Home » Posts tagged 'paris climate agreement' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: paris climate agreement

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Post Archives by Category

As Nations Embrace Paris Agreement, World’s Existing Fossil Fuels Set to Exceed its Goals

As Nations Embrace Paris Agreement, World’s Existing Fossil Fuels Set to Exceed its Goals

But, practically speaking, what did the now 60 countries actually agree to when they said they would limit warming to “well below 2°C” and strive for 1.5°C?

A new report from Oil Change International calculates that, in order to accomplish those goals, governments need to stop permitting and building all new fossil fuel projects and retire early some existing oil and gas fields and coal mines.

Entitled “The Sky’s Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production,” the report says that just burning fossil fuels from projects presently in operation will produce enough greenhouse gas emissions to push the world well past 2°C of warming this century. Limiting warming to 1.5°C calls for even larger closures of existing operations.

If the world is serious about achieving the goals agreed in Paris, governments have to stop the expansion of the fossil fuel industry,” Stephen Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change International, said in a statement. “The industry has enough carbon in the pipeline — today — to break through the sky’s limit.”

The report’s findings call attention to the uncomfortable contradiction between the global climate goals set through the United Nations process and the reality of fossil fuel reserves that are being exploited.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Germany About To Make Big Changes To Its Renewables Policy

Germany About To Make Big Changes To Its Renewables Policy

Solar Plant Germany

On Earth Day, some 171 nations formally signed the Paris climate agreement; it was a mostly symbolic, though meaningful next step. The document now awaits individual ratification and, more specifically, ratification by 55 countries representing 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. When and from where those approvals will come is difficult to say with certainty. How are the targets are then actually met is even less clear. For its part – and well aware of the fact that it has much to do – Germany is in the process of reshaping its transformative Energiewende policy.

To be sure, Germany is no slouch. Over the last two years the country has added roughly 11 and 4 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar capacity respectively. Last year, nearly 33 percent of Germany’s electricity demand was satisfied by renewable sources – wind even out-producedcoal for the first time ever in December. Renewable energy penetration in the power supply is already greater than 100 percent in two German states. Moreover, renewables account for 15.3 percent of gross final energy consumption nationwide, up nearly 2 percent from 2014. Globally, Germany has a top-three wind fleet and the world’s largest solar PV capacity.

But – with high expectations and increasingly heavy realties – there’s still much left to do. As it stands, Germany will not meet its current climate obligations. By 2020, it is estimated that Germany will only have cut greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent compared to 1990 levels, or well short of its 40 percent target. In fact, GHG emissions have seen year-on-year growth in six out of the last ten years. Persistent, and in some cases growing coal use, combined with backward progress in the transportation sector suggest the current, aggressive electricity transformation is having trouble maturing into a full blown energy shift.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Why Canada’s Oil Industry May Never Be the Same

Why Canada’s Oil Industry May Never Be the Same

Never is a long time. The dictionary definition is, “at no time in the past or future; on no occasion; not ever.” In the volatile oil and gas industry, those who try to look that far into the future and predict anything with certainty are invariably wrong. Here’s hoping.

But it’s not all bad, oil prices are gradually rising because of market physics and investor sentiment. Federal and provincial politicians are softening their opposition to, and have even publicly declared support for, pipelines to tidewater. The worst is over.

However, it is increasingly certain that the future will not be like the past. Previous downturns have been equally devastating but the primary causes eventually reversed themselves; low commodity prices recovered and damaging government policies were rescinded.

This recovery will be different for a variety of reasons which will combine to cap growth, opportunity and profits, even if oil and gas prices spike. The following major changes appear permanent.

Oil Is Destroying the World

“New research shows that the fossil-fuel era could be over in as little as 10 years, if governments commit to the right policy measures… If you think workers are suffering in Alberta now, wait until you see what Canada’s economy looks like if we miss the huge opportunities for jobs and prosperity offered in renewable energy and a truly climate-friendly economy.”

Written by a climate and energy campaigner for the Sierra Club, this appeared on top of page 13 in the April 23 edition of Victoria’s Times Columnist, under the headline, “Pipelines not the pathway to Paris solutions.” B.C.’s views on pipelines are well known.

Whether you or the tens of thousands of laid-off oil workers believe the first paragraph or not, on April 22 at the United Nations in New York, 171 countries signed the Paris climate change agreement negotiated last year.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Global Warming and the Planetary Boundary

Global Warming and the Planetary Boundary

Climate change is on a fast track, a surprisingly fast, very fast track. As such, it’s entirely possible that humanity may be facing the shock of a lifetime, caught off-guard, blindsided by a crumbling ecosystem, spawning tens of thousands of ISIS-like fighters formed into competing gangs struggling for survival.

Furthermore, what if the biosphere is already under stress by “planetary boundary” or the capacity of the planet to support life? Then what?

As for global warming, a non-consensus school of scientific thought, consisting of a small minority of scientists, believes the ecosystem is at risk of collapse within current lifetime. These scientists do not pull punches. Rather, they tell it like it is, as they see it.

