07/12/2019

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Will Hit Yet Another Record High This Year, Experts Project

Washington PostChris Mooney | Brady Dennis 

“We’re blowing through our carbon budget the way an addict blows through cash,” said one author

The trend marks three straight years of rising emissions, and suggests the world is continually failing to live up to its climate ambitions. (Luis Velarde/The Washington Post)

The world has lost another year in the quest to finally start reducing its carbon emissions, which scientists say is crucial to avoid the steadily worsening impacts of climate change.
Instead of beginning a long-awaited decline, global greenhouse gas emissions are projected to grow slightly during 2019, reaching another record high, according to a new analysis published Tuesday. Total carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry totaled 36.8 billion tons, according to an estimate from the Global Carbon Project, an academic consortium that produces the figures annually. That represents a 0.6 percent increase from 2018, which until now stood as the record.
“We’re blowing through our carbon budget the way an addict blows through cash,” Rob Jackson, a professor of Earth science at Stanford University and chair of the Global Carbon Project, said in an interview. “It’s troubling, because carbon dioxide pollution is higher than it’s ever been.”
Global emissions have risen for three consecutive years, at a time when they should be starting to drop sharply if the world is to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement.
The news of still-growing greenhouse gas emissions is the latest in a drumbeat of negative findings that come as world leaders gather in Madrid for an annual climate change conference, where they face mounting pressure to alter the current trajectory.
Last week, a bleak report from the U.N. Environment Program detailed how off-target the world remains in its collective goal of limiting the Earth’s warming. It said global emissions must fall by nearly 8 percent per year over the next decade to stay in line with the goal of limiting warming to just 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.
A slower pace of cuts of about 3 percent per year would keep the world on track for around 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming by 2100 — a level of warming that would have severe consequences, including the death of nearly all coral reefs and the possible destabilization of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
The globe already has warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 19th century, according to separate findings published Tuesday by the World Meteorological Organization.
The WMO also found that 2019 “concludes a decade of exceptional global heat, retreating ice and record sea levels driven by greenhouse gases from human activities,” and added that this year is on pace to be the second- or third-warmest on record.
Tuesday’s report from the Global Carbon Project, published in several journals, including Environmental Research Letters, makes clear that the transformation necessary to rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions is nowhere in sight.
But the findings were not entirely negative.
U.S. emissions are projected to fall 1.7 percent in 2019 after rising the previous year, as coal is steadily displaced by natural gas and renewable energy. U.S. coal burning is projected to have fallen 11 percent in 2019 alone. Emissions in the European Union are expected to decline at a similar rate, as nations there also move away from coal.
“We’re not in the same position we were five or 10 years ago,” Corinne Le Quéré, a professor of climate change science at the University of East Anglia and a member of the team that published Tuesday’s figures, said in an interview. “We have demonstrated that making these investments [in renewable energy] do pay off, that emissions can go down.”
Le Quéré noted that not long ago, global emissions routinely grew by 2 to 3 percent each year, a rate that appears to have slowed. But, she added, “Emissions, at the end of the day, need to decrease to zero.”
While emissions fell in the United States and Europe during 2019, they are projected to have grown in China (by 2.6 percent), India (1.8 percent) and the rest of the world (by 0.5 percent).
The Global Carbon Project found, meanwhile, that the burning of natural gas is booming, growing by an additional 2.6 percent this year after strong growth last year. Petroleum use in automobiles, airplanes and other vehicles continues to increase around the globe.
In China, the world’s largest consumer of coal, natural gas burning grew by nearly 10 percent in 2019 and petroleum use jumped nearly 7 percent, according to the projection.
These trends are being driven by multiple factors, researchers said, including growing supplies of liquefied natural gas; increasing vehicle ownership, especially in India and China; and ongoing global economic growth, which traditionally creates greater energy demand.
Deforestation and other forms of land use during 2019 also contributed to the human-caused emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases. The Global Carbon Project said wildfires in the Amazon and elsewhere helped drive land-use emissions to 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide — an increase over 2018 levels. The net result is that the world is projected to have produced 43 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions from all sources in 2019.
While some of that gas will be absorbed into the oceans and some will be consumed by plants, much will linger in the atmosphere, strengthening the greenhouse effect.
Researchers are able to estimate annual fossil fuel emissions before the year is even over by monitoring official government reports on fossil fuel production, imports and consumption in China, the world’s largest emitter. A similar method is used for India. For the rest of the world, the 2019 estimate is based on the linkage between emissions and economic growth rates. For the United States, the group adopts the official projection of the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The estimate of 0.6 percent emissions growth also comes with some uncertainty. The actual number, researchers said, could be a slight emissions decline of 0.2 percent, or an emissions rise as high as 1.5 percent.
Jackson said a faster shift toward cleaner energy could create new jobs, improve national security and have measurable public health benefits. But he also said it would leave a better legacy than the one of inaction on climate change that has defined recent years.
“It’s another lost year, another lost decade,” he said of the trend of rising global emissions. “I don’t want to belittle the important things that have happened and are happening, but they are not enough. People will look back at us and wonder, ‘What were you doing?’”

