WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States wants to broker a global agreement on climate change that would contain some legal elements but would stop short of being legally binding on an international level, the country's top diplomat on climate change issues said.http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0I409X20141015 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0I409X20141015)
Todd Stern, the State Department climate change special envoy, addressed one of the thorniest issues in ongoing talks to secure a global plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions – its legal form.
Stern said a recent proposal by New Zealand for countries to submit a "schedule" for reducing emissions that would be legally binding and subject to mandatory accounting, reporting and review offers an approach that could get the buy-in of countries like the United States that are wary of ratifying an internationally binding treaty.
The content of the schedule itself and the actions each country pledges would not be legally binding at an international level.
If the US and China were to adopt global best practice in their domestic climate policies, together, the world’s two largest emitters could close the 2020 emissions gap by 23%, according to new research.http://tcktcktck.org/2014/10/study-us-china-co-operation-help-close-emissions-gap/64897 (http://tcktcktck.org/2014/10/study-us-china-co-operation-help-close-emissions-gap/64897)
...
Bill Hare of Climate Analytics, said:
"The US and China produce 35% of global emissions and have been making efforts to work with each other on climate change. If they scaled up action to adopt the most ambitious policies from across the world, they would both be on the right pathway to keep warming below 2ºC."
...
The research comes as countries, including the US and China meet in Bonn for the latest round of the UN climate change negotiations, to set out the elements of the next global climate agreement, to be agreed in Paris in 2015.
...
According to the IEA, the US must decarbonise by 80% by 2030 , China by 60-70%. Yet current policies in both countries are inadequate to meet the necessary limit; the US has pledged to reduce coal by about 20% and China is stabilising coal use by 2030.
Armchair travellers: Here is the Information for Participants for the December 1-12 UN Climate conference in Lima, Peru. I particularly enjoyed the establishment of the "Blogger's Loft" and the repeated requests to not print anything unless absolutely necessary, using both sides of the paper, and most importantly no colored paper!
TEXT-Key elements of EU climate dealhttp://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL6N0SJ00B20141024 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL6N0SJ00B20141024)
BRUSSELS | Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:17pm EDT
BRUSSELS, Oct 24 (Reuters) - Following are key elements of the deal to curb global warming struck by European Union leaders early on Friday, as given by European Council President Herman Van Rompuy:
- A reduction of at least 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. This figure, which refers to the classic 1990 baseline, is binding. About half of the effort takes place within the EU-wide ETS (Emissions Trading System); the other half takes place in the non-ETS sectors, with national, yet tradeable targets.
- Clean energy. We commit to at least 27 percent of renewables in 2030. Here we are talking about a share of total energy consumed and the target is binding at EU level. Currently, the share of renewables stands at about 14 percent.
- Energy savings. We commit to an increase of at least 27 percent in energy efficiency. This figure is indicative and compares to 2030 projections based on current consumption and technology. It will be reviewed by 2020, having in mind an EU level of 30 percent. Energy savings are about changing behaviour and about innovation. Saving energy also is the surest way of reducing our energy dependency.
- Energy linkage. The objective is to have electricity interconnection worth 15 percent by 2030. This means that for each 100 megawatts (MW) it produces, a member state should have the infrastructure to be able to import or export 15 MW. (Reporting by Alastair Macdonald)
Poland, which relies on coal for 90 percent of its electricity, successfully put the brakes on the EU's climate policy. This shows some of the weaknesses of the EU's structures. With regard to energy and climate policy, not only the overall framework, but every single proposal by the EU Commission has to be agreed on unanimously by the Council of Ministers. That meant Poland could threaten to veto any decision and derail ambitious proposals from Germany and others.http://www.dw.de/opinion-eu-abandons-stance-as-climate-leader/a-18019656 (http://www.dw.de/opinion-eu-abandons-stance-as-climate-leader/a-18019656)
Yet Poland has had plenty of time to realize coal is bad for the climate and has to be replaced. And the country's insistence on limiting energy efficiency goals is completely illogical. Better insulation and other energy-saving measures are good for the climate - and the economy, no matter what source of energy is used.
COPENHAGEN — One month after unprecedented numbers of people took to the streets to demand climate action as part of the Peoples’ Climate Mobilisation, the world’s scientists have issued their clearest call yet for bold action to address the climate crisis.http://350.org/press-release/ipcc-report-strengthens-case-against-fossil-fuel-industry-350-org-says/ (http://350.org/press-release/ipcc-report-strengthens-case-against-fossil-fuel-industry-350-org-says/)
May Boeve, Executive Director of 350.org, issued the following statement:
“The scientists have done their job, now it’s the politicians’ turn. World leaders have everything they need to act: clear scientific evidence, a strong economic case, and huge public support. The only thing they lack is the will.”
The report states, with a high degree of confidence, “Substantial reductions in emissions would require large changes in investment patterns.” That conclusion will add momentum to the growing fossil fuel divestment campaign, according to Boeve:
“The report strengthens the case for fossil fuel divestment. It clearly states that the vast majority of coal, oil and gas must remain underground and that investments in the sector must fall by tens of billions of dollars a year. The fossil fuel industry’s business plan and a liveable planet are simply incompatible.”
The report will also help in the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline, a 1,700 mile project that would take tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Boeve added:
“This report is another nail in Keystone XL’s coffin. The US played a leading role in shaping this report, which says we must stop developing unconventional fossil fuel reserves like tar sands. It would be deeply hypocritical to turn around and approve a carbon bomb like Keystone XL.”
The unrestricted use of fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100per BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29855884 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29855884)
Mitigation scenarios in which it is likely that the temperature change caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions can be kept to less than 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels are characterized by atmospheric concentrations in 2100 of about 450 ppm CO2eq (high confidence).
Is the explanation a substantial hope? / trust? / faith? in CCS?
Scientists and governments have worked intensively over the last week to prepare the report, meeting once again in Copenhagen.http://www.rtcc.org/2014/11/02/ban-ki-moon-world-leaders-are-ready-to-sign-climate-deal (http://www.rtcc.org/2014/11/02/ban-ki-moon-world-leaders-are-ready-to-sign-climate-deal)
The location has been a bitter reminder for some of the 2009 conference, branded at the time as “No Hopenhagen” thanks to its failure to secure a deal committing governments to meaningful action on climate change.
A recent round of talks in Bonn ended in stalemate, with countries unable to agree on what their contributions to a proposed 2015 climate deal could look like.
But also speaking at the IPCC launch, Manuel Pulgar Vidal, environment minister of Peru and president of this year’s set of main UN negotiations in Lima said he felt hopeful about the prospects of success.
“We are in a completely different process in contrast to what we have in Copenhagen five years ago. We are closer to the science, with more actors like business and civil society.”
Beijing (CNN) -- At the end of the APEC trade summit in China, U.S. President Barack Obama announced a climate change agreement with Chinese President Xi Jinping that would cut both countries' greenhouse gas emissions by close to a third over the next two decades.http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2014/11/obama-just-announced-historic-climate-deal-china (http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2014/11/obama-just-announced-historic-climate-deal-china)
Under the deal, the United States would cut its carbon emissions between 26-28% -- from levels established in 2005 -- by 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions no later than 2030 and would also increase the use of non-fossil fuels to 20% by 2030.
"As the world's two largest economies, energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases, we have a special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change," Obama said Wednesday in a joint press conference with Xi.
Obama said he hopes the announcement will spur other nations to tackle climate change.
According to a statement from the White House press office, the U.S. will reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, with “best efforts” to hit the higher end of that range. China will have its CO2 emissions peak around 2030, “make best efforts to peak early,” and increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its energy portfolio to “around” 20 percent by 2030. You might notice a lot of wiggle room in that language. There’s more. The White House release refers to these goals as statements of “intent.” They don’t promise or even “agree” to hit these targets, they merely “intend” to.
That may sound a little weak, but it’s necessary. Remember, foreign treaties require approval from a two-thirds supermajority of the U.S. Senate before they can be ratified. There’s no way Senate Republicans would vote for an emission-reduction treaty. But by merely jointly announcing with China their intentions, the Obama administration avoids signing an actual treaty. So the Senate can’t formally stop this agreement.
This morning news on the radio in Germany: "The world largest climate killers USA and China very surprisingly agreed on goals for CO2 emissions". Those goals seems to be not very ambigious and scheduled for 2025 or 2030 but it was concluded, that this agreement could result in some hope, that Paris 2015 is not dead from beginning as everybody is thinking here after all the other failed conferences...
litterally, then we should stopp all efforts in EU until 2030 to give USA a small chance to lead the efforts against climate change by that time.Quote"As the world's two largest economies, energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases, we have a special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change," Obama said Wednesday in a joint press conference with Xi.
Obama said he hopes the announcement will spur other nations to tackle climate change.
...I can understand how those words would be annoying to folks in other countries and cities that are way ahead of the U.S. in their clean energy efforts! I think Obama's words were meant more as encouragement to Americans: let's stop lagging behind; let's catch up to, and encourage, everyone else -- and stop being a model of inaction for those countries still not engaged. Other countries are moving; why aren't we?
But it is a bit annoying to read this pathetic background music from the parallel universe of silly Hollywood movies. E.g. if we would take words like this
litterally, then we should stopp all efforts in EU until 2030 to give USA a small chance to lead the efforts against climate change by that time.Quote"As the world's two largest economies, energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases, we have a special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change," Obama said Wednesday in a joint press conference with Xi.
Obama said he hopes the announcement will spur other nations to tackle climate change.
...
Those are corners turned. Appreciate them. Put them in perspective.
Does (PBO) or USA really lead the world in CO2 reduction from your point of view?
As I argue in the book, free trade deals and World Trade Organization rules are increasingly being used to undercut important climate policies, by blocking subsidies for renewable energy and other supports for the clean energy sector. The mindless expansion of cross-border trade also fuels carbon-intensive consumption and emissions growth, and NAFTA-style pacts bestow corporations with outrageous powers to challenge national policies at international tribunals. Climate objectives could yet be undermined by the US-China deal on high-tech goods, which still has to be approved by the WTO, or by a massive new regional trade agreement like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
"People recognise that we live in a global economy where when something happens in another part of the world it can impact on our lives here. The idea we should be isolationist Little Englanders is absolute nonsense."http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30126953 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30126953)
'No magic drawbridge'
Mr Davey said there would be a UK member on the board of the Green Climate Fund to ensure the money is spent on helping the poorest countries adapt to climate change and industrialise in a low carbon way.
And Lord Stern, a former government adviser on the economics of climate change, said: "To suggest that we must choose between investing in flood defences in the UK or helping international efforts to tackle the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing sea levels to rise along British coasts and leading the heavier rainfall is to misunderstand both the phenomenon itself and the basics of policy.
"Reducing risk and managing the effects of climate change must go hand in hand. To suggest otherwise is foolish."
Really hard to see how Australia's PM Abbott can keep up his strident support for coal and adversity to climate action.This writer feels much the same way:
The world's fossil fuels will "obviously" have to stay in the ground in order to solve global warming, Barack Obama's climate change envoy said on Monday.http://m.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2383277/obama-s-climate-change-envoy-fossil-fuels-will-have-to-stay-in-the-ground (http://m.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2383277/obama-s-climate-change-envoy-fossil-fuels-will-have-to-stay-in-the-ground)
In the clearest sign to date the administration sees no long-range future for fossil fuel, the state department climate change envoy, Todd Stern, said the world would have no choice but to forgo developing reserves of oil, coal and gas.
Franz Perrez, Switzerland:http://www.rtcc.org/2014/11/25/un-climate-negotiators-outline-priorities-for-lima/ (http://www.rtcc.org/2014/11/25/un-climate-negotiators-outline-priorities-for-lima/)
We see the process as following the four C’s.
The first C would be “clarification”, so that we understand what the specific mitigation targets are, and commitments or intended contributions on mitigation, and understanding with regard to emissions: how much emissions can we expect afterwards? Also with regard to the effort that is behind these numbers.
The second C would be to “compile”, or aggregate these different mitigation targets.
The third C would be to “compare” it with what is needed to be on track with a 2C objective.
The fourth C would be a process of “cooperation”, to close the remaining gap through international cooperation. This means for us it is also important that these intended nationally determined mitigation contributions are unconditional, that these are contributions that parties are willing to take independently of support they’re receiving, because support will then be the cooperative tool to close the remaining gap.
Agreeing global deal to cut carbon emissions next year is only way to protect "way of life we take for granted", energy secretary says, ahead of UN climate change summit in Limahttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11262835/One-year-to-save-the-planet-from-climate-change-disaster-Ed-Davey-warns.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11262835/One-year-to-save-the-planet-from-climate-change-disaster-Ed-Davey-warns.html)
...
"If each of the important ministers leaves Lima feeling confident that all the others are committed to making a new deal in Paris that will enable the 2C target to be met, then the prospects of making that deal will be significantly higher.”
Global Climate Talks Open with Push for Human Rights
The U.N. climate negotiations are no longer just about emissions limits but also social justice.
"When we started off talking about climate change, it was climate scientists talking about tons of carbon, and degrees of warming, and inches of sea level rise," said Tara Shine, head of research and development for the Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice. "That is all perfectly correct, but people have more empathy and are more concerned when you talk about climate in terms of people right from the start."
Despite more than 20 years of international discussions about addressing climate change, the world's emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are higher than ever. Efforts have stumbled, in part, over the stringency and feasibility of emissions cuts. In the past, big polluters such as the United States were mandated by a U.N. accord to make deep cuts, a top-down approach that Congress rejected.http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-us-climate-20141202-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-us-climate-20141202-story.html)
This time, the U.S. is backing a bottom-up plan that lets each country determine the emissions cuts it will make, Stern said. Still, countries would have to accept other binding conditions, such as a schedule for announcing planned cuts, and uniform and transparent reporting standards. Further, countries would have to agree to no backsliding: Emissions targets set every five or 10 years would have to be increasingly more ambitious.
As negotiators gather in Peru for a critical round of climate talks, U.S. delegates are straining to explain what they call a “counterintuitive” reality: For next year’s global climate agreement to be effective, commitments made under it must not be legally binding.
Still, there are plenty of signs that there’s room for a global accord to emerge, with every faction — from the poorest to the richest — finding a comfort zone thanks to the 24-year-old clause in the original climate treaty laying out nations’ “common but differentiated responsibilities” (here’s a great explainer from McGill’s Center for International Sustainable Development Law).http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/the-soft-path-to-a-climate-agreement-from-lima-to-paris/ (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/the-soft-path-to-a-climate-agreement-from-lima-to-paris/)
Zero Emissionshttp://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/20141202/biggest-hurdles-plaguing-global-climate-accord-explained (http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/20141202/biggest-hurdles-plaguing-global-climate-accord-explained)
Talk of limiting warming of the planet to 2 degrees Celsius is giving way to talk of reducing greenhouse gases emissions to zero this century. It's the same goal, just put more bluntly: total decarbonization of the world's energy economy within a generation.
All eyes are on this revolutionary prize.
Unless the world attains zero emissions, it will miss the 2-degree goal. On the present course, the planet is likely to warm considerably more than that.
So it's not that negotiators are giving up on the temperature target. But it is seen as too abstract, requiring complex math to translate into concrete policies. Depending on how sensitive the climate system is to carbon dioxide pollution, the 2-degree goal probably requires keeping CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere below 450 parts per million. That means staying within a fixed "carbon budget"—one that the world will bust in just a few decades unless emissions are reined in severely. ...
All those numbers are hard to fathom. So climate hawks have started to use a much starker and comprehensible number: zero.
China offered new details on its commitment to rein in greenhouse gases and called on rich nations to speed up delivery of the $100 billion in annual climate-related aid they’ve promised by 2020.http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-04/china-broadens-pollution-pledge-in-call-for-more-climate-funding (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-04/china-broadens-pollution-pledge-in-call-for-more-climate-funding)
China will work to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted for every dollar of gross domestic product and to boost its stock of forests that absorb emissions, Su Wei, China’s lead climate negotiator, said today. The comments are among the most significant from a Chinese official since President Xi Jinping pledged last month to begin to reduce carbon-dioxide pollution around 2030 and expand supplies of renewable power.
Addressing carbon intensity is key as China emits almost twice as much pollution to achieve the same amount of growth as the U.S., according to data from the International Energy Agency. China’s carbon intensity is on par with the U.S. level in 1985.
On Friday, the minister announced that Ottawa will enact new regulations to control hydrofluorocarbons, which are used in air conditioning and heating. The powerful short-term greenhouse gases account for only 1 per cent of Canada’s overall emissions. But she reiterated that Ottawa will not move to regulate emissions from the oil sands until the United States is ready to address its oil industry – a decision that, according to many analysts, makes it virtually impossible for Canada to hit its 2020 target.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-sticks-to-its-line-on-the-oil-sands-at-un-climate-summit/article21979592/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-sticks-to-its-line-on-the-oil-sands-at-un-climate-summit/article21979592/)
While the United States, China and the European Union have announced new emissions targets, the Canadian government faces mounting skepticism about its commitment to meet 2020 targets, and is a long way from announcing its goals for 2025 or 2030.
“A legally binding agreement is of no value anyway, as, while it may be legally binding, such an agreement is not enforceable. Look at Canada’s walking away from its legally binding Kyoto commitments … and there is no evidence that countries are more likely to deliver on notionally legally binding than on domestic political commitments.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/08/abbott-government-accused-of-trying-to-set-up-climate-change-talks-for-failure (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/08/abbott-government-accused-of-trying-to-set-up-climate-change-talks-for-failure)
...
“Australia is going in the opposite direction. Its Direct Action policy contains no binding limits on emissions. This discussion about the need for legally binding international commitments is just a distraction and would be the worst possible thing for a successful global climate agreement.”
...Mary Ann Lucille Sering, commissioner of the Philippines’ Climate Change Commission and lead climate official for the Philippines at the conference, said that Hagupit and the other typhoons that have hit the Philippines in recent years show that “the impacts of climate change are beyond our capacity already.”http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/08/3600673/philippines-typhoon-hagupit-climate-impacts/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/08/3600673/philippines-typhoon-hagupit-climate-impacts/)
“Our country’s experience makes our work here (in Lima) so much more meaningful, as this is no longer just a job for us but a fight for our survival and the future of our nation,” she said. “We hope that the Philippine experience, no matter how difficult, can help unite all nations to take more concrete actions on climate change.”
Fossil fuel giants like Chevron and Shell tried to host a panel at the UN climate talks, but activists (and media) overpowered the event demanding the truth be told.https://storify.com/350dotorg/get-the-fossil-fuels-out-of-climate-talks (https://storify.com/350dotorg/get-the-fossil-fuels-out-of-climate-talks)
World Bank chief calls for “zero net emissions” climate goalhttp://www.rtcc.org/2014/12/09/world-bank-chief-calls-for-zero-net-emissions-climate-goal/ (http://www.rtcc.org/2014/12/09/world-bank-chief-calls-for-zero-net-emissions-climate-goal/)
Jim Kim joins growing momentum behind drive to ensure 2015 climate deal will wipe out fossil fuel use
Increasing calls for "zero emissions by 2050”
LIMA, Peru — In a sign of the importance that the Obama administration has placed on the outcome of United Nations climate change negotiations taking place here this week, Secretary of State John Kerry will arrive on Thursday to strongly urge negotiators to reach a deal, according to sources familiar with Mr. Kerry’s plans but unauthorized to speak to the media. Typically, the secretary of state would not join diplomatic negotiations at this level, but Mr. Kerry has made climate change a priority of his tenure.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/us/politics/kerry-plans-to-attend-climate-talks.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/us/politics/kerry-plans-to-attend-climate-talks.html)
Since the US-China joint declaration that the US will reduce emissions by 2025 and China’s will peak by 2030, the Indian government has been under increasing international pressure to make a similar commitment. China is now the world’s top GHG emitter, the US second and India third.http://www.rtcc.org/2014/12/03/india-considers-emissions-peak-2035-50/#.dpuf (http://www.rtcc.org/2014/12/03/india-considers-emissions-peak-2035-50/#.dpuf)
According to senior officials in the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, this pressure was ratcheted up last week, just before New Delhi announced that US president Barack Obama would be the chief guest at India’s Republic Day parade on January 26.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, these officials told indiaclimatedialogue.net that the US administration had made a joint declaration on the lines of the US-China declaration almost a condition before Obama accepted the invitation.
...
A veteran American climate negotiator told indiaclimatedialogue.net: “Diplomats do not use words such as ‘conditions’, but the White House has made its wishes clear.” He added that he was hopeful that a joint declaration would be made during the Obama visit.
...
Asked what the peaking year could be, the official said: “All options between 2035 and 2050 are on the table. We have commissioned some studies by independent think tanks to gauge the effect of the peaking year on the Indian economy.
Indeed, analysts at Climate Action Tracker calculated the latest commitments from the European Union, US and China put likely warming at 2.9-3.1C.
CCS expert Heleen de Coninck, from Radbound University, warned against placing too much faith in the technology.
...
Even if it does take off, there are limits on the volume of storage sites, she added. CCS on energy intensive industry like steel and cement, for which there are few alternatives to fossil fuels, should take priority.
“It is very important to never see CCS as an alternative to demand reduction and renewable energy.”
At a separate press conference, IPCC contributing author Malte Meinhausen stressed the need to phase out emissions.http://www.rtcc.org/2014/12/09/shell-makes-climate-pitch-as-un-targets-zero-carbon-planet/#.dpuf (http://www.rtcc.org/2014/12/09/shell-makes-climate-pitch-as-un-targets-zero-carbon-planet/#.dpuf)
“At some point emissions have to go to zero, no matter what,” he said. “Even at higher or lower temp levels there is no way around zero CO2 levels.”
International climate policy expert Farhana Yamin told RTCC countries were unlikely to oppose a 2050 zero emissions target for fear of being labelled “science deniers”. [my emphasis]
Sweden, Norway, Costa Rica, Bhutan and the Marshall islands have been among the most vocal advocates for such a goal.
French president Francois Holland, who will host next year’s climate conference, and UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon have also called for long term ambition.
India considers emissions peak 2035-50
countries were unlikely to oppose a 2050 zero emissions target for fear of being labelled “science deniers”.
This cumulative carbon measure has the added benefit that it strips away a lot of the uncertainties surrounding complicated scenarios for cutting emissions, says IPCC climate modeler Myles Allen of Oxford University. "Policy targets based on limiting cumulative emissions of carbon are likely to be more scientifically robust than [those from] emissions rates or concentration targets," he says.http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_trillion-ton_cap_allocating_the_worlds_carbon_emissions/2703/ (http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_trillion-ton_cap_allocating_the_worlds_carbon_emissions/2703/)
Goal to end fossil fuels by 2050 surfaces in Lima UN climate documents
Campaigners in Lima are eyeing an ‘inevitable’ end to the fossil fuel industry by mid-century
In an early evening briefing, climate scientist Dr Malte Meinshausen explained the 2050 decarbonisation date was derived from statements in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/dec/08/goal-to-end-fossil-fuels-by-2050-surfaces-in-lima-un-climate-documents (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/dec/08/goal-to-end-fossil-fuels-by-2050-surfaces-in-lima-un-climate-documents)
He said that from 2011, the world could afford to emit no more than 1000bn tonnes (Gt) of CO2 to have a good chance of staying below 2C of global warming (some poorer countries and low-lying states say the aim should be 1.5C). Meinshausen said:
At current rates we churn through 33Gt a year – 1000Gt divided by 33 means we have about 30 years left from 2011 onwards. Then the carbon budget will be exhausted.
UNEP-Coordinated Coalition Aims to Support Climate Change Fight through Measuring Emission Reductions from Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy Projectshttp://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2814&ArticleID=11106&l=en (http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2814&ArticleID=11106&l=en)
Lima, Peru, 10 December 2014 - A coalition launched today at the climate talks in Lima aims to boost efforts to save billions of dollars and billions of tonnes of CO2 emissions each year by measuring and reporting reductions of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from projects and programmes that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency in developing countries.
The 1 Gigaton Coalition, initiated by the Government of Norway and coordinated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), has been formed in light of the understanding that many countries have a wide range of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects and initiatives in place.
However, most do not measure or report the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that result. The Coalition believes that, if measured, these reductions would amount to about one gigaton a year by 2020 - showing the savings that can be made and thus encouraging the uptake of energy efficiency policies and renewable energy technologies.
A group of Catholic Bishops called on the world’s governments to end fossil fuel use on Wednesday, citing climate change’s threat to the global poor as the lodestar of their concern.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/11/3602596/bishops-end-fossil-fuels/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/11/3602596/bishops-end-fossil-fuels/)
According to the BBC, the statement is the first time senior officials in the Church from every continent have issued such a call. The statement also drops in the middle of ongoing international climate talks in Lima, Peru, as countries continue to hash out what to do about climate change in the run-up to a summit in 2015, where observers and activists hope a new international agreement will be finalized.
“We express an answer to what is considered God’s appeal to take action on the urgent and damaging situation of global climate warming,” the bishops wrote.
Striking a similar note to Naomi Klein’s recent book, “This Changes Everything,” the bishops’ statement also argued that global capitalism and its economic systems, as currently designed, are incompatible with long-term ecological sustainability: “The main responsibility for this situation lies with the dominant global economic system, which is a human creation. In viewing objectively the destructive effects of a financial and economic order based on the primacy of the market and profit, which has failed to put the human being and the common good at the heart of the economy, one must recognize the systemic failures of this order and the need for a new financial and economic order.”
" saving gigatons of CO2 emissions each year via energy efficiency..."
Two words for you: Jevons paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)
Some also argue that making energy cheaper by reducing demand just leads consumers to use more, a phenomenon called the rebound effect. Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, said the effect was real but relatively modest, with about 20 percent of saved energy in developed countries being used as a result.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/business/energy-environment/energy-efficiency-may-be-the-key-to-saving-trillions.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/business/energy-environment/energy-efficiency-may-be-the-key-to-saving-trillions.html)
12 December 2014 – Addressing the Congress of Peru today, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that despite impressive development achievements, big challenges remain – to address inequality and insecurity, deepen democracy, improve the quality of education, and protect the rights of all people regardless of gender, ethnicity, culture, religion or sexual orientation.Being UN–focused: UN Czar Ban Ki-moon trying very hard to fail.
Australia: Abbott begins to turn around on climate change.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/abbott-sniffs-the-wind-on-climate-change-20141212-12660c.html (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/abbott-sniffs-the-wind-on-climate-change-20141212-12660c.html)
Rich countries insisted the pledges focus on efforts to control emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases and were resisting demands that they include promises of financing to help poor countries absorb the effects of climate change, which the U.N. environment agency last week estimated will amount to at least $200 billion annually by 2050.UN climate talks in Peru deadlocked as wealthy nations resist scope of demands (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2014/12/13/un-climate-talks-in-peru-deadlocked-as-wealthy-nations-resist-scope-demands/)
Lima: Recipe for Failure (and civilization collapse)
...
Being UN–focused: UN Czar Ban Ki-moon trying very hard to fail.
Your impressive achievements have moved the world closer to meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),” Mr. Ban said, commending the Latin American nation for advances in poverty reduction, universal education, and water supply and sanitation.
“This week, Lima became the centre of global efforts toward an ambitious new climate change agreement and setting the world on a safer, more sustainable path,” he said.
...
Also today, Mr. Ban met with President Ollanta Moisés Humala Tasso of Peru at the launch of a National Plan on human rights education. Mr. Ban commended Peru’s landmark law on Consultation with Indigenous Peoples, the first in Latin America. Through this law, Peru has recognized that dialogue is fundamental to social cohesion and sustainable development.
Overall, this COP shows governments are disconnected from their people who are worried about climate risks and want a just transition to boost our economies, deliver jobs and strengthen public health. Increasingly domestic issues, whether they are elections or decisions about major projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline in the US and the Galilee basin in Australia, will be seen as a country’s intention on climate change. While governments were able to hide in Lima, they won’t have that luxury in Paris where the world will be expecting them to deliver an agreement.http://tcktcktck.org/2014/12/daily-tck-lima-climate-talks-fall-short-expectations-attention-shifts-paris/65760 (http://tcktcktck.org/2014/12/daily-tck-lima-climate-talks-fall-short-expectations-attention-shifts-paris/65760)
“Governments crucially failed to agree on specific plans to cut emissions before 2020 that would have laid the ground for ending the fossil fuel era and accelerated the move toward renewable energy and increased energy efficiency."http://www.wwf.org.uk/about_wwf/press_centre/scottish_press_centre/?7418/UN-climate-talks-fail-to-deliver-progress-despite-hottest-year-on-record---WWF-comment (http://www.wwf.org.uk/about_wwf/press_centre/scottish_press_centre/?7418/UN-climate-talks-fail-to-deliver-progress-despite-hottest-year-on-record---WWF-comment)
First, this has been a critical two weeks with many reasons for #ClimateHope and signs that the tide is finally turning in our favor. Second, we have a lot of work to do between now and December 2015 to get the agreement we need.http://climaterealityproject.org/blog/cop20-brief (http://climaterealityproject.org/blog/cop20-brief)
The U.N. process isn't where the action is on climate anymore. Progressive cities, transformative industries, and mass protests have the best chance of providing the tipping point that's needed. These talks are a distraction from the kind of urgent, on-the-ground work that needs to happen in order to steer the world’s economy toward a carbon-free path and prepare for the impacts of increasingly extreme weather.http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/14/lima_peru_climate_change_negotiations_one_word_undermines_the_entire_thing.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/14/lima_peru_climate_change_negotiations_one_word_undermines_the_entire_thing.html)
The substitution of the phrase “may include” for “shall include” in regard to the elements of the INDCs was one of the compromises that was necessary to gain the approval of developing countries. So, the U.S.-favored requirement for the use of transparent elements in INDCs that would facilitate comparisons among countries was dropped.http://t.co/SSnhlTA9aP (http://t.co/SSnhlTA9aP)
However, at least one negotiating team with whom I met in Lima maintained that the analyses and comparisons of INDCs that will inevitably be carried out by various NGOs and research organizations (including universities) will provide the needed transparency and therefore the needed encouragement to countries for greater ambition.
The final Lima declaration is basically mood music for the real negotiations in Paris.
Figueres' plan is simple. The crucial commitment at Lima was for all countries to submit their detailed national mitigation plans, which will all be published on the UNFCC website. There are no numbers at present, so countries can submit whatever they like,
But lowball targets, as with hapless Australia's, will then come under sustained pressure from the climate hawk countries, and ridicule from public opinion. The success of the plan will depend very much on all of us kicking up an almighty fuss in the second half of 2015.
Watch out especially for India. Will it really refuse to cut, on the grounds that rich countries are responsible for most of the historic CO2?
By asking countries to put forward plans dictated by their own economies and domestic politics, rather than a top-down mandate, the Lima Accord helped secure the agreement of every nation to some kind of carbon-cutting action, experts say.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/world/americas/lima-climate-deal.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/world/americas/lima-climate-deal.html)
But with no language requiring the significant cuts scientists say are needed to stave off the costly effects of global warming, countries can put forth weak plans that amount to little more than business as usual. Countries can even choose to ignore the deal and submit no plan at all.
“If a country doesn’t submit a plan, there will be no punishment, no fine, no black U.N. helicopters showing up,” said Jennifer Morgan, an expert on climate negotiations with the World Resources Institute, a research organization.
Instead the architects of the plan, including top White House officials, hope that the agreement will compel countries to act to avoid international condemnation.
