26/10/2021

(Vox) The Fate Of The Planet Will Be Negotiated In Glasgow, Scotland

Vox

Here’s what you need to know about COP26, the high-stakes climate conference that starts on October 31.

A bicyclist crosses the Clyde Arc road bridge by the Scottish Events Centre, which will host the COP26 UN Climate Summit in Glasgow, Scotland. COP26 will officially begin on October 31 with the procedural opening of negotiations, and end November 12. Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Almost every country in the world signed the 2015 Paris climate agreement, a monumental accord that aimed to limit global warming. But it was forged on a contradiction: Every signatory agreed that everyone must do something to address the urgent threat of climate change, but no one at the time pledged to do enough.

In the years since the agreement, the emissions that trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere have continued to rise.

The Paris Agreement aimed to limit global warming this century to less than 2 degrees Celsius, compared to temperatures before the industrial revolution, with a more optimistic goal of staying below 1.5°C. Both of these goals would require rapid and radical shifts away from fossil fuels — and eventually, zeroing out emissions of greenhouse gases entirely.

Signatories did agree that they would set more ambitious targets for themselves over time and eventually get on track to meet global climate goals. Whether they will actually do so is about to be tested at COP26, the most important international climate conference in years.

“This is definitely the biggest [climate meeting] since Paris, and it has to be a turning point if we’re going to be successful,” said Helen Mountford, vice president for climate and economics at the World Resources Institute.

The meeting will take place in Glasgow, Scotland, between October 31 and November 12. More than 100 world leaders, including US President Joe Biden, are expected to attend a portion of the conference.

The world has already failed to meet many earlier targets, drawing the ire of climate activists. “Build back better. Blah, blah, blah. Green economy. Blah, blah, blah. Net zero by 2050. Blah, blah, blah,” Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg said in September. “Words that sound great but so far have not led to action.”

Some thorny issues that derailed past meetings, such as payments for developing countries that are living through climate disasters, remain unresolved. Meanwhile, the Covid-19 pandemic, which delayed COP26 from its original dates in November 2020, is still claiming thousands of lives per day, leading to national lockdowns and disrupting trade. Even after a year of devastating hurricanes, heat waves, and wildfires, climate change may not be every country’s top priority.

But there’s no time to lose: The window for meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement is closing. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2018 that staying below 1.5°C of warming required the world to roughly halve emissions from current levels by 2030. This year, the IPCC reported that the world is poised to miss this target even in the most optimistic scenarios they studied.

“Scientists tell us that this is the decisive decade,” Biden said in April. “This is the decade we must make decisions that will avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis.”

Some countries, seeing the brightening spotlight of COP26, have begun to announce more aggressive climate goals in the runup to the meeting. This week, the UK put out its road map for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century.

But the most scrutiny will fall on the world’s largest emitters — China, the US, and India — and whether they will take tangible steps to curb their pollution. Biden and the US delegation are now counting on Congress to pass a suite of climate policies to strengthen their hand at the negotiating table.

What’s on the agenda for COP26?

The Paris climate agreement aims to solve a global crisis, but its bureaucratic constraints have frustrated the process.

Joining the accord is voluntary, which means any signatory can leave if they want to, as the US did briefly last year. And even the countries that stay in have the freedom to set their own goals for cutting greenhouse gases. If they miss their targets, there is no penalty.

It may seem odd that an agreement to save the world from itself would have so few firm rules. However, the Paris Agreement was the culmination of two decades of stalled diplomacy, and many countries shot down stronger language around binding greenhouse emissions targets, oversight, and punishments.

The Paris Agreement is thus a delicate balancing act, accomplishing its goals mainly with nudges and incentives. It aims to steer everyone — developing countries, oil economies, regional rivals, island states threatened by sea level rise — toward a common objective, and that’s a very tall order.

Here are some of the key items on the agenda for COP26 (officially known as the 26th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).

Getting countries to do more

Under the Paris Agreement, every country is required to publish a climate change target and a route for getting there, or what’s called a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). The first round of NDCs put forward in 2015 were clearly inadequate, putting the world on course for roughly 2.7°C of warming by the end of the century.

Climate leaders hoped that in the runup to COP26, countries would roll out new commitments for the coming decade, as well as long-term strategies for eliminating emissions by the middle of the century. As of October 21, 114 countries and the European Union have submitted new NDCs.

