U.S. isolated on climate at summit of world leaders, Macron plans December climate summit, & more

10.07.17

News

U.S. isolated on climate at summit of world leaders

The G20 group of leading nations agreed its final declaration on Saturday, isolating the US on climate change, reports Reuters. In the statement, 19 of the 20 members – including Russia and Saudi Arabia – say the Paris accord is “irreversible”, notes the New York Times, while acknowledging the US decision to pull out of the deal. The unanimous communiqué “fails to hide US tension”, says the Financial Times, noting that deep divisions remain on trade as well as climate change. A second Financial Times piece reports Turkey’s plea for climate funds in return for ratifying the Paris deal. It says some think the move, which “adds to concerns about [the] Paris accord”, was inspired by Trump’s decision over Paris. The G20 summit left Trump “in the cold over Paris”, says the Guardian, with a second article saying “world leaders have made clear the US’s isolated stance on climate change”. The G19 leaders renewed their pledge to implement the Paris deal despite the US, says the BBC. The Telegraph reports Theresa May’s comments of being “dismayed” at Trump’s withdrawal.

Macron plans December climate summit

Politico

French president Emmanuel Macron will host a climate conference this December, on the two-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement, reports Politico. Macron wants the summit to focus on “climate mobilisation”, according to a tweet he sent over the weekend.

Global shipping sector charts seven-step plan for climate strategy

BusinessGreen

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has agreed a “skeleton” plan towards the shipping industry’s long-awaited draft decarbonisation strategy, reports BusinessGreen, following the two-week IMO meeting that ended in London last Friday. The shipping industry “may soon be forced to curb greenhouse gas emissions under new rules backed by the EU and China,” reports Bloomberg, noting an EU pledge to include shipping in its emissions trading system by 2023, if the IMO talks don’t succeed.

Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of greenhouse gases since 1988, report finds

The Telegraph

The Chinese coal industry and Saudi Aramco are among the world’s biggest emitters of CO2, says the Telegraph, covering a new report from the Carbon Disclosure Project. Along with others in the top 100 emitting companies, the firms have mined or extracted fossil fuels responsible for 71% of global CO2 emissions since 1988, the report says. It suggests a relatively small number of producers, and their investors, could “hold the key to tackling climate change”, says the Guardian. The top 25 producers alone are responsible for half of global emissions since 1988, notes InsideClimate News. BusinessGreen also has the story.

Comment

A green economy is possible, but at what cost?

Jonathan Ford, Financial Times

The problem with renewables, writes Jonathan Ford in the Financial Times, is not whether they work but “their low productivity”. The wealth generated by renewables investment is much lower than for fossil fuels or nuclear, he argues, in an article citing the climate sceptic thinktank the Global Warming Policy Foundation and the free market thinktank the Institute of Energy Research, which is headed by climate sceptic former Trump transition team member Tom Pyle. It’s worth noting that the amount of energy of any kind needed to generate a unit of global GDP is falling, even as fossil fuels’ share of world supplies declines. Ford also claims a National Grid scenario in which electric vehicles make up an increased share of the UK fleet in 2040 would necessitate a 70% increase in UK electricity generating capacity. This is incorrect. The scenario sees peak demand – from all sources – increase by 24% in 2040, compared to 2015 levels.

The problem with renewables, writes Jonathan Ford in the Financial Times, is not whether they work but “their low productivity”. The wealth generated by renewables investment is much lower than for fossil fuels or nuclear, he argues, in an article citing the climate sceptic thinktank the Global Warming Policy Foundation and the free market thinktank the Institute of Energy Research, which is headed by climate sceptic former Trump transition team member Tom Pyle. It’s worth noting that the amount of energy of any kind needed to generate a unit of global GDP is falling, even as fossil fuels’ share of world supplies declines. Ford also claims a National Grid scenario in which electric vehicles make up an increased share of the UK fleet in 2040 would necessitate a 70% increase in UK electricity generating capacity. This is incorrect. The scenario sees peak demand – from all sources – increase by 24% in 2040, compared to 2015 levels.

Brad Plumer, New York Times

A growing number of analysts now argue that pessimism around the adoption of electric vehicles is becoming outdated, says Brad Plumer in the New York Times, drawing on a recent report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), which predicts the cars will become cost competitive between 2025 and 2030. Plumer quotes BNEF’s Colin McKerracher, saying this forecast is based on economics alone, not government policy. Over at the Times, climate sceptic peer Matt Ridley argues the “electric car revolution could backfire”. He writes: “If the state pushes one type of technology too hard it risks shutting down the creation of a far more efficient alternative”. In the Financial Times, Neil Collins also argues that electric cars “depend on government help”. For the Guardian, Zoe Williams says the recent decision by Volvo to move towards electric motors for all its cars “demonstrates the role ethical business can play in shaping our society for the better”.

When Will Climate Change Make the Earth Too Hot For Humans?

David Wallace-Wells, New York Magazine

“It is, I promise, worse than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today.” So begins a long feature article in New York Magazine, by David Wallace-Wells, based on “dozens of interviews and exchanges with climatologists and researchers in related fields…reflect[ing] hundreds of scientific papers.” Wallace-Wells covers extreme heat (“Even if we meet the Paris goal of 2C warming, cities like Karachi and Kolkata will become close to uninhabitable.”), crop damage (“for every degree of warming, yields decline by 10%.”) and what he calls “the violence baked into heat”, among various other impacts of warming.

Factcheck: Are Chinese companies rushing to build new global coal plants?

Lauri Myllyvirta, Greenpeace EnergyDesk

For Greenpeace EnergyDesk, Lauri Myllyvirta checks a recent New York Times article which “suggest[ed] the world is on the cusp of a new coal power boom, led by overseas investments from Chinese state-owned companies and banks”. While these groups are building “a lot of coal-fired power plants overseas”, Myllyvirta writes, “the number of projects, even if every single one was realised, still make up less than one year of China’s domestic coal plant additions at its peak”. He concludes that there is still time for Chinese policymakers to “shift course before they flood the developing world with dirty coal projects, and the economics of coal are getting worse by the day”.

Elon Musk’s big battery brings reality crashing into a post-truth world

Tim Hollo, The Guardian

Hollo, the executive director of Australia’s Green Institute writes: “Within 100 days, there will be a huge battery system making South Australia’s energy grid clean, affordable and reliable, and benefitting the eastern states along with it. All the talk of building new coal-fired power stations, or a Snowy Hydro 2.0, no longer sounds vaguely ‘truthy’. It sounds ridiculous. It sounds silly. It sounds like old men yelling at clouds. This won’t suddenly bring back a cherished (and somewhat mythological) era of truth in politics. But it will have a real, demonstrable impact. It will help. We all owe deep gratitude to those who have made it happen.”

The Grenfell Tower fire would not have happened without the EU and global warming

Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph

Without the EU and global warming, writes Sunday Telegraph stalwart Christopher Booker, “the [Grenfell fire] tower could never have happened,” in an article that reprises his column from a week earlier. Carbon Brief produced a detailed factcheck of similar claims by the Daily Mail, shortly after the tragedy took place.

Science

Projected drought risk in 1.5C and 2C warmer climates

Geophysical Research Letters

Warming of 2C above pre-industrial levels leads to “significantly higher drought risk” in Europe, the Mediterranean, Amazon, and Southern Africa compared to limiting warming to 1.5C, a new study says. Using climate model simulations, the researchers assess changes in general drying and frequency of consecutive dry years across the world under warming of 1.5C and 2C. They conclude that the more ambitious limit of 1.5C “may have benefits for future drought risk,” but that such benefits “may be regional” – for example, drought risk does not change significantly over the US Central Plains and Southwest under these scenarios.

Why Are Arctic Linkages to Extreme Weather Still Up in the Air?

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

A new paper explores the ongoing controversy regarding possible connections between the rapidly warming Arctic and changing weather patterns in mid-latitude regions. Despite intense research, the science seems as unsettled as ever, the author writes: “Many new studies find evidence supporting Arctic/mid-latitude linkages while others report no robust signals.” Reviewing recent literature, the author suggests possible causes for this discrepancy, which include “low signal-to-noise, shortcomings in experiment design, ill-suited metrics of circulation changes, and deficiencies in models used to simulate atmospheric responses to rapid Arctic warming.”

News