19/09/2021

(The Planetary Press) Over 2,000 Scientists and Academics Call for World Leaders to Negotiate a Treaty to Phase Out Fossil Fuels

The Planetary Press - Kimberly White
Scientists and academics across the globe have joined together in a call to phase out coal, oil, and gas.

More than 2,000 scientists, researchers, and academics delivered a letter demanding national governments to develop, adopt, and implement a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty in an effort to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of current and future generations.

“Every fraction of a degree of warming is doing us harm. This means that every day we delay cessation of fossil fuel burning, we come closer to catastrophe,” said Lesley Hughes, Distinguished Professor of Biology, Macquarie University and Councillor for the Climate Council.

The signatories are calling on governments to quickly begin negotiations for the development and adoption of a binding global plan that ends the new expansion of fossil fuel production, phases out existing production of fossil fuels fairly and equitably, and invests in a plan to ensure full access to renewable energy globally.

The burning of fossil fuels is a dominant driver of the climate emergency, accounting for roughly 80 percent of carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution.

In 2019, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) found that global greenhouse gas emissions needed to fall by 7.6 percent annually over the next decade to limit warming to 1.5°C. The world needs to urgently shift away from fossil fuels to meet this target.

Citing UNEP’s 2020 Production Gap Report, the group noted that to achieve the 1.5°C target, fossil fuel production has to fall by at least six percent each year from 2020 to 2030. Despite this, countries are projecting a two percent annual increase in fossil fuel production.

“Given the significant historical contribution of fossil fuels to climate change, and the industry’s continuing expansion plans, we are calling for a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem,” the letter states.

“Phasing down coal, oil and gas in line with 1.5ºC requires global cooperation, in a way that is fair, equitable and reflects countries’ levels of dependence on fossil fuels, and capacities to transition.”

Richer countries will need to reduce the production of fossil fuels at a faster pace than poorer countries which may require greater support to transition, says the letter.

While it is imperative that all nations take collective action to reduce and phase out fossil fuels, G20 nations will need to step up their ambition. G20 nations represent 78 percent of global emissions and contribute a significant amount of financial support for fossil fuels.

A recent report found that, collectively, G20 countries provided more than $3.3 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies from 2015 to 2019.

In addition to the climate impacts, fossil fuels also have a devastating impact on human health. Globally, air pollution generated by the burning of fossil fuels was found to be responsible for nearly one in five deaths in 2018.

A 2020 report estimated that air pollution from fossil fuels costs the world nearly $3 trillion annually.

“The world’s leading scientists could not be clearer – coal, oil, and gas are the primary cause of the climate crisis and are responsible for nearly one in every five deaths worldwide,” said Rebecca Byrnes, Deputy Director of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative.

“Any ‘net zero’ policy that allows for the continued expansion of these weapons of mass destruction is insufficient. Just as governments came together to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals, or end the proliferation of nuclear weapons, they must now urgently negotiate a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

Links
at No comments:

(BBC) Climate Change: UN Warning Over Nations' Climate Plans

BBC - David Shukman

Image source, Getty Images

Despite all the promises to take action, the world is still on course to heat up to dangerous levels.

That's the latest blunt assessment of the United Nations.

Its experts have studied the climate plans of more than 100 countries and concluded that we're heading in the wrong direction.

Scientists recently confirmed that to avoid the worst impacts of hotter conditions, global carbon emissions needed to be cut by 45% by 2030.

But this new analysis shows that those emissions are set to rise by 16% during this period.

That could eventually lead to a temperature rise of 2.7C (4.9F) above pre-industrial times - far above the limits set by the international community.

"The 16% increase is a huge cause for concern," according to Patricia Espinosa, the UN's chief climate negotiator.

"It is in sharp contrast with the calls by science for rapid, sustained and large-scale emission reductions to prevent the most severe climate consequences and suffering, especially of the most vulnerable, throughout the world."


It's a stark warning about the scale of the challenge faced at the COP26 climate conference, scheduled to take place in Glasgow in just over six weeks' time.

The central aim of the giant event is to keep alive hopes of limiting the rise in global temperatures by persuading nations to cut their emissions.

Under the rules of the Paris Agreement on climate change, countries are meant to update their carbon reduction plans every five years.

But the UN says that of 191 countries taking part in the agreement, only 113 have so far come up with improved pledges.

Alok Sharma, the British minister who will chair the COP26 conference, said nations that had ambitious climate plans were "already bending the curve of emissions downwards".

"But without action from all countries, especially the biggest economies, these efforts risk being in vain."

A study by Climate Action Tracker found that of the G20 group of leading industrial nations, only a handful including the UK and the US have strengthened their targets to cut emissions.

In another analysis, the World Resources Institute and Climate Analytics highlight how China, India, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - together responsible for 33% of greenhouse gases - have yet to submit updated plans.

It says that Australia and Indonesia have the same carbon reduction targets they did back in 2015 - while the Paris Agreement is meant to involve a "ratchet mechanism" of progressively deeper cuts.

