Most Countries Need To At Least Double Their Efforts On Climate: Study

The Conversation - Anita Talberg & Malte Meinshausen 

To limit global warming to 2C we can’t emit more than another trillion tonnes of greenhouse gases. Burning fossil fuels is a major source. Coal power image from www.shutterstock.com

 Developed nations would need to double or triple their current efforts to limit global warming to a “safe” level of 2⁰C. That’s the finding of a study published today in Nature Climate Change assessing countries' post-2020 climate pledges ahead of December’s international climate summit in Paris.

As an example, Australia would need to reduce emissions 50-66% below 2010 levels to be considered to be doing its fair share (its current target, when converted to 2010, is a 23-25% reduction).
Countries have agreed to limit warming to 2⁰C above pre-industrial levels. But how do we divide up the necessary reductions in emissions fairly?
Developing nations often argue that developed nations need to do more, because they are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions historically.
This new paper shows that these debates about fairness will inevitably cause us to go beyond 2⁰C, however it also shows a way to fix the problem.
You can read more in a Briefing Note, and all the underlying data is available on a new website.

Are we on track for 2⁰C?
How much the world warms is determined by the total amount of greenhouse gases that go into the atmosphere, what’s known as the “carbon budget”. To have a 66% chance of limiting warming to 2⁰C the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that after 2011 we can only emit 1,010 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases.
Converting the budget to yearly emissions is not easy. However, by analysing hundreds of emissions scenarios, the new study found that to meet the carbon budget, global emissions need to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2030.
We are not on track for this.
The same conclusion was reached by a paper published in 2010, and more recently by Climate Action Tracker that projects 2.7⁰C of warming by 2100.

A fair share
There is a whole raft of reasons why countries’ emission reduction efforts are insufficient. One key reason is the disagreement over what constitutes a “fair” share of the global emissions-reduction effort.
In the latest stage of climate negotiations, almost every country has pledged some form of post-2020 emissions reduction target. These pledges are known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDCs, and reflect what countries see as their own fair share.
Countries’ views differ widely, however, they can be (crudely) simplified to two broad approaches (a similar simplification is found in another recent study).
Both approaches propose that countries emit roughly equal greenhouse gas emissions per person by some future date (say 2050 or 2070). “Distributive justice” proposes that all countries start from the present and converge at some point at the same level of per-capita emissions.
However “corrective justice” seeks to correct the unfair distribution in past emissions by requiring higher historical emitters to emit less per capita in the future (and perhaps even produce negative emissions). This essentially means that all nations have an equal sum of past and future per-person emissions.
The table below shows the emissions-reduction targets required of G20 countries from either a distributive or corrective justice approach (following the specific methodology described in the study).

Dividing up emissions reductions
This chart shows targets under different justice approaches. All targets are expressed against 2010 levels.

Country	Years	Distributive justice	Corrective justice
Argentina	2025	-18%	-14%
Argentina	2030	-28%	-24%
Australia	2025	-18%	-40%
Australia	2030	-30%	-65%
Brazil	2025	-25%	-31%
Brazil	2030	-35%	-45%
Canada	2025	-29%	-48%
Canada	2030	-41%	-70%
China	2025	-19%	+3
China	2030	-32%	-4%
EU28	2025	-30%	-35%
EU28	2030	-41%	-49%
India	2025	+68%	+68
India	2030	+84%	+98%
Indonesia	2025	-32%	-26%
Indonesia	2030	-39%	-32%
Japan	2025	-39%	-34%
Japan	2030	-50%	-45%
Mexico	2025	+1%	+8%
Mexico	2030	-9%	+13
Norway	2025	-2%	-13%
Norway	2030	-13%	-23%
Russia	2025	-35%	-53%
Russia	2030	-48%	-73%
Saudi Arabia	2025	-11%	-21%
Saudi Arabia	2030	-22%	-38%
South Africa	2025	-21%	-22%
South Africa	2030	-33%	-37%
South Korea	2025	-44%	-36%
South Korea	2030	-54%	-43%
Switzerland	2025	-23%	-13%
Switzerland	2030	-33%	-20%
Turkey	2025	0%	+4%
Turkey	2030	-5%	+6%
USA	2025	-29%	-51%
USA	2030	-41%	-74%

