25/11/2016

We Can Limit Global Warming To 1.5°C If We Do These Things In The Next Ten Years

The Conversation | 

The shipping industry must clean up its act. Darrin Zammit Lupi/Reuters
After the climate talks in Marrakech, our climate mission remains the same as what was set out in the 2015 Paris Agreeement: to eliminate all carbon dioxide emissions by the middle of this century.
While the long-term focus is on 2050 or 2100, what matters now is the next ten years. If we miss bending the rising emissions curve downward by around 2020, we may well miss the chance to avoid the worst climate damage.
Climate Action Tracker Author provided
We  looked at all the major emitting sectors and the most recent scientific analyses of what can be done – and how fast – to come up with a list of the most important things to do in the next five to ten years to bend the emissions curve downwards.
Here’s the good news: for all areas, we show signs that a transition of this magnitude is possible. In many cases, it’s already happening.

Phasing out coal
The scientific literature shows that decarbonising the electric power sector is the most important, fastest and cheapest step, reinforced by rapid reductions in the price of renewable technologies such as wind and solar power.
The most important thing to know about the feasibility of reducing CO2 emissions from the power sector to zero by 2050 is this: if we continue the growth rate of wind and solar we’ve seen in the past few years for the next decade globally, we will be well on the way to achieving this goal.
That means we will need to phase out coal. We need to reduce emissions from existing power stations – but that is already happening – and we will need to cancel any new coal capacity in the world.
We know that renewables, energy efficiency and, in a number of cases, natural gas, can meet foreseen power needs, while lifting millions of people out of poverty. Reducing coal emissions from power will have substantial benefits for human health: more than half the pollutants that cause damage to human lives, ecosystems and agriculture comes from fossil fuels.
A number of governments have already committed to doing this: we’ve seen China’s emissions peak in 2013 and continue to drop. The UK has promised to phase out coal by 2025; and we’ve seen regions in other countries, such South Australia, close their last coal plants.

The UK plans to phase out coal by 2025. Phil Noble/Reuters
All this takes is political will and effort, and a just transition for workers that enables communities to move from coal to alternative means of employment and energy production.

Electric cars
We also need to electrify the transport system, starting with cars.
In the early 1900s, Henry Ford took cars into mass production. A century later, we’re on the brink of the next major transition towards electric vehicles, pioneered by manufacturers such as Elon Musk’s Tesla and making a major contribution to reducing emissions from transport.
Just before the Marrakech climate talks, China, which has the world’s biggest and fastest growing market in quantitative terms, announced it would introduce quotas for electric vehicles. This was a shock for German and other European car manufacturers, who anticipated their future as being based on old fossil fuel technologies.
One can only hope that these manufacturers will now rush into electric mobility. We calculate that the last fossil fuel car has to be sold before 2035 to be in line with holding warming to 1.5°C.
Electric cars must become standard in the next decade. Phil Noble/Reuters 
Aviation and shipping remain of great concern, and we find efforts by the industry, including technology standards and emissions offset schemes for any extra emissions after 2020, don’t have the teeth to really make a difference in this sector. There’s also a risk that these measures could obscure the need for much deeper and further-reaching changes.

Zero energy building
Another huge sector is buildings. It’s very important that new buildings move towards near-zero energy by 2020. New buildings can be built in a way that produces net zero energy. The upfront investments are recovered by the zero energy costs during operation.
Given the rapid growth of infrastructure in much of the Global South, as well as ongoing replacement of old buildings in the developed world, efforts toward ensuring zero-energy buildings become the global standard for new construction need to be accelerated. This will already be the case in the EU from 2020.
Of course, we still need to do a lot with existing buildings, one of the most difficult areas for governments to tackle. We know that clean energy renovation is highly beneficial not only to occupants and the environment but also to the economy. Renovation rates need to be at least tripled. These measures need to move beyond being voluntary and underfunded to being backed by regulation and proper financial support.

Forests and agriculture
Deforestation remains a serious issue in many countries, causing large-scale air pollution, loss of biodiversity, and affecting the livelihoods of local people. We know however, that reducing emissions to 95% below recent levels by 2030 will have large sustainable development benefits.
The other areas we have to look at are the industrial sector and agriculture, but again, we find there are solutions and steps that these sectors can take. The industrial sector needs to move to state-of-the-art low-carbon technologies for all new plants as of 2020 and agriculture needs to apply current best practices.
www.climateactiontracker.org Climate Analytics, Author provided
Removing carbon from the atmosphere
There has been so little climate action since the world first started talking about emission reductions in 1992, when the UN climate convention was adopted, that we have nearly used up the carbon budget available to limit warming to 1.5°C.
As a consequence, technology that removes CO2 from the atmosphere will need to be deployed 30 years from now, to hold warming below 2°C, let alone limit warming to 1.5°C.
It’s important to realise that even if we reduce emissions to zero ten years before the most advanced models indicate (around 2035), we will still need to deploy negative emission technologies at scale.
That means that if we are successful and throw everything at the problem, plus the proverbial kitchen sink, we still need to be preparing to deploy negative emissions technologies from the 2040s onward. About the only good news from this is that we have time to research this, test it and work out the most sustainable way of doing it.
Phasing out greenhouse gas emissions entirely by mid-century is possible, and promising trends are emerging. But the next five to ten years will be the real test of whether we can make that happen.