Some major emitters like the US, United Kingdom, and China have proposed or submitted stronger targets. But others, like Russia, Brazil, and Australia, did not meaningfully ramp up their goals. Still others like India have yet to submit a new NDC.

The leaders at COP26 will try to create carrots and sticks to motivate the laggards and holdouts to take more aggressive action. Many countries are now adamant that the limit for warming this century should be 1.5°C, now that many countries have already suffered the tolls of disasters worsened by climate change — a sign that 2°C of warming would be far worse.

According to the IPCC, the difference between 1.5°C and 2°C includes 2 extra inches of sea level rise, putting an extra 10 million people at risk of coastal flooding and related problems. Two degrees of warming would double the number of people exposed to extreme heat at least once every five years. This extra warming would also lead to greater declines in fisheries, crop production, and habitats for vital species like insect pollinators.

“Because of that new science, I think certainly in the climate community, 1.5°C de facto is now what everyone is talking about,” Mountford said.

Artists paint a mural on a wall next to the Clydeside Expressway near the Scottish Events Centre, where COP26 will take place. Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Technology for cutting carbon out of the economy, like renewable energy, has also improved since the Paris Agreement was signed. Some countries and many activists argue that a tougher target is essential to taking advantage of these improvements and that mitigation needs to begin right away.

This conference has to signal a “shift from making commitments to actually taking action,” said Marcene Mitchell, senior vice president of climate change at the World Wildlife Fund. Countries not only need to make bigger promises, Mitchell added, they need to match them with actual policies.

International carbon markets

One of the ways countries are aiming to meet their climate change goals is by pricing carbon dioxide emissions and creating accounting mechanisms for reducing them. That can take the form of credits or offsets that are traded with other countries.

Under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, wealthier countries can compensate for their higher emissions by financing clean energy in developing countries or helping restore carbon-absorbing ecosystems like rainforests.

The trouble is that if these markets are not designed well, they may simply end up as a way for wealthier countries to buy their way out of reducing their own emissions. Without proper verification, the credits may not deliver the carbon reductions they promised.

In past climate meetings, countries like the US, Australia, and Brazil pushed for language in these rules that would grant them more flexibility. However, most other countries found these provisions unacceptable because they would weaken the program. This issue forced several previous meetings to go over their allotted times. It remains unresolved and may not be settled at COP26.

Loss and damage

The core injustice of climate change is that the people who contributed least to the problem stand to suffer the most. Though not strictly part of the Paris Agreement, a key part of the discussion at COP26 will be around how to compensate countries facing the impacts of climate change today, from rising sea levels eroding shores to more devastating extreme weather.

Securing this funding is a huge priority for many countries, particularly island countries and those with small economies. However, wealthier countries that have historically emitted the most greenhouse gases have resisted language that would force them to chip in and instead advocated softer language that would make these wealth transfers voluntary.

And so far, countries have not made much progress in closing the gap. “It’s a contentious issue, it’s a big issue, it’s a complicated issue,” said Mitchell. “This is my own personal view: I don’t think that will get resolved here at this COP.”

Climate finance

It’s expensive to build resilience to climate change and shift from fossil fuels toward clean energy, particularly for developing countries. The UNFCCC created the Green Climate Fund in 2010 to finance these projects around the world with grants and loans. It includes programs like developing sustainable agriculture in Thailand and building cooling facilities for residents in countries like Bangladesh facing extreme heat.

Governments meeting at COP26 set a target of deploying $100 billion a year in international climate financing through programs like the Green Climate Fund by 2020. But so far, countries haven’t contributed enough to meet the target, falling short by $20 billion in 2018, the most recent estimate available.

More international climate financing would help drive down greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries and motivate them to set more ambitious goals. However, some countries now say that even $100 billion isn’t enough. A negotiator representing African countries, for example, told Reuters that international climate financing should be scaled up to $1.3 trillion by 2030.

All eyes are on the United States

The US has the dubious distinction of being the only country to complete a 360-degree turn on the Paris Agreement. It helped convene the accord in 2015, yet former President Trump withdrew the US in 2020. President Biden signed an executive order in January to rejoin and the US was formally back in the Paris accord in February.

Since the US is the wealthiest country in the world and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, it plays a prominent role in climate negotiations and has an even greater obligation to act on the crisis. At COP26, the US not only has to make up for lost time, it also has to rebuild trust with other countries and show that it’s willing to be more ambitious.

“There is this sense of exhaustion about how long is it going to take for one of the biggest emitters in the world to do its fair share,” Rachel Cleetus, the clean energy policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Vox’s Rebecca Leber earlier this month.

