scope of the Replacement System
The reference to the first article is:
Michaux, S. P. 2024. Scope of the replacement system to globally phase out fossil fuels. Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin 416, 5–172, 50 figures, 51 tables and 10 annexes.
The Abstract states:
The task to phase out fossil fuels is now at hand. Most studies and publications to date focus on why fossil fuels should be phased out. This study presents the physical requirements in terms of required non-fossil fuel industrial capacity, to completely phase out fossil fuels, and maintain the existing industrial ecosystem. The existing industrial ecosystem dependency on fossil fuels was mapped by fuel (oil, gas, and coal) and by industrial application. Data were collected globally for fossil fuel consumption, physical activity, and industrial actions for the year 2018.
The estimated sum total of extra annual capacity of non-fossil fuel power generation to phase out fossil fuels completely, and maintain the existing industrial ecosystem, at a global scale is 48,939.8 TWh.
A discussion on the needed size of the stationary power storage buffer to manage intermittent energy supply from wind and solar was conducted. Pumped hydro, hydrogen, biofuels and ammonia were all examined as options in this paper. This study uses four stationary power buffer capacities: 6 hours, 48 hours + 10%, 28 days and 12 weeks. This power buffer is assumed to be supplied through the use of large battery banks (in line with strategic policy expectations).
An estimate is presented for the total quantity of metals required to manufacture a single generation of renewable technology units (EV’s, solar panels, wind turbines, etc.) sufficient to replace energy technologies based on combustion of fossil fuels. This estimate was derived by assembling the number of units needed against the estimated metal content for individual battery chemistries, wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. The majority of the metals needed were to resource the construction of stationary power storage to act as a buffer for wind and solar power generation.
It was shown that both 2019 global mine production, 2022 global reserve estimates, 2022 mineral resources, and estimates of undersea resources, were manifestly inadequate for meeting projected demand for copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and vanadium.
The analysis takes a bottom-up approach to determine what is needed for global fossil fuel replacement. For example, Michaux estimates how many vehicles were used for transport by class and the miles traveled to estimate how much fossil fuel was used and the energy needed for replacement. He proposes non-fossil fuel technology as replacements. The work estimates “the quantity of electrical energy required to charge the batteries of a complete EV system” and “the quantity of electrical energy to manufacture the required hydrogen for a complete H2 Cell system” as an alternative. Estimates for “electrical energy generation, building heating with gas and steel manufacture with coal” were also determined. The analysis found that:
The estimated sum total of extra annual capacity of non-fossil fuel power generation to phase out fossil fuels completely, and maintain the existing industrial ecosystem, at a global scale is 48,939.8 TWh. This builds upon an existing 9,528.7 TWh of non-fossil fuel electrical energy generation annual capacity. If a non-fossil fuel energy mix was used (based on an IEA prediction for 2050, IRENA 2022) was assumed, then this translates into an extra 796,709 new non-fossil fuel power plants will need to be constructed and commissioned. A discussion on the needed size of the stationary power storage buffer to manage intermittent energy supply from wind and solar was conducted. Four calculations of the size of the power buffer were done (6 hours, 48 hours, 28 days and 12 weeks). Pumped hydro, hydrogen, biofuels, battery banks and ammonia were all examined as options in this paper.
Given that Michaux is trying to estimate global energy use it is understandable that there are many simplifying assumptions. For the intended purpose I do not think any of my observations would change the general results, i.e., I believe the estimates are close enough for results that are the right order of magnitude. My primary interest is the electric sector. Section 14: Performance of existing fleet of electricity generation power stations estimates the availability and power production in Table 36. In Table 38 the assumptions and estimated number of power stations needed to replace fossil-fired power stations are listed. In the following table I combined data from both tables.
I have a few observations about these results. Michaux had to estimate the energy split between the power systems. Solar thermal is included, which I think is a niche system suitable only for deserts. Back calculating from the total energy requirement, he estimated the energy needed for each generation type. The average installed plant capacity was from a reference and used to estimate the power produced by an average plant of each type. The availability across the year parameter is close enough to capacity factor that they are interchangeable. I think nuclear availability is low. I am sure that wind and solar advocates would argue that the availabilities used are also low. The result is a conservative estimate of the number of new power plants needed.
I did not see a distinction between onshore and offshore wind in this article, but the second article described below states:
This study projects that 1.3 million wind turbines (each one assumed to be a 6.6 MW (Megawatt capacity) will need to be operational as part of the task to completely phase out fossil fuels. Onshore units will account for 70% of this number, corresponding to 910,000 wind turbines. Offshore units will account for 30%, requiring 390,429 wind turbines.
In my opinion it would have been better to split onshore and offshore wind into two categories because the availabilities will differ.
The analysis also calculates the size of the power buffer needed to back up the predicted generation resources which is a particular interest of mine. I will postpone a discussion of that for another post. For the purposes of this article note that the report includes an exhaustive analysis of energy storage requirements and potential technologies to provide the necessary storage.
The first article estimates the energy necessary for the transition which was used in the second article to determine the materials resources needed for the transition. The article notes that a massive number of new facilities will be required and that a “large wind and solar power systems would need to be internally self-sufficient and need a buffer for stable operation”. Despite the caveat that the author did not intend to support the status quo reality intervenes. Michaux notes: “If there are technical issues in storing the needed quantity of power for the needed time period, then it is concluded that wind and solar power generation systems are not practical as the primary energy source for the next industrial era after fossil fuel based technology.”
Quantity of Metals Required
The second article was referenced:
Michaux, S. P. 2024. Quantity of metals required to manufacture one generation of renewable technology units to phase out fossil fuel. Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin 416, 173–293, 38 figures, 60 tables and 2 annexes.
The abstract states:
An estimate is presented for the total quantity of raw materials required to manufacture a single generation of renewable technology units (solar panels, wind turbines, etc.) sufficient to replace energy technologies based on combustion of fossil fuels. This estimate was derived by assembling the number of units needed against the estimated metal con- tent for individual battery chemistries, wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. The majority of the metals needed were to resource the construction of stationary power storage to act as a buffer for wind and solar power generation.
This study uses four stationary power buffer capacities as modelled in a previous study: 6 hours, 48 hours + 10%, 28 days and 12 weeks. This power buffer is assumed to be supplied through the use of large battery banks (in line with strategic policy expectations). Metal quantities were calculated for all four capacities and compared with mining production, mineral reserves, mineral resources, and known under sea resources. It was also assessed whether recycling could deliver this metal quantity by comparing calculations against the sum total mined metal between 1990 and 2023. The quantity of metal mined over the last 34 years was inadequate, which means recycling cannot deliver the needed capacity, and the mining of minerals would have to be the primary source of metals for at least the first generation of non-fossil fuel technology. If a metal has not yet been mined, then that metal cannot be recycled.
There are two highlights in the following: the quantity of metals available is “manifestly inadequate” and technological scaling up issues mean wind and solar “may not be viable as the primary energy source” for the transition:
It was shown that both 2019 global mine production, 2022 global reserve estimates, 2022 mineral resources, and estimates of undersea resources, were manifestly inadequate for meeting projected demand for copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and vanadium. Comprehensive analysis of these calculations suggest that lithium-ion battery chemistry (on its own) is not a viable option for upscaling to meet anticipated global market demand. This then implies that battery banks would not be viable as a power buffer for wind and solar in the quantities needed. As previous work had shown that pumped hydro storage and hydrogen storage face logistical issues in scale up, the belief of strategic policy makers was that battery banks were the solution. As all of these technologies face scale up issues, wind and solar may not be viable as the primary energy source to support the next generation of industrialization.
Consequently, the development of alternative battery chemistries is recommended. The calculated shortfall in copper and nickel production was also of concern, as both metals are vital to the existing economy and there is no known viable substitute or alternative for either commodity. Another alternative would be to develop an entirely new form of electrical power generation that did not need such heavy resource supply in construction or operation.
The calculations in the first article provided the number of generating resources needed provided. This article determined how many metals would be required for each resource based on those numbers. For anyone wanting to evaluate material requirements for wind, solar, and battery equipment the analysis provides a lot of documentation. Also note that Michaux included metals needed for doubling the current nuclear energy capacity, additional hydropower, and more geothermal.
In an analogous process Michaux calculated the number of zero-emission “technology units” needed to replace fossil fuels in industry and transportation. Electric vehicles are an example of a technology unit. Fuel cell vehicles are also included. Table 49 from the article is the sum of all metal from all parts of this study into one quantity by metal (split into the four different power buffer storage capacities).
This is an ambitious analysis that covers the entire global energy system. As such there are bound to be oversights and limitations as well as interpretative assumptions that could be issues. In my opinion, however, the approach and assumptions are reasonable and should give a reasonable estimate of the metals needed. The mass of metals available is another challenge but I think there is better historical data available. Comparing the metals needed to the metals available leads to the inescapable conclusion that the dreams of replacing fossil fuels will be unable to overcome reality.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
If you’ve skipped or forgotten high school science, this will also work for you.
John Shanahan is a founder and editor of All About Energy and wrote a brief article for an audience of high school students and others ill or uninformed about climate science. That website also provides many realistic articles about both energy and climate science. Excepts in italics with my bolds and added images.
High school students understand climate change science.
John Shanahan
November 6, 2024
Occam’s Razor is an idea first postulated in the 14th Century. Many scientists quote it: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
KEY POINTS
High school students can understand climate change if they first comprehend a few simple ideas.
1) We study everything that causes Earth’s climate to change, not just infrared radiation leaving Earth’s surfaces and interacting with CO2.
2) Energy is the ability to do work: Do you have a lot of energy? Are you on a school sports team or do you work for the school newspaper? Which takes more energy? Except for nuclear fission and fusion where matter is converted to energy, energy is always conserved. Energy can be converted from one form to another: from sunlight to chemical or electrical energy, from electrical energy to potential energy when an elevator goes up, from electrical energy to light when the stadium lights go on, from chemical energy to kinetic energy when you drive a car or ride a bike. Energy is very important in life.
3) Power is how fast energy can be delivered. A jet engine delivers more energy than the air coming out of an open-party balloon and does it faster. You need lots of power to pull a mile-long freight train. You need very little power to operate your smartphone.
4) Work is the total use of energy. On your utility bill, work is shown as kilowatt-hours. You pay so many cents per kilowatt-hour. For most of history, people had to do work themselves. For the last two hundred years coal, oil, and natural gas have done most of the work and provided thousands of by-products so we can have better lives. Nuclear power will have to do a lot of work in the future. What other major source of energy is there?
5) Once work is done, that energy is conserved but can’t do that same amount of work again. Only lower-quality energy is available. There are no perpetual motion machines.
6) Weather events are work. Sunshine is energy. The climate is an average of weather over a long time. To understand Earth’s climate change, you must understand how weather happens all over the globe and how it changes with time: hour by hour, with the seasons, over very long periods of time across ice ages and in between ice ages. You must explain all the systems: motion of the atmosphere and oceans, heat transfer from the equator to the poles and from the surface of the oceans and land to the top of the atmosphere, delivery of ocean water to the land, and other things.
7) To understand all issues of climate change,it is necessary to study both Radiative Transfer and Heat Transport. Climate change alarmists and some non-alarmists only study Radiative Transfer (infrared radiation from the surface of the land and oceans interacting with greenhouse gasses on the way to the Top of the Atmosphere). They don’t go into Heat Transport phenomena of air and ocean currents, water changes from ice to liquid to vapor and cloud formation, water transport to land, etc. They don’t explain Work related to the weather. You need millions of large power plants to do the work the sun does for free. They don’t analyze those details.
8) In order to understand climate and climate change we must explain all three things: energy, work, and power. To study “climate change” using global averages for sunlight and infrared radiation energy and spectrum analyses for interaction with greenhouse gasses and not explain work and power of actual weather events is not a complete study of climate change. By not explaining work and power in weather, they are implying that any combination of work and power is acceptable. IT IS NOT! Which combination of work and power is involved with climate change is not addressed. This is insufficient. You would never buy a car just knowing the size of the gas tank (how much energy you have) and not learn about the power of the engine to get up hills and pass trucks. You would want to know how much work you could do with the car – the number of miles you could drive it. Only study radiation and CO2 for climate change? No! Be smart when buying a car and when deciding what climate change policies to support
Photos of real weather, not just graphics of average global sunlight and infrared radiation:
Weather is a collection of many real events in Earth’s atmosphere. It varies tremendously from place to place, during the day, the season, during years of droughts, years of floods, in ice ages, in between ice ages, and in transitions to ice ages.
Climate is a global average of weather over 30 years or more. A change of an average of anything can never tell how the collection of real things is changing. Thus most studies of climate change can’t tell how the weather will change. Vast sums of “research” money are being squandered to do the impossible in order to force Europe and North America to stop using fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, the weather in most of the world is within the range of past history. Globally, only Mother Nature runs the show. Locally, humans have some influence by how they change land use from wilderness to agriculture and ranching, and how they build buildings, streets, and parking lots in place of wilderness. In cities, it is called the Heat Island Effect.
But on the whole, life on Earth is beautiful and wonderful. Humans have almost no control over the weather. Man-made global warming is a disgraceful hoax.
