4 Reasons the Paris Agreement Won’t Solve Climate Change

EcoWatch - James Hansen

Many hail the Paris agreement—set to cross the threshold this week to come into effect—as a panacea for global climate change. Yet tragically, this perspective neglects to take into account the scientific reality of our climate system, which tells a much different story.
Our latest research, Young People's Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions, appeared Monday as a "Discussion" paper in Earth System Dynamics Discussion, and outlines how—if national governments neglect to take aggressive climate action today—today's young people will inherit a climate system so altered it will require prohibitively expensive—and possibly infeasible—extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Global temperatures are already at the level of the Eemian period (130,000 to 115,000 years ago), when sea level was 6-9 meters higher than today. Considering the additional warming "in the pipeline," due to delayed response of the climate system and the impossibility of instant replacement of fossil fuels, additional temperature rise is inevitable.
Continued high fossil fuel emissions place a burden on young people to undertake "negative CO2 emissions," which would require massive technological CO extraction with minimal estimated costs of $104-$570 trillion this century, with large risks and uncertain feasibility.
Continued high fossil fuel emissions unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, possibly implausible cleanup or growing deleterious climate impacts or both, scenarios that should provide incentive and obligation for governments to alter energy policies without further delay.
The paper provides the underlying scientific backing for the Our Children's Trust lawsuit against the U.S. government, which argues that climate change jeopardizes the next generation's inalienable rights under the U.S. Constitution to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The paper offers an opportunity to examine the current state of the planet with respect to climate change. Four key takeaways include:

1. The Paris Climate Accord is a precatory agreement, wishful thinking that mainly reaffirms, 23 years later, the 1992 Rio Framework Convention on Climate Change.
   The developing world need for abundant, affordable, reliable energy is largely ignored, even though it is a basic requirement to eliminate global poverty and war. Instead the developed world pretends to offer reparations, a vaporous $100B/year, while allowing climate impacts to grow.
2. As long as fossil fuels are allowed to be held up as the cheapest reliable energy, they will continue to be the world's largest energy source and the likelihood of disastrous consequences for young people will grow to near certainty.
3. Technically, it is still possible to solve the climate problem, but there are two essential requirements:
   (1) a simple across-the-board rising carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies at the source, and
   (2) government support for RD&D (research, development and demonstration) of clean energy technologies, including advanced generation, safe nuclear power.
4. Courts are crucial to solution of the climate problem.
   The climate "problem" was and is an opportunity for transformation to a clean energy future. However, the heavy hand of the fossil fuel industry works mostly in legal ways such as the "I'm an Energy Voter" campaign in the U.S.
   Failure of executive and legislative branches to deal with climate change makes it essential for courts, less subject to pressure and bribery from special financial interests, to step in and protect young people, as they did minorities in the case of civil rights.

Links

• Young People's Burden
• 'Signed, Sealed and Delivered': Paris Climate Agreement Reaches Major Milestone
• Where on Earth Are We Going to Put the Next Billion People?
• David Suzuki: Climate Deniers Are Wrong ... CO2 Emissions Are Wreaking Havoc on the Planet

AEMO Report Into SA Blackout Raises Questions, Answers None

Renew Economy - Giles Parkinson

Image: ABC

A preliminary report into last week's blackout in South Australia from the Australian Energy Market Operator says it is clear that it was a "weather event" that sparked 30 seconds of chaos and triggered the collapse of three main transmission lines and ultimately the state-wide blackout.
But the report, although reaching no conclusions, and based on incomplete data, invites the media – and wind farm opponents in Coalition and industry – to cite wind energy as a key factor by inferring that some of the state's wind farms contributed to the cascading impacts that caused the state-wide outage.
The report was released on Wednesday morning, just two days before a hastily convened COAG energy minister's meeting on Friday.
This is grist for the mill for that meeting – and it appears its timing serves no other purpose. No doubt it will be seized upon by the Coalition in its campaign against wind farms and its attempts to stop the states from going forward with their own renewable energy programs.
In particular, the Coalition will point to the loss of 315MW of wind power highlighted by AEMO in the press release after the collapse of the last of the transmission lines that preceded the failure of the inter-connector. At which point all the remaining gas and wind generators tripped.

But there is a question about whether this loss of wind capacity really mattered. The data in the actual report suggests not.
Wind generators were producing a total of 883MW at the time (gas was providing 330MW and 613MW was coming from Victoria) – and had ridden out the loss of the first two transmission lines.
A small amount of wind capacity dropped out after the second transmission line collapsed, possibly – the operators say – as the result of lightning strikes and a software glitch that has since been rectified.
But as this chart below shows, there was no impact on frequency. It was only the failure of the third transmission line at 1615.18 that some generation was lost, the frequency dropped the system went black 1.2 seconds later.
The loss of the third transmission line took away the delivery mechanism for two other wind farms, which suggests it wouldn't have mattered which power source was operating on that line. Within another half a second, all remaining gas and wind plants had gone after the interconnector tripped.
The report does not say why this happened, or why they stopped generating. It could be because they had nowhere to send their output. Or that, as mentioned earlier, some were hit by lightning, or tripped after repeated voltage drops.
Nor does the report does not say if the total blackout would avoided by having a brown coal generator on line, or if the outcome would have been any different with no wind power.
The report also point to problems with conventional generation, saying that contracted but un-named providers of "black start" services – peaking gas fired and diesel power stations – failed to deliver and could not be used to restart the main gas generator, meaning the operator had to wait until a new link was established with Victoria.
They are paid millions of dollars to provide this essential service, but failed when needed. The report does not say why, possibly because it won't even say who.
Indeed, the report is also likely to trigger discussions about the role of AEMO itself, and the actions that it took, or didn't take, in the lead up to the blackout.
It says, for instance, that  it was on a "heightened state of readiness" with "emergency procedures in place".
But market players are wondering why it saw no reason to allocate more back-up power, or adjust the flow on the interconnector so that they could respond to any unforeseen events, particularly for the lightning that is frequent in that part of the world.
If it had "reclassified" the potential loss of the interconnector, this would have invoked the provision of 35MW of local FCAS constraint and constrained the interconnector, leaving enough headroom to manage this power flow increase.
Already, the question is being asked: how serious does a storm have to be, and who made the call that this was not serious enough? Many in the market are also expecting a review of the fault ride-through equipment and systems that are rarely tested in real-time.
AEMO has already taken some preventative measures in the interim, placing constraints on wind farms and taking control of the wholesale market – essentially running it as a centrally controlled system rather than an open energy market.
The reason for this is the continued absence of the three main transmission lines, and some smaller lines, which are unprecedented and beyond the system design. It has also reclassified 10 wind farms that it says "did not operate" normally during the weather events.
It effectively means their combined output cannot exceed 600MW, or that of the interconnector. It says this will remain in place until more is known about the issues. AEMO wants to see high speed data from all wind farms in the region in order to confirm that each generator performed in line with their respective agreements.
The preliminary report explains how severe weather moved through South Australia on the afternoon of Wednesday, September 28, with high winds, thunderstorms, 80,000 lightning strikes, hail, and heavy rainfall and even two tornadoes.
The weather, it said, resulted in multiple transmission system faults including, and in the space of 12 seconds, the loss of three major 275 kV transmission lines north of Adelaide.