“It relies on a lot of peer pressure,” Ms. Morgan said.
The structure of the deal is what political scientists often call a “name-and-shame” plan.
Under the Lima Accord all countries must submit plans that would be posted on a United Nations website and made available to the public.
A requirement that all countries submit plans using identical metrics, for easy comparison, was deleted from the accord because of the objection of developing nations.
“What’s essential for naming and shaming is that the individual contributions be comparable,” said Robert Stavins, a professor of Environmental Economics at Harvard University.
But already, a number of research groups and universities expect to crunch the numbers of the plans, producing apples-to-apples assessments. The hope, negotiators said, is that as the numbers and commitments of each country are publicized, compared and discussed, countries will be shamed by the spotlight into proposing and enacting stronger plans.
“We see the sunlight as one of the most important parts of this,” said Todd D. Stern, the senior climate-change negotiator for President Obama
China, Australia, India and Russia have already been shamed into acting on climate.
As you and I know, all (China has) done is 1) pledge their rapid rise in GHG emissions will peak in 16 years, by the end of 2030, and 2) agree to tell the UN within 100 days what they would like to do with their own GHG emissions.
Lima: Recipe for Failure (and civilization collapse)
...
Being UN–focused: UN Czar Ban Ki-moon trying very hard to fail.
Nowhere does the article say anything about civilization collapse. Or failure of the talks
The shift of a single word—from a “shall” to a “may”—means the world will very likely continue to burn lots of coal.
Instead of being required to provide “quantifiable information” about their greenhouse-gas emissions, countries may choose whether or not to include those statistics in their pledges instead, known in the jargon as “intended nationally determined contributions.”
These pledges or INDCs are promises that come in a variety of flavors – not just strict pollution cuts like those from the E.U. nations, but also softer targets, such as reducing the amount of energy used to produce a single widget in India while producing more widgets overall (a so-called “carbon intensity” goal).
China and India led the charge against any monitoring or verification of such pledges. Worse, the Chinese and Indian negotiators do not appear to want INDCs to be comparable with each other. In other words, the pledges “may” prove mutually inscrutable.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/12/16/the-real-outcome-of-global-warming-talks-in-lima-a-future-for-coal/ (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/12/16/the-real-outcome-of-global-warming-talks-in-lima-a-future-for-coal/)
The Real Outcome of Global Warming Talks in Lima: A Future for CoalQuoteThe shift of a single word—from a “shall” to a “may”—means the world will very likely continue to burn lots of coal.
Instead of being required to provide “quantifiable information” about their greenhouse-gas emissions, countries may choose whether or not to include those statistics in their pledges instead, known in the jargon as “intended nationally determined contributions.”
These pledges or INDCs are promises that come in a variety of flavors – not just strict pollution cuts like those from the E.U. nations, but also softer targets, such as reducing the amount of energy used to produce a single widget in India while producing more widgets overall (a so-called “carbon intensity” goal).
China and India led the charge against any monitoring or verification of such pledges. Worse, the Chinese and Indian negotiators do not appear to want INDCs to be comparable with each other. In other words, the pledges “may” prove mutually inscrutable.
However, at least one negotiating team with whom I met in Lima maintained that the analyses and comparisons of INDCs that will inevitably be carried out by various NGOs and research organizations (including universities) will provide the needed transparency and therefore the needed encouragement to countries for greater ambition.
"Where OCO-2 really excels is the sheer amount of data being collected within a day, about one million measurements across a narrow swath," Frankenberg said. "For fluorescence, this enables us, for the first time, to look at features on the five- to 10-kilometer scale on a daily basis." SIF can be measured even through moderately thick clouds, so it will be especially useful in understanding regions like the Amazon where cloud cover thwarts most spaceborne observations.http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/nasas-spaceborne-carbon-counter-maps-new-details/ (http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/nasas-spaceborne-carbon-counter-maps-new-details/)
The changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide that OCO-2 seeks to measure are so small that the mission must take unusual precautions to ensure the instrument is free of errors. For that reason, the spacecraft was designed so that it can make an extra maneuver. In addition to gathering a straight line of data like a lawnmower swath, the instrument can point at a single target on the ground for a total of seven minutes as it passes overhead. That requires the spacecraft to turn sideways and make a half cartwheel to keep the target in its sights.
The targets OCO-2 uses are stations in the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON), a collaborative effort of multiple international institutions. TCCON has been collecting carbon dioxide data for about five years, and its measurements are fully calibrated and extremely accurate. At the same time that OCO-2 targets a TCCON site, a ground-based instrument at the site makes the same measurement. The extent to which the two measurements agree indicates how well calibrated the OCO-2 sensors are.
The chief executives of Saudi Aramco, Pemex and Total will face questions about their future in a warming world at the World Economic Forum in Davos next week.
Crumbling oil prices and soaring greenhouse gas emissions feature heavily in the agenda for the annual event in the Swiss Alps, which attracts national leaders, heads of business and civil society representatives.
According to the WEF, the fossil fuel chiefs will be joined by Abdalla Salem El Badri, head of the OPEC oil cartel and will discuss, among other issues, the impact of falling oil prices on climate change.
...
A draft version of a global climate deal, due to be signed off in Paris at the end of 2015, includes references to a complete phase-out of fossil fuels by 2050.
Research from UK scientists published this month suggests a third of oil, half of gas and nearly all coal reserves will have to remain below ground if the world is to avoid dangerous temperature rises.
Private sector
Central to the 2015 WEF meeting are efforts to encourage business leaders to embrace low carbon energy sources and a “circular economy” – where resources are reused rather than binned.
According to a major economic study released last year and backed by seven governments, an estimated $90 trillion will be invested in infrastructure by 2030. How that money is spent will determine whether the world avoids dangerous levels of warming.
The richest 1 percent are likely to control more than half of the globe’s total wealth by next year, the charity Oxfam reported in a study released on Monday. The warning about deepening global inequality comes just as the world’s business elite prepare to meet this week at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/business/richest-1-percent-likely-to-control-half-of-global-wealth-by-2016-study-finds.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/business/richest-1-percent-likely-to-control-half-of-global-wealth-by-2016-study-finds.html)
The 80 wealthiest people in the world altogether own $1.9 trillion, the report found, nearly the same amount shared by the 3.5 billion people who occupy the bottom half of the world’s income scale. (Last year, it took 85 billionaires to equal that figure.) And the richest 1 percent of the population, who number in the millions, control nearly half of the world’s total wealth, a share that is also increasing.
Financiers have gone from masters of the universe to pariahs to punching bags at the World Economic Forum over the past decade. This year they’re a sideshow as policy makers dominate the debate.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-21/bank-ceos-a-davos-sideshow-as-the-ecb-oil-grab-spotlight.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-21/bank-ceos-a-davos-sideshow-as-the-ecb-oil-grab-spotlight.html)
While the global banking industry is still grappling with the consequences of the financial crisis and atoning for past misconduct, its travails are overshadowed at this year’s conclave in the Swiss Alps by oil, new terror threats and the European Central Bank’s plan to start buying government bonds to revive inflation.
The president of the World Bank has urged the international community to help developing nations cope with a warming planet as the first day of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos was dominated by calls to make 2015 a year of action on climate change.http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/21/davos-world-bank-chief-climate-change-al-gore-pharrell-williams (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/21/davos-world-bank-chief-climate-change-al-gore-pharrell-williams)
...
Former Vice President Al Gore had started the first full day of events at the annual gathering in Davos by telling delegates: “This is the year of climate”.
Speaking against a backdrop of images intended to show the impact of climate change, Gore launched his plans amid criticism at the WEF of delegates arriving in private jets to attend the conference in 5,000 feet up in the Swiss Alps. The organisers of WEF urge delegates not to fly by private jet and use the train instead. Some attendees are transported in electric buggies.
This challenge is a chance to rethink our development model, to bring well-being to people throughout the world.
I've said this before, far too often, but I'll say it once more. Actions speak louder than innumerable fine words, and despite Barack Obama's stated "determination" the evidence of his first 6 years in office suggests that both American leadership and international action will continue to be sadly lacking.
Obama: ...And even as we recognise that our economies are at different stages of development, we can come together with other nations and achieve a strong global agreement this year in Paris to fight climate change. Every nation is being impacted by climate change, and every nation has a role to play in combating it.http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/barack-obama-shekhar-gupta-exclusive-interview/1/414805.html (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/barack-obama-shekhar-gupta-exclusive-interview/1/414805.html)
Exclusive interview of President Obama by India Today.
We have to make sure words are matched by deeds
But the worst may not come to pass, analysts say.http://www.freep.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/23/india-climate-obama/22248511/ (http://www.freep.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/23/india-climate-obama/22248511/)
Troubles in India's coal industry have already driven investors to the solar market, and many of the approved new coal projects are stalled thanks to lack of financing or coal supplies.
"The truth is, the coal industry has become the climate advocate's best friend, simply because it's such a mess," Guay of the Sierra Club said. "It's a race between old and new technologies over who can actually get power to the people, and solar is winning hands down."
President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced on Sunday that the two countries will work together to fight global climate change, laying out a set of goals that the two countries hope “will expand policy dialogues and technical work on clean energy and low greenhouse gas emissions technologies.”http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/25/3615232/us-india-climate-agreement/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/25/3615232/us-india-climate-agreement/)
While not a concrete emissions reductions agreement like the one Obama reached with China this past November, the deal includes efforts to cooperate on reducing emissions of fluorinated gases, invigorate India’s promotion of clean energy investment, and partner to reduce the debilitating air pollution that has plagued many of India’s cities.
The agreement also emphasized that the countries would “cooperate closely” for a “successful and ambitious” agreement at the Paris climate talks at the end of the year.
...
As ThinkProgress reported last week, there was very little expectation among analysts that the U.S. would achieve a deal like the one it achieved in China, wherein the country would actually pledge to reduce its overall carbon emissions. ...Many said that it would be unfair to expect India — the world’s third largest carbon emitter behind the U.S. and China — to announce a similar target, considering the hundreds of millions of rural poor.
Still a developing country, climate change stands to impact India more severely than other parts of the world, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. India also has a particularly bad air pollution problem — a recent World Health Organization report found that India has 13 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world with the capital, Delhi, being the most polluted of all. The report also found that Delhi had six times the level of airborne particulate matter considered safe. Another investigation found that the levels could be up to eight times higher in heavily trafficked corridors.
Might be helpful to start amassing the "will they, or won't they, sign a significant treaty in Paris" comments under one thread.Anything that the U.N. does, just about, defies rational description. The organization is hopelessly inefficient and corrupt.
Here's the latest proposal:QuoteWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States wants to broker a global agreement on climate change that would contain some legal elements but would stop short of being legally binding on an international level, the country's top diplomat on climate change issues said.http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0I409X20141015 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0I409X20141015)
Todd Stern, the State Department climate change special envoy, addressed one of the thorniest issues in ongoing talks to secure a global plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions – its legal form.
Stern said a recent proposal by New Zealand for countries to submit a "schedule" for reducing emissions that would be legally binding and subject to mandatory accounting, reporting and review offers an approach that could get the buy-in of countries like the United States that are wary of ratifying an internationally binding treaty.
The content of the schedule itself and the actions each country pledges would not be legally binding at an international level.
Anything that the U.N. does, just about, defies rational description. The organization is hopelessly inefficient and corrupt.
After a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in New Delhi, the prime minister said that his nation along with all others has an obligation to act on reducing the fossil-fuel emissions blamed for damaging the climate.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-25/modi-shifts-on-climate-change-with-india-renewables-goal.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-25/modi-shifts-on-climate-change-with-india-renewables-goal.html)
The remarks represent a shift in India’s tone on global warming. It previously emphasized the historical responsibility of industrial nations for creating the problem, and the Indian government has been ambiguous about whether it will adopt domestic targets for reducing greenhouse gases. Modi’s comments suggest he’s ready to work with Obama on a deal in Paris in December that would for the first time require all nations, rich and poor alike, to restrain emissions.
“When we think about the future generations and what kind of a world we are going to give them, then there is pressure,” Modi said in a news conference with Obama on Sunday. “Global warming is a huge pressure.”
The same people who are talking about a target of zero carbon emissions from energy are talking about a target of zero extreme poverty in the world.http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/20150126/obama-modi-link-zero-carbon-and-zero-extreme-poverty (http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/20150126/obama-modi-link-zero-carbon-and-zero-extreme-poverty)
Davos 2015 accelerated the understanding of the economic desirability and the technical ability to meet the climate challenge.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/christiana-figueres/conclusions-from-davos_b_6548208.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/christiana-figueres/conclusions-from-davos_b_6548208.html)
From 2015, all Annex I Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateThis means that the GWP of methane is assessed as 25 - the GWP given in 2006 by IPCC AR4 for a 100 year time horizon.
Change will be required to report national greenhouse gas emissions inventories using
updated reporting guidelines... These were formally adopted at COP19, and set out how Parties
are to report, incorporating new sources and methodologies set out in the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The Guidelines also set out which set of
Global Warming Potential (GWP) values to use for reporting inventories, and a revised data
reporting structure (the CommonReporting Format, CRF)
Ok, but what do you think of Brysse et al 2013 ('erring on side of least drama') andSo underpowered climate results are being used in Paris. Underpowered because the IPCC has underpowered results and the negotiators plan to use results that they must know are even more underpowered.
Anderegg et al 2014 ('risk of type 2 errors')? And about IPCC itself stating that
it's SLR-projections beyond 2100 are probably under-estimates and that carbon feedbacks
are not (fully) included in their models?
Is the game lost before the starting whistle is blown?
This is further evidence that the action on climate change will shift to what are currently perceived to be radical solutions. Absent meaningful action by governments, it’s up to individuals to demand change: non-violent direct action and mass protest, a rethinking of capitalism—in short, a revolution in culture and society—are suitable to the job of limiting climate change to levels that don’t threaten entire ecosystems and thus human prosperity. Just because this sort of change is unlikely doesn’t mean it isn’t necessary.http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/02/04/u_n_paris_climate_talks_even_the_architects_of_the_agreement_are_pessimistic.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/02/04/u_n_paris_climate_talks_even_the_architects_of_the_agreement_are_pessimistic.html)
Governments should set a clear target of making the world’s economy free from carbon emissions by mid-century, Sir Richard Branson and a group of other prominent businesspeople have urged.
The goal – of eliminating the net impact of greenhouse gases, by replacing fossil fuels and ensuring that any remaining emissions are balanced out by carbon-saving projects such as tree-planting and carbon capture and storage – is more stretching than any yet agreed by world governments. The G8 group of rich nations has pledged to cut emissions by 80% by 2050, and some developing countries to halving emissions by then.
Geneva, 5th February, 2015 – Today, Leaders of The B Team running some of the world’s largest companies, called upon world leaders to commit to a global goal of net-zero greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 – and urged business leaders to match this ambition by committing to bold long-term targets.
This is particularly interesting because it doesn't require the will of the general public -- voters -- or government partisanship, to get started. If business comes to see clean tech as preferable, a relatively small number of people (CEOs) can, as we've seen with other technology, change the world -- and in only a few years.
Off-shore-oil-rich Norway matches EU goal of 40% cut on emissions by 2030.
http://www.rtcc.org/2015/02/04/norway-reveals-40-carbon-cut-goal-for-2030-matching-eu-target/ (http://www.rtcc.org/2015/02/04/norway-reveals-40-carbon-cut-goal-for-2030-matching-eu-target/)
OMG are you trolling us?
...
Businesses are already incurring the costs of climate change, with increasing supply-chain disruptions from extreme-weather events, rising sea levels and ocean acidification, falling crop yields and increasing desertification. At the same time, the world’s poorest and most vulnerable – who are disproportionately affected and least equipped to cope – are being hit the hardest.http://bteam.org/the-b-team/business-leaders-call-for-net-zero-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-2050/ (http://bteam.org/the-b-team/business-leaders-call-for-net-zero-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-2050/)
As business leaders, they view the transition to a net-zero GHG emissions economy as an historic opportunity that, if managed responsibly, fairly and collaboratively, can bring economic benefits to countries at all levels of income, including new jobs, cleaner air, better health, lower poverty and greater energy security.
This will require businesses to join forces with governments to help drive the transition, by setting clear national targets and developing enabling policies to shift capital toward carbon-free alternatives, to help drive sustainable, inclusive prosperity for all.
B Team Leaders Call for Net-Zero Greenhouse-Gas Emissions by 2050
~~
"as the global wealth inequality and the effects of climate change continue to unfold, we will see an increase in anti-capitalist rhetoric from the environmental community and when it becomes a main cause, we will see the mechanisms of the police state that has been growing in America engage, far beyond what has been seen so far."
~~
... It is tempting to long for an internationally binding treaty that guarantees emissions reductions. However, except under extraordinary circumstances, all treaties are ultimately voluntary. Further, any benefits that could come with a more binding commitment must be weighed against the possibility that they could deter some countries from setting goals for emissions reductions.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/upshot/surprisingly-a-voluntary-climate-treaty-could-actually-work.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/upshot/surprisingly-a-voluntary-climate-treaty-could-actually-work.html)
If history is a guide, whether this treaty’s goals are met will depend on the extent to which countries make mitigation of climate change a domestic priority. This means that even after the hard work of negotiating the Paris treaty is completed, the hardest work will still be in front of us, wherever we live.
Your Life, Your Climate Agreement
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moller-/your-life-your-climate-agreement_b_6725828.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moller-/your-life-your-climate-agreement_b_6725828.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green)
Climate change is a threat to our very existence. Wherever we live and whatever we do. We all contribute to it. And we all have a responsibility to do something about it.
The aviation sector will soon have a new way to measure, account for and reward reductions in the gases that contribute to climate change thanks to work agreed to this week by the Board that runs the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).http://cdm.unfccc.int/press/newsroom/latestnews/releases/2014/0213_index.html (http://cdm.unfccc.int/press/newsroom/latestnews/releases/2014/0213_index.html)
Aviation accounts for about 2% of total global CO2 emissions and about 12% of the CO2 emissions from all transportation sources.
...
The CDM rewards with saleable credits – certified emission reductions (CERs) – projects that reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to sustainable development. The incentive has led to registration of 7,870 projects and programmes in 107 developing countries, hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, and 1.5 billion fewer tonnes of gas entering the atmosphere.
A copy of the European Commission’s proposed contribution to a 2015 UN climate change deal has been leaked on Twitter.
It confirms the bloc will aim for domestic greenhouse gas reductions of 40% on 1990 levels by 2030, with a global goal of 60% below 2010 levels by 2050.
Brussels wants reviews of climate targets every five years, and calls for the UN’s aviation and shipping bodies to develop regulations to cut emissions in those sectors by 2016.
It says all countries wishing to join a “Paris protocol” must commit to internationally legally binding mitigation goals.
The bloc also wants all G20 nations – including India and Saudi Arabia – to commit to economy-wide carbon cuts by 2025 at the latest.
http://www.rtcc.org/2015/02/23/eu-targets-60-global-carbon-cuts-by-2050-in-leaked-climate-plan/#.dpuf (http://www.rtcc.org/2015/02/23/eu-targets-60-global-carbon-cuts-by-2050-in-leaked-climate-plan/#.dpuf)
Business leaders hate unnecessary risk. If governments don't implement strong and responsible climate policy, we are courting both economic and environmental disaster.http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/opinion/branson-polman-climate-business (http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/opinion/branson-polman-climate-business)
This transition, if done equitably and conscientiously, will create jobs, spark innovation and fight global inequality. An estimated $90 trillion will be spent on global infrastructure in the next 15 years, regardless of what future we choose. Economists estimate that the switch to a fully low-carbon infrastructure would raise costs by only 4.5%. If we choose to spend that money wisely under a paradigm of climate action, we can lower emissions, lower our risks and lower the number of people who go without electricity and other essential services. Simply put: Will we spend that same money to go clean, or to stay with the dirty status quo?
On Friday environment ministers approved the bloc’s intended nationally determined contribution (INDC), which targets greenhouse gas cuts of “at least” 40% on 1990 levels by 2030.
Details of the submission, published on the European Commission website, say it is in line with global emission cuts of 60% on 2010 levels by 2050.
The EC said this was “at the upper end of the IPCC’s [UN climate science panel] range of 40-70% reductions necessary to achieve the below 2C target.”
The EU's official contribution will be a target of an at least 40 percent cut in emissions by 2030, compared to levels emitted in 1990.http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/06/us-eu-environment-idUKKBN0M21KI20150306 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/06/us-eu-environment-idUKKBN0M21KI20150306)
...
The target has to be achieved domestically rather than through offsets that allow member states to buy into carbon-cutting schemes outside Europe.
EU diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, say the 40 percent target will have to be shared among member states and debate over how to achieve that is only likely to begin after the Paris talks.
One option is to share the effort based on a member state's GDP per capita.
New York, 20 March (UN Forum on Forests press [r]elease) —The sustainable management and conservation of forests must be considered in the design and implementation of the new sustainable development goals and the new climate change agreement to be adopted this December in Paris, according to UN officials and forest experts in messages for the International Day of Forests, observed on 21 March.http://newsroom.unfccc.int/nature-s-role/forest-day-forests-essential-for-meeting-people-s-needs-and-tackling-climate-change/ (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/nature-s-role/forest-day-forests-essential-for-meeting-people-s-needs-and-tackling-climate-change/)
At least 1.6 billion people directly depend on forests for food, fuel, shelter and income, but everyone benefits from the clean air, water, and climate regulation that forests provide. Three fourths of freshwater, crucial for human survival, comes from forested catchments. Healthy forests are critical for building resilience—the ability to bounce back from storms and other natural disasters. Mangrove forests, when left intact, reduce loss of life and damage caused by tsunamis.
...
“Forests are integral to the post-2015 development agenda,” said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in his message marking the International Day of Forests, observed on 21 March. “To build a sustainable, climate-resilient future for all, we must invest in our world's forests.”
Forest Remain Greatest Carbon Sink that Humans Can Influence
Forests are the largest storehouses of carbon after oceans. They can absorb and store carbon in their biomass, soils and products, equivalent to about one tenth of carbon emissions projected for the first half of this century. At the same time, deforestation and land-use changes account for 17 per cent of human-generated carbon dioxide emissions.
The linked article makes it clear that while it is highly unlikely that the temperature rise can be limited to 2C, let alone 1.5C, the big point in trying to recognize a 1.5C target is that it provides a scientific baseline in the debate for climate reparations.
Jeff Tollefson, (2015), "Global-warming limit of 2 °C hangs in the balance: Panel creates scientific baseline for debate about climate reparations", Nature News & Comment, doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17202
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-limit-of-2-c-hangs-in-the-balance-1.17202 (http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-limit-of-2-c-hangs-in-the-balance-1.17202)
Some researchers argue that the international community should adopt more meaningful measures such as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which has steadily risen in the past half-century in association with a rise in emissions, from about 320 parts per million to 400 parts per million.
“There’s been a very strong incentive for governments to make bold claims about long-term goals that they cannot deliver on,” says David Victor, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego. “If you start setting goals in terms of emissions, you get closer to what real governments and firms have control over.”
Mexico has become the first developing nation to formally promise to cut its global-warming pollution, a potential milestone in efforts to reach a worldwide agreement on tackling climate change.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-27/mexico-pledges-25-cut-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-growth (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-27/mexico-pledges-25-cut-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-growth)
Mexico expects greenhouse-gas emissions to peak by 2026 and then decline, Environment Minister Juan Jose Guerra Abud said at a news conference in Mexico City Friday. The nation has pledged to curb the growth of pollutants 25 percent from its current trajectory by 2030.
... a new paper in Nature Climate Change ... [is] somewhat technical, but boiled down, it does two key things.http://grist.org/climate-energy/a-way-to-get-power-to-the-worlds-poor-without-making-climate-change-worse/ (http://grist.org/climate-energy/a-way-to-get-power-to-the-worlds-poor-without-making-climate-change-worse/)
First, it shows that on-grid and off-grid technologies are not distinct choices but a continuum, a ladder of energy access, everything from consistent grid access to partial grid access to mini- or micro-grids to home solar systems. And second, it shows how at least the first few steps up that ladder can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The paper doesn’t propose to solve the ultimate dilemma of providing full energy access to all humanity within planetary boundaries, but it shows that there is a practical road forward, using newly emerging technologies, that can serve to “rapidly increase access to basic electricity services and directly inform the emerging Sustainable Development Goals for quality of life, while simultaneously driving action towards low-carbon, Earth-sustaining, inclusive energy systems.”
Today, the United States followed through on that joint announcement by officially submitting our target — or “intended nationally determined contribution,” in the jargon of the international climate negotiations — to the UNFCCC.https://medium.com/@Deese44/we-re-taking-action-on-climate-change-and-the-world-is-joining-us-2bf44a62b9b9 (https://medium.com/@Deese44/we-re-taking-action-on-climate-change-and-the-world-is-joining-us-2bf44a62b9b9)
Kevin Kennedy, deputy director of the U.S. Climate Initiative at WRI, says the White House has charted a course that falls somewhere between Middle-of-the-Road and Go-Getter.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-31/obama-s-new-climate-change-plan-in-two-charts (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-31/obama-s-new-climate-change-plan-in-two-charts)
The U.S. today has submitted its target for the Paris talks.QuoteToday, the United States followed through on that joint announcement by officially submitting our target — or “intended nationally determined contribution,” in the jargon of the international climate negotiations — to the UNFCCC.https://medium.com/@Deese44/we-re-taking-action-on-climate-change-and-the-world-is-joining-us-2bf44a62b9b9 (https://medium.com/@Deese44/we-re-taking-action-on-climate-change-and-the-world-is-joining-us-2bf44a62b9b9)
The Obama administration’s commitment represents a more realistic approach to climate diplomacy than past efforts.
...
There is plenty of room for responsible criticism of the president’s plan. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), for example, said Tuesday that it puts too much emphasis on wind power and too little on nuclear. But Mr. Alexander properly did not counter with inaction as a viable plan. His fellow Republicans could learn something from his example.
...Brian Deese, a senior advisor to President Obama said the plans outlined in the US submission were consistent with current policies, and would require no further approval.http://www.rtcc.org/2015/04/01/us-climate-plans-will-survive-republican-attacks-say-officials/ (http://www.rtcc.org/2015/04/01/us-climate-plans-will-survive-republican-attacks-say-officials/)
“It’s based on existing laws that have been passed by Congress and therefore no new legislation is necessary to realise the reductions we propose,” he said.
...
...Stern – lead climate negotiator since 2009 – argued it would not be easy to take apart two presidential terms of work.
“The undoing of the regulations we are putting in place is something that is very tough to do,” he said.
“Countries ask me about the solidity of what we are doing all the time, and that’s exactly what I say, based on existing authority and the kind of regulations we are putting in place does not get easily undone.”
At the heart of the plan are ambitious but politically contentious Environmental Protection Agency regulations meant to drastically cut planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s cars and coal-fired power plants. The plan also relies on a speedy timetable, which assumes that Mr. Obama’s administration will issue and begin enacting all such regulations before he leaves office.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/us/obama-to-offer-major-blueprint-on-climate-change.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/us/obama-to-offer-major-blueprint-on-climate-change.html)
“We can achieve this goal using laws that are already on the books, and it will be in place by the time the president leaves office,” said Brian C. Deese, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser on climate change.
A new poll finds an overwhelming majority of Americans support an international agreement to cut planet-warming emissions.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/us-climate-agreement_n_6972434.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/us-climate-agreement_n_6972434.html)
The poll found 72 percent of likely 2016 voters said they support the United States signing on to an international agreement on climate change.
...
Sixty-five percent of respondents said they thought the United States “should take the lead and make meaningful reductions in its carbon emissions and other gases that may cause global warming.” Even a majority of Republican respondents -- 52 percent –- expressed support for the U.S. joining an international agreement on climate change. A much stronger percentage of Democrats, at 88 percent, supported it, as did 73 percent of independents.
...
A strong majority of respondents, at 73 percent, said it is important for the U.S. to lead by example and to demonstrate that the country is willing to work with other countries.
Either way, it is somewhat surprising that Japan would make any carbon reduction pledge considering the significant level of uncertainty facing its energy policies. Following the country’s Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, Japan shut down all of its working nuclear reactors and switched to more carbon-spewing fossil fuels to fill the energy production void. At the time, Japan was getting about 30 percent of its power from nuclear, and planned to increase that to 40 percent by 2017.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/09/3644893/japan-climate-change-pledge-maybe/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/09/3644893/japan-climate-change-pledge-maybe/)
Greg Barker, former climate envoy to the prime minister and strong green voice within the last government, was “absolutely delighted” and said Cameron would be an advocate for climate action.
“I think UK influence has been massively increased as a result of the vote for security and stability – and that includes climate stability.”
Liberal Democrat Ed Davey, former secretary of state for energy and climate change, lost his seat, leaving a vacancy to lead the UK’s delegation to UN climate talks later this year.
Richard Benyon, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock and Nick Hurd have been suggested as contenders for the role.
Send Arthur Price to Paris!
Amber Rudd was appointed Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on 11 May 2015.
Canada announced Friday that it was committing to a goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2030, an announcement that comes in the lead-up to the United Nations’ international climate talks at the end of this year.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/15/3659589/canada-emissions-pledge/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/15/3659589/canada-emissions-pledge/)
...We invite all countries to join us in this endeavor by doing their part in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities and in light of different national circumstances. We are committed to the goal of limiting global temperature increase at least to below 2°C compared with pre-industrial levels.http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy-1/climate-7436/events-7880/article/petersberg-dialogue-call-for (http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy-1/climate-7436/events-7880/article/petersberg-dialogue-call-for)
...
Our countries will continue to show leadership in this profound transformation of our economies and our societies towards full decarbonization. We are committed, through the Energiewende in Germany and the “transition énergétique” in France, to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 95 % in 2050 compared to 1990.
A group of 12 sub-national governments collectively representing more than $4.5 trillion in GDP and 100 million people have signed Under 2 MOU, which is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that commits them to take leadership on climate action at their level of jurisdiction.http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/under-2-mou-a-subnational-global-climate-leadership/ (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/under-2-mou-a-subnational-global-climate-leadership/)
The signatories include: California, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, USA; Acre, Brazil; Baden-Württemberg, Germany; Baja California and Jalisco, Mexico; Catalonia, Spain; Ontario and British Columbia, Canada and Wales, UK.
The agreement identifies action being taken and promotes greater ambition on climate change than is currently being contemplated in the international process leading to the Paris climate change conference at the end of this year.
Each signatory commits to limit emissions to below eighty to ninety-five percent below 1990 levels, or below two metric tons per capita, by 2050 – which is a level of emission reductions believed to be necessary to limit global warming to less than 2°C by the end of this century.
Officials said the fund will now finalise an initial set of projects aimed at helping developing countries develop better clean energy systems and prepare for future climate impacts.http://www.rtcc.org/2015/05/21/green-climate-fund-says-its-funded-and-open-for-business/ (http://www.rtcc.org/2015/05/21/green-climate-fund-says-its-funded-and-open-for-business/)
The global climate agreement being negotiated this year must be worded in such a way that it doesn’t require approval by the US Congress, the French foreign minister said on Monday.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/un-climate-talks-deal-us-congress (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/un-climate-talks-deal-us-congress)
Once again, climate negotiators have gathered in Bonn to discuss the fate of the Universal Climate Agreement (UCA). The spiritual grandchild of the Earth Summit Rio agreement of 23 years ago, the UCA is the world's best chance to limit global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius.http://www.trust.org/item/20150605120716-naxt1/ (http://www.trust.org/item/20150605120716-naxt1/)
“Paris 2015” is now being referred to as the "Universal Climate Agreement." Certainly puts a different spin on it....
