29 February 2016

3 Questions We Have to Answer About Climate Change

Al Gore. (photo: Reuters)

By Al Gore,* EcoWatch, 28 February 16
Source: Reader Supported News

Last week, I had the pleasure of participating in TED Talks 2016 where I discussed many of the challenges presented by the climate crisis. But a powerful shift has been taking place, and it is clear that we will ultimately prevail.

Here’s why:

There are now only three questions we have to answer about climate change and our future.

Each day we spew 110 million tons of heat-trapping global warming pollution into the very thin shell of atmosphere surrounding the planet, using it as an open sewer for the gaseous waste of our industrial civilization as it is presently organized. The massive buildup of all that man-made global warming pollution is trapping as much extra heat energy every day as would be released by 400,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every 24 hours. That, in turn, is disrupting the hydrological cycle, evaporating much more water vapor from the oceans, leading to stronger storms, more extreme floods, deeper and longer droughts, among other climate related problems. Fourteen of the 15 hottest years ever measured have been in this young century. The hottest of all was last year. So YES, we must change!

2. CAN we change? And the answer, fortunately, is now YES!

We’re seeing a continuing sharp, exponential decline in the cost of renewable energy, energy efficiency, batteries and storage—and the spread of sustainable agriculture and forestry—giving nations around the world a historic opportunity to embrace a sustainable future, based on a low carbon, hyper-efficient economy. Indeed, in many parts of the world, renewable energy is already cheaper than that of fossil fuels—?and in many developing regions of the world, renewable energy is leapfrogging fossil fuels altogether—?the same way mobile phones leap-frogged land-line phones. And these dramatic cost reductions are continuing.

3. WILL we change?

While the answer to this question is up to all of us, the fact is that we already are beginning to change dramatically.

In December, 195 nations reached a historic agreement in Paris, which exceeded the highest end of the range of expectations. And the Paris Agreement is just the most recent example of our willingness to act. Much more change is needed, of course, but one of the binding provisions of the Paris agreement requires five-year transparent reviews of the action plans put forward by every nation, and the first will begin in less than two years, so now is the time to build the momentum for the actions needed.

Businesses and investors are already moving. And with the continuing cost-down curves for renewable energy, efficiency and energy storage, it will get easier year by year to win this historic struggle.

There are many, many more examples of powerful responses to this moral challenge. They all give me confidence that we are going to win this.

It matters a lot how quickly we win, and some still doubt that we have the will to act on climate, but please remember that the will to act is itself a renewable resource.

I hope you will take the time to watch the 20-minute video embedded above. And I hope that you will personally take action to “become the change we need to see in the world.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* NOTE
To avoid any misinterpretations, the posting of the article and the speech does not mean that we are unaware of all background and possible “inconsistencies” in this and other cases.
Lacking “saints” and having in mind that hypocrisy is a “global” issue (like Climate Change), we just have to be double careful. So, for your information:

Criticism (from Wikipedia)

Gore’s involvement in environmental issues has been criticized. For example, he has been labeled a “carbon billionaire” and accused of profiting from his advocacy; a charge which he has denied,by saying, among other things, that he has not been “working on this issue for 30 years… because of greed”. A conservative Washington D.C. think tank, and a Republican member of Congress, among others, have claimed that Gore has a conflict-of-interest for advocating for taxpayer subsidies of green-energy technologies in which he has a personal investment. Additionally, he has been criticized for his above-average energy consumption in using private jets, and in owning multiple, very large homes, one of which was reported in 2007 as using high amounts of electricity. Gore’s spokesperson responded by stating that the Gores use renewable energy which is more expensive than regular energy and that the Tennessee house in question has been retrofitted to make it more energy-efficient.

22 May 2015

Fossil Fuels Subsidised by $10m A Minute, Says IMF

[Gerry Machen/Flickr]

Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3 trillion (€4.74 tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3 tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.

The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.

Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said, “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”

Lord Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.”

The IMF, one of the world’s most respected financial institutions, said that ending subsidies for fossil fuels would cut global carbon emissions by 20%. That would be a giant step towards taming global warming, an issue on which the world has made little progress to date.

Ending the subsidies would also slash the number of premature deaths from outdoor air pollution by 50% – about 1.6 million lives a year.

Furthermore, the IMF said the resources freed by ending fossil fuel subsidies could be an economic “game-changer” for many countries, by driving economic growth and poverty reduction through greater investment in infrastructure, health and education and also by cutting taxes that restrict growth.

Another consequence would be that the need for subsidies for renewable energy – a relatively tiny $120bn a year – would also disappear, if fossil fuel prices reflected the full cost of their impacts.

“These [fossil fuel subsidy] estimates are shocking,” said Vitor Gaspar, the IMF’s head of fiscal affairs and former finance minister of Portugal. “Energy prices remain woefully below levels that reflect their true costs.”

David Coady, the IMF official in charge of the report, said: “When the [$5.3tn] number came out at first, we thought we had better double check this!” But the broad picture of huge global subsidies was “extremely robust”, he said. “It is the true cost associated with fossil fuel subsidies.”

The IMF estimate of $5.3tn in fossil fuel subsidies represents 6.5% of global GDP. Just over half the figure is the money governments are forced to spend treating the victims of air pollution and the income lost because of ill health and premature deaths. The figure is higher than a 2013 IMF estimate because new data from the World Health Organisation shows the harm caused by air pollution to be much higher than thought.

Coal is the dirtiest fuel in terms of both local air pollution and climate-warming carbon emissions and is therefore the greatest beneficiary of the subsidies, with just over half the total. Oil, heavily used in transport, gets about a third of the subsidy and gas the rest.

The biggest single source of air pollution is coal-fired power stations and China, with its large population and heavy reliance on coal power, provides $2.3tn of the annual subsidies. The next biggest fossil fuel subsidies are in the US ($700bn), Russia ($335bn), India ($277bn) and Japan ($157bn), with the European Union collectively allowing $330bn in subsidies to fossil fuels.

The costs resulting from the climate change driven by fossil fuel emissions account for subsidies of $1.27tn a year, about a quarter, of the IMF’s total. The IMF calculated this cost using an official US government estimate of $42 a tonne of CO2 (in 2015 dollars), a price “very likely to underestimate” the true cost, according to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The direct subsidising of fuel for consumers, by government discounts on diesel and other fuels, account for just 6% of the IMF’s total. Other local factors, such as reduced sales taxes on fossil fuels and the cost of traffic congestion and accidents, make up the rest. The IMF says traffic costs are included because increased fuel prices would be the most direct way to reduce them.

Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate change chief charged with delivering a deal to tackle global warming at a crunch summit in December, said: “The IMF provides five trillion reasons for acting on fossil fuel subsidies. Protecting the poor and the vulnerable is crucial to the phasing down of these subsidies, but the multiple economic, social and environmental benefits are long and legion.”

Barack Obama and the G20 nations called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies in 2009, but little progress had been made until oil prices fell in 2014. In April, the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, told the Guardian that it was crazy that governments were still driving the use of coal, oil and gas by providing subsidies. “We need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies now,” he said.

Reform of the subsidies would increase energy costs but Kim and the IMF both noted that existing fossil fuel subsidies overwhelmingly go to the rich, with the wealthiest 20% of people getting six times as much as the poorest 20% in low and middle-income countries. Gaspar said that with oil and coal prices currently low, there was a “golden opportunity” to phase out subsidies and use the increased tax revenues to reduce poverty through investment and to provide better targeted support.

Subsidy reforms are beginning in dozens of countries including Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico, Morocco and Thailand. In India, subsidies for diesel ended in October 2014. “People said it would not be possible to do that,” noted Coady. Coal use has also begun to fall in China for the first time this century.

On renewable energy, Coady said: “If we get the pricing of fossil fuels right, the argument for subsidies for renewable energy will disappear. Renewable energy would all of a sudden become a much more attractive option.”

Shelagh Whitley, a subsidies expert at the Overseas Development Institute, said: “The IMF report is yet another reminder that governments around the world are propping up a century-old energy model. Compounding the issue, our research shows that many of the energy subsidies highlighted by the IMF go toward finding new reserves of oil, gas and coal, which we know must be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic, irreversible climate change.”