 The sequence of events as described by AEMO went something like this:
– At 1618 (network time): One line faulted: No change to generation or load. … but 1 transmission line out of service
– Another line faulted (and successful re-connected within 1 second). Then it re-faulted and 2 transmission lines out of service.
– 1 second later, there was about 123MW reduction in wind output.
– 4 seconds later – another transmission fault …. and now 3 transmission lines were out of service
– About 2 seconds later another about 192MW reduction in wind output occurred. This caused the flow across Heywood Interconnector to increase to over 850MW, causing it to trip. In less than half a second the whole state went to "system black".
The cause of wind farm disconnection is still not clear and is not dealt with by AEMO. There is some suggestion that some wind farms could have been lost because of multiple lightning strikes, or because of protection measures.
Strikes at some turbines may have triggered an automatic shutdown after three successive faults – although these faults could have been caused by lightning or falls in frequency. There are concerns that these turbines should have been configured to ride through more such events.
It wouldn't be the first time lightning has caused havoc in South Australia. In 2005, a lightning strike forced the Northern brown coal generator to drop from nearly full output to zero, causing the inter-connector to trip and the loss of a number of other conventional power plants.
Still, these are troubling times for the wind industry, and for the solar industry as well, which could also find itself impacted should the states find themselves beaten into submission by the federal government and a baying media crowd.

South Australia premier Jay Weatherill says the report shows that it was a weather event and was not a "renewable energy" event.
"Now, armed with that information, we need to attend the national energy ministers meeting on Friday to take steps to ensure that we have a secure, clean and affordable electricity system," he was quoted as saying by the ABC.
Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, however, said the state had failed to keep the lights on. "SA has the highest wholesale energy costs in Australia. That is not good for business. It's not good for a state which needs to get more jobs, [and has] a higher unemployment rate than any other."
The Clean Energy Council says it was clear that the blackout was caused by the storm that took out the huge electricity pylons and triggered a sequence of "extraordinary events", and it wouldn't have mattered if the state was running on coal, gas, nuclear or renewable energy.
"This was a once-in-50-year storm which placed extraordinary stress on the power system, and the cascading events that followed the damage to the transmission system have never been experienced before," CEO Kane Thornton said.
"Australia's power network is highly sophisticated with a range of advanced protection and fault ride-through equipment and systems that are rarely tested in real-time. These were put under unprecedented pressure due to the extreme weather events in South Australia.
"No doubt there will be much we can learn to improve the resilience of the electricity system in light of the evolving energy mix and the probability of increased storm events in the future.
"There is no evidence to suggest that maintaining Northern Power Station in operation or the increased role of wind power changed the outcome in these extraordinary events."

Links

• Preliminary Report – Black System Event In South Australia On 28 September 2016
• Series of faults plunged SA into darkness, says AEMO report.
• Preliminary report reveals cause of South Australia blackout
• South Australian blackout highlights need for a national energy transition plan

Fossil Fuel Industry's Methane Emissions Far Higher Than Thought

The Guardian - Adam Vaughan

Emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas from coal, oil and gas are up to 60% greater than previously estimated, meaning current climate prediction models should be revised, research shows

Map showing global methane concentrations in January 2016 at a pressure of 400 hectopascals, or roughly 6km above the surface. Concentrations are higher in the northern hemisphere because both natural- and human-caused sources of methane are more abundant there. Photograph: AIRS/Aqua/Nasa

The fossil fuel industry's emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas are dramatically higher than previously thought.
Researchers who pulled together the biggest database yet of worldwide methane emissions found that, after natural sources were discounted, emissions from gas, oil and coal production were 20-60% greater than existing estimates.
Methane makes up just 16% of global greenhouse gases and is shorter-lived than the CO2 which accounts for three quarters, but has a much more powerful warming effect.
The extra methane estimated by the study is 300 times larger than the amount leaked in California's Aliso Canyon last year, which was the worst gas leak in US history. While bad news for efforts to tackle climate change, the new study published in Nature also found that methane emissions had fallen as a fraction of industry's production.
Lead author Stefan Schwietzke, of the University of Colorado and US science agency Noaa, said that methane from fossil fuels had played a significant role in global warming, but the gas's short lifetime meant acting on it now could pay quick dividends.
"The good news is that reducing methane emissions now will reduce climate forcing in only a few years – it takes much longer for CO2. And since fossil fuel methane emissions are higher than previously thought, the potential to reduce climate forcing from this specific source is also greater," he told the Guardian.
Experts said the study meant scientists should reconsider their climate models. "Emissions scenarios currently used for climate prediction need to be reassessed taking into account revised values for anthropogenic methane emissions," wrote Dr Grant Allen of the University of Manchester in a commentary in Nature.
Other studies have suggested the huge growth in the US shale gas industry is to blame for a spike in methane emissions since the mid-noughties. But the new work found methane emissions from natural gas production had declined as a fraction of production from 8% in the mid-1980s to around 2% in the late 2000s and early 2010s.
"There has been anecdotal evidence for a while that the oil and gas industry improved their efficiency. Our data confirms this anecdotal evidence on a global scale," said Schwietzke.

