Good morning. Today's Smart Brevity count: 1,301 words, 5 minutes.

And at this moment in 1973, Gladys Knight and The Pips had just ended a run atop the Billboard charts with today's classic intro tune...

The holidays arrived early if you're looking for something to read that's very sobering and over 800 pages long: the International Energy Agency's new World Energy Outlook 2019.

Why it matters: It finds that existing and announced policies worldwide won't come close to reining in carbon emissions, despite the strong growth of climate-friendly energy sources.

What they did: The annual report models three scenarios for the long-term future of energy demand and the fuels and technologies used to meet it. They are...

1. Existing policies.
2. The combination of current policies and announced plans.
3. A "sustainable" pathway consistent with the Paris Agreement goal of holding temperature rise well under 2°C.

What they found: Even under nations' announced policy ambitions, energy demand is projected to rise by roughly 1% annually until 2040 (the end of the modeled period).

• Under that pathway, emissions growth slows but does not peak, instead rising roughly 100 million tonnes annually from 2018 and 2040.
• That's a far cry from the deep cuts needed to meet the Paris goals, a benchmark for avoiding some of the most damaging climatic changes.

The big picture: Under the "announced and current policies" scenario, low-carbon sources — notably solar and wind — are surging. Renewables are the biggest electricity source by 2030.

• Use of natural gas rises significantly too, while coal demand in 2040 is slightly below today's levels.
• Global oil demand grows but "flattens out" in the 2030s. In 2040, demand is roughly 106 million barrels per day.
• Oil use in passenger cars peaks in the late 2020s, but that's offset by rising demand for oil in the petrochemical and other sectors.
• Overall, fossil fuels would still have a 74% share of the global energy mix in 2040.

The bottom line: IEA boss Fatih Birol urges emphasis on deploying new technologies and bringing about efficiency gains consistent with the Paris-aligned scenario.

• “The world urgently needs to put a laser-like focus on bringing down global emissions," he said.
• "This calls for a grand coalition encompassing governments, investors, companies and everyone else who is committed to tackling climate change."

Meanwhile, as these big reports are kind of a choose-your-own-adventure, there's also plenty to write about on its oil-and-gas market findings.

• IEA notes that while the U.S. shale surge is slowing, they see the U.S. accounting for a whopping 85% of the increase in global oil production between now and 2030, and 30% of the gas output increase.
• This all bolsters the U.S. export stature, IEA said, while noting: "By 2025, total U.S. shale output ... overtakes total oil and gas production from Russia."

Go deeper:

• 5 global trends shaping our climate future (NYT)
• IEA's reports spark a metaphysical debate over the energy future (Axios)

Here's another part of the IEA report that jumped out at me...

What they found: The amount paid in fossil fuel consumption subsidies worldwide is far above subsidies for renewables, and is massive compared to revenues from carbon pricing systems.

Why it matters: "This imbalance greatly complicates the task of achieving an early peak in emissions," the report states.

Another challenge on the climate front via IEA: Almost 60% of the world's fleet of coal-fired power plants is 20 years old or less.

Why it matters: The report notes that coal plants typically are designed to run for around 50 years, and coal is the most carbon-intensive fuel to burn.

• It's a sticky problem because IEA notes that simply imposing strict limits on plants' lifespans "would not be practical for reasons of cost and energy security."
• They propose a basket of approaches that combines early retirements, retrofitting with carbon-capture, reducing operations and more.

In separate but similar efforts this week, a corporate lobbying campaign and a grassroots interest group are both calling on Washington to pass a carbon tax, Axios' Amy Harder reports.

Driving the news: Americans for Carbon Dividends, an industry-backed lobbying group, is launching a six-figure advertising campaign Wednesday promoting a carbon tax whose proceeds are returned to consumers.

• Separately, nearly 1,000 advocates with Citizens' Climate Lobby were on Capitol Hill yesterday pushing a similar policy.

Reality check: Congress is unlikely to pass such a proposal anytime soon. Nearly all Republicans, both on Capitol Hill and in the White House, are opposed to a carbon tax — at least publicly. Meanwhile, the most vocal Democrats, including those running for president, want more aggressive policies than a tax.

Where it stands: Americans for Carbon Dividends, which has funding from big corporations including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, is launching the first part of what it says will be a long-running advertising campaign.

• It’s starting as a digital-media advertising campaign in Washington, D.C., according to spokesman Ted Halstead, but will eventually spread outside the beltway.
• Outlets include Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.
• The group also launched a new website.

What I’m watching: Halstead expects bipartisan legislation on his group’s proposal in both chambers by sometime next year (a similar policy has already been introduced in the House).

Go deeper: Carbon tax campaign unveils new details, backers

Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced yesterday that the electric automaker's planned European factory will be located near Berlin, Germany.

Driving the news: It marks the Silicon Valley electric automaker's second international plant, joining a recently launched facility in China.

• Musk said the plant would build batteries, powertrains and cars, starting with the planned Model Y, a small SUV.
• The company hopes to have the plant running in 2021, according to multiple reports.

Why it matters: Tesla will "compete with some of the world’s biggest auto makers on their home turf," the WSJ notes.

• "The move takes the great electric car race to Volkswagen's backyard," CNN writes, noting VW's heavy investments in EVs.

What they're saying: “It’s strategic to lure German automotive talent to Tesla, and it’s a statement that Elon wants to one-up auto companies from that region," Gene Munster of the VC firm Loup Ventures tells Bloomberg.

S&P Global Market Intelligence has a great look at big power companies' pledges to reach net-zero emissions or 100% zero-carbon generation by 2050.

Why it matters: Electricity giants like Duke Energy, Xcel Energy, PSEG and others have made high-profile climate pledges.

But, but, but: As the story notes, the companies don't really know how they'll get all the way there.

The big picture: "Instead, they say crossing the finish line will require significant future advances in, and a massive scaling up of, technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration, advanced nuclear reactors and battery storage — primarily with the help of the federal government — plus yet-to-be-defined emissions offsets for any remaining natural gas plants."

A few things caught my eye about the embattled, bankrupt utility at the center of California's power and wildfire crisis...

The big picture: UC Berkeley professor Severin Borenstein looks at the pros and cons of recent calls to radically transform PG&E's ownership structure.

• "What’s clear to me is that converting PG&E to a public or cooperatively-owned utility would not be the silver bullet that creates a more efficient, reliable and safety-oriented electricity provider for Northern California," he concludes in the blog post for the school's Energy Institute at Haas.
• "It would at best be just the beginning of a long road to re-invent the utility," he adds.

Where it stands: Via Bloomberg, PG&E is "trying to offer $13.5 billion in compensation to the victims of wildfires sparked by its power lines as part of a restructuring plan, according to people with knowledge of the situation."

• The story notes that it's the same amount that a group of creditors has agreed to pay in a rival reorganization proposal.

The beer angle: Via San Francisco's KCBS Radio, "A Santa Rosa brewery has apologized after launching a beer with a name that used an obscenity to criticize Pacific Gas & Electric."

• "Shady Oak Barrel House faced a cavalcade of criticism after announcing the debut of  its "F*** PG&E" pale ale on Nov. 6," they report.