May need to change the name of this thread. :)
Website:
http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en (http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en)
Green Climate Fund ready to help developing nations fight climate changeQuoteOnce again, climate negotiators have gathered in Bonn to discuss the fate of the Universal Climate Agreement (UCA). The spiritual grandchild of the Earth Summit Rio agreement of 23 years ago, the UCA is the world's best chance to limit global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius.http://www.trust.org/item/20150605120716-naxt1/ (http://www.trust.org/item/20150605120716-naxt1/)
Nearly two-thirds of people believe that negotiators at key UN climate talks in December should do “whatever it takes” to limit global warming to a 2C rise, according to what is believed to be the most comprehensive survey of global public attitudes to climate change ever conducted.
...
Two-thirds (66%) thought that measures to combat climate change are “mostly an opportunity to improve our quality of life”, while 27% see it as mostly a “threat” to quality of life.
And 64% said the efforts of developing countries should “partly” depend on funding from developed countries, while 18% said it should depend “completely” on such funding.
The path to Paris is now happening on both the political and negotiating levels and with a mood of exceptional confidence and engagement—what is being managed here is no longer resistance to an agreement but complexity, enthusiasm and an understanding that every nation is playing its part," said Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/governments-shift-gear-toward-delivery-of-new-universal-climate-agreement/ (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/governments-shift-gear-toward-delivery-of-new-universal-climate-agreement/)
"The negotiations are also occurring against the backdrop of an accelerating wave of climate action from non-state actors including cities, regions, territories and companies which is contributing confidence to the process," she said.
On 13 June 2015, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres delivered the Commencement Address to the University of California San Diego School of International Relations and Pacific Studies Class of 2015 in La Jolla, California. In her speech, she said:http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/speech-ucsd-irps-commencement/ (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/speech-ucsd-irps-commencement/)
"You will write the social contract of this century. Contrary to the previous contracts, it will have to address global concerns just as much, or even more so, than national and local concerns. It will have to be a contract enriched by the integration of North and South, East and West, and deeply informed by the interaction between global challenges and national concerns. It will have to be a contract based more on collaboration than on competition. It will have to be a contract guided by the stars of solidarity and equality."
"Through your decisions you will also determine the design of the impressive infrastructure of the twenty-first century, infrastructure that is almost unimaginable to us today. It will be built to transform the way we house, feed, employ and transport nine billion people despite growing climate uncertainties."
Pledges already put forward for the Paris conference, including by the U.S., European Union and China, could hold temperature increases to 2.6 degrees Celsius. That’s significantly less of an overshoot than the 3.6-degree long-term gain in the IEA’s main scenario issued in November. The United Nations is trying to hold the increase to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-14/holding-back-climate-change-isn-t-as-hard-as-you-think-iea-says (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-14/holding-back-climate-change-isn-t-as-hard-as-you-think-iea-says)
Some 800 mayors, CEOs and trade organizations from around the world have been meeting in Lyon over the past two days to ask for more say in the UN talks, and to showcase their own moves to cut carbon emissions. Local and regional governments have no official seat at the UN climate negotiating table, although they have to cope with the risks of climate change directly. More than half of the global population lives in cities, producing 70 percent of global greenhouse gases.http://www.dw.com/en/civil-groups-heat-up-climate-debate/a-18558155 (http://www.dw.com/en/civil-groups-heat-up-climate-debate/a-18558155)
The World Summit Climate & Territories is part of France's strategy to get as many people involved in climate negotiations as possible, to increase the pressure on world leaders to reach a global accord to reduce emissions at the Paris summit. It was organized by the major global networks of sub-national and local governments in collaboration with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and hosted by the Rhone-Alpes Region, of which Lyon is the capital.
Avoiding the 2°C limit remains an essential goal. Indeed, the best science now makes clear we must say as far below 2°C as is humanly possible — a point the world’s top climatologists bluntly explained in May.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/07/3677040/paris-climate-deal-2c-limit/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/07/3677040/paris-climate-deal-2c-limit/)
But for Paris to single-handedly achieve that goal, every major country would have to commit to specific and ever-deeper post-2030 carbon dioxide cuts all the way to zero emissions in the next half century or so (and possibly negative emissions after that). Such an outcome was never on the table.
As European Union climate chief Miguel Arias Canete has explained: “2C is an objective. If we have an ongoing process you cannot say it is a failure if the mitigation commitments do not reach 2C.”
This week has seen thousands of experts come together for the largest scientific gathering on climate change before COP21 in Paris in December.
...
"In many ways, this conference and the 2000-and-some scientists are really gathered to express, more than anything else, their willingness to be part of the process and their commitment to making sure that their knowledge is available as a foundation going into the Paris COP."
...
"We should not see this conference as the scientific input for the [UNFCCC] negotiations. The science is quite clear now. For that, there is no need for such a conference. The purpose of the conference was to generate new ideas after the Paris COP. We should not just focus on the Paris COP. There is a day after Paris, too. Climate policy is not a sprint, it's a marathon."
A United Nations accord to slow global warming should be short, flexible and long-lasting to avoid complex re-negotiations every few years, according to a document prepared by France before a Paris summit in December.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/17/france-seeks-short-and-long-lasting-paris-climate-change-deal (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/17/france-seeks-short-and-long-lasting-paris-climate-change-deal)
The deal will also have to ensure that governments do not backtrack on promises to cut greenhouse gas emissions despite a likely lack of sanctions, according to a briefing for climate ministers attending preparatory talks in Paris on 20-21 July.
“There is a common understanding that the Paris agreement should be flexible, because it will need to adapt to changing circumstances,” according to the five-page document, seen by Reuters.
...
On Wednesday, a report based on talks with negotiators indicated strong will in nations to reach a climate agreement in 2015. Negotiations failed in 2009 at the last attempt at a summit in Copenhagen.
“Behind the scenes we see a real desire to find common ground,” said Harald Dovland, a former lead negotiator for Norway who co-chaired the report by the Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions, a US-based think-tank.
NZ has announced its post-2020 target, effectively only 11% below 1990 levels.:
NB. our v high level of emissions/pp cos of all the dairy farming & road transport.
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/articles/media-releases/new-zealands-post-2020-target--weaker-action-for-a-less-competitive-economy.html (http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/articles/media-releases/new-zealands-post-2020-target--weaker-action-for-a-less-competitive-economy.html)
& a journo sums this up this up most succinctly:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/video.cfm?c_id=39&gal_cid=39&gallery_id=152180 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/video.cfm?c_id=39&gal_cid=39&gallery_id=152180)
Clare, not sure whether to feel angry, depressed, ashamed, frustrated......to be a Kiwi
On Friday the UN released a streamlined version of a negotiating text for a proposed greenhouse gas slashing pact. Here’s what we have learnt so far.http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/27/9-things-we-learnt-from-the-latest-un-climate-text/ (http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/27/9-things-we-learnt-from-the-latest-un-climate-text/)
1 – The two officials running the talks are worried about the speed of talks. They are far too slow and time is running out. There is a “unanimous view that the pace was slow and that there was an urgent need, owing to serious time constraints, to accelerate the work,” they wrote in an opening scenario note.
...
2 – Quit grandstanding, start negotiating. This is linked to the lack of time but also to the nature of the talks. The co-chairs want to bypass the long, rambling and often divisive statements groups make at the start of each session of talks. “We strongly encourage Parties to post their statements and remarks on the UNFCCC website in lieu of presenting them orally,” they write.
...
5 – Developed countries could face an ‘ambition baseline’. One suggestion is that “Developed country Parties shall take on mitigation commitments for the post-2020 period that are more ambitious than emission reductions of at least 25–40% below the 1990 level by 2020.” The EU would pass muster, but the US, Australia, Canada and Japan would struggle.
Countries have a great deal of flexibility in the kind of adaptation information they share, and their rationales for including adaptation may differ. Some may wish to communicate advances in adaptation planning and action, highlight the vulnerability of important economic sectors or demonstrate their readiness for various forms of international support. Some may also wish to raise the general profile of adaptation action in order to encourage and support the idea of a long-term goal on adaptation in the international agreement.http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/national-climate-plans-raise-adaptation (http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/national-climate-plans-raise-adaptation)’s-profile
...the Paris agreement needs to accomplish a few things: It should send a strong signal that the world is moving away from a fossil fuel economy, and won't turn back; it needs to ensure that pollution pledges only will get stronger over time; it needs to ensure that countries meet again, as soon as five years from now, to ratchet up their commitments; and it needs to require countries to report on their progress transparently, and for those reports to be independently verified.http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/opinions/sutter-climate-paris-two-degrees-100-days/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/opinions/sutter-climate-paris-two-degrees-100-days/index.html)
“I am proud that Rio de Janeiro is the first global city to become fully compliant with the Compact of Mayors, and I call on all cities to join this critical initiative on the Road to Paris and beyond,” said Mayor Paes. “By complying with the Compact, we are advancing our work to make Rio a place with a better quality of life for its citizens and a healthier environment for its visitors. Cities are climate leaders, they are in the best position to effect real change. The actions we take at a local level will have a global impact and, by improving our city, we will be helping create a better world for today’s urban citizens and generations to come.”http://www.compactofmayors.org/press-release-rio-de-janeiro-first-fully-compliant-city-in-compact-of-mayors-tackles-climate-change/ (http://www.compactofmayors.org/press-release-rio-de-janeiro-first-fully-compliant-city-in-compact-of-mayors-tackles-climate-change/)
Launched by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change, Michael R. Bloomberg, the Compact of Mayors is gaining momentum in the run-up to the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris (COP21). Earlier this week, US President Barack Obama announced that 15 new US cities – including several C40 and ICLEI member cities – joined the Compact of Mayors, and set a goal of having 100 U.S. cities in the Compact in advance of COP21 at the end of November.
UN chief Ban Ki-moon has invited leaders from 40 countries to a “closed-door” meeting in New York on 27 September to discuss plans for a global climate deal.http://www.rtcc.org/2015/09/01/un-chief-to-speed-climate-talks-with-new-york-leaders-meet/#.dpuf (http://www.rtcc.org/2015/09/01/un-chief-to-speed-climate-talks-with-new-york-leaders-meet/#.dpuf)
According to Bloomberg, UN officials are targeting leaders of the world’s top greenhouse gas polluters, with China, India, US and EU heads of government slated to attend.
More than 2,000 listed companies have submitted climate change information to CDP, the global system for disclosure on climate, forests and water. CDP is the only organization acting on behalf of investors to ask companies:https://www.cdp.net/en-US/News/CDP%20News%20Article%20Pages/industry-calls-for-global-climate-deal.aspx (https://www.cdp.net/en-US/News/CDP%20News%20Article%20Pages/industry-calls-for-global-climate-deal.aspx)
"Would your organization’s board of directors support an international agreement between governments on climate change, which seeks to limit global temperature rise to under 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels in line with IPCC scenarios such as RCP2.6?"
Amongst the companies asked are 28 of the largest (by market capitalization) energy firms, who together account for more than a quarter (26%) of global greenhouse gas emissions* (see editor’s notes for details).
Despite widespread consensus that a significant amount of fossil fuel reserves will have to remain in the ground if dangerous climate change is to be avoided, none of these carbon majors answered "no" in response to the question.
In fact, a majority (13) of the heavy emitters state their board backs a global agreement. These include Russia’s Gazprom, the single biggest emitter of greenhouse gases among these carbon majors, and the US’s ConocoPhillips. Eight report that they have no opinion on the matter and the remaining seven did not answer the question, which suggests either a lack of clarity around the official board position on the issue or that some companies are not treating the imminent COP21 with the necessary strategic priority.
Looking beyond this significant energy sub sector, CDP data shows that companies that have formulated an opinion on a global climate deal are overwhelmingly in support: 806 companies answer yes versus 111 that said no. A high number of companies (1,075) state that they have no opinion and 330 did not answer the question.
CDP’s executive chairman Paul Dickinson says: "It is time for governments to listen to the business voice in support of climate progress rather than to be influenced by a minority and downgrade environmental priorities. Companies are telling us – and their investors – that they welcome climate action, which brings prosperity and growth."
@SLHDC: .@CFigueres has a warning for press writing about the Paris climate negotiations http://t.co/ow2F1LcCW8 (http://t.co/ow2F1LcCW8)
https://twitter.com/slhdc/status/639515976577515521 (https://twitter.com/slhdc/status/639515976577515521)
"We all would want to see this baby born," Christiana Figueres, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, said of the U.N. agreement meant to chart ways to fight global warming beyond 2020 by almost 200 nations.
"Of course we are all impatient, of course we are all frustrated," she told a news conference, referring to efforts to pin down emissions cuts to limit heatwaves, floods and rising sea levels. "We are ... on track with the Paris agreement."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has in recent weeks criticised the negotiations as progressing at a "snail's pace".
Ahmed Djoghlaf, an Algerian who co-chairs the Bonn meetings, bristled at the description. He said Ban's office was on the 38th floor of the U.N. building in New York. From so high up "you don't see what is going on in the basement," he said.
"We are making progress... We will be on time in Paris," he told a news conference.
...
Governments asked Djoghlaf and his American co-chair Daniel Reifsnyder to present a new streamlined draft text in early October, outlining clear choices.
"It's time for a step change. The real deal needs to start taking shape," European Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said.
"This is their shot to get it right," Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said of the planned draft, adding he felt there was still enough time to line up a deal for Paris.
Overriding choices, for instance, range from a goal of phasing out fossil fuels by 2050 favoured by many developing nations to no deadline at all, favoured by many OPEC states.
The president of France, Francois Hollande, has warned that the global climate change talks scheduled for Paris this December will fail unless nations make a much greater effort to reach agreement – and that the result could be millions of new refugees fleeing climate disaster.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/07/paris-climate-talks-could-fail-warns-francois-hollande (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/07/paris-climate-talks-could-fail-warns-francois-hollande)
“There is a risk of failure,” he told journalists, after a meeting on the issue of providing financial assistance to poor countries affected by climate change. “If we don’t conclude [with a successful agreement], and there are no substantial measures to ensure the transition [to a climate-affected world], it won’t be hundreds of thousands of refugees in the next 20 years, it will be millions.”
On Aug. 31, Secretary of State John Kerry warned that climate change could create a new class of migrants, what he called “climate refugees” at a conference on climate change conference in Anchorage, Alaska. “You think migration is a challenge to Europe today because of extremism, wait until you see what happens when there’s an absence of water, an absence of food, or one tribe fighting against another for mere survival,” he said.http://time.com/4024210/climate-change-migrants/ (http://time.com/4024210/climate-change-migrants/)
And here is the link between climate change and the mass migration of refugees.
How Climate Change is Behind the Surge of Migrants to EuropeQuoteOn Aug. 31, Secretary of State John Kerry warned that climate change could create a new class of migrants, what he called “climate refugees” at a conference on climate change conference in Anchorage, Alaska. “You think migration is a challenge to Europe today because of extremism, wait until you see what happens when there’s an absence of water, an absence of food, or one tribe fighting against another for mere survival,” he said.http://time.com/4024210/climate-change-migrants/ (http://time.com/4024210/climate-change-migrants/)
One of the key breakthroughs made in Germany last week was a pair of proposals put forward on the issue of loss and damage stemming from climate change. From wildfires in the western U.S. to hurricane storm surge on the eastern seaboard fueled by rising seal levels, the impacts of climate change are hitting home, leaving loss and damage in their wake. It's a global trend, driven by decades of carbon pollution. The poorest developing countries are the most vulnerable. So they are hit the hardest.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hunter-cutting/progress-in-climate-talks_b_8096200.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hunter-cutting/progress-in-climate-talks_b_8096200.html)
The U.S. is leading the effort to ensure Paris produces a comprehensive and long-term global climate agreement. And to that end the U.S. used last week's negotiating session to propose a provision addressing the issue of loss and damage for inclusion in the Paris deal. Potential measures under such a deal include helping developing countries with building an early warning system for extreme weather events and creating a displacement coordination facility to deal with those who lose their homes as a result of extreme weather.
This U.S. administration has taken a pretty hard line against defining the issue of loss and damage as a matter of liability or compensation. Nevertheless, CFACT claimed exactly the opposite, going into hysterics and hyperventilating about President Obama in its email to supporters - and of course repeating the usual litany of lies that the earth isn't warming and climate change hasn't affected extreme weather.
Republican obstinacy is so predictable, it’s already baked into the structure, politics, and messaging ahead of a deal in Paris.http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122759/mitch-mcconnell-powerless-block-obamas-climate-change-deal (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122759/mitch-mcconnell-powerless-block-obamas-climate-change-deal)
...
Despite the largely hollow threats from McConnell, the Obama administration has been conducting its own outreach to large polluters like China to explain how the U.S. can deliver on its promises in good faith without Congress’ input—as long as a Democrat is in office, that is. In March, the U.S. submitted its pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions up to 28 percent by 2025 over 2005 levels. When negotiators ask State Department climate envoy Todd Stern about the “solidity of U.S. action," he says he assures them that “the kind of regulation being put in place is not easily undone,” signaling that the White House is confident its Clean Power Plan and other EPA regulations can survive court battles and congressional opposition.
All this means mixed news for Paris: The bad news is that a single Republican is powerful enough to undo the deal—but not until long after December, and only if the GOP wins the White House in 2016. The good news, though, is this means Congress is largely on the sidelines for Paris and won’t make or break the negotiations. It won't be Mitch McConnell who sinks a deal.
“I saw everything from the inside, and the fact that leaders were coming in at the end of the conference contributed to the paralysis in the negotiations,” said Meyer, an informal advisor to Connie Hedegaard, the Danish official who oversaw that summit. “Clearly the French learned the lessons of Copenhagen. I haven’t heard of anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to bring the leaders in at the end.”http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/68277/obama-world-leaders-may-skip-key-part-paris-climate-talks (http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/68277/obama-world-leaders-may-skip-key-part-paris-climate-talks)
What is surprising is the speed with which the divide between developed and developing states enshrined in both the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol has now crumbled. Both developed and developing countries in Paris in December will now state their climate pledges, or “intended nationally determined contributions”, including China. These contributions won’t be negotiated by all the parties – that approach has long gone. And the legal character of these contributions is uncertain. But China’s announcement on Friday certainly works in favour of a more robust agreement.https://theconversation.com/china-announces-national-emissions-trading-scheme-experts-react-48159
The climate change problem can’t be addressed without China, the world’s largest emitter (or indeed India, the third largest). China now joins the other 75 countries (and the European Union) with frameworks for limiting emissions, and the 47 countries (plus the EU) that have carbon pricing.
The good news, as you can see, is that the INDCs have bought us another five to 10 years of staying close to the 2°C path. I asked Andrew Jones, one of the systems-thinking savants behind Climate Interactive, if that was correct and he said, “Yep, about seven years.” By “staying close” I mean staying close enough to the 2°C path that it remains plausibly achievable — though (obviously) politically still very, very challenging.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/09/28/3706024/paris-co2-pledges/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/09/28/3706024/paris-co2-pledges/)
GLOBAL EMISSIONS COVERED: 80% (EDGAR, 2010)http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/03/10/paris-tracker-who-has-pledged-what-for-2015-un-climate-pact/ (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/03/10/paris-tracker-who-has-pledged-what-for-2015-un-climate-pact/)
NUMBER OF COUNTRIES COVERED: 132
Under growing pressure to join in an international accord to battle climate change, India on Thursday announced its long-term plan to reduce its rate of planet-warming greenhouse gas pollution and to aggressively ramp up its production of solar power, hydropower and wind energy.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/world/asia/india-announces-plan-to-lower-rate-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/world/asia/india-announces-plan-to-lower-rate-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html)
India’s announcement of a long-term plan to combat greenhouse gas emissions brings on board all the world’s major economies — including big polluters like the United States, China, the European Union and Brazil — with national pledges to address climate change.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/a-big-boost-for-the-climate-summit.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/a-big-boost-for-the-climate-summit.html)
India’s pledge is among the least ambitious of the big emitters, but even so, with less than two months to go before a critical United Nations climate conference in Paris, it is an important development. In contrast to past efforts to reduce greenhouse gases by assigning specific emissions levels only to industrialized countries, while giving developing countries like India a pass (an approach that met with stiff resistance in the United States), the Paris conference is asking every country to create its own plan.
While the new draft is sparse on specific details, it does include a commitment by the world’s governments to hold global warming at 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels, the threshold that scientists generally agree is required to stave off irreversible consequences of climate change. The new draft also stipulates that nations should readdress their limits on greenhouse gas emissions every five years, a requirement that environmentalists championed at negotiations in Bonn in early September.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/06/3709443/un-climate-agreement-draft/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/06/3709443/un-climate-agreement-draft/)
Paris, France; October 16, 2015 – The chief executive officers of 10 of the world’s largest oil and gas companies – which together provide almost a fifth of all oil and gas production and supply nearly 10% of the world’s energy – today declared their collective support for an effective climate change agreement to be reached at next month’s 21st session of the United Nations (UN) Conference of Parties to the UN Framework on Climate Change (COP21).http://www.oilandgasclimateinitiative.com/news/oil-and-gas-ceos-jointly-declare-action-on-climate-change/ (http://www.oilandgasclimateinitiative.com/news/oil-and-gas-ceos-jointly-declare-action-on-climate-change/)
Europe's greenhouse gas emissions fall to record low
Member states report a 23% drop since 1990, but the pace is slowing and several countries have missed renewable and energy efficiency targets.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/20/europes-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fall-to-record-low (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/20/europes-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fall-to-record-low)
Much to Lord Deben’s credit, it is since he became chairman, that the CCC has actually published a report showing the UK’s carbon footprint has been rising not falling since 1990 as the Department of Energy and Climate Change claims – except for two years after the Lehman Brothers crash. (See Figure 1.8: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with UK consumption – imported and domestic emissions, 1993-2010 in Reducing the UK’s carbon footprint.)
The carbon footprint reported was about 20 tonnes per person per year. This is almost ten times the carbon footprint that the Climate Change Act (2008) mandates.
In December 2012 Professor Sir Bob Watson also spoke on the UK’s rising carbon footprint. (At that time he was Chief Scientific Adviser to Defra.)
Scientists Ramanathan and Victor say (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/opinion/28victor.html) that reducing emissions of two powerful and fast-acting causes of global warming – methane and soot – will not stop global warming but it could buy time. This might allow a few decades, for the world to put in place more difficult efforts to regulate carbon dioxide and keep Global Temperature Rise below the so-called danger level of 2°C. However, Ray Pierre Humbert thinks (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/losing-time-not-buying-time/) this might detract from the task of reducing the emissions of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.
This latest round of UN climate talks opened with a deadly typhoon bearing down on the Philippines, and closed with Hurricane Patricia, the most powerful tropical cyclone ever measured, barrelling toward Mexico’s Pacific coast. The country’s lead envoy, Roberto Dondisch, struggled to hold back his tears as he pleaded with fellow negotiators to “put aside your differences” and start compromising.Finance biggest sticking point as UN climate deal takes shape
After five days of intense discussions, late nights and some drama, our partners leave Bonn having helped secure a text that is considerably stronger and more fair than what we started with a week ago. Negotiators spent the session adding ambition, clarity and specificity that many felt was lacking. And as a result, governments have a draft text they can take ownership of – crucial for keeping negotiations on track to an agreement.
Mitigation, adaptation and transparency are among the issues where our partners saw progress made. Spin-off groups and informal bridge-building meetings helped consolidate disparate positions, strengthening the options for a Paris agreement that could signal the end of the fossil fuel age and a rapid decarbonisation of the global economy.
Countries failed to find further common ground on loss & damage. Observers suggested the lack of progress could be due to negotiators reaching the end of their mandates, having arrived at a point where the issue is handed up to Ministers to address at a higher level of political engagement.
The most significant remaining divisions seem focused on climate finance. Developing country governments have called for wording that clearly establishes the responsibility of developed countries to achieve the goal of $100 billion in climate finance by 2020, and a plan to continually scale-up after 2020. Developed countries, on the other hand, have proposed finance language scant on details, with less exclusive focus on their responsibilities.
I've just skipped through the IPCC WG1 report (https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf) and I haven't been able to tell whether it supports the argument that we should cut methane emissions quickly (e.g. No Beef (http://No Beef)) or not bother too much for the time being - because it has a short(ish) lifetime in the atmosphere.
SYDNEY: Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said on Saturday (Oct 24) he would attend December's UN climate conference in Paris, in contrast to expectations that his predecessor would skip the global gathering.http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/australian-pm-to-attend/2214990.html (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/australian-pm-to-attend/2214990.html)
As soon as the EPA’s Clean Power Plan hit the Federal Register, the rule was met with a flurry of lawsuits from fossil fuel-producing states, utility groups and the coal industry. Republicans in Congress have pledged to block the rule, and could try to kill the rule through the Congressional Review Act this week.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/26/3715954/ayotte-gop-support-clean-power-plan/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/26/3715954/ayotte-gop-support-clean-power-plan/)
But in a chorus of Republican opposition, the Obama administration won a new ally over the weekend, when Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) became the first Republican senator to openly voice support for the Clean Power Plan.
“It’s so important that we protect New Hampshire’s beautiful environment for our economy and for our future,” Ayotte said in a statement on Sunday, following an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio in which she endorsed the plan. “After carefully reviewing this plan and talking with members of our business community, environmental groups, and other stakeholders, I have decided to support the Clean Power Plan to address climate change through clean energy solutions that will protect our environment.”
Opponents of President Obama’s climate rule for power plants are uniting behind a legal strategy aimed at blocking the contentious regulations from taking effect.http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258321-how-critics-plan-to-torpedo-obamas-prized-climate-rule (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258321-how-critics-plan-to-torpedo-obamas-prized-climate-rule)
Since a wave of nearly two-dozen lawsuits hit the Clean Power Plan last week, critics of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule have grown increasingly optimistic that they can convince a federal court to issue a stay.
A win on that front, however temporary, would complicate both the rule’s implementation and the Obama administration’s bid for an international deal at climate talks in Paris later this year.
The rule’s supporters say the litigants have a steep hill to climb in making the case for a stay, projecting confidence that they’ll win the first skirmish of what will likely be a years-long legal battle over Obama’s signature climate policy.
A federal court will not decide on whether to block the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants until the end of December at the earliest.http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258567-court-wont-block-climate-rule-before-un-talks-end (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258567-court-wont-block-climate-rule-before-un-talks-end)
That means the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule, President Obama’s biggest effort to fight climate change, will be in place when talks at the United Nations’ global climate pact in Paris wrap on Dec. 11.
3) "The 2 degrees Celsius temperature goal is achievable"http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/10-messages-from-the-un-s-top-climate-official-reddit-ama/ (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/10-messages-from-the-un-s-top-climate-official-reddit-ama/)
I have been pellucidly clear that the agreement in Paris is not going to reach a 2 degree limit on temperature rise as though that were something we can take off a magical shelf and put on the table. I have been equally clear that getting us on to the 2 degree pathway is entirely possible. This is why the Paris agreement will have two very important components with regard to emission reductions: First, it will harness all the national climate change plans which as a group, if fully implemented, already substantially reduce the business as usual growth in emissions. Second, in recognition that this first set of INDCs (the national climate action plans) is a departure point and not a destination, the Paris agreement will construct a path of ever-increasing emission reductions with periodic checkpoints of progress until we get to the 2 degree pathway.
10 Things We Learned from UN’s Top Climate Official
Christiana Figueres' Reddit "Ask Me Anything"Quote3) "The 2 degrees Celsius temperature goal is achievable"http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/10-messages-from-the-un-s-top-climate-official-reddit-ama/ (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/10-messages-from-the-un-s-top-climate-official-reddit-ama/)
I have been pellucidly clear that the agreement in Paris is not going to reach a 2 degree limit on temperature rise as though that were something we can take off a magical shelf and put on the table. I have been equally clear that getting us on to the 2 degree pathway is entirely possible. This is why the Paris agreement will have two very important components with regard to emission reductions: First, it will harness all the national climate change plans which as a group, if fully implemented, already substantially reduce the business as usual growth in emissions. Second, in recognition that this first set of INDCs (the national climate action plans) is a departure point and not a destination, the Paris agreement will construct a path of ever-increasing emission reductions with periodic checkpoints of progress until we get to the 2 degree pathway.
While I concur that it is possible to stay below 2C; I do not concur with many of her leaps of faith. For example, she says that if fully implemented then the INDCs already substantially reduce BAU emissions; while in truth we are currently on a BAU pathway and are likely to remain on this path for sometime to come, so she is engaging in hyperbolae. In other words, I will believe the improvement when I see the improvement.
While I concur that it is possible to stay below 2C; I do not concur with many of her leaps of faith. For example, she says that if fully implemented then the INDCs already substantially reduce BAU emissions; while in truth we are currently on a BAU pathway and are likely to remain on this path for sometime to come, so she is engaging in hyperbolae. In other words, I will believe the improvement when I see the improvement.
Yes, the words on the final agreement actually mean very little -- whether it is "enough" or "not enough" is not the point, it is the actions that follow that will mean success or failure, and those actions will, for the most part, be only distantly related to the COP 21 text.
Still, if you didn't like her previous comments, this article will surely rate an eyeroll: ::) ;D
Paris climate summit: 'The world is ready for change'
By Christiana Figueres
The political will to act on climate has arrived. We will look back at Paris as a turning point of this century towards a brighter future.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/30/paris-climate-summit-the-world-is-ready-for-change (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/30/paris-climate-summit-the-world-is-ready-for-change)
all of the "loss & damage" from climate change will also require still more capital investment (which will also have some level of carbon footprint)
The U.N.’s own assessment of all the pledges, released last week, framed the remaining challenge most accurately: We’re definitely seeing a slow down of emissions growth, but no peak yet. That means we’re still going to be making the problem considerably worse for the foreseeable future, just not as bad as we could have. So, um, yay!http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/paris_pledges_will_avoid_worst_case_climate_change_scenario.1.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/paris_pledges_will_avoid_worst_case_climate_change_scenario.1.html)
WASHINGTON—A group of 18 states is expected to ask a federal court on Wednesday to intervene in support of Obama administration greenhouse-gas regulations that require significant emissions cuts from hundreds of U.S. power plants.http://www.wsj.com/articles/coalition-of-18-states-to-move-to-defend-carbon-emissions-rules-1446613261 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/coalition-of-18-states-to-move-to-defend-carbon-emissions-rules-1446613261)
The move will mean most states in the nation are taking sides in a legal battle over a top Environmental Protection Agency initiative on reducing carbon-dioxide emissions.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is leading the coalition seeking to let the EPA’s new rules, called the Clean Power Plan, stand, said they are “a critical step forward in responding to the threat of climate change.” Mr. Schneiderman said the intervening states were committed to joining the EPA in defending the regulations aggressively.
According to a study being released Wednesday by the Sierra Club and Bloomberg Philanthropies, 2015 U.S. economy-wide carbon emissions are even lower than they would have been had the [2010 cap-and-trade bill] passed. In fact, the United States can now say it has led the world in reducing carbon pollution over the last decade.http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/03/opinions/bloomberg-brune-coal-climate-change/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/03/opinions/bloomberg-brune-coal-climate-change/index.html)
A primary driver is that over the past five years 130 coal-fired power plants have been retired and another 70 are preparing to retire over the next few years. Yes, cleaner energy sources have played an important role in reducing emissions. So did the Obama administration's tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. But the biggest factor, as the new data shows, was the decline in coal use.