Emissions from the fossil fuel industry contribute 30 to 45% of atmospheric methane

Guardian graphic | Source: Nature

Methane emissions have been rising since the industrial revolution but paused between 1996 and 2006 – believed by some to be because of decreased fossil fuel emissions in former Soviet Union countries – before marching upwards again. Most is from natural sources, such as wetlands and geological seepage, but humanity's share is estimated to account for 30-45% of the total.
The study published on Wednesday examined the isotopic "fingerprints" of methane sources, compiling thousands of measurements from public sources and peer-reviewed papers. Allen said it was the largest database of its kind.
Schwietzke said that such models on methane were very sensitive to the data that informed them. "A key message is that the number and comprehensiveness of measurements matter."

Links

• US and China release fossil fuel subsidy peer reviews
• How the fossil fuel industry's new pitch is more like an epitaph than a life lesson
• World carbon emissions stopped growing in 2015, says BP
• G7 nations pledge to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2025
• World could warm by massive 10C if all fossil fuels are burned
• Fossil fuel use must fall twice as fast as thought to contain global warming - study
• Sweden is challenging the world to go fossil fuel-free
• China's carbon emissions from fossil fuels may be 14% lower than thought

Lessons From South Australia’s Blackout: We Need To Make Infrastructure More Resilient To Climate Change

The Conversation - Mark Gibbs

South Australia's blackout was a reminder of the importance of our infrastructure. AAP Image/David Mariuz

Last week's storm and subsequent state-wide blackout in South Australia reminds us how important the electricity grid – and other infrastructure – is for our communities.
Immediate analysis suggests the blackout was caused by the collapse of transmission infrastructure in South Australia. Australian electricity networks, like most transmission networks worldwide, rely on above-ground conducting wires held aloft by large towers. Some of these towers were blown over in the South Australian event.
While the storm hasn't yet been specifically linked to climate change, it also serves as a reminder of the increasing challenges of delivering essential services in a more variable climate and slowing economy.
Power, water, transport, health, defence and communications infrastructure can be exposed to climate variability and change simply because of their long lifetimes. Therefore, many if not most owners and operators of essential infrastructure have commissioned climate vulnerability and adaptation studies.
There are many good examples of adaptation. For instance, Queensland Urban Utilities, the major water distributor and retailer in south-east Queensland, is implementing a large program to make the water and wastewater delivery network more resilient to flooding.
But there is increasing recognition among climate adaptation researchers that many of the recommendations from climate adaptation studies aren't being adopted. This is sometimes referred to as the "plan and forget" approach to climate adaptation and it leaves critical infrastructure vulnerable to weather extremes.

Speaking different languages
One of the less obvious reasons for lack of uptake is the difference in language used in the climate science and adaptation community and in the infrastructure community.
All technical disciplines develop their own specialised language and climate science is no exception. But planning for climate change means that infrastructure professionals have to apply climate science to engineering planning and design.
Both disciplines use risk management as a common framework for assessing and managing risks. But the "bible" of climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) process, has invented new definitions of risk.
These differ from the long-standing definitions of risk enshrined by the International Organisation for Standardization and widely used by the engineering and infrastructure community.
Many engineers find they cannot use the IPCC reports and projections because this information cannot be directly integrated into planning and design processes that are often heavily regulated and prescribed.
By necessity, climate projections are based on probabilities that specified environmental conditions may occur.
By contrast, engineering design is often based on a specified extreme number, whether it be a maximum wind strength or flood height, rather than a set of probabilities.
Over time it is expected that engineering design methodologies will be able to assimilate climate projections, but updating these highly prescriptive standards can be a drawn-out process.

