02/11/2021

(Al Jazeera) ‘Code Red For Humanity’: 5 Key Climate Change Facts

Al Jazeera - Al Jazeera Staff

Effects of human-caused global warming are happening now and will only worsen if action to decarbonise is not urgently taken, researchers say.

The landmark Paris climate accord in 2015 resulted in nations around the world agreeing to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius [File: Yves Herman/Reuters]

As the COP26 climate change conference gets under way in Glasgow on Sunday, world leaders will likely have their last chance to curtail the deadliest consequences of human-induced planetary warming.

Time is of the essence for unified global action as studies suggest as little as nine years remain before the most catastrophic effects of climate change take hold and are impossible to stop.

“The effects of human-caused global warming are happening now, are irreversible on the timescale of people alive today, and will worsen in the decades to come,” the US space agency NASA said in a brief.

Here are five things to know about the climate emergency as COP26 begins:

‘Catastrophic’ warming worse than ever

Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide trap heat near Earth’s surface and when they become too concentrated, global warming results.

The landmark Paris climate accord in 2015 resulted in nations around the world agreeing to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) compared with the period before the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1760 in Europe and the United States.

The globe has already warmed 1C (1.8F) above preindustrial levels, and climate disasters are a result. The United Nations estimates to keep warming under 1.5C (2.7F), countries need to reach “net-zero” gas emissions by 2050. But efforts to decarbonise have badly faltered since the Paris agreement.

Global emissions would be 16 percent higher in 2030 than they were in 2010 under current national commitments – nowhere close to a 45 percent reduction by 2030 that scientists say is needed to halt climate catastrophe.

A 16 percent rise would lead to warming of 2.7C (4.9F) by the end of the century – a figure meaning life on Earth would be disastrous for millions, if not billions, of people.

Many countries – including the US, the world’s second-largest gas polluter behind China – have pledged to meet the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 or 2060. But a report issued in September by the UN noted climate commitments were so weak that even if pledges are fulfilled temperatures will still rise about 2.7C this century.

This would unleash far more devastating effects than those already hammering countries around the world, from raging floods to out-of-control wildfires and super-storms.

“The world is on a catastrophic pathway to 2.7-degrees of heating,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres noted.



Grim future without rapid action

COP26 comes after another year of extreme weather disasters, including unprecedented heatwaves around the globe, deadly flooding in the US, Europe, and China, raging wildfires in Greece and Turkey, and deadly storms.

But the future could be far worse if world leaders fail to act to achieve zero emissions. The World Bank warned recently more than 216 million people could be forced from their homes and rendered climate refugees by 2050.

Water scarcity will become a serious problem, decreasing crop productivity, while rising sea levels will lead to uninhabitable environments.

According to one study, envisioning the potential worst scenarios, the world’s most populous cities — including Chennai, Mumbai, Jakarta, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City, Shanghai, Lagos, Bangkok and Manila — could be abandoned by 2050.

Scorching temperatures will also wreak havoc on people’s lives.

About 35 percent of the global land area and 55 percent of the world’s population would be subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, “beyond the threshold of human survivability”, the paper noted.



Climate adaptation now inevitable

While mitigating climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero has long been the goal of scientists, the reality is now inescapable that human beings will have to learn to live with the effects of a changing Earth. Planetary warming is here to stay for the foreseeable future and people will have to learn to deal with it.

Efforts to protect societies against the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events are now under way around the globe. These include minimising the effects of sea level rise, ocean acidification, shifting precipitation patterns, and increasing temperatures.

“Adaptation can range from building flood defences, setting up early warning systems for cyclones, and switching to drought-resistant crops, to redesigning communication systems, business operations and government policies,” said the UN’s climate change agency.

But critics say much more needs to be done. Current finance from donor countries and multilateral development banks dedicated to climate adaptation is about $16.7bn a year, a fraction of the current costs of an estimated $70bn annually.

Adaptation costs are projected to rise to as much as $300bn by 2030. Funding for adaptation must be rapidly scaled up to at least 50 percent of total public climate finance expenditure.

“Far greater efforts are needed to build resilience in vulnerable countries and for the most vulnerable people. They do the least to cause climate change – but bear the worst impacts,” the UN noted.

Activists take part in a ‘climate strike’ demonstration in Parliament Square in London in September. [David Cliff/AP Photo]

‘Time rapidly running out’

Leading climate scientists have warned for decades that human activities were filling the atmosphere with heat-trapping gases. However, it has only been in the last few years that plans for action have been developed.

Less than 10 years remain to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts of a warming planet, according to the latest report from the world’s top scientists.

The next 10-20 years will be critical to the survivability of the human species on the planet.

About 70 countries so far have indicated they plan to achieve carbon neutrality goals by 2050.
However, the world’s biggest economies – responsible for 80 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions – must lead the way in taking urgent action to avoid climate catastrophe.

“Saving this and future generations is a common responsibility. We are on the verge of the precipice. Wake up. Step back. Change course. Unite,” UN chief Guterres told world leaders in September.

Reasons for hope

While the grim reality of the climate emergency continues to become ever clearer, there is optimism its worst effects can still be avoided.

“The recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a code red for humanity. But it also made clear that it is not too late to meet the Paris Agreement 1.5-degree target. We have the tools to achieve this target. But we are rapidly running out of time,” said Guterres.

Immediate and drastic improvements in climate action plans are desperately needed from most countries.

However, the tools are there with increasingly affordable technology to help reach net-zero emissions by the middle of the century.

Renewable energy – such as solar or wind farms – is now not only cleaner but sometimes cheaper than fossil fuels. Plans for the mass production of electric vehicles is under way. New forms of food production are also coming online – a positive development to end major emissions from livestock.

Efforts to increase “nature-based solutions” to suck up greenhouse gases have been launched, including mass tree-planting and underwater seaweed forests. Carbon capture technology is improving with some facilities already operating and others soon to open.

But it remains up to politicians around the world to make the transformation to the green economy.

“No more ignoring science. No more ignoring the demands of people everywhere,” said Guterres. “It is time for leaders to stand and deliver, or people in all countries will pay a tragic price.”



Links
at No comments:

(AU The Conversation) Scott Morrison Attends Pivotal Global Climate Talks Today, Bringing A Weak Plan That Leaves Australia Exposed

The Conversation - 

AAP

Author
 is Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Head of Energy, Institute for Climate Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University
Prime Minister Scott Morrison arrives at today’s opening of the United Nations climate summit with a 2050 net-zero emissions target born from a painful political process.

Friendly nations will breathe a sigh of relief, freed from the awkward task of calling out Australia on that basic climate pledge. But the target won’t afford Australia much cover in Glasgow.

This nation still doesn’t have a 2030 emissions-reduction target that passes international muster. Nor does it have policies to achieve greater near-term emissions cuts, or a strategy for the economic and social transition.

The paucity of process around Australia’s climate policy must end. We need a proper long-term emissions strategy – one that’s transparent, inclusive and informed by the best available knowledge.

Australia still does not have a 2030 target that passes international muster. EPA

Does the net-zero target matter? Net-zero targets or pledges have now been proclaimed by almost all developed countries and many industrialising countries - including China, Russia and Saudia Arabia, which all came in before Australia.

Targets for the middle of the century can be cynically regarded as an attempt to kick the can down the road. But they’re important signposts – an affirmation of commitment to the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement.

And importantly, a long-term commitment implies the need for action in the meantime.

Net-zero targets are likely to be increasingly influential in future policy-making. And they matter for investment decisions.

In Australia, the net-zero target could serve yet another function. The fact it was adopted by a conservative government previously opposed to substantial climate action could help end the political “climate wars” which have raged in Australia since 2009.

Net-zero will likely be a durable bipartisan cornerstone – giving the political contest a chance to move beyond whether to do it, to how to do it.

Net-zero emissions targets signal a commitment to the Paris Agreement. Shutterstock
What about the 2030 target? That said, mid-century net-zero targets will be mostly taken for granted at Glasgow. High-level political talks will be focused on stronger emissions targets for 2030 – and almost all developed countries have 2030 targets far more ambitious than Australia’s.

Australia will aim for a 26-28% emissions reduction by 2030, based on 2005 levels. The key point of comparison is the United States, which has committed to a 50-52% reduction in the same time period.

Other important reference points include the United Kingdom and European Union, which respectively aim for emissions reductions of 68% and 55% on 1990 levels. Japan has pledged to cut emissions by 46% based on 2013 levels.

Australia’s 2030 ambition, put forward at the Paris climate talks in 2015, was relatively weak even back then. Six years on, it’s not even in the ballpark of what’s acceptable internationally. And Australia will be just about alone among developed countries in not having updated its target since Paris.

The majority of the 26% target has already been fulfilled, through reductions in emissions from land-use change and forestry, which occurred mostly during 2005 to 2012. In fact, the latest official figures project Australia’s emissions will decline by 30-38% by 2030, without new policy efforts beyond technology support.

The government’s tactic is to argue that Australia over-achieves on its targets. But the purpose of setting targets is to define an ambition, and let that ambition drive policy action.

Other nations will rightly argue the projections show Australia should take on a target far more ambitious than 38%, let alone the current 26-28%.

The existing target is also inadequate to guide the transition to a low carbon economy. The Business Council of Australia is now calling for a 46-50% emissions reduction by 2030.



Made with Flourish

We need a national plan
The document accompanying the federal government’s net-zero announcement last week was heavy on politics and light on analysis. The government called it a “plan”, but in reality it was little more than a statement of aspiration.

First, it assumes technological innovation will take Australia most of the way to net-zero. But much of the technology we need already exists. This includes but is not limited to sectors such as:
  • electricity (renewable energy, energy storage and decentralised power supply)
  • transport (electric vehicles, clean hydrogen in heavy transport)
  • industry (electricity for heat and processes, hydrogen for specific uses)
  • agriculture (lower-carbon practices and products).
After many years of very little climate policy, even a moderate policy effort could harvest much low-hanging fruit.

Policies can be tailored to specific applications, including market and regulatory reform, R&D support, and broad-based and specific incentives and regulations. They can also help with the economic transition in particular regions and industries.

A carbon price is a key part of a sensible policy mix. Carbon pricing is the most cost-effective mechanism to shift to low-emissions production. Australia’s political class must overcome its hang-ups about carbon pricing. Over 20% of global emissions are now subject to emissions trading or a carbon tax, and for good reason.

Much of the technology Australia needs for it’s low-carbon transition already exists. Shutterstock
Where are the costs? But there’s no escaping the fact Australia’s fossil fuel industries will bear most of the economic cost of a global shift to net-zero, as demand for fossil fuels declines and eventually dries up. This is out of the government’s hands.

Governments can help, though – not by propping up old industries, but by investing in infrastructure and economic diversification, worker retraining and social programs.

And there’s a huge upside to the transition. Australia’s comparative advantage in renewable energy means such industries could become very large, if we’re smart about it.

A proper national conversation Quite inexplicably, the modelling underpinning the government’s net-zero plan has not been released. It’s but one small illustration of the paucity of process around climate policy in Australia.

Governments dropping glossy brochures brimming with political messaging, produced behind closed doors, is not the way to deal with a complex long term national issue. 

Brochures brimming with political messaging are not a way to to address a national problem. AAP
Australia needs a proper long-term emissions strategy that fully maps out how to position the nation for success in a low-carbon world. It should be developed openly, draw from the best available knowledge and bring major stakeholders to the table.

Out of that, a shared understanding can be forged between industry, federal and state governments, the unions, civil society and communities. Universities can bring research and analysis to the table.

Many other countries have prepared long-term emissions strategies of this kind, often led by independent statutory agencies like Australia’s Climate Change Authority.

Perhaps our prime minister will return from Glasgow with a few good ideas for how to start a real conversation.

Links
at No comments:

(AU ABC) How Australia Earned Its Climate Change Reputation

ABC News - Michael Slezak



Australia is often labelled a "laggard" on climate change, or worse.  When international climate negotiations come up, we are sometimes alleged to be a "blocker".

"Australia has an absolutely terrible international reputation on climate action and that's been laid out in report after report after report," says Lesley Hughes, a climate scientist at Macquarie University and a councillor at the Climate Council.

But over time, Australia's international reputation on climate change has been mixed, with ups and downs along the road.

One thing is for sure: Australia goes to Glasgow with a lot of baggage.

Australia's first target was actually to increase its emissions

At COP3 in 1997, the world met in Kyoto to sign the first global climate agreement: The Kyoto Protocol.

COP26 is our best chance
to stop global warming
Its aim was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And most developed nations walked away with pledges to do exactly that. The UK promised to cut emissions by 12.5 per cent. Japan promised a 6.5 per cent cut. Canada 6 per cent.

But Australia infamously promised to increase its emissions by 8 per cent.

The European Union's environmental policy spokesman Peter Jorgensen said Australia's lobbying on climate change at the time was "wrong and immoral … a disgrace".

Howard Bamsey was Australia's ambassador to the United Nations at the time. He says other countries didn't think it was fair, but maintains the target was reasonable.

"One of the senior British officials afterwards told me that there had been a bit of an argument within the European group about whether we should be told that wasn't good enough," he says.

A world-leading Emissions Trading System… and its destruction

When Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister in 2007, Australia's reputation pivoted.

At COP13 in Bali that year, Australia reportedly received a standing ovation when it was announced Rudd would ratify the Kyoto agreement — something previous Coalition governments had declined to do.

