(BBC) COP26: UK Firms Forced To Show How They Will Hit Net Zero

BBC News - Robert Plummer | Beth Timmins

Getty Images

Most big UK firms and financial institutions will be forced to show how they intend to hit climate change targets, under proposed Treasury rules.

By 2023, they will have to set out detailed public plans for how they will move to a low-carbon future - in line with the UK's 2050 net-zero target.

An expert panel will set the standards the plans need to meet to ensure they are not just spin.

Any commitments will not be mandatory. Green groups say this is not enough.

Net zero is when a business or a country achieves an overall balance between the amount of carbon it is emitting and the carbon that it's removing from the atmosphere.

Firms and their shareholders will be left to decide how their businesses adapt to this transition, including how they intend to decarbonise.

And although the plans will need to be published, the government said "the aim is to increase transparency and accountability" and the UK was not "making firm-level net-zero commitments mandatory".The market will decide whether firms' plans are credible, the Treasury said.

Speaking at the COP26 climate summit, Chancellor Rishi Sunak claimed the UK was leading the world in becoming the "first-ever net zero aligned global financial centre".

He said the changes would mean: "Better and more consistent climate data; sovereign green bonds; mandatory sustainability disclosures; proper climate risk surveillance; and proper global reporting standards."

In total, 450 firms controlling 40% of global financial assets - equivalent to $130tn (£95tn) - have agreed to commit to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

'Not fast enough

'However, campaign group Global Witness said that without regulation the pledges were "doomed to fail".

"Banks and financiers are the lifeblood of the fossil fuel companies and destructive agribusinesses fuelling the climate crisis - so it's right that focus should be on them at COP26.

"However, today's announcement by banks risks amounting to more greenwashing if it's not legally binding," said Veronica Oakeshott, head of forests policy and advocacy at Global Witness.

David Barmes, senior economist at the campaign group Positive Money, said the intention was positive, but that financial firms were still "pouring billions into environmentally harmful projects."

Mark Campanale, founder and executive chair of Carbon Tracker Initiative, praised the ambition of the plans, but said details of how it would work were still unclear.

"None of the financial assets announced are currently aligned with net-zero and no group of companies can say they are meeting the Paris target by continuing to invest in fossil fuels, so that needs to change considerably before London can be lauded as the world's first net-zero financial centre and a model for the world," he said.

Shaun Spiers, executive director of environmental think tank Green Alliance, said that more UK public sector funding was needed.

"Private sector investment is vital, but it will be much easier to achieve on the back of serious investment by the chancellor," he said.

However, a coalition of finance groups led by former Bank of England governor Mark Carney said there was enough finance committed to keep global warming to 1.5C.

The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) said more than $130trn (£95trn) of private capital "is now committed to transforming the economy for net zero".

In practice, this means that bank loans which would go to an oil field, or a coal mine, are diverted to renewable energy or to a mortgage product that subsidises highly efficient homes.

Bank bosses will also be expected to have tough conversations with their customers who want to build coal power stations, pulling funding in advanced nations now, and developing countries beyond the next decade.

Transition plans

Under the proposed Treasury rules, financial institutions and companies with shares listed on the London Stock Exchange must come up with net-zero transition plans, which will be published from 2023.

The strategies will need to include targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and steps which firms intend to take to get there.

A taskforce made up of industry leaders, academics, regulators and civil society groups will set a science-based "gold standard" for the plans in order to guard against so-called "greenwashing" - where environmental initiatives are more about marketing than substance.

However, the government said there was "not yet a commonly agreed standard for what a good quality transition plan looks like".

Meanwhile, Mr Sunak also pledged that a target for developed countries to send $100bn (£720m) a year to those that are less developed - to help support their transition to net zero - will be achieved by 2023.

Alison Rose, chief executive of Natwest, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that the bank had started measuring the emissions on its balance sheet to help it track progress, saying "transparency was critical".

She said the bank was working with the oil and gas industry "to develop credible transition plans so we can track progress and work with our customers".

But Ms Rose said its main focus was helping small firms where there were "real business opportunities" in "adopting sustainable supply chain [and] sustainable business practices".

Kay Swinburne, vice-chairman of financial services at KPMG UK, said the announcement on UK firms would provide the financial services industry with a "valuable set of unified metrics to measure progress towards decarbonisation".

"It is brave to put a gold standard in place for all companies raising funding," she added.

And Dr Ben Caldecott, director of the UK Centre for Greening Finance and Investment, said the plans would "spur demand for green finance and accelerate decarbonisation, not just in the UK but wherever UK firms do business".

---

Analysis
Faisal Islam, Economics editor

Follow the money to net zero. That is the plan unveiled today, with two-fifths of the world's financial assets, $130 trillion, under the management of banks, insurers and pension funds that have signed up to 2050 net-zero goals including limiting global warming to 1.5C.

This means that the giant laser beam of global finance will be fired towards technologies that lower and eradicate carbon emissions, and away from "brown holdings" of investments in coal, oil and gas.

The aim of the initiative chaired by former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney is to change the plumbing of the whole financial system forever.

What does this mean in practice?

Essentially the easy cheap bank financing that naturally flows to, say, an oil field, or a coal mine, is diverted to renewable energy or to a mortgage product that subsidises highly efficient homes.

In fact all of this is already happening in niches, with loans raised for environmental investments attracting a flood of money, and so cheaper funding - something referred to as a "greenium".Bank chiefs say they are having tough conversations with their customers who want to build coal power stations, pulling funding in advanced nations now, and developing countries beyond the next decade. So that is the grand hope.

Promisingly, the Chinese, whose public banks have been huge backers of coal around the world, have also said they will step back from such investments.

But the negotiations in Glasgow will fall short of setting a global carbon price - the sort of measure that could really guarantee the path to net zero.

They have also so far not come up with a globally consistent way for bank regulators to force the financial system to increase the risk and the cost of lending to carbon intensive industry.

And then there is the really fundamental question about COP26's climate finance agenda: can such fundamental ecological, economic and social change really be achieved more through financial carrot than by regulatory stick?

This position suits politicians who don't necessarily want to tell their voting public to consume or travel less than they are used to.

By changing the financial system, their hope is that the trajectory of every economic sector, from energy to transport, food to clothing, how we live, work and what we consume will decarbonise of their own accord.

---

Links

• 190 nations and organisations pledge to quit coal
• Oil giant says it needs oil to fund green shift
• What does net zero mean?
• Green investing: How your savings can fight climate change
• Can COP26 really save the planet?
• What's the climate impact of private jets at COP26?
• Is Greta Thunberg right about UK climate figures?
• Why the COP26 climate summit is important
• Simple guide to climate change
• What will climate change look like for you?
• Will the UK meet its climate targets?
• How extreme weather is linked to climate change
• What role should the media play in climate change?
• UK firms forced to plan for low-carbon future

(AU The Conversation) Australia’s Refusal To Sign A Global Methane Pledge Exposes Flaws In The Term ‘Net-Zero’

The Conversation - Mark Howden

Shutterstock

Author Mark Howden is Director, ANU Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University

At the United Nations climate summit in Glasgow, more than 90 nations signed a global pledge led by the United States and United Kingdom to cut methane emissions. However, Australia was not among them.

China, Russia, India and Iran also declined to sign the pledge, which aims to slash methane emissions by 30% before 2030.

Methane is emitted in coal and gas production, from livestock and other agricultural activity, and when organic waste breaks down in landfill.

Almost half of Australia’s annual methane emissions come from the agriculture sector. Defending the federal government’s decision, Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor said Australia had pledged net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and would not set specific targets for each sector.

Days out from COP26, National Party leader Barnaby Joyce had claimed signing the pledge would be a disaster for coal mining and agriculture, saying “the only way you can get your 30% by 2030 reduction in methane on 2020 levels would be to grab a rifle and go out and start shooting your cattle”.

Australia’s position on the pledge is inconsistent with methane reductions the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says are required to keep Earth below 1.5℃ warming this century.

The debate also highlights how the shorthand phrase “net-zero emissions” conceals and distorts the real challenges in avoiding dangerous climate change.

It focuses attention on the wrong time frame for action – the next decade is far more important for climate action than 2050. It also addresses the means of action – emissions reduction – rather than the desired goal, which is to avoid dangerous climate change.

And importantly, simply through delaying action, the world could feasibly reduce emissions to net-zero by 2050, but still fail to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement – keeping average global temperature rise below either 1.5℃ or 2℃ this century.

The Morrison government has refused to sign a global methane pledge. Ian Forsyth/AP

Net-zero is both too much, and not enough

The IPCC report released in August painted a clear picture of how different trajectories for various greenhouse gases translate to global temperature increases.

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions last a very long time in the atmosphere so they accumulate. Consequently, net CO₂ emissions need to decline sharply as soon as possible if we’re to limit temperatures to 1.5℃ or 2℃ above pre-industrial levels.

However, CO₂ emissions not only need to reach net-zero – the IPCC says CO₂ emissions need to go “net-negative”. This will require a massive scaling up of methods and technologies to remove existing CO₂ in the atmosphere.

In other words, when it comes to CO₂, net-zero is not enough. It is a way point, not the end point.

So how do we remove CO₂ from the atmosphere? Some methods, such as mass tree planting, are already widely implemented. Some are difficult to implement at scale, such as substantial increases in soil carbon.

Others are in the exploratory stages including incorporating captured CO₂ into building products and high-value materials or in the ocean.

Each option has advantages, disadvantages and limits. The “net-zero by 2050” terminology obscures this complexity. It also conceals the need for crucial discussions about feasibility, governance and support for research and development that’s needed now.

Meanwhile, the situation is quite different for shorter-lived gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. In those cases, going all the way to net-zero is not needed to meet the Paris goals.

According to the IPCC report, an illustrative scenario consistent with 1.5℃ warming would involve methane emission reductions of about 30% by 2030, 50% by 2050 and just over 60% by 2100.

This is consistent with the global methane pledge signed at COP26 overnight. For nitrous oxide, the illustrative reductions would be about 30% by 2050.

So, for methane and nitrous oxide, net-zero is too much.

Targets based on science

It should be noted, to keep temperature rise to 1.5℃, there are many possible combinations of emission-reduction trajectories for various greenhouse gases. The extent to which CO₂, methane or nitrous oxide is reduced is interchangeable and the final mix will be a function of political decisions.

A clear and integrated assessment of the economic, environmental and social consequences of different emission-reduction pathways is needed to inform those decisions. Without that, inefficient and inequitable economic responses may result.

For example, methane (from livestock) and nitrous oxide (from fertiliser use) make up a high proportion of agriculture emissions. But options for completely stopping these emissions are limited.

Farmers could offset their emissions by planting trees or rehabilitating vegetation on their properties to increase carbon stores. But this would prevent them from selling those emissions reductions on carbon markets, thus removing a potential source of farm income.

So an economy-wide target of net-zero for all key greenhouse gases might mean agriculture must make far more effort in emissions reduction, at much greater cost, than other sectors which largely emit CO₂ and where decarbonisation options are more readily available.

Methane represents a large part of agriculture emissions. Shutterstock

New Zealand has recognised this, and treats agricultural emissions separately.

Carving agriculture out of national emissions-reduction goals would place a greater requirement to act onto other sectors. For example, emission reductions in the transport sector may have to be greater than otherwise, to compensate for the lack of progress in agriculture.

But is isolating agriculture from emission reductions necessary? A recent study assessed new emission reduction options for livestock, including several approaches that together may reduce emissions at the rate required by the methane pledge. They involve more efficient production, technological advances, changes in demand for livestock-related products and land-based carbon storage.

These are approaches already being adopted by industry groups and farmers.

Towards ‘Paris-aligned’

Targets for methane and nitrous oxide reductions should be set using the IPCC science – and don’t have to be set at net-zero. That would leave sectors emitting these gases with a feasible (but still challenging) pathway to reducing emissions in line with the Paris goals.

And where appropriate, we should start describing effective climate action as being “Paris-aligned”. Clearly, over-use of the term “net-zero emissions” misdirects attention from where it’s needed.

Links

• Monday's IPCC report is a really big deal for climate change. So what is it? And why should we trust it?
• COP26: a global methane pledge is great – but only if it doesn't distract us from CO₂ cuts
• The clock is ticking on net-zero, farmers must not get a free pass
• Want to understand how the Coalition works? Take a look at climate policy
• COP26 deforestation deal key to slowing climate change, but Canada must tackle issues of carbon accounting and industry
• Land, culture, livelihood: what Indigenous people stand to lose from climate ‘solutions’
• It’s time for Anthony Albanese to get angry
• Health care contributes 7% to Australia’s carbon emissions – but health is missing from our COP26 plan

(AU ABC) Scott Morrison Plays Down Australia's Overall Emissions Compared To China's, But That's Not The Whole Story

ABC News - Melissa Clarke

Scott Morrison often cites China's emissions as a rationale for not introducing a more ambitious emissions-reduction plan. (ABC News, Reuters)

China's President Xi Jinping didn't make it to the Glasgow talks, instead addressing the global climate conference from home.

The absence of the leader of world's biggest emitter was noted by US President Joe Biden, who cast doubt over China's commitment to emissions reduction.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison regularly highlights the sheer volume of China's emissions and its central role to tackling the global issue of climate change.

He cites it as evidence of Australia's relatively small contribution to the problem of global warming, providing himself with a rationale for not introducing more ambitious emissions reduction plans.

But just how do the emissions of China and Australia stack up? And how does it affect the global climate talks taking place in Glasgow?

What are China's emissions and how do they compare to Australia's?

In 2020, China emitted 13.8 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide and equivalent greenhouse gases. That's 13,800,000,000 tonnes.

By comparison, Australia emitted 512 megatonnes, which is 512,000,000 tonnes.

If all of the zeros are making your eyes water, we can put it another way that has a few less: China emits about 27 times more greenhouse gases than Australia.

Climate Watch — a project by the World Resources Institute and used by the World Bank — keeps a database on national emissions that is based on a wide range of sources.

Its most comprehensive comparison is based on 2018 data. It shows China as the biggest emitting nation, responsible for 23.9 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Australia ranks as the 16th biggest emitter, responsible for 1.3 per cent.

Total annual emissions per country between 1990 and 2018. (Climate Watch)

China emits far more than Australia but, per person, Australia is much worse

The sheer volume of China's emissions is in large part due to its population size.

Using the same 2018 figures, emissions per capita — that is, emissions per person — in China is 8.40 tonnes.

In Australia it is 24.79 tonnes per person, one of the top 10 emitters in the world, behind oil-dependent countries such as Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.

China's per person emissions are closest to those of Slovenia and Zimbabwe.

By way of comparison, the United States emits 17.74 tonnes per capita.

Emissions per country on a per capita basis between 1990 and 2018. (Climate Watch)

Both Australia and China have committed to reaching net zero emissions, but what about between now and then?

Where Australia has committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, China is aiming for 2060.

Australia has already begun reducing emissions, while China has committed to reaching its emissions peak before 2030.

At Glasgow, both nations have updated their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) — the process by which countries pledge to cut emissions — in line with the goal of limiting global warming to below 2.0 degrees Celsius and ideally to 1.5C.

As well as the "net zero by 2050" target, Australia has committed to a range of technological goals aimed at lowering the cost of some abatement methods, such as carbon capture and storage, and low-emissions production, such as green steel and hydrogen.

China's updated NDC includes beginning a gradual phase-out of coal, starting in 2025, although it is still commissioning new, coal-fired power plants domestically.

It also pledges to increase the use of renewable energy to around 25 per cent and to install 1.2 billion kilowatts of solar and wind power by 2030.

The Climate Action Tracker — an independent analysis that collates government climate action around the world — has rated the actions of both China and Australia as "highly insufficient".

Scott Morrison's full speech to the UN Climate Summit in Glasgow.

Biggest emitter today vs biggest emitter over time?

While China is now the biggest annual emitter, when you tally up the cumulative emissions of each nation over more than a century, it is not the biggest culprit.

An analysis by a UK-based organisation, Carbon Brief, looked at carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted since the 1850s, given it is a particularly stable greenhouse gas.

It found that China has emitted 284 gigatonnes of CO2, while the US has released 509 gigatonnes over the same period, close to twice as much.

Australia's contribution since 1850 amounts to 35 gigatonnes.

Countries with largest cumulative emissions 1850 – 2021. (ClimateBrief.org)

The historical picture is relevant because the build-up of greenhouse gases over time directly correlates to global warming.

International talks to limit climate change to 1.5C or 2.0C of warming are dealing with emissions from last century as much as the present one.

Why does it matter what Australia does when it's responsible for 1.3 per cent of global emissions?

At the heart of debate over climate action is the divide between developed and developing countries.

The United States, United Kingdom, the European Union and Australia are among the highly industrialised countries that have been emitting greenhouse gases for more than a century.

Despite its extraordinary economic growth in recent decades, China describes itself as a developing country in these debates, given its widespread industrialisation — and significant emissions — started much later than other large economies.

In Glasgow, special climate envoy Xie Zhenhua said China's large emissions were due to its "special development stage" and said his country would speed up emissions cuts later.

Developing countries say they should be given more time to cut their emissions, given they have not had the same amount of time to enjoy the benefits of industrialisation.

It is particularly pertinent in countries such as India, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been pushing to bring electricity to households that have never had a power connection before.

The Paris Agreement seeks to address the inequity by providing finance to developing countries to assist with introducing renewable energy and with adapting to climate change.

However, not all the promised funding has materialised, adding to the sense of injustice felt by developing countries.

The developing countries are among the largest emitters but if smaller, highly-industrialised countries like Australia do not reduce their emissions, despite all their historical advantages, what compulsion is there upon other nations to act?

In a negotiation, it is not just about the numbers.

Links

• Fijian PM pushes Morrison to provide 'concrete plan' for halving emissions by 2030
• Queen calls on world leaders to write themselves 'into the history books'
• Biden takes aim at China and Russia at G20 as COP26 climate summit kicks off in Glasgow
• (AU AFR) Why Australia Is A Bigger Carbon Pariah Than We Think
• (AU SMH) Renewables Drive Australian Emissions Lower As Wind Records Blown Away
• (AU The Guardian) Australia Ranks Last For Climate Action Among UN Member Countries
• (The Conversation) Australia Is At Risk Of Taking The Wrong Tack At The Glasgow Climate Talks, And Slamming China Is Only Part Of It
• (The Guardian) Plans Of Four G20 States Are Threat To Global Climate Pledge, Warn Scientists
• China's Communist Party Knows How To Quell A Restive Population — But What About Its Environment?

More Than 100 Countries, Including U.S. And Brazil, Vow To End Deforestation By 2030

Los Angeles Times - Frank Jordans | Jill Lawless Associated Press

A road winds through a colorful forest near Frankfurt, Germany. (Michael Probst / Associated Press)

GLASGOW, Scotland — More than 100 countries pledged Tuesday to end deforestation in the coming decade — a promise that experts say would be critical to limiting climate change but one that has been made and broken before.

Britain hailed the commitment as the first big achievement of the United Nations climate conference, known as COP26, taking place this month in the Scottish city of Glasgow. But campaigners say they need to see the details to understand its full effect.

The British government said it had received commitments from leaders representing more than 85% of the world’s forests to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. Among them are several countries with massive forests, including the U.S., Brazil, China, Colombia, Congo, Indonesia and Russia.

More than $19 billion in public and private funds has been pledged toward the plan.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that “with today’s unprecedented pledges, we will have a chance to end humanity’s long history as nature’s conqueror, and instead become its custodian.”

Forests are important ecosystems and provide a critical way of absorbing carbon dioxide — the main greenhouse gas — from the atmosphere. Trees are one of the world’s major so-called carbon sinks, or places where carbon is stored.

California

Climate change is now the main driver of increasing wildfire weather, study finds

But the value of wood as a commodity and the growing demand for agricultural and pastoral land are leading to widespread and often illegal felling of forests, particularly in developing countries.

Experts cautioned that similar agreements in the past have not been honored.

