Solving Climate Change.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:49 am Vitruvius, an old friend now deceased, told me sometime during the 1980s that cars can be made so they run on water. He was intelligently interested in both physics and motors whereas that was unintelligible to me then, and I still don't understand. However I think I have heard in recent years that cars can run on hydrogen , which is a large component of water. In that connection I also heard that Big Oil does not want to do that source of power as a switch to hydrogen would be big financial loss to them.

I presume that you yourself are encouraged by the success of electric cars? This could not have happened without political will. True, electric cars run off power from power stations but this technology is much more energy saving than fossil fuel directly from petrol pumps.

BTW, is magma energy safer than nuclear?
I think your friend must have been referring to hydrogen; as there are two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom in H2O. A hydrogen fuelled internal combustion engine (HICE) draws oxygen from the air to combust hydrogen fuel, and so recombines the H with the O - and hydrogen powered vehicles emit water vapour as exhaust. So it's true, sort of - cars can run on water, but that water needs to be pumped full of electrical energy first, to separate the atoms, which are then recombined to release energy.

This is the main drawback with hydrogen; that it takes a lot of energy to produce; so it's rather like electric cars in that respect, where you say:

"True, electric cars run off power from power stations but this technology is much more energy saving than fossil fuel directly from petrol pumps."

In both cases, unless the primary source of energy is clean and renewable, then we are merely displacing emissions. However, given a virtually limitless amount of high grade clean energy, like you'd get from tapping into the molten interior of the earth, hydrogen can be produced in massive quantities from electricity and water, with no carbon emissions whatsoever - and that, a clean and sufficient source of energy is where our efforts should be focused, or we build our house on sand.

Is magma safer than nuclear? If all goes wrong, there's not a lot in it. Nuclear contamination is probably longer lasting - but a volcano can do a lot of damage. More to the point is that nuclear power has major safety issues as part of normal operations; nuclear produces toxic waste that must be kept safe forever after - and that's rarely factored into the budget. The UK is currently spending about £3bn per year on decommissioning. But I favour magma energy because I believe it can be developed relatively quickly, and is adequate to replace fossil fuels entirely, to reach net zero worldwide by 2050. Nuclear cannot do that because, given the safety issues involved - it takes too long, and costs too much to build.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Climate crisis could push 200 million to leave their homes by 2050 in worst-case scenario, says World Bank

The climate crisis could push more than 200 million people to leave their homes in the next three decades and create migration hotspots unless urgent action is taken to reduce global emissions and bridge the development gap, a World Bank report has found.

The second part of the Groundswell report published on Monday examines how the impacts of slow-onset climate change such as water scarcity, decreasing crop productivity and rising sea levels could lead to millions of what the report describes as “climate migrants” by 2050 under three different scenarios with varying degrees of climate action and development.

Under the most pessimistic scenario, with a high level of emissions and unequal development, the report forecasts up to 216 million people moving within their own countries across the six regions analyzed.

Those regions are Latin America; North Africa; Sub-Saharan Africa; Eastern Europe and Central Asia; South Asia; and East Asia and the Pacific.

In the most climate-friendly scenario, with a low level of emissions and inclusive, sustainable development, the number of migrants could be as much as 80 per cent lower but still result in the move of 44 million people.

The report didn’t look at the short-term impacts of climate change, such as effects on extreme weather events

The findings “reaffirm the potency of climate to induce migration within countries,” said Viviane Wei Chen Clement, a Senior Climate Change Specialist at the World Bank and one of the report’s authors.

In the worst-case scenario, Sub-Saharan Africa — the most vulnerable region due to desertification, fragile coastlines and the population's dependence on agriculture — would see the most movement, with up to 86 million climate migrants moving within national borders.

North Africa however, is predicted to have the largest proportion of climate migrants, with 19 million people moving, equivalent to roughly 9 per cent of its total population, due mainly to increased water scarcity in the northeastern coast of Tunisia, the northwestern coast of Algeria, western and southern Morocco, and the central Atlas foothills, the report said.