Links

(NZ) Climate Explained: How Climate Change Will Affect Food Production And Security

The Conversation

According to the United Nations, food shortages are a threat due to climate change. Are food shortages a major threat to New Zealand due to climate change?
Many temperate crops require winter chilling to initiate flowering or fruit ripening, and orchards may need to shift to colder areas. from www.shutterstock.com, CC BY-ND
Climate change is altering conditions that sustain food production, with cascading consequences for food security and global economies. Recent research evaluated the simultaneous impacts of climate change on agriculture and marine fisheries globally.
Modelling of those impacts under a business-as-usual carbon emission scenario suggested about 90% of the world’s population – most of whom live in the least developed countries – will experience reductions in food production this century.
New Zealanders are fortunate to live in a part of the world blessed with relatively fertile soils, adequate water supplies and mild temperatures. This gives us a comparative advantage for agriculture and horticulture over many other countries, including our main trading partner, Australia.
New Zealand produces more than enough food for its population. Exports exceed local consumption, and climate-change induced food shortages should not be an imminent risk for New Zealand. But behind every general statement like this lies some rather more troubling detail.

Overcoming domestic challenges
As residents of a developed country, we are accustomed to accessing the world’s resources through supermarkets. New Zealanders take for granted that most foods (even those we do not produce, like rice or bananas) will be available all year round.
Asparagus, new potatoes and strawberries are examples of foods New Zealanders may expect to see only at particular times of the year, but if apples or kiwifruit are out of stock, people usually complain. Our expectations are based on imports of products when they are out of season in New Zealand. The availability of those imports may be seriously compromised by climate change.
A recent Ministry for the Environment report describes climate impacts, including detailed projections of the average temperature increase and changes in rainfall patterns across New Zealand. The consistent trends are towards wetter conditions in the west, drier in the east and the largest average temperature rises in the north.
Implications for agriculture are manifold. For example, many temperate crops require cool autumn or winter temperatures to initiate flowering or fruit ripening. Orchards may need to be relocated further south, or novel low-chill varieties may need to be bred, as is already happening around the world.
Insect pests and diseases are normally controlled by our low winter temperatures, but they may become more of a problem in the future. Introduced pests and diseases include fruit flies that have a major impact in Australia and other more tropical countries, but struggle to establish breeding colonies in New Zealand. Strong biosecurity controls are our best bet for reducing this risk.
What matters more than the gradual increase in temperature predicted by climate change models, is the greater frequency of extreme weather events. These include droughts, floods and hail, which can lead to total crop losses in particular regions. One obvious mitigation strategy is to expand the provision of irrigation in our drier eastern regions, but concerns over water quality in our rivers mean this is not a popular option with the public – for example on the Heretaunga Plains or in Canterbury.

Risks to imported products
New Zealand is a net exporter of dairy, beef, lamb and many fruit and vegetables, but for some products, we depend heavily on imports. Figures from the US Department of Agriculture are not perfect, but they highlight trade imbalances for major commodities.
New Zealand imports all rice and most of its wheat. It is a net importer of pork products. Horticultural data released annually in Fresh Facts show New Zealand’s major horticultural imports are (in order of value) wine, nuts, processed vegetables, coffee, bananas and table grapes. These imported products come primarily from Australia, China, the US and Ecuador – all countries that may be less resilient to climate change than New Zealand.
As a recent report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) explains, rising temperatures, rising seas and the increasing frequency of adverse weather events will interact to reduce agricultural and horticultural productivity in many regions around the world. While New Zealand is unlikely to experience food shortages in the near future as a direct result of climate change, the price and availability of imported products may increase significantly.

Food poverty
Unfortunately, there is another important consideration. Some New Zealanders already experience food insecurity. The 2008/9 Adult Nutrition Survey found 14% of New Zealand households reported running out of food often or sometimes due to lack of money.
Perhaps rather than worrying about the future impact of climate change on the price or availability of imported rice or bananas, we should be paying more attention to this social inequity.
As a wealthy agricultural nation and a net exporter of food, it does not seem right that one sector of our society is already regularly experiencing food shortages.

Links

Could Climate Change Become A Security Issue — And Threaten Democracy?

ABC Radio National - Farz Edraki | Ann Arnold

Professor Ole Wæver argues that delayed action on climate change could lead to drastic measures. (Unsplash: Markus Spiske)
Action to address climate change has been left so late that any political response will likely become an international security issue — and could threaten democracy.
That's the view of Ole Wæver, a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen, who also says climate inaction could lead to armed conflict.
"At some point this whole climate debate is going to tip over," he tells RN's Late Night Live.
"The current way we talk about climate is one side and the other side. One side is those who want to do something, and the other is the deniers who say we shouldn't do anything."

