Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets: Nature IJS

"International climate change agreements typically specify global warming thresholds as policy targets¹, but the relative economic benefits of achieving these temperature targets remain poorly understood^2,3. 

Uncertainties include the spatial pattern of temperature change, how global and regional economic output will respond to these changes in temperature, and the willingness of societies to trade present for future consumption. 

Here we combine historical evidence⁴ with national-level climate⁵ and socioeconomic⁶ projections to quantify the economic damages associated with the United Nations (UN) targets of 1.5 °C and 2 °C global warming, and those associated with current UN national-level mitigation commitments (which together approach 3 °C warming⁷)."

Read the complete Nature IJS article

Is the Australian coalition government suggesting we shouldn’t try to limit global warming to below two degrees?

The cost of doing nothing about climate change

"Not explicitly, but it is worth asking. 

One of the odd things about the Coalition’s analysis is that it is partly based on a World Bank-backed study that found global carbon prices in 2030 would need to be between US$50 and US$100 to limit global warming to two degrees. But it doesn’t acknowledge that the Coalition has also committed to the two degrees goal (and more) by signing the Paris agreement.

Should we also assume the equivalent of up to a US$100 carbon price under Coalition policies? Or is it walking away from its commitment to Paris?

Media reporting often focuses on the cost of climate policy while ignoring the other side of the equation – the cost of doing nothing. Several studies have suggested it is significant.

A paper in the journal Nature estimated warming of between two and a half and three degrees could cut per-capita economic output by between 15% and 25% this century. Four degrees would be worse again.

This sort of scenario is increasingly being considered and factored in by insurers and long-term investors, who say they want action to avoid it. Whether political leaders and newspaper editors are listening is another question."

Read The Guardian article

‘You did not act in time’: Greta Thunberg’s full speech to MPs: The Guardian

"Now we probably don’t even have a future any more.

Because that future was sold so that a small number of people could make unimaginable amounts of money. It was stolen from us every time you said that the sky was the limit, and that you only live once.

You lied to us. You gave us false hope. You told us that the future was something to look forward to. And the saddest thing is that most children are not even aware of the fate that awaits us. We will not understand it until it’s too late. And yet we are the lucky ones. Those who will be affected the hardest are already suffering the consequences. But their voices are not heard."

Read The Guardian article

Our leaders are ignoring global warming to the point of criminal negligence. It's unforgivable : The Guardian

"The problem – and it’s an existential threat both profound and perverse – is that those who lead us and have power over our shared destiny are ignoring global warming to the point of criminal negligence. Worse than that, their policies, language, patronal obligations and acts of bad faith are poisoning us, training citizens to accept the prospect of inexorable loss, unstoppable chaos, certain doom. Business as usual is robbing people of hope, white-anting the promise of change. That’s not just delinquent, it’s unforgivable."

"It’s time to make sharp demands of our representatives, time to remove those who refuse to act in our common interest, time to elect people with courage, ingenuity and discipline, people who’ll sacrifice pride, privilege and even perks for the sake of something sacred. Because there’s something bigger at stake here than culture wars and the mediocrity of so-called common-sense. It’s the soil under our feet, the water we drink, the air we breathe."

Read the complete Tim Winton article in The Guardian

Related: 

Climate change: Sir David Attenborough warns of 'catastrophe': BBC

Bill de Blasio Seeks to Flood-Proof Lower Manhattan by Adding Land: Bloomberg

"New York Mayor Bill de Blasio proposed a $10 billion plan to push out the lower Manhattan coastline as much as 500 feet, or two city blocks, to protect from flooding that’s expected to become more frequent as global temperatures rise.

The project would protect the South Street Seaport and the Financial District, along the eastern edge of lower Manhattan, an area just 8 feet (2.4 meters) above the water line, de Blasio said. Portions of the extended land would be at 20 feet above sea level. The city can’t build flood protection on the existing land because it’s too crowded with utilities, sewers and subway lines, he said.

