19/03/2020

(UK) Climate Change: The Rich Are To Blame, International Study Finds

BBC - Roger Harrabin

Unequal Scenes, @johnny_miller_photography
The rich are primarily to blame for the global climate crisis, a study by the University of Leeds of 86 countries claims.
The wealthiest tenth of people consume about 20 times more energy overall than the bottom ten, wherever they live.
The gulf is greatest in transport, where the top tenth gobble 187 times more fuel than the poorest tenth, the research says.
That’s because people on the lowest incomes can rarely afford to drive.
The researchers found that the richer people became, the more energy they typically use. And it was replicated across all countries.
And they warn that, unless there's a significant policy change, household energy consumption could double from 2011 levels by 2050. That's even if energy efficiency improves.

Transport gulf
The researchers combined European Union and World Bank data to calculate how different income groups spend their money. They say it’s the first study of its kind.
It found that in transport the richest tenth of consumers use more than half the energy. This reflects previous research showing that 15% of UK travellers take 70% of all flights.
The ultra-rich fly by far furthest, while 57% of the UK population does not fly abroad at all.
Getty Images
The study, published in Nature Energy, showed that energy for cooking and heating is more equitably consumed.
But even then, the top 10% of consumers used roughly one third of the total, presumably reflecting the size of their homes.

Solutions?
Co-author Professor Julia Steinberger, leader of the project at Leeds, asked: “How can we change the vastly unequal distribution of energy to provide a decent life for everyone while protecting the climate and ecosystems?”
The authors say governments could reduce transport demand through better public transport, higher taxes on bigger vehicles and frequent flyer levies for people who take most holidays.
They say another alternative is to electrify vehicles more quickly, although previous studies suggest even then demand for driving must be reduced in order to reduce the strain on resource use and electricity production and distribution.

Rich Brits
The research also examined the relative energy consumption of one nation against another.
It shows that a fifth of UK citizens are in the top 5% of global energy consumers, along with 40% of German citizens, and Luxembourg’s entire population.
Only 2% of Chinese people are in the top global 5% of users, and just 0.02% of people in India.
Even the poorest fifth of Britons consumes over five times as much energy per person as the bottom billion in India.
Getty Images


The study is likely to ignite future UN climate negotiations, where the issue of equity is always bitterly contentious.
In the USA, libertarian politicians have typically portrayed climate change as a harbinger of global socialism.

Normal lives?
But Professor Kevin Anderson, from the Tyndall Centre in Manchester, who was not involved in the study, told BBC News: “This study tells relatively wealthy people like us what we don’t want to hear.
“The climate issue is framed by us high emitters – the politicians, business people, journalists, academics. When we say there’s no appetite for higher taxes on flying, we mean WE don’t want to fly less
“The same is true about our cars and the size our homes. We have convinced ourselves that our lives are normal, yet the numbers tell a very different story,” he said.
The study says transport energy alone could increase 31% by 2050. “If transport continues to rely on fossil fuels, this increase would be disastrous for the climate,” the report says.
It suggests different remedies for different types of energy use. So, flying and driving big cars could face higher taxes, while energy from homes could be reduced by a housing retrofit.
The authors note that the recent Budget declined to increase fuel duty and promised 4,000 miles of new roads. It did not mention home insulation.
The Treasury was contacted to discuss the taxation issues raised in the research, but declined to comment.

Links
at No comments:

Coronavirus Response Should Be A Model For How We Address Climate Change

Teen Vogue - Jamie Margolin

In this op-ed, a Zero Hour co-founder says we should treat both crises like the emergencies they are.


You know that gnawing feeling of “oh, God, we’re in the midst of something horrible” you have because of the coronavirus? Are you looking around at this crisis sweeping across the world and feeling helpless because you have limited power to stop it?

That’s how many of us have long been feeling about the climate crisis.

The way the world has been able to mobilize itself and shut down in the blink of an eye to properly respond to the coronavirus is proof that political leaders actually do have the ability to make rapid change happen if they want. So where is that rapid response for the climate crisis?

For years, climate justice activists like myself have been calling for immediate action on our climate emergency. And for years, that action has not taken place. Scientists have said that we have less than a decade to completely transform how our entire economy and world runs, transitioning over to renewable energy and sustainable agriculture.

Yet we continue to plow ahead with business as usual, paving the way toward a future of extreme weather events, mass displacement, disease, famine, and death. That’s not hyperbole; those are the predictions and findings of experts who have devoted their careers to this issue.

So when we’re in the middle of such an existential crisis, why have there not been coronavirus levels of shutting down and completely rewiring our society? Every time I meet with lawmakers and tell them that we need rapid transformation to halt climate change, they tell me “change that fast just isn’t possible.” But the COVID-19 world response has proven that rapid change and disruption of business as usual is possible!

What would it look like when the world actually decides to take on the climate crisis? It would look like what we’re seeing right now. Media coverage of the issue 24/7. Consistent headlines about updated death tolls. Experts appearing on the news daily to update the public on the crisis. Everyone stopping everything and putting the world on pause to deal with the immediate crisis at hand. The coronavirus response is showing us how people can mobilize and do their part when it is properly communicated to them that we are indeed in an urgent crisis.

The parallels are not exact, and the world COVID-19 response is not a perfect template for how the world must mobilize for climate justice. Many vulnerable people are being left behind in the coronavirus rapid response, and our just transition away from fossil fuels and factory farming must make sure no one is forgotten.

And a global rapid response to the climate crisis, unlike the isolating quarantine required to curb the spread of COVID-19, could be joyful. We could call for the rapid creation of jobs in new renewable fields, training workers to transition from fossil fuel jobs to clean energy jobs and mass reforestation projects. Pandemic response is simply trying to mitigate a disaster, while urgent climate response is not only mitigating disaster, but actively creating a better world.

So where do we go from here? Once the coronavirus gets under control, the world cannot exhale and go back to normal. We need to move on to tackling the other deadly crisis that cannot wait.

Links
at No comments:

(AU) We Must Fight Climate Change Like It’s World War III – Here Are 4 Potent Weapons To Deploy

The Conversation -  |  |  | 

Lukas Coch/AAP
  • David Blair, Emeritus Professor, ARC Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery, OzGrav, University of Western Australia
  • Bruce Hobbs, CSIRO
  • David Franklin Treagust, John Curtin Distinguished Professor, Professor of Science Education, Curtin University
  • Malcolm McCulloch, Professor, University of Western Australia
In 1896 Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius explored whether Earth’s temperatures were influenced by the presence of heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere. He calculated that if carbon dioxide concentrations doubled, global temperatures would rise 5℃ – even more at the poles.
Just over a century later, the world is on track to fulfilling Arrhenius’ prediction. If we continue on the current trajectory, Earth will warm up to 4.8℃ above pre-industrial times by 2100.
We are a group of experts in physics, geology, science education, coral reefs and climate system science.
We believe the lack of progress by governments in reducing global emissions means bold solutions are now urgently needed.
We must fight climate change like it’s World War III – and battle on many fronts. Here we examine four of them.
The world’s emissions are headed in the wrong direction, despite a century of warnings to act. STEVEN SAPHORE/AAP
1. Plant a lot more trees
Tree-planting has enormous potential to tackle to climate crisis. Recent research calculated that worldwide 900 million hectares of additional tree cover could exist outside of already-established forests, farmland and urban areas - sufficient to store 25% of the current atmospheric carbon pool. Forests act to increase cloud and rainfall and reduce temperatures.
The grand vision of the Gondwana link project in Western Australia is an example of what can be done. It is reconnecting fragmented ecosystems to create a continuous 1,000km corridor of bushland.
Broadscale land clearing must cease and a massive program of tree planting should be implemented in all possible areas. Such a program would provide huge small business employment opportunities. It requires incentives and partnerships that could be funded through taxes on carbon emissions.
Renewable energy-powered desalination may be required in some places to provide the water needed to establish forests in drought conditions. This meshes with an important new technology: carbon mineralisation.
Millions of hectares of forest should be planted to act as a carbon sink. CHRISTIAN BRUNA/ EPA










2. Turn carbon dioxide into rock
Carbon mineralisation involves turning carbon dioxide into carbonate minerals by emulating the way seashells and limestone are made naturally.
Many techniques have been researched and proposed. These include capturing carbon dioxide from industrial plants and bubbling it through brine from desalination plants, or capturing it from nickel mine tailings using bacteria.
Huge quantities of CO₂ can potentially be captured in this way, creating useful building materials as a by-product.
Demonstration plants should now be trialled in Australia, with a view to rapid scaling up to commercialisation.

3. Make Earth’s surface more reflective
Solar radiation management describes techniques to reflect solar energy (sunlight) back to space, and so counteract planetary heating.
Changing the reflectivity of surfaces, such as by painting a dark roof white, reduces absorbed heat enormously and could cool cities. On larger scales we can dust asphalt roads with limestone, retain pale stubble on farms over summer and plant paler crops.
Studies suggest lighter land surfaces have good potential for cooling at a regional scale, and may lower extreme temperatures by up to 3℃.
Such methods also indirectly cut greenhouse gas emissions by reducing air-conditioner use.
White roofs, such as on the Greek Island of Santorini, can help reflect solar radiation and lower temperatures. Yvette Kelly/AAP
4. Reimagine transport
Economic mechanisms are essential to accelerate the transition to renewable energy, energy storage and zero-emission transport.
The international shipping industry emitted about 800 megatonnes of carbon dioxide in 2015, and this figure is expected to double by mid-century.
For all ships not powered by renewable energy, research suggests speed limits could be lowered by 20% to reduce fuel use. Australia could lead the world by scaling berthing charges according to satellite-monitored ship speeds.
Australia should also follow the lead of Norway which offers generous financial incentives to encourage zero-emission vehicles (powered by hydrogen or electricity). These include sales tax exemption and free parking in some places. And it’s worked: almost 60% of new cars sold in Norway in March 2019 were reportedly entirely electric-powered.
Forcing ships to sail more slowly could lower carbon emissions. ALI HAIDER/EPA

Where to next?
The above list is by no means exhaustive. Australia’s bid to sell emissions reduction to the world as renewable hydrogen and electricity should be massively accelerated, and expanded to the scale of the Apollo mission’s race to the Moon.
We must slash emissions from agriculture, and re-establish soil carbon reservoirs lost through modern agriculture. We also suggest a major military response to bushfire, including a water-bombing air fleet and airfields within two hours of every fire risk location.
Finally, the war demands a central headquarters providing leadership, information and coordination - perhaps a greatly expanded version of the Greenhouse Office established under the Howard Coalition government in 1998 (but later merged into another government department). The office should provide, among other things, information on the climate cost of every item we use, both to aid consumer choice and tax climate-harming products.
Some technologies may prove too costly, too risky, or too slow to implement. All require careful governance, leadership and public engagement to ensure community backing.
But as global greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow, governments must deploy every weapon available – not only to win the war, but to prevent the terrible social cost of despair.
The full report on which this article is based is available here.

Links



at No comments: