05/12/2016

Five Ways To Take Action On Climate Change

The Guardian - Fatih Birol*

The world’s leaders have promised to take urgent action on climate change. But that was the easy part. Here’s what they need to do next
Many cities, particularly those in Asia, are still powered by antiquated subcritical coal-fired power plants. Photograph: Kevin Frayer/Getty Images
The Paris agreement has been ratified. Only one year after negotiating this historic treaty, it has come into force. This signals that the vast majority of governments around the world remain committed to fighting climate change.
Yet that was the easy part. Actually realising these commitments made at COP21 in Paris will require concerted, concrete action for many years to come. Though the vast majority of countries in the world have clear goals in the form of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), these are not action plans, nor are the NDCs strong enough to actually keep global average temperature from rising more than 2C.
The Paris agreement is a truly global commitment, spanning developed and developing countries around the world. Yet for many developing and least-developed countries, in particular, contributing to the fight against climate change requires taking targeted actions while also prioritising economic development and poverty reduction. Here are five areas in the energy sector that offer such a win-win.

1 Ensure that everyone has access to energy
While energy is the foremost contributor to carbon emissions, access to it is also a critical enabler of human and economic development. At the same time, the billions who lack access have not contributed to climate change. Any concerns that achieving energy access for all would magnify the challenges of energy security or climate change are unfounded: it would only increase global energy demand by 1% in 2030 and CO2 emissions by 0.6%.
The latest estimates show that an estimated 1.2 billion people still do not have access to electricity
The latest figures, recently published in the World Energy Outlook 2016, show that an estimated 1.2 billion people, 16% of the global population, still do not have access to electricity. Access to clean cooking receives far less attention than electrification and in many ways is more difficult to achieve. An estimated 2.7 billion people, or almost 40% of the global population who are concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa and developing Asia, still rely on the traditional use of biomass for cooking.
Despite the urgency of the problem, investment is falling far short of what the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates is needed to achieve universal access by 2030 – around $50bn (£40bn) per year. Dedicated policies to promote access are essential to break the vicious cycle of energy poverty, in which growth in incomes and living standards are severely hindered by a lack of energy services. Technology can also be a major enabler of effective policymaking and improvement on the ground: decentralised renewable energy is providing an increasingly viable way to close the access gap in rural areas, particularly for remote settlements far from the existing grid.

2 Take steps to rapidly reduce air pollution
Around 6.5 million premature deaths worldwide are attributed each year to poor air quality, making this the world’s fourth-largest threat to human health after high blood pressure, dietary risks and smoking.
This is an energy sector problem, as energy production and use, mostly from unregulated, poorly regulated or inefficient fuel combustion, are the most important sources of air pollution from human activity. The harmful effects of energy poverty are felt most heavily in developing countries in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
Confronting the twin challenges of CO2 emissions and air pollution means dispensing with short-term thinking and stop-gap solutions. IEA analysis shows that proven energy policies and technologies can chart a development path that delivers major cuts in air pollution around the world and bring health benefits, universal access to energy and improve sustainability.

3 Make cities energy efficient
Though the Paris agreement is a global accord between countries, much of the hard work will be taken in the cities of the world. Cities dominate energy demand, and by extension are responsible for a significant share of carbon emissions. As IEA’s Energy Technology Perspectives 2016 highlighted, the world’s urban areas accounted for about 64% of global primary energy use and produced 70% of the planet’s CO2 emissions in 2013.
These shares will rise as cities grow and urban economic activity expands. As the world seeks to make more efficient use of its energy resources, increase energy security and meet global climate targets, cities must take a leading role in the energy transition.
Leadership must of course start from the top; policy at the national level must encourage the deployment of clean energy technologies, and include greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, carbon pricing mechanisms, and investment in energy research, development and demonstration. But these targets must then be complemented by action at the local level through efforts including sustainable transportation planning, building codes and improved data collection.