Links

Threat To NASA Climate Role A 'Disaster' For Global Warming Action: Researchers

Fairfax -

A threat by the incoming Trump administration to the climate research of US space agency NASA would be disastrous for global efforts to monitor and counter global warming, Australian researchers said.
NASA's earth science division would be stripped of funds, with the money diverted to deep space exploration, the Guardian reported on Tuesday, citing comments by Bob Walker, a senior advisor to president-elect Donald Trump.


Greenhouse gases: not just a bunch of hot air
From tracing the exact source of CO2 in our atmosphere to measuring the earth's "carbon budget," the scientists studying climate change know a lot more about the greenhouse effect than you might think.

"I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicised, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing," Mr Walker was quoted as saying. "Mr Trump's decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicised science."
The election two weeks ago of the Republican candidate to replace Democrat Barack Obama next January for a four-year term sent shockwaves through the global climate research community. Mr Trump has said climate change was a hoax "created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive".
As Fairfax Media reported, Australian scientists are keenly aware that much of the climate monitoring and models they rely on are sourced from US agencies including NASA.
Matthew England, a professor of oceanography and climate dynamics at the University of NSW, said NASA was "one of the iconic climate science centres in the US".
"Cutting NASA out of earth observation would be disastrous," Professor England said. "We need the observations that this lab underpins."
Professor England, though, said Mr Trump was sending mixed signals on his intentions. During a meeting with New York Times journalists on Monday, the President-Elect declined to repeat his campaign promise to abandon the international climate accord reached last year in Paris, saying, "I'm looking at it very closely."
NASA supplies key data for Australia's climate research - and many other countries' efforts. Photo: BOM
Mr Trump told the Times "I have an open mind to it" and that clean air and "crystal clear water" were vitally important, the paper reported.
While those comments were welcomed, Professor England noted many of Mr Trump's appointments so far bore "almost a hatred of our field of research".
"They are people who don't have an open-mind," he said, adding that many of them had close ties to the fossil-fuel industry – one that Mr Trump had pledged to help.

'Whole world'
Roger Jones, a former CSIRO scientist now at Victoria University, said "the whole world" uses processes developed by NASA such as the satellite observation system MODIS.
"In Australia [the data] is used to monitor floods and drought on an on-going basis," Dr Jones said. "It's used to ground-truth our understanding of soil moisture and production systems."
"This is an area where global-scale earth system science is seen as an aspect of 'globalisation' and thus suspect," he said. "The UN agenda is to use science funded by the people of America against the interests of everyday Americans – this is what they see as happening now."
Malte Meinshausen, director of the Climate & Energy College at Melbourne University, said there were few other agencies that could shoulder similarly advanced satellite projects.
"While deep space exploration enables us to have big dreams, understanding planet earth enables us to live better lives and actually save lives," Professor Meinshausen said.
The NASA Aqua satellite "now delivers unprecedented detail about the water cycle, and the patterns of carbon-dioxide concentrations", he said. "Those satellites are what the X-ray instrument is in any hospital - vital to our understanding where the patient planet earth is sick and what the root causes are."
Ceding America's technological edge could see US farmers, among others, lose out. Photo fluorescent measurements, for instance, involve NASA scientists working with a Japanese satellite to offer advanced detection of crop disease and droughts, he said.

'Shockingly stupid'
Mr Walker's comments have added to international anxiety over the future of US climate research.
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said end NASA´s Earth observatory mission was "would seriously impair our ability to see the big planetary picture".
"Unfortunately, these plans echo the weakening of climate science capacities at CSIRO by the Australian government," Professor Schellnhuber said, referring to efforts by CSIRO management earlier this year to slash climate modelling and monitoring.
"The scientific community has to stand together now [to avert] the Trump attacks," he said. "Otherwise, not only America would go myopic and risk lagging behind the scientific state of the art, but today´s and future generations would suffer direly from the consequences."
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said stripping NASA of its climate role "would be a shockingly stupid move that would deal a very severe blow to global research on environmental change across the world".
"Stopping all funding would, for instance, mean abandoning satellites that monitor the earth's surface and would be an enormous waste of billions of dollars of scientific research," Mr Ward said. "It would also trigger the departure of many world-class scientists that would have catastrophic consequences for the competitiveness of universities and businesses in the United States."
Stefan Rahmstorf, head of Earth System Analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, took aim at Mr Walker's comment that NASA science was "politicised science": "That is preposterous and probably just means that he does not like the results."
"We're in the midst of rapid global warming and many associated changes to Arctic and Antarctic ice cover, sea level, extreme weather events, droughts and wildfires, to name just a few," Professor Rahmstorf said. "NASA's observations of planet Earth from space and NASA's ability to analyse and understand the changes is of critical importance to  America and the world."
"Hampering this capability would be like trying to navigate blind-folded into treacherous waters."