President Joe Biden delivers remarks at a virtual summit on climate at the White House in April. The president pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half by 2030. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

In April, Biden announced that the US was adopting a new climate goal: cutting emissions within the decade by 50 to 52 percent, compared to the US emissions peak in 2005.

That’s a big step up from the previous target, which aimed for 26 to 28 percent reductions by 2025. US emissions have been declining since 2005, with a precipitous drop in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. However, greenhouse gases are already starting to rebound.

President Biden has already used some of his executive power to drive actions on climate change, like setting targets for electric vehicle production, limiting new oil and gas production on public lands, and pushing financial institutions to incorporate climate risk into their assessments.

But the fate of the largest parts of Biden’s climate agenda is in the hands of Congress, not the White House.

Democrats in Congress have been hurrying to put these plans into action with the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better Act. These bills, as originally written, could reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent over the next decade. With midterm elections looming next year, Democrats may not get another chance for years to advance major climate change legislation.

“If that’s done before COP, I think that would actually give a number of countries quite a bit of reassurance that what the administration is committed to will be delivered,” said Mountford. “If it’s not quite done before COP, I think people will still be viewing them with some skepticism.”

But the US delegation may arrive in Glasgow with a weaker hand than they had hoped for because the legislation is already being whittled down as Democrats are forced to compromise in the Senate. “For [the US] to have credibility and leadership, we need to not just come with a statement and commitment, but actually the money to pay for it,” Mitchell said.

What happens now, first in Congress and then in Glasgow, will help shape the ambitions of countries around the world as they meet the challenge of climate change. It’s not a stretch to say that the future of our planet as we know it is at stake.

Links

(BBC) Climate Change Will Bring Global Tension, US Intelligence Report Says

BBC - Gordon Corera

Chad is one of several countries mentioned in the assessment as being at threat from climate change. Getty Images

Climate change will lead to growing international tensions, the US intelligence community has warned in a bleak assessment.

The first ever National Intelligence Estimate on Climate Change looks at the impact of climate on national security through to 2040.

Countries will argue over how to respond and the effects will be felt most in poorer countries, which are least able to adapt.

The report also warns of the risks if futuristic geo-engineering technologies are deployed by some countries acting alone.

The 27-page assessment is the collective view of all 18 US intelligence agencies. It is their first such look-ahead on what climate means for national security.

The report paints a picture of a world failing to co-operate, leading to dangerous competition and instability. It has been issued just ahead of President Joe Biden attending next month's COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, which is seeking international agreement.

It warns countries will try to defend their economies and seek advantage in developing new technology. Some nations may also resist the desire to act, with more than 20 countries relying on fossil fuels for greater than 50% of total export revenues.

"A decline in fossil fuel revenue would further strain Middle Eastern countries that are projected to face more intense climate effects," the report says.

Soon, it warns, the impact of climate change will be felt around the globe.

Poorer countries

The US intelligence community identifies 11 countries and two regions where energy, food, water and health security are at particular risk. They tend to be poorer and less able to adapt, increasing the risks of instability and internal conflict. Heat waves and droughts could place pressure on services like electricity supply.

Five of the 11 countries are in South and East Asia - Afghanistan, Burma, India, Pakistan and North Korea - four countries are in Central America and the Caribbean - Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua. Colombia and Iraq are the others. Central Africa and small states in the Pacific are also at risk.

Instability could spill out, particularly in the form of refugee flows, with a warning this could put pressure on the US southern border and create new humanitarian demands.

Flashpoints

A Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker in Murmansk - the Arctic is a possible flashpoint. Getty Images

The Arctic is likely to be one, as it becomes more accessible because of reducing ice. That may open new shipping routes and access to fish stocks but also create risks of miscalculation as militaries move in.

Access to water will also become a source of problems. In the Middle East and North Africa, about 60% of surface water resources cross boundaries. Pakistan and India have long-standing water issues. Meanwhile, the Mekong River basin could cause problems between China and Cambodia and Vietnam, the report warns.

Future tech

Another source of risk is that a country might decide to use geo-engineering to counter climate change.

This involves using futuristic technology, for instance sending reflective particles to the upper stratosphere which mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption or using aerosols to cool oceans in a particular area.

But if one country acts alone it could simply shift the problem to another region and create anger from other nations impacted in a negative way or unable to act themselves.