Harder, better, faster, stronger
Often the most common recommendations in infrastructure climate adaption studies are to make infrastructure stronger, higher and, by implication, heavier and more expensive. A common example is a recommendation that bridges be elevated and made stronger to account for expected higher flood levels and water flows.
While this is understandable, it is in stark contrast with the way almost all other products are being developed – lighter, faster, cheaper, smarter.
Australia is also consistently either at the top, or near the top, of the infrastructure cost league table. It's one of the most expensive places to design and construct infrastructure worldwide.
Therefore, climate adaptation recommendations to make infrastructure more resilient through brute strength can be difficult to fund – although, in some cases, this may be the only viable option.

Getting creative
We need to think a little more creatively. A good starting point is to take the approach advocated in the relatively new international asset management standard called the ISO 55000 standard.
A key part of this standard is not to think about infrastructure assets in isolation, but to consider how each asset contributes to an essential service, such as providing electricity to our homes. After all, infrastructure assets are only constructed to deliver a service. It is the service that is key, not just the individual asset.
Importantly, the demand for services, levels of service and the way essential services will be delivered in future decades is all largely unknown. Technology will change how essential services are defined and delivered.
Distributed energy – such as rooftop solar – may reduce the need for extensive transmission networks. Smarter combinations of light rail and autonomous vehicles may change demand for major road infrastructure.
New water-treatment technology, such as within-pipe treatment, may do away with the need for large treatment plants that are often located in low-lying regions exposed to sea-level rise.
Climate adaptation needs to stop recommending that existing infrastructure just be built stronger and higher, and take a broader and smarter perspective of what infrastructure may be required as climate change increasingly makes its presence felt.

Links

• South Australia: Failing To Learn The Correct Lessons Will Mean A Failure To Deliver Secure, Affordable Energy In Our Future
• The Lights Go Out In SA And Turnbull Flicks The Switch To Peak Stupid
• SA blackout: climate change readiness will be lost if we fall for blame game
• Support for action on climate change and renewables strongest since 2008
• What the CCA's own modelling shows an emission intensity scheme will need to do
• New research shows climate extremes of today will be the normal of tomorrow: new long-term, national agenda for climate action in Australia now urgent

Australia On The Outer Again As Paris Climate Treaty Comes Into Force

Renew Economy - Giles Parkinson

Australia will find itself again on the outer in global climate change efforts, excluded from key decision-making processes because it is one of a minority of major polluters that has yet to ratify the Paris climate accord.