Read the full Bloomberg article 

Related: 

Corporate America Is Getting Ready to Monetize Climate Change: Bloomberg

Climate change: Sir David Attenborough warns of 'catastrophe': BBC

"Sir David Attenborough has issued his strongest statement yet on the threat posed to the world by climate change. 

In the BBC programme Climate Change - The Facts, the veteran broadcaster outlined the scale of the crisis facing the planet.

Sir David said we face "irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies".

But there is still hope, he said, if dramatic action to limit the effects is taken over the next decade. 

• What is climate change?
• Talk to our climate change bot
• Central banks warn of climate dangers
• Warning from 'Antarctica's last forests'

Sir David's new programme laid out the science behind climate change, the impact it is having right now and the steps that can be taken to fight it.

"In the 20 years since I first started talking about the impact of climate change on our world, conditions have changed far faster than I ever imagined," Sir David stated in the film."

Read the full article and see BBC video 

Related: Burning trees as climate mitigation: A resort to the Court: Euractive

With Climate Losses Rising, Central Banks Push Greener Finance: Bloomberg

Weather related catastrophes are increasing

"The measures are aimed at building awareness about the potential losses as global temperatures increase, making storms more powerful and weather less predictable. It’s also seeking to encourage funding for greener projects that would reduce emissions and make renewables more affordable.

“If some companies and industries fail to adjust to this new world, they will fail to exist,” Carney and Villeroy said in a Guardian newspaper article on Wednesday. They warned that a “massive” reallocation of capital was necessary to prevent global warming, with the banking system playing a pivotal role."

Read the complete Bloomberg story 

See also:

Carney, Villeroy Push for More Action on Climate Change

Pentagon Warns of Dire Risk to Bases, Troops From Climate Change: Bloomberg

Wild Fire Risks from Climate Change

"The U.S. Defense Department has issued a dire report on how climate change could affect the nation’s armed forces and security, warning that rising seas could inundate coastal bases and drought-fueled wildfires could endanger those that are inland.

The 22-page assessment delivered to Congress on Thursday says about two-thirds of 79 mission-essential military installations in the U.S. that were reviewed are vulnerable now or in the future to flooding and more than half are at risk from drought. About half also are at risk from wildfires, including the threat of mudslides and erosion from rains after the blazes."


Read the full Bloomberg story
January 19, 2019 

Corporate America Is Getting Ready to Monetize Climate Change: Bloomberg

Not OK to profit from wrecking the climate

"Bank of America Corp. worries flooded homeowners will default on their mortgages. The Walt Disney Co. is concerned its theme parks will get too hot for vacationers, while AT&T Inc. fears hurricanes and wildfires may knock out its cell towers.

The Coca-Cola Co. wonders if there will still be enough water to make Coke.

As the Trump administration rolls back rules meant to curb global warming, new disclosures show that the country’s largest companies are already bracing for its effects. The documents reveal how widely climate change is expected to cascade through the economy -- disrupting supply chains, disabling operations and driving away customers, but also offering new ways to make money."

Read the Bloomberg story 

See also: Latest: Pentagon Warns of Risk to Bases, Troops From Climate Change

A record share of Australians say humans cause climate change: poll: SMH

"EU demand for wood pellets has increased forest harvesting for fuel, including clear-cutting fragile boreal forests in the EU and Canada, and wetland hardwood forests of the US South, write Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Mary S. Booth. [McBeth / Flickr]

There is no debate that burning wood for energy emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than burning fossil fuels. Yet the EU’s renewable energy directive continues to uphold that burning forest wood is “carbon neutral,” write Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Mary S. Booth.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is a climate scientist and professor at Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL).  He is former vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2008-2015). Mary S. Booth is the director at the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PPI), an organisation promoting science-based policies to protect air, water, ecosystems, and the climate.

As the UN’s International Day of Forests approaches (March 21), it’s a good time to focus on the role of forests in fighting climate change.

But given the obvious climate and ecosystem benefits of protecting and expanding forests, people might well ask, why does the EU’s flagship policy on climate, the new Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) promote logging and burning forests for energy?

This question lies at the heart of a suit filed this month in the Court of Justice of the European Union on behalf of six plaintiffs from the EU and the US.