...
The progress we have made on phasing out coal will greatly improve the prospects of a global agreement. In the past, political resistance in the United States to climate change legislation hampered our ability to persuade the rest of the world to take action. Countries could say to U.S. negotiators: "You are the wealthiest country in the world. You take action, and then we'll consider it." But in Paris, U.S. negotiators will be able to assert: "We are leading the world in carbon reduction. But we need all countries to be a part of the solution."
Moreover, the phase-out of coal in the United States has only just begun. Our analysis of the new data shows that once all planned and targeted coal plant closings are factored in, the United States will exceed the Obama administration's flagship pledge to cut electric sector carbon emissions -- even if no other actions are taken -- 32% by 2030. In other words, even if Congress does nothing else for the next decade, the work we've all already completed will allow the United States to deliver on its commitments, ensuring we can lead the way on significant international climate action in Paris and beyond.
Thanks for that info on emissions. But I wonder, even as we are closing coal plants and (with the help of many activists) not building as many coal plants as once planned, how much is the US still mining lots of coal that is being sent over seas and burnt there?
It seems a bit...disingenuous to say we are reducing coal emissions if what we are really doing is essentially outsourcing these emissions.
@LiisaMaijaHarju: Current efforts 1/2 of the total required of staying below the 2°C target in 2100. More needed. #EmissionsGap #COP21 https://t.co/7faQLjKr5N (https://t.co/7faQLjKr5N)UN: INDCS Signal Unprecedented Momentum for Climate Agreement in Paris, But Achieving 2 Degree Objective Contingent upon Enhanced Ambition in Future Years
https://twitter.com/liisamaijaharju/status/662564043559948288 (https://twitter.com/liisamaijaharju/status/662564043559948288)
The INDCs represent GHG emission reductions of 4 to 6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (GtCO2e/yr) in 2030 compared to projected emissions under current policy trajectories. 2030 projections based on current policies are themselves 5 GtCO2e per year lower than the estimate of 65 GtCO2e, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report scenarios, which assumed no additional climate policies are put in place after 2010.http://unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=26854&ArticleID=35542 (http://unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=26854&ArticleID=35542)
Sig, sorry, I couldn't follow your reply to me.
I get a sense that there was some kind of irony involved, but I don't get from that a clear critique or position.
Thwaites has a new calving, and a big crack advance. Dates are 11/11 and 10/30.
It's not every day that you can say you were a part of history. Tune in right here on November 13 at 12:00ET when we'll make climate change history. Join us for 24 Hours of Reality and Live Earth.https://www.climaterealityproject.org/24hoursofreality (https://www.climaterealityproject.org/24hoursofreality)
Webcast: 24 Hours of Reality and Live Earth, on November 13 and 14, 2015. Solutions from around the globe; telling the Paris conference that we're watching their efforts.QuoteIt's not every day that you can say you were a part of history. Tune in right here on November 13 at 12:00ET when we'll make climate change history. Join us for 24 Hours of Reality and Live Earth.https://www.climaterealityproject.org/24hoursofreality (https://www.climaterealityproject.org/24hoursofreality)
@ClimateReality: Out of solidarity with the French people and the City of Paris, we have decided to suspend our broadcast (1/2) #24HoursofReality
https://twitter.com/climatereality/status/665312605464952832 (https://twitter.com/climatereality/status/665312605464952832)
@ClimateReality: @patrullaverde We are safe. Out of solidarity w/ the French people we suspended our broadcast. Our thoughts are with all those affected.
https://twitter.com/climatereality/status/665321886377754624 (https://twitter.com/climatereality/status/665321886377754624) [/quote
@BenjaminJullien: .@COP21 confirmed despite #ParisAttacks, says @LaurentFabius - COP21 maintenue à Paris malgré les attaques
https://t.co/vDcjlHNhz7
Le Monde
https://twitter.com/benjaminjullien/status/665552045328461824
It is hard to see a credible deal from Paris emerging without US support. The US Senate would not ratify a treaty, but the US can still sign up to Paris under an “executive agreement” with the sole authority of the president. In terms of international law, this is equivalent to US ratification.http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-legal-form-of-the-paris-climate-agreement (http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-legal-form-of-the-paris-climate-agreement)
George Washington signed the first such agreement in 1789, and thousands have been signed since, including several international environmental treaties.
Todd Stern, the State Department’s climate change envoy, said the Republican pushback against the Obama agenda and the EPA rules had had no effect on the preparations for the Paris conference. “I don’t see a lot of anxiety about that,” he told a conference call with reporters.http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/16/paris-climate-deal-meeting-still-on-despite-attacks-as-republican-leaders-register-opposition (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/16/paris-climate-deal-meeting-still-on-despite-attacks-as-republican-leaders-register-opposition)
“It is standard operating procedure in the history of environmental regulation in the United States that when the EPA lays down an important regulation, it gets attacked,” Stern said. “It’s never not happened.”
@dana1981: The GOP Climate Supervillains' Plan to Thwart the Paris Climate Conference will fail https://t.co/grAGLPcJPR
https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/669176356349964288
The good news for climate hawks is that none of these efforts are likely to work. Foreign governments understand the separation of powers in the U.S., and that President Obama can implement the Clean Power Plan even if Congress disapproves. The pledges that other countries have produced ahead of the Paris talks were made with the knowledge that Republicans oppose climate action. So Obama could succeed in getting a deal in Paris, but only in spite of the GOP’s best efforts to stop him.https://newrepublic.com/article/124412/gops-plan-thwart-paris-climate-conference
“We haven’t questioned whether we’re going to get an agreement [in Paris] for many, many months,” she says. “Now the question is how ambitious is the agreement going to be. At the beginning of this year when I started talking about how we are going to get an agreement, people were quizzical. Now I think everybody has accepted that as a fact: we are going to get an agreement, because there is enough political will, increasing political will. It makes fundamental economic sense. It is in countries’ national interests to really spur up this transformation [to a low-carbon economy].”http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/27/christiana-figueres-the-woman-tasked-with-saving-the-world-from-global-warming (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/27/christiana-figueres-the-woman-tasked-with-saving-the-world-from-global-warming)
...
“The investments that we’re going to make globally over the next five, 10, maximum 15 years, but certainly the ones within the next five years, will determine the quality of life of future generations,” she says, “as simple as that.”
Pavley said California has had plenty of opportunity to preview the Paris conference, with a parade of international officials visiting to discuss climate. “Almost never a week goes by that we don’t have people from a foreign country coming to Sacramento on these policies,” she said.http://grist.org/climate-energy/california-may-be-a-leader-on-climate-change-but-it-still-has-plenty-of-work-to-do/ (http://grist.org/climate-energy/california-may-be-a-leader-on-climate-change-but-it-still-has-plenty-of-work-to-do/)
@tcktcktck: In Paris a silent #ClimateMarch at Place Republique.. where people could not march they laid their shoes instead https://t.co/CVKtpK7cVR (https://t.co/CVKtpK7cVR)
https://twitter.com/tcktcktck/status/670972650370502657 (https://twitter.com/tcktcktck/status/670972650370502657)
@UNFCCC: Major #ClimateAction announcements are expected at #COP21 - see where to find them https://t.co/Zno12MpwZB (https://t.co/Zno12MpwZB) https://t.co/0Ah7s3nhGm (https://t.co/0Ah7s3nhGm)
https://twitter.com/unfccc/status/670970373194842113 (https://twitter.com/unfccc/status/670970373194842113)
All of this means that Paris should be both a scoreboard and a springboard. It will show how far we've come, and it could launch more progress. Two issues in the negotiations will signal how much more. First, how much aid will go to the poorest nations to help them leapfrog the fossil fuel age and deal with the effects of global warming that are now unavoidable. It will take real money — ongoing, steady support — to substitute alternative energy sources for coal in the developing world. Republicans aren't helping here: 11 days ago , they voted down even $500 million in funding from the United States, one of many explicit efforts to torpedo the negotiations.http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-paris-un-climate-conference-20151129-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-paris-un-climate-conference-20151129-story.html)
The second clue is whether the conference will set a clear goal for not just reducing but ending the use of fossil fuels. Will it establish an efficient way to ratchet up emission pledges, as science and technology evolve? Having wasted the last quarter-century, the world can't afford to keep gearing up for once-a-decade grand gatherings; it needs to move smoothly forward into a 100% renewable energy future.
The Paris climate conference represents a possible turning point in the fight between the fossil fuel industry and the rest of us, but the great murky unknown remains: How much of a margin do physics and chemistry allow a warming Earth? The recent news that October was the hottest month ever recorded on our planet, and that the atmosphere's CO2 level has topped 400 parts per million, sobers any optimism.
When it comes to saving the planet, public humiliation can be surprisingly effective. Take the satirical Fossil of the Day award, which has a simple premise: Figure out who’s doing the best job at spoiling the Earth’s atmosphere that day, and make a huge deal about it in the most hilarious way possible.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/the_fossil_of_the_day_award_wins_the_paris_climate_summit.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/the_fossil_of_the_day_award_wins_the_paris_climate_summit.html)
Paris, 30 November 2015 - Heads of Government from major forest countries and partner countries joined together today to endorse forests as a key climate solution. They recommitted to providing strong, collective and urgent action to promote equitable rural economic development while slowing, halting and reversing deforestation and massively increasing forest restoration.http://newsroom.unfccc.int/nature-s-role/forests-as-key-climate-solution/ (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/nature-s-role/forests-as-key-climate-solution/)
...
Several leaders announced major new actions to protect and restore forests
Brazil and Norway made a joint announcement to extend their climate and forest partnership until 2020. Brazil has delivered impressive results in reducing Amazon deforestation over 70 percent in the last decade. Both Germany and Norway will continue to support Brazil at scale to further increase ambition on reducing deforestation and forest degradation.
Colombia announced an ambitious partnership , together with Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom, to implement its vision for green growth, with a particular focus on reducing deforestation in the Amazon region.
Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom announced a collective aim to provide $5 billion from 2015 to 2020, or $1 billion per year by 2020, if countries pursue ambitious REDD+ programs, and an intent to significantly increase pay-for-performance finance if countries demonstrate measured, reported and verified emission reductions.
@CNN: .@POTUS speaking at #COP21 "I'm convinced we're going to get big things done here" https://t.co/ZL75583gvM https://t.co/hWnkVs7tlV
https://twitter.com/cnn/status/671680566325022720
France will invest a total of 2 billion euros in renewable energy in Africa in 2016-20, a 50% increase in comparison with the last five years.http://newsroom.unfccc.int/financial-flows/france-to-invest-2-billion-euros-in-renewables-in-africa/ (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/financial-flows/france-to-invest-2-billion-euros-in-renewables-in-africa/)
After a clear rebuff from developed countries, island states have dropped demands for compensation. But they are insisting on a separate section in the Paris deal on support to cope with their losses.http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/01/obama-offers-vulnerable-nations-30m-for-climate-risk-insurance/ (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/01/obama-offers-vulnerable-nations-30m-for-climate-risk-insurance/)
...
Insurance is a middle ground. Obama’s $30m forms part of a G7 initiative to extend insurance cover to 400 million people on the frontlines of changing weather patterns.
While Paris is hosting the COP21 climate change talk, Tesla CEO Elon Musk is at Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne to talk about his vision of what we can do to help the world transition to a sustainable future.http://electrek.co/2015/12/02/watch-tesla-ceo-elon-musk-live-from-universite-paris-12pm-et-18h-local-17h-utc/ (http://electrek.co/2015/12/02/watch-tesla-ceo-elon-musk-live-from-universite-paris-12pm-et-18h-local-17h-utc/)
I happen to like Rolling Stone articles on climate change....
http://endcoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Proposed-Coal-Plants-by-Country-Annual-CO2.pdf (http://endcoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Proposed-Coal-Plants-by-Country-Annual-CO2.pdf)
If you take out Announced and substitute Construction in for the "Announced+Pre-Permit+Permit" number, there's about 3.9 Gt/a CO2 emissions just baked into coal plant construction over the next few years. Is there a reliable source showing retirements to compare?
PARIS, Dec 2 (Reuters) - Climate negotiators in Paris are drawing close to resolving one of the sticking points for a breakthrough emissions pact by favouring a five-year review period on promised greenhouse gas cuts, a top official said on Wednesday.http://www.trust.org/item/20151202171907-nfsts/ (http://www.trust.org/item/20151202171907-nfsts/)
Regular reviews are seen as a crucial part of any agreement since countries' current pledges to cut emissions - submitted by 185 nations to the United Nations - will fail to prevent temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, seen as a dangerous level.
@350: Germignaga, Italy has a population of 3,809. They had a 3,000-person #ClimateMarch. Wow. https://t.co/Ojjv75HfN3
https://twitter.com/350/status/672233976103370752
More than 1,000 business representatives will be in Paris and most will be supportive of climate action, says Edward Cameron, who represents We Mean Business, a nonprofit coalition that is working with companies on climate change.http://www.npr.org/2015/12/01/458020744/businesses-awaken-to-the-opportunities-of-action-on-climate-change (http://www.npr.org/2015/12/01/458020744/businesses-awaken-to-the-opportunities-of-action-on-climate-change)
...
One gauge of business support for curbing carbon emissions is that more than 150 large U.S. companies have signed a White House pledge to reduce their carbon footprint. The list includes firms like General Motors, General Electric and Wal-Mart.
What's changed, Bakker says, is that businesses now see that the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of acting to curb climate change. That's the case at General Mills, the big food company whose products include Cheerios, Lucky Charms and Yoplait yogurt.
"For us it's not theoretical," says Ken Powell, the company's CEO. "We depend on natural systems. And we depend on healthy environment for the crops and the ingredients that we use."
For that reason, businesses in the agriculture and food sector are among those most interested in curbing carbon emissions. General Mills started by reducing energy use in its facilities.
"We've eliminated about $250 million of energy cost over the last 10 years," Powell says. "So for people who worry that companies are misspending resources to address this issue, our experience has not been that; it's been very positive from a business standpoint."
On Wednesday, Ajay Mathur, one of India’s lead negotiators, made a shrewd and brilliant pledge: We’ll cut back on our coal use if the rest of the world helps fund our transition to renewables. The lead U.S. negotiator, Todd Stern, joined activist groups in welcoming the comments as productive.http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/12/03/thankfully_india_is_a_leading_force_at_paris_cop21_climate_talks.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/12/03/thankfully_india_is_a_leading_force_at_paris_cop21_climate_talks.html)
1. Until renewables like wind & solar power can be married to storage systems, they will need to be tied to base-load power plants, so that for all the money that Germany has spent on renewables they have had marginal gains on emissions as indicated by the attached image and extract, below.
The U.S. contribution will specifically support parametric-risk insurance programs operated by the Pacific Catastrophic Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI), the Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF), and the African Risk Capacity (ARC). Parametric risk insurance is a type of insurance that issues payout immediately when a specified condition — such as a certain wind speed or rainfall level — is met. These plans can be structured to insure nations against damages caused by extreme weather such as hurricanes, or financial costs associated with prolonged drought. Parametric risk insurance can help developing countries better prepare for the impacts of climate change, as the Center for American Progress discussed in a recent report.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/02/3727056/obama-commitment-climate-risk-insurance/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/02/3727056/obama-commitment-climate-risk-insurance/)
On Wednesday, British charity Oxfam released a study that found the richest 10 percent of people produce half of the planet’s individual-consumption-based fossil fuel emissions, while the poorest 50 percent — about 3.5 billion people — contribute only 10 percent. Yet those same 3.5 billion people are “living overwhelmingly in the countries most vulnerable to climate change,” according to the report. According to the data used by the report, individual consumption — as opposed to consumption by governments and international transport — makes up 64 percent of worldwide climate emissions.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/03/3727515/climate-change-economic-inequality-study/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/03/3727515/climate-change-economic-inequality-study/)
Lawyers said that as political consensus around the need to combat climate change has strengthened, the business community is transitioning from a defensive to an opportunistic mindset.
“Until recently private sector involvement with COPs has focused on, ‘How might this damage my business?’ and ‘How can I make money out of the carbon markets?'” said London-based Tim Baines, Of Counsel at Norton Rose Fulbright who is attending the conference.
“This now appears to be changing dramatically, with a great deal of interest and enthusiasm about renewables in particular, how they can be rolled out and how they can best be financed,” Baines said.
Aside from new opportunities, the business community has also grown tired of the legal uncertainty created by the international community’s drawn-out debate over climate change, according to Saines.
“The business community likes certainty,” he said. “We’re moving towards a low carbon economy in all corners of the global economy. Doing that with clarity will be helpful to businesses around the world.”
Bacchus said the key difference in this year’s COP, and the reason so many are optimistic, is a change in approach: While past agreements at Kyoto and Copenhagen have imposed “top-down” targets for emissions reductions, which put caps on the amount of carbon emissions produced by each country, countries are now asked to make reduction “pledges.”https://bol.bna.com/the-lawyers-who-trekked-to-paris-for-climate-change-talks/
According to Bacchus, there is no official compliance mechanism: the negotiations at COP 21 are about how to “promote transparency, monitoring, reporting, verification, and other ways of making certain that we know what countries have promised they will do.”
“Politically, we’ve reached a decision,” Bacchus said. “We’re not going to be able to come together as a world and agree that every country should cut their emissions by 5 percent next Tuesday, and others by 10 percent by next Wednesday. We’re not going to have that kind of top-down global agreement.”
“They’re trying to create long term enduring agreement that can be a bit flexible with need to revisit targets,” Saines said. “It’s all bottom-up. There’s a new paradigm being forged here.”
Here’s our progress report on COP21. Blue bars indicate progress toward the goals, compared to yesterday, red bars indicate backward momentum, and gray bars indicate no change....https://newrepublic.com/article/125128/frantic-scramble-make-headway-paris
"For us nuclear is part of the solution, but it’s not available for everybody because of the technical and technological requirements. The initial cost is high. The electricity produced is affordable," says Poncelet. This is not the inclusive message of Cop21.
Cyrille Cormier of NGO Greenpeace France disagrees. He says that compared to renewables, nuclear is far more costly.
"Every megawatt-hour produced by nuclear energy from an EPR reactor costs about 100 euros. The cost of producing the same amount of renewable energy with wind turbines and solar is already less almost everywhere in the world. For example in France, it’s already 70 euros per MW-hour for big solar farms and wind turbines.”
3.12.2015
It will still be more than three years until regular electricity generation in Olkiluoto 3 plant unit will commence. This schedule estimate is made by the plant supplier Areva-Siemens consortium. The next steps towards commissioning are now more accurate.
Thanks SATire, your posts have been very helpful.
There's so much nonsense floating around here in Sweden and I'm not judging Germany, just reaching for a better understanding.
I do judge my own country though. Our old nuclear plants should have been closed a long time ago.
Trying to be a bit more COP21 related:
http://www.english.rfi.fr/general/20151203-Nuclear-not-so-much-dirty-word-Cop21-it-can-barely-be-heard (http://www.english.rfi.fr/general/20151203-Nuclear-not-so-much-dirty-word-Cop21-it-can-barely-be-heard)Quote"For us nuclear is part of the solution, but it’s not available for everybody because of the technical and technological requirements. The initial cost is high. The electricity produced is affordable," says Poncelet. This is not the inclusive message of Cop21.
Cyrille Cormier of NGO Greenpeace France disagrees. He says that compared to renewables, nuclear is far more costly.
"Every megawatt-hour produced by nuclear energy from an EPR reactor costs about 100 euros. The cost of producing the same amount of renewable energy with wind turbines and solar is already less almost everywhere in the world. For example in France, it’s already 70 euros per MW-hour for big solar farms and wind turbines.”
Despite all of the other problems related to todays nuclear plants, time is maybe the most important aspect. Consider how long it has taken Finland to build Olkiluoto 3 (start 2002) and that they now estimate more than three years until production...
http://www.tvo.fi/news/1661 (http://www.tvo.fi/news/1661)Quote3.12.2015
It will still be more than three years until regular electricity generation in Olkiluoto 3 plant unit will commence. This schedule estimate is made by the plant supplier Areva-Siemens consortium. The next steps towards commissioning are now more accurate.
Today's nuclear is stone dead and ice cold for mitigation purposes, as I see it. Use the ones we have for as long as we dare...
Prospects improved on Friday after the UN published two draft agreements: one capturing the results of negotiations, and a shorter one containing "bridging proposals" designed to narrow gaps and trim fat from the deal. With envoys prepared to look at the refined document, optimism rose that a more manageable set of outstanding issues will be forwarded to ministers next week.
"What caught my eye?" said Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit in London. "That’ll be negotiators doing what they’re supposed to. As never spotted at Copenhagen," he said, referring to the last, failed attempt to forge a global deal in 2009.
Talks continue in Paris today before a break tomorrow.
Edit: After looking at the draft text -- holy crap with the brackets. Agree with the sentiment of the Bloomberg article not to raise this into the "green". Getting the bridging proposals was a good thing, but we'll need a hurculean effort to get this agreement to truly mean something next week. Too many "outs" left in the brackets. Otherwise, we're going to be left with something only slightly better than CoP15.
Democratic senators staged a show of force at the Paris climate meeting on Saturday, pledging they “had Barack Obama’s back” and would defend his agenda in a Republican-controlled Congress.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/05/paris-climate-change-talks-democratic-senators-obama-cop-21 (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/05/paris-climate-change-talks-democratic-senators-obama-cop-21)
The appearance by 10 Democratic senators, days after Congress voted to repeal new power plant rules, was intended to demonstrate solid political support for Obama’s climate plan – despite Republican claims to the contrary.
@UNFCCC: Pleased to present new interactive website displaying climate fundinghttp://climatefundingsnapshot.com/ (http://climatefundingsnapshot.com/)
announcements: https://t.co/Bzfk88jAuA (https://t.co/Bzfk88jAuA) #COP21
https://t.co/umG0yUP0Xk (https://t.co/umG0yUP0Xk)
https://twitter.com/unfccc/status/673193430638460928 (https://twitter.com/unfccc/status/673193430638460928)
The two-week United Nations conference on climate change is halfway over, and no matter what else happens, it has already been a clear-cut success in two critical areas.http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-06/what-paris-talks-have-accomplished-so-far (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-06/what-paris-talks-have-accomplished-so-far)
As important as a global accord is, the most influential actors on climate change have been cities and businesses, and leaders in both groups made it clear that they will not wait for an agreement that, if it comes together, won’t even take full effect until 2020.
Climate Change
Mayors and officials representing more than 500 cities organized and attended their own summit in Paris (which Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo and I co-hosted). It was the first time local leaders had ever gathered in such numbers during a UN climate-change conference. They came not only to ensure that their voices were heard by heads of state, but also to express their determination to act on their own, and to learn from one another and share best practices.
Cities account for about 70 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions, and while some heads of state have been arguing over which countries should do more, cities recognize that reducing their emissions is in their own best interest. After all, when cities cut their emissions, they help their residents live longer, healthier lives. When they improve the energy efficiency of their buildings, they save their taxpayers money. When they invest in modern low-carbon infrastructure, they raise their residents’ standard of living. Taken together, these actions make cities more attractive to businesses and investors. Even if climate change were not a concern, reducing emissions would be smart policy.
City leaders rarely need to be convinced of the benefits of climate-related actions, and in Paris, they committed to doing more. By Saturday, more than 400 cities had signed the Compact of Mayors, which requires them to set bold climate goals, adopt a common measurement system for emissions, and publicly report their progress. If so many cities can agree to these three actions, why not nations?
The Compact of Mayors is the best insurance we have against backsliding by central governments, and it’s the best hope we have -- along with technological innovation -- for accelerating the pace of change in every region of the world over the next five years.
...
PARIS—The crux of the Paris climate talks is as simple as this: to ultimately succeed, they must set in motion a swift transformation of the global energy economy away from fossil fuels and toward clean power.http://insideclimatenews.org/news/04122015/climate-deal-success-paris-economy-financial-clean-energy-michael-bloomberg-al-gore (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/04122015/climate-deal-success-paris-economy-financial-clean-energy-michael-bloomberg-al-gore)
That tipping point presents substantial opportunities, but also ominous risks in the world of finance.
To help the financial industry get prepared, the Financial Stability Board, an international body that coordinates the work of regulators and central banks around the world, is setting up an industry-led task force on the disclosure of climate-related financial risks.
If a group of senators gets its way, any commitments President Obama makes at the Paris climate summit will be put to a congressional test.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/11/30/trick-or-treaty-the-legal-question-hanging-over-the-paris-climate-change-conference/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/11/30/trick-or-treaty-the-legal-question-hanging-over-the-paris-climate-change-conference/)
But first, the mainly Republican lawmakers must prove that the product of the Paris meeting is effectively a treaty – and that is a legal hurdle they may not be able to clear.
World leaders are gathering in Paris starting Monday to attempt to seal an international deal to curb greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change. If given the opportunity, the Republican-led Senate would almost undoubtedly reject such a deal.
President Obama doesn’t plan to give it the chance. Whatever agreement emerges from Paris, he has no intention of submitting it to the Senate for ratification as a treaty. The administration argues that any agreement does not bind the United States to a course of action. Moreover, it says the Clean Air Act and the United Nations Framework on Climate Change signed by former President George H.W. Bush already give Obama the authority he needs to carry out climate commitments.
Thanks SATire, your posts have been very helpful.
There's so much nonsense floating around here in Sweden and I'm not judging Germany, just reaching for a better understanding.
I do judge my own country though. Our old nuclear plants should have been closed a long time ago.
Trying to be a bit more COP21 related:
http://www.english.rfi.fr/general/20151203-Nuclear-not-so-much-dirty-word-Cop21-it-can-barely-be-heard (http://www.english.rfi.fr/general/20151203-Nuclear-not-so-much-dirty-word-Cop21-it-can-barely-be-heard)Quote"For us nuclear is part of the solution, but it’s not available for everybody because of the technical and technological requirements. The initial cost is high. The electricity produced is affordable," says Poncelet. This is not the inclusive message of Cop21.
Cyrille Cormier of NGO Greenpeace France disagrees. He says that compared to renewables, nuclear is far more costly.
"Every megawatt-hour produced by nuclear energy from an EPR reactor costs about 100 euros. The cost of producing the same amount of renewable energy with wind turbines and solar is already less almost everywhere in the world. For example in France, it’s already 70 euros per MW-hour for big solar farms and wind turbines.”
Despite all of the other problems related to todays nuclear plants, time is maybe the most important aspect. Consider how long it has taken Finland to build Olkiluoto 3 (start 2002) and that they now estimate more than three years until production...
http://www.tvo.fi/news/1661 (http://www.tvo.fi/news/1661)Quote3.12.2015
It will still be more than three years until regular electricity generation in Olkiluoto 3 plant unit will commence. This schedule estimate is made by the plant supplier Areva-Siemens consortium. The next steps towards commissioning are now more accurate.
Today's nuclear is stone dead and ice cold for mitigation purposes, as I see it. Use the ones we have for as long as we dare...
This is mostly due to the fact that renewables penetration is still fairly low and the cost of regulation on nuclear is very high. At higher renewables penetration, storage costs invariably come into play, which will rapidly increase the cost. Storage isn't cheap and it's virtually certain -- math-wise -- that trying to eliminate nuclear at the same time as coal and gas for electric generation will result in failing to meet CO2 targets.
Cormier is being pie-in-the-sky and a bit disingenuous by leaving out storage costs and making those kinds of statements about cost competitiveness with nuclear.
Risk-weighting CO2 against nuclear needs to be a valid discussion. I have yet to see a realistic proposal that gets us where we need to be fast enough and not include some sort of nuclear backstop until we can get the storage issue solved.
PARIS — The United States is in favor of incorporating an ambitious 1.5-degree Celsius goal into the climate agreement at the ongoing U.N. Climate Summit in Paris, also known as COP21, provided that the language wouldn't replace the previously agreed-upon 2-degree target, Secretary of State John Kerry told Mashable on Monday.http://mashable.com/2015/12/07/kerry-climate-target-cop21/ (http://mashable.com/2015/12/07/kerry-climate-target-cop21/)
Am I not calculating correctly or is it our dear scientific community that has a problem ?
2°c ? so we are at 1°c, it does globally increase 0,1°c/year that mean 2°c is in 10 years 2025...
There is absolutely no way we will limit 2°c and even more 1,5°c ...
The real limit is around 0,5°c ... where it seems that the ice start to melt in the Arctic in summer.
Am I not calculating correctly or is it our dear scientific community that has a problem ?
2°c ? so we are at 1°c, it does globally increase 0,1°c/year that mean 2°c is in 10 years 2025...
There is absolutely no way we will limit 2°c and even more 1,5°c ...
The real limit is around 0,5°c ... where it seems that the ice start to melt in the Arctic in summer.
Am I not calculating correctly or is it our dear scientific community that has a problem ?
2°c ? so we are at 1°c, it does globally increase 0,1°c/year that mean 2°c is in 10 years 2025...
There is absolutely no way we will limit 2°c and even more 1,5°c ...
The real limit is around 0,5°c ... where it seems that the ice start to melt in the Arctic in summer.
If (per the linked article) the CoP21 negotiators are assuming that CO₂ emissions in 2015 declined by 0.6 percent then why is the attached 6-month Keeling Curve well above the BAU scenario? Either emissions are not actually lower than BAU, or worse, climate sensitivity is higher than the experts expect:
Am I not calculating correctly or is it our dear scientific community that has a problem ?
2°c ? so we are at 1°c, it does globally increase 0,1°c/year that mean 2°c is in 10 years 2025...
There is absolutely no way we will limit 2°c and even more 1,5°c ...
The real limit is around 0,5°c ... where it seems that the ice start to melt in the Arctic in summer.
More like 0,1°C to 0.17°C per decade not year. But we are committed to at least 0.5°C, so it it hard to believe we are not already committed to 1.5°C. Actually reaching 1.5°C or 2°C is much further off than your message calculation seems to indicate. Committment probably matters more.
Strictly being committed to 1.5°C does not mean we will reach 1.5°C - if we learn to do substantial negative emissions very soon after we reach the committed to 1.5°C then we wouldn't actually reach 1.5°C. However that also seems such a hopelessly pie in the sky belief that perhaps the meaning of your message is still appropriate. We certainly haven't got until 2115 or even 2065.
Longer-term trend is 0.2C/decade. There's certainly support for 0.3-0.4C/decade with the way emissions are going and with natural variability now releasing the brakes.
Per the attached NASA data at the end of Oct 2015 the GIS Temp LOTI v3 at 12m was already at 1.063C above pre-industrial and it looks like both November & December 2015 will be well above that value. So since global warming is non-linear who says that the current rate is increase is following the old trend line?
The world’s biggest climate polluters rallied around a stronger target for limiting warming on Monday, saying they were open to the 1.5C goal endorsed by the most vulnerable countries.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/07/paris-climate-talks-biggest-polluters-back-tougher-warming-target (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/07/paris-climate-talks-biggest-polluters-back-tougher-warming-target)
In the final push to a climate agreement, the US, Canada, China and the European Union declared they were now on board with demands from African countries to adopt an even more ambitious goal to limit warming.
...
In the last few days, the 1.5C target has become short-hand for reaching a more ambitious agreement that would keep pace with real-time changes already underway on the ground.
“We are working with other countries on some formulation that would include 1.5C,” Todd Stern, the State Department envoy, told a press conference.
Per the attached NASA data at the end of Oct 2015 the GIS Temp LOTI v3 at 12m was already at 1.063C above pre-industrial and it looks like both November & December 2015 will be well above that value. So since global warming is non-linear who says that the current rate is increase is following the old trend line?
If you are going to look at a short period like a month or two or even a year or two, then I think it essential we adjust out El Nino effects. Do that and the 1.063C is noticeable reduced. With such an adjustment or by using longer term trend to reduce the need for El Nino adjustment, is there any evidence an acceleration has already started?
Paleo-Evidence
To compare the model results with past sea-level anomalies for
the temperature range up to 4 °C, we focus on three previous periods for which the geological record provides reasonable constraints on warmer climates and higher sea levels than preindustrial: the middle Pliocene, marine isotope stage 11, and the LIG (Fig. 1E).
OrganicSu, I haven't seen that article but it refers to the same study as I posted above, but with a complimentary share in the article, thanks! I'll save that projection...
Considering all of those deniers who only read headlines, that headline is really bad.
Real-world market conditions make it unlikely that plans to expand the use of coal around the world will come to full fruition, according to several reports presented at the UN climate summit in Paris (COP21).http://eciu.net/press-releases/2015/new-coal-is-there-a-market (http://eciu.net/press-releases/2015/new-coal-is-there-a-market)
While the potential of new coal investments to take the world well past 2C of global warming has been noted at the summit, the real world experience of coal’s decreasing viability has been less well discussed.
...
The context for decisions about coal are changing. Two coal plants are shelved or cancelled for every one plant built worldwide, according to a forensic bottom-up analysis by specialists CoalSwarm, which examined every plant around the world planned, permitted, built or cancelled from 2010 to the present day. In India, the figure jumps to six shelved or cancelled for every one built.
On Monday night, Morano showed his new film, "Climate Hustle" in a Paris cinema, featuring climate-sceptic scientists. Police cordoned off the road leading to the venue as guests lined up and a demonstrator hung a banner on a nearby gate reading "Welcome Heartland Institute Scum".http://www.trust.org/item/20151208061756-fz5v9/ (http://www.trust.org/item/20151208061756-fz5v9/)
A coalition representing more than 100 countries, formed in secrecy six months ago, has emerged at key UN talks in Paris to push for a legally binding global and ambitious deal on climate change.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/coalition-paris-push-for-binding-ambitious-climate-change-deal (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/coalition-paris-push-for-binding-ambitious-climate-change-deal)
The “high ambition coalition” speaks for the majority of the 195 countries at the crunch conference and consists of 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, the US and all of EU member states. But notable exceptions include major developing countries such as China and India.
The group is focusing on at least four key issues. They want an agreement at Paris to be legally binding; to set a clear long-term goal on global warming that is in line with scientific advice; to introduce a mechanism for reviewing countries’ emissions commitments every five years; and create a unified system for tracking countries’ progress on meeting their carbon goals.
Until now, India’s position at the Paris climate talks had been that it will massively increase coal production and use without limit. As a result, the country has not been willing to embrace a peak in carbon pollution, even though that will ultimately be crucial if India and the world are going to avoid simultaneous, catastrophic impacts.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/09/3728782/india-paris-coal-renewables/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/09/3728782/india-paris-coal-renewables/)
But now, senior Indian negotiator Ajay Mathur “says his country will cut back its use of coal, if sufficient cash for renewables emerges from a Paris deal,” the BBC has reported.
Love this little gem:
Hey guys, let's take a five year holiday before the agreement comes into effect:
This Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date on which at least [50][60]
Parties to the Convention have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession [, but not earlier
than 1 January 2020].]
Observers were unsure as to how the parties would react to the new text.Isn't it always?
"This is the first time the French fingerprints will be on the process, and that's a risky business," said Dr Diarmuid Torney from Dublin City University, who is an observer at these talks.
"We saw [this] earlier this year at a previous climate meeting in Bonn when the co-chairs tried to come up with a shorter text and the response from parties was to re-insert all their favourite parts back into the text. There could be fireworks."
Mr Fabius said that the remaining difficulties centred on differentiation, finance and the level of ambition.
we must be smart enough to make a distinction between access to power and influence over power
you assholes have been here in twenty years saying the same thing
As world leaders meet in Paris to find a way to keep climate change under control, we wind the clock forward...
To help us imagine how the area around Stockholm City Hall - and beyond, might look 85 years from now, we take a stroll with Dr. Henrik Carlsen, a senior research fellow at Stockholm Environment Institute.
Folks, the Paris document was, from the beginning, to be agreed to in 2015 and implemented starting in 2020. This is not a new development. Countries can't change overnight! -- though of course change is happening already. :)
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/future/index_en.htm (http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/future/index_en.htm)
Folks, the Paris document was, from the beginning, to be agreed to in 2015 and implemented starting in 2020. This is not a new development. Countries can't change overnight! -- though of course change is happening already. :)
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/future/index_en.htm (http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/future/index_en.htm)
Agreed to by who? The EU and US? I guarantee none of the developing countries wanted to sign on to something like that. In fact, the vast majority have been arguing against this "5 year holiday" (not my wording).
...
In 1992, countries joined an international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to cooperatively consider what they could do to limit average global temperature increases and the resulting climate change, and to cope with whatever impacts were, by then, inevitable.
By 1995, countries realized that emission reductions provisions in the Convention were inadequate. They launched negotiations to strengthen the global response to climate change, and, two years later, adopted the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol legally binds developed countries to emission reduction targets. The Protocol’s first commitment period started in 2008 and ended in 2012. The second commitment period began on 1 January 2013 and will end in 2020.
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php)
The United Nations Climate Change Conference, Durban 2011, delivered a breakthrough on the international community's response to climate change. In the second largest meeting of its kind, the negotiations advanced, in a balanced fashion, the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, the Bali Action Plan, and the Cancun Agreements. The outcomes included a decision by Parties to adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change as soon as possible, and no later than 2015. The President of COP17/CMP7 Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said: "What we have achieved in Durban will play a central role in saving tomorrow, today."
http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php (http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php)
The UN Climate Change Conference in Durban was a turning point in the climate change negotiations. In Durban, governments clearly recognized the need to draw up the blueprint for a fresh universal, legal agreement to deal with climate change beyond 2020, where all will play their part to the best of their ability and all will be able to reap the benefits of success together.
http://unfccc.int/key_steps/durban_outcomes/items/6825.php. (http://unfccc.int/key_steps/durban_outcomes/items/6825.php.)
Differentiation, finance and ambition are still in brackets (disagreement), says Fabius, of new text, which we’re expecting when we finishes talking.
The awards begin each night with Ilic leading the crowd in the “Fossil of the Day anthem” to the tune of the Jurassic Park theme music.http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/meet-the-people-trolling-the-fuck-out-of-the-paris-climate-t (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/meet-the-people-trolling-the-fuck-out-of-the-paris-climate-t)
...
Saudi Arabia has dominated the awards so far, but as of Wednesday, the U.S. was in second place.
...
Hmaidan said the awards aren’t just for jokes — in some cases they are actually an effective push for change. He pointed to Belgium, which won a Fossil award earlier in the talks. The award made headlines in Belgium, and over the following days the country became a more productive negotiator, Hmaidan said.
Here’s why I think this group has formed: Supporting small island states by literally building them new and taller islands would be much cheaper in the long-run than providing support for the increasingly upwardly mobile major developing countries. Though India in particular occupies the moral middle ground in Paris, the emergence of the High Ambition Coalition has pushed it firmly on the defensive. Other players, like Australia, have been shunted to the sidelines.http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/12/10/paris_climate_talks_are_like_a_turn_based_strategy_game.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/12/10/paris_climate_talks_are_like_a_turn_based_strategy_game.html)
The Guardian reports that the High Ambition Coalition has been forming in secret for months now, revealing itself publicly for the first time Wednesday. That may be because, in the latest draft of the Paris negotiating text, it will take only 50 or 60 countries to approve the overall deal. The High Ambition Coalition, by various accounts, may already have more than 90, with new members being added in real time.
...
Notes with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions in 2025 and 2030 do not fall within least-cost 2 ̊C scenarios, and that much greater emission reduction efforts than those associated with the intended nationally determined contributions will be required in the period after 2025 and 2030 in order to hold the temperature rise to below 2 ̊C or 1.5 ̊C above pre-industrial levels;
...
In order to achieve the long-term global temperature goal set in Article 2 of this Agreement, Parties aim to reach the peaking of greenhouse house gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter towards reaching greenhouse gas emissions neutrality in the second half of the century on the basis of equity and guided by science in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.
The EU has asked for that review every five years from the early 2020s. European Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said national plans for action should be reviewed every five years "so that when the treaty enters into force in 2021, we are able to raise the level of ambition".
"Without the five-year cycles, the agreement is meaningless," he told a news conference.
But China has balked at setting any conditions that would bring external pressure to step up its own measures before 2030.
Gao Feng, one of the Chinese negotiators, noted that Beijing had set out a national plan in June to start reducing its CO2 emissions by 2030. "I cannot say that in the middle, 2025, we would be in a position to change it," he said.
Fabius has been resolute in his desire to get a deal done, pressing delegates to work with only a few hours of rest in fear that delays could produce political drift.
"What is now important is to seek landing zones and compromise," he said, telling delegates they would have two-and-a-half hours to review the draft before returning to work for another all-night session.
With the unexpected support of the United States and Europe, the agreement, due to be completed within days, seems set to go beyond the current goal of limiting the rise in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels.http://www.trust.org/item/20151210215936-xmz9f/ (http://www.trust.org/item/20151210215936-xmz9f/)
Instead, the latest draft released late on Thursday, states a new goal to keep the rise "to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius". It is the first draft that does not offer alternate options for the goal.
To have a chance of meeting the 2C [limit on] temperature rise, countries need to set decarbonisation plans for 2050.The date was removed in yesterdays draft.
Calling for a peaking of CO2 levels 'as soon as possible' is not scientifically robust. The text is somewhere between dangerous and deadly for vulnerable nations.
CO2 reduction pledges must be reviewed frequently, biennially or every third year. If nations stick to the INDC pledges for 2025-2030 temperature rises will rise by between 2.7 and 3.7 degrees.
There is an inconsistency between near-term and long-term ambition. We need robust stocktaking cycles holding nations to account for their CO2 reduction commitments every two to three years. The global budget of CO2 emissions that would restrict temperature rises to 1.5C is already exhausted.
Future improvements to the dealhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/10/the-six-key-road-blocks-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-paris (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/10/the-six-key-road-blocks-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-paris)
Governments at the Paris meeting have come out with lofty ambitions, unlike other climate talks, and there is a sense of momentum towards an agreement. But what about the follow-through? Industrial countries in particular are pushing hard for public reporting of all countries emissions reductions, a so-called “stocktaking”, which would subject climate laggards to public shaming. The US and other countries are pushing for an early stocktaking in 2018. Developing countries are trying to push back the first inventory to 2024. Then there is “ratcheting”. Developed countries are pushing for governments to put forward tougher emissions plans at five-year intervals, in order to take advantage of advances in clean energy technology, and improve the chances of getting to zero emissions in the middle of the century. India and other developing countries want to put off those ratchet meetings to once a decade or so.
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who is chairing the summit, promised a new text on Saturday morning at 08:00 GMT - and suggested it would be the final version, to be ratified at lunchtime.
The latest version of a draft text, a slightly condensed 27 pages, retained a key demand made by low-lying and vulnerable states: to limit warming to less than 2C above pre-industrial levels and to seek to keep it to no more than 1.5C above.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/10/paris-climate-talks-deal-in-view-but-negotiations-likely-to-go-into-overtime (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/10/paris-climate-talks-deal-in-view-but-negotiations-likely-to-go-into-overtime)
But when it came to recognising irreversible effects, such as land loss and migration, the draft was a disappointment, campaign groups said. “The current options provide no hope for people who will suffer the impacts of climate change the hardest,” WWF said.
...
Key players in the negotiations, such as Brazil, insist a strong and durable climate agreement remains within reach. Izabella Teixeira, Brazil’s environment minister, said countries had stumbled in translating political goodwill into the dry language of diplomatic agreements.
But she said she was confident countries would eventually arrive at an agreement strong enough to avoid dangerous climate change.
“The agreement is done at the political level,” she said. “Everyone knows: OK, we can do this. What is not done yet is the language: how we can translate this common understanding about the next steps, and the progress to a flexible and transparent process, from political language into agreement language. This is the challenge we have today.”
...
Finding the exact language to unknot those problems as well as satisfy lawyers working for 196 countries – each with different economies and exposures to climate change – [is the] challenge.
... The negotiations seem to be taking a “build it and they will come” approach, hoping to signal urgency to the global private sector that the era of fossil fuels must end very soon, rather than command national-level emission reductions via international law, as previous climate talks have tried, and failed, to accomplish.http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/11/paris_climate_change_agreement_aspirational_in_a_good_way.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/11/paris_climate_change_agreement_aspirational_in_a_good_way.html)
The change in tack, as well as the exceedingly durable nature of the draft agreement—with five-year review cycles built to last a century—has provided significant optimism as the talks draw to a close. The latest draft also provides a provision to ensure essentially all major emitting countries are on board, though it would enable a hypothetical bloc of China and India to block the final plan entirely. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, though, because both India and China have separately signaled their intention to work closely with the United States and Europe on climate action during the months leading up to Paris. More likely, it will ensure whatever agreement emerges from Paris will be widely supported.
...
This debate is more than just a detail—it also informs the overall goal of how quickly the world can reduce its emissions. In order to achieve the newly bold temperature target that the Paris talks have rallied around, global carbon emissions must peak within the next five years—before the draft Paris agreement would even enter into force—and then rapidly decline thereafter. Wealthier countries with greater historical emissions—like the United States—would need to decline to near-zero emissions over the next 15 years, with the rest of the world following by midcentury. Poor countries simply will not be able to sustain that scale of effort without significant financial and technical help from rich countries.
newly strengthened protection for the world’s forestWe already know why our current economic system supports fossil fuels so why
a call for all nations to end fossil fuel subsidiesWe don't need wooly acronyms that noone will remember so why
CBDRILONCWRC, which stands for “Common but Differentiated Responsibility in Light of National Circumstances With Respective Capability”We already have climate refugees due to drought, so why
address the growing risk of mass climate-induced migrationWe already have a lot of people in the private sector who understand so why
hoping to signal urgency to the global private sector that the era of fossil fuels must end very soonAre they just talking to themselves?
Thanks Csnavywx, seems like we're aiming for geoengineering now. That's scary.
@EricHolthaus: I'm reminded of @dwtitley's advice: "Be prepared for catastrophic success."
#ParisAgreement
https://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/675695757270253569 (https://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/675695757270253569)
1743 – Al Gore and Segolene Royal enter together. China’s Xie Zhenhua gives a thumbs up to EU commission Miguel Arias Canete. Everyone looks relaxed. You can follow the webcast here.http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/12/cop21-live-make-or-break-time-for-paris-outcome/ (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/12/cop21-live-make-or-break-time-for-paris-outcome/)
We understand the French presidency does not plan to beat about the bush. Laurent Fabius will ask if there are any objections, hoping to be greeted with deafening silence, then bring the gavel down to signify the text has been agreed.
UN climate chief Christiana Figueres, who has driven the process leading up to this summit, planned to wear purple on the day a deal was adopted. Here’s her outfit – I’m told it looks purpler in real life.
In anticipation of the deal going through, here’s our wrap of what it all means: slow death for fossil fuels.
“It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
Friends of the Earth International's spokesperson at the Summit in Paris, Asad Rehman, went further:
"The draft Paris agreement puts us on track for a planet three degrees hotter than today. This would be a disaster. The reviews in this agreement are too weak and too late.
The finance figures have no bearing on the scale of need. It's empty."
"The iceberg has struck,
the ship is going down
and the band is still playing to warm applause.”
@insideclimate: In Paris final hr, verb "shall" in key section changed to the word "should"—avoiding need for US Senate ratification https://t.co/27rao8ClaK (https://t.co/27rao8ClaK)
https://twitter.com/insideclimate/status/675773068170653697 (https://twitter.com/insideclimate/status/675773068170653697)
The deal was struck in a rare show of near-universal accord, as poor and wealthy nations from across the political and geographic spectrum expressed support for measures that require all to take steps to battle climate change. The agreement binds together pledges by individual nations to cut or limit emissions from fossil-fuel burning, within a framework of rules that provide for monitoring and verification as well as financial and technical assistance for developing countries.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/12/proposed-historic-climate-pact-nears-final-vote/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/12/proposed-historic-climate-pact-nears-final-vote/)
...
The accord is the first to call on all nations—rich and poor—to take action to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with additional reviews required very five years to encourage even deeper pollution cuts. A major goal, official said, is to spur governments and private industry to rapidly develop new technologies to help solve the climate challenge.
@JohnKerry: World has chosen a smart, responsible path fwd. #COP21 agreement is the strongest, most ambitious global climate agreement ever negotiated.
https://twitter.com/johnkerry/status/675772310834417664
@JohnKerry: Addressing #climatechange will require fundamental change in the way we decide to power our planet. #COP21 agreement will help get us there.
https://twitter.com/johnkerry/status/675771956407369728
@JohnKerry: Thank you to all nations at #COP21 for hard work & dedication. Agreement is truly a global effort & signals we’re all in this together.
https://twitter.com/johnkerry/status/675771547102003201
The Paris agreement ensures that the 1.5 degree target, and the effort it would take to get there, will be at the center of discussions over climate change ambition for years to come—which is much better than the alternative: soul-crushing despair. To provide clarity, it commissions a fresh scientific synthesis, to be completed in 2018, to determine the scale and scope of emissions reductions necessary to hit that bold goal, as well as the climate impacts that may result if it is not achieved.http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/12/paris_climate_agreement_will_lower_emissions_and_usher_in_end_of_the_fossil.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/12/paris_climate_agreement_will_lower_emissions_and_usher_in_end_of_the_fossil.html)
It all amounts to much more than close watchers of the process had hoped from the meeting. As 2015 winds down, latest temperature reports show it is all but guaranteed to become the hottest year in recorded history. But, a fresh analysis also shows that global greenhouse gas emissions also decreased, the first time that’s ever happened during a year in which the overall economy grew. That’s huge, and with the added push from the Paris agreement, it seems like the worst-case scenario for climate change may remain the stuff of science fiction, not fact.
10 Things We Learned from UN’s Top Climate Official
Christiana Figueres' Reddit "Ask Me Anything"Quote3) "The 2 degrees Celsius temperature goal is achievable"http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/10-messages-from-the-un-s-top-climate-official-reddit-ama/ (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/10-messages-from-the-un-s-top-climate-official-reddit-ama/)
I have been pellucidly clear that the agreement in Paris is not going to reach a 2 degree limit on temperature rise as though that were something we can take off a magical shelf and put on the table. I have been equally clear that getting us on to the 2 degree pathway is entirely possible. This is why the Paris agreement will have two very important components with regard to emission reductions: First, it will harness all the national climate change plans which as a group, if fully implemented, already substantially reduce the business as usual growth in emissions. Second, in recognition that this first set of INDCs (the national climate action plans) is a departure point and not a destination, the Paris agreement will construct a path of ever-increasing emission reductions with periodic checkpoints of progress until we get to the 2 degree pathway.
The world collectively agreed to combat global warming with the signing of the first international climate treaty Saturday in Paris.
This is a historic moment. Breathe a sigh of relief everyone. This is good news.
It doesn’t mean the work is done — not by a long shot — and that’s surely something pundits, politicians, campaigners and scientists alike will go to great lengths to hammer home for the foreseeable future.
But it does mean that nearly 200 hundred countries have agreed to work together. What’s more, they’ve more or less agreed on the basis of science and that only came about after a monumental amount of time, energy, diplomacy, negotiation, steadfastness and compromise were all thrown into a giant airport hangar on the outskirts of Paris.
Such accomplishments are not come by lightly. This is as much an important victory for the climate as it is for international diplomacy. Way to go, world.
LE BOURGET, France — After the stomping and cheering died down, and the hugs and toasts ended, a question hung in the air as the climate conference came to a close: What does the new deal really mean for the future of the Earth?
Scientists who closely monitored the talks here said it was not the agreement that humanity really needed. By itself, it will not save the planet.
The great ice sheets remain imperiled, the oceans are still rising, forests and reefs are under stress, people are dying by tens of thousands in heat waves and floods, and the agriculture system that feeds seven billion human beings is still at risk.
And yet 50 years after the first warning about global warming was put on the desk of an American president, and quickly forgotten, the political system of the world is finally responding in a way that scientists see as commensurate with the scale of the threat.
“I think this Paris outcome is going to change the world,” said Christopher B. Field, a leading American climate scientist. “We didn’t solve the problem, but we laid the foundation.”
By May, the United Nations climate staff will update its estimate for the combined impact of the national pledges (now known as nationally determined contributions, the qualifying word “intended” having been dropped). Estimates of the first round of pledges suggested that, if carried out, they would still result in a rise of 2.7 to 3.5 degrees Celsius (4.9 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels — far above the newly adopted aspiration of an increase of just 1.5 degrees Celsius.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/world/europe/leaders-move-to-convert-paris-climate-pledges-into-action.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/world/europe/leaders-move-to-convert-paris-climate-pledges-into-action.html)
Those national plans must be revised every five years. Also every five years, starting in 2018, the United Nations will “take stock” of the pledges to see how much progress has been made in the aim of reaching peak carbon emissions “as soon as possible” and limiting the rise in temperature.
One cannot understate the importance of the agreement arrived at in Paris. For the first time, world leaders have faced up to the stark warnings that climate scientists have been issuing for years, instead of shrinking away with denial and delay. So while the commitments made in Paris aren't on their own enough to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at safe levels, they are enough to begin bending the emissions curve towards a safe climate. Paris is a beginning of a process. It provides a framework for continued progress toward the goal of averting dangerous interference with our climate.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/paris-climate-change_b_8799764.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/paris-climate-change_b_8799764.html)
Put into more technical terms, the Paris agreement gets us roughly halfway to where we need to be. A future path of business-as-usual carbon emissions would likely warm the planet about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit). The reductions agreed upon in Paris reduce that to about 3.5 degree Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit), i.e. halfway down to limiting to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warming, the level of warming that many scientists studying the impacts of climate change consider to be unsafe.
Different groups have come up with slightly different numbers than these, but the end result is the same: Paris doesn't get us to a safe climate, but it gets us a substantial way there, close enough that we can now envision, in subsequent conferences, reaching an agreement for more stringent reductions that get us all the way there.
Here’s the crucial plaintive paragraph from the preamble to the Paris climate agreement released today, written in the almost indecipherable bureaucratese that attends this international circus:http://grist.org/climate-energy/world-leaders-adopt-1-5-c-goal-and-were-damn-well-going-to-hold-them-to-it/ (http://grist.org/climate-energy/world-leaders-adopt-1-5-c-goal-and-were-damn-well-going-to-hold-them-to-it/)
Emphasizing with serious concern the urgent need to address the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C …
What it says is: The world is a doughy fellow who has promised to drop three suit sizes in time for his wedding, which is now only a month away. The world is an anxious student who has to ace the next morning’s test to pass the course but hasn’t yet started to study. The world has promised his kids a great raft of presents under the tree, but now it’s suddenly Christmas Eve and the shops have started closing.
...
The ugly: we are already at 1 deg warming. The agreement starts in 5 years, and emissions take 10 years after being emitted for full effect. Meaning that warming until 2030 will follow the course it is currently on. 1.5 deg will be very close by then. Adopting 1.5 deg as a goal is pure PR BS, nothing more.
Beyond the auto industry, the money is flowing. According to a recent Goldman Sachs study, the combined market size of low-carbon technologies like wind and solar power and electric and hybrid vehicles exceeded $600 billion last year, nearly equivalent to the United States defense budget.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/business/climate-accord-draws-mixed-reaction-from-business-leaders.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/business/climate-accord-draws-mixed-reaction-from-business-leaders.html)
Speaking on the programme is Anote Tong, President of Kiribati, and Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at Manchester University.but they do include
Will the US abolish the Confederate flag?
Gay priest reacts to church ban
'Huge rise' in newborns taken into care
Monday's business with Simon Jack
The Paris Agreement: 10/10 for presentation; 4/10 for content. Shows promise …
The Paris Agreement is a fitting testament to how years of diligent and meticulous science has ultimately weathered relentless and well-funded attempts to undermine its legitimacy. Building on this science base and under the inspiring auspices of the French people, the global community has come together as never before to tackle what is arguably the first truly globalised and self-induced challenge to humanity.
However, whilst the 2°C and 1.5°C aspirations of the Paris Agreement are to be wholeheartedly welcomed, the thirty-one page edifice is premised on future technologies removing huge quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere many decades from today. If such highly speculative ‘negative emission technologies’ prove to be unsuccessful then the 1.5°C target is simply not achievable. Moreover, there is only a slim chance of maintaining the global temperature rise to below 2°C.
happy that it's taken care of ... the problem has been magically solved ... Paris agreement "will limit warming to 2 deg and even to 1.5 deg"... nobody has to do anything different ... the agreement is binding... it starts immediately ... carbon capture tech ... more trees too [on somebody else's ag land]... just shuffle yr stock portfolio out of coal by 2030...You know these folks are not serious when nobody breathes a word about livestock and diet. The fastest, easiest thing to do with the biggest, cheapest impact:
... sent me a post from United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), stating that raising livestock produces more greenhouse gases than the combined exhaust of the entire transportation sector. This means that the meat and dairy industries produce more greenhouse gases than all cars, trucks, trains, boats, and planes combined. Worldwide.
That’s 13 percent for the global transportation sector compared to 18 percent for livestock. Cows and other animals produce a substantial amount of methane from their digestive process. Methane gas from livestock has a global warming potential eighty-six times greater than carbon dioxide from vehicles. This makes it a vastly more destructive gas than carbon dioxide on a twenty-year time frame.
In 2009, Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, two environmental advisors to the World Bank Group, released an analysis on human-related greenhouse gases (pdf), concluding that animal agriculture was responsible not for 18 percent as the FAO stated, but was actually responsible for 51 percent of all greenhouse gases. Fifty-one percent. Yet all we hear about is burning fossil fuels.
This difference in the figures is due to factors that the FAO didn’t take into account, such as the massive loss of carbon sinks from clear-cutting rainforests for grazing in addition to the respiration and waste produced by animals. Goodland and Anhang used the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the global standard for measuring emissions set by the World Resources Institute and World Business Council on Sustainable Development, to reach the figure of 51 percent. According to their calculations, animal agriculture is the number one contributor to human-caused climate change.
I also found out that raising animals for food consumes a third of all the planet’s fresh water, occupies up to 45 percent of the Earth’s land, is responsible for up to 91 percent of Amazon destruction, and is a leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, and habitat destruction.
How is it possible I wasn’t aware of this? I prided myself on being up-to-date on environmental issues. I thought this information would be plastered everywhere in the environmental community. Why didn’t the world’s largest environmental groups, who are supposed to be saving our planet, have this as their main focus?
I went to the biggest organizations’ websites—350.org, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, the Climate Reality Project, Rainforest Action Network, Amazon Watch—and was shocked to see they had virtually nothing on animal agriculture. Why would they not have this information on there? What was going on?
I had to find out. I teamed up with fellow filmmaker Keegan Kuhn to see if we could get to the bottom of this ... Kip Andersen
The Earth system models analysed for the IPCC AR5 did not include permafrost carbon emissions, and there is a need for the next assessment to make substantive progress analysing this climate feedback. It is clear, even among models that are currently capable of simulating permafrost carbon emissions, that improvements are needed to the simulations of the physical and biological processes that control the dynamics of permafrost distribution and soil thermal regime.
debunking that Worldwatch piece on beef impactsIf only that were true. The fact is, we have lots and lots of climate activists and enviros whose lives are awash in internal contradictions -- giving up their steaks, their two-ton SUVs (for that one ski trip a year), and gratuitous airplane travel are all non-starters. American (and Euro) exceptionalism; wants vs needs. The real problem is them dark people in India wanting an hour a day of electric. From coal. Can you imagine!
Giving up beef will reduce carbon footprint more than cars, says expertMore on the climate cost of cattle just on US public land (100 million acres with mammoth lease subsidy at $1.15 per acre per month per cow/calf pair) focusing on the belched methane (not considered above):
PNAS … free full text, no registration http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996 (http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996)
Beef’s environmental impact dwarfs that of other meat including chicken and pork, new research reveals, with one expert saying that eating less red meat would be a better way for people to cut carbon emissions than giving up their cars.
The heavy impact on the environment of meat production was known but the research shows a new scale and scope of damage, particularly for beef. The popular red meat requires 28 times more land to produce than pork or chicken, 11 times more water and results in five times more climate-warming emissions. When compared to staples like potatoes, wheat, and rice, the impact of beef per calorie is even more extreme, requiring 160 times more land and producing 11 times more greenhouse gases.
Agriculture is a significant driver of global warming and causes 15% of all emissions, half of which are from livestock. Furthermore, the huge amounts of grain and water needed to raise cattle is a concern to experts worried about feeding an extra 2 billion people by 2050. But previous calls for people to eat less meat in order to help the environment, or preserve grain stocks, have been highly controversial.
“The big story is just how dramatically impactful beef is compared to all the others,” said Prof Gidon Eshel, at Bard College in New York state and who led the research on beef’s impact. He said cutting subsidies for meat production would be the least controversial way to reduce its consumption. “Remove the artificial support given to the livestock industry and rising prices will do the rest.”
Eshel’s team analysed how much land, water and nitrogen fertiliser was needed to raise beef and compared this with poultry, pork, eggs and dairy produce. Beef had a far greater impact than all the others because as ruminants, cattle make far less efficient use of their feed. “Only a minute fraction of the food consumed by cattle goes into the bloodstream, so the bulk of the energy is lost,” said Eshel. Feeding cattle on grain rather than grass exacerbates this inefficiency, although Eshel noted that even grass-fed cattle still have greater environmental footprints than other animal produce. The footprint of lamb, relatively rarely eaten in the US, was not considered in the study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Prof Tim Benton, at the University of Leeds, said “The biggest intervention people could make towards reducing their carbon footprints would not be to abandon cars, but to eat significantly less red meat,” Benton said. “Another recent study implies the single biggest intervention to free up calories that could be used to feed people would be not to use grains for beef production in the US.”
Prof Mark Sutton, at the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said: “The US and Europe alike are using so much of their land in highly inefficient livestock farming systems, while so much good quality cropland is being used to grow animal feeds rather than human food.”
Separately, a second study of tens of thousands of British people’s daily eating habits shows that meat lovers’ diets cause double the climate-warming emissions of vegetarian diets.
The study of British people’s diets was conducted by University of Oxford scientists and found that meat-rich diets - defined as more than 100g per day - resulted in 7.2kg of carbon dioxide emissions. In contrast, both vegetarian and fish-eating diets caused about 3.8kg of CO2 per day, while vegan diets produced only 2.9kg. The research analysed the food eaten by 30,000 meat eaters, 16,000 vegetarians, 8,000 fish eaters and 2,000 vegans.