In South Asia, Bangladesh is particularly affected by flooding and crop failures accounting for almost half of the predicted climate migrants, with 19.9 million people, including an increasing share of women, moving by 2050 under the pessimistic scenario.

“This is our humanitarian reality right now and we are concerned this is going to be even worse, where vulnerability is more acute,” said Prof. Maarten van Aalst, Director of the international Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre

The report did not look at climate migration across borders.

“Globally we know that three out of four people that move stay within countries," said Dr. Kanta Kumari Rigaud, a lead environmental specialist at the World Bank and co-author of the report.

Still, migration patterns from rural to urban areas often precede movements across borders.

While climate change's influence on migration is not new, it is often part of a combination of factors pushing people to move, and acts as a threat multiplier. People affected by conflicts and inequality are also more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change as they have limited means to adapt.

The report also warns that migration hotspots could appear within the next decade and intensify by 2050. Planning is needed both in the areas where people will move to, and in the areas they leave to help those who remain.

Among the actions recommended were achieving “net-zero emissions by mid-century to have a chance at limiting global warming to 1.5°C” and investing in development that is “green, resilient, and inclusive, in line with the Paris Agreement."

Clement and Rigaud warned that the worst-case scenario is “plausible” if collective action to reduce emissions and invest in development isn't taken, especially in the next decade.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/cl ... d=msedgntp
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Investor group sets tough climate blueprint for Big Oil
By Ron Bousso and Simon Jessop 14 hrs ago

LONDON (Reuters) - Investors managing more than $10 trillion on Wednesday published an ambitious blueprint for energy companies seeking to tackle climate change, including sharp cuts to greenhouse gas emissions and a winding down of oil and gas production.

The unprecedented initiative - dubbed the Net Zero Standard for Oil and Gas - details 10 required standards to help money managers compare companies' strategies and understand whether they are aligned with United Nations-backed efforts to reduce global carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

Oil and gas companies such as BP and Royal Dutch Shell have published targets and strategies aimed at battling climate change, but the huge variation in scope, definitions and ambition makes analysis and comparison exceedingly difficult for investors.

At the same time, pressure has grown on portfolio managers and banks to ensure that their investments chime with the 2015 Paris accords to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

With the next round of global climate talks taking place in November, concern is growing that too many plans are flaky and unlikely to provide material help by reducing absolute emissions at the rate needed to limit global warming.

"We need to have a level playing field now on disclosure because it's not possible to compare and contrast across the sector," said Adam Matthews, who is head of responsible investment at the Church of England Pensions Board and chaired the investor-company process to develop the new initiative.

Other investors to back the plan include Amundi, Europe's biggest asset manager, along with Britain's Legal & General Investment Management, HSBC Global Asset Management and state-backed Canadian investor Caisse des Depots among others.

Given the fossil fuel industry is responsible for the lion's share of global emissions, the investor group said it is introducing a minimum set of standards to ensure that energy companies' plans are "credible".

NET ZERO TARGETS

Among these is a requirement to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, meeting emissions-reduction targets along the way while aligning capital expenditure and production plans with the net zero target.

The standards also demand commitments to disclose and independently verify strategies.

Shell, Italian company Eni and Norway's Equinor have all set targets to become net zero emissions by 2050, meaning that any emissions they produce will be offset by carbon capture technologies or other solutions, such as reforestation.

Other companies, including BP and TotalEnergies, aim to reduce emissions from part of their operations to net zero by 2025.

The investor group behind the new plan acknowledges that winding down oil and gas production "can be a very legitimate strategy", Matthews said.

Although it has not set a deadline for companies to adhere to the standards, investors are willing to vote against transition plans and the appointment of certain directors if they feel company boards are not doing enough, Matthews said.

The new standard will be piloted by leading energy companies including BP, Shell, Eni, Repsol and TotalEnergies ahead of wider adoption by the sector, the investor group said.

