14 December 2015, The Guardian, Pentagon to lose emissions exemption under Paris climate deal. Armed forces around the world – including US military – will no longer be automatically excluded from including their carbon emissions under national reductions targets. The US military and armed forces of countries around the world will no longer be automatically exempted from emissions-cutting obligations under the UN Paris climate deal, the Guardian has learned. Although the US never ratified the Kyoto protocol, it won an opt-out from having to fully report or act on its armed forces’ greenhouse gas emissions, which was then double-locked by a House national defence authorisation bill in 1999. Under the Paris agreement, countries would not be obliged to cut their military emissions but, equally, there would be no automatic exemption for them either. US officials privately say that the deal adopted on Saturday has no provisions covering military compliance one way or another, leaving decisions up to nation states as to which national sectors should make emissions cuts before 2030. Read More here
Category Archives: PLEA Network
10 December 2015, The VERB, The 1.5 Placebo.Moments before the Paris climate agreement is to be decided upon, the draft text (as of 3pm Wednesday) still contains three different options surrounding its overall objective. The draft retains options to limit warming to below 2°C, below 1.5°C, or ‘well’ below 2°C with mention of scaling up efforts to stay below 1.5°C. As The Verb reported earlier in the week, half a degree of difference is highly economically significant, and for vulnerable nations may be the difference between persistence and functional destruction. For many small island states, a target of 1.5°C has been a long held objective that has gained increasing support in Paris. “To hold the temperature within 2°C is not an acceptable goal,” said Barbados Environment Minister Dr. Denis Lowe, who argued that “the goal should be 1.5°C, that is what will keep us alive.” Day one of the negotiations saw leaders of 106 states sign a statement calling for 1.5°C to become the long-term temperature goal. This was in lieu of the 2°C target, established in the 2009 Copenhagen meeting. Canada, France, Germany, the UK, Australia, China, and the US have since expressed support for including the 1.5°C target in some capacity. At first glance, this shift sounds good – it may even make people feel better about the possibility of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. But it appears to be a placebo, and it may come at the expense of more effective responses. The challenge of limiting warming to below 1.5°C is enormous given current carbon dioxide concentrations and emissions. Some call it unfeasible. There are currently 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a number that is growing at two parts per million per year. New research suggests that we would have to stabilise concentrations between 420 and 440 parts per million by 2100 to have even a 50% chance of holding warming below 1.5°C. Read More here
8 December 2015, The Conversation, Removing CO2 from the atmosphere won’t save us: we have to cut emissions now. Over 190 countries are negotiating in Paris a global agreement to stabilise climate change at less than 2℃ above pre-industrial global average temperatures. For a reasonable chance of keeping warming under 2℃ we can emit a further 865 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2). The climate commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2030 are a first step, but recent analyses show they are not enough. So what are the options if we cannot limit emissions to remain within our carbon budget? Emitting more than the allowance would mean we have to remove carbon from the atmosphere. The more carbon we emit over the coming years, the more we will need to remove in future. In fact, out of 116 scenarios consistent with 2℃ published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 101 scenarios require the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere during the second half of this century. That’s on top of the large emission reductions required. So how do we remove carbon from the atmosphere? Several technologies have been proposed to this effect. These are often referred to as “negative emissions technologies” because the carbon is being removed from the atmosphere (in the opposite direction to emissions). In a study published today in Nature Climate Change, which is part of a broader release by the Global Carbon Project, we investigate how big a role these technologies could play in halting global warming. We find that these technologies might play a role in climate mitigation. However, the large scales of deployment currently used in most pathways that limit warming to 2℃ will be severely constrained by environmental and socio-economic factors. This increases the pressure to raise the level of ambition in reducing fossil fuel emissions now. Read More here
8 December 2015, BBC News, UK ‘scores well’ on climate, for now. Denmark, the UK and Sweden have topped the international rankings in an index of countries combating climate change. The annual table is compiled by green groups Germanwatch and Climate Action Network. They analysed progress in the 58 countries producing more than 90% of energy-related CO2 missions. The organisers congratulated the UK for its performance to date, but say the government lacks a coherent vision for the future. The index takes into account emission levels, trends in emissions, energy efficiency, progress towards renewable energy and climate policy. It ranked the UK fifth in the world, after Denmark. The first three places were left empty because the organisers say no major nation is doing enough to cut emissions. Wendel Trio, one of the principal authors, told BBC News the UK had earned its slot because of overall low emissions, climate policy over several years, a fast-growing renewables sector from a low base, and a commitment to phase out coal. But he said the UK was in danger of losing its grade. …..Kit Vaughan from the charity Care International pointed out that the review had been done two months ago – before the government’s recent “reset” which downgraded renewable energy. He said: “It is clearly out of date. Both Denmark and the UK have recently gone backwards at high speed, slipping from climate champions to carbon culprits. “It shows how quickly this government is able to take a wrecking ball to previously progressive climate action and just how quickly enlightened climate policy can be ripped up and systematically dismantled.” Read More here