And the study finds that Brazil, Mexico and Russia all expect their emissions to grow rather than to shrink.

For the poorest countries - most vulnerable to rising sea levels and new extremes of heat and drought - seeing a rapid fall in the gases heating the planet is a priority.

Sonam P Wangdi, chair of the Least Developed Countries group, said: "G20 countries must take the lead in quickly cutting emissions to mitigate climate change.

"These are the countries with the greatest capacity and responsibility, and it's well past time they step up and treat this crisis like a crisis."

There are hopes that China may revise its climate plans ahead of the Glasgow conference.

As the world's largest emitter, it has previously said it aims to peak its emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060.

An announcement soon of more ambitious targets would give the talks a significant boost but there are no clues about when - or even whether - that might happen.

Links
at No comments:

(AU The Guardian) Australia Burying ‘Head In The Sand’ On Security Risks Of Climate Change, Former Defence Official Says

The Guardian - 

Warning comes as Climate Council report finds Australia will not have ‘lasting national security’ without addressing climate crisis

Australia has fallen well behind the US, UK, Japan and New Zealand in analysis of climate and security risks, the Climate Council report said. Photograph: Glenn Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images
Australia has its “head in the sand” regarding the national security implications of climate change and should follow the US in spelling out the risks, a former senior Australian defence official says.

Australia’s “strategic weakness” on climate policy is also making it harder for the country to be seen as a preferred partner with Pacific Island countries, according to Cheryl Durrant, the defence department’s former head of preparedness.

The comments coincide with the release of a new report by the Climate Council that argues Australia has “fallen well behind the US, UK, Japan, New Zealand and other peers in analysis of climate and security risks”.
The US president, Joe Biden, has ordered a review of the security implications of climate change. His defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, has said climate change is “making the world more unsafe and we need to act”.

Austin – who will meet with his Australian counterpart, Peter Dutton, in Washington for the Ausmin talks on Thursday – said in April that no nation could find lasting security without addressing the climate crisis.

Echoing that language, the Climate Council report says climate change “increases the risk of conflict and Australia will not find lasting national security without adequately addressing it”.

“Failure to rise to the challenge of climate and security is already leading to a loss of geopolitical influence for Australia, particularly in the Pacific,” says the report, titled Rising to the Challenge: Addressing Climate and Security in our Region.

The report says water has long been a contested resource in Asia and climate change is worsening the situation.

“Any conflict over water in our region could have profound consequences for Australia,” the report states. “Pacific Island countries as well as Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, India and Indonesia face significant threats from sea level rise, which is likely to increase displacement and forced migration.”

The government’s defence strategic update, published last year, included only a passing reference to climate change when mentioning threats to human security.

“These threats will be compounded by population growth, urbanisation and extreme weather events in which climate change plays a part,” the document said.

Durrant, the lead author of the Climate Council report and long-serving former Australian defence official, said the Australian defence force was well-equipped to provide disaster support but it was important for the government to address “the root cause of this problem”.

“I get a sense that we’ve got our head in the sand – not necessarily the ADF, which I think would be quite keen to press on,” Durrant told Guardian Australia.

“I was hearing from, say, our Pacific maritime advisers, who are actually on the ground in the Pacific Island nations 24/7, 365 days a year – they are getting feedback on what Pacific Islanders think is really important.

“On the one hand we have our strategic narrative about the need to sort of shape and influence the region, and yet on the other hand we’re ignoring the strategic weakness of our climate policy, making it harder for us to be convincing as a preferred ally and partner.”
The Climate Council report urges the Australian government to launch a national climate and security threat assessment – an idea first recommended by a Senate inquiry in 2018.

It argues climate change “remains on the margins of Australia’s defence, foreign affairs and trade strategies”.

Durrant said the threat of great-power conflict had not gone away, but the proposed new review was “about stepping up and appreciating that climate change is a national security threat”.

“That’s quite clearly articulated pretty much by all our major allies now … and we’re the ones that are still not connecting the dots between rising disasters and the flow-on effects that those can have in destabilising the region and causing forced migration or conflict.”

Sherri Goodman, a former US deputy undersecretary of defense specialising in environmental security, welcomed the report, saying Australia “further risks being left behind the clean energy transition”.

Goodman told Guardian Australia climate change acted “as a threat multiplier, exacerbating risks for Australia and its allies, from extreme heat and wildfire at home, to devastating typhoons and extreme weather events across the Pacific”.

“A comprehensive climate security risk assessment, such as that ordered by president Biden earlier this year, is a key pillar in assessing climate risks to security missions, operations, and key operating facilities, including those jointly used by American forces in Darwin,” Goodman said.

The Australian defence department says it “prepares for a wide range of contingencies including those that may arise due to climate change”.

Last month, in response to Senate questions on notice, the department said it “routinely considers climate risks” in its planning. Defence white papers in 2009, 2013 and 2016 had “acknowledged climate change as a national security issue”.

On Monday, the Liberal senator Andrew Bragg – the new chair of the Senate standing committee on environment and communications – urged the government to commit to net zero emissions at the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow.

Links
at No comments: