09/10/2020

Has World Started To Take Climate Change Fight Seriously?


A surprise announcement at this year's UN General Assembly has transformed the politics of cutting carbon, says the BBC's chief environment correspondent, Justin Rowlatt. As the meeting of the so-called "global parliament" comes to an end, he asks whether it might just signal the beginning of a global rush to decarbonise.

Chinese premier Xi Jinping has pledged that China will reach carbon neutrality by 2060. Reuters 

You probably missed the most important announcement on tackling climate change in years.

It was made at the UN General Assembly.

It wasn't the big commitment to protect biodiversity or anything to do with the discussion about how to tackle the coronavirus pandemic - vitally important though these issues are.

No, the key moment came on Tuesday last week when the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, announced that China would cut emissions to net zero by 2060.

The commitment is a huge deal on its own, but I believe his promise marks something even more significant: China may have fired the starting gun on what will become a global race to eliminate fossil fuels.

I'll get to that later. First off, Xi's pledge.

Why is Xi's 2060 pledge so important?

It is fair to say environmentalists were stunned by Xi's surprise pledge.

Let's be clear what it means: China, the most polluting nation on earth - responsible for around 28% of global greenhouse gas emissions - is saying it is going cut that back to virtually zero within 40 years.

"Enormously important" is how Todd Stern - the man President Obama put in charge of climate negotiations - described it to me.

China is responsible for around 28% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Getty Images

"A massive move" and "a happy, happy surprise" was Li Yan's take: she's the head of Greenpeace in China.

The commitment is so significant because China has never promised anything near as bold as this on climate before.

And it comes after the European Union committed billions of euros towards a green stimulus package and - only last week - toughened up its own 2030 climate targets.

It therefore raises the prospect of a carbon-cutting coalition of Europe and China covering more than a third of world emissions.

Why good news on climate is so rare

Climatologists just aren't used to such good news.

International negotiations to reduce carbon emissions all too often end in ugly squabbles.

With good reason, says Todd Stern, who was instrumental in making the most successful climate agreement to date: the Paris Agreement of 2015.

The problem is cutting carbon has always been regarded as an expensive chore.

The effort to control climate change impacts virtually every element of a country's economy, says Mr Stern, "so countries have traditionally been nervous about what they're going to be asked to do."

Todd Stern played an instrumental role in crafting the Paris Agreement on climate. Getty Images

Indeed, Paris was the first time the world actually agreed that all nations needed to do their bit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And then, of course, the deal was promptly dumped by US President Donald Trump after he was elected the following year.

But even before the US said it wanted out, nobody involved in the negotiations thought the goals laid down in Paris were anywhere near strong enough to meet the objective of keeping the global temperature rise well below 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels.

The idea was that every five years countries would be asked to come up with more ambitious targets, ramping up their efforts.

The conference at which those new targets were to be discussed was to be held in Glasgow this November. Thanks to the pandemic it will now be held in November next year.

Many observers had expected China to keep its powder dry and produce any ambitious new targets with a flourish at a crucial moment in those negotiations.

So why now?

President Xi definitely had an eye on global politics.

His address was a very deliberate contrast to that of President Trump a couple of days earlier.

Where Trump blames China for the world's problems, Xi calls for global cooperation and highlights all the good work China has been doing.

He called on the world to work together, investing in a green recovery to lift the global economy from the post-Covid doldrums.

"We are living in an interconnected global village with a common stake," says Xi.

Despite being the world's top emitter, China is also a leader in renewables. Getty Images

"All countries are closely connected and we share a common future. No country can gain from others' difficulties or maintain stability by taking advantage of others' troubles.""We should embrace the vision of a community with a shared future in which everyone is bound together," he continues.

Heart-stirring stuff, eh?

It is also presumably no coincidence that Xi's announcement came weeks before the US Presidential election, and just as the terrible fires on the west coast and a series of fierce storms in the east made climate an issue in the polls for the first time.

And a cynic might think his reassuring words were partly a ploy to reingratiate China with the climate-conscious Europeans, and isolate a climate-sceptic US President. It came straight after a virtual bilateral summit between Beijing and Brussels.

