|
With major climate negotiations in Paris fast
approaching we now have a good idea of where participating counties stand on
cutting emissions.
Today, the U.N presents
its overall report on individual nations’ climate pledges, or Intended
Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).
Unfortunately the pledges have so far fallen
short: despite covering countries that represent over 90% of global emissions,
taken together they don’t add up to the cuts required to avoid disastrous
climate change and stay within 2 degrees of global warming.
While business-as-usual would see a 4.5 degrees
rise in temperature, current
proposals would only reduce warming to 3.5 degrees,
according to Climate Interactive.
If the INDCs are inadequate the question then
becomes: who is doing their part and who isn’t? But this isn’t easy to answer –
it very much depends on the following issues.
- How should we measure
emissions? The tendency is to focus on
large emitters like the US and China, but to some extent this is a measure of
their population size. Instead it seems reasonable to start from a point of
country obligations on a per person basis. And while emissions are usually
measured as within a country’s borders, there is a measurement problem around
whether global trade should be taken into account. For example, since 1990
annual emissions in the UK have fallen by 25% but UK
consumption-based
emissions have only fallen by 7%.
- Should historic emissions
matter? Many countries have polluted, and
continue to pollute, more greenhouse gas emissions that others. We’ve previously
pointed to a tally showing that the UK
leads in the world in historic per capita emissions. India often argues that it should face lesser
obligations than those nations whose development has created the problem.
- Who has the ability to reduce emissions?
Some countries say the onus should be on
those most capable of doing so. This is not just a point about relative levels
of emissions – it being easier to reduce from 10 to 9 tonnes/capita than from 1
to 0 tonnes/capita – but also due to economic development and the tremendous
economic inequality between countries.
- Who will climate change hurt the most?
Climate change costs are not only in
lessening emissions (mitigation) but also in dealing with the impacts
(adaptation). Research continues to show that the impacts of climate change will
not fall evenly across the globe (see this week’s infographic). The sad reality
is that those who have contributed the most to climate change will be impacted
the least, and as we’ve pointed out, are also
the most likely to be climate sceptics.
Considering just these four questions gives a
pretty good idea of why climate negotiations are so complex. Attempts have been
made by Climate
Action Tracker to judge the INDCs against these issues and Climate
Equity Reference allows you to adjust the weighting yourself.
Interestingly, some perennial favourites of our
Happy
Planet Index like Bhutan and Costa Rica top the list for climate action
while some familiar climate foes like Canada, Australia and Russia end up at the
bottom.
Will the upcoming talks bring a climate deal
that breaks the trend of disappointment? Recent changes to some of these climate
foes’ governments are encouraging, so let’s hope so.
Don't miss these:
In other news…
Will China ban new coal power
plants?
Some news sources are reporting that China’s
government is considering a ban on building new coal-fired power plants.
This comes after analysis
from Goldman Sachs that we have already seen peak coal globally, flying in
the face of previous forecasts from organisations like the IEA of 2% annual
growth. Unlike previous forecasts this is not due to supply constraints rather
it is due to a lack of demand.
Energy for cooling set to overtake
energy for heating
With global power consumption for air
conditioning forecast to surge 33-fold by 2100, energy
for cooling is poised to overtake energy for heating by 2060. This growth is
driven by incomes in the developing world rising and urbanisation advancing. At
the moment the US uses more energy for cooling than the total energy use of
Africa.
Global warming could make the Hajj
impossible
Many people living in the Gulf already live
their lives largely inside air conditioned buildings. One exception to this is
in construction, which often employs foreign workers, but a new study has drawn
attention to another case: the ritual of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to
Mecca. Given current climate projections, the
annual Hajj, already difficult in current temperatures, may become impossible by
the end of the century.
Food, climate change, and the refugee
crisis
The debate about teasing out the cause and
effect of climate change and increase in the number of refugees continues. Food
security is the key linkage according to a joint blog by the Consultative
Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the International
Research Institute for Climate and Society (ISI).
Are we already banking on
geo-engineering?
According to IPCC modelling a 2 degree target
would require a drop of 40-70% in global emissions by 2050 and net-zero (or
negative) emissions by 2100. In a new article in Nature, Kevin Anderson explains
that the IPCC
scenarios for these emission reductions typically rely on the large-scale and
successful uptake of geo-engineering technologies. Without geo-engineering
net-zero emissions may need to come as soon as 2050.
More downward revisions of solar
costs
The UK government’s Committee on Climate Change
has updated its energy cost forecasts and solar and nuclear have been heavily
revised from their latest estimate just four years ago. The 2020 forecast for
solar PV has been cut in half and the 2030 forecast has been cut by two thirds.
Chris Goodall has suggested this may not mean that the technology learning rate
of 22% is off (for every doubling of installations costs fall by 22%) but that
the
rate at which solar is being installed globally is also consistently
underestimated. Nuclear costs have been revised upwards.
|
|
|
rueike
No comments:
Post a Comment