Which should we choose?
In practice, each country chooses the justice approach that best meets its national interests. China, having a large population and low historical emissions, supports a corrective justice approach.
Australia, with a small population but high historical emissions, should prefer a distributive justice approach (although in practice Australia has never explicitly expressed a principled view of either type).
There can be no global consensus on which form of justice is most just. Unfortunately, when every country accepts to the 2⁰C target but opts for a preferential treatment of justice, global warming exceeds 2⁰C.
One way to fix this is for countries to accept more stringent targets, providing that their main trading partners are willing to do the same, in relative terms.
Australia has argued that its climate policies and emissions reduction targets are adequate because they are comparable to those of other countries — a claim that has been examined and debunked. Following this logic, Australia should be willing to increase its targets if its peers accept to do the same.

Choose your own climate pledge
Such logic underpins a new approach to international emissions reduction allocations: “diversity-aware leadership”. Under this approach, one country becomes a leader by adopting ambitious targets.
Other countries match the effort, calculating commensurate targets based on either distributive or corrective justice approaches (whichever results in a more generous allocation for each country). Ultimately, no country does any “more” than any other country, and each country is free to choose its own definition of what is fair.
Obviously, not every country is a candidate for leadership — only a major economic power with strong geopolitical pulling power. The list is probably restricted to G20 countries.
How does this play out?
Potential leadership scenarios for the EU, the US, China and Australia would be:

• To be deemed a leader, the EU would need to pledge a target of -61% on 2010 levels by 2030. To match that effort we would see these targets: US -59%, China -6% and Australia -50%
• As leader, the US would pledge -75% on 2010 levels by 2030. From this we would see: EU -50%, China -4% and Australia -65%
• A Chinese leader would pledge -32% on 2010 levels by 2030. In turn we would see: US -41%, EU -41% and Australia -30%
• An Australian leadership pledge would be -66% on 2010 levels by 2030. Matching this would require: US -75%, EU-50% and China -4%.

How this looks on global pie charts:

Meinshausen et al.

The table below compares some targets actually proposed by countries with those consistent with a fair share under the different approaches.

Climate targets: a fair share

Country	INDC	INDC (on 2010 levels)	Distributive justice	Corrective justice	Leadership
Australia (2030)	-26 to -28% (on 2005 levels)	-23 to -25%	-30%	-65	-66
China (2030)	Peak by 2030	35% above (estimate)	-32%	-4	-32
EU (2030)	-40% (on 1990 levels)	-27%	-41%	-49	-61
US (2025)	-26 to -28% (on 2005 levels)	-22 to -24%	-29%	-51	-52

Clearly, none of these country targets currently meets the criteria of a fair share, and they are all well below what might be required for leadership.

Australia needs to double or triple efforts
To claim good global citizenship, as a minimum, Australia would need to increase from 25% to 30% its current target (note: the announced Australian target uses a 2005 baseline, whereas this is compared to a 2010 baseline).
However, this would ignore the benefits Australia has gained from past emissions. Taking this into consideration, Australia’s fair share would represent a doubling (and almost tripling) of its current target. Similarly, Australia would need to almost triple its effort to be considered a climate leader.
In July 2015, the government’s advisory body, the Climate Change Authority, recommended that Australia commit to a target of -40% to -60% on 2000 levels by 2030. On 2010 levels this equates to a target of -41% to -61%. Although such a commitment would represent a significant increase in ambition, it still falls short of what might be required against the above criteria.
To read more on this paper see the Mitigation Contributions website or the Briefing Note for policy-makers.