Links

A Portrait of a Man Who Knows Nothing About Climate Change

New York Magazine

Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
In  his interview with the New York Times, Donald Trump expressed more flexibility on climate change, which he has previously called a hoax created by China. That is the good news. The bad news is that Trump’s lack of commitment to the cause of climate-science denial is rooted in a comprehensive failure to grasp the issue. The few snippets of concrete factual information he has to ground his beliefs are mostly false. His New York Times interview forced the president-elect to grapple with the issue in more depth than he did at any time during the campaign (the three debates had no questions on this issue, and climate-change policy in general received vanishingly little attention from the media). The portrait that comes out of the interview is one of almost complete ignorance.
Trump began by promising “an open mind.” Then he began to defend his denialist position:
You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.
The hottest single day on record is not relevant to a problem centered on increased average temperatures. The reality is that the Earth has seen a long-term rise in surface temperature:
Photo: NASA
That data comes via NASA. (In related news, Trump’s lead adviser on NASA, Bob Walker, today advocates zeroing-out all climate-related research at the agency, which he calls “politically correct environmental monitoring.”)
Trump then cited the authority of his late uncle:
My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know.
John G. Trump was a physicist and engineer, not a climate scientist. And he died in 1985, a time when the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming was far less solid than it is today.
Trump then moved on to hacked emails among climate scientists:
I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. 
He is referring here to a popular right-wing conspiracy that claimed that scientists were conspiring to falsify climate data to support their theory. This claim has been debunked.
Trump then begins rambling about other environmental issues:
I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.
And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true.
What any of these disconnected sentiments have to do with his beliefs about greenhouse-gas emissions is difficult to tell. He seems to want to assert his authority as a good guy for the environment without connecting this element of his self-image to his policy agenda for the U.S. government.
Sensing the drift, the Times tries to refocus Trump on the question of whether he accepts the scientific connection between greenhouse-gas emissions and rising global temperatures. Trump replies:
I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.
There are two revealing things about this snippet. First, Trump concedes that there is “some” connection between the atmospheric concentration of heat-trapping gasses and higher temperatures, but will not say how much, or whether this has any bearing on policy. Instead he moves directly to the cost to American companies, saying the answer to the scientific relationship depends on the cost to American companies. Of course, one could make a coherent argument that climate change is real, but any particular policy response fails the cost-benefit test. Indeed, many conservatives embarrassed by having to defend anti-scientific conspiracy theories have urged Republicans to shift their line of defense in just this way. But Trump is giving the game away by explicitly linking the two arguments.
Later in the interview, Trump is asked about using his meeting with Nigel Farage, in which Trump lobbied against an offshore wind farm that he believed would mar the vistas at a Trump-owned golf course. Trump defending this blatant display of self-interest as a consistent application of his overarching hatred for wind energy:
I mean, the wind is a very deceiving thing. First of all, we don’t make the windmills in the United States. They’re made in Germany and Japan.
This is wrong. American wind-turbine manufacturers and their supply-chain have a large domestic presence:
Trump then begins to ramble again:
They’re made out of massive amounts of steel, which goes into the atmosphere, whether it’s in our country or not, it goes into the atmosphere. The windmills kill birds and the windmills need massive subsidies. In other words, we’re subsidizing wind mills all over this country. I mean, for the most part they don’t work. I don’t think they work at all without subsidy, and that bothers me, and they kill all the birds. You go to a windmill, you know in California they have the, what is it? The golden eagle? And they’re like, if you shoot a golden eagle, they go to jail for five years and yet they kill them by, they actually have to get permits that they’re only allowed to kill 30 or something in one year. The windmills are devastating to the bird population, O.K. With that being said, there’s a place for them. But they do need subsidy. So, if I talk negatively. I’ve been saying the same thing for years about you know, the wind industry. I wouldn’t want to subsidize it. Some environmentalists agree with me very much because of all of the things I just said, including the birds, and some don’t.
Yes, the birds. Some birds do die via wind turbine, and it is very sad for them. On the other hand, unchecked climate change will create mass species extinction. Even if Trump somehow cares more about animals than effects on human life, opposing an important component of the response to climate change on animal-loving grounds is bizarre.

Links