The European Union on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to ratify the Paris treaty, a day after India announced it would also do the same thing. The ratification is expected to be formally voted by ministers later this week, taking the total well past the trigger point of 55 countries and 55 per cent of total global emissions.
The speed of the ratification – less than a year after the Paris treaty was voted to general acclimation last year – compares with the eight years it took to get its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, into force after it was adopted in 1997.
The move will impact Australia in two ways. Firstly, only those countries who have ratified the treaty can vote in negotiations for the next step in the treaty's implementation. That means Australia will be excluded from these processes, although it may have observer status.
It also means that Australia will reinforce its status as a climate outlier, a reputation it earned when former prime minister Tony Abbott and former Canadian prime minister Steven Harper were branded "climate villains" because of their opposition to action on climate change.
Malcolm Turnbull was expected to change this. but has instead entrenched the policies of his predecessor. New Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, however, has signalled a major change in direction.
This week he mandated a national carbon trading scheme, that will set a carbon price of $C50/tonne by 2022.
"After decades of inaction, after years of missed opportunities, we will finally take real and concrete measures to build a clean economy, create more opportunities for Canadians, and make out world better for our children and grandchildren," Trudeau told parliament.
"Mr Speaker, we will not walk away from science, and we will not deny the unavoidable." Canada is expected to formally ratify the Paris deal this week.
The second impact of the Paris treaty ratification is that Australia will face inevitable pressure to increase its emission reduction targets. Already criticised by most analysts as inadequate and below Australia's "fair share", the unexpectedly quick ratification of the Paris treaty indicates the world is serious about upping its efforts to combat climate change.
"In our view, climate diplomacy will shift its focus to raising the ambition levels of country pledges as record temperatures and climate impacts highlight the magnitude of the work to be done to limit temperature rises to within 2°C, or even 1.5°C," HSBC researchers said in a research note this week.
The combined efforts of the pledges that countries brought to Paris are only expected to cap global warming at around 3°C at best, so there is massive work to be done to lower that likely growth in warming to well below 2°C and possibly below 1.5°C.
"Average temperatures for the first half of 2016 were already 1.3°C higher than pre-industrial levels, which is close to the aspirational 1.5°C target," the HSBC analysts said. "We think ambition levels would need to be raised considerably higher in order for the 1.5°C target not to be missed."
Australian officials admitted last week that no modelling has been done on whether its current policy suite – based around Direct Action and the Emissions Reduction Fund – will meet even its 26-28 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030.
Independent analyst suggests it won't. Australia says it has already beaten its first Kyoto target, but that allowed it to increase emissions by 8 per cent, and its 2020 target required virtually no emission reductions at all.
Current estimates suggest that Australia's emissions are rising again and could be 9 per cent ahead of current levels by 2030.
Leading economist Professor Lord Stern said the treaty progress would provide an enormous boost in confidence for investors, particularly at a time when the world needed to ramp up its efforts to meet the targets.
"A key reason why countries have moved so fast after Paris is that they now recognise the great attractiveness of the growth and development paths for both rich and poor countries that will result from the transition to a low-carbon economy," he said.
Australia, however, is showing no such ambition. The Coalition is rejecting any talk of increasing its targets in next year's policy review, and is looking at trying to force states that have higher renewable energy targets to bring them back to the less ambitious national target.
On green finance, Australia is also moving in the opposite direction, voting to cut $500 million from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and slashing $800 million from the Clean Energy Innovation Fund, the only new initiative announced by the Turnbull government, although it involved only recycled money.
On the international stage, the story is different.
"The race has begun: September has been an extraordinary month for green finance globally," the HSBC researchers noted, citing new initiatives in China, which is establishing a "green financial system", and in France and other countries.
"We believe governments are increasingly thinking about how the transition to a low-carbon economy will be funded, and are laying the financial infrastructure to encourage more green capital (especially private) and to develop and scale up new products.
"In the run-up to COP 22 (Marrakech, Morocco from 7-18 November 2016), we expect these initiatives to gain momentum as investors and businesses seek to be a part of, and contribute to, the low-carbon transition."
But, not in Australia.

Links

• Paris climate deal passes final hurdle
• EU ratifies Paris agreement on climate change
• NZ ratifies Paris climate change agreement
• German lawmakers ratify landmark Paris climate accord