Then in 2011, prime minister Julia Gillard established a world-leading Emissions Trading System (ETS) — a whole-of economy market mechanism that aimed to drive down emissions.
The carbon tax has come back
to haunt the government
Richie Merzian, who was a lead climate negotiator for Australia for most of the time between 2011 and 2018, says the carbon price "was a really solid example of Australia taking climate change seriously".

The carbon price was short-lived. When the Coalition came back to power under prime minister Tony Abbott, the ETS was among the first climate policies it reversed.

"Australia had defaulted back to its base level," Mr Merzian says.

Mr Bamsey is more ambivalent about the impact of these pivots.

"There's an understanding that for Australia, the politics of climate change have been almost uniquely difficult," he says.

"People shrug their shoulders when there's another turn for the worse on Australia's side."

The lump of coal

Few can forget the picture of Prime Minister Scott Morrison wielding a lump of coal in parliament.

"This is coal. Don't be afraid. Don't be scared. It won't hurt you."

Scott Morrison brought a lump of coal into Question Time in 2017.

But the science tells us otherwise. The burning of coal is responsible for about half of all the greenhouse gases humans have put in the atmosphere — the greenhouse gases that are now contributing to extreme weather around the world including bushfires, extreme heat and floods.

Bill Hare, chief executive of Climate Analytics, a think tank that has worked with UN bodies on climate change, says foreign leaders are in disbelief when they see the footage.

"It at least subliminally plays a role in the way in which Australia is seen," he says.

Mr Merzian says the performance "cemented Australia's position as the lobbyist for the coal industry in international diplomacy".

Pulling out of the Green Climate Fund on talkback radio

Up to 2018, Australia had maintained a reputation as a leader on one crucial aspect of international climate diplomacy: climate finance.

Climate finance is basically cash that flows from rich countries to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change, and also develop without growing their emissions.

Without it, there is no hope of global agreements on climate change, and no way the developing world can afford to make the required changes.

The key mechanism for governments to provide that cash is through the United Nations' Green Climate Fund (GCF).

Australia helped set up the GCF, and Australian diplomat Howard Bamsey led it from 2017 to 2018.

But shortly after becoming Prime Minister, Scott Morrison went on Alan Jones's show and announced Australia would stop contributing to the fund.

"[We are not] bound to go and tip money into that big climate fund, we're not going to do that either. So I'm not going to spend money on global climate conferences and all that sort of nonsense," he said.

By ceasing contributions, Australia also lost its seat on the Fund's board.

Mr Bamsey says Pacific Island nations were particularly hurt by that move.

"Australia's investment in the fund had reaped very large rewards for the Pacific and with Australia's departure from the board … the Pacific lost that champion," he says.

Mr Merzian is scathing about the move. "Now Australia is the only developed country in the world not part of the UN's Green Climate Fund. And the Pacific in particular are asking Australia, 'Why not?'"

Scott Morrison pictured at the Pacific Islands Forum in Tuvalu in 2019.(Twitter: Pacific Islands Forum)

Australia's technical reliability is well regarded

Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor often points out Australia is a world leader when it comes to emissions transparency.

"There is no country that has provided quarterly emissions updates by sector, by gas, over an extended period of time as Australia has, and that transparency will continue," he said when announcing the net zero by 2050 target.

Mr Bamsey agrees this is an area where Australia has maintained a strong international reputation.

He says it started with Australia being a key architect of aspects of the Paris Agreement, and continues with our delegations being reliable.

"You can ask Australia a question about something and you'll get a sound and well-thought-through response, and everybody knows that," Mr Bamsey says.

The politics of climate change have been "uniquely difficult" in Australia, an expert says. (AAP: Dean Lewins)
Our commitments don't stack up

Perhaps most important for our reputation is what we are currently doing, and what we are promising to do in the next decade.

And by that measure, rankings often put us near the bottom of the developed world.

Our 2030 targets are considered by scientists to be vastly inadequate and much worse than those of Canada, New Zealand, the EU, the US and UK.

At the same time, while the US and the EU have pledged to cut methane emissions, and the UK is drumming up support to "consign coal to history", Australia remains the world's biggest coal exporter and second-biggest LNG exporter, has embarked on a "gas-led recovery" and has so far declined to sign up to either pledge.

Bill Hare says the world is unimpressed with Australia on this count.

"What they see in Australia is not a single finger has been lifted to do anything to reduce emissions," he says.

"It's simply letting history unfold at the rate at which it unfolds, which is too slow."

Links
at No comments: