18 August 2016, Reuters, Scientists to probe ways of meeting tough global warming goal. Scientists on Thursday set the outlines of a report on how to restrict global warming to a limit agreed last year by world leaders – even though the temperature threshold is at risk of being breached already. The U.N.-led study, due to be published in 2018 as a guide for governments, will look into ways of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to cap the rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. It will examine impacts of a 1.5C rise on vulnerable parts of the world including Greenland’s ice sheet and coral reefs. Thelma Krug, a Brazilian scientist who led the four-day meeting in Geneva, said it will also cast the fight against climate change as part of a wider struggle to end poverty and ensure sustainable growth. “Rapid changes are needed for (no rise above) 1.5C,” she told Reuters.World leaders agreed to work towards that target at a meeting in Paris in December, also requesting the report as part of a global agreement to phase out greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, in the second half the century. The global rise reached 1.3C in the first half of 2016, which is almost certain to be the warmest year since records began in the 19th century, beating 2015. Some studies indicate emissions could breach levels consistent with 1.5C within about five years. Many show temperatures overshooting that limit and then being reduced later by extracting greenhouse gases from the atmosphere with yet-to-be developed technology. “It will be difficult, but there are also opportunities,” said Sabine Fuss, a delegate at the Geneva meeting from the Mercator Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change. Costly action now could help avert even more expensive damage from floods, heat waves, extinctions and rising ocean levels, she said. Read More here
Category Archives: Global Action Inaction
11 August 2016, NationTalk, IPCC meetings in Geneva, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is holding two meetings this month in Geneva to advance work on its forthcoming reports. From 15 to 18 August 2016, around 85 experts joined by members of the IPCC Bureau will take part in the scoping meeting for the Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty (SR1.5). The IPCC was invited to prepare this Special Report by the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris in December 2015. The Conference reached an agreement to limit the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 ºC above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 ºC. The report will be delivered in 2018, in time for a “facilitative dialogue” that will take place that year to take stock of progress under the Paris Agreement. The Special Report is being developed under the joint scientific leadership of all three IPCC Working Groups. Read More here
7 August 2016, The Guardian, Scientists warn world will miss key climate target. Grim backdrop to vital global emissions talks as new analysis shows 1.5C limit on warming is close to being broken. Leading climate scientists have warned that the Earth is perilously close to breaking through a 1.5C upper limit for global warming, only eight months after the target was set. The decision to try to limit warming to 1.5C, measured in relation to pre-industrial temperatures, was the headline outcome of the Paris climate negotiations last December. The talks were hailed as a major success by scientists and campaigners, who claimed that, by setting the target, desertification, heatwaves, widespread flooding and other global warming impacts could be avoided. However, figures – based on Met Office data – prepared by meteorologist Ed Hawkins of Reading University show that average global temperatures were already more than 1C above pre-industrial levels for every month except one over the past year and peaked at +1.38C in February and March. Keeping within the 1.5C limit will be extremely difficult, say scientists, given these rises. These alarming figures will form the backdrop to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change talks in Geneva this month, when scientists will start to outline ways to implement the climate goals set in Paris. Dates for abandoning all coal-burning power stations and halting the use of combustion engines across the globe – possibly within 15 years – are likely to be set. Read More here
31 July 2016, Scientific American, The Sticky Truth about Economic Growth and Climate Change. Why we need to talk about the costs of mitigation. That averting climate change will save us money should be a tautology, but for reasons including entrenched interests, it is not. The pre-cautionary principle alone would tell us that we do not want to learn what costs climate change will incur, so better to pay a small premium to avoid the risk at all. Instead, calculated estimates pin the cost of avoiding catastrophic effects from climate change at something like 1% of global GDP. So who will pay for it, and who loses from a more sustainable economy? In recent years, several studies have come out running cost-benefit analysis on a policy switch to a clean energy system. Yet, besides governmental ‘push’ factors, we should not forget market ‘pull’ factors. Even if there was less of a push by the government to clean up our air and water supply, as well as mitigate climate change, the coal industry is for example changing regardless thanks to cheap natural gas as well as self-inflicted wounds. While coal mine employment in the U.S. did drop 91,600 in 2011 to 74,900 in 2014, there are now more workers in the solar sector than in oil and gas. So overall, not counting the benefits of lowered air pollution and avoiding climate change, the overall job situation seems to be moving towards net positive. So, case closed? Not quite. Read More here