Monthly Archives: December 2015

PLEA Network

3 December 2015, Carbon Brief, EXPLAINER: the ‘ratchet mechanism’ within the Paris climate deal. One outcome of the Paris deal is already certain: it will not succeed in limiting temperatures to below 2C. This has been repeated ad infinitum, by studies, by politicians and by observers. Perhaps the most widely quoted figure for the impact of countries’ climate pledges on global temperature is the 2.7C rise calculated by Climate Action Tracker. The World Resources Institute has analysed the numerous other studies that come to similar conclusions. The 2C limit has been enshrined as the aim of UN climate negotiations since 2010 — so if Paris has already failed to achieve it, why is it not already being labelled as a failure? This is where the so-called ratchet mechanism comes in, or the “ambition mechanism”, as some are calling it. This will ensure that actions to deal with climate change become progressively more ambitious over time. What is the ratchet mechanism? This week, countries have started the process of negotiating a 54-page draft text, helped on the way with the input of world leaders who made an appearance on day oneto set the direction. But there’s no point in searching the document for the “ratchet” — the word does not even feature once. It is not a self-contained issue within the text, but is scattered throughout the deal, linked with and integrated into other issues. Observer groups, such as Greenpeace, are pushing for a fairly simple structure. In theory, countries would submit new “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs) every five years, outlining how much they intend to reduce emissions. Each submission would be more ambitious than the last, namely, ratcheting up. These submissions would then be reviewed to assess their overall impact on stemming the rise of global temperatures. In particular, it will be benchmarked against the long-term goal set up in the text. A weak long-term goal — still a distinct possibility — will mean the ratchet mechanism has to work even harder. With the knowledge gained from this review in mind, countries would then have a “homework” period, where they have the opportunity to make their intended contributions even more ambitious. And, finally, the contributions would be formalised and inscribed in the agreement. Greenpeace has written a detailed timeline of how they see the ratchet mechanism playing out for the first two cycles of INDCs. Read More here

 

PLEA Network

3 December 2015, The guardian, UN on wrong track with plans to limit global warming to 2C, says top scientist. One of the world’s leading atmospheric scientists has told the UN that its present attempt to limit emissions is “half-arsed and half-baked” and risks handing the next generation a climate system that is out of their control. James Hansen, former head of Nasa’s Goddard Center and the man who raised awareness of climate change in a key Senate hearing back in 1988 said that the UN meeting was on the wrong track by seeking a 2C maximum rise in temperatures. “What I am hearing is that the heads of state are planning to clap each other on the back and say this is a very successful conference. If that is what happens, we are screwing the next generation, because we are doing the same as before. “[A rise of ] 2C is definitely dangerous. We are at the point now where temperatures are hitting the 1C mark and are are on a path above 1C. Even if we reduce emissions 6% a year we will still get 1C. “Instead we hear the same old thing as Kyoto [in 1997]. We are asking each country to cap emissions, or reduce emissions. In science when you do a well conducted experiment you expect to get the same result. So why are we talking about doing the same again? This is half-arsed and half-baked.” Read More here

PLEA Network

2 December 2015, Climate News Network, Climate change threatens US influence. Security experts say a modern Marshall Plan of aid for the Asia-Pacific region is needed to protect US strategic and economic interests from climate-related challenges.  Two American security experts say the Asia-Pacific region needs massive international aid to tackle its greatest problem − climate change. And they fear that without a huge outlay on development, diplomacy and defence, the US claim to global leadership may be challenged. In a report they edited for the Centre for Climate and Security (CCS), Caitlin Werrell and Francesco Femia say the region needs a new version of the Marshall Plan, the visionary scheme that helped to rebuild western Europe after the second world war. The US contributed $13 billion (worth about $130 bn today) to that Plan, which was an international package of development assistance to help European economies, beginning in 1947 and running for four years.The CCS report starts with a foreword by the former US Pacific commander, retired admiral Samuel J Locklear III, who says climate change “may prove to be Asia-Pacific’s greatest long-term challenge”, with “potentially catastrophic security implications”. Political tensions Werrell and Femia say the US has “a new strategic focus on the Asia-Pacific: a rising China; rapid economic and population growth; the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials (five of the world’s nuclear powers are in the Indo-Asia-Pacific); increased economic activity and political tensions in the South China Sea; military build-ups (the area has seven of the world’s 10 largest standing militaries); and the opening of previously impassable sea lanes by a melting Arctic”. They see a clear military imperative for Washington to act. They believe nations in the region may be tempted to “accept the reality of a regionally dominant China, and the economic and political consequences of that reality . . . More robustly addressing the region’s climate challenges offers the US an opportunity to enhance its regional influence.” Read More here

PLEA Network

2 December 2015, Renew Economy, As Paris talks, Australia’s energy emissions are going in the wrong direction. As all readers will know, publication of this report comes during the first week of the crucial UN Climate Change Conference (COP21 under the UNFCCC) in Paris. For that reason, we devote most of the full report to looking at overall trends in Australia’s energy combustion emissions, including changes since 2004-05, the reference year chosen by the Australian government for its official 2030 emissions reduction target. Energy combustion emissions covered by CEDEX® include all emissions arising from the generation of electricity in the National Electricity Market (NEM), all emissions from the combustion of petroleum products within Australia, i.e. excluding international ship and aircraft bunkers, and all emissions from the combustion of natural gas by gas consumers (i.e. not including emissions from the gas industry’s own use of gas – see below) in NSW, Victoria, SA and Tasmania. All data are reported as moving annual totals, so as to remove seasonal effects on consumption of relevant products, and in terms of the changes since June 2009. The emissions reported by CEDEX® reached their historical maximum in December 2008, i.e. in the calendar year 2008. By June 2009 the annualised total, i.e. total for financial year 2008-09, had fallen by 0.7%. The financial year 2008-09 is also the year in which Australia’s total emissions from fossil fuel combustion, as reported in Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, reached their historic maximum. Read More here