UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond

[Sleepy]

Nordhaus is still stuck, a snippet from this:
https://www.svtplay.se/video/20274038/nobelstudion/nobelstudion-avsnitt-2-1

[wdmn]

Nordhaus is still stuck, a snippet from this:
https://www.svtplay.se/video/20274038/nobelstudion/nobelstudion-avsnitt-2-1

What do you mean by this?

[gerontocrat]

Fossil fuels are good for you and the planet!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/10/protesters-disrupt-us-panels-fossil-fuels-pitch-at-climate-talks

Protesters disrupt US panel's fossil fuels pitch at climate talks
Official event praising coal, oil and gas met with laughter and chants of ‘shame on you’A

Trump administration presentation extolling the virtues of fossil fuels at the UN climate talks in Poland has been met with guffaws of laughter and chants of “Shame on you”.

Monday’s protest came during a panel discussion by the official US delegation, which used its only public appearance to promote the “unapologetic utilisation” of coal, oil and gas. Although these industries are the main source of the carbon emissions that are causing global warming, the speakers boasted the US would expand production for the sake of global energy security and planned a new fleet of coal plants with technology it hoped to export to other countries.

The event featured prominent cheerleaders for fossil fuels and nuclear power, including Wells Griffith, Donald Trump’s adviser on global energy and climate, Steve Winberg, the assistant secretary for fossil energy at the energy department, and Rich Powell, the executive director of the ClearPath Foundation, a non-profit organisation focused on “conservative clean energy”. The only non-American was Patrick Suckling, the ambassador for the environment in Australia’s coal-enthusiast government.

None of the US participants mentioned climate change or global warming, focusing instead of “innovation and entrepreneurship” in the technological development of nuclear power, “clean coal” and carbon capture and storage.

[ASILurker]

from COP24 Poland 2018

Presented by UPFSI - The United Planet Faith & Science Initiative

Greta Thunberg, Nils Agger & Liam Geary Baulch join us to introduce the Extinction Rebellion that's begun in the UK this year. We appear to be past the threshold into 'runaway climate change'. If so, the release of Methane in the Arctic ocean will heat the planet unimaginably fast. The collapse of civilization might very possibly lead to our extinction within decades if the predictions of some scientists are correct.

Join us for this program and share with others. We are in extreme danger, and our governments and media are not getting it.

"We can longer save the world by playing by the rules because the rules have to be changed."
Greta Thundberg (pictured below)

Liam Geary Baulch @ 13:30 mins talks about Grief

"We are a Rebellion and we are going to keep going. I think it's also important to talk about how we've been kind of dealing with the grief of what we're facing. We're actually talking about the loss of life. We're talking about the grief that we're experiencing from the life that's already been lost from climate change and the life that is going to be lost."

Related posts with videos on Climate Change and Grief:
Lurk
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2346.msg183512.html#msg183512
Neven
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2346.msg183625.html#msg183625

[Sleepy]

Nordhaus is still stuck, a snippet from this:
https://www.svtplay.se/video/20274038/nobelstudion/nobelstudion-avsnitt-2-1

What do you mean by this?

He's still stuck in his 70's attitude, nothing progressive or new about that.
Follow the links here:

Yes, 1.5°C is locked in since Paris and soon we will be locked in at 2°C. Also, 3°C was the optimum temperature according to Nordhaus in the early 70's.

Fits with the post by Sleepy, #1622, October 09, 2018.

Why Economists Can't Understand Complex Systems: Not Even the Nobel Prize, William Nordhaus by Ugo Bardi, October 14, 2018:

"Nordhaus' approach to climate change mitigation highlights a general problem with how economists tend to tackle complex systems: their training makes them tend to see changes as smooth and gradual. But real-world systems, normally, do what they damn please, including crashing down in what we call the Seneca Effect."

The follow-up comment to the above contains his paper from 1975 with a couple of quotes.
No wonder he was awarded that fake prize.

[wdmn]

Thank you sleepy.

I understand that following on the work of Hyman Minsky some economists like Steve Keen are (again) attempting to bring the mathematics required for modelling complex dynamic systems into economics, having rejected the static equilibrium methods of neo-classical econ.

[Sleepy]

Caring for the environment is like paying the rent. If you don't, you'll have no place to live.

In Stockholm, apartments are now heated with wood chips from Brazil. What a warm and cozy Christmas we'll have, filled with an abundance of presents and food. Hopefully a cold and white one outside as well. Yes, we just want it all.

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/vmBmqp/sa-varmer-amazonas-regnskog-upp-stockholm-i-vinter
Phoenix Rising arrived with wood chips recently, certified by FSC so they are environmentally friendly says Ulf Wikström at Stockholm Exergi AB, large ships are also immensely energy efficient as well.

https://amazonwatch.org/assets/files/2018-complicity-in-destruction.pdf
The company selling those wood chips, is at page 18 & 19 in the pdf above.