Whereas, most leading climate scientists are not willing to honestly expose their greatest fears, as discovered by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! while at COP21 in Paris this past December, interviewing one of the world’s leading climate scientists, Kevin Anderson of Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, who said: “So far we simply have not been prepared to accept the revolutionary implications of our own findings, and even when we do we are reluctant to voice such thoughts openly… many are ultimately choosing to censor their own research.”

Straightaway, we know from one of the world’s leading authorities that climate scientists are censoring their own research. They are low-balling. Consider this; imagine trying to get a “research grant or private funding” for work that exposes the dastardly truth. That’s the quickest way forward to an unemployment line of sour-faced scientists.

At Paris COP21 just a few months ago, it was agreed by almost every nation on the planet to take defensive action, on a voluntary basis, to limit global warming to under 2C post industrialization, preferably under 1.5C.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Emissions standstill boosts Paris hopes

Emissions standstill boosts Paris hopes

CROP--china pollution

Reduced coal use in China will have a positive impact on poor air quality.
Image: V.T. Polywoda via Flickr

The link between global economic growth and emissions growth has been further weakened as greenhouse gas levels show no increase for the second year in succession.

LONDON, 18 March, 2016 – The world continued to make progress towards a low-carbon economy during 2015, according to analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

It says analysis of preliminary data for the year reveals that global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide − the largest source of man-made greenhouse gas emissions − showed no increase for the second year in a row.

The IEA announcement will be doubly welcome as some Arctic temperatures continue to warm bizarrely. It comes a day after reports from Fort Yukon in Alaska said temperatures there had reached up to 10°C higher than expected for this time of year.

Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director, said of the emissions report: “The new figures confirm last year’s surprising but welcome news. We now have seen two straight years of greenhouse gas emissions decoupling from economic growth.

Landmark agreement

“Coming just a few months after the landmark COP21 agreement in Paris, this is yet another boost to the global fight against climate change.”

Significantly, the global economy continued to grow in 2015 by more than 3%, which the IEA says is further evidence that the link between economic growth and emissions growth is weakening.

In more than 40 years, it says, there have been only four periods in which emissions stood still or fell compared to the previous year. Three of those – the early 1980s, 1992 and 2009 – were associated with global economic weakness.

But the recent stall in emissions comes amid economic expansion. According to the International Monetary Fund, global GDP grew by 3.4% in 2014 and 3.1% in 2015.

Does Methane Threaten Life?

Does Methane Threaten Life?

shutterstock_247058206

The question of whether methane (CH4) in the atmosphere is a threat to life is extraordinarily complex and generally not well understood. But, yes it is a serious threat, very serious and horribly real.

Okay, but don’t scientists understand this, and why aren’t they speaking out?

They are speaking out but only a very few.

Here’s the “speaking out” problem: Leading climate scientists are not willing to honestly expose their greatest fears, as discovered by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! whilst at COP21 in Paris this past December, interviewing one of the world’s leading climate scientists, Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester) of Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research who said: “So far we simply have not been prepared to accept the revolutionary implications of our own findings, and even when we do we are reluctant to voice such thoughts openly… many are ultimately choosing to censor their own research.”

Straightaway, we know from one of the world’s leading authorities on climate change that climate scientists are censoring their own research. But why?

“What we are afraid of doing is putting forward analysis that questions the paradigm, the economic way that we run society today… We fine-tune our analysis so that it fits into the economic reality of our society, the current economic framing. Actually our science now asks fundamental questions about this idea of economic growth in the short term, but we’re very reluctant to say that. In fact, the funding bodies are reluctant to fund research that raises those questions,” Democracy Now! Top Climate Expert: Crisis is Worse Than We Think & Scientists Are Self-Censoring to Downplay Risk, Dec. 8, 2015.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Top Five Climate and Environment Issues for Obama-Trudeau Bilateral Summit

Top Five Climate and Environment Issues for Obama-Trudeau Bilateral Summit

Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper was a staunch supporter of what he called the “no-brainer” project. President Obama, on the other hand, felt like all sorts of brain should be involved when deciding on the future of such major fossil fuel infrastructure. And he rightfully rejected the border crossing pipeline project, which had clearly failed his climate test.

Now, with Canada’s new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the helm of America’s Hat, the two most intimately tied economies in the developed world have a lot of catching up to do. Even with Keystone XL dead and buried (sort of), environment and energy issues are still top of mind for the two leaders.

In a recent Q and A with the Huffington Post, Trudeau acknowledged the timing is right for bold leadership on climate change and the environment: “There is a nice alignment between a Canadian Prime Minister who wants to get all sorts of things done right off the bat and an American President who is thinking about the legacy he is going to leave in his last year in office,” Mr. Trudeau said.

“The issues that are important to him and to me are climate change.”

Obama and Trudeau already had an informal ‘bromance’ meeting soon after the new Prime Minister took office in November 2015. But now, with the unprecedented Paris Agreement behind them, the two leaders have an incredible opportunity to break new ground on climate action and environmental protection at this formal summit.

Here are the top five energy and environment issues these self-proclaimed climate leaders should have on their agenda:

1. North American Climate Change Strategy

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

G20 Countries Must Improve Credibility of Their Paris Climate Pledges, Report Warns

G20 Countries Must Improve Credibility of Their Paris Climate Pledges, Report Warns

The credibility of countries’ climate pledges agreed in Paris in December particularly those of the G20 nations must be strengthened, warns a new report out today.

While much attention has been given to scrutinising the level of ambition of each country’s intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, less focus has been paid to exactly how credible these pledges are.

In December 2015 more than 180 countries agreed an historic deal to limit global warming to “well below 2C” and to make every effort to keep temperature increase to 1.5C.

However the report, published by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the ESRC Centre for Climate change Economics and Policy at the London School of Economics (LSE), argues that countries should strengthen the credibility of their climate pledges in order to build confidence in the Paris Agreement.

Most notably, the LSE report shows that G20 countries scored lower on the degree of transparency, inclusiveness, and effectiveness of their decision-making processes. These countries also scored lower on the level of political constraints to limit policy reversal, and on the existence of dedicated and independent public bodies on climate change.

Argentina, Canada, China, India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia were singled out as those which “have scope for significantly increasing credibility”.

The targets set by the EU (and its individual member states) as well as South Korea were found to be “largely supportive” in terms of credibility while countries such as South Africa, the United States, Australia, Russia, and Brazil had a “significant weakness” in at least one area.

The report suggests that the credibility countries’ climate targets can be increased by strengthening their policies and legislation as well as the transparency, effectiveness and inclusiveness of their decision-making process. Strengthening governments’ public climate change bodies would also help boost credibility the report says.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Climate Insurgency After Paris

Climate Insurgency After Paris

olr_monthlymean_md

NASA.

In December of 2015 – the earth’s hottest year since recordkeeping began — 195 nations met in Paris to forge an agreement to combat global warming. The governments of the world acknowledged their individual and collective duty to protect the earth’s climate — and then willfully refused to perform that duty. What did they agree to, and how should the people they govern respond?

The 195 nations meeting in Paris unanimously agreed to the goal of keeping global warming “well below 2 degrees Celsius” and to pursue efforts “to limit the increase in temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius.” Despite that goal, the Paris agreement also permits the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause global warming to continue rising.

Under the Paris agreement, governments put forward any targets they want – known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) – with “no legal requirement dictating how, or how much, countries should cut emissions.”[1] These voluntary commitments don’t come into effect until 2020 and generally end in 2025-2030.

Today there are 400 parts per million (ppm) of carbon in the atmosphere, far above the 350 ppm climate scientists regard as the safe upper limit. Even in the unlikely event that all nations fulfill their INDC pledges, carbon in the atmosphere is predicted to increase to 670 ppm by the end of this century.[2] The global temperature will rise an estimated 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.[3] For comparison, a 1-degree Celsius increase has been enough to cause all the effects of climate change we have seen so far, from Arctic melting to desertification. In short, the agreement authorizes the continued and even increased destruction of the earth’s climate.

US negotiators were adamant that the agreement must not include any binding restrictions on emissions. Secretary of State John Kerry told fellow negotiators that he “wished that we could include specific dates and figures for emissions cuts and financial aid” to developing countries, but “this could trigger a review by the US brecherclimateSenate that could scuttle the entire agreement.”[4]

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Inside the Paris Climate Agreement: Hope or Hype?

Inside the Paris Climate Agreement: Hope or Hype?

Smog in Lianyungang

It has become a predictable pattern at the annual UN climate conferences for participants to describe the outcome in widely divergent ways. This was first apparent after the high-profile Copenhagen conference in 2009, when a four-page non-agreement was praised by diplomats, but denounced by well-known critics as a “sham,” a “farce,” and a mere face-saver. UN insiders proclaimed the divisive 2013 Warsaw climate conference a success, even though global South delegates and most civil society observers had staged an angry walk-out a day prior to its scheduled conclusion.

So it was no surprise when this happened again on December 12th in Paris. Francois Hollande praised the Paris Agreement as “ambitious,” “binding,” and “universal.” Ban Ki-moon said it ushers in a “new era of global cooperation,” and UN climate convention executive secretary Christiana Figueres described it as “an agreement of solidarity with the most vulnerable.” Barack Obama waxed triumphant and proclaimed the outcome a testament to American leadership in diplomacy and technology.

Friends of the Earth International, on the other hand, immediately denounced the agreement as a “sham of a deal,” adding that the most vulnerable people around the world would “feel the worst impacts of our politicians’ failure to take tough enough action.” The renowned elder climate scientist James Hansen called it a “fraud,” adding, “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words.” British climatologist Kevin Anderson, among the most politically forthright of current scientists, described the agreement as “weaker than Copenhagen” and “not consistent with the latest science.”

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Olduvai IV: Courage
Click on image to read excerpts

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Click on image to purchase @ FriesenPress