This group said its plan had been developed by the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change with support from the Transition Pathway Initiative and in consultation with Climate Action 100+, non-governmental organisations with specific expertise in the sector as well as oil and gas companies themselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/i ... d=msedgntp
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:08 pm Investor group sets tough climate blueprint for Big Oil
By Ron Bousso and Simon Jessop 14 hrs ago

LONDON (Reuters) - Investors managing more than $10 trillion on Wednesday published an ambitious blueprint for energy companies seeking to tackle climate change, including sharp cuts to greenhouse gas emissions and a winding down of oil and gas production.

The unprecedented initiative - dubbed the Net Zero Standard for Oil and Gas - details 10 required standards to help money managers compare companies' strategies and understand whether they are aligned with United Nations-backed efforts to reduce global carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

Oil and gas companies such as BP and Royal Dutch Shell have published targets and strategies aimed at battling climate change, but the huge variation in scope, definitions and ambition makes analysis and comparison exceedingly difficult for investors.

At the same time, pressure has grown on portfolio managers and banks to ensure that their investments chime with the 2015 Paris accords to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

With the next round of global climate talks taking place in November, concern is growing that too many plans are flaky and unlikely to provide material help by reducing absolute emissions at the rate needed to limit global warming.

"We need to have a level playing field now on disclosure because it's not possible to compare and contrast across the sector," said Adam Matthews, who is head of responsible investment at the Church of England Pensions Board and chaired the investor-company process to develop the new initiative.

Other investors to back the plan include Amundi, Europe's biggest asset manager, along with Britain's Legal & General Investment Management, HSBC Global Asset Management and state-backed Canadian investor Caisse des Depots among others.

Given the fossil fuel industry is responsible for the lion's share of global emissions, the investor group said it is introducing a minimum set of standards to ensure that energy companies' plans are "credible".

NET ZERO TARGETS

Among these is a requirement to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, meeting emissions-reduction targets along the way while aligning capital expenditure and production plans with the net zero target.

The standards also demand commitments to disclose and independently verify strategies.

Shell, Italian company Eni and Norway's Equinor have all set targets to become net zero emissions by 2050, meaning that any emissions they produce will be offset by carbon capture technologies or other solutions, such as reforestation.

Other companies, including BP and TotalEnergies, aim to reduce emissions from part of their operations to net zero by 2025.

The investor group behind the new plan acknowledges that winding down oil and gas production "can be a very legitimate strategy", Matthews said.

Although it has not set a deadline for companies to adhere to the standards, investors are willing to vote against transition plans and the appointment of certain directors if they feel company boards are not doing enough, Matthews said.

The new standard will be piloted by leading energy companies including BP, Shell, Eni, Repsol and TotalEnergies ahead of wider adoption by the sector, the investor group said.

This group said its plan had been developed by the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change with support from the Transition Pathway Initiative and in consultation with Climate Action 100+, non-governmental organisations with specific expertise in the sector as well as oil and gas companies themselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/i ... d=msedgntp
This seems to me to be important news, for the little my opinion in this matter is worth. I find the language of the report quite difficult especially the jargon. Would it be possible for you to paraphrase it as if for primary school children?
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:08 pm Investor group sets tough climate blueprint for Big Oil
By Ron Bousso and Simon Jessop 14 hrs ago

LONDON (Reuters) - Investors managing more than $10 trillion on Wednesday published an ambitious blueprint for energy companies seeking to tackle climate change, including sharp cuts to greenhouse gas emissions and a winding down of oil and gas production.

The unprecedented initiative - dubbed the Net Zero Standard for Oil and Gas - details 10 required standards to help money managers compare companies' strategies and understand whether they are aligned with United Nations-backed efforts to reduce global carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.

Oil and gas companies such as BP and Royal Dutch Shell have published targets and strategies aimed at battling climate change, but the huge variation in scope, definitions and ambition makes analysis and comparison exceedingly difficult for investors.

At the same time, pressure has grown on portfolio managers and banks to ensure that their investments chime with the 2015 Paris accords to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

With the next round of global climate talks taking place in November, concern is growing that too many plans are flaky and unlikely to provide material help by reducing absolute emissions at the rate needed to limit global warming.

"We need to have a level playing field now on disclosure because it's not possible to compare and contrast across the sector," said Adam Matthews, who is head of responsible investment at the Church of England Pensions Board and chaired the investor-company process to develop the new initiative.

Other investors to back the plan include Amundi, Europe's biggest asset manager, along with Britain's Legal & General Investment Management, HSBC Global Asset Management and state-backed Canadian investor Caisse des Depots among others.

Given the fossil fuel industry is responsible for the lion's share of global emissions, the investor group said it is introducing a minimum set of standards to ensure that energy companies' plans are "credible".

NET ZERO TARGETS

Among these is a requirement to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, meeting emissions-reduction targets along the way while aligning capital expenditure and production plans with the net zero target.

The standards also demand commitments to disclose and independently verify strategies.

Shell, Italian company Eni and Norway's Equinor have all set targets to become net zero emissions by 2050, meaning that any emissions they produce will be offset by carbon capture technologies or other solutions, such as reforestation.

Other companies, including BP and TotalEnergies, aim to reduce emissions from part of their operations to net zero by 2025.

The investor group behind the new plan acknowledges that winding down oil and gas production "can be a very legitimate strategy", Matthews said.

Although it has not set a deadline for companies to adhere to the standards, investors are willing to vote against transition plans and the appointment of certain directors if they feel company boards are not doing enough, Matthews said.

The new standard will be piloted by leading energy companies including BP, Shell, Eni, Repsol and TotalEnergies ahead of wider adoption by the sector, the investor group said.

This group said its plan had been developed by the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change with support from the Transition Pathway Initiative and in consultation with Climate Action 100+, non-governmental organisations with specific expertise in the sector as well as oil and gas companies themselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/i ... d=msedgntp
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:45 amThis seems to me to be important news, for the little my opinion in this matter is worth. I find the language of the report quite difficult especially the jargon. Would it be possible for you to paraphrase it as if for primary school children?
Spoilers! Primary school children will get to experience climate change first hand!

It seems a big institutional investor is requiring standardised reporting, and a credible approach to net zero 2050, from energy companies - and it does seem like important news, but I doubt it will gain very much attention. Climate change protests have demonised energy companies in particular, and capital in general - so I doubt this will be warmly welcomed by Greta Thunberg et al, but I thought it noteworthy.

In a way it's unsurprising, because the insurance implications of ongoing extreme weather events are a threat to big funds like that. The pressure is on fossil fuels; and that would be good news if there were a genuinely adequate alternative in the pipeline. But the policy continues a diverse mix of sub optimal energy technologies - and making up for that inadequacy by imposing poverty through taxation and price rises.

The missing piece of the puzzle is magma energy; if only I could pitch the idea to a group like this, I'm sure I could make them see why it's in their interests; and people and the planets' interest to harness limitless clean energy, capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. A high energy, prosperous sustainable future is possible, and the opportunities that presents are immense.
Last edited by Vitruvius on Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:45 am This seems to me to be important news, for the little my opinion in this matter is worth. I find the language of the report quite difficult especially the jargon. Would it be possible for you to paraphrase it as if for primary school children?
The key question here is the types of investors involved and their incentives. Hollywood has us trained to think of investors as those guys in expensive suits shouting "buybuybuy, sellsellsell" and issuing junk bonds to establish a fairy tale image of greed and hubris as a plot device. In real life, they are the guys trying to beat the market in the short term, and then do it all over again tomorrow.

The polar opposite of the short term nimble investor is the insurance company. Their incentive is to get your money today, and turn that into a nice secure income for you in 30 years while still having a slice for themselves. They do a large part of that by issuing bonds to pay for construction of infrastructure that will pay off in very predictable slices over the course of those 30 years. This all goes wrong if there turn out to be hidden costs later on that affect the ability of that bond holder to pay those coupons, resuting in the terrifying prospect of a haircut.

In between those extremes there is government. Prime ministers and presidents who have the same 30 year forcasts as the insurance folk, but have an election cycle of 4 to 5 years at most.