4 Power the economy with cleaner, more efficient technologies
Unfortunately today, many of the megacities of the world, particularly those in Asia, are still powered by antiquated subcritical coal-fired power plants. These can have emissions intensities of around 1,000kg of CO2 per megawatt-hour (that is, the amount of carbon dioxide that is released for each unit of power produced). More modern, highly efficient coal-fired power plants may have an intensity of around 800, yet a natural gas turbine can reach about 350. A coal plant equipped with carbon capture and storage can release less than 150kg of CO2 per megawatt-hour. At the very end of the spectrum, renewable sources like wind and solar have zero emissions. Globally, the average intensity of power generation today is just over 500kg of CO2 per megawatt-hour.
But, to align with the 450 Scenario in the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2016 – a scenario consistent with limiting the global increase in temperature to no more than 2C – the emissions intensity of power generation needs to fall much further and faster, to around 80kg of CO2 per megawatt-hour by 2040.
A path to achieving this is likely to include a combination of a more rapid shift to low-carbon technologies worldwide (especially wind, solar and hydropower), fuel switching (such as from coal to gas), efficiency improvements and in some markets, adoption of carbon capture and storage.

5 Finally, stop incentivising the wasteful use of fossil fuels
This low-carbon transition must take place on a level playing field. Fossil-fuel subsidies distort energy markets, promoting inefficient use of energy and increasing energy-related CO2 emissions. They are a roadblock on the way to a cleaner and more efficient energy future.
They have also consistently dwarfed the amounts allocated by governments to subsidise renewable energy. In 2014, for example, fossil fuel consumption subsidies of almost $500bn (£400bn) were more than three-times higher than renewables subsidies of some $140bn (£112bn). But there has been progress. World Energy Outlook 2016 reports that the value of global fossil-fuel consumption subsidies in 2015 was estimated at $325bn (£260bn), reflecting lower fossil-fuel prices but also a subsidy reform process that has gathered momentum in some countries.
In the case of renewables, rapidly falling costs in recent years have been welcome, but in many cases subsidies are still needed to level the playing field with fossil-fuel alternatives that emit CO2 and other pollutants. But as technology costs continue to come down, and hopefully the environmental impacts of fossil fuel use is better reflected in pricing, more and more new renewable energy projects will be competitive without support.
Achieving universal access to clean, modern energy services while meeting global climate targets is no easy task. But with the right policies, aimed at the right sectors, with the right technologies, the world can soon be on track for a sustainable energy future.