Developing the international cooperation needed to tackle climate change has proved challenging but a key message from the IMF’s work, according to Gaspar, is that each nation will directly benefit from tackling its own fossil fuel subsidies. “The icing on the cake is that the benefits from subsidy reform – for example, from reduced pollution – would overwhelmingly accrue to local populations,” he said.

“By acting local, and in their own best interest, [nations] can contribute significantly to the solution of a global challenge,” said Gaspar. “The path forward is clear: act local, solve global.”

Source: EurActiv
In partnership with The Guardian

2 April 2014

Groundbreaking UN Report Warns Climate Change a Threat to Global Security and Mankind

By Brandon Baker, EcoWatch 01 April 14

While climate change reports are far from a new phenomenon, an international study released Monday morning should be enough to give any human being reason to act and/or demand action from legislators and the energy industry around them.

For the first time, a United Nations panel has concluded that the list of widely known climate change impacts—including extreme weather and warming—could soon grow to include increased strains on water and food supplies, leading to civil resource wars, migration and international conflict.

That’s on top of assertions that the effects of climate change are already seen on every continent and oceans on the planet, and that we’re “ill-prepared” for them.

“We live in an era of man-made climate change,” said Vicente Barros, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group II, which compiled the report. “In many cases, we are not prepared for the climate-related risks that we already face. Investments in better preparation can pay dividends both for the present and for the future.”

By all accounts, the report, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability is the most comprehensive report on climate change released on a global scale. A total of 309 authors and editors from 70 countries were selected to produce the report. Additionally, 436 contributors and nearly 1,800 experts and government reviewers provided input. The report’s impending release led to a flurry of responses and interpretations over the weekend that all agree that fossil fuel divestment needs to end now.

“Oil rigs and coal power plants are weapons of mass destruction, loading the atmosphere with destructive carbon emissions that don’t respect national borders,” Jen Maman, peace adviser at Greenpeace International, said. “To protect our peace and security, we must disarm them and accelerate the transition to clean and safe renewable energy that’s already started.”

Chris Field, another IPCC co-chair, told The Guardian that the group that compiled the report realized it was high time to move beyond weather and energy related impacts when discussing the risks of a changing climate.

“If we want to take a smart approach to the future, we need to consider a full range of possible outcomes and that means not only the more likely outcomes, but also outcomes for truly catastrophic impacts, even if those are lower probability,” Field said.

Michael Mann, a climate scientist, author, professor and director of Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center, said the report shows that “increased competition for diminishing resources among a growing global population is unfortunately a perfect prescription for increased conflict.” In the IPCC’s view, it’s most striking that these effects on our agriculture, health, livelihood and ecosystems are taking place “from the tropics to the poles, from small islands to large continents, and from the wealthiest countries to the poorest.”

That means the potential for mass migrations and competition is just as widespread. Mann adds that it will have an extreme impact on biodiversity.

“The Great Barrier Reef, the largest coral reef in the world and a home to much ocean biodiversity, is being hit with a double whammy—increased coral bleaching because of hotter waters and the increased acidity of the ocean water as growing atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to penetrate into the upper ocean,” Mann said. “In fact, scientists conclude that this combination of factors will kill off the Great Barrier Reef and nearly all the world’s coral reefs in a matter of decades if we continue with the course that we’re on.”

Hoda Baraka of 350.org says keeping coal, oil and gas reserves in the ground is the best way to minimize that course.

To those who are concerned about the potential financial cost of adapting to the demands of climate change, Amalie Obsuan, a Greenpeace campaigner for Southeast Asia, suggests examining the true cost of warming.

“Let’s not get distracted by limited economic models or be blinded by global [gross domestic product],” she said. “What value can you put on the lives of 8,000 people left dead or missing by typhoon Haiyan? Or what is the cost of the trauma of children being torn from their mother’s arms due to storm surges?

“That is the true cost of climate change that should define the urgency of the action we take.”

Source: Reader Supported News