Electric Cars Need 15% Market Penetration To Go Mainstream

Gas 2 - Steve Hanley

In 1962, professor of communications Everett Rogers published his theory on the adoption of innovation. He said before a new idea goes mainstream, it needs significant support from participants in a social network. Since there was no internet back then, social networks meant friends, family, co-workers, and other people webinteract with on a regular basis. Rogers' theories can provide insight into when we can expect electric cars to go mainstream.
"What the people around you do influences you in two ways," says Reuven Sussman, who works for the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. "One way, you get information is from what other people do. The other is you get some social pressure. There's a desire to sort of fit in with your social group and do what others are doing for that reason."
Sussman goes on to say that social pressure engulfs more people after the second wave of adopters take up a technology and spread the word. "People who are the most passionate about these topics are not always the ones that are the best influencers." But when opinion leaders adopt, they can readily become…champions. "People that you know within your social network are generally more credible and trustworthy and likable. They're in your network for some reason."
Professor Rogers theorized that 15% of the potential market must have accepted a new idea or technology before it can go mainstream. But after that milestone is reached, the idea or technology catches on rapidly. Often acceptance by 60% of the market happens within a short time afterwards.
It's not hard to test the Rogers' theories. Think of recent innovations like HDTV or smartphones. HDTV was not even a thing until 1993. For about a decade afterwards, prices dropped and it slowly gained ground. Then all of a sudden — or so it seems — HDTVs were everywhere. Today, you can't give an old television away. Nobody wants one.
The smartphone has had a similar trajectory. In the 80's, a few early adopters had bag phones. They were large, cumbersome devices with a battery that weighed about 10 pounds. Then came the iPhone and everything changed. Today, almost everyone in the world has one. You can probably think of other examples of ideas that seemed far out at one time that suddenly took off. From microwave ovens to Facebook, the theories advanced by professor Rogers are being validated every day.
Which brings us to electric automobiles. If you visit Gas2 on a regular basis, chances are you are already believe that electric cars are a better way to get from Point A to Point B. Even if you don't own an electric car, you are having an impact on the people you know. You are a champion of innovation. What you say influences others.
Right now in the United States, electric cars account for about 1% of all new car sales. In other words, there is a long way to go yet before electric cars go mainstream — maybe as much as a decade or more. But don't despair. Attitudes are beginning to change. At the Paris auto show this week, the buzz is all about electric cars. In Norway, more than 25% of all new cars are electric. China is pushing hard to get more electric cars on its roads.
Within 10 years, the world will reach that 15% mark professor Rogers says is so critical. After that happens, watch out. The change will be rapid. Soon, internal combustion cars will be just a curiosity, something for museums and historians to ponder. Does 10 years seem like a long time? It's not, in the general scheme of things. The transition from mainframes to personal computers took 30 years. Why should the changeover to electric cars take any less?

Links

• Porsche Working On High Power Charger Network For Mission E
• Mercedes EQ Concept Breaks Cover In Paris
• BMW Sheds Light On Electric Car Plans At Paris Show
• Tesla Model S Goes More Than 200,000 Miles In One Year

Planet At Its Hottest In 115,000 Years Thanks To Climate Change, Experts Say

The Guardian - Oliver Milman

Global warming is said to be bringing temperatures last seen during an interglacial era, when sea level was 6-9 meters (20-30ft) higher than today

A coal-fired power station. 'Massive CO2 extraction' costing trillions is needed in order to avoid runaway temperature rises, says a new paper. Photograph: Florian Gaertner/Photothek via Getty Images

The global temperature has increased to a level not seen for 115,000 years, requiring daunting technological advances that will cost the coming generations hundreds of trillions of dollars, according to the scientist widely credited with bringing climate change to the public's attention.
A new paper submitted by James Hansen, a former senior Nasa climate scientist, and 11 other experts states that the 2016 temperature is likely to be 1.25C above pre-industrial times, following a warming trend where the world has heated up at a rate of 0.18C per decade over the past 45 years.
This rate of warming is bringing Earth in line with temperatures last seen in the Eemian period, an interglacial era ending 115,000 years ago when there was much less ice and the sea level was 6-9 meters (20-30ft) higher than today.
In order to meet targets set at last year's Paris climate accord to avoid runaway climate change, "massive CO2 extraction" costing an eye-watering $104tn to $570tn will be required over the coming century with "large risks and uncertain feasibility" as to its success, the paper states.
"There's a misconception that we've begun to address the climate problem," said Hansen, who brought climate change into the public arena through his testimony to the US congress in the 1980s. "This misapprehension is based on the Paris climate deal where governments clapped themselves on the back but when you look at the science it doesn't compute, it's not true.
"Even with optimistic assumptions (future emissions reduction) will cost hundreds of trillions of dollars. It's potentially putting young people in charge of a situation that is beyond their control. It's not clear they will be able to take such actions."
The paper, submitted as a discussion paper to the Earth System Dynamics journal, is a departure from the usual scientific process as it has yet to be peer reviewed and has been launched to support a legal case waged by a group of young people against the US government.
Last year, 21 youths aged between 8 and 19 years old filed a constitutional lawsuit against the Obama administration for failing to do enough to slow climate change. Hansen and his granddaughter are parties to legal challenge, which was filed in Oregon and asserts that the government has violated young people's rights to life, liberty and property.