Researchers in several countries, including Australia, China, India, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as several EU members, are looking at these techniques but there are few rules or regulations.

Spur to co-operate

The report says there are some ways this bleak future might be avoided. Breakthrough technologies, including accepted use of geo-engineering, are some. Another is a climate disaster which acts as a spur for greater co-operation.

The report is a sign that climate is now a central part of security thinking and that it will heighten existing problems as well as create new ones.

"Governments increasingly recognise that climate change is shaping the national security landscape like never before," Erin Sikorsky, the director of the Center for Climate and Security who formerly worked on the National Intelligence Council, told the BBC.

"Climate considerations cannot be separated from other security concerns, such as competition with China.

"That country faces compounding climate risks, from rising sea levels affecting millions of people in coastal cities, flooding in its interior that threatens energy infrastructure, and desertification and migrating fish stocks that undermine its food security.

"National security strategy that does not take such factors into account will get answers to key questions about China's behaviour incorrect."

The new intelligence estimate sets out the stark problems that lie ahead. But the real question will be what policymakers do about this warning from their spies.

Links

(AU The Guardian) A 7m Wall Has Gone Up On A Sydney Beach: Are We Destroying Public Space To Save Private Property?

The Guardian

Beachfront residents back the Collaroy wall but other locals worry the beach will disappear for longer periods as climate change increasingly drives coastal erosion

A concrete seawall designed to stop coastal erosion is being built from Collaroy to South Narrabeen on Sydney’s northern beaches. Photograph: Lewis Isaacs/The Guardian






















“We really didn’t want to build a wall,” says Bob Orth.

 But Orth is one of 10 residents of Collaroy, on Sydney’s northern beaches, who have each paid $300,000 to do just that.

And not just any wall. Construction began in December on a seven-metre-high sheer concrete structure below the residents’ properties, which overlook a beach that has become notorious for dramatic erosion every time there is a big storm.

When the wall is complete it will snake its way 1.3km up the coast to South Narrabeen, consisting of a vertical concrete wall in parts and a revetment – a sloping rock structure engineered to absorb wave energy – in others. Over its projected 60-year lifespan it will hold back the tides to protect 49 properties, 11 public land areas, a surf life saving club and a car park.


The 1.3km wall dividing a Sydney beach community - video 01min 56sec

Residents, including Orth, will cover 80% of the cost, with the rest paid for by the New South Wales government and the Northern Beaches council.

“We didn’t want to put up $300,000,” Orth says. “But we had to build a wall and we’ve done it strictly by the book.”

A seven-metre-high structure is being built below Collaroy residents’ properties, which overlook a beach that has become notorious for dramatic erosion. Photograph: Lewis Isaacs/The Guardian

‘Without the wall built here, we’d be ripped into with the next storm,’ Collaroy resident Bob Orth says. Photograph: Carly Earl/The Guardian

Collaroy is no stranger to storms – the author Ruth Park sketched a vivid first-hand account of one when she lived in the area in 1945 – and the most famous one hit in 2016, when monster waves swept up the beach and washed away the shore, tearing a private pool from its moorings and leaving houses teetering on the brink.

In the five years since, during which two further storms have hit the beach, the residents along the worst-hit strip have organised by forming a corporation, contracting Horton Coastal Engineering to design a wall and campaigning successfully for council approval.

“Without the wall built here, we’d be ripped into with the next storm,” Orth says. “I haven’t got a doubt in the world [that it will work], and no one has any doubts along here. The owners are very happy with the solution.”

‘Brutal engineering solution’

Others in Collaroy are far from happy. Brendan Donohoe from Surfrider Foundation is a local whose organisation has been fighting against the construction of a seawall for three decades. He says that by building the vertical wall, the council is sacrificing the beach to protect private property.

“The council was honestly shocked we weren’t delighted. We were honestly astounded at what they’ve done,” Donohoe says.

As beaches are dynamic systems, changes to the physical environment – such as building on dunes or on the beach itself – can interrupt natural processes by which sand moves around, causing it to disappear from some areas while building up in others.

Donohoe fears the sand directly in front of the wall will be washed away in the next storm, and without a renourishment program to artificially replace it, that section of beach will disappear for longer periods.

“Ultimately these properties are probably unprotectable,” he says. “Our beach is the thing we should be trying to insure – not in the monetary sense but in the sense of its continued existence.”

Tom Kirsop and Brendan Donohoe oppose the seawall. ‘Our beach is the thing we should be trying to insure,’ Donohoe says. Photograph: Carly Earl/The Guardian

Angus Gordon, a coastal engineer and former general manager of Pittwater council, says a vertical wall is a “brutal engineering solution” to a problem that would have been better addressed by a rock revetment.

“Basically, building an artificial cliff face in front of the beach is not fitting in with the environment,” Gordon says.

But Ray Brownlee, the chief executive of Northern Beaches council, rejects the criticism, saying the design of the wall was reviewed by a Danish coastal engineer, the Manly Hydraulics Laboratory and a team from the University of New South Wales.

He says the vertical wall has a smaller footprint on that section of beach than a rock revetment would have had. When finished, two-thirds of the structure will be buried “most of the time”, he says.

“Council’s priority has always been to support residents to protect their properties as long as there is no negative impact on the beach,” Brownlee says. “Our challenge, and that faced by coastal areas around Australia, is to manage the impact of planning decisions made over a century ago.”

Climate change drives coastal erosion

Collaroy and Narrabeen certainly aren’t the only Australian communities facing competing demands as climate change increasingly drives coastal erosion.

Storms in late 2020 and mid-2021 wiped away the sand at Main beach in Byron Bay in northern NSW, while a surf life saving club at Inverloch in Victoria has been forced to retreat twice from advancing tides.

In Western Australia, storms lashed Fremantle’s Port beach in 2019, leaving buildings on the edge of collapse, while Post Office Rock in Beachport, South Australia is recognised as one of Australia’s fastest eroding beaches.

Some 135 metres of land has been lost since 1946 along that stretch of South Australian coastline, with the ocean expected to punch through the dunes in the next decade and reclaim the Pool of Siloam, a popular tourist destination.

Beachfront homes along Pittwater Road, Collaroy damaged by storms in 2016. Photograph: Dean Lewins/AAP


Men sand-bag properties on Collaroy beach – Arlington Building and a run of houses to the north – circa 1922. Photograph: Courtesy of Northern Beaches Council Library Local Studies

Most of the time this erosion occurs in remote places but increasingly it is affecting areas of high development too.

A review conducted in 2009 by the then Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, found that up to 247,600 homes were at risk of inundation if sea levels rose by 1.1 metres. A follow-up in 2011 identified thousands of additional commercial and industrial buildings that were vulnerable.

Some local councils, such as Fremantle in WA, have adopted policies of “managed retreat”, but often they have not been coupled with buy-back schemes to remove vulnerable houses without financially crippling the owners.

State governments have been reluctant to step in, leading many property owners to call for the construction of seawalls to defend homes and businesses.

While these structures may temporarily stem the advancing ocean, they sacrifice the beach for short-term security.

‘We’re already paying for it’

Since 1901 the world’s oceans have risen 20cm on average, but the effect has not been felt evenly.

The reasons are complex and range from epochal shifts in tectonic plates that cause one region to rise and another to fall, while human activity can make an area more flood-prone.

The Australian coastline has been relatively stable, according to Robbi Bishop-Taylor of Geoscience Australia, who helped build a tool that uses satellite data taken since the 1980s to map changes in the coast.

He says just 21% of Australian coastlines have experienced erosion in the past three decades.

“The reason for this is often a lot more complicated than pure erosion or growth,” Bishop-Taylor says.

Even in areas where change has been dramatic, erosion in one area can be offset by gains in others.

Collaroy beach before and after storm damage in June 2016. Photograph: The Guardian

Bishop-Taylor says Point Stuart, a marshy area near Darwin, has lost roughly 500 metres over three decades, but this erosion was balanced by growth in the Gulf of Carpentaria, where the land is growing at a rate of 10 metres a year.

However, climate change is increasing the rate of sea level rise.

According to the IPCC6 report published in August, those born in 1971 have watched the world’s oceans rise at a rate of 1.9mm a year. For those born after 2006, that rate has nearly doubled.

Associate prof Ruth Reef, from Monash University’s school of earth atmosphere and environment, says those numbers may sound small, but as a general rule 1cm of sea level rise causes a one metre retreat of the coastline on beaches.

“The relationship is not one-to-one because the beach is on a slope,” Reef says.

This process is exacerbated as climate change disrupts normal wind patterns, changing how much energy can whip up waves, particularly during storms.

“We keep thinking about climate as something that will happen, but it’s happening already,” Park says. “We’re already seeing impact and we’re already paying for it – but we’ll see a lot more of it because sea levels are rising.”

Links