Climate Change Seen As Top Global Threat

Pew Research Center - Jill Carle

Americans, Europeans, Middle Easterners Focus on ISIS as Greatest Danger

In advance of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris this December, many publics around the world name global climate change as a top threat, according to a new Pew Research Center survey measuring perceptions of international challenges. This is particularly true in Latin America and Africa, where majorities in most countries say they are very concerned about this issue. But as the Islamic militant group ISIS maintains its hold in Iraq and Syria and intensifies its grisly public executions, Europeans and Middle Easterners most frequently cite ISIS as their main concern among international issues.
Global economic instability also figures prominently as the top concern in a number of countries, and it is the second biggest concern in half of the countries surveyed. In contrast, concerns about Iran’s nuclear program as well as cyberattacks on governments, banks or corporations are limited to a few nations. Israelis and Americans are among the most concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, while South Koreans and Americans have the greatest concern about cyberattacks relative to other publics. And apprehension about tensions between Russia and its neighbors, or territorial disputes between China and surrounding countries, largely remain regional concerns.
These are among the findings of a new Pew Research Center survey, conducted in 40 countries among 45,435 respondents from March 25 to May 27, 2015. The report focuses on those who say they are “very concerned” about each issue.1

Anxiety about Climate Change High in Latin America, Africa
Across the nations surveyed, the level of concern about different international issues varies considerably by region and country, and in some places multiple issues vie for the top spot.

Very concerned about ...

Country	Global climate change	Global economic instability	ISIS	Iran's nuclear program	Cyber- attacks	Tensions with Russia	Territorial disputes with China
U.S.	42%	51%	68%	62%	59%	43%	30%
Canada	45%	32%	58%	43%	39%	35%	19%
France	48%	49%	71%	43%	47%	41%	16%
Germany	34%	26%	70%	39%	39%	40%	17%
Italy	45%	48%	69%	44%	25%	27%	17%
Poland	14%	26%	29%	26%	22%	44%	11%
Spain	59%	63%	77%	52%	35%	39%	20%
U.K.	38%	32%	66%	41%	34%	41%	16%
Russia	22%	43%	18%	15%	14%	*	8%
Ukraine	20%	35%	9%	11%	4%	62%	4%
Turkey	35%	33%	33%	22%	22%	19%	14%
Jordan	36%	39%	62%	29%	26%	18%	16%
Lebanon	44%	39%	84%	30%	17%	18%	16%
Palest. ter.	33%	32%	54%	17%	24%	12%	10%
Israel	14%	28%	44%	53%	18%	6%	3%
Australia	37%	32%	69%	38%	37%	31%	17%
China	19%	16%	9%	8%	12%	9%	*
India	73%	49%	41%	28%	45%	30%	38%
Indonesia	42%	41%	65%	29%	22%	15%	11%
Japan	42%	30%	72%	39%	39%	32%	52%
Malaysia	37%	37%	21%	11%	20%	9%	12%
Pakistan	25%	6%	14%	9%	14%	7%	18%
Philippines	72%	52%	49%	47%	49%	38%	56%
South Korea	40%	31%	75%	41%	55%	24%	31%
Vietnam	58%	37%	30%	22%	32%	19%	60%
Argentina	57%	49%	34%	31%	28%	22%	18%
Brazil	75%	60%	46%	49%	47%	33%	28%
Chile	62%	39%	31%	31%	22%	15%	15%
Mexico	54%	46%	23%	28%	30%	16%	14%
Peru	75%	58%	35%	42%	35%	26%	27%
Venezuela	60%	60%	28%	35%	38%	22%	24%
Burkina Faso	79%	50%	41%	28%	25%	17%	15%
Ethiopia	59%	50%	38%	23%	28%	20%	20%
Ghana	71%	67%	46%	34%	42%	30%	29%
Kenya	58%	44%	35%	29%	35%	19%	20%
Nigeria	65%	48%	36%	24%	29%	25%	24%
Senegal	51%	59%	35%	33%	37%	20%	16%
South Africa	47%	33%	26%	25%	28%	18%	22%
Tanzania	49%	56%	51%	37%	46%	30%	26%
Uganda	74%	62%	39%	33%	30%	24%	23%

* Question not asked in country.

Note: Question asked about global climate change, global economic instability, the Islamic militant group in Iraq and Syria known as ISIS, Iran's nuclear program, cyberattacks on governments, banks or corporations, tensions between Russia and neighboring countries, and territorial disputes between China and neighboring countries.
Source: Spring 2015 Global Attitudes survey.

Publics in 19 of 40 nations surveyed cite climate change as their biggest worry, making it the most widespread concern of any issue included in the survey. A median of 61% of Latin Americans say they are very concerned about climate change, the highest share of any region. And more than half in every Latin American nation surveyed report substantial concerns about climate change. In Peru and Brazil, where years of declining deforestation rates have slowly started to climb, fully three-quarters express anxiety about climate change.
Sub-Saharan Africans also voice substantial concerns about climate change. A median of 59% say they are very concerned, including about half or more in all countries surveyed. Climate change is particularly worrying in Burkina Faso (79%), Uganda (74%) and Ghana (71%), while South Africans (47%) and Tanzanians (49%) are the least concerned.
Both regions are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change, as is Asia, where a median of 41% voice great concern about the issue. Indians (73%) and Filipinos (72%) are particularly worried, but climate change captures the top spot in half of the Asian countries surveyed.

Concern about climate change is relatively low in Europe. While a median of 42% report being very concerned, global climate change is not one of the top two threats in any European country surveyed. Anxiety about this issue is highest in Spain (59%), but just 14% in Poland say the same. In a number of European nations, concern about climate change is more pronounced for those on the left of the political spectrum. Ideological differences are particularly large in the United Kingdom, where about half of those on the left (49%) express serious concerns, compared with 30% of those on the right. Those to the left of the political center are also considerably more concerned about global climate change in Italy, France and Spain.
Global climate change ranks substantially lower as a comparative global threat for Americans, with 42% saying they are very concerned about the issue. The only global issue that is even less worrying to Americans: territorial disputes between China and its neighbors (30%). Much like in Europe, perceptions in the U.S. about the threat of climate change depend on ideology. About six-in-ten Democrats (62%) are very concerned about climate change, while just 20% of Republicans say the same.

Fear of ISIS in Europe, Middle East and U.S.
Publics in 14 countries express the greatest concern about ISIS, the militant group seeking to create an Islamic state in Iraq and Syria. In Europe, a median of 70% express serious concerns about the threat posed by the growing organization. Apprehension is greatest in Spain (77%), but anxiety about ISIS is high throughout the continent. Even in Poland, where just 29% voice serious worries, fear of ISIS is second only to worries about tensions between Russia and its neighbors.
As ISIS continues to control territory in Iraq and Syria, concern in neighboring countries is high. More than eight-in-ten in Lebanese (84%) are very concerned about ISIS. Fear is especially high among Muslims in Lebanon, Syria’s western neighbor: 90% of Sunnis and 87% of Shia say they are very concerned, compared with 76% of Christians. More than half in Jordan (62%) and the Palestinian territories (54%) also express substantial worries about ISIS. Compared with other international issues, concern about ISIS also ranks highly in Israel and Turkey, which has seen a flood of refugees across its southern border as violence escalates.
A majority of Americans (68%) and Canadians (58%) are also very concerned about the looming threat of the Islamic State. In both countries, anxiety about ISIS is the top concern of the issues included in the survey. Concern is similarly high in a number of Asian nations, including South Korea (75%), Japan (72%), Australia (69%) and Indonesia (65%). Publics in all four countries cite ISIS as their top concern. Relatively few in Africa and Latin America voice serious concern about the threat of ISIS. Only in Tanzania do roughly half (51%) report substantial concerns, the highest of any country in either region.