What this report is telling you is that the insurance firms, with the long outlook, don't believe the governments with the medium term obsession are doing their job properly. What they fear isn't huge insurance payouts (there's a re-insurance market for that stuff), it's that in 15 years when California is permanently on fire, there will be a whole new generation of politicians who will apply very expensive emergency measures and that if much of your pension fund is invested in the wrong industries it will not pay for your retirement with a slice left over for your pension fund manager.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Belinda »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:38 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:45 am This seems to me to be important news, for the little my opinion in this matter is worth. I find the language of the report quite difficult especially the jargon. Would it be possible for you to paraphrase it as if for primary school children?
The key question here is the types of investors involved and their incentives. Hollywood has us trained to think of investors as those guys in expensive suits shouting "buybuybuy, sellsellsell" and issuing junk bonds to establish a fairy tale image of greed and hubris as a plot device. In real life, they are the guys trying to beat the market in the short term, and then do it all over again tomorrow.

The polar opposite of the short term nimble investor is the insurance company. Their incentive is to get your money today, and turn that into a nice secure income for you in 30 years while still having a slice for themselves. They do a large part of that by issuing bonds to pay for construction of infrastructure that will pay off in very predictable slices over the course of those 30 years. This all goes wrong if there turn out to be hidden costs later on that affect the ability of that bond holder to pay those coupons, resuting in the terrifying prospect of a haircut.

In between those extremes there is government. Prime ministers and presidents who have the same 30 year forcasts as the insurance folk, but have an election cycle of 4 to 5 years at most.

What this report is telling you is that the insurance firms, with the long outlook, don't believe the governments with the medium term obsession are doing their job properly. What they fear isn't huge insurance payouts (there's a re-insurance market for that stuff), it's that in 15 years when California is permanently on fire, there will be a whole new generation of politicians who will apply very expensive emergency measures and that if much of your pension fund is invested in the wrong industries it will not pay for your retirement with a slice left over for your pension fund manager.
Thank you. FlashDangerpants. That is beginning to be a little clearer to me now. I will continue to think about it and read your post several times
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

World’s largest tree wrapped in fire-resistant blanket as California wildfires threaten General Sherman

Agence France-Presse 1 hour ago

Image

The world's biggest trees were being wrapped in fire-proof blankets Thursday in an effort to protect them from huge blazes tearing through the drought-stricken western United States.

A grove of ancient sequoias, including the 275-foot (83-meter) General Sherman Tree - the largest in the world - were getting aluminum cladding to fend off the flames.

Firefighters were also clearing brush and pre-positioning engines among the 2,000 ancient trees in California's Sequoia National Park, incident commanders said.

"They are taking extraordinary measures to protect these trees," said park resource manager Christy Brigham, according to The Mercury News.

"We just really want to do everything we can to protect these 2,000- and 3,000-year-old trees."

Millions of acres (hundreds of thousands of hectares) of California's forests have burned in this year's ferocious fire season.

Scientists say man-made global warming is behind the yearslong drought and rising temperatures that have left the region highly vulnerable to wildfires.

On Thursday, two fires were looming down on the park's Giant Forest, home to five of the world's largest trees, including the General Sherman.

Around 500 personnel were engaged in battling the Paradise Fire and the Colony Fire, which together have already consumed 9,365 acres of woodland since they erupted from lightning strikes on September 10.

The enormous trees of the Giant Forest are a huge tourist draw, with visitors travelling from all over the world to marvel at their imposing height and extraordinary girth.

While not the tallest trees - California redwoods can grow to more than 300 feet - the giant sequoias are the largest by volume.

Smaller fires generally do not harm the sequoias, which are protected by a thick bark, and actually help them to reproduce; the heat they generate opens cones to release seeds.

But the larger, hotter blazes that are laying waste to the western United States are dangerous to them because they climb higher up the trunks and into the canopy.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/wo ... d=msedgntp
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Solar panels: Thousands of customers complain
By Ed Hanson
BBC Inside Out, North East & Cumbria
9 September 2019

Thousands of people who bought solar panels have complained to a financial watchdog that they are not bringing them the returns they were promised.

Many people took out loans to pay for panels on the promise they would save thousands of pounds in electricity costs and make money generating power.

They say they have not had the expected savings, and the Financial Services Ombudsman has had 2,000 complaints.

Barclays Bank has put aside £38m to deal with potential claims.

Brian Thompson from Rowlands Gill, Gateshead, told BBC Inside Out he was contacted by a salesman for PV Solar UK but told him he did not want to take a loan on as he was preparing for retirement.

He said he was told the move would provide money towards his pension, which persuaded him, and he took out a loan with Barclays of more than £10,000 over 10 years.

Mr Thompson said the payments he was getting back from the power his solar panels sent to the National Grid did not correspond with what he was told.

"I had to dip into my savings which I was putting away for retirement to pay the loan off. To me it was lies," he said.

An independent survey of Mr Thompson's system showed even after 20 years the income from the panels would not cover the cost of the loan.

Barclays offered him some compensation but Mr Thompson said it was not enough.

PV Solar UK went into liquidation in 2017.

Robert Skillen, who was the director of the firm when Mr Thompson bought his system, said Mr Thompson's panels would make him money.

Mr Skillen is now in business claiming to help people who have been missold solar panels. He did not want to be interviewed.

Tony Walch, from Bolton, was told he would be better off by £30,000 over 20 years when he bought solar panels from MyPlanet.

He said: "They were very, very persuasive. Everything they said was plausible. It was a no-brainer."

He took out a loan of £15,000 but he said the panels did not generate the amount of electricity he was promised. They also overheated, damaging the equipment, and he believed they had cost him more than £500 a year.

MyPlanet went into liquidation in 2016.

Former director Mark Bonifacio said all calculations had been made using strict methodology, and the performance of the systems was impossible to predict because of different factors affecting performance.

He said MyPlanet installed more than 15,000 systems, and customers would be getting free electricity.

Debbie Enever, from the Financial Ombudsman Service, said: "We have got about 2,000 complaints about solar panels at the moment and more coming through every week."

Loans for solar panels were taken out through Barclays Bank, which said: "We always seek to ensure customers are satisfied with our financial products. Where customers have cause to complain we will review each case individually."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Belinda »

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utili ... ar-panels/
Brief independent review of the cost effectiveness of solar panels.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

‘A huge cause for concern’: Countries’ latest climate pledges not enough to meet Paris goals, says UN
Daisy Dunne 41 mins ago


The latest climate pledges put forward by countries would put the world on course for 2.7C of global heating by the end of the century – far above the goals set by the Paris Agreement, a UN analysis finds.

The review finds that countries’ current climate commitments would see global greenhouse gas emissions increase by 16 per cent by 2030, when compared to 2010 levels.

For the world to be on track to meeting the Paris Agreement’s aspiration of limiting global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, emissions would need to fall by 45 per cent by 2030, according to a recent landmark climate assessment.

“The 16 per cent increase is a huge cause of concern,” said Patricia Espinosa, executive secretary of UN Climate Change.

“It is in sharp contrast with the calls by science for rapid, sustained and large-scale emission reductions to prevent the most severe climate consequences and suffering, especially of the most vulnerable, throughout the world.”

The findings come just weeks before countries are due to meet in Glasgow for Cop26, which is widely viewed as the most important UN climate summit since the Paris meeting in 2015.

Alok Sharma, the UK minister who is incoming president of the summit, urged the world’s largest emitters to come forward with tougher climate plans.

“Those nations which have submitted new and ambitious climate plans are already bending the curve of emissions downwards. But without action from all countries, especially the biggest economies, these efforts risk being in vain,” he said.

“We can change the course of history for the better. We can and must act, for ourselves, for vulnerable communities and future generations.”

The analysis considers the climate plans – formally known as “nationally determined contributions” – put forward by the 191 countries and states signed up to the Paris Agreement by the end of July.

All countries were expected to submit updated climate plans by this date, but many of the world’s largest emitters missed the deadline.

The new analysis finds that, when just the 113 countries that did meet the deadline are considered, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to fall by 12 per cent in 2030, compared to 2010.

However, when all countries are considered, emissions are expected to rise by 16 per cent.