*Fatih Birol is Executive Director, International Energy Agency

Links

Cashing In On Climate Change

New York Times
Jérémie Fischer
You’ve saved your money and amassed a surplus. You’ve read a few books on investing and gleaned the basics — the importance of diversification, of investing for the long term, and of buying and holding rather than trying to beat the market. But you also know that human-caused climate change will (if it hasn’t already) start eroding economic output. Extreme weather, droughts and crop failures could mean mass migration and political instability. As Henry Paulson, the former Treasury secretary, recently put it, the “greenhouse-gas crisis” won’t burst like the housing bubble of 2008 because “climate change is more subtle and cruel.”
What’s a climate-aware investor to do?
Individuals aren’t the only ones contemplating this question. Sixty-nine percent of Fortune 500 companies reported more demand for “low carbon” products this year, according to the nonprofit Carbon Disclosure Project. And some of the country’s largest pension funds, including the California State Teachers’ Retirement System and New York State’s retirement fund, have begun tilting away from fossil fuels.
This approach has been called “socially responsible investing.” But these days, money managers aren’t doing it only because they think it’s morally correct; they also worry that, over the long term, fossil fuels are a losing bet.
Some experts told me that the historic accord on limiting greenhouse-gas emissions reached in Paris last year was a turning point in how investors think about climate change. The United States and China, the world’s two largest emitters, ratified it in September. It’s now unclear what will happen to the agreement; President-elect Donald J. Trump has said he wants to pull the United States out of it.
But it’s worth noting that business interests — and Mr. Trump sells himself as a consummate businessman — were integral to making the Paris deal happen in the first place. They realize that “environmental stability is absolutely at the base of financial stability,” Christiana Figueres, the diplomat who organized the conference, told me. Extreme weather, like the 2011 monsoon floods that ravaged parts of South Asia where electronic components that go into hard disks and cars are built, have driven that lesson home.
Something more hopeful is happening as well. Renewable energy prices have dropped, and are nearly competitive with fossil fuels. China aims to build enough charging stations to power five million electric cars by 2020. What will happen, Ms. Figueres asked, if China phases out the combustion engine altogether? “You can begin to see the signals,” she said. “The tide is beginning to change.”
Advances in battery technology are part of this change. The wind doesn’t blow all the time, nor does the sun shine all day. Energy produced intermittently needs to be stored. A lack of easy storage options has been an obstacle to renewables. But battery costs have declined by more than 70 percent since 2008. Mark Fulton, a founding partner of Energy Transition Advisors, says that what’s about to happen with the battery and renewables is an old-fashioned technological disruption story, akin to the advent of the internet. From an investor’s standpoint, this kind of disruption could mean losing your shirt or, if you plan properly, handsome returns.
One of the myths around socially responsible investing is that aligning investments with ethics means lower returns. But that’s not the case. George Serafeim, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, and his colleagues analyzed data going back over 20 years. Companies that were committed to sustainability outperformed companies that weren’t, they found. A dollar invested in sustainability-minded companies in 1993 would have grown to $22.58 by 2014, but just $15.35 if invested in companies with no such commitments. Why might this emphasis increase profits? These firms may also be more likely to invest in human capital and be better run overall.
So what can an individual investor do? You might follow the Rockefeller Family Fund and divest from the fossil fuel companies entirely. The research firm MSCI offers fossil-free stock indexes — like the S.&P. 500 but without fossil fuel companies — as does a newer organization called Fossil Free Indexes. Various climate-aware mutual funds exist.
But even if you divest, says Jean Rogers, chief executive of the nonprofit Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, there’s no escaping the ripple effects of climate change. “Because it’s so ubiquitous, it’s very hard to diversify away from climate risk,” she told me.
Another approach is a kind of divestment lite. Asha Mehta, director of responsible investing at Acadian Asset Management, told me that her clients increasingly request a “decarbonization” of their portfolios. Worried that complete divestment might hobble a portfolio’s performance, however, Ms. Mehta might reduce a portfolio’s carbon footprint to, say, 80 percent of a benchmark like the S.&P. 500 by removing the biggest emitters.
A firm called Osmosis Investment Management takes a different tack. It researches the overall efficiency of companies — how many resources a firm uses to create how much product. And instead of excluding certain industries entirely, Osmosis chooses only the most efficient within a given sector. It caters to institutional investors, but plans to release a fund for individuals soon.
You can, of course, try to do what Osmosis does on your own; the Carbon Disclosure Project has a trove of information on how companies fare on the sustainability front. But here’s the problem. More than 5,600 corporations disclose sustainability information, but no standards govern these disclosures. The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board and others are working to devise such standards. Pressure is also mounting on the Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce the disclosure of sustainability information. The commission recently asked for feedback on reforming the disclosure process, and a good chunk of letters mentioned sustainability and climate change.
Under a Trump administration, it seems less likely that the S.E.C. will respond to these concerns. But that may have a paradoxical effect: If investors can’t count on regulators to enforce transparency on sustainability, says Sonia Kowal, the president of Zevin Asset Management, they may take matters into their own hands.
So if you’re concerned about how climate issues might damage your nest egg, you might begin by raising your voice. Ask your fund managers about their plans. And look at how the funds you own vote on sustainability-related issues, such as whether to calculate and disclose a company’s greenhouse gas emissions, or whether to develop a risk-assessment plan for climate change.
Some of the largest asset managers consistently vote against such resolutions. In so doing, critics argue that they work against their customers’ interests. An organization called Fund Votes tracks how mutual funds vote, and the nonprofit Ceres keeps a list of what happens with climate-related resolutions. The broader point is that climate-proofing your portfolio may require homework and some rabble-rousing.
Does that make you an activist? “The word I prefer is ‘investor advocate,’ ” Jackie Cook, who operates Fund Votes, told me. “You’re advocating for your own investments.”
For many, the perceived gap between socially responsible investing and good business has narrowed almost to the point of convergence. And maybe that shouldn’t be a surprise. A Citi report from last year put the costs of climate change, without mitigation, at $44 trillion by 2060. Many analysts have pointed out that a yearslong drought preceded the conflict in Syria — an example of how shifting climate can encourage political instability that ripples around the world. And this year, a report from the World Economic Forum said that the No. 1 global risk in the next 10 years was water crises. Nos. 2 and 3 were climate adaptation failure and extreme weather.
The economy can be only as healthy as the planet that houses it. Pushing for transparency on sustainability issues, and asking money managers to consider climate change, is really the purest form of self-interest.