Oh, what about COP24? I'll just add a snippet with Stuart Scott from the video Lurk posted above.

[gerontocrat]

Caring for the environment is like paying the rent. If you don't, you'll have no place to live.

In Stockholm, apartments are now heated with wood chips from Brazil. What a warm and cozy Christmas we'll have, filled with an abundance of presents and food. Hopefully a cold and white one outside as well. Yes, we just want it all.

This Biomass thing is a giant blot on the record of environmentalists who went for it, that has given us the palm-oil plantations, wood chips from Brasil, ethanol from sugar in Brasil and from corn in the USA. It was supposed to be intelligent use of excess existing capacity but gave us wholesale environmental destruction. FSC certified is simply a fig-leaf, as my brother found out to his peril in the Philippines.

[wdmn]

Caring for the environment is like paying the rent. If you don't, you'll have no place to live.

In Stockholm, apartments are now heated with wood chips from Brazil. What a warm and cozy Christmas we'll have, filled with an abundance of presents and food. Hopefully a cold and white one outside as well. Yes, we just want it all.

This Biomass thing is a giant blot on the record of environmentalists who went for it, that has given us the palm-oil plantations, wood chips from Brasil, ethanol from sugar in Brasil and from corn in the USA. It was supposed to be intelligent use of excess existing capacity but gave us wholesale environmental destruction. FSC certified is simply a fig-leaf, as my brother found out to his peril in the Philippines.

There was a mill near where I live that was shipping pellets made from trees that would otherwise not be harvested to the UK (several thousands of km away). The mill received large government subsidies to start up and operate, only to fold a few years later. But the government is still pushing biomass.

[Sleepy]

A bit more on Nordhaus.

The Club of Rome to William Nordhaus and the Nobel Committee: “Pursue profitability — even at the cost of the planet?!”
https://medium.com/wedonthavetime/the-club-of-rome-to-william-nordhaus-and-the-nobel-committee-pursue-profitability-even-at-the-37c544e0c03d

Nordhaus has specifically caused damage by spreading six ideas or concepts, that all help excuse postponing strong climate action:

1. The external cost of climate change grows monotonically as the temperature rises. This has helped reduce the worry that there may be “tipping points” — points of no return — after which it is not possible to return to the world as we know it. The world appears to have passed two such points already, namely the destruction of the coral reefs, and the melting of the permafrost. The first has already partially occurred, and the second may no longer be stopped.

2. It is meaningful to try to measure the total cost of climate change in monetary terms. What is the value lost when the coral reefs will all be bleached and destroyed because of ocean warming? What is the cost of millions of people having to leave their livelihoods because of sea level rise or severe drought conditions?

3. Future damage should be discounted to current costs, using a discount rate which reflects the returns that can be obtained in investments in today’s capitalist society. In order to put a meaningful value on a human life in 2100, one needs instead to use low discount rates, for example, the rate of 1 % per year, chosen by the economist Lord Stern in his famous climate report in 2007. That ethical and realistic rational was attacked by Nordhaus and most other neoclassical macroeconomists as not being “cost-efficient”.

4. In a free market economy, with minimum government intervention, technological innovation (for example substitutes for scarce resources) will emerge fast enough to avoid loss of general wellbeing, because of rising prices for the scarce input and increasing profitability in providing alternatives. This assumption — Nordhaus´ defence when being questioned about possible “tipping points” — is extremely risky.

5. The damage arising from climate change is equally shared by people around the globe. This is clearly not the case. Experience shows us that the world’s poorest and most vulnerable in low-income countries are and will continue to be on the front lines of climate change and climate related disasters.

6. The final and ultimate misleading idea that the wellbeing of the majority is measured precisely by output (i.e. by total national GDP measured at market value), when it is fairly obvious that GDP growth in the capitalist world over the last 40 years has not benefitted the majority of working men and women and in truth has led to greater income inequality and disparity between rich and poor.

[Sleepy]

CAT December update:
Some progress since Paris, but not enough, as governments amble towards 3°C of warming
https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/warming-projections-global-update-dec-2018/

Meanwhile in Sweden, we will mitigate mitigation. 
https://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/nyheter/tva-miljarder-mindre-till-miljo-och-klimat

[Sigmetnow]

Former U.S. Secretary of State Kerry, in Poland for COP24:

“Instead of tacitly accepting that inaction is preordained for the remaining two years of the Trump presidency, Congress should send Mr. Trump legislation addressing this crisis,” he wrote. “It will force him to make choices the American people will long remember: Will he say no to deploying solar technology that would turn the American West into the Saudi Arabia of solar? No to turning the Midwest into the Middle East of wind power? No to a manufacturing revolution that could put West Virginia back to work in ways that his beloved coal never will? Make him choose — and let’s find out.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/kerry-wont-blame-trump-alone-for-climate-punt-gore-expects-action-without-white-house-2018-12-13

[Sigmetnow]

"High Ambition Coalition" #COP24 countries pledging to step up climate targets in 2020: EU, Canada, Costa Rica, Argentina, New Zealand, Mexico, Norway, island nations including Fiji and the Marshall Islands

Climate change talks lead to heightened pledge to cut emissions
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/12/un-chief-antonio-guterres-attempts-to-revive-flagging-climate-change-talks

Except Australia:
Australia turns back on allies as it refuses to cut emissions above Paris pledge
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/13/australia-turns-back-on-allies-as-it-refuses-to-cut-emissions-above-paris-pledge

[rboyd]

I just crunched the numbers for the EU-28 GHG targets for a paper that I am writing. They have the following targets:

2020: 80% of 1990 levels (one fifth reduction)
2030: 60% (one quarter incremental reduction)
2040: 40% (one third incremental reduction)
2050: 20% (one half incremental reduction)

The hard work pushed well off into the future. It turns out that the EU-28 will overshoot the 2020 figure, hitting about 74% of 1990 levels. To get to 60% they need to reduce by ((74-60)/74) 18.9% in 10 years - easily done with ongoing energy efficiencies and a bit more renewable energy, given the EU-28 slow GDP growth (pretty much business as usual).

They could easily ramp up the 2030 number, just to take into account the 2020 overshoot they should reduce it to 55%. Better 50% if they had some actual ambition. So much for the EU climate leadership! And lets not even talk about using "carbon neutral" wood pellets from the USA and Brazil, and biodiesel from tropical plantations.

Canada hasn't even got the policies in place to meet its current targets, and it (and Norway) are big exporters of fossil fuels. Hypocrisy at its sweetest! Argentina also trying to quickly expand its fracking operations. Have to catch a plane now, to get to my expat place next to the Pacific Ocean in Costa Rica - every year I get more neighbours from the North.

[Sleepy]

The best discussion from Katowice so far, unless you're part of the high flying climate glitterati.

[Sleepy]

The wise in Katowice agreed to compromise. Going back to bed.

"We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis."
Greta Thunberg

[Pmt111500]

The wise in Katowice agreed to compromise. Going back to bed.

"We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis."
Greta Thunberg

Going back to bed as well. Tomorrow should be snow on the ground here  so deniers come out of their hiding places with erased memories of last summer.

[Sigmetnow]

 

Leo Hickman on Twitter: "This bit of #COP24 decision text is incredible. I'm amazed it got through, to be honest...”
https://twitter.com/LeoHickman/status/1073975024107827201

[gerontocrat]

Did COP24 change the attached graph produced in November 2017?

Because what I read was that they will finalise the proposed rule-book about measuring CO2 emissions at a conference in 2020, and that if a country does not comply it will be subjected to an enquiry.

Ooooh, scary!

[gerontocrat]

Message from Australia to the USA

"Anything you can do, we can do better"

Australia to miss 2030 emissions targets by vast margin, Coalition's projections reveal

Emissions projections report shows Scott Morrison’s claims Australia will meet obligations under Paris agreement are incorrect

It projects total emissions in 2030 will be 563 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is an emissions reduction of 7% on 2005 levels.

Australia’s targets under the Paris agreement are for a 26% to 28% emissions reduction on 2005 levels.

The report says emissions in 2030 are projected to climb 4% above 2020 levels driven by higher levels of liquefied natural gas production, growth in agriculture, increased transport activity and a drop in the amount of carbon reduction from activities such as reforestation in the land use sector.

The report projects emissions from all sectors, except for electricity, waste and land use, will grow by 2030.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/21/australia-to-miss-2030-emissions-targets-by-vast-margin-coalitions-projections-reveal

[Sigmetnow]

The U.S. Congress is becoming noticeable greener since the Dems won the House in the November mid-term elections:

Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi)
12/28/18, 11:34 AM
It is with great enthusiasm that I appoint @USRepKCastor as the Chair of our new Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. We know she will bring great experience, energy & urgency to confronting this existential threat.
https://twitter.com/nancypelosi/status/1078690755194118144

(From the What’s New thread.)

[Sleepy]

We Don't Have Time.

NIMTOO, or how skewed is your mental model? Should we sue our governments and corporations? Civil disobedience?

Stuart Scott "Our Global Economic Operating System", CEP 24 Nov 2018:

Posted 20181220 124 views now.

Adding screenshots, Rio 1992 and the final words.