Cattle contribute to global climate change through the emission of methane they produce by enteric fermentation as part of their digestion. I quantified the mass of this methane produced by cattle that graze on U.S. federal public lands managed by the BLM and U.S. Forest Service. I've now updated that 2008 essay in important ways by recalculating the methane production using the most recent government data about the extent of grazing on these lands. And Ive incorporated the most recent findings about the heat-trapping properties of methane, which are now regarded as being much greater than they were in 2008. Not included: soil's lessor sequestering of atmospheric carbon under grazing and under grazing exclusion. http://www.mikehudak.com/Articles/PLR_Methane.html (http://www.mikehudak.com/Articles/PLR_Methane.html)Amusing footnote:
During the presidential campaign of 1928, a circular published by the Republican Party claimed that if Herbert Hoover won there would be “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” The promise of prosperity was derailed seven months after Hoover took the oath of office. The stock market crash of 1929 plunged the country into the Great Depression and people eventually lost confidence in Hoover.In other words, in 1928, chicken not to mention beef, was not even on the horizon for most Americans during the height of the boom. They couldn't afford a worn-out stewing chicken but somehow they got along without. Today that would be "a beef on every grill and a motorhome on every curb." Big climate footprint aspirational.
Hidden away in the pages of UN-speak that make up the Paris Agreement are the makings of global carbon market in which a host of exotic emissions derivatives can be freely traded, writes Steffen Böhm. And it's all going to be a huge and expensive distraction from the real and urgent task of cutting emissions.
India still plans to double coal output by 2020 and rely on the resource for decades afterwards, a senior official said on Monday, days after rich and poor countries agreed in Paris to curb carbon emissions blamed for global warming....
...there were limitations to clean energy and coal would remain the most efficient energy source for decades, he said.
We look forward to a new record in this Christmas season, let us also hope that the trade profitability follow and not be dragged down by a growing realistic and campaign seasonal sales," says Jonas Arnberg, chief economist at the Swedish Trade Federation, in a statement.
Re: India, coal
India will not double coal output by 2020. I will go further, India will not double coal consumption, including imports by 2020. A brief look at the history of coal projects in India will show my reasoning.
The current 1 900 GW of installed coal capacity globally will be expanded as capacity under development in Asia exceeds the likely retirements in Europe and the
United States. While improving renewable technology can make new coal plant investments unattractive, once a coal power plant is constructed and operating, given low fuel generation costs, it is likely to run for a long time, especially in places with power shortages. Therefore, based only on variable costs, the utilisation of the existing coal fleet can be constrained only by very cheap gas, a sizeable CO2 price, or a policy-driven renewable deployment that exceeds demand growth.
The world was looking upon Paris to force the US to commit itself to paying the damages that the three previous summits had imposed on it, but Washington managed to liberate itself from all its liability, said Singh who won the Stockholm Water Prize for 2015 for his efforts to improve water security in rural areas.
In fact, the whole `developed` world, led by the US, managed to make the `developing` and `least developed` countries acquiesce in ridding itself of its historical responsibility of causing climate change, he said.
Singh said there were 40,000 people attending the summit, but the real "decision makers" made up a `blue zone` of no more than 400.
Three hundred out of those 400 spoke the truth and the remaining 100 were there to grind their own axe, he said.
"Eventually, these 100 powerful people, assisted by at least 1600 `officials`, `experts`, scientists, etc., had their way. All others - 37,600 delegates - belonged to the `green zone` or `side zone` who had little voice," Singh said.
Even the one percent Indians, who are among the polluters, were on the side of the cunning movers and shakers from the developed countries.
Singh expressed dismay over the attitude of the government negotiators.
"The government only pitched for its right to use coal to provide for India`s energy needs. We clearly were completely out of touch with our own heritage and leadership and fell for the wiles of globlisation and commercialisation," Singh added.
The most unintentionally revealing commentary on the Paris climate agreement came from National Review senior editor David Pryce-Jones. “I know next to nothing about the technicalities of the subject, but caught on television news bulletins great wafts of hot air,” he confessed. “It was highly enjoyable to hear President Obama claiming to be saving the planet that his foreign policy has done much to endanger … You don’t have to be a cynic to think that most countries, China and India in the lead, are never going to do anything that might harm their economic development, nor will rich countries commit economic suicide.” This was a real-time window into the conservative mind processing the Paris climate agreement, beginning from a point of frank incomprehension of (and lack of interest in) any specifics of the issue, and proceeding immediately to the conviction that the deal would fail.http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/12/climate-change-isnt-real-also-cant-be-stopped.html# (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/12/climate-change-isnt-real-also-cant-be-stopped.html#)
"some observers wonder[ed] whether politicians understand the implications of the goals they signed up for."On the specific issue of the gap between models and reality, is there anyone, anywhere trying to bridge this gap (even with an informed guess) and explaining it to policy makers?
ALSR
Thanks for highlighting the fact that the Climate Interactive Scoreboard may be underpowered. Their FAQs acknowledge this (https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/scoreboard/frequently-asked-questions/#question15) but I wonder if many of its users notice.
Was the Climate Interactive Scoreboard actually used in Paris to make predictions of temperature rises from the INDCs? I remember news reports saying something like "these INDCs mean this temperature rise".
You sayQuote"some observers wonder[ed] whether politicians understand the implications of the goals they signed up for."On the specific issue of the gap between models and reality, is there anyone, anywhere trying to bridge this gap (even with an informed guess) and explaining it to policy makers?
(I use ther term "policy makers" rather than "politicians" because it is my experience is that that, in the UK, much of the decision making is formed by officials in governemnt departments, who are not actually politicians.)
One important element of the Paris climate accord has been somewhat overshadowed in all the press coverage. Before the whole thing fades from the news cycle, I want to take a moment to celebrate it.http://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10629172/climate-change-target-zero (http://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10629172/climate-change-target-zero)
I'm talking about the shared goal, endorsed by 195 nations, to reduce net global greenhouse gas emissions to zero by the end of the century.
Zero. Zilch. Nada. Let that roll around in your mindgrape for a moment. It has a ring to it. ...
STORY HIGHLIGHTShttp://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/12/07/cities-get-star-treatment-at-global-climate-conference-in-paris (http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/12/07/cities-get-star-treatment-at-global-climate-conference-in-paris)
- Much of the power to reduce climate emissions lies now with cities rather than national governments
- There is a window of opportunity to build climate-smart cities in developing countries, which account for 90% of urban growth
- The World Bank is increasing not just its financing in this area, but also its knowledge and capacity initiatives to help address urban infrastructure challenges
In a blog post on the EPA website, administrator Gina McCarthy said the agency will look in 2016 to help implement the goals of the landmark international climate agreement reached in Paris last month.http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/264695-epa-chief-outlines-2016-agenda (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/264695-epa-chief-outlines-2016-agenda)
The agency will finalize rules this year to cut carbon pollution from heavy-duty vehicles, she wrote, as well as a rule to limit methane leaks from oil and gas operations. The methane rule — which targets a pollutant with 25 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide — is seen as a major step President Obama can take to address climate change in his final year in office.
The EPA will also work with other countries to reduce the use of high-polluting refrigerant chemicals, a push the agency threw its weight behind in November.
The agency, she said, will also provide air quality and greenhouse gas monitoring assistance to other countries, as well as work with major companies to encourage financing for climate change mitigation efforts under the Paris climate deal.
Here we are a fortnight or so on from Paris – and the dust has all but settled. Turn on the radio and the BBC is reporting on whether the UK should expand its London airport capacity at Gatwick or Heathrow. No reference to Paris, CO2 emissions or the plight of millions who will suffer the consequences of such decisions, but will only ever see aircraft streaking across the sky 35000 feet above. Next up, the BBC reports on how the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change, its Chief Scientific Advisor and the UK’s Environment Agency all enthusiastically support the development of indigenous shale gas – and yet all forget to mention that the UK Government has just reneged on its support for carbon capture and storage. Another high-carbon energy source at odds with Paris and 2°C carbon budgets is simply added to UK’s portfolio of North Sea oil and gas without even a squirm of unease from those authorities who should know better.
So where are we now? Future techno-utopias, pennies for the poor, more fossil fuels, co-opted NGOs and an expert community all too often silenced by fear of reprisals and reduced funding. It doesn’t need to be like this. Forget the vacuous content, it’s the wonderful spirit of the Paris Agreement and the French people on which we need to build – and fast! The pursuit of a low-carbon future could do much worse than be guided by the open concepts of liberté, égalité et fraternité.
Not surprisingly the vested interests won out – and whilst the headline goals of the Paris Agreement are to be welcomed, the five year review timeframe eliminates any serious chance of maintaining emissions within even carbon budgets for a slim chance of 2°C. Science and careful analysis could have offered so much more – but instead we are left having to pray that speculative negative emission technologies will compensate for our own hubris.
In a joint letter to The Independent, some of the world’s top climate scientists launch a blistering attack on the deal, warning that it offers “false hope” that could ultimately prove to be counterproductive in the battle to curb global warming.More, and text of letter here (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cop21-paris-deal-far-too-weak-to-prevent-devastating-climate-change-academics-warn-a6803096.html).
The letter, which carries eleven signatures including professors Peter Wadhams and Stephen Salter, of the universities of Cambridge and Edinburgh, warns that the Paris Agreement is dangerously inadequate.
Because of the Paris failure, the academics say the world’s only chance of saving itself from rampant global warming is a giant push into controversial and largely untested geo-engineering technologies that seek to cool the planet by manipulating the Earth’s climate system.
The scientists, who also include University of California professor James Kennett, argues that “deadly flaws” in the deal struck in the French capital last month mean it gives the impression that global warming is now being properly addressed when in fact the measures fall woefully short of what is needed to avoid runaway climate change.
This means that the kind of extreme action that needs to be taken immediately to have any chance of avoiding devastating global warming, such as massive and swift cuts to worldwide carbon emissions – which only fell by about 1 per cent last year – will not now be taken, they say.
ABU DHABI: French energy giant Engie, the owner of the Hazelwood brown coal power generator in Victoria, has launched a major public-private initiative that aims to ensure that 1,000GW of solar capacity is installed around the world by 2030.http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/hazelwood-owner-engie-launches-push-for-1000gw-of-solar-36363 (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/hazelwood-owner-engie-launches-push-for-1000gw-of-solar-36363)
The plan has been dubbed the Terrawatt initiative – the equivalent of one trillion watts of solar electricity, or one million megawatts – and it is the first significant engagement from the private sector to deliver on the ambitious climate target agreed in Paris in December by 195 governments.
The 1,000GW target might be below some of the more optimistic forecasts for 2030, particularly those by Greenpeace and others (and it should be noted that Greenpeace, which predicts up to 1,800GW of solar, has been the most accurate forecaster in the last 10 years).
But it is broadly in line – and in some cases even passes – with the target that institutions such as the International Energy Agency says is needed under its 450 scenario, which would achieve a 2C temperature cap. The Paris deal aims at “well below” 2C, and even to try and reach a 1.5C cap.
There has been some considerable doubt about whether the promises made in the Paris agreement will translate into action by individual government at policy level, and by the private sector in investment.
The fact that this initiative is driven by Engie – a major utility – makes it even more interesting. It might be dismissed as greenwash by some, and time will tell if it is or not. But by making such a major commitment on solar, its incoming president and CEO, Isabelle Kocher..., is nailing her colours to the mast.
Engie is a giant of a company, with operations in 70 countries and 150,000 employees, and – probably embarrassingly for its new focus on sustainable energy – it operates Hazelwood, the ageing generator that is labeled the dirtiest in the world. It is proving to be an embarrassment to a company hoping to be taken seriously on its commitment to a new energy future.
By rejecting the petition on Thursday, a three-judge panel of the court required states to move forward with plans to shut down polluting coal plants and build new wind and solar sources.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/us/politics/court-rejects-bid-to-delay-obama-rule-on-climate-change.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/us/politics/court-rejects-bid-to-delay-obama-rule-on-climate-change.html)
DAVOS, Switzerland -- For all those who thought settling the Paris climate agreement was enough to lead to a low-carbon economy, it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/christiana-figueres-paris-climate-agreement_us_569f7c39e4b0875553c25c52?159rizfr= (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/christiana-figueres-paris-climate-agreement_us_569f7c39e4b0875553c25c52?159rizfr=)
This message comes from none other than Christiana Figueres, who was instrumental in bringing 196 countries together to agree on the framework to limit runaway global warming.
Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said that while the talks were a success, "frankly, after 20 years of working towards that goal, that was the easy part."
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, she said it was now imperative to move from good words to action.
"We need to understand the clear signal from Paris and the clear risks and work out what are we all going to do," Figueres said, adding that global carbon emissions need to peak within the next five to 10 years.
Edit: I believe that the numbers in the GCP Budget 2015 report err on the side of least drama.
ASLRQuoteEdit: I believe that the numbers in the GCP Budget 2015 report err on the side of least drama.
To say the least. Considering the numbers you and others are coming up with in the topic about Global Surface Air Temps about where we are today, the understated numbers from your chart above , the fact that there are a host of emissions that various countries hide (China and their actual coal consumption) or don't count (the US and its methane emissions from the fossil industries), the inevitable rise in natural emissions which are coming, deforestation continuing, etc....And the presumption that we are actually at the peak of emissions - I doubt that as the flattening we have seen in the last year is most likely attributable to the global economic slowdown as further bubbles can always be blown.
Bet we hit that situation closer to 2020 than 2030 if we have not already reached the point where staying below 2C is possible in a technical sense. In a practical real world sense I have no doubt we have little chance of staying below 3C of rise.
A proposed UN progress review in two years is critical she says. “If everything goes well we will have more mobilisation of countries by 2018.”http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/27/france-plans-renewed-climate-diplomacy-blitz-protect-paris-deal/ (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/27/france-plans-renewed-climate-diplomacy-blitz-protect-paris-deal/)
Equally important is delivery of long term climate plans up to 2050, a little-reported element of the Paris deal but one the French and the UN believe could turn the tide on fossil fuels.
China, France and the US have committed to working on long-term scenarios, while the EU is looking how it can fund research among member states.
A Deep Decarbonisation study published by the Paris-based IDDRI think tank last September said avoiding 2C was still possible – if governments moved fast this decade.
LONDON: Keeping the world below the 2 degrees Celsius pathway presents a US$12.1 trillion investment opportunity over the next 25 years, a new analysis states.http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we-do/news-and-blogs/keeping-the-world-below-2-degrees-is-a-121-trillion-investment-opportunity-bnef-report-says/ (http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we-do/news-and-blogs/keeping-the-world-below-2-degrees-is-a-121-trillion-investment-opportunity-bnef-report-says/)
The report Mapping the Gap: The Road From Paris, presented today by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) at the 2016 Investor Summit on Climate Risk hosted by Ceres, shows the opportunities and challenges of filling the ‘gap’ between the business-as-usual (BAU) investment in renewable energy and what is needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
...
In fact, if governments and business leaders take no additional steps to what they have planned today, the investment opportunity for tackling climate change is US$6.9 trillion, or US$277 billion per year.
The ‘gap’ between this scenario and what is needed to keep the world safe is US$5.2 trillion, or US$208 billion per year. To put the numbers in perspective, authors point out this is far less than the US$454 billion per year that people in the US ask every year to get their auto loans.
The wave of optimism that followed last month’s climate change deal in Paris is wending its way down Wall Street. Investors and financiers meeting in New York this week vowed to harness their trillions of dollars in collective wealth to develop clean energy projects and curb the planet’s carbon emissions.http://www.ibtimes.com/climate-change-2016-investors-vow-pour-trillions-dollars-clean-energy-transition-2285080 (http://www.ibtimes.com/climate-change-2016-investors-vow-pour-trillions-dollars-clean-energy-transition-2285080)
Whether they actually deliver on that promise could mean the difference between winning and losing the fight against climate change. Only with a dramatic spike in spending — and a total shift away from fossil fuel investments — can countries have a shot at avoiding dangerous levels of global warming, according to policy leaders and climate experts speaking at the Investor Summit on Climate Risk at the United Nations headquarters Wednesday.
...
The financial sector’s participation is considered critical for ensuring the goals of the Paris climate conference are actually achieved. Last December, the leaders of nearly 200 nations agreed to limit the rise of global average temperatures to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-Industrial levels.
To hit that target, the world must invest at least $12.1 trillion in renewable electricity — including solar and wind power, battery storage and energy efficiency — within the next 25 years, analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance said in a new report. So far, countries are on track to spend $6.9 trillion by 2040, resulting in an investment gap of $5.2 billion, by BNEF’s estimate....
This isn't going to end well.
A group of 29 states, along with utility and energy companies, are trying to get the Supreme Court to block Obama’s Clean Power Plan — an attempt that environmental groups say is “highly unusual” and likely to fail.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/04/3746375/stay-request-cpp-opponents/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/04/3746375/stay-request-cpp-opponents/)
...
“Some of the attacks are on the very elements of the plan that make it flexible and cost effective,” said Sean Donahue, counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund. “We feel the rule is very strong legally and factually.”
The environmental groups filed a response to the stay application with the Supreme Court Thursday. Eighteen states, along with multiple power companies and energy associations, also filed responses in support of the rule.
I provide a few extracts from the linked interview with Naomi Klein about how climate change will make things meaner, even after considering the Paris Pact:
http://billmoyers.com/story/naomi-klein-climate-change-not-just-about-things-getting-hotter-its-about-things-getting-meaner/ (http://billmoyers.com/story/naomi-klein-climate-change-not-just-about-things-getting-hotter-its-about-things-getting-meaner/)
"
Fears that some of Australia's most important climate research institutions will be gutted under a Turnbull government have been realised with deep job cuts for scientists.
Fairfax Media has learnt that as many as 110 positions in the Oceans and Atmosphere division will go, with a similarly sharp reduction in the Land and Water division.
Total job cuts would be about 350 staff over two years, the CSIRO confirmed in an email to staff, with the Data61 and Manufacturing divisions also hit.
The cuts were flagged in November, just a week before the Paris climate summit began, with key divisions told to prepare lists of job cuts or to find new ways to raise revenue.
"Climate will be all gone, basically," one senior scientist said before the announcement. […]
It is understood just 30 staff will be left in the Oceans and Atmosphere unit and they will not be working on climate issues related to basic data gathering..
..About 100 jobs are planned to go from units dedicated to research in areas including greenhouse gas levels, sea level rise, ocean temperatures, ocean acidification and assessing what is required to keep global warming to two degrees. The jobs would be replaced by new positions in other areas.
Dr Church, who has worked at CSIRO since 1978 and expects to lose his job, said the cuts would make it difficult for Australia to uphold its part of the Paris deal, which agreed there should be greater investment in climate research, including improved observations and early warning systems.
The Supreme Court has blocked President Obama's landmark climate rule for power plants, dealing a major blow to the president's climate agenda.http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/268843-supreme-court-blocks-obamas-climate-rule-for-power-plants (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/268843-supreme-court-blocks-obamas-climate-rule-for-power-plants)
In an order released Tuesday night, the court said it is placing a stay on the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants while industry and state lawsuits move forward.
The court granted the request in a 5-4 vote on Tuesday night, saying the rule was on hold until the circuit court reviews it and Supreme Court appeals are exhausted. The court’s four liberal justices dissented from the decision.
The rule — the Clean Power Plan — is the main plank of Obama's climate change agenda. It’s designed to cut carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 32 percent over 2005 levels by 2030 by assigning states individual reduction targets based on their energy mix.
...
The order from the court is extraordinarily unprecedented. While court often block rules temporarily, lawyers on all sides said the Supreme Court has never done so when a lower court refused to.
@SenSanders: The Supreme Court's decision is deeply disappointing. There's no time to spare in the fight to combat climate change
https://twitter.com/sensanders/status/697207157469659137
The good news is that Senator Bernie Sanders, the candidate speaking loudest on the need to address climate change, won big last night in the primary voting in the state of New Hampshire -- more than 20 points over challenger Hillary Clinton.
The shocking decision by the five conservative Supreme Court justices to “stay” the EPA’s carbon regulations for power plants does not, by itself, destroy what’s left of the Court’s reputation — or even doom the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP).http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/09/3747972/john-roberts-climate/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/09/3747972/john-roberts-climate/)
Heck, it doesn’t even mean that the United States won’t be able to hit the CO2 reduction target it pledged with the other nations of the world in the Paris Agreement. Indeed, I expect with or without the CPP, the U.S. is probably going to meet its Paris pledge, its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), to cut greenhouse gas pollution 26 to 28% below 2005 levels in 2025 (see below).
The Court’s stay just stops the EPA from from starting to implement its “Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units” probably until the Court itself rules on it — assuming that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rules for the EPA and then the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal.
Senior White House officials said on a media call Tuesday evening that this was a temporary procedural determination that does nothing to affect the soundness of the rule, nor the White House’s determination to proceed with the rule and to cut emissions. They expressed confidence that the administration’s climate targets were achievable, citing momentum in the renewable power sector.
The good news is that Senator Bernie Sanders, the candidate speaking loudest on the need to address climate change, won big last night in the primary voting in the state of New Hampshire -- more than 20 points over challenger Hillary Clinton.
Sigmetnow,
If you do the math you will see that following the New Hampshire primary Clinton has 394 delegates while Sanders has 42 delegates (see attached tracker and linked website, and don't forget to count the superdelegates):
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/ (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/)
At least five states will press ahead with efforts to curb emissions from power plants even after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on President Barack Obama’s key climate change program.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-10/5-states-forging-ahead-with-obama-power-plan-court-hold-or-not (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-10/5-states-forging-ahead-with-obama-power-plan-court-hold-or-not)
Colorado, New York, California, Virginia and Washington said they’ll move ahead irrespective of the decision by the nation’s highest court to temporarily block the Clean Power Plan on Tuesday.
Last November, as Albright and Stern were filing their briefs, a Sierra Club report predicted that electricity producers would meet the Clean Power Plan's emission targets five years ahead of schedule. It was based on the club's "Beyond Coal" campaign objective of retiring and replacing half of the nation's remaining coal fired plants with clean electricity.http://insideclimatenews.org/news/12022016/clean-power-advocates-downplay-supreme-court-damage-paris-climate-accord-clean-power-plan (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/12022016/clean-power-advocates-downplay-supreme-court-damage-paris-climate-accord-clean-power-plan)
"It is not the case that the Clean Power Plan is driving all the change," Coequyt said. He said the early emission goals in the plan—those that would satisfy the Paris pledges in the coming decade—were "absolutely" within reach.
Indeed, the combination of tighter controls on other pollutants like mercury, competition from cheap natural gas, and booming investment in wind and solar are pushing coal aside already, long before the Clean Power Plan deadlines arrive.
Environmental groups say that emissions reductions are even more likely since Congress, in a budget deal with the White House, extended tax breaks for wind and solar power for a few more years.
Keeping the World below 2° Is a $12.1 Trillion Investment Opportunity, BNEF Report SaysQuoteLONDON: Keeping the world below the 2 degrees Celsius pathway presents a US$12.1 trillion investment opportunity over the next 25 years, a new analysis states.http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we-do/news-and-blogs/keeping-the-world-below-2-degrees-is-a-121-trillion-investment-opportunity-bnef-report-says/ (http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we-do/news-and-blogs/keeping-the-world-below-2-degrees-is-a-121-trillion-investment-opportunity-bnef-report-says/)
The report Mapping the Gap: The Road From Paris, presented today by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) at the 2016 Investor Summit on Climate Risk hosted by Ceres, shows the opportunities and challenges of filling the ‘gap’ between the business-as-usual (BAU) investment in renewable energy and what is needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
...
In fact, if governments and business leaders take no additional steps to what they have planned today, the investment opportunity for tackling climate change is US$6.9 trillion, or US$277 billion per year.
The ‘gap’ between this scenario and what is needed to keep the world safe is US$5.2 trillion, or US$208 billion per year. To put the numbers in perspective, authors point out this is far less than the US$454 billion per year that people in the US ask every year to get their auto loans.
Yesterday I put the chances of the #CleanPowerPlan surviving judicial review at < 10%. With #Scalia's death, I now say it's > 75%.
https://twitter.com/brianhpotts/status/698710954641588224
Just days after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling clouded the future of a new United Nations climate pact, the passing of one of its justices has boosted the pact's chances of succeeding.http://www.climatecentral.org/news/what-scalias-death-means-for-climate-change-20033 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/what-scalias-death-means-for-climate-change-20033)
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia died at a resort in Texas on Saturday. Scalia, 79, was the court’s conservative leader and his death means it is now more likely that key EPA rules that aim to curb climate pollution from the power industry will be upheld.
Despite high-level statements to the contrary, there is little to no chance of maintaining the global mean surface temperature increase at or below 2 degrees Celsius. Moreover, the impacts associated with 2°C have been revised upward sufficiently so that 2°C now more appropriately represents the threshold between 'dangerous' and 'extremely dangerous' climate change.
Kevin Anderson will address the endemic bias prevalent amongst many of those building emission scenarios to underplay the scale of the 2°C challenge. In several respects, the modeling community is actually self-censoring its research to conform to the dominant political and economic paradigm. However, even a slim chance of 'keeping below' a 2°C rise now demands a revolution in how we consume and produce energy. Such a rapid and deep transition will have profound implications for the framing of society, and is far removed from the rhetoric of green growth that increasingly dominates the climate change agenda.
The International Civil Aviation Organization, the United Nations’ aviation agency, approved the first-ever binding agreement to cover emissions for aircrafts. New efficiency standards will apply to all new commercial jets delivered after 2028, as well as existing jets produced from 2023.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/business/energy-environment/a-hollow-agreement-on-aviation-emissions.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/business/energy-environment/a-hollow-agreement-on-aviation-emissions.html)
The rub is that the long-awaited standard is lower than what the industry is on track to achieve anyway in the next decade.
President Obama’s special envoy for climate change has warned Republican presidential hopefuls including Donald Trump and Ted Cruz that any attempt to scrap the Paris climate agreement would lead to a “diplomatic black eye” for the US.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/16/todd-stern-warns-republicans-against-scrapping-paris-climate-deal (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/16/todd-stern-warns-republicans-against-scrapping-paris-climate-deal)
Speaking to journalists in Brussels, Todd Stern also said that a recent supreme court decision to block Barack Obama’s clean power plan would not affect US climate pledges, or plans to formally sign up to the Paris agreement later this year.
Adopted as an aspirational goal at last December’s Paris summit, the 1.5C threshold is seen as critical to protect vulnerable communities. But most available analysis focuses on the longer standing 2C target.http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/02/15/climate-scientists-face-tight-deadline-to-deliver-1-5c-research/ (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/02/15/climate-scientists-face-tight-deadline-to-deliver-1-5c-research/)
Accordingly, in the small print of the deal was a request to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for a special report on 1.5C, by 2018.
Climate scientists face tight deadline to deliver 1.5C research
Researchers will have 18-21 months to flesh out understanding of tough global warming limit if – as expected – IPCC accepts call to produce a special report.QuoteAdopted as an aspirational goal at last December’s Paris summit, the 1.5C threshold is seen as critical to protect vulnerable communities. But most available analysis focuses on the longer standing 2C target.http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/02/15/climate-scientists-face-tight-deadline-to-deliver-1-5c-research/ (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/02/15/climate-scientists-face-tight-deadline-to-deliver-1-5c-research/)
Accordingly, in the small print of the deal was a request to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for a special report on 1.5C, by 2018.
At our current rate, we might (or might not) be at 1.5C by 2018
The new President of the UN climate change process, French Minister of the Environment, Energy and the Sea Ségolène Royal, made her first visit today to the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and underlined the need for continued momentum to build on the historic Paris Climate Change Agreement, which was reached in the French capital in December.http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/s (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/s)égolène-royal-appointed-new-cop21-president/
Thirty-four senators and 171 representatives signed the amicus brief, including presidential candidates and senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Ted Cruz (R-TX). All signatories are Republicans, except Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a coal-dependent state.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/24/3753132/clean-power-plan-brief/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/24/3753132/clean-power-plan-brief/)
...
The White House said the court filing is just the latest Republican “obstructionist” maneuver, according to published reports. “We remain confident that we will prevail on the merits when the plan gets it full day in court,” said White House spokesman Frank Benenati to the Associated Press.
The biggest red flag at the moment might not involve CO2 pollution from power plants. Emissions of carbon dioxide from electricity generation barely grew at all from 2013 to 2014, the data show.http://insideclimatenews.org/news/26022016/rising-us-emissions-greenhouse-gases-make-paris-climate-ageement-promises-elusive (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/26022016/rising-us-emissions-greenhouse-gases-make-paris-climate-ageement-promises-elusive)
An even more intractable problem is methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas in the short term. It's increasingly clear that the administration is not sure how much we are emitting.
The gas leak that forced the evacuation of 1,800 homes in the mountains above Los Angeles late last year was the largest methane leak in U.S. history and shows the climate risks of aging natural gas infrastructure, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Science.http://www.climatecentral.org/news/california-methane-leak-largest-us-history-20077 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/california-methane-leak-largest-us-history-20077)
The Aliso Canyon leak near the Porter Ranch neighborhood was so big that it emitted 97,100 tons of methane — the equivalent of the annual greenhouse gas pollution from 572,000 cars, according to the study, which used aircraft to measure methane concentrations in the atmosphere near Aliso Canyon during the leak.
The difference between the previous budget estimates and Rogelj’s is that many previous estimates accounted only for carbon dioxide, leaving out other greenhouse gases such as methane.http://www.climatecentral.org/news/leaner-carbon-budget-to-slow-warming-20075 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/leaner-carbon-budget-to-slow-warming-20075)
...
Regardless of which carbon budget policymakers subscribe to, current emissions trends are not remotely on track to meet any of them, Schmidt said.
“The imperative to reduce emissions is effectively unchanged,” he said.
The EU is set to emit 2bn tonnes more CO2 than it promised at the Paris climate talks, threatening an agreement to cap global warming at 2C, a note from the European commission has revealed.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/29/eu-set-to-emit-2bn-tonnes-more-co2-than-paris-climate-pledge (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/29/eu-set-to-emit-2bn-tonnes-more-co2-than-paris-climate-pledge)
Carbon prices will rise too slowly to cut industrial emissions as much as needed, says a confidential note prepared for MEPs on the environment committee, which the Guardian has seen.
Lawmakers say that the shortfall could spur criticism from other countries that signed up to the Paris agreement, which aims for net zero emissions later this century.
But a correction in the pace at which carbon allowances are removed from the market - to raise their prices - could spark anger from coal-dependent EU countries such as Poland, which believes its industry would be unfairly hit.
The EU was “caught between a rock and a hard place” said the Green MEP Bas Eickhout, who sits on the environment committee.
Keep in mind that it took from the dawn of the industrial age until last October to reach the first 1.0 degree Celsius, and we’ve come as much as an extra 0.4 degrees further in just the last five months. Even accounting for the margin of error associated with these preliminary datasets, that means it’s virtually certain that February handily beat the record set just last month for the most anomalously warm month ever recorded. That’s stunning.http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html)
...
Almost overnight, the world has moved within arm’s reach of the climate goals negotiated just last December in Paris. There, small island nations on the front line of climate change set a temperature target of no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius rise by the year 2100 as a line in the sand, and that limit was embraced by the global community of nations. On this pace, we may reach that level for the first time—though briefly—later this year. In fact, at the daily level, we’re probably already there. We could now be right in the heart of a decade or more surge in global warming that could kick off a series of tipping points with far-reaching implications on our species and the countless others we share the planet with.