Global Economy a Common Secondary Concern
While concerns about climate change and ISIS take the top spots in an overwhelming majority of the countries surveyed, the most frequent secondary concern around the world is the instability of the global economy. A top concern in five countries, including Russia, the economy is the second highest concern in 20 countries.
Economic instability is among the top threats in Latin America, where a median of 54% express serious concerns. Six-in-ten in Brazil and Venezuela say they are very concerned about economic issues, the highest in Latin America. Both nations have seen little to no growth in the past year, and their economic woes are expected to deepen in 2015. Economic worries are similarly troubling for countries in Africa. Ghanaians (67%), Ugandans (62%) and Senegalese (59%) are most concerned about the economy, but economic instability is considered one of the top two concerns in every country surveyed in Africa.
Russia and Ukraine, which are facing contracting economies in 2015, consider economic instability a major threat. In Russia, 43% say they are very concerned about the economy, the highest-ranking concern of any issue tested there. About a third of Ukrainians (35%) agree; economic worries are second only to their concerns about tensions with Russia.
The economy is somewhat less concerning in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Still, a third or more in each region say they are very concerned about global economic instability, and the issue still ranks as the second-highest threat in seven countries, including some of the world’s largest economies – China, France, India and Italy all rate economic issues as one of their top two concerns.

Fewer Are Concerned about Iran and Cyberattacks
Israelis are the only public surveyed to rate Iran as their top concern among the international issues tested. More than half of Israelis (53%) have substantial concerns about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli Jews (59%) are far more likely than Israeli Arabs (23%) to express anxiety.
Americans also see Iran’s nuclear program as a major issue. Roughly six-in-ten (62%) say they are very concerned, making Iran the second-highest-ranked threat of those included in the poll. While a median of 42% of Europeans express strong concern about Iran, only in the UK is it considered one of the top two dangers. Relatively few in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East say they are very concerned about Iran’s nuclear program.
Worldwide, the threat of cyberattacks on governments, banking or corporations does not resonate as a top tier worry, though there are pockets of anxiety. In particular, worries about the systematic hacking of computer networks are highest in the U.S. (59%) and South Korea (55%), both of which experienced high profile cyberattacks in recent years. Fewer than half in every other country surveyed express serious concerns about the threat of cyberattacks.

Territorial Tensions Remain within Regions
Concerns about tensions between Russia or China, and their respective neighbors, are largely limited by geography. Just 24% globally are worried about tensions between Russia and its neighbors, but in Ukraine (62%) and Poland (44%), both former Soviet bloc countries, Russia ranks as the top concern. This anxiety is high among Ukrainians and Poles from all walks of life. Within Europe, the British (41%) and Germans (40%) consider tensions with Russia to be one of their top two concerns, second only to fear about ISIS. Elsewhere, relatively few are concerned about tensions with Russia.
Similarly, while there is little concern worldwide about territorial disputes between China and its neighbors, it is one of the top two concerns in a number of Asian nations, including Vietnam (60%) and the Philippines (56%). Both countries challenge China’s claim over islands in the South China Sea, where the Chinese government has recently constructed artificial islands.

Age Differences in Most Advanced Economies

In most countries, there is little variation by age in concerns about international issues. However, in most advanced economies surveyed, people ages 50 and older are more likely to say they are very concerned about a range of issues compared with their younger counterparts, including the threat of ISIS, Iran’s nuclear program, territorial disputes between China and its neighbors, cyberattacks and tensions between Russia and its neighbors. In Canada, a majority of those ages 50 and older (55%) express serious concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, compared with just 25% of 18- to 29-year-olds. Similar differences exist in the U.S., France, the UK, Australia, Japan, Germany and South Korea for nearly all of the issues tested. Only on the issue of climate change is the opposite true in the U.S. – younger people (46%) are significantly more likely to voice concern about climate change than those ages 50 and older (36%).