A global race to clean power?

But there is a much more important broader context for his announcement: the fact that the collapsing cost of clean energy is completely changing the calculus of decarbonisation.

Renewables are already often cheaper than fossil fuel power in many parts of the world and, if China and the EU really ramp up their investments in wind, solar and batteries in the next few years, prices are likely to fall even further.

Why? Because the cost of renewables follows the logic of all manufacturing - the more you produce, the cheaper it gets. It's like pushing on an open door - the more you build the cheaper it gets, the cheaper it gets the more you build.



The Europeans have been quite open that their strategy is to entice other countries to join them by driving down the cost of renewables globally. Alongside this carrot, they also plan to wield a stick - a tax on the imports of countries that emit too much carbon.

Meanwhile, President Xi's 2060 pledge was notably unconditional - China will move ahead whether or not other countries chose to follow.

This is a complete turnaround from past negotiations, when everyone's fear was that they might end up incurring the cost of decarbonising their own economy, while others did nothing but still enjoyed the climate change fruits of their labour.

How things have changed. Very soon, renewable power is likely to be the cheapest and therefore almost certainly the most profitable choice in large parts of the world.

Think what this means: investors won't need to be bullied by green activists into doing the right thing, they will just follow the money.

Tesla's rocketing share price has made it the world's most valuable car manufacturer. Reuters

Why invest in new oil wells or coal power stations that will become obsolete before they can repay themselves over their 20-30-year life? Why carry carbon risk in their portfolios at all?

The change of appetite on financial markets has become ever more obvious over the last decade. This year alone, Tesla's rocketing share price has made it the world's most valuable car company.

Meanwhile, the share price of Exxon - once the world's most valuable company of any kind - fell so far that it just got booted out of the Dow Jones Industrial Average of major US corporations.

And this is where the idea of a race comes in.

Countries - and companies - may soon rush to decarbonise as they see opportunities to make profits in what will be an enormous new market.



President Xi is well aware of his country's leading position in the market for clean energy - investing in renewables has been a priority for China for many years.

It is already the world's biggest manufacturer of solar panels and wind, it makes more electric cars and buses than anyone else and has also become the international hub for battery production.

"It is going to keep on driving down the prices, so that everybody can get onto this parade, as it were, and go along," says Rachel Kyte, Dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, in Medford, Massachusetts, and a former adviser to the UN Secretary General on sustainable energy.

So, it looks like Xi has judged that the economics of clean energy mean that decarbonising is now the most sensible choice for the Chinese economy as well as for the world's climate.

He is not alone. Look at how oil companies like BP and Shell are saying they want to move away from the black stuff and into clean energy.

So can we stop worrying about climate change?

Sadly we cannot.

The idea of a global race to decarbonise is a thrilling new prospect for anyone interested in limiting climate change, but I am sorry to say there are still many hurdles along the way.

First off, Mr Xi's did not give any details of how his country would achieve his carbon-neutral target.

Remember, China is by far the biggest consumer of coal in the world, hoovering up about half of the global supply.

It is also the world's second biggest user of oil - after the US.

Across its economy, some 85% of its power comes from fossil fuels with 15% from low carbon sources.

The US remains the world's largest consumer of oil. Getty Images

Those ratios will need to be turned on their head to have any chance of meeting the net zero pledge.

That will take eye-popping investment in wind, solar and nuclear power.

But all Xi said at the UN about how it would get to its 2060 goal was that China would peak its emissions of greenhouse gases "before 2030" - little change from China's previous promise that the peak would come "around" 2030.

Li Yan of Greenpeace says the acid test will be whether a raft of new coal plants proposed by provincial authorities are approved.

"Existing core industries are still fighting their survival in China," she says, "and that's why we're still seeing coal plants proposed everywhere."

We'll see whether they get the go-head - and how aggressive the investment in clean energy is - in a few months when the details of China's next five-year plan are published.

Another reason for optimism?

So even as the economics tilts in favour of renewables the task of decarbonisation is still enormous.

Meanwhile, the effects of climate change will only accelerate.

But there is another reason for optimism.

The US is the world's biggest economy and the second biggest producer of greenhouse gases, and is therefore essential to any effort to tackle climate change.

Under Donald Trump it has steered clear of carbon-cutting commitments.

But his challenger, Joe Biden, has said he will re-join the Paris accord, and has promised a $2 trillion green recovery plan for the US, which would aim to slash emissions and tackle the effects of climate change.

That holds out the promise of the world's three largest economies, responsible for nearly half of all emissions, all making a serious effort to cut carbon.

Once half the world is on-board with the project it is hard to see how the rest could hold out.

So - and this isn't something we often say about climate change - there are powerful new reasons for optimism.

Links

California's Deadly Wildfires Have Burned More Than 4 Million Acres This Year, Breaking The Record For The Most Acres Burned In A Year

Business Insider - Jocelyn Gecker

Firefighters perform structure protection against the Glass Fire in Napa County onOctober 1, 2020 in Calistoga, CA. Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

Key Points
  • Deadly wildfires in California have burned more than 4 million acres this year, setting a new record for the most acres burned in a single year.
  • Most of the damage has occurred since the middle of August, when lightning strikes caused some of the most devastating blazes.
  • The fires, which have incinerated hundreds of homes, have so far killed at least 31 people.
Deadly wildfires in California have burned more than 4 million acres (6,250 square miles) this year, more than double the previous record for the most land burned in a single year in the state.

California fire officials said the state hit the astonishing milestone Sunday with about two months remaining in the fire season. The previous record was set two years ago when wildfires destroyed 1.67 million acres (2,609 square miles).

“The 4 million mark is unfathomable. It boggles the mind, and it takes your breath away,” said Scott McLean, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, known as Cal Fire.

Cal Fire said in a statement Sunday that there have been more than 8,200 wildfires since the start of the year that have burned “well over 4 million acres in California.”

The flames have scorched an area larger than Connecticut. About 17,000 firefighters are still battling nearly two dozen major blazes throughout the state.Despite the grim milestone, there were signs for optimism this weekend.

Powerful winds that had been expected to drive flames in recent days hadn’t materialised, and warnings of extreme fire danger for hot, dry and gusty weather expired Saturday morning as a layer of fog rolled in. Clearer skies in some areas allowed large air tankers to drop retardant after being sidelined by smoky conditions several days earlier.

“In certain areas, we were able to get quite a bit of aircraft in. So we really pounded, a couple different areas hard with aircraft,” Mclean said. “If the weather does what is predicted, we’re on that glide path I hope. But that doesn’t diminish the amount of work that still needs to be done.”

Virtually all the damage has occurred since mid-August, when five of the six largest fires in state history erupted. Lightning strikes caused some of the most devastating blazes. The wildfires have incinerated hundreds of homes and killed 31 people but large parts of them are burning in largely unpopulated land.

Many of the most destructive fires sparked in Northern California, where hills and mountains dotted with many dead trees have provided plenty of fuel for fires igniting amid high temperatures and strong winds fanning the flames.

Thick, grey smoke from the blazes has fouled the air in many hill communities and major cities in the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond.

Numerous studies have linked bigger wildfires in America to climate change from the burning of coal, oil and gas. Scientists say climate change has made California much drier, meaning trees and other plants are more flammable.

Fire officials said the Glass Fire burning in wine country for the past week was their top priority.

Three fires, driven by strong winds and high temperatures, merged into one tearing into vineyards and forested mountain areas, including part of the city of Santa Rosa. Thousands of people were under evacuation orders, including the entire population of Calistoga, a town of 5,000.

Links

(NZ) Ardern’s Government And Climate Policy: Despite A Zero-Carbon Law, Is New Zealand Merely A Follower Rather Than A Leader?

The Conversation

Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

Author
 is Senior Researcher in Politics, Auckland University of Technology.
Note: This article is adapted from an upcoming bookPioneers, Leaders and Followers in Multilevel and Polycentric Climate Governance.
Back in pre-COVID times last year, when New Zealand passed the Zero Carbon Act, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern insisted “New Zealand will not be a slow follower” on climate change.

It struck a clear contrast with the previous National government’s approach, which the then prime minister, John Key, often described as being “a fast follower, not a leader”.

He had lifted this language from the New Zealand Institute’s 2007 report, which argued against “lofty rhetoric about saving the planet or being a world leader”. Instead, it counselled New Zealand to respond without “investing unnecessarily in leading the way”.

Key was eventually accused of failing to live up to even this unambitious ideal — New Zealand came to be known as a climate laggard.

With her hand on the nation’s rudder since 2017, has Ardern done any better? Is New Zealand a climate leader, and not merely a symbolic leader on the international speaking circuit but a substantive leader that sets examples for other countries to follow?

Finally a fast follower

On my analysis of Ardern’s government, New Zealand is now, finally, a fast follower.

The government’s climate policy is best evaluated from three perspectives: the domestic, international and moral.

From a domestic perspective, where a government is judged against the governments that preceded it, Ardern is entitled to declare (as she did when the Zero Carbon Act was passed) that:
"We have done more in 24 months than any government in New Zealand has ever done on climate action."
But at the international level, where New Zealand is judged against the actions of other countries and its international commitments, it is more a fast follower than a leader, defined by policy uptake and international advocacy rather than innovation.

At the moral level, where New Zealand is judged against objectives such as the 1.5°C carbon budget, its actions remain inadequate. A recent report by Oxfam notes New Zealand is off-track for its international obligations.

The nation’s record looks even worse when we factor in historical responsibilities. From this perspective, New Zealand, like other countries in the global north, is acting with an immoral lack of haste. It is for the next government to go from being merely transitional to truly transformational.

Turning in the right direction

The formation of the Ardern government in 2017 inaugurated a phase of rapid policy development, drawing especially from UK and EU examples. But the evidence of substantive climate leadership is much less clear.

The government’s most prominent achievement is the Zero Carbon Act, which passed through parliament with cross-party support in November 2019. This establishes a regulatory architecture to support the low-emissions transition through five-yearly carbon budgets and a Climate Change Commission that provides independent advice.

Its other major achievement, less heralded and more disputed, was the suspension of offshore oil and gas permits. This supply-side intervention is surely Ardern’s riskiest manoeuvre as prime minister, not only on climate but on any policy issue.

It stands as an exception to her careful, incremental style. It signalled that the Crown’s historical indulgence of the oil and gas sector was coming to an end.

But both policies involve followership. The Zero Carbon Act is closely modelled on the UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 and the leadership came from outside government. It was initially championed by the youth group Generation Zero. The independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment then picked it up.

Similarly, the offshore oil and gas ban builds upon longstanding activism from Māori organisations and activists. In 2012, Petrobras withdrew prematurely from a five-year exploration permit after resistance from East Cape iwi (tribe) Te Whānau-ā-Apanui. New Zealand was also only following in the footsteps of more comprehensive moratoriums elsewhere, such as Costa Rica in 2011 and France in 2017.

Towards climate leadership

There are many other climate-related policies, including:
Only the last policy is a world first. Even then, private companies throughout the world are already adopting this approach without a mandate from government.

In all likelihood, New Zealand’s greatest claim to pioneering policy is its decision to split targets for carbon dioxide and methane in the Zero Carbon Act, which means agricultural methane is treated separately. If the science behind this decision eventually informs the international accounting of greenhouse gases, it will have major ramifications for developing countries whose economies also rely heavily on agriculture.

Not all proposed policies made it through the political brambles of coalition government. Most conspicuously, commitments to an emissions-free government vehicle fleet, the introduction of fuel-efficiency standards, and feebates for light vehicles were all thwarted.

This is symptomatic of this government’s major weakness on climate. Its emphasis on institutional reforms rather than specific projects will yield long-term impacts, but not produce the immediate emissions reductions to achieve New Zealand’s 2030 international target under the Paris Agreement. This is where a future government can make the rhetoric of climate leadership a reality.

Links