WASHINGTON — In a significant victory for the Obama administration, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Thursday refused to block an Environmental Protection Agency regulation limiting emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants.
The Obama administration has put forth nearly half a dozen major rules aimed at cutting coal pollution, and critics, who have called them a “war on coal,” have sought to block them in the courts.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-epa-coal.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-epa-coal.html)
But Thursday’s decision is an indication that Justice Scalia’s death has altered the balance of power on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had voted, 5 to 4, on the climate change stay, issued Feb. 9. Justice Scalia was in the majority, and his vote in that case was one of the last he cast before he died.
Carbon emissions may have peaked already in China, years earlier than its leaders pledged, according to a study co-authored by the world-renowned economist Lord Stern.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/07/chinas-carbon-emissions-may-have-peaked-already-says-lord-stern (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/07/chinas-carbon-emissions-may-have-peaked-already-says-lord-stern)
The country’s emissions have fallen, partly as a result of its globally relevant economic slowdown, and partly owing to government policies to pursue a low-carbon path and reduce the rampant air pollution in its major cities.
If this trend continues it would show that the country’s emissions have already peaked, said Fergus Green, lead author of the report from the LSE.
This would be a landmark in international efforts to tackle emissions and fight climate change, formalised in last December’s breakthrough international accord on climate change signed in Paris. At the summit China, the world’s second biggest economy and the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, agreed that its emissions should peak by 2030.
In the new report, Green and Stern argue that if China’s emissions have not already peaked, then they are very likely to do so within the next decade, bringing the world’s biggest emitter to its internationally agreed target years earlier than expected.
The Obama administration has made a first installment on its $3bn pledge to help poor countries fight climate change – defying Republican opposition to the president’s environmental plan.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/07/obama-administration-pays-out-500m-to-climate-change-project?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/07/obama-administration-pays-out-500m-to-climate-change-project?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco)
The $500m payment to the Green Climate Fund was seen as critical to shoring up international confidence in Barack Obama’s ability to deliver on the pledges made at the United Nations’ climate change conference in Paris in late 2015.
Obama is expected to announce a number of joint climate initiatives when Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau visits Washington this week, sources familiar with the plans said.
The White House is also working with United Nations officials to encourage countries to formally approve the Paris climate agreement ahead of a signing ceremony on 22 April.
At least 55 countries, representing at least 55% of global climate emissions, must ratify the agreement before it formally takes effect.
Newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and President Obama are expected to sign onto a joint climate change strategy during Trudeau’s upcoming visit to Washington. The agreement, to be approved this week, will likely touch on automotive fuel standards and include measures to spur the adoption of electric vehicles.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/09/3757245/canada-energy-history/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/09/3757245/canada-energy-history/)
This is notable for two reasons. First, crude oil is Canada’s largest export, and the United States is Canada’s biggest customer. That Trudeau is working with Obama to cut petroleum consumption on both sides of the border, even as plummeting oil prices spur a downturn in Canada’s economy, is nothing short of remarkable.
Second, a bilateral agreement to cut carbon pollution would almost certainly not have been possible even a year ago. For the last decade, Trudeau’s predecessor, Stephen Harper, undermined climate action seemingly at every turn, genuflecting to Canada’s most powerful and politically influential industry — oil. Since Trudeau’s Liberal Party swept to power in October, Canada has seen a stunning about-face on climate policy.
During his tenure, Harper made no attempts to regulate carbon pollution through cap-and-trade or a carbon tax. He muzzled scientists, cut research funding, targeted environmental groups, and secretly committed government money to advocating for the export of tar sands oil. To environmentalists, Harper was a villain. Climate Action Network Europe ranked Canada among Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia in its 2015 Climate Change Performance Index, a rating of countries’ climate policies.
In a joint statement, Obama and Trudeau pledged to work together to boost investment in clean energy; establish a pan-Arctic marine protection network and low-impact Arctic shipping corridors; limit greenhouse gas emissions, including methane; and pursue a number of other initiatives designed to slow global warming and speed up protection of the fragile Arctic. As Mashable reports, the emerging North American alliance on climate change comes after decades of rancor between the two countries on the environment—but depending on who wins the White House this November, the partnership may not last long.http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/10/barack_obama_and_justin_trudeau_announce_new_climate_and_arctic_initiatives.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/10/barack_obama_and_justin_trudeau_announce_new_climate_and_arctic_initiatives.html)
I highly doubt that the $5 trillion would not just wind up in the Swiss bank accounts of Third World autocrats.
I highly doubt that $5 trillion is all that is needed to keep the world safe. I'll have a deeper look and try to find why.
The UK will enshrine in law a long-term goal of reducing its carbon emissions to zero, as called for in last year’s historic Paris climate deal.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/14/zero-carbon-emissions-target-enshrined-uk-law (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/14/zero-carbon-emissions-target-enshrined-uk-law)
Responding to former Labour leader Ed Miliband’s call to put the target into law, energy minister Andrea Leadsom told parliament on Monday: “The government believes that we will need to take the step of enshrining the Paris goal for net zero emissions in UK law. The question is not whether but how we do it.”
The UK is already legally bound by the Climate Change Act to reduce emissions 80% by 2050, but a law mandating a 100% cut would mark a dramatic increase in ambition. The final 20% is seen as the most difficult to cut, as it would have to come from sectors such as farming, which are not as easy to decarbonise as power plants.
Poland adopted a resolution against stepping up European Union climate ambitions, hardening its opposition to stricter emission policies before negotiations about how the bloc’s 28 member states should share the burden of cutting pollution in the next decade.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-15/poland-hardens-opposition-to-stricter-european-climate-policies (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-15/poland-hardens-opposition-to-stricter-european-climate-policies)
Leading environmental organizations today launched FlightPath 1.5, an international campaign aimed at solving the defining global climate change issue of 2016: reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the airline industry.http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2016/03/22/flightpath-1-5-launches-100-days-cop21/ (http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2016/03/22/flightpath-1-5-launches-100-days-cop21/)
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United Nations (UN) decision-making body charged with regulating aviation emissions, takes up the issue in September. If it fails to take bold steps, aviation emissions are projected to triple by 2050. Aviation, a top-ten global polluter, was not directly addressed in the landmark COP21 Paris climate agreement agreed to 100 days ago today.
In response to the growing urgency to address aviation emissions, FlightPath 1.5 is focused on ensuring that ICAO and its 191 Member States adopt a meaningful new agreement in 2016. The time window for action is tight: October 7, 2016 is the last day of the two-week ICAO Assembly, and the next Assembly won’t happen again for another three years. Inaction by ICAO threatens to directly undermine efforts to limit planetary warming to no more than 1.5°C. The Paris Agreement set the 1.5°C target to avoid a climatic tipping point of irreversible climate impacts.
The Rise of Vertical Farmshttp://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v301/n5/full/scientificamerican1109-80.html (http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v301/n5/full/scientificamerican1109-80.html)
- Farming is ruining the environment, and not enough arable land remains to feed a projected 9.5 billion people by 2050.
- Growing food in glass high-rises could drastically reduce fossil-fuel emissions and recycle city wastewater that now pollutes waterways.
- A one-square-block farm 30 stories high could yield as much food as 2,400 outdoor acres, with less subsequent spoilage.
- Existing hydroponic greenhouses provide a basis for prototype vertical farms now being considered by urban planners in cities worldwide.
ASLR,
Would you agree that an increase in vertical farming could reduce food-related greenhouse gas emissions?
...
I appreciate your thoughts on this.
ASLR
Do you have a link for the Hikurangi Margin emissions? If depths are as indicated in your link, methane escaping to the atmosphere through that much sea water is quite unusual.
Thanks
Terry
The Paris Climate Agreement could become operational by the end of 2016.http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/04/01/uns-paris-climate-deal-could-enter-into-force-this-year/ (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/04/01/uns-paris-climate-deal-could-enter-into-force-this-year/)
This would be well before many of the diplomats who negotiated it (and the journalists who covered it) would have expected, but it is the inescapable conclusion of a careful reading of the deal and accompanying documents.
While the official mandate under which countries negotiated the Agreement stated that it was to “come into effect and be implemented from 2020” – and while numerous draft versions contained language that would have delayed entry into force until that date – the final version of the Agreement contains no such restriction.
Instead, as adopted, states agreed simply that it will enter into force thirty days after at least 55 countries, representing at least 55% of global emissions, ratify it.
Taken together, China and the United States account for nearly 40% of global emissions.
If both ratify the Agreement this year – and they announced on Thursday that that they will each take “respective domestic steps” to do just that – entry into force will require only a further 53 countries (out of a remaining 193) representing a further 17% of global emissions.
"entry into force will require only a further 53 countries (out of a remaining 193) representing a further 17% of global emissions."
Presumably this is based on averaging all the emissions, but surely it would only take a much smaller number of high emitters to complete that last 17%: the EU (28 nations) would probably do it, with some combination of the top two or three of any of the next five top emitters: India, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Japan...
Four big companies have joined the legal battle in favor of the Obama administration’s signature climate change regulations that would curb emissions from coal-fired power plants.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/companies-climate-regulations_us_56fee2fee4b083f5c607c33d (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/companies-climate-regulations_us_56fee2fee4b083f5c607c33d)
Software maker Adobe, candy company Mars, furniture giant IKEA, and insurance behemoth Blue Cross Blue Shield filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., in support of the Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce climate change-causing pollution.
...
“(We) believe the Clean Power Plan, when fully implemented, would not cause business harm to (our) operations as large energy consumers and purchasers,” the four companies wrote in their submission to the court. “Swift and full implementation of the Clean Power Plan will directly benefit” the companies’ operations.
Our new guide to everything u wanted to know about the #ParisAgreement & didn't dare to askUN Climate Change
https://twitter.com/unfccc/status/717009597794529281 (https://twitter.com/unfccc/status/717009597794529281)
Citing a moral obligation to care for the natural world and all inhabitants of the earth, 30 Catholic and faith-based institutions filed an amicus brief with a federal appeals court in support of the Clean Power Plan.http://catholicphilly.com/2016/04/news/national-news/catholic-institutions-join-brief-supporting-clean-power-plan/ (http://catholicphilly.com/2016/04/news/national-news/catholic-institutions-join-brief-supporting-clean-power-plan/)
The brief argues that the Environmental Protection Agency has the duty to protect human health from harmful pollution in ways outlined in the plan, which establishes federal limits on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.
The brief said evidence of the human cause of climate change is “undeniable.”
“By providing $8 billion in commitments, we can help to advance new investment opportunities in clean energy, as well as other sustainable development goals and achieve the necessary scale for a positive impact on climate change.”http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/banks-pledge-7-billion-to-scale-up-clean-energy-investment (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/banks-pledge-7-billion-to-scale-up-clean-energy-investment)
The US and Canadian leaders enjoyed a mind meld on climate change, according to Gina McCarthy, who heads the Environmental Protection Agency.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/06/us-canada-obama-trudeau-climate-change-methane-emissions (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/06/us-canada-obama-trudeau-climate-change-methane-emissions)
“We have real kindred spirits in Canada right now, and a tremendous interest on the part of prime minister Trudeau and president Obama to really work together,” McCarthy told a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
Obama and Trudeau agreed last month to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas industry by up to 45% from 2012 levels by 2025. The understanding was a break with the pro-energy policies of Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, who had lobbied heavily for the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Paris Climate Change Agreement opens for signature on 22 April 2016 during a high-level ceremony convened by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in New York, marking an important international push on the way to the agreement’s timely entry into force.http://newsroom.unfccc.int/paris-agreement/april-22-paris-agreement-signing-ceremony-in-new-york/ (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/paris-agreement/april-22-paris-agreement-signing-ceremony-in-new-york/)
Over 130 countries have confirmed to United Nations headquarters that they will attend the signing ceremony, including some 60 world leaders, amongst them President Francois Hollande of France
The World Bank has made a “fundamental shift” in its role of alleviating global poverty, by refocusing its financing efforts towards tackling climate change, the group said on Thursday.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/07/world-bank-investments-climate-change-environment (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/07/world-bank-investments-climate-change-environment)
The world’s biggest provider of public finance to developing countries said it would spend 28% of its investments directly on climate change projects, and that all of its future spending would take account of global warming.
At last year’s landmark conference on climate change in Paris, the World Bank and its fellow development banks were made the linchpins of providing financial assistance to the poor world, to enable countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the effects of global warming.
...
John Roome, senior director for climate change at the World Bank, told journalists: “This is a fundamental shift for the World Bank. We are putting climate change into our DNA. Climate change will drive 100 million more people into poverty in the next 15 years [unless action is taken].”
At least $16bn a year, from across the World Bank group, which includes other development and finance institutions, will be directed to climate change projects, including renewable energy and energy efficiency. The group will aim to mobilise $13bn in extra funding from the private sector within four years, for instance through joint funding programmes. By 2020, these efforts should amount to about $29bn a year, nearly a third of the $100bn a year in climate finance promised by rich countries to the poor as part of global climate change agreements.
As part of the institution’s new strategy, it will help to fund the construction of enough renewable energy to power 150m homes in developing countries, and build early warning systems of climate-related disasters – such as storms and floods – for 100 million people.
The bank will also target “smart” agriculture systems, which use less water and energy and retain soil fertility, and will help countries develop their transport and urban infrastructure to produce much less carbon. All projects considered for funding – including health, education and other development priorities – will be screened for their vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.
The World Bank has attracted strong criticism in the past for backing the construction of high-emissions infrastructure, chiefly coal-fired power stations, and had already made moves away from such investments. Roome refused to rule out fossil fuel investments in the future, but said they would be subject to strict criteria, to do with their necessity, ensuring the most efficient technology was used, and investigation of alternatives. For instance, he said, gas could provide a “transition” away from high-carbon fuels for countries struggling to build new renewable energy capacity.
Germany, Austria, Portugal and Luxembourg are leading calls for the EU to increase its 2030 climate targets in light of December’s Paris agreement.http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/03/04/germany-austria-call-for-higher-eu-2030-climate-ambition/ (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/03/04/germany-austria-call-for-higher-eu-2030-climate-ambition/)
At a webcast meeting of environment ministers on Friday, they criticised the European Commission for advising no change was needed.
Several others spoke of the need to fully participate in the 5-yearly reviews of national climate plans set out in the UN text.
In late March, when the United States and China jointly declared that they’d be moving to immediately sign and then join the Paris climate agreement “as early as possible this year,” it was seen as the latest show of joint leadership by the two largest emitters.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/11/obamas-fast-move-to-join-the-paris-climate-agreement-could-tie-up-the-next-president/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/11/obamas-fast-move-to-join-the-paris-climate-agreement-could-tie-up-the-next-president/)
But there’s another possible implication that went largely unnoticed. If the nations of the world, led by its two biggest contributors to climate change, jump through all the hoops needed to bring this agreement into force before President Obama leaves office, the next U.S. president could have a difficult time — or at least, a long wait — if he or she wanted to get out of it.
The Paris agreement does not state or limit when it can go into effect — it simply depends on when enough countries formally sign and join it. If that occurred while Obama is still in office, “then the next president could not withdraw until sometime in 2019, and the withdrawal would not be effective until sometime in 2020,” said Daniel Bodansky, a scholar of international environmental law at Arizona State University and a former attorney at the State Department focused on climate change.
...
But for the agreement to take effect, two steps must be taken. First, nations must formally sign the agreement — which they can do starting on April 22, when a signing ceremony is being held at the United Nations’ headquarters in New York. The United States and China have pledged to sign immediately then, along with some 130 other countries.
Second, nations must also take further steps to implement the agreement at home, before going back to the U.N. and depositing what are called their “instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.” After signing, “then they each go through their respective domestic processes to formally ratify, or approve, there’s a whole string of alternate verbs that are used depending on one’s process,” says Elliott Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
The United States has said that the Paris agreement is not, in its eyes, a formal, legally binding treaty, which means that it doesn’t have to be ratified by the Senate. Thus, the formal process is likely to amount to a presidential order or statement, Diringer said.
When at least 55 countries, who account for at least 55 percent of global emissions, have all moved to join the agreement in this way, the Paris agreement then enters into force after a 30 day wait period. According to data just released by the U.N., the U.S. and China accounted for around 38 percent of emissions, meaning that if the two act swiftly, it will be much easier to meet the emissions threshold. Other big emitters who could then help substantially in getting to 55 percent include Russia (7.5 percent), India (4.1 percent), Japan (3.79 percent), and Brazil (2.48 percent).
Many nations are pushing for swift ratification of a Paris agreement to slow climate change and lock it in place for four years before a change in the White House next year that might bring a weakening of Washington's long-term commitment.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-paris-idUSKCN0X70A6 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-paris-idUSKCN0X70A6)
More than 130 nations with 60 leaders including French President Francois Hollande are due to sign December's pact at a U.N. ceremony in New York on April 22, the most ever for a U.N. agreement on an opening day, the United Nations said.
The worldwide reliance on burning fossil fuels to create energy could be phased out in a decade, according to an article published by a major energy think tank in the UK.http://phys.org/news/2016-04-fossil-fuels-phased-worldwide-decade.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-04-fossil-fuels-phased-worldwide-decade.html)
Professor Benjamin Sovacool, Director of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex, believes that the next great energy revolution could take place in a fraction of the time of major changes in the past.
But it would take a collaborative, interdisciplinary, multi-scalar effort to get there, he warns. And that effort must learn from the trials and tribulations from previous energy systems and technology transitions.
In a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy Research & Social Science, Professor Sovacool analyses energy transitions throughout history and argues that only looking towards the past can often paint an overly bleak and unnecessary picture.
Moving from wood to coal in Europe, for example, took between 96 and 160 years, whereas electricity took 47 to 69 years to enter into mainstream use.
But this time the future could be different, he says – the scarcity of resources, the threat of climate change and vastly improved technological learning and innovation could greatly accelerate a global shift to a cleaner energy future.
The study highlights numerous examples of speedier transitions that are often overlooked by analysts. For example, Ontario completed a shift away from coal between 2003 and 2014; a major household energy programme in Indonesia took just three years to move two-thirds of the population from kerosene stoves to LPG stoves; and France's nuclear power programme saw supply rocket from four per cent of the electricity supply market in 1970 to 40 per cent in 1982.
Each of these cases has in common strong government intervention coupled with shifts in consumer behaviour, often driven by incentives and pressure from stakeholders.
@UNFCCC: Investor groups representing $24 trill in assets urge leaders to fast-track #ParisAgreement bit.ly/1qCHv61Global Investor Groups Urge World Leaders to Sign and Accede to the Paris Climate Agreement Rapidly
https://twitter.com/unfccc/status/722358187341586433 (https://twitter.com/unfccc/status/722358187341586433)
As officials converge this week on the United Nations for the signing ceremony, ominous reports in the four months since the deal have buttressed the doubters: Global warming may hit geological hyperspeed within decades. NASA is projecting that 2016 will break the annual heat record for the third year running; Greenland's ice sheet is experiencing springtime melt weeks earlier than average; and much of West Antarctica is at risk of slipping into the Southern Ocean by 2100, adding a meter to global sea levels. Coastal cities home to millions of people may be underwater during the lifetimes of those born today.
The pact “might not be enough, especially in terms of sea-level rise,” said Rob DeConto, a geoscientist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. DeConto co-wrote the Nature study in March warning of Antarctica's fate. “We really need to go to zero emissions as soon as possible.”
...
Luckily, the Paris accord includes a five-year review process, which allows negotiators to tighten their national commitments over time. And there's no way to quantify how the treaty's indirect effects—political capital for activists, changes in consumer energy choices, a renewed push for technological advances—may create opportunities to nudge emissions lower.
The other good news, if you can call it that, is that the gloomy data of 2016 doesn't make things worse. It just affirms what many already suspected: Paris is not enough.
“No single study is going to cause us to be all, ‘Stop the press! Revise the Paris Agreement!’”
The latest hot papers may not add much to the big picture, which Nordhaus described in his 2013 book Climate Casino as stunning in its simplicity: “It is that the average temperature of the earth changes with the relative concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.”http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-19/paris-climate-pact-too-little-too-late (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-19/paris-climate-pact-too-little-too-late)
Eric Holthaus: This is it, folks. We have btw 4-11yrs to peak global emissions, or risk env/econ collapse.Paris Agreement Pledges Must Be Strengthened in Next Few Years to Limit Warming to 2°C
https://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/722915953231564801 (https://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/722915953231564801)
The deal 195 nations finalized in December in Paris may be the most important climate agreement ever reached, but pockets of corporate leaders, financial regulators and money managers remember it for another reason: a shift in how the business community views global warming.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/corporations-move-to-curb-global-warming/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/corporations-move-to-curb-global-warming/)
“For the first time, we’re seeing a genuinely changed landscape for the private sector,” said Edward Cameron, head of policy at We Mean Business, a group of investors and companies urging a shift from fossil fuels. “What we see now is growing momentum out of Paris.”
.@CFigueres receives the Legion of Honor, highest French distinction for her crucial work for #COP21 #ParisAgreement
https://twitter.com/franceonu/status/723604984693186560
175 States have signed the #ParisAgreement & 15 States deposited instruments of ratificationhttp://newsroom.unfccc.int/paris-agreement/175-states-sign-paris-agreement/ (http://newsroom.unfccc.int/paris-agreement/175-states-sign-paris-agreement/)
https://twitter.com/unfccc/status/723605348909723649 (https://twitter.com/unfccc/status/723605348909723649)
UNITED NATIONS, April 22 (Reuters) - China and the United States, the world's top producers of greenhouse gas emissions, pledged on Friday to formally adopt by the end of the year a Paris deal to slow global warming, raising the prospects of it being enforced much faster than anticipated.http://news.trust.org/item/20160422160252-0gki3/ (http://news.trust.org/item/20160422160252-0gki3/)
The United Nations said 175 states took the first step of signing the deal on Friday, the biggest day one endorsement of a global agreement. Of those, 15 states also formally notified the United Nations that they had ratified the deal.
Many countries still need a parliamentary vote to formally approve the agreement, which was reached in December. The deal will enter into force only when ratified by at least 55 nations representing 55 percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
China and the United States together account for 38 percent of global emissions.
"China will finalize domestic legal procedures on its accession before the G20 Hangzhou summit in September this year," China's Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli told the U.N. signing ceremony, attended by some 55 heads of state and government.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who signed the deal with his 2-year-old granddaughter Isabelle on his lap, said the United States "looks forward to formally joining this agreement this year." President Barack Obama will formally adopt the agreement through executive authority.
The deal commits countries to restraining the global rise in temperatures to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. But even if the pact is fully implemented, promised greenhouse gas cuts are insufficient to limit warming to an agreed maximum, the United Nations says.
The first three months of 2016 have broken temperature records and 2015 was the planet's warmest year since records began in the 19th century, with heat waves, droughts and rising sea levels.
"The era of consumption without consequences is over," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Friday. "We must intensify efforts to decarbonize our economies. And we must support developing countries in making this transition."
'REASON FOR HOPE'
Many developing nations are pushing to ensure the climate deal comes into force this year, partly to lock in the United States if a Republican opponent of the pact is elected in November to succeed Obama, a Democrat.
Once the accord enters into force, a little-noted Article 28 of the agreement says any nation wanting to withdraw must wait four years, the length of a U.S. presidential term.
The deal also requires rich nations to maintain a $100 billion a year funding pledge beyond 2020, providing greater financial security to developing nations to build their defenses to extreme weather and wean themselves away from coal-fired power.
Scientists compare climate change impacts at 1.5C and 2C
“On current emissions, the carbon budget for 1.5C will effectively be blown in about four and a half years....”
http://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-compare-climate-change-impacts-at-1-5c-and-2c (http://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-compare-climate-change-impacts-at-1-5c-and-2c)
just 40cm SLR by 2100 relative to 2000 under a 1.5C scenario.
average of 4mm per year and 2013 5AR thinks we are currently at 3.2mm per year (2.8 - 3.6)
25% increase in rate maybe a little more because it doesn't happen instantly. That is pretty much negligible acceleration that they think is baked in ?? ???
Perhaps they expect a little more acceleration but then with temperatures steady at 1.5C above pre-industrial the rate starts to level off, despite ice sheet instabilities?
Compared to Hansen's 3m possibly as soon 2050,
(average rate over 35 years is 27 times faster than current rate so 2050 rate may be something like a 100 fold increase over current rate)
the difference seems somewhat stark.
Scientists compare climate change impacts at 1.5C and 2CSigmetnow, I originally missed this article - thanks.
“On current emissions, the carbon budget for 1.5C will effectively be blown in about four and a half years....”
http://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-compare-climate-change-impacts-at-1-5c-and-2c (http://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-compare-climate-change-impacts-at-1-5c-and-2c)
“one can argue for an even smaller budget and additional emissions constraints because non-CO2 gases are not included in 1 trillion tonne C figure. For example, short-lived greenhouse gases, such as methane, are not included in – nor necessarily appropriate for – the 1 trillion tonne C budget approach because they play a secondary role in influencing long-term warming.That means that the effect of other greenhouse gasses reduces the overall budget to 79% of the original. The remaining carbon budgets are measured in terms of CO2 so, as a rough estimate they should be reduced by roughly 21%. This now gives…
However, when non-CO2 forcings are taken into account, the budget is reduced and that budget may depend on the scenario studied. For example, according to one scenario studied in the IPCC AR5 (RCP 2.6), when non-CO2 greenhouse gases are considered, the budget drops much lower to 790 PgC.”
Fortunately, the Paris Agreement was drafted with increased ambition in mind and with a clear obligation to marshal our efforts to keep warming within 1.5C.http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/04/25/new-york-signing-marks-a-new-age-in-climate-cooperation/ (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/04/25/new-york-signing-marks-a-new-age-in-climate-cooperation/)
We don’t doubt the challenges to staying within that limit, but the national pledges made before Paris were never meant to be an end point, merely opening bids. The review process will ensure that governments can respond to more complete climate science, and our ever-improving technological capability to reduce emissions cost-effectively.
Of the 50 state bills introduced this year to obstruct the CPP, 56% already have died. Another 34% of those bills are languishing and we expect most of them to expire when state legislatures adjourn. Polluter interests lost ground in West Virginia, whose legislature passed a bill that improves its ability to act on the Clean Power Plan. The Koch brothers did score a recent victory in their home state of Kansas to stop the state’s work on the CPP, but it’s not a huge loss because the state had already suspended the process anyway. Additionally, the wind industry in Kansas still plans to expand generation despite Clean Power Plan setbacks, because the state has incredible wind energy resources.https://www.nrdc.org/experts/aliya-haq/koch-brothers-struggling-block-climate-action-state-legislatures (https://www.nrdc.org/experts/aliya-haq/koch-brothers-struggling-block-climate-action-state-legislatures)
The Clean Power Plan is on a solid legal foundation, and is likely to be upheld. The stay issued by the Supreme Court only hits the pause button on CPP implementation deadlines, and has no bearing on the legal merits of the case. Many governors want to use this extra time wisely to develop the best possible pathway to reduce carbon pollution, so they can hit the ground running when the CPP deadlines are reinstated. Governors generally want to preserve the freedom and flexibility to act in the best interests of their state and these polluter-linked state legislative maneuvers would undermine those best interests. The legislative schemes range from requiring excessive legislative approval for a governor’s plan to EPA, to mandating a work stoppage for CPP planning.
If she’s elected president, Hillary Clinton intends to equip the White House with a situation room just for climate change, inspired by the Map Room where Franklin D. Roosevelt managed World War II, her campaign chairman, former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, said Friday.http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/05/08/hillary-clinton-plans-a-climate-map-room-in-the-white-house-podesta/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/05/08/hillary-clinton-plans-a-climate-map-room-in-the-white-house-podesta/)
Podesta was one of nine veterans of seven previous administrations who spoke Friday at a Stanford University conference on “Setting the Climate Agenda for the Next U.S. President.” He cited a technologically sophisticated Climate Map Room as an example of planning for resilience—the capacity of the country to withstand and adapt to climate-change effects.
When the world’s poor countries demanded action during the failing United Nations–led climate negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009, the US government responded with a promise: It would help raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to assist efforts to cope with climate change in the global south.http://www.vox.com/2016/5/8/11600940/green-climate-fund (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/8/11600940/green-climate-fund)
Out of that commitment has slowly grown a peculiar but potentially important institution known as the Green Climate Fund. The fund has nowhere near $100 billion to spend, but, if all goes according to plan, it will deliver significant aid to impoverished nations that are threatened by a warming planet.
The idea behind the fund is simple: The world’s rich nations, led by the US and Europe, are responsible for most of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change, but the burdens of a warming planet fall most heavily on poor countries. Consequently, the fund takes from the rich and give to the poor — like Robin Hood, but with the legal and political backing of the UN.
The GCF intends to support clean energy, low-carbon cities, low-emission agriculture, forestry and climate adaptation. Tunisian economist Héla Cheikhrouhou, the fund’s first executive director, has said that its goal is nothing less than to help poor countries overcome "the twin threats of climate change and poverty."
What by no means is clear is whether the GCF can achieve those goals — or even how the fund, with its unwieldy governance structure, will answer a series of fundamental questions about how it intends to do business. That’s where things get complicated — and contentious. Should the fund make grants, low-interest loans, market-rate loans or equity investments? Should the money go to governments, businesses or nonprofits? Should the fund support efforts to clean up fossil fuels, in particular capture and sequester carbon dioxide from coal plants?
This paper examines the implications for U.S. fossil fuel production and global CO2 emissions of ceasing to issue new federal leases for fossil fuel extraction and not renewing existing leases for resources that are not yet producing.https://www.sei-international.org/publications?pid=2937 (https://www.sei-international.org/publications?pid=2937)
Avoiding dangerous climate change will require a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. By some estimates, a phase out of global fossil fuel consumption and production – particularly coal and oil – will need to be nearly complete within 50 years. Given the scale of such a transition, nations may need to consider a broad suite of policy approaches that aim not only to reduce fossil fuel demand – the current focus – but also constrain fossil fuel supply growth.
This paper examines the potential emissions implications of a supply-side measure under consideration in the U.S.: ceasing to issue new leases for fossil fuel extraction on federal lands and waters, and avoiding renewals of existing leases for resources that are not yet producing. The analysis finds that under such a policy, U.S. coal production would steadily decline, moving closer to a pathway consistent with a global 2°C temperature limit. Oil and gas extraction would drop as well, but more gradually, as federal lands and waters represent a smaller fraction of national production, and these resources take longer to develop.
Phasing out federal leases for fossil fuel extraction could reduce global CO2 emissions by 100 million tonnes per year by 2030, and by greater amounts thereafter. The emissions impact would be comparable to that of other major climate policies under consideration by the Obama administration. These findings suggest that policy-makers should give greater attention to measures that slow the expansion of fossil fuel supplies
Climate negotiators will have to give substance to important elements of the new global deal on climate change if they want to deliver on their promise to try to keep warming under 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. The meeting in Bonn, Germany is the first opportunity for governments to add content to key elements of the climate agreement since its adoption in Paris last year.http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?267390/What-the-world-needs-now-for-climate-action-Specifics-direction-scale (http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?267390/What-the-world-needs-now-for-climate-action-Specifics-direction-scale)
This first formal meeting after the Paris agreement is where governments must demonstrate they will deliver on the promises made, says Samantha Smith, leader of WWF’s Global Climate and Energy Initiative.
