Your claim:
Using Citi's waterfall graph for energy proportions, and assuming a a conservative growth rate of 1.5% pa in primary energy use, it looks to me as though CO2 emissions would be around 20% higher in 2040 than they are today."
Now suddenly you have a litany of unsupported BS where you "used Citi's numbers" even though you have no access to the actual numbers that Citi has included in the report. I think it's a safe assumption that you are not on the mailing list for Citigroup's investor reports so when you now say in your last post "I used Citi's own numbers for the energy mix" what you really mean is the same thing you wrote originally: all you really have are numbers you've made up from a graph that is clearly designed to illustrate a historical point, not to provide any sort of accurate data for forecasts.
That makes the output every bit as much woowoo as anything produced by the climate denier industry.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read