1. The question asked whether people were “very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned or not at all concerned” about each issue. ↩

How Australia Can Become A Renewable Energy Superpower

Renew Economy - Sophie Vorrath

Australia has the opportunity to become a renewable energy superpower – giving it a global economic advantage much greater than that ever gained from fossil fuels – a new report has suggested, but only if it seizes three key areas of opportunity, based heavily on innovation; and only if it acts quickly and doesn’t miss the wave.
The report, published on Monday by Beyond Zero Emissions, notes that Australia – despite having one of the best renewable energy resources in the world – is currently on the back foot in the global energy stakes.
Its “fossil fuel advantage” is fast disappearing , and it has an outdated and gold-plated electricity network that has acted as a ball and chain to progress.

 But it also suggests that Australia could turn this position around, by building an industry that supplies the renewable and energy efficiency market; by assisting the migration of energy intensive industries to renewables; and by harnessing the trade of renewable energy commodities.
The global shift to renewable energy – while largely a democratising force – will still bring advantages to some nations, the report says.
“The value associated with renewable energy is largely accounted for by the harvesting equipment, with very little ongoing costs and zero fuel costs. This is completely different to fossil energy where the majority of the value is in the ongoing consumption of fuel.
“As a result, the opportunity to capitalise on supplying renewable energy and efficiency equipment will be confined to the period of the transition; then it will recede.
“This opportunity will be based on innovation rather than natural resources. Considering that energy harvesting equipment is commonly available to all nations, advantages will accrue to nations or regions with higher quality renewable energy resources and a greater harvesting territory in relation to their domestic energy needs (Figure 6).

“In essence, these nations will require less investment for equivalent energy output, lowering their energy costs. …the cost of power per unit of installed capacity can more than halve across the typical range of wind or solar conditions,” the report says. “This is the new energy advantage.”
According to the report, there are three main opportunities for “superpowers” in the transition to renewable energy.
“First, demand for renewable energy and efficiency equipment will surge during the transition and then recede.
“Second, after the transition, energy intensive industries will relocate in search of low-cost energy. Third, renewable energy commodities for export will be produced in countries with low-cost renewable energy.”
BZE says the sources of value in the energy system will change in the transition from fossil energy to renewable energy, developing in different phases (see figure below).

Having now reached the tipping point, the report notes that the majority of world energy investment over the next two decades is expected to flow to renewable energy and efficiency solutions – even under ‘business as usual’ conditions.
According to BZE, the global market for renewable energy and efficiency solutions is expected to grow from an estimated $US390 billion in 2013, to $US2.3 trillion by 2035 in order to limit global warming to 2°C.
In all, says the report, $US28 trillion is expected to be invested in renewable energy and efficiency throughout the period.
“The nature of renewable energy solutions is upfront equipment costs replacing the ongoing high fuel costs of fossil energy. This means that this opportunity will be at its strongest during the energy transition phase and recede into the renewable energy era.
As for energy intensive industries, the report says the economics of renewable energy will trigger a migration of this secor, in search of lower production costs for a competitive edge.
“Australia can attract these businesses with its abundant, low-cost energy as well as complementary industries established during the former glory years of energy intensive production in this country.”
Tradeable renewable energy commodities — such as biofuel, hydrogen or transmitted electricity — will be additional energy intensive industries of the renewable energy era, the report says.
And for Australia, “abundant, low-cost renewable energy, land availability, and proximity to the emerging Asian region,” make it a perfect fit.
“Managed well, the transition to renewable energy will restore and enhance former strengths, this time built on sustainable foundations,” the report says.