[rboyd]

The U.S. Congress is becoming noticeable greener since the Dems won the House in the November mid-term elections:

This restart of the select committee on climate change was the Democratic Party establishment's way of shutting down the proposed "Green New Deal". Simply a talking shop that will go nowhere, opposed to the Republicans who are more in your face (truthful?) with their denial.

"The Democratic leadership have selected Rep. Kathy Castor to chair a select committee on climate change they're planning to revive once the 116th Congress comes in session. The move all but ended the push by environmental activists and progressive darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to create a select committee on the Green New Deal, an ambitious reform that seeks to tackle climate change and income inequality in the next decade."

Let's remember that Obama was recently boasting about being behind the recent US oil boom.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/12/220126/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-house-democrats-committee

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/barack-obama-claims-credit-for-boom-in-us-oil-production-praises-paris-climate-accords/

[gerontocrat]

UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond belief, but horribly true

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46801108

Report: US 2018 CO2 emissions saw biggest spike in years

A new report has found that US carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4% in 2018 after three years of decline. The spike is the largest in eight years, according to Rhodium Group, an independent economic research firm.

The data shows the US is unlikely to meet its pledge to reduce emissions by 2025 under the Paris climate agreement. Under President Donald Trump, the US is set to leave the Paris accord in 2020 while his administration has ended many existing environmental protections.

While the Rhodium report notes these figures - pulled from US Energy Information Administration data and other sources - are estimates, The Global Carbon Project, another research group, also reported a similar increase in US emissions for 2018. And last year's spike comes despite a decline in coal-fired power plants; a record number were retired last year, according to the report.

The researchers note that 2019 will probably not repeat such an increase, but the findings underscore the country's challenges in reducing greenhouse gas output.

Many had hoped that carbon cutting actions at state or city level could in some way keep the US on track to meet its commitments made under the Paris climate agreement. The latest emissions data indicate that this is unlikely to happen.

[rboyd]

U.S. Electricity Generation By Source

As you can see from the graph below, the big change in the US electricity production in the past few years was between gas and coal, with gas growing from 25% to 40%, an coal declining from 40% to about 28%.. This is for electricity OUTPUT, not electricity CAPACITY, and therefore properly reflects the lower capacity utilization of wind and solar (and the variability).

If the US state properly accounted for fugitive methane emissions in their greenhouse gas reporting there would have been no reporting of a reduction in US emissions in previous years - as it was mostly driven by the move from coal to fracked gas. The 2018 numbers would also be even worse than reported.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Coal-Use-Rises-As-Renewables-Fall-In-US-Electricity-Generation.html

[TerryM]

oren
That's a rather dismal 5 yr. chart.


If demand should increase substantially over the next 5 to 7 years I don't see nuclear or hydro filling the gap. Wind and solar would increase numerically, but probably not as a percentage. Cutting back coal and gas would be out of the question.


I share your concerns about fracked gas, and believe that exported LNG produced from fracked NG is particularly dirty.
Terry

[rboyd]

More than agree on fracked gas for LNG, all the fugitive emissions then spending 40% of the embedded energy to freeze/unfreeze and transport. If the lack of climate dimming sulphate emissions, with respect to coal, is added in its even worse for the climate (although perhaps not for the lungs). A bridge fuel to nowhere.

[gerontocrat]

On the one hand.....

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/immediate-fossil-fuel-phaseout-could-arrest-climate-change-study

Immediate fossil fuel phaseout could arrest climate change – study
Scientists say it may still technically be possible to limit warming
Climate change could be kept in check if a phaseout of all fossil fuel infrastructure were to begin immediately, according to research.

It shows that meeting the internationally agreed aspiration of keeping global warming to less than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is still possible. The scientists say it is therefore the choices being made by global society, not physics, which is the obstacle to meeting the goal.

The study found that if all fossil fuel infrastructure – power plants, factories, vehicles, ships and planes – from now on are replaced by zero-carbon alternatives at the end of their useful lives, there is a 64% chance of staying under 1.5C.

and on the other hand....
Brexit - UK government defeated in the House of Commons by 434 votes to 202,
USA- The federal government's partial shutdown became the longest in American history on Jan. 12, stretching into its 22nd day to surpass a 21-day record set in 1995. And it's still going. (USA today)
Brazil, no hope,
EU in turmoil - Poland, Hungary etc etc

BAU ?

[rboyd]

BAU ?

Its more like "we have way more important things to deal with so don't bother me with climate change". If the global economy goes into recession this year or next, which is looking more and more likely, the emergency of the day will be how to reignite growth - immaterial of the energy sources to be used.

[Sigmetnow]

The world can meet the Paris climate targets at about a quarter of the cost of current subsidies for fossil fuels, according to a new climate study

The study, entitled Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement, is the culmination of a two-year scientific collaboration with 17 leading scientists at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), two institutes at the German Aerospace Center (DLR), and the University of Melbourne’s Climate & Energy College.

It was funded by the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation and released by the scientific publisher Springer Nature. The model produced by the authors, called One Earth, offers a roadmap for surpassing the targets set by the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement,

According to Karl Burkart, Director of Innovation at the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, the One Earth climate model “is groundbreaking in that it shows the 1.5°C can be achieved through a rapid transition to 100% renewables by 2050, alongside land restoration efforts on every continent that increase the resilience of natural ecosystems and help to ensure greater food security.” ...

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/22/dicaprio-study-achieving-paris-targets-possible-cheap/

[rboyd]

Decarbonizing electricity alone cannot provide the required emissions reductions

In the renewables segment of the forum it has been noted that Australia does seem to be accelerating its implementation of renewable energy, which should help reduce emissions in that sector. Unfortunately, electricity is only part of the mix and the other parts are more than offsetting any electricity emission reductions "while electricity emissions are projected to dip, other sectors are on the rise". Given the probable highly questionable nature of Australia's reporting on LULCF (land use, land change and forestry) statistics, plus fugitive methane, the reality is probably significantly worse.

Same issue for Germany, and Brazil has deregulated Amazon forest clearing so that should ramp up soon in favour of soybean plantations and cattle ranches. Same for the US if fugitive methane emissions are properly included (up in in 2018 even without that).

Three things are needed: increased renewables + increased efficiency + demand-side energy use reductions. We are currently lukewarm on the first two and the third one is not even on the table given the focus on continued economic growth. The rich world should be reducing emissions at 10%+ a year to more than offset the poorer nations such as Indonesia and India (the latter is getting close to the EU28 level of emissions).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-21/australia-to-fall-well-short-of-emissions-targets/10646522

http://world.350.org/canberra/australias-emissions-related-to-land-use-and-land-clearing/

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-targets

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-reached-an-all-time-high-in-2018/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/01/brazil-amazon-protection-laws-invite-deforestation-ngo

[Sigmetnow]

Australia is on track to meet its Paris climate commitments five years earlier than expected — in 2025 — according to new research from the Australian National University.

Per capita, the country is installing renewable energy faster than China, Japan, the United States, and the European Union.

"The electricity sector is on track to deliver Australia's entire Paris emissions reduction targets five years early, in 2025, without the need for any creative accounting," lead researcher Professor Andrew Blakers said.

"We have excellent wind, excellent sun, a very vigorous rooftop solar industry and very experienced ground-mounted solar farm and wind farm industry."

Co-researcher Matthew Stocks said cheaper renewable energy was replacing expensive coal-fired power, meaning the cost of achieving the 2030 carbon emission targets in the Paris Agreement would be zero.

"Nearly all of the new power stations are either PV [photovoltaic solar] or wind. We anticipate that this will continue into the future," Dr Stocks said. ...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-08/australia-ahead-of-paris-agreement-target-by-five-years/10789810

Cross-posted from Renewables thread.

[rboyd]

Australia Court Rules it is the ‘Wrong Time’ for Coal

At least the Australian courts seem be doing their bit, by ruling against new coal plants.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/02/10/australia-court-rules-it-wrong-time-coal

Australia does "cook the books" on its emissions by counting (questionable) reductions in previously massively increased land use change, and ignoring the true level of fugitive methane emissions. Then of course there is the issue of the country being a massive exporter of fossil fuels.

[gerontocrat]

Some of us have been rabbiting on about how it is not just AGW that is likely to do the biosphere, including us, a lot of damage, and probably well before the IPCC horizon of 2100.

This study is by a left-wing thinktank, but is not much comfort to the left wing, as one obvious conclusion is that existing social and economic policies of the left are about as much use as those on the right in dealing with what could be an existential crisis if we continue to stay with right-wing or left-wing BAU.

Note from the second image that climate is not yet the most out-of-control planetary system.

The full report:-  https://www.ippr.org/files/2019-02/risk-and-environmentfeb19.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/climate-and-economic-risks-threaten-2008-style-systemic-collapse
Climate and economic risks 'threaten 2008-style systemic collapse'
Environmental and social problems could interact in global breakdown, report says

The study says the combination of global warming, soil infertility, pollinator loss, chemical leaching and ocean acidification is creating a “new domain of risk”, which is hugely underestimated by policymakers even though it may pose the greatest threat in human history.

“A new, highly complex and destabilised ‘domain of risk’ is emerging – which includes the risk of the collapse of key social and economic systems, at local and potentially even global levels,” warns the paper from the Institute for Public Policy Research. “This new risk domain affects virtually all areas of policy and politics, and it is doubtful that societies around the world are adequately prepared to manage this risk.”

Until recently, most studies of environmental risk tended to examine threats in isolation: climate scientists examined disruption to weather systems, biologists focused on ecosystem loss and economists calculated potential damages from intensifying storms and droughts. But a growing body of research is assessing how the interplay of these factors can create a cascade of tipping points in human society as well as the natural world.

The new paper – This is a Crisis: Facing up to the Age of Environmental Breakdown – is a meta-study of dozens of academic papers, government documents and NGO reports compiled by IPPR, a leftwing thinktank that is considered an influence on Labour policy.

The authors examine how the deterioration of natural infrastructure, such as a stable climate and fertile land, have a knock-on effect on health, wealth, inequality and migration, which in turn heightens the possibility of political tension and conflict.

The paper stresses the human impacts go beyond climate change and are occurring at speeds unprecedented in recorded history. Evidence on the deterioration of natural systems is presented with a series of grim global statistics: since 2005, the number of floods has increased by a factor of 15, extreme temperature events by a factor of 20, and wildfires sevenfold; topsoil is now being lost 10 to 40 times faster than it is being replenished by natural processes; the 20 warmest years since records began in 1850 have been in the past 22 years; vertebrate populations have fallen by an average of 60% since the 1970s, and insect numbers – vital for pollination – have declined even faster in some countries.

[vox_mundi]

Interesting read

The report link points to a 404 - they seem to have changed the reports address. Updated address ...

Updated link: https://www.ippr.org/files/2019-02/risk-and-environment-february19.pdf

[gerontocrat]

Australia is on track to meet its Paris climate commitments five years earlier than expected — in 2025 — according to new research from the Australian National University.

Perhaps not....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/13/australia-wont-meet-the-paris-targets-despite-what-recent-research-claims
Australia won’t meet the Paris targets despite what recent research claims
Bill Hare
There’s no way we’ll achieve the targets five years early without major policy changes, which are unlikely under the current government

The Australian National University has been making headlines for its analysis that, with the current rate of renewable energy growth, Australia will achieve its Paris agreement targets five years early – by 2025. Unfortunately, after a careful review, we find their analysis doesn’t stack up.

Numerous international and national efforts to examine Australia’s climate and energy policy have all concluded that the government will not reach, on present policy settings, the 26-28% reduction from 2005 levels by 2030 it has put forward under the Paris agreement.
To achieve a 26% reduction below 2005 levels in national emissions – the lower end of Australia’s Paris agreement target – would require about a 75% penetration of renewables in the power sector by 2024, whereas the ANU scenario projects 50%, which is not enough to reach the Paris target.

The ANU briefing, possibly inadvertently, creates the impression that all that would be required is a continuation of the recent rate of renewable energy deployment. That is simply not the case, not without major policy interventions, which are unlikely – at least under the current government. The rapid and continued rollout of renewable energy into the power sector assumed in the ANU briefing paper is something that the Australian government actually opposes.

The government’s policies are aimed at slowing the renewable energy rollout, and in particular maintaining coal in the power sector at any scale, which essentially contradicts the premises of the ANU paper.

The present large and increasing rollout in the utility sector is driven by the renewable energy target. Given that this expires in 2020, that specific economic incentive will disappear.

While the penetration of 50% renewables by 2025 may be plausible in the absence of further policy developments, it is not considered plausible that close to 90% penetration could be achieved by 2030 without substantial policy action.

Such reductions would also require phasing out coal almost completely from the power sector by 2030, which is clearly not supported by a federal government that is currently trying to promote more coal power, not less.

While the low cost of new renewable supply is also a clear driver, market barriers are already in evidence, along with grid connection issues that require active intervention.

[gerontocrat]

BP Energy Outlook 2019 is out.  attach a graph  made from one of their tables. Which do you believe?

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/energy-outlook.html

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/renewable-energy-world-power-source-bp

Renewable energy sources will be the world’s main source of power within two decades and are establishing a foothold in the global energy system faster than any fuel in history, according to BP.

The UK-based oil company said wind, solar and other renewables will account for about 30% of the world’s electricity supplies by 2040, up from 25% in BP’s 2040 estimates last year, and about 10% today.

In regions such as Europe, the figure will be as high as 50% by 2040. The speed of growth was without parallel, the company said in its annual energy outlook. While oil took almost 45 years to go from 1% of global energy to 10%, and gas took more than 50 years, renewables are expected to do so within 25 years in the report’s central scenario.

In the event of a faster switch to a low carbon economy, that period comes down to just 15 years, which BP said would be “literally off the charts” relative to historical shifts.

But the company, as in previous editions of its report, does not see oil going away any time soon. The outlook’s core scenario envisages that oil demand does not peak until the 2030s, though under its greener scenario that milestone could be reached between now and the early 2020s.

Regardless, BP sees a “major role” for hydrocarbons until 2040, which it says will require substantial investment. It expects global demand for oil and gas to be 80-130 million barrels per day by then, up from around 100mb/d today.