“The Paris Agreement commits countries to their best efforts to keep warming under 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial times. 1.5° Celsius of warming is the line in the sand for many vulnerable countries, communities and ecosystems. To fulfil this commitment countries urgently need to increase their national efforts to cut emissions, particularly through scaling up renewable energy, getting rid of dirty fossil fuels, protecting forests and delivering climate finance,” says Smith.
Current national commitments put us on a path to a global temperature rise of at least 3°Celsius, unless we increase climate action, including, but not limited to, conserving forests and reducing emissions from land use.
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday issued its final rule for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/12/3777605/methane-rule-finalized/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/12/3777605/methane-rule-finalized/)
The rule limits methane emissions from new oil and gas infrastructure and requires operators to submit to semi-annual or quarterly monitoring, depending on the type of operation. In addition, the agency took another step toward drafting a rule that would apply to existing oil and gas operations.
“They will help keep the nation on track to help the us cut emissions from the oil and gas sector,” EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said on a call with reporters Thursday. The new rule will reduce emissions by 11 million tons per year of CO2 equivalent by 2025, she said.
The Obama administration has a goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025. Natural gas is 80 percent methane, while oil extraction processes also often release methane trapped underground. In 2012, 30 percent of the country’s methane emissions came from oil and gas operations.
the EIA is a great source of historical statistics.UnfortunatelyFortunately EIA forecasts are lousy.
the EIA is a great source of historical statistics.UnfortunatelyFortunately EIA forecasts are lousy.
Fixed that for you. ;D
the EIA is a great source of historical statistics.UnfortunatelyFortunately EIA forecasts are lousy.
Fixed that for you. ;D
I do not know that it is a good idea to count your chickens before they hatch ;)
But by delaying the hearing, the court could also speed up the entire litigation process, since it precludes any parties from appealing a ruling to the court’s full panel of judges.http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/280080-climate-rule-case-postponed-3-months (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/280080-climate-rule-case-postponed-3-months)
Climate negotiators from around the world met yesterday for the first time since brokering the Paris climate deal to start filling in some of the gaps left in that landmark agreement.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/negotiators-try-to-figure-out-what-the-paris-climate-agreement-means/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/negotiators-try-to-figure-out-what-the-paris-climate-agreement-means/)
The midyear U.N. meeting in Bonn, Germany, was much lower-profile than the confab on the outskirts of the French capital in December. And the agenda was more mundane.
...
More than 175 countries have endorsed the Paris deal since it opened for signature last month in New York. But its goals rest on more than 60 unmet decisions on issues like emissions reporting, how national and collective progress will be assessed, and other “homework” items Bonn will begin to turn in.
...
Besides working to facilitate early entry into force for the Paris deal—which takes effect when 55 countries totaling at least 55 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions have joined—the presidents called for parties to “respect the balance that was found and to continue working together so as to strengthen action, support and ambition.”
Donald Trump’s statement that he would want to renegotiate the Paris Agreement on climate change if he is elected US president is “meaningless”, one seasoned British climate expert says.http://climatenewsnetwork.net/trump-cannot-derail-global-climate-deal/ (http://climatenewsnetwork.net/trump-cannot-derail-global-climate-deal/)
“Donald Trump doesn’t appear to know much about anything except headlines”, Tom Burke told the Climate News Network. “He knows less than most of the political leaders I’ve dealt with in the last 40 years. This is meaningless posturing.”
...
“This is a vacuous piece of posturing, a message to his potential supporters on the political right”, he said. “If the media interrogated Trump rigorously, people would recognise him as a soap bubble.
“Who would he renegotiate the Agreement with? He can’t renegotiate on his own, and the rest of the world is moving on.”
The G7 nations have for the first time set a deadline for the ending most fossil fuel subsidies, saying government support for coal, oil and gas should end by 2025.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/g7-nations-pledge-to-end-fossil-fuel-subsidies-by-2025 (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/g7-nations-pledge-to-end-fossil-fuel-subsidies-by-2025)
The leaders of the UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the European Union encouraged all countries to join them in eliminating “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” within a decade.
There is another alternative — which I’ll call Plan A — that would avoid the considerable litigation risks of the Clean Power Plan and achieve more quickly and with greater certainty a reduction in emissions at least equal to those of the Clean Power initiative. Under Plan A, the federal government would buy or, if necessary, seize under eminent domain all existing U.S. coal plants and close them over 10 years. Such a use of federal authority is well-established and would not be subject to serious legal challenge. (Plant owners could dispute the amount of compensation offered but not the public purpose of federal action intended to protect the environment.) Plan A would include fair, market-based compensation for coal-plant shareholders and generous severance, relocation and job-training programs for employees, who should not be asked to bear the burdens of emissions reductions. Once authorized by Congress, Plan A could be carried out before the legality of the Clean Power Plan was finally adjudicated and long before it could be implemented. Moreover, since Plan A would set a firm deadline for coal plants to close, it would provide a strong incentive for wind, solar and other renewables to replace the lost coal capacity at rates that are already competitive with coal.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-federal-government-should-buy-coal-plants-shut-them-down-and-pay-to-retrain-their-employees/2016/06/03/eb08ebf4-0bdd-11e6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-federal-government-should-buy-coal-plants-shut-them-down-and-pay-to-retrain-their-employees/2016/06/03/eb08ebf4-0bdd-11e6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html)
The New York State Assembly approved the nation's most ambitious climate change bill Wednesday. The vote came hours after a broad coalition of environmental justice, climate activist, conservation and labor groups took to the State Capitol in Albany urging lawmakers to swiftly pass the bill before the legislative session ends on June 16.http://insideclimatenews.org/news/01062016/new-york-climate-change-legislation-zero-emissions-2050 (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/01062016/new-york-climate-change-legislation-zero-emissions-2050)
The legislation requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from major sources to zero by 2050. That would demand a near total decarbonization of its economy, and it would put New York among the world's leaders on forceful climate action. To achieve it, the bill gives the state until 2030 to get at least 50 percent of its electricity from clean energy.
“It’s not policy—ultimately it’s about markets,” says Ethan Zindler, an analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance. He argues that the United States will achieve the target even without Obama’s Clean Power Plan because gas is cheap and is expected to stay that way, because renewables have gotten much cheaper—and will continue to drop in price—and the renewable energy tax credits that Congress just passed are now on the books for the next five years.http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/obama-trump-climate-change-213942 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/obama-trump-climate-change-213942)
India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi hopes to talk about climate-change, a clean-energy partnership, and security and defense cooperation during his short trip to the U.S. He'll also be addressing a joint meeting of Congress on Wednesday.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/06/modis-visit-to-washington-could-set-a-new-tone-on-fighting-global-climate-change/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/06/modis-visit-to-washington-could-set-a-new-tone-on-fighting-global-climate-change/)
[June 7], the White House announced a series of joint initiatives between the United States and India to advance clean energy in the world’s second-most populous country.https://nexusmedianews.com/u-s-working-with-india-on-mammoth-nuclear-power-plant-a478e8bd32be
- A $20 million initiative to attract private-sector investment to bring clean energy to as many as 1 million Indian homes by 2020.
- A $40 million program that will draw up to $1 billion in private sector funding for small-scale renewable energy projects.
- $30 million for research into smart grids and grid storage.
- In September, the United States and India will launch a program focused on off-grid solar energy.
The two countries will establish a clean-energy hub to spur renewable-energy investment in India.
- The United States and India will increase financial assistance for developing countries to limit emissions of hydrofluorocarbons — highly potent greenhouse gasses used in air conditioners and refrigerators.
When the Environmental Protection Agency published a rule to reduce carbon emissions from power plants last year, critics quickly said the plan was too economically costly for businesses and home electricity bills. But now, a new study led by researchers from Harvard University finds that nearly all regions of the U.S. stand to gain economically from a power plant carbon standard like the Clean Power Plan, and do so fairly quickly.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/06/09/3786018/power-plant-carbon-standard-brings-economic-benefits/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/06/09/3786018/power-plant-carbon-standard-brings-economic-benefits/)
Using a scenario that somewhat resembles the Clean Power Plan (CPP) — a policy moderately stringent and highly flexible — researchers calculated net benefits of some $38 billion a year, according to the study published Wednesday in the online journal PLOS ONE.
Brexit would leave the field clear for those on the right who always hated the idea that by intervening in the economy for the public good we should build an energy system that is clean, efficient, decentralised and driven by the needs of households and communities, not overbearing private corporations.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/12/win-climate-struggle-remain-europe-paris-summit (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/12/win-climate-struggle-remain-europe-paris-summit)
The new $20-million U.S.-India Clean Energy Finance (USICEF) initiative will mobilize up to $400 million to provide clean and renewable electricity to up to 1 million households by 2020, the White House said. Another $40-million U.S.-India Catalytic Solar Finance Program will provide financing for small-scale renewable energy investment, "particularly in poorer, rural villages that are not connected to the grid." That initiative is expected to catalyze up to $1 billion worth of projects. Both financing projects will be equally supported by the two countries.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/06/07/3785461/modi-obama-new-climate-announcements/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/06/07/3785461/modi-obama-new-climate-announcements/)
“It is incumbent on me to underline that this proposal from parliament is really about carbon offsets,” Helgesen told the Guardian. “It is not about national emissions reductions beyond what we will contribute, through the EU process.”https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/15/norway-pledges-to-become-climate-neutral-by-2030 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/15/norway-pledges-to-become-climate-neutral-by-2030)
France on Wednesday became the second European country to ratify, after Hungary, and the first the Group of Seven advanced economies. The ratification was formally authorized by the French parliament last week.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_FRANCE_CLIMATE_AGREEMENT (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_FRANCE_CLIMATE_AGREEMENT)
...
China, the world's top carbon emitter, said it intends to ratify the agreement before the G-20 summit in China in September. The United States, the second-largest emitter, also announced its intention to ratify this year.
British people backing a leave vote in the EU referendum are almost twice as likely to believe that climate change does not have a human cause, according to a new poll.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/16/brexit-voters-almost-twice-as-likely-to-disbelieve-in-manmade-climate-change (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/16/brexit-voters-almost-twice-as-likely-to-disbelieve-in-manmade-climate-change)
Postscript 28 April 2016
Updates for the remaining carbon budgets
More than a year has passed since Carbon Brief’s calculation in November 2014. So reducing the carbon budgets by emissions since then (7 tonnes CO2) gives
The remaining carbon budget for a 66% chance of avoiding 1.5˚C is now… 26 tonnes CO2 per person.This requires a yearly rate of decarbonisation of 15%
The remaining carbon budget for a 66% chance of avoiding 2.0˚C is now… 108 tonnes CO2 per person.This requires a yearly rate of decarbonisation of 4%
(The following needs checking….)
However, these budgets are too high because this only accounts for the effects of CO2 and do not take account of other greenhouse gasses. The World Resources Institute says:
“one can argue for an even smaller budget and additional emissions constraints because non-CO2 gases are not included in 1 trillion tonne C figure. For example, short-lived greenhouse gases, such as methane, are not included in – nor necessarily appropriate for – the 1 trillion tonne C budget approach because they play a secondary role in influencing long-term warming.
However, when non-CO2 forcings are taken into account, the budget is reduced and that budget may depend on the scenario studied. For example, according to one scenario studied in the IPCC AR5 (RCP 2.6), when non-CO2 greenhouse gases are considered, the budget drops much lower to 790 PgC.”
That means that the effect of other greenhouse gasses reduces the overall budget to 79% of the original. The remaining carbon budgets are measured in terms of CO2 so, as a rough estimate they should be reduced by 21%. This now gives
The remaining carbon budget for a 66% chance of avoiding 1.5˚C becomes … 21 tonnes CO2 per person.This requires a yearly rate of decarbonisation of 24%
The remaining carbon budget for a 66% chance of avoiding 2.0˚C becomes… 85 tonnes CO2 per person.This requires a yearly rate of decarbonisation of 5%
But there are reasons these may be too optimistic.
Sigmetnow
Is the European Environment Agency data cause for much optimism? The graph in that linked Climate Home article shows that carbon emissions have fallen at a rate of less than 1% a year over recent 24 years.
After updating IPCC's remaining carbon budget, I have calculated the rates at which carbon emissions must fall to make these budgets last until the second half of the century. The calculation is in Is Green Growth a fantasy? (http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/is-green-growth-a-fantasy/)
(The remaining carbon budgets are the IPCC figures divided by the number of people in the world.)QuotePostscript 28 April 2016
Updates for the remaining carbon budgets
More than a year has passed since Carbon Brief’s calculation in November 2014. So reducing the carbon budgets by emissions since then (7 tonnes CO2) gives
The remaining carbon budget for a 66% chance of avoiding 1.5˚C is now… 26 tonnes CO2 per person.This requires a yearly rate of decarbonisation of 15%
The remaining carbon budget for a 66% chance of avoiding 2.0˚C is now… 108 tonnes CO2 per person.This requires a yearly rate of decarbonisation of 4%
(The following needs checking….)
However, these budgets are too high because this only accounts for the effects of CO2 and do not take account of other greenhouse gasses. The World Resources Institute says:
“one can argue for an even smaller budget and additional emissions constraints because non-CO2 gases are not included in 1 trillion tonne C figure. For example, short-lived greenhouse gases, such as methane, are not included in – nor necessarily appropriate for – the 1 trillion tonne C budget approach because they play a secondary role in influencing long-term warming.
<snip>
Is decreasing carbon emissions by even 4% without cutting world GDP possible?
P.S. I'd be pleased with any corrections.
decreasing CO2 by mass death while GDP increases is merely a matter of accounting.
Sigmetnow
Is the European Environment Agency data cause for much optimism? The graph in that linked Climate Home article shows that carbon emissions have fallen at a rate of less than 1% a year over recent 24 years.
<snip>
Does anyone know of any "sustainable developments" (for us in the rich world) that come anywhere near to being really sustainable?No.
Cities in six continents joined up to form the world's largest alliance to combat climate change on Wednesday, a move intended to help make ground-level changes to slow global warming.http://news.trust.org/item/20160622214525-g21ao/ (http://news.trust.org/item/20160622214525-g21ao/)
More than 7,100 cities in 119 countries formed the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, a network for helping exchange information on such goals as developing clean energy, organizers said.
Cities are responsible for an estimated 75 percent of carbon emissions contributing to climate change and consume 70 percent of global energy, according to the United Nations Environment Programme.
"When mayors share a vision of a low-carbon future and roll up their sleeves, things get done," said Maros Sefcovic, the European Commission vice-president and co-chairman of the new alliance, in a statement.
The coalition is the world's largest, representing 8 percent of the world's population, its founders said. It results from the merger of two groups - the European Union's Covenant of Mayors and the U.N.-backed Compact of Mayors.
The other co-chairman is former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire philanthropist who helped launch the Compact of Mayors.
Britain's surprising vote to leave the European Union in a national referendum on Thursday sent a shock through global financial markets, and there is similar concern that the move will have profound implications for climate policy as well.http://insideclimatenews.org/news/24062016/brexit-sparks-worry-about-fate-global-climate-action-britain-european-union (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/24062016/brexit-sparks-worry-about-fate-global-climate-action-britain-european-union)
Clean energy investments, carbon markets and the Paris climate agreement weren't a major part of the calculus when Britons went to the polls, but now environmentalists fear Britain's contribution to global climate action may be compromised, with negative ramifications for global warming.
LONDON — The United Kingdom's decision to sever itself from the European Union on Friday exposed something approaching an intergenerational war of ideas.http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/britain-s-brexit-how-baby-boomers-defeated-millennials-historic-vote-n598481 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/britain-s-brexit-how-baby-boomers-defeated-millennials-historic-vote-n598481)
While the "Leave" campaign won the referendum with 51.9 percent of the vote, young people — the ones who will likely grapple with the decision for decades — overwhelmingly wanted to remain part of the EU.
According to data gathered by the British pollster YouGov on election day, a staggering 75 percent of people aged between 18 and 24 voted for Remain.
But this youthful bloc was outweighed by an even stronger force.
What pushed the country toward Brexit, according to pollsters, was a remarkably high turnout among white, working-class older people — most of whom who voted Leave.
"The young have lost the referendum and the old have won," according to Ben Page, chief executive of Ipsos MORI, another British polling company.
Sixty-one percent of people over the age of 65 voted Leave, according to YouGov's data.
...Our modeling suggests that CPP compliance can be achieved cost effectively by expanding new natural gas and renewable electricity generation to replace higher emitting coal generation and by using energy efficiency to curb demand growth, thereby enabling a more affordable pace of plant replacements. Post-2030 policies requiring further CO2 emission reductions, in combination with perfect foresight today, would motivate less natural gas build-out over the next 15 years. The South’s response to the CPP is distinct, with a larger share of coal retirements and a greater proportionate uptake of natural gas, energy efficiency, and renewable resources. In addition to reducing CO2 emissions, these least-cost compliance scenarios would produce substantial collateral benefits including lower electricity bills across all customer classes and significant reductions in local air pollution.http://cepl.gatech.edu/projects/ppce/cpp (http://cepl.gatech.edu/projects/ppce/cpp)
Orr said Figueres' presence in the race would be "healthy" because it would put climate change "front and center" as an issue that candidates for the job would be questioned about and evaluated on. "Until now, it's been virtually absent," he said.http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060039367 (http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060039367)
János Pásztor, Ban's senior adviser on climate change, said it is critical for the next secretary-general to make global warming a top priority.
Sleepy,Sorry Sig, didn't notice your reply while reading here yesterday. Sure, speed is needed but instead they are playing a chicken race with AGW.
One can only hope that talking to other Covenant members will educate Gothenburg on what works, where to find resources, and on the need for speed....
A Canadian government think tank is calling for the country to make a seismic shift away from its economic dependence on oil production or risk being left behind as the world moves rapidly away from fossil fuel use.http://insideclimatenews.org/news/27062016/government-think-tank-pushes-canada-think-beyond-fossil-fuel-dependence-climate-change-tar-sands-oil-sands (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/27062016/government-think-tank-pushes-canada-think-beyond-fossil-fuel-dependence-climate-change-tar-sands-oil-sands)
The draft report, by Policy Horizons Canada, is an unusually frank assessment by a government agency on the uncertain future of fossil fuels, especially considering the large role that oil plays in Canada's economy. The report is titled "Canada in a Changing Energy Global Energy Landscape," and says that Canada should begin to adjust its energy priorities to prepare for the significant changes in the energy landscape expected to occur within the next 10-15 years.
The powerful drivers pushing Canada in this direction are the falling costs of renewable energy, led by wind and solar; the increasing proportion of electricity in global energy use; and the pressures on countries to grow their economies while slashing greenhouse gas emissions and dangerous air pollution.
"In combination, these drivers could lead to renewable-sourced electricity replacing fossil fuels as the dominant form of primary energy used in the global economy for most industrial, commercial and personal activity," the report said.
The authors, citing dozens of scientific papers and articles, said they foresee a near future in which the world's power plants, factories, industries and vehicles are increasingly powered by wind and solar electricity. That may happen much faster than predicted, "significantly disrupting fossil fuel markets." And while Canada "would be relatively well placed to take advantage of an electricity-based industrial ecosystem," the report said, the repercussions on its petroleum assets and economy would be vast.
Silver lining? A Brexit recession will cut carbon emissions.
AbruptSLR.
To save the climate, consumption must fall – production cannot be decarbonised fast enough to keep within remaining carbon budgets. Is a Brexit recession is good for the climate?
See Green growth or degrowth? (http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/green-growth-or-degrowth/)
The U.K. government is poised to adopt this week new targets for reining in fossil-fuel pollution around 2030, a move that could assure investors in clean energy that the nation will leave environmental goals intact despite voting to exit the European Union.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-27/u-k-said-to-prepare-to-adopt-carbon-pollution-target-this-week (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-27/u-k-said-to-prepare-to-adopt-carbon-pollution-target-this-week)
Amber Rudd, who leads the the Department of Energy and Climate Change, is set to endorse a proposal to cut U.K. emissions by 57 percent below 1990 levels by 2032, according to a person with knowledge of the plan who asked not to be named before the official announcement. The government is adopting a recommendation made in November by its adviser, the Committee on Climate Change.
BEIJING — Energy ministers from the world’s major economies have failed to reach agreement on a deadline to phase out hundreds of billions of dollars in government subsidies for fossil fuels — subsidies that campaigners say are helping to propel the globe toward potentially devastating climate change.https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/richest-nations-fail-to-agree-on-deadline-to-phase-out-fossil-fuel-subsidies/2016/07/01/7db563fb-42f0-46c8-bea4-2fcfc0f48c69_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/richest-nations-fail-to-agree-on-deadline-to-phase-out-fossil-fuel-subsidies/2016/07/01/7db563fb-42f0-46c8-bea4-2fcfc0f48c69_story.html)
Ministers from the Group of 20 major economies met in Beijing on Wednesday and Thursday but failed to reach agreement on a deadline, despite Chinese and American efforts and a joint appeal from 200 nongovernmental organizations.
The Group of Seven richest economies last month urged all countries to eliminate “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. At a separate annual meeting in June, the United States and China agreed to push for a firm target date to be set at a summit of G-20 leaders in Hangzhou in September.
Nongovernmental groups are urging a “full and equitable phase-out by all G20 members of all fossil fuel subsidies by 2020, starting with the elimination of all subsidies for fossil fuel exploration and coal production.”
But energy ministers from the G-20 failed to reach agreement on a deadline this week.
WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton, courting young voters and the broader Democratic base, has promised to one-up President Obama on climate change, vowing to produce a third of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, three years faster than Mr. Obama, while spending billions of dollars to transform the energy economy.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-ambitious-climate-change-plan-avoids-carbon-tax.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-ambitious-climate-change-plan-avoids-carbon-tax.html)
A half-billion solar panels will be installed by 2020, she has promised, seven times the number today, and $60 billion will go to states and cities to develop more climate-friendly infrastructure, such as public transportation and energy-efficient buildings. She would put the United States on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050. And, she says, she could achieve all that without new legislation from Congress.
But Mrs. Clinton has avoided mention of the one policy that economists widely see as the most effective way to tackle climate change — and one that would need Congress’s assent: putting a price or tax on carbon dioxide emissions.
“It’s possible, theoretically, to do all this without a price on carbon,” said David Victor, the director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California, San Diego. But, he added, “it’s hard to see how.”
“The problem is,” he said, “she knows the politics of this are toxic.”
Today is my last day in office as @UNFCCC Executive Secretary. Here's my farewell video message! #ParisAgreementhttps://twitter.com/cfigueres/status/750326556824772608
People watched closely when China launched the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) last year. The new multilateral development bank boasted an initial capital of $100 billion, a founding membership of 57 countries (with 24 more waiting to join end of this year), and a mandate to be “lean, clean and green.” After its first annual general meeting and seminars this week, it appears that the AIIB is starting to move in a positive direction.http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/07/new-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank-starts-building-green-future (http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/07/new-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank-starts-building-green-future)
Christiana Figueres: Excited to announce I’m running for #nextSG. christianafigueres.comhttps://twitter.com/cfigueres/status/751055364875968512
In the UK, the new PM, Theresa May, has scrapped the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36788162 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36788162)
"The brief will be folded into an expanded Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy under Greg Clark.
Ed Miliband, the former energy and climate secretary under Labour, called the move "plain stupid".
It comes at a time when campaigners are urging the government to ratify the Paris climate change deal."
The new Defra Secretary Andrea Leadsom has re-iterated that there will be no deviation from long-term carbon targets.
Greg Clark, the man in charge of the expanded department, was a Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate and has written papers on achieving a Low Carbon Economy.
If you really intend climate change to drive an industrial transformation, why not embrace it within a powerful department that's developing the sort of industrial strategy needed to forge a genuine Low Carbon economy?
If you think that Congress is broken and nothing gets done, this story is for you.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/07/14/3798081/the-house-riders-again/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/07/14/3798081/the-house-riders-again/)
The House has finished considering amendments for and is expected to pass a bill that will fund the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and several other related administrative offices. There is virtually zero chance that the bill will ever become law.
The bill, as written by the Republican-led House, prohibits the EPA from implementing the Clean Power Plan or the Waters of the United States rule, two key administration priorities and also helpful ways to keep our air and water at levels that can sustain human life. Even if the Senate version didn’t face a filibuster, President Obama has already said he will veto a bill that doesn’t allow the EPA to do its job.
... it now falls to the 15-member UN security council to chose their favourite in a secret ballot.http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/07/13/figueres-delivers-climate-pitch-to-un-general-assembly/ (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/07/13/figueres-delivers-climate-pitch-to-un-general-assembly/)
The five permanent members – US, China, Russia, UK and France – each have a veto. The general assembly can only accept or reject the person put forward.
.@PEspinosaC all the best on your 1st day as UNFCCC Executive Secretary & we look forward to collaborating on #COP22
https://twitter.com/cop22/status/755069394909327361
The graphic is inspired by Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist and data viz expert, and shows with heartbreaking clarity how quickly we're burning fossil fuels, and what that means for the climate. The 1.5°C mark, you'll remember, was the rallying cry at Paris last December. From the looks of it, we only have about 5 years to get to essentially zero emissions before we lock in that level of change.
The City of Sydney has raised the bar on its renewable energy and climate targets, with the release of a new five-year plan that targets 50 per cent renewable electricity by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050.http://cleantechnica.com/2016/06/30/sydney-australia-targets-50-renewables-2030-net-zero-emissions-2050/ (http://cleantechnica.com/2016/06/30/sydney-australia-targets-50-renewables-2030-net-zero-emissions-2050/)
Released on Tuesday, the Environmental Action 2016–2021 plan builds on the City’s already ambitious long-term program – including a 70 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 – taking into account advances in renewables technology and the global climate commitments made in Paris last December.
India has agreed to work toward joining the Paris Agreement on climate change this year, India and the United States said on Tuesday, giving a jolt of momentum to the international fight to curb global warming.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-usa-climate-idUSKCN0YT22U (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-usa-climate-idUSKCN0YT22U)
...
"We discussed how we can, as quickly as possible, bring the Paris Agreement into force," Obama told reporters. Climate change is a legacy issue for the U.S. president who leaves office in January.
India's potential entrance into the agreement this year would help accelerate its enactment, perhaps years ahead of schedule. India is the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter after China and the United States.
New York officials approved a clean energy standard on Monday that requires half of the state’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030.http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290017-new-york-approves-renewable-energy-standard (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290017-new-york-approves-renewable-energy-standard)
The initiative, passed by the Public Service Commission, also includes a nuclear power incentive under which utilities will pay nearly $1 billion over two years to subsidize three of the state’s nuclear power plants.
The plan’s supporters, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), see the nuclear subsidies as a way to avoid new carbon pollution as the state works toward its goal of using 50 percent renewables like wind and solar.
“We could not possibly replace those nuclear units if they were to shut,” Public Service Commission Chairwoman Audrey Zibelman said at the Monday meeting, according to Reuters.
The plan puts New York on par with California among states with the highest renewable energy mandates.
... RGGI has been more successful, in fact, than it was ever projected to be. In the initial design process, emissions limits were set to roughly “no growth.” That is, participants were hoping to just slightly decrease emissions. They outdid themselves.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/08/02/3803740/rggi-extension-considered/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/08/02/3803740/rggi-extension-considered/)
...
It’s hard to argue with an emissions reduction program that not only works but also works as an economic driver.
The revenue from the quarterly emissions credit auctions goes back into the states’ economies — largely as efficiency programs. For instance, a Maine resident might be able to replace her windows or insulate her attic. Someone in Massachusetts might be able to install a modern, efficiency furnace. These improvements have direct economic benefits — both because someone is paid to make these improvements and because, going forward, they save residents money that can be spent elsewhere.
In Tuesday’s letter, the companies write, “Our support for RGGI is firmly grounded in economic reality.”
One report estimated that RGGI had boosted the region’s economic activity by $1.3 billion.
From 2008 to 2015, RGGI states have seen their economies grow faster than the rest of the country, while decreasing emissions twice as quickly, according to the first of a two-part report from Acadia Center looking at what RGGI has done so far.
Doubling down on its commitment to renewable energy, the Massachusetts Legislature overwhelmingly passed a new energy measure that would create the nation's most ambitious offshore wind energy target.https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02082016/massachusetts-ambitious-clean-energy-bill-jolts-offshore-wind-prospects
The bill, approved in the final hours of the legislative session Sunday night, would require local utilities to get 1,600 megawatts of their combined electricity from wind farms far offshore––roughly equivalent to three average-sized coal-fired power plants. The law requires the utilities to line up contracts for that energy by 2027. They also would have to arrange for even more clean energy from other sources, including hydropower, by 2022. Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, is expected to sign it.
There's about 1,800 megawatts of renewable energy (mostly solar) currently installed in Massachusetts.
The bill would contribute to the state's broader effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050—a target that effectively requires the state to rely almost entirely on renewables for electricity. And it could also have broader implications for the nation's offshore wind industry, which has yet to make its first splash.
OSLO, Aug 5 (Reuters) - A global agreement on climate change looks likely to enter into force this year, a study showed on Friday, making it harder for Republican Donald Trump to pull out if he wins the U.S. presidency.http://news.trust.org/item/20160805121707-1inrx/ (http://news.trust.org/item/20160805121707-1inrx/)
Countries accounting for 54 percent of greenhouse gas emissions have signalled intent to ratify this year, according to the tally of national pledges by the Marshall Islands which is a strong backer of the plan agreed in Paris in December.
That is just a fraction short of the required 55 percent of emissions, and support from at least 55 nations, the Pacific island nation said. The deal formally enters into force 30 days after the twin threshold is crossed.
"What we agreed in Paris at the end of last year will likely now have the force of the law by the end of this year," Marshall Islands President Hilda Heine wrote in a report compiled by her foreign ministry.
European officials are moving to close a loophole that promotes the burning of wood for electricity by an industry that’s felling American trees, and a new report they commissioned has laid bare the urgent need for reform.http://www.climatecentral.org/news/europe-aims-to-close-loophole-on-wood-energy-20591 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/europe-aims-to-close-loophole-on-wood-energy-20591)
European Union climate rules treat woody biomass energy as if it’s as clean as solar or wind energy, despite it releasing more heat-trapping carbon dioxide for every megawatt of electricity produced than coal. Producing wood pellets for fuel can also foster climate-changing deforestation.
An unprecedented federal court ruling this week validated the way the Obama administration measures the social cost of carbon (SCC), a decision that could have wide-ranging impacts on the future of the energy industry and the way the United States addresses environmental justice.http://fusion.net/story/335110/federal-court-elevates-social-cost-of-carbon-over-industry-demands/ (http://fusion.net/story/335110/federal-court-elevates-social-cost-of-carbon-over-industry-demands/)
On Monday, the Chicago-based 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously rejected an industry-backed request to overturn a 2014 Department of Energy (DOE) regulation that set efficiency standards for refrigerators. In doing so, the court decided that the DOE has the authority to use SCC as part of its overall cost-benefit analysis when considering environmental regulations.
...
In rejecting the industry’s arguments against the DOE’s carbon price, Senior Judge Kenneth Ripple, who was appointed by President Reagan, wrote in the opinion that this “is not a close call.”
“We are convinced that DOE’s engineering analysis, including its use of an analytical model, was neither arbitrary nor capricious,” she wrote.
...
“Just last week a former national security adviser to President George W. Bush acknowledged that climate change was creating refugees and terrorists,” said Doniger. “So the damage from ignoring climate change goes well beyond what we normally think of as ‘environmental’ issues; it’s a core national security issue.”