Recent studies have cast doubt over whether the world will stay with an aspirational temperature target set in Paris

Hansen, who has become increasingly outspoken on climate change since retiring from Nasa in 2013, said he recognized some scientists might object to publicizing the paper so soon but that "we are running out of time on this climate issue."
The courts need to step in to force governments to act on climate change because they are largely free of the corrupting influence of special interests, Hansen said. He repeated his call for a global tax to be placed upon carbon emissions and said that fossil fuel companies should be forced to pay for emissions extraction in the same way the tobacco industry has been sued over the health impact of cigarettes.
"The science is crystal clear, we have to phase out emissions over the next few decades," Hansen said. "That won't happen without substantial actions by Congress and the executive branch and that's not happening so we need the courts to apply pressure, as they did with civil rights."
Several recent studies have cast doubt over whether the world will stay with an aspirational target set in Paris of a 1.5C limit on the average global temperature rise. This guardrail, and even the 2C limit agreed by 195 nations, appears dependent on as-yet undeveloped technology that would remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
Under this scenario, huge emissions cuts would be supplemented by a widespread conversion to biofuels that would be burned for energy. The emissions from this energy would then be buried underground. Some sort of futuristic technology that sucks CO2 directly from the atmosphere may also be required.
Hansen said this is a "dubious" proposition because it requires a vast change in land use at a time where a growing global population will require more food. There are also major doubts whether technology to capture CO2 and lock it underground, often touted as a panacea by the fossil fuel industry, will be developed in time to help avoid the dangerous sea level rise, drought, heatwaves and disease spurred by warming temperatures.
Last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that carbon dioxide levels will not drop below the symbolic 400 parts per million (ppm) mark in our lifetimes – the highest concentration of CO2 since the Pliocene era 3m years ago.
The environment of this time, where sea levels were around 65ft higher than today and trees were able to grow near the north pole due to a lack of ice, is a "bellwether for what future climate might be like," according to Bruce Bauer, a scientist with NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information.
Michael Mann, a prominent climatologist at Penn State University, agreed that CO2 removal will be required if the world was to avoid 1.5C warming although the 2C limit "could likely be achieved without negative emissions, but it would require urgent action, as I have argued myself is necessary.".
Mann added that Hansen's paper is "interesting" but tackles a huge range of topics and is unconventional in its use as a tool to support a legal case.
"Along with the paper being publicized prior to peer review, this will certainly raise eyebrows about whether or not this breaches the firewall many feel should exist wherein policy agenda should not influence the way that science is done," Mann told the Guardian via email.

Links

• No fracking, drilling or digging: it's the only way to save life on Earth
• US emissions set to miss 2025 target in Paris climate change deal, research finds
• Climate change made Louisiana's catastrophic floods much more likely
• The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
• Climate scientists urge Obama to rule out more Arctic oil and gas exploration
• Trump's climate claims: experts analyze Republican's energy policy remarks
• Pizzly or grolar bear: grizzly-polar hybrid is a new result of climate change
• Climate change may be a burning issue – but election campaign tells another story
• Climate change has left US exposed in Arctic, say military experts