The company has ambitious plans to grow its oil and gas production 16% by 2025, according to figures compiled by the Norway-based consultants Rystad Energy.

[rboyd]

Anything but "Rapid Transition" in that BP graph equals societal suicide! Amazing that such craziness can still pass as mainstream analysis.

[oren]

I can't blame the analysis, which is reflecting on societal directions. The problem is with society itself.
"BAU until they peel my dead cold hands from it".

[Sigmetnow]

I can't blame the analysis, which is reflecting on societal directions. The problem is with society itself.
"BAU until they peel my dead cold hands from it".

Or, until, suddenly, BAU simply isn’t ‘cool’ anymore:

”...hitching the company’s wagon to athletes. They get us to buy shoes we don’t need and movies not worth watching. He believes if enough of them buy into his brand of healthful eating, it can spark a movement.”

In the NBA, fake-meat diets are changing the game
https://www.latimes.com/sports/nba/la-sp-nba-vegan-diet-20190214-story.html

[bluesky]

Global Rules Mask the Mitigation Challenge Facing Developing Countries
Xuemei Jiang  Glen P. Peters  Christopher Green
First published: 22 March 2019

https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001078


Abstract
"Focusing on global mitigation pathways masks key aspects of technical, political, and social feasibility, which play out at the country level. We illustrate the dilemma between a “carbon law” (halving emissions every decade) at the global level and the nationally determined contributions submitted at the country level. Our results suggest that even if the United States, European Union, China, and India could strengthen their nationally determined contributions by 2050, the rest of the world is required to immediately change from their current course to a very rapid decrease in emissions reaching almost zero emissions by 2030, to achieve the Paris 2015 goal. The greatest mitigation challenges lie in the developing world. Real progress toward the Paris Agreement goal awaits an effective commitment by leading countries to undertake breakthrough research and development of low‐, zero‐, or even negative‐carbon‐emissions energy technologies that can be deployed at scale in the developing world."

[rboyd]

"Brazil’s National Institute of Space Research (INPE) has calculated that Bolsonaro’s policies could increase annual Amazonian deforestation from 6,900 square kilometres to 25,600 square kilometres in 2020"
"As consumers we must insist on due diligence by companies and banks to eradicate deforestation from agricultural supply chains and capital investments.»
Jaboury Ghazoul
https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2019/04/blog-ghazoul-forest-conservation-brazil.html

With this, and other drivers such as increasing fossil fuel use by developing nations such as India and Indonesia and the Trump "drill baby drill" imperative, we could end up going into the 2021/2022 UN IPCC reports and COP meetings with an accelerating rate of emission and atmospheric GHG level increases.

The only way to paint any kind of positive picture (the main imperative of the UN IPCC summary reports, which is different to the underlying scientific reports) will be through the proposed use of Solar Radiation Management and increasing levels of planned extraction of GHGs from the air (BECCS, DACS and ERW). Any kind of Arctic Blue Ocean Event would be the icing on the disastrous cake.

[Sleepy]

Yes, if the Paris goals were attached to reality we would already be building one large CO₂ removal facility every day along with the power plants to supply the necessary electricity & heat. And we would have to keep at it for decades.

Edit; just watched this and it's a nice 40 minute summary by James Dyke.

[Sigmetnow]

The recent SpaceX launch payload includes an instrument to measure CO2 more precisely:

NASA  instrument heads to space station to map CO2

The space station instrument brings a new trick to the OCO observations - a swivelling mirror system that allows the spectrometer system to scan a much wider swath of the Earth's surface than would ordinarily be the case.
This "snapshot" mode means CO2 maps can be built up in a single pass over a target of special interest, such as a megacity - a task that will take OCO-2 several days.
"The snapshot mode allows us to grab snippets of data over an area of about 80km by 80km in two minutes. Right now we think we may spend about a quarter of our time making these mini maps, up to 100 a day," Dr Eldering said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48150645

More info on the launch here: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2582.msg197963.html#msg197963

[gerontocrat]

AUSTRALIA
The Liberals (right-wing) won the election.
Perhaps Adani (coal)has as well.
LNG has certainly won.

If a place like Australia with all its natural advantages, won't grasp the nettle and move to a carbon-neutral economy, then who will ? The Australian election joins the Brazilian election in probably ensuring that as this century unfolds, a lot extra of the biosphere** is going to end up dead.

Climate emergency, what climate emergency?
___________________________________________________________________________
** The biosphere includes us

[ASILurker]

AUSTRALIA
The Liberals / National Party's (right-wing) won the election.