The suit is necessary because the policy process, which should have protected people, ecosystems, and the climate, has failed. There is no debate that burning wood for energy emits more greenhouse gases per unit energy than burning fossil fuels.

And there is no debate that EU demand for wood pellet fuel has increased forest harvesting for fuel, including clear-cutting fragile boreal forests in the EU and Canada, and wetland hardwood forests of the US South."

 ............................................

EU dragged to court for backing forest biomass as ‘renewable energy’

A group of plaintiffs from Estonia, France, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, and the US are filing a lawsuit against the European Union on Monday (4 March) to challenge the inclusion of forest biomass in the bloc’s renewable energy directive.

Read Euractive article 

DISCLAIMER: All opinions in this column reflect the views of the author(s), not of EURACTIV.COM Ltd.

By Jean Pascal van Ypersele and Mary S. Booth

 Mar 20, 2019


See also:

A record share of Australians say humans cause climate change: poll: SMH

Burning trees as climate mitigation: A resort to the Court: Euractive

"EU demand for wood pellets has increased forest harvesting for fuel, including clear-cutting fragile boreal forests in the EU and Canada, and wetland hardwood forests of the US South, write Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Mary S. Booth. [McBeth / Flickr]

There is no debate that burning wood for energy emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than burning fossil fuels. Yet the EU’s renewable energy directive continues to uphold that burning forest wood is “carbon neutral,” write Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Mary S. Booth.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is a climate scientist and professor at Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL).  He is former vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2008-2015). Mary S. Booth is the director at the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PPI), an organisation promoting science-based policies to protect air, water, ecosystems, and the climate.

As the UN’s International Day of Forests approaches (March 21), it’s a good time to focus on the role of forests in fighting climate change.

But given the obvious climate and ecosystem benefits of protecting and expanding forests, people might well ask, why does the EU’s flagship policy on climate, the new Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) promote logging and burning forests for energy?

This question lies at the heart of a suit filed this month in the Court of Justice of the European Union on behalf of six plaintiffs from the EU and the US.

The suit is necessary because the policy process, which should have protected people, ecosystems, and the climate, has failed. There is no debate that burning wood for energy emits more greenhouse gases per unit energy than burning fossil fuels.

And there is no debate that EU demand for wood pellet fuel has increased forest harvesting for fuel, including clear-cutting fragile boreal forests in the EU and Canada, and wetland hardwood forests of the US South."

 ............................................

EU dragged to court for backing forest biomass as ‘renewable energy’

A group of plaintiffs from Estonia, France, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, and the US are filing a lawsuit against the European Union on Monday (4 March) to challenge the inclusion of forest biomass in the bloc’s renewable energy directive.

Read Euractive article 

DISCLAIMER: All opinions in this column reflect the views of the author(s), not of EURACTIV.COM Ltd.

By Jean Pascal van Ypersele and Mary S. Booth

 Mar 20, 2019


See also:

A record share of Australians say humans cause climate change: poll: SMH

Want to Build a Stronger Climate Movement? Integrate. :NexusMedia

"Dr. Robert Bullard, a professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Texas Southern University in Houston, believes that big green groups need to do more to support environmental justice groups, which treat pollution not as an isolated problem, but as part of a larger constellation of issues that includes poverty, discrimination and political marginalization."

"We saw that in Hurricane Katrina when we didn’t take care of the levees in the lowest-income communities. That’s obvious to many communities on the ground who are facing the ravages of climate right now. For them, it’s not a debate. It’s not theory. It’s real. For workers who work outside, they know it’s getting hotter. They know it’s more difficult to work outside, and they know that if it’s too hot to work, or if it’s raining every day, they can’t do their job, and they’re losing money. It’s not a matter of whether or not climate change is real. They know it’s real."

Read the original Nexus story 

Related: 

The World's Poor are Hurt Not Helped by Fossil Fuel Subsidies

 

#environmentaljustice   #environment   #workers   #climateactivism   #climatejustice   

Public Money Propping Up Fossil Fuels: Market Forces

Your Australian taxes funding fossil fuels

"Each year, the Australian government spends billions of dollars of your money on programs that encourage more coal, gas and oil to be extracted and burned. Market Forces estimates that tax-based fossil fuel subsidies cost almost $12 billion a year federally. This includes subsidies that support both the production and use of fossil fuels.