Alison Hoare, a senior research fellow at the Chatham House think tank in London, said world leaders promised in 2014 to end deforestation by 2030, “but since then, deforestation has accelerated across many countries.”

“This new pledge recognizes the range of actions needed to protect our forests, including finance, support for rural livelihoods, and strong trade policies,” she said.

“For it to succeed, inclusive processes and equitable legal frameworks will be needed, and governments must work with civil society, businesses and Indigenous peoples to agree, monitor and implement them.”

World & Nation

Brazil to redeploy troops to Amazon to fight deforestation

“We are delighted to see Indigenous peoples mentioned in the forest deal announced today,” said Joseph Itongwa Mukumo, an Indigenous Walikale and activist from Congo.

He called for governments and businesses to recognize the effective role Indigenous communities play in preventing deforestation.

Luciana Tellez Chavez, an environmental researcher at Human Right Watch, said the agreement contains “quite a lot of really positive elements.”

The European Union, Britain and the U.S. are making progress on restricting imports of goods linked to deforestation and human rights abuses, “and it’s really interesting to see China and Brazil signing up to a statement that suggest that’s a goal,” she said.

But she noted that Brazil’s public statements don’t yet line up with its domestic policies and warned that the deal could be used by some countries to “greenwash” their image.

The Brazilian government has been eager to project itself as a responsible environmental steward in the wake of surging deforestation and fires in the Amazon rainforest and Pantanal wetlands that sparked global outrage and threats of divestment in recent years.

But critics cautioned that Brazil’s promises should be viewed with skepticism, especially as Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is an outspoken proponent of developing the Amazon.

About 130 world leaders are in Glasgow for what many scientists say is the last realistic chance to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels — the goal the world set in Paris six years ago.

Increased warming over coming decades would melt much of the planet’s ice, raise global sea levels and greatly increase the likelihood and intensity of extreme weather, scientists say.

Podcasts

Podcast: Just 5 countries could make or break climate change

On Monday, the leaders heard stark warnings from officials and activists alike about those dangers.

Britain’s Johnson described global warming as “a doomsday device” strapped to humanity. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres told his colleagues that humans are “digging our own graves.”

And Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, speaking for vulnerable island nations, warned leaders not to “allow the path of greed and selfishness to sow the seeds of our common destruction.”

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II urged the leaders “to rise above the politics of the moment, and achieve true statesmanship.”

“Of course, the benefits of such actions will not be there to enjoy for all of us here today: We none of us will live forever,” she said in a video message played at a Monday evening reception in a Glasgow museum. “But we are doing this not for ourselves but for our children and our children’s children, and those who will follow in their footsteps.”

The 95-year-old monarch had planned to attend the meeting, but she had to cancel the trip after doctors said she should rest.

The British government said Monday that it saw positive signs that world leaders understood the gravity of the situation. On Tuesday, President Biden is due to present his administration’s plan to reduce methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes significantly to global warming.

The announcement was part of a broader effort with the European Union and other nations to reduce overall methane emissions worldwide by 30% by 2030.

But campaigners say the world’s biggest carbon emitters, including the U.S. and China, need to do much more. Earth has already warmed 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit). Current projections based on planned emissions cuts over the next decade are for it to hit 2.7 Celsius (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) by the year 2100.

Climate activist Greta Thunberg told a rally outside the high-security negotiations venue that the talk inside was just “blah blah blah” and would achieve little.

“Change is not going to come from inside there,” she told some of the thousands of protesters who have come to Glasgow to make their voices heard. “That is not leadership. This is leadership.”

Links

• COP26: global deforestation deal will fail if countries like Australia don’t lift their game on land clearing
• COP26: World leaders promise to end deforestation by 2030
• Cop26: world leaders agree deal to end deforestation
• Deforestation: why COP26 agreement will struggle to reverse global forest loss by 2030
• First Thing: world leaders agree to end deforestation and slash methane emissions
• Over 100 countries at COP26 pledge to end deforestation by 2030

Three Things We Must Do To Tackle Climate Change

Scientific American - Susan Joy Hassol | Jerry Melillo

It’s time to act rapidly and decisively

Credit: Simon Bennett Getty Images

Authors Susan Joy Hassol is the director of Climate Communication and recipient of the 2021 Ambassador Award of the American Geophysical. Jerry Melillo is a Distinguished Scientist at the Marine Biological Laboratory and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

With world leaders meeting at the international climate change conference in Glasgow to negotiate urgent global action necessary to meet this greatest of challenges, many people still don’t know what must be done.

Ever since the “code red” report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) this August, many people have been feeling shell-shocked.

In addition to bringing a serious dose of reality to those who don’t keep up with the latest advances in climate science, the most important message of the report is that it is not too late to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we act rapidly and decisively to cut the emissions that are warming our planet. But what would that look like?

It comes to down to three things: phase out fossil fuels, deploy clean energy, and protect the world’s forests.

To phase out fossil fuels, the first step is to allow no new development of coal, oil and gas. That means no exploration, no new wells, mines, pipelines, refineries or power plants. We already have a massive amount of fossil fuel infrastructure, and it will take decades to phase out its use.