Why Monster Hurricanes Like Patricia Are Expected On A Warmer Planet

Fairfax - Chris Mooney


Hurricane Patricia makes landfall as a category 5 storm near the port of Manzanillo on Mexico's Pacific coast.
First there was Supertyphoon Haiyan - which peaked out at 170-knot or 315 km/h mile-per-hour winds in 2013 as it slammed the Philippines. And now there is Patricia, forecast to soon hit Mexico, with currently estimated maximum sustained wind speeds of 175 knots or more than 324 km/h.
It is officially the strongest hurricane ever measured by the U.S. National Hurricane Center, based on both its wind speed (175 knots) and its minimum central pressure (880 millibars). The wind measurement "makes Patricia the strongest hurricane on record in the National Hurricane Center's area of responsibility (AOR) which includes the Atlantic and the eastern North Pacific basins," the center said this morning.
And in this case the measurement has added weight because it is based on data collected from an aircraft, rather than mere satellite imagery. "We would like to acknowledge deeply the Air Force Hurricane Hunters for their observations establishing Patricia as a record-breaking hurricane. Clearly, without their data, we would never have known just how strong a tropical cyclone it was," wrote National Hurricane Center forecaster Richard Pasch this morning.

NASA satellite imagery show super Hurricane Patricia as it neared the Mexican coast. Photo: NASA

So how could this happen? The first reason is the presence of an El Nino year which generally leads to hyperactive hurricane activity in the Eastern Pacific basin, says Kerry Emanuel, an MIT hurricane expert, by email. Emanuel has derived a way of measuring the maximum potential intensity that a hurricane can achieve, in light of the climatic conditions in which it forms, which include the sea temperature and also the temperature high in the atmosphere above the storm.
"Potential intensity was particularly high in the region where Patricia developed," Emanuel says. He provided this figure to underscore the point:
So what does this say about climate change?
Certainly, record-breaking hurricanes raise questions about longstanding predictions that global warming, by raising ocean temperatures, should also strengthen these storms. The issue, however, is beset by data-related difficulties, since storm measurement techniques are continually improving and are also highly variable around the world - thus, hurricane hunter flights are far more common in the Atlantic than in the Northeast Pacific, where Patricia formed.
Still, there are widespread predictions that hurricanes should become stronger, on average, in a warmer world. Summarizing the current research, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration puts it this way: "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average. . ..This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."
But of course, it's not the end of the 21st century - it's 2015. So are we seeing the change already, with Haiyan and now Patricia?
"The fact that we have broken records now in the eastern and western Pacific is curious, but we are still dealing with the statistics of small numbers so inferences are dangerous," Emanuel says by email. Emanuel also cautions that because most Eastern Pacific storms are not measured by aircraft, there could have been a stronger one in the past that was not detected. Nonetheless, he recently published research suggesting the possibility of hyper-strong hurricanes in certain regions as global warming continues.
While one storm is only one storm and can never substitute for a comprehensive statistical analysis, the fact remains that the link between warm seas and strong storms - the theoretical reason for believing hurricanes will worsen due to climate change - is starkly apparent in this case.
"The [sea surface temperatures] are so high over such huge areas, that the moisture flowing into the storm, that provides it primary fuel, must be higher than it has ever been before," says Kevin Trenberth, a climate researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, by email. "It still requires the right set up to convert that into an intense storm but the environment is surely ripe. That consists, of course, of a substantial El Nino-related component but also the background global warming that has a memory through the ocean heat content."
Trenberth points out that ocean surface temperatures in the region are warmer than 30 degrees Celsius, or 86 degrees Fahrenheit, "the warmest anywhere around." "The subsurface ocean is exceptionally warm as well," he adds.
"As ocean temperatures continue to warm as a result of human-caused climate change, we expect hurricanes to intensify, and we expect to cross new thresholds. Hurricane Patricia and her unprecedented 200 mile-per-hour sustained winds, appears to be one of them now, unfortunately," adds Michael Mann, a climate researcher at Penn State University.
Scientists will never attribute one single event to climate change or say that it was caused by a warming planet; and with this event as with all weather events there are multiple causes, most prominently El Nino.
Nonetheless, we can say this: Record-setting hurricanes like Patricia are consistent with one major prediction that climate researchers have made for some time about the consequences of a warming world.