But tax-based subsidies aren’t the only government financial backing for fossil fuels. Direct handouts and contributions to the industry are doled out at both federal and state levels. 

On top of this, public money is used to finance fossil fuels through our national export credit agency EFIC, as well as our involvement with international financial institutions.
Australia has built a bad reputation as one of the world’s biggest backers of the dirty fossil fuel industry, a stance made clear at the 2015 Paris climate talks when it refused to sign an agreement that would phase out fossil fuel subsidies. 

This came despite Australia having committed on multiple occasions to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.”

Your Australian taxes are funding fossil fuels.

Read the Market Forces article

 Related:

The World's Poor are Hurt Not Helped by Fossil Fuel Subsidies

#fossil fuel industry  #fossil fuel subsidies  #fossil fuel subsidies, poverty  #climate action   #Australia,  

The World's Poor are Hurt Not Helped by Fossil Fuel Subsidies : GMO

Vote for my climate

"Governments argue that fossil fuel subsidies are designed to help the poorest members of society, however, this is not borne out by the research.  The true beneficiaries of these subsidies are wealthier people and wealthier nations not the poor.
According to an IEA report, more than 85 percent of these subsidies go to middle and higher end income earners while only 8 percent of the aid is reaching the poorest 20 percent. These subsidies encourage energy consumption as people with the lowest incomes tend to be lower energy users and rarely drive.
"Fossil-fuel subsidies as presently constituted tend to be regressive, disproportionately benefiting higher income groups that can afford higher levels of fuel consumption," the report said. 'Social welfare programs are a more effective and less distortionary way of helping the poor than energy subsidies.' "

Read the Green Market Oracle story

#fossil fuel subsidies   #climate catastrophe  #poverty   #renewable energy  #100% renewable energy  #electricity #Australia

Bering Sea Appears Largely Ice-Free from NOAA-20

Bering Sea

 
"On April 1, 2014, Suomi-NPP captured the image on the left, which shows much of the Bering and Chukchi seas covered in ice. The Arctic sea ice extent for 2014 was fairly typical, reaching its maximum on March 21, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. In contrast, the NOAA-20 image on the right shows a largely ice-free area from the coast of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge to the Bering Strait."

Read the complete original NOAA article

How climate change will affect your mortgage: SMH

Economic impact of climate change

In ordinary times, a person standing up to make a statement of the bleeding obvious isn’t news.

But the times, my friends, are anything but ordinary.

And in these times, when a person stands up and says climate change will have an inevitable impact on our economy, that is news.

Read the full SMH story

See also Port Macquarie map after a 7m sea rise 

Port Macquarie after a 7m sea level rise. Insurance risks affect property values now.

Port Macquarie with 7m sea level rise: Click to enlarge.

• We are looking more and more unlikely to prevent global heating.

• Scientists are predicting the melting of the ice covering Greenland  with a subsequent sea level rise of 7m.

• This rise does not factor in sea rise from the melting of Antarctica and other ice.

• Already many properties and infrastructures are likely to flood when a high tide is combined with high local rainfall. What were a hundred year rainfall events are now ten year events.

• The frequency of high rainfall events will increase with global heating and more and more severe hurricanes are predicted because of warmer seas.

• Low coastal areas will also be subjected to severe storm surges.

• Would you buy a property likely to be inundated in twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years? Many wouldn't. Even the perception of possible inundation will greatly affect property values. Insurers are already reluctant to insure many properties that were once only likely to flood every 100 years.

• When certain properties are in less demand their value falls.

• Would you buy a property with a value likely to fall?

•  The view of Port Macquarie above shows areas likely to be inundated by even a 7m sea level rise. Note the flooding of infrastructure and roads. Water supply will be affected. How could levees hold back such an onslaught?