'We are running out of time' - Late Night Live

He believes that quite soon, another battle will replace it. Then, politicians that do 'something' will be challenged by critics demanding that policies actually add up to realistic solutions.
When decision-makers — after delaying for so long — suddenly try to find a shortcut to realistic action, climate change is likely to "be securitised".
Professor Wæver, who first coined the term "securitisation", says more abrupt change could potentially threaten democracy.
"The United Nations Security Council could, in principle, tomorrow decide that climate change is a threat to international peace and security," he says.
"And then it's within their competencies to decide 'and you are doing this, you are doing this, you are doing this, this is how we deal with it'."

A risk of armed conflict?
Professor Wæver says despite "overwhelmingly good arguments" as to why action should be taken on climate change, not enough has been done.
And he says that could eventually lead to a greater risk of armed conflict, particularly in unstable political climates.
Professor Ole Wæver is currently a James Fellow in Social Sciences at the University of Sydney until January 2020. (Supplied: Lars Svankjær)
"Imagine these kinds of fires that we are seeing happening [in Australia] in a part of Africa or South-East Asia where you have groups that are already in a tense relationship, with different ethnic groups, different religious orientations," he says.
"And then you get events like this and suddenly they are not out of each other's way, they'll be crossing paths, and then you get military conflicts by the push."
He isn't the first expert to warn of the security risks of climate change.

Climate change and the ADF
Chris Barrie, former Defence Force chief and honorary professor at the ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, wrote in October that "climate change is a threat multiplier".
"It exacerbates the drivers of conflict by deepening existing fragilities within societies, straining weak institutions, reshaping power balances and undermining post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding," he wrote.
And current Defence chief Angus Campbell has warned that increased incidences of climate change-related natural disasters could stretch the capability of the ADF.

Letting 'the dark forces' loose
Professor Wæver argues that delayed action will lead to more drastic measures.
"The longer we wait, the more abrupt the change has to be," he says.
"So a transformation of our economy and our energy systems that might have been less painful if we had started 20 years ago, 30 years ago.
"If we have to do that in a very short time, it becomes extremely painful.
"And then comes the question: can you carry through such painful transformations through the normal democratic system?"
He says classifying climate change as a security issue could justify more extreme policy responses.
"That's what happens when something becomes a security issue, it gets the urgency, the intensity, the priority, which is helpful sometimes, but it also lets the dark forces loose in the sense that it can justify problematic means," he says.

Audio: Hear more from Ole Wæver on climate security
Late Night Live
17m 20secs

This urgency, he says, could lead to more abrupt action at an international level.
"If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told 'this is your emission target, it's not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don't fulfil it', then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not," he says.
"Aa bit like what we saw in southern Europe with countries like Greece and the debt crisis and so on.
"There were decisions that were made for them and then they just had to have a more or less technocratic government and get it through."

Partnerships as pathways
Major events like bushfires elevate concerns about climate change in Australia, Professor Mark Howden says. (Supplied: Qld Dept of Community Safety)
But Mark Howden, director of the ANU's Climate Change Institute, does not see this happening any time soon — and says it would be counter-productive in the long-term.
"I wouldn't support that sort of hypothesised action by the UN, because I think solutions to climate change need to be a partnership," he says.
"The way to generate persistent, long-term and positive action is by partnerships, so actually bringing people along, developing a collective vision of what could be, and making climate change not something to fear but something to take sensible decisions over.
"So for me, taking a security approach — taking a unilateral, very militaristic, interventionist approach — would break apart all those positives.
"It wouldn't necessarily generate partnerships, it wouldn't generate bottom-up action and wouldn't generate innovation."

Paris 2030: Will we make it?
But, Professor Howden says, there's an "elevated conversation happening across many different domains" about climate change in Australia, particularly because of bushfires and droughts.
He says climate-related disasters create a "step up in terms of public concern in relation to climate change" — whether or not they are linked.
"Climate-related disasters tend to get people reflecting on their lived experience and the things they value and it raises that level of concern and tends to stay high for an extended period."
He recognises "we haven't solved this problem", but says the Paris Agreement — and the national and international greenhouse gas inventories that support it — still shows promise. He says "it is the only global game in town to limit climate change".
The 2015 agreement set targets to block global warming at well below 2C, and 1.5C if possible.
But a recent UN report revealed global fossil fuel output is currently projected to overwhelm these efforts.
"Everyone knows that those initial commitments aren't adequate to meet the temperature targets, but they're a start," Professor Howden says.
"The key to the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement is the mechanism that ratchets up those commitments over time."
Professor Howden says we should give the Paris Agreement "a chance to work" — and if it does, it will "take a chunk out" of greenhouse gas emissions.
"The big question is: is it going to happen fast enough?"

Links