Climate Change Is A Reverse Robin Hood For Poor Countries

SBS - Aamna Mohdin

The future doesn't look good for certain countries.Climate change is a reverse Robin Hood: stealing from the poor countries and giving to the rich ones.  

File photo of a failed grain crop in central New South Wales. (AAP)

Just when you thought the news about climate change couldn’t get any worse, consider this.
Not only will global warming put a massive dent in the world’s GDP over the coming decades, but it “is essentially a massive transfer of value from the hot parts of the world to the cooler parts of the world,”according to a new study in Nature. “This is like taking from the poor and giving to the rich.”
Researchers Stanford University analyzed 166 countries over a 50-year period (from 1960 to 2010) and compared economic output when country’s experienced normal temperature to abnormally cold or warm temperatures. Controlling for factors such as geography, economic changes, and global trade shifts, they found the optimum temperature where humans are good at producing stuff: 55ºF (13ºC). Applying this finding to climate change forecasts, they found that 77% of countries will experience a decline in per capita incomes by 2099, with the average person’s income shrinking by 23%. Unusually high temperatures will hurt agriculture, economic production, and overall health, researchers say.

Stanford

However, some cold countries will benefit hugely, including Mongolia, Finland, Iceland, and Canada. Most European countries will see slight economic gains.
The Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America, where the world’s poorest are concentrated, are expected to be hit hardest by climate change. These countries are either already at or passed the economic Goldilocks temperature, so productivity will only fall as temperatures increase.

By showing how future climate change will cost the global economy, researchers hope policymakers will significantly invest in reducing emissions. World leaders are set to convene in Paris to negotiate aninternational climate treaty next month. Many have promised to cut emissions, but environmentalists have warned that current pledges aren’t enough to mitigate the worst-case scenario.

Australia's Military Stuck In The 'Wilderness' Over Climate Change, Former ADF Chief Says

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Military leaders are concerned that planning for the effects of global warming has been stymied by politics.
Photo: Ian Hitchcock

• Diggers face their next battle: extreme weather

Australia's military planners have neglected climate change threats to the country and neighbours, leaving forces under-prepared for imminent and far-ranging challenges, say two retired senior officers – including a former Australian Defence Force chief.
"I don't think it's any secret that we've spent three years in the wilderness" on these issues, Chris Barrie, a former admiral who served as ADF chief from 1998 to 2002, told Fairfax Media.

Retired admiral Chris Barrie says climate change has not got the attention it deserves in the ADF.
Photo: Andrew Taylor

Admiral Barrie said a changing climate would place limits on the ADF's capabilities just as demands for involvement on humanitarian and security grounds increased. The risks range from rising sea-levels inundating low-lying military bases to extreme heat affecting troops' health.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott's aversion to making global warming a priority meant the issue was downplayed. "When the Abbott government said you will not use the words 'climate change', the senior leadership had to do as it was directed, but at the same time they know this is important work," Admiral Barrie said.
The challenges may be illustrated within weeks if - as expected by aid groups and others - Papua New Guinea seeks help from Australia to deliver urgently needed food to remote highland villages hard-hit by the unfolding El Nino-linked drought.
"If the situation gets out of hand, and by that I mean people are starving, they will act unlawfully and then it turns out in a monster security situation," he said.
Michael Thomas, an army major who retired in June after 22 years of service, said the politicisation of climate change had been "a huge distraction to defence".
"There are pockets of interest within the military on the subject but it's not something that has captured the attention of our senior leadership," Major Thomas said.
Both former military leaders outlined concerns in a recent report they wrote for the Climate Council and will lead a two-day panel at the Australian Defence Force Academy next week. They also detect a change of policy under new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
A Defence spokesperson said the department "has been actively monitoring and addressing the impacts of climate change for a number of years".
The upcoming Defence White Paper - originally due for completion last September - will address the full ranges of challenges facing the ADF out to 2035 "including the security implications of climate variability and extreme weather events in our region and beyond", the spokesperson said.