It makes no sense to throw good money after bad and prolong the inevitable. The International Energy Agency has concluded that any new fossil fuel investments from now on would be incompatible with meeting internationally agreed-upon climate targets.

After a phaseout of existing internal combustion engine vehicles, all new cars, trucks, buses, and trains should be electric or powered by other clean fuels such as green hydrogen. It will be years before all the dirty old vehicles are off the road, but good policies can help speed that transition.

Another important aspect of the fossil fuel phaseout is to plug methane leaks associated with current and former coal, oil and gas development. The IPCC report makes clear that reducing these emissions is the best opportunity to avoid a significant amount of near-term warming.

Methane is a potent heat-trapping gas, about 80 times as powerful as carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. It also has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime than carbon dioxide, so its levels can be reduced relatively quickly.

Oil and gas wells and pipelines and coal mines often leak large amounts of methane. Plugging these leaks will save money, improve air quality, and stave off warming. We now have the technologies to find and eliminate these leaks.

Second of our three major tasks is rapidly ramping up the deployment of clean, renewable energy. Contrary to a common misconception, we do not need an energy miracle, because we’ve already had one. Solar and wind are the fastest-growing new sources of energy we have. Their costs have plummeted, making them the least expensive options in most locations.

Studies have shown that we can get all the power we need from wind, water and sun coupled with various kinds of energy storage and grid improvements.

Part of clean energy deployment involves recognizing the global nature of the climate challenge and developing aggressive and efficient ways to share clean energy technologies across the globe. Many people in developing countries do not yet have access to reliable electricity.

It is a global imperative to help them gain this access through new, clean technologies. Just as countries that lacked telephone service were able to leapfrog over conventional phone lines and go straight to mobile phones, they can similarly skip the dirty energy stage and go straight to renewable energy.

Third of our tasks is protecting the world’s forests, which currently absorb about a third of the carbon dioxide our activities emit to the atmosphere. Tropical forests are especially at risk and still being cleared for agricultural uses including cattle ranching and soybean and palm oil production, and this must cease.

To meet the planet’s growing food needs, agronomists urge improved management practices on already-cleared land rather than clearing new land, especially forested land. We must recognize that maintaining these vital carbon sinks is of value to all life on Earth, and we must be willing to do whatever it takes to help protect them.

All three of these tasks will serve us in many ways beyond ensuring a livable climate. Protecting forests will not only maintain their vital function as a carbon sink, it will also help preserve indigenous cultures, biological diversity, endangered species and clean air and water.

Similarly, ending new fossil fuel development and phasing out its existing uses will give us cleaner air and water, better health, fewer premature deaths and less of the toxic pollution that comes with oil spills, mountaintop removal and other insults that accompany the extraction and use of fossil fuels.

Finally, the global cooperation could be transformative for humanity as we work together to protect the only home we have. If we can see beyond our typical battle lines, we can take on this global challenge as we would if some outside force were inflicting it upon us.

We are on a mission to save planet Earth, its people and its natural wonders.

The three actions we propose—phasing out fossil fuels, deploying clean energy and protecting the world’s forests—are essential for success.

Links

• U.S. Announces New Rules to Curtail Methane at Climate Summit
• New Tech Can Reveal a Vast Network of Methane Leaks
• Large Methane Leaks Reveal Long-Standing Shortfalls in Oversight
• More Countries Join Global Pledge to Cut Methane Emissions
• Methane Hits Record High in Atmosphere as Fossil Fuel Companies Diverge
• (ABC News) David Attenborough Addresses World Leaders At COP26 In Glasgow, Saying Humans Are Powerful Enough To Address Climate Change
• (AU The Guardian) Running Homes And Cars On Electricity Alone Would Save Households $5,443 A Year, Report Finds
• (The Conversation) 4 Strategies For A Global Breakthrough On Energy And Climate Change
• (The Planetary Press) Over 2,000 Scientists and Academics Call for World Leaders to Negotiate a Treaty to Phase Out Fossil Fuels
• (UK The Conversation) Climate Change: Ditch 90% Of World’s Coal And 60% Of Oil And Gas To Limit Warming To 1.5°C – Experts
• (Inverse) How To Save A Planet: To Avoid Catastrophe, This Shocking Amount Of Fossil Fuels Must Stay In The Ground
• (AU Pearls and Irritations) Solving The Mega-Risks
• These 12 Places Could Be The Key To Saving The Planet — Study

(The Guardian) ‘We Are Digging Our Own Graves’: World Leaders’ Powerful Words At COP26

The Guardian - Oliver Milman | Peter Walker

The sense of urgency was palpable on the opening day of the Glasgow climate summit

'Digging our own graves': world leaders open Cop26 with climate crisis warning – video 3min 32sec

Alarm, anger and a few significant promises featured during speeches made by dozens of world leaders as crucial UN climate talks came to life in a cold and wet Glasgow on Monday.

 The tone was set by Boris Johnson, who opened the Cop26 talks with a stark warning that “the anger and impatience of the world will be uncontainable” if the talks fail to get the world on track to avoid disastrous global heating of more than 1.5C.

Science Weekly - Cop26: the world leaders arrive - audio 11min 25sec

António Guterres, the UN secretary general, noted governments’ lack of progress in cutting planet-heating emissions.

There were some significant announcements, too, such as Narendra Modi, prime minister of India, promising that his country would get to net zero emissions by 2070 and Johnson unveiling new climate aid for vulnerable developing countries.

But overall, the tenor was of impatience and occasional frustration.

Chaotic scenes outside Cop26, as world descends on Glasgow. 

Read more

Mia Mottley, prime minister of Barbados

“I ask to you: what must we say to our people, living on the frontline in the Caribbean, in Africa, in Latin America, in the Pacific, when both ambition and, regrettably, some of the needed faces at Glasgow, are not present?

“What excuse should we give for the failure?

“When will leaders lead? Our people are watching, and our people are taking note. And are we really going to leave Scotland without the resolve and the ambition that is sorely needed to save lives and to save out planet?

“Are we so blinded and hardened that we can no longer appreciate the cries of humanity?”

Wavel Ramkalawan, president of Seychelles

“Fellow leaders, from Seychelles, our message is simple: we have to act immediately. Let the change be a real one, let the paradigm shift happen.

“May those who exploit without thinking of tomorrow stop.

“May we realise that in this battle to save our planet, we are in the same boat – big, small, rich or poor.

“The time to act is yesterday.”

Lazarus Chakwera, president of Malawi

“The money pledged to the least developed nations by developed nations is not a donation, but a cleaning fee. 

“Neither Africa in general, nor Malawi in particular, will take no for an answer. Not any more.”

Boris Johnson, UK prime minister

“The worse it gets, the higher the price when we are eventually forced by catastrophe to act, because humanity has long since run down the clock on climate change.  

“It’s one minute to midnight on that Doomsday Clock and we need to act now.”

Joe Biden, US president

“There’s no more time to hang back or sit on the fence or argue amongst ourselves. This is a challenge of our collective lifetimes. 

“The existential threat, threat to human existence as we know it, and every day we delay, the cost of inaction increases. 

“So let this be the moment that we answer history’s call here in Glasgow.”

Narendra Modi, Indian prime minister

“By 2070, India will achieve the target of net zero emissions … Today, the entire world acknowledges that India is the only big economy in the world that has delivered in both letter and spirit on its Paris commitments.”

António Guterres, UN secretary-general

“Recent climate action announcements might give the impression that we are on track to turn things around. This is an illusion.

“Our addiction to fossil fuels is pushing humanity to the brink. We face a stark choice: either we stop it, or it stops us. 

“It’s time to say, ‘Enough … Enough of treating nature like a toilet. Enough of burning and drilling and mining our way deeper. We are digging our own graves.’”

David Attenborough, naturalist and TV presenter

“If, working apart, we are a force powerful enough to destabilise our planet, surely, working together, we are powerful enough to save it.

“In my lifetime, I have witnessed a terrible decline. In yours, you could and should witness a wonderful recovery. 

“That desperate hope, ladies and gentlemen, delegates, excellencies, is why the world is looking to you – and why you are here.”

Emmanuel Macron, French president

“It is often those who can’t access the models of development that caused this climate change that are living through its first consequences.

“Small islands, vulnerable territories, indigenous people are the first victims of the consequences of climate disturbances.”

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission

“I know that all of us here at Cop26 want to be on the right side of history. And this is why I call on all of us to do whatever it takes, now, to limit global warming to 1.5C. 

“And we can do it. Because climate change is man-made, science tells us. So we can do something about it.

“It’s our opportunity to write history. Even more, it’s our duty to act now.”

George Weah, president of Liberia

“Although we bear the brunt of the impact of climate change, we benefit the least from existing solutions and financial arrangements currently in place for tackling climate change. 

“In order to address this imbalance, there needs to be a fundamental shift in the way we tackle mismatched climate investment.”

Links

• Cop26: Boris Johnson ‘cautiously optimistic’ about reaching 1.5C deal
• World leaders announce plan to make green tech cheaper than alternatives
• Cop26: Boris Johnson says ‘the eyes of the world are on our negotiators’ as world leaders leave 
• Cop26: global leaders begin talks – in pictures
• What happened at Cop26 – day two at a glance
•  Nicola Sturgeon makes presence felt despite no seat at Cop26 table
•  Climate conference – as it happened
•  Cop26: world leaders agree deal to end deforestation
•  What happened at Cop26 today – day one at a glance

(The Conversation) The Science Everyone Needs To Know About Climate Change, In 6 Charts

The Conversation - Betsy Weatherhead

Scientific instruments in space today can monitor hurricane strength, sea level rise, ice sheet loss and much more. Christina Koch/NASA

Author Betsy Weatherhead is Senior Scientist, University of Colorado Boulder

With the United Nations’ climate conference in Scotland turning a spotlight on climate change policies and the impact of global warming, it’s useful to understand what the science shows.

I’m an atmospheric scientist who has worked on global climate science and assessments for most of my career. Here are six things you should know, in charts.

What’s driving climate change

The primary focus of the negotiations is on carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is released when fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – are burned, as well as by forest fires, land use changes and natural sources.

The Industrial Revolution of the late 1800s started an enormous increase in the burning of fossil fuels. It powered homes, industries and opened up the planet to travel.

That same century, scientists identified carbon dioxide’s potential to increase global temperatures, which at the time was considered a possible benefit to the planet.

 Systematic measurements started in the mid-1900s and have shown a steady increase in carbon dioxide, with the majority of it directly traceable to the combustion of fossil fuels.

Once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide tends to stay there for a very long time. A portion of the carbon dioxide released through human activities is taken up by plants, and some is absorbed directly into the ocean, but roughly half of all carbon dioxide emitted by human activities today stays in the atmosphere — and it likely will remain there for hundreds of years, influencing the climate globally.

During the first year of the pandemic in 2020, when fewer people were driving and some industries briefly stopped, carbon dioxide emissions from fuels fell by roughly 6%. But it didn’t stop the rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide because the amount released into the atmosphere by human activities far exceeded what nature could absorb.

If civilization stopped its carbon dioxide-emitting activities today, it would still take many hundreds of years for the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to fall enough naturally to bring the planet’s carbon cycle back into balance because of carbon dioxide’s long life in the atmosphere.

How we know greenhouse gases can change the climate

Multiple lines of scientific evidence point to the increase in greenhouse emissions over the past century and a half as a driver of long-term climate change around the world. For example:

• Laboratory measurements since the 1800s have repeatedly verified and quantified the absorptive properties of carbon dioxide that allow it to trap heat in the atmosphere.

• Simple models based on the warming impact of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere match historical changes in temperature.

• Complex climate models, recently acknowledged in the Nobel Prize for Physics, not only indicate a warming of the Earth due to increases in carbon dioxide but also offer details of the areas of greatest warming.

When carbon dioxide levels have been high in the past, evidence shows temperatures have also been high. Based on Salawitch et al., 2017, updated with data to the end of 2020, CC BY

• 
  

• 
  

• Long-term records from ice cores, tree rings and corals show that when carbon dioxide levels have been high, temperatures have also been high.

• Our neighboring planets also offer evidence. Venus’ atmosphere is thick with carbon dioxide, and it is the hottest planet in our solar system as a result, even though Mercury is closer to the sun.

Temperatures are rising on every continent

The rising temperatures are evident in records from every continent and over the oceans.

The temperatures aren’t rising at the same rate everywhere, however. A variety of factors affect local temperatures, including land use that influences how much solar energy is absorbed or reflected, local heating sources like urban heat islands, and pollution.

The Arctic, for example, is warming about three times faster than the global average in part because as the planet warms, snow and ice melt makes the surface more likely to absorb, rather than reflect, the sun’s radiation. Snow cover and sea ice recede even more rapidly as a result.

What climate change is doing to the planet

Earth’s climate system is interconnected and complex, and even small temperature changes can have large impacts – for instance, with snow cover and sea levels.

Changes are already happening. Studies show that rising temperatures are already affecting precipitation, glaciers, weather patterns, tropical cyclone activity and severe storms. A number of studies show that the increases in frequency, severity and duration of heat waves, for example, affect ecosystems, human lives, commerce and agriculture.

Historical records of ocean water level have shown mostly consistent increases over the past 150 years as glacier ice melts and rising temperatures expand ocean water, with some local deviations due to sinking or rising land.

While extreme events are often due to complex sets of causes, some are exacerbated by climate change. Just as coastal flooding can be made worse by rising ocean levels, heat waves are more damaging with higher baseline temperatures.

Climate scientists work hard to estimate future changes as a result of increased carbon dioxide and other expected changes, such as world population. It’s clear that temperatures will increase and precipitation will change. The exact magnitude of change depends on many interacting factors.

A few reasons for hope

On a hopeful note, scientific research is improving our understanding of climate and the complex Earth system, identifying the most vulnerable areas and guiding efforts to reduce the drivers of climate change. Work on renewable energy and alternative energy sources, as well as ways to capture carbon from industries or from the air, are producing more options for a better prepared society.

At the same time, people are learning about how they can reduce their own impact, with the growing understanding that a globally coordinated effort is required to have a significant impact. Electric vehicles, as well as solar and wind power, are growing at previously unthinkable rates. More people are showing a willingness to adopt new strategies to use energy more efficiently, consume more sustainably and choose renewable energy.

Scientists increasingly recognize that shifting away from fossil fuels has additional benefits, including improved air quality for human health and ecosystems.

Links

• What is COP26? Here’s how global climate negotiations work and what’s expected from the Glasgow summit
• 4 key issues to watch as world leaders gather for the Glasgow climate summit
• Climate change is relentless: Seemingly small shifts have big consequences
• IPCC climate report: Profound changes are underway in Earth’s oceans and ice – a lead author explains what the warnings mean
• Why is this year's COP26 meeting getting so much attention?
• David Attenborough issues hopeful message at COP26, says humans are 'powerful enough to save' the planet
• World leaders outline climate commitments at COP26 summit
• COP26 climate summit opens in Glasgow amid acrimony
• ‘Significant milestone’: In Glasgow, the world moves to halt deforestation
• Opinion: The smart money on climate seems to be barely mitigated doom