Many of the climate plans put forward by developing countries are based on the condition of receiving financial aid – highlighting the importance of leaders meeting their long-held promise of providing $100bn a year to help poorer nations, Ms Espinosa added.

“The pledge to mobilise $100bn annually by 2020 was key for enhancing climate action by developing countries,” she said.

“That commitment that was made in the UN [Climate Change] process more than 10 years ago has not yet been fulfilled. It’s time to deliver – Cop26 is the place to do so.”

Ms Espinosa added that countries could come forward with new or updated climate plans any time before Cop26 – and that a second NDC synthesis report would be published in October.

Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow business secretary, said the UK had a “unique responsibility” to ensure the summit is a success.

“This sobering report cuts through the greenwash and exposes the awful truth: the world is not remotely on track to limit global warming to 1.5C,” he said.

“Cop26 provides the world with a chance to secure the progress needed to avert catastrophic climate breakdown.

“As hosts, the UK has a unique responsibility to make the summit a success. We can have no more climate delay. The government must act now before the window closes.”

Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and a key architect of the Paris Agreement, said the findings should spur leaders to take action at a UN General Assembly meeting taking place next week.

“The brutal impacts of climate change are hitting every corner of the world,” she said.

“This report underlines the self-harm big emitters inflict on the planet by failing to meet their obligations under the Paris Agreement. We now need all G20 countries to deliver tougher plans by Cop26 in line with 1.5C.”

The findings come amid concerns the UK’s new defence deal with Australia and the US could stymie climate progress by alienating China, the world’s largest emitter.

Mohamed Adow, director of think tank Power Shift Africa, said the analysis was a “damning indictment” of progress to tackle emissions.

“The UK government can sign a new security relationship with Australia but won’t push them to provide upgraded climate pledges ahead of the most important summit held on British soil since the Second World War,” he said.

Australia’s plan for tackling its emissions is rated “highly insufficient” by Climate Action Tracker, an independent research group – and last week it was revealed that the government secretly agreed to drop climate commitments from a UK-Australia trade agreement.

“This needs to be a wake-up call for Boris Johnson to use every diplomatic sinew to ensure Glasgow doesn’t fail,” said Mr Adow.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/a- ... d=msedgntp
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Image
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

BBC news have added 'climate' as a stand alone section, apart from the science section. Given the significance of the issue - I'd like to do the same thing here. "Cornoavirus discussion" has its own section, and that's not even an existential issue - unless you're an antivax, anti-masker, in which case, you'll almost certainly die - and your legacy will be a video on youtube, crying about how wrong you were, and encouraging other people to wear masks and get jabs! But I digress. Climate change is an existential issue, it's important, it's going to be a subject forever, has enormous implications across science, economics, politics; it deserves its own section.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:30 pm BBC news have added 'climate' as a stand alone section, apart from the science section. Given the significance of the issue - I'd like to do the same thing here. "Cornoavirus discussion" has its own section, and that's not even an existential issue - unless you're an antivax, anti-masker, in which case, you'll almost certainly die - and your legacy will be a video on youtube, crying about how wrong you were, and encouraging other people to wear masks and get jabs! But I digress. Climate change is an existential issue, it's important, it's going to be a subject forever, has enormous implications across science, economics, politics; it deserves its own section.
I agree climate change is too enormous not to stand alone as the greatest danger man has ever faced.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:30 pm BBC news have added 'climate' as a stand alone section, apart from the science section. Given the significance of the issue - I'd like to do the same thing here. "Cornoavirus discussion" has its own section, and that's not even an existential issue - unless you're an antivax, anti-masker, in which case, you'll almost certainly die - and your legacy will be a video on youtube, crying about how wrong you were, and encouraging other people to wear masks and get jabs! But I digress. Climate change is an existential issue, it's important, it's going to be a subject forever, has enormous implications across science, economics, politics; it deserves its own section.
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:19 pmI agree climate change is too enormous not to stand alone as the greatest danger man has ever faced.
Thanks Belinda. The motion is seconded. If there are no objections....
Post Reply