Quite possible that will work out ok, longer term. For now the LNP Govt will have to "own" all that comes. Including Adani coal mine, coal exports, collapsing real estate prices, other flaky exports to China re trade wars/real wars, down turns, stock market crashes, another GFC, increasing unemployment, not achieving a balanced budget next year, maybe not delivering on promised tax cuts and wherever America decides to run their next war requiring the usual backup, and making the new 2030 UNFCC agreements when 2 new Independents were elected on a climate action platform on top of the greens/labor parties. Their majority is as yet unknown, they won't have much room to move. 

The election platform was non existent. Basically they offered some tax cuts on the never never, and anyone but a Labor Govt. They have no plans or a popular mandate to do anything substantial. It's not a rosy picture (for them) to be responsible for the next 3 years when anything might happen ... it's a house of cards "economically and socially" imho.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Why Paris is not working:
https://www.earth.com/news/centralized-global-warming-greenhouse/

EDIT: UN AGW talks in Bonn:
https://thepublicsradio.org/article/climate-talks-held-as-arctic-ice-melts-concerns-grow

[Sigmetnow]

Faster-Than-Expected™ - Climate Sensitivity Edition
The next IPCC report, coming out in 2021 and using revised climate modeling, projects that "heating will plausibly happen nearly twice as fast as what has been projected for decades." https://t.co/GvYtumOHCo

https://mobile.twitter.com/davidlwindt/status/1133867168687370240

[D-Penguin]

Anybody who tries to substantiate their opinion by reference to IPCC Reports should first read the article at the link posted by Glen Koehler on 2019 Arctic Ice thread on 10/07/2019 at 03:16:41 PM

www.researchgate.net/publication/324528571_What_Lies_Beneath_The_scientific_understatement_of_climate_risks

And then think again!

[gerontocrat]

When the blah blah has to stop?
But this is England.....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/10/the-guardian-view-on-the-climate-emergency-a-dangerous-paralysis
The Guardian view on the climate emergency: a dangerous paralysis
Editorial
The closer the prospect of disaster becomes, the less the government manages to do

The difference between speed limits and speed cameras is that speed cameras work. They arouse fear and frustration, but they are in the end obeyed. Speed limits, on the other hand, are generally treated as moralistic exhortations which no one ought to take literally. The distinction between exhortation and enforcement is fundamental to understanding what governments intend when they announce a policy; and the latest report to parliament of the government’s Committee on Climate Change makes it clear that the government’s commitment to mitigating the effects of the climate emergency is still very much at the stage of announcing speed limits: targets and exhortations without any enforcement or real effects on behaviour. As a result, there is a smashup coming. A global rise of 4C in mean temperature is equivalent to the entire rise in temperature since the last ice age, and whereas the preceding rise was spread out over 10,000 years, this one will be a compressed into a century.

The committee’s language is remarkably blunt: “Targets do not themselves reduce emissions”, the report says – any more than speed limit signs make drivers slow down – but even the targets are badly placed; “There are no areas where the government is planning properly”; and, from the former chairman of the Conservative party, Lord Deben, “the whole thing is run by the government like Dad’s Army … this ramshackle system … doesn’t begin to face the issues. It is a real threat to the population.”

Of the 25 targets announced last year, one has been met; work on 10 has not even started. The number of civil servants working directly on policy has been slashed since 2013, and central funding for services to help businesses and regions adapt to the coming changes has disappeared. At the same time the problem has grown larger and more urgent. Few people now believe that we can restrict the global rise in temperature to two degrees; virtually no one believes that the Paris target of 1.5 degrees is realistic; but 4 degrees, which the latest report urges we should be planning for, promises to be catastrophic.

The sea level might rise over time by 10 metres; even the much lower mid-range of predictions would see Scunthorpe, Doncaster and Lincoln in the UK become coastal cities; most of Cardiff would vanish, along with the South Bank in London. Amsterdam and Rotterdam will be inundated along with large parts of the Netherlands. The Danube, the Mississippi, and the Murray-Darling rivers in Australia, on which millions of people depend, will shrink by up to 40%. At least 300 million people will become climate refugees; China and the USA will lose coastal cities. Resource wars are a possibility; famine and epidemic disease are a certainty. There is no simple technological fix: in fact, technological progress can make societies more vulnerable, because they become more complicated.

All this is a realistic prospect by the end of the century and possibly 40 years earlier. These are not crank predictions. They are official estimates, derived from the best scientists the government has available. The inaction and frivolity of the state’s response is breathtaking. It is now 11 years since the then chief scientific adviser to Defra, Professor Bob Watson, warned about the prospect of a four degree rise, which in those relatively optimistic days looked like a worst case scenario. It is past time to plan seriously and to act on these plans. Dad’s Army won’t muddle through this global emergency. However painful real change may be politically and economically, waiting for the inevitable will be worse.

Governments' like rabbits - trapped in the light from the headlights of the approaching....