• Property above a 10m rise will become highly sought after and will greatly rise in value. Property able to be accessed by road will increase in value but properties isolated by sea rise will lose value. New, costly road routes above the Hastings River floodplain will be required. Will NSW be able to afford to update all its infrastructure? Of course local government will be raising rates in an attempt to maintain infrastructure.

Isaac Cordal sculpture depicting politicians discussing global warming

Learn more about how sea rise inundation will affect Australian property.

Click here to go to Coastal Risk Australia site

Related: 'Retreat' Is Not An Option As A California Beach Town Plans For Rising Seas: NPR 

• 

  NASA: Earth’s vital signs: Sea level

  An indicator of current global sea level as measured by satellites; updated monthly.

#inundation  #sea rise  #searise  #climatecrisis  #climatechange  #ice  #melting ice  #insurancerisk  #floods  #climate catastrophe  #Port Macquarie

A record share of Australians say humans cause climate change: poll: SMH

More Australians than ever believe human activity is entirely or mainly responsible for climate change, new polling shows.

But only 13 per cent say the Morrison government is doing a good job tackling climate change.

A survey by social research firm Ipsos shows 46 per cent of Australians now agree climate change is “entirely or mainly” caused by human activity. That is the highest share since Ipsos began asking the question in an annual survey of Australians’ attitudes to climate change in 2010.

Read the Sydney Morning Herald article

Climate change impact on Australia

 

How affected will Macksville NSW be by a 7m sea rise? Quite affected.

Macksville 7m sea rise - Click to enlarge

• We are looking more and more unlikely to prevent global heating.

• Scientists are predicting the melting of the ice covering Greenland  with a subsequent sea level rise of 7m.

• This rise does not factor in sea rise from the melting of Antarctica and other ice.

• Already many properties and infrastructures are likely to flood when a high tide is combined with high local rainfall. What were a hundred year rainfall events are now ten year events.

• The frequency of high rainfall events will increase with global heating and more and more severe hurricanes are predicted because of warmer seas.

• Low coastal areas will also be subjected to severe storm surges.

• Would you buy a property likely to be inundated in twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years? Many wouldn't. Even the perception of possible inundation will greatly affect property values. Insurers are already reluctant to insure many properties that were once only likely to flood every 100 years.

• When certain properties are in less demand their value falls.

• Would you buy a property with a value likely to fall?

•  The view of Macksville above shows areas likely to be inundated by even a 7m sea level rise. Note the flooding of infrastructure and roads. Water supply will be affected. How could levees hold back such an onslaught?

• Property above a 10m rise will become highly sought after and will greatly rise in value. Property able to be accessed by road will increase in value but properties isolated by sea rise will lose value. New, costly road routes above the Nambucca River floodplain will be required. Will NSW be able to afford to update all its infrastructure?

Isaac Cordal sculpture depicting politicians discussing global warming

Learn more about how sea rise inundation will affect Australian property.

Click here to go to Coastal Risk Australia site

Related: 'Retreat' Is Not An Option As A California Beach Town Plans For Rising Seas: NPR 


#inundation  #sea rise  #searise  #climatecrisis  #climatechange  #ice  #melting ice  #insurancerisk  #floods  #climate catastrophe  #Macksville

British MP calls for immediate climate emergency declaration by government.

Green Party of England & Wales

Published on Apr 2, 2019

"We need a green new deal.."

"It can't be dealt with tomorrow or the day after." 

"It is the number one issue. Not Brexit. Not economic growth."

Related: Urunga NSW: Very affected by sea level rise.

What’s with the UK’s ‘boneheaded’ energy policy?: Medium

climate criminals

"Lobbies and the Military are pushing the UK to favour fracking and nuclear energy over renewables."

“ 'England’s energy policy is very opportunistic, there is no long-term vision,” says Duncan Connors, an economics and energy policy specialist at Durham University. The idea that there is money to be made short-term in shale gas is what underpins government policy, he says. “In the long run, renewables will also bring in a lot of money, but that doesn’t fit into their frame of vision.' ”

climate emergency

"For now, there is still a limit to wind and solar energy: the need to store energy to compensate for uneven weather conditions. Kirby argues that this “isn’t a real problem,” in a few years, there will be batteries powerful enough to store the surplus energy and retransmit it. “The smart thing to do now would be to invest resources into conducting research into making these storage options a reality,” he says. In the UK, Green energy gets twelve times less R&D funding from the government than nuclear power."