Links

Climate Change Escalating So Fast It Is 'Beyond Point Of No Return'

The IndependentPeter Walker

New study rewrites two decades of research and author says we are 'beyond point of no return'
The San Fernando Valley Generating Station in Sun Valley, California Getty Images
Global warming is beyond the “point of no return”, according to the lead scientist behind a ground-breaking climate change study.
The full impact of climate change has been underestimated because scientists haven't taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment.
Dr Thomas Crowther’s report has concluded that carbon emitted from soil was speeding up global warming.
The findings, which say temperatures will increase by 1C by 2050, are already being adopted by the United Nations.
Dr Thomas Crowther explaining the study NIOO KNAW
Dr  Crowther, speaking to The Independent, branded Donald Trump’s sceptical stance on climate change as “catastrophic for humanity”.
“It’s fair to say we have passed the point of no return on global warming and we can’t reverse the effects, but certainly we can dampen them,” said the biodiversity expert.
“Climate change may be considerably more rapid than we thought it was.”
Visitors witness a huge chunk falling from Monaco Glacier, Spitsbergen, Norway in Jul 2013 REX/Paul Goldstein/Exodus
SHOW ALL
The report, by an exhaustive list of researchers and published in the Nature journal, assembled data from 49 field experiments over the last 20 years in North America, Europe and Asia.
It found that the majority of the Earth’s terrestrial store of carbon was in soil, and that as the atmosphere warms up, increasing amounts are emitted in what is a vicious cycle of “positive feedbacks”.
The study found that 55bn tonnes in carbon, not previously accounted for by scientists, will be emitted into the atmosphere by 2050.
“As the climate warms, those organisms become more active and the more active they become, the more the soil respires – exactly the same as human beings," said Dr Crowther, who headed up the study at Yale Climate & Energy Institute, but is now a Marie Curie fellow at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology.
“Our study shows that this major feedback has already certainly started, and it will have a significant impact on the climate in the coming decades. This information will be critical as we strive to understand how the climate is going to change in the future. And it will also be critical if we are to generate meaningful strategies to fight against it.”
Dr Crowther, a 30-year-old Cardiff University Phd graduate originally from North Wales, predicts climate change will lead to widespread migrations and antagonism among communities.
“These effects of climate change will certainly be felt disproportionately by poorer people, particularly the billions of people whose livelihoods are intrinsically linked to the land,” he added.
“But the impacts on sea-level rise, ocean currents and the health of natural ecosystems are equally devastating for a vast multitude of reasons.”
During his presidential campaign, Mr Trump described climate change as a “total hoax” and said it was a concept created by the Chinese to manipulate US markets.
The billionaire tycoon also tweeted in 2014: “It’s late in July and it is really cold outside in New York. Where the hell is GLOBAL WARMING???”
White House chief of staff Reince Preibus has since said the 70-year-old will “have an open mind” but Mr Trump’s threat to pull out of the 2015 Paris climate deal still lingers.
The increasingly popular right-wing Breitbart News website's reporting has repeatedly poured scorn on climate change theories.
“I think this is catastrophic for humanity,” said Dr Crowther.
“Uncertainty is nothing like a reason enough to suggest climate change isn’t happening. There’s a nice analogy; if you step in front of an oncoming bus, no doctor in the world can tell you how damaging the impact is going to be.
“But we do know the damage is going to be huge. This alone should be enough information to persuade us to avoid the bus.”

Climate change: It's "game over" for planet earth

IMAGE



What's the effect of global warming on our seasons?

The last two decades of the 20th century were the hottest in 400 years.
He added: “Sceptics often say that scientists are just saying that climate change is real so that they can keep their jobs.
“I would just like to stress that I could get a hell of a lot more money than academia offers me if I were to do a study that suggests that climate change is not real."
Prof Ivan Janssens, seen as one of the godfathers in the global change ecology field, said the research had provided essential data to the climate change model.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the UN and World Meteorological Organisation, is incorporating the study's data.

How soil carbon loss could accelerate global warming

“This study is very important, because the response of soil carbon stocks to the ongoing warming, is one of the largest sources of uncertainty in our climate models,” said Prof Janssens, of the University of Antwerp.
“I’m an optimist and still believe that it is not too late, but we urgently need to develop a global economy driven by sustainable energy sources and start using CO2, as a substrate, instead of a waste product.
“If this happens by 2050, then we can avoid warming above 2C. If not, we will reach a point of no return and will probably exceed 5C.”

Links