Read the complete Medium article. 

Related : Australia’s 2018 environmental scorecard: a dreadful year that demands action: The Conversation

#renewables  #UK   #UnitedKingdom  #shalegas   #methane   #batterystorage   #fracking

Urunga NSW: Very affected by sea level rise.

Unundation of Urunga NSW with 7m sea rise. Click to enlarge.

• We are looking more and more unlikely to prevent global heating.

• Scientists are predicting the melting of the ice covering Greenland  with a subsequent sea level rise of 7m.

• This rise does not factor in sea rise from the melting of Antarctica and other ice.

• Already many properties and infrastructures are likely to flood when a high tide is combined with high local rainfall. What were a hundred year rainfall events are now ten year events.

• The frequency of high rainfall events will increase with global heating and more and more severe hurricanes are predicted because of warmer seas.

• Low coastal areas will also be subjected to severe storm surges.

• Would you buy a property likely to be inundated in twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years? Many wouldn't. Even the perception of possible inundation will greatly affect property values. Insurers are already reluctant to insure many properties that were once only likely to flood every 100 years.

• When certain properties are in less demand their value falls.

• Would you buy a property with a value likely to fall?

•  The view of Urunga above shows areas likely to be inundated by even a 7m sea level rise. Note the flooding of infrastructure and roads. Newry Island has disappeared.

• Property above a 10m rise will become highly sought after and will greatly rise in value. Property able to be accessed by road will increase in value but properties isolated by sea rise will lose value. New, costly road routes above the Bellinger/Kalang Rivers floodplain will be required. Will NSW be able to afford to update all its infrastructure? Water supply will be affected.

Isaac Cordal sculpture depicting politicians discussing global warming

Learn more about how sea rise inundation will affect Australian property.

Click here to go to Coastal Risk Australia site

'Retreat' Is Not An Option As A California Beach Town Plans For Rising Seas: NPR 


#inundation  #sea rise  #searise  #climatecrisis  #climatechange  #ice  #melting ice  #insurancerisk  #floods  #climate catastrophe  #Urunga

What do I say to my daughter when she tells me climate change will end the earth in 12 years time?: Medium

My daughter is funny.

She’s intelligent, caring, stubborn. She knows her own mind and is a delight to be around.

But then I would say that, I’m her mum.

But what do I say to her when she sits me down, looks me in the eye and says, “ What’s the point in further education if the world is going to become uninhabitable in 12 years? Am I not better off going out there now and travelling before it’s all gone?”.

Can you imagine being 16, and knowing that the world is going to change, catastrophically, because the adults have royally fucked it up?

Read the article in Medium 

#human driven mass extinction  #children  #youth  #climate catastrophe  #climate despair

See also: 

Earth at 2° hotter will be horrific. Now here’s what 4° will look like. | David Wallace-Wells

 

Australia’s 2018 environmental scorecard: a dreadful year that demands action: The Conversation

"Temperatures went up again, rainfall declined further, and the destruction of vegetation and ecosystems by drought, fire and land clearing continued. Soil moisture, rivers and wetlands all declined, and vegetation growth was poor.
In short, our environment took a beating in 2018, and that was even before the oppressive heatwaves, bushfires and Darling River fish kills of January 2019."

Dar

Indicators of Australia’s environment in 2018 compared with the previous year. Similar to national economic indicators, they provide a summary but also hide regional variations, complex interactions and long-term context. source: http://www.ausenv.online/2018

"Globally, the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere accelerated again after slowing down in 2017. Global air and ocean temperatures remained high, sea levels increased further, and even the ozone hole grew again, after shrinking during the previous two years."

Read the article 

See also:

Australian Coalition government signs off with a budget tailored for climate denial: Renew Economy