Carbon tariffs: an instrument for tackling climate change?: AXA

Carbon Tariffs: Another Name for Green Protectionism?

A Carbon Tariff model that might be acceptable to developing countries

Carbon tariffs are a tax on carbon-intensive imports, which recently triggered heated international debates. Certain industrialized countries have been advocating the adoption of carbon tariffs on products imported from developing countries, such as China. 

According to Marco Springmann, a physicist turned economist, the main reason is that certain rich nations have implemented binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while poorer countries have so far resisted legal commitments. Additionally, because many of them simply do not set a price on carbon, they can produce cheaper carbon-intensive goods. Promoters of carbon tariffs thus think that taxing such goods at the border will make up for this difference in price and indirectly regulate the associated emissions.

However, almost a quarter of China’s CO2 emissions come from its

exports. So China and other nations view carbon tariffs as trade sanctions and protectionism. They even threatened to start a “trade war” if such schemes were to be put into place. They stress the role that carbon emissions have played in the industrialization of advanced economies and demand increased financial aid in order to reduce their emissions.

Carbon tariffs to finance clean development

To avoid this coming carbon war, Springmann proposes to recycle the tax revenues from carbon tariffs (claimed in the importing country) to the exporting country as investments in climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. This coupled scheme addresses the concerns about competitiveness and reducing emissions in one part of the world and economic progress in the other. Since it acknowledges the demand for imports as an emissions-causing factor, it may therefore represent a consensus solution within a global climate policy. According to Springmann, a preliminary assessment has indicated that the revenue from this scheme would range between $8 and $50 billion per year, depending on the price of carbon. In comparison, at the climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, it was agreed to create a “Fast Start Fund” to support climate adaptation and clean technology in developing countries. The pledged contribution is $30 billion over the next three years. Carbon tariffs would add significant revenue streams to this effort."

Go to original AXA article by Marco Springmann (3 years)


 Related: Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions: Hansen et al


carbon tariffs, carbon footprint, impose trade tariffs on carbon offenders, carbon trading, climate catastrophe, #economy,

'A shot in the arm:' Victoria backs clean energy in bid to fuel COVID-19 recovery: SMH

(Pics by this blog)

"Clean energy projects will receive a Victorian government funding boost in the hope of driving the state's battered economy out of the coronavirus downturn and avoiding a slump in wind and solar investment.

Victorian Energy Minister Lily D'Ambrosio is preparing to brief 

300 investors on Wednesday about the launch of a formal process to test interest in building 600 megawatts of renewable energy capacity statewide, which she said would drive down prices and create new jobs at a critical time."

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

"Climate advocates say the unprecedented upheaval of COVID-19 presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to accelerate the energy transition. Mr Thornton said there was now a "massive consensus" in Australia and around the world about the potential for renewable energy to play a leading role in the economic recovery from COVID-19."

By Nick Toscano and Miki Perkins

September 1, 2020

Go to the complete SMH article 

Related: 

Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions: Hansen et al

Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions: Hansen et al

Abstract. 

Melting ice sheets

Global temperature is a fundamental climate metric highly correlated with sea level, which implies that keeping shorelines near their present location requires keeping global temperature within or close to its preindustrial Holocene range. 

However, global temperature excluding short-term variability now exceeds +1◦C relative to the 1880–1920 mean and annual 2016 global temperature was almost +1.3◦C. 

We show that global temperature has risen well out of the Holocene range and Earth is now as warm as it was during the prior (Eemian) interglacial period, when sea level reached 6–9 m higher than today. 

Further, Earth is out of energy balance with present atmospheric composition, implying that more warming is in the pipeline, and we show that the growth rate of greenhouse gas climate forcing has accelerated markedly in the past decade.  

The rapidity of ice sheet and sea level response to global temperature is difficult to predict, but is dependent on the magnitude of warming. 

Targets for limiting global warming thus, at minimum, should aim to avoid leaving global temperature at Eemian or higher levels for centuries. 

Such targets now require “negative emissions”, i.e., extraction of CO2from the air. 

If phase down of fossil fuel emissions begins soon, improved agricultural and forestry practices,including reforestation and steps to improve soil fertility and increase its carbon content, may provide much of the necessary CO2 extraction. 

In that case, the magnitude and duration of global temperature excursion above the natural range of the current inter glacial (Holocene) could be limited and irreversible climate impacts could be minimized. 

In contrast, continued high fossil fuel emissions today place a burden on young people to undertake massive technological CO2 extraction if they are to limit climate change and its consequences. 

Proposed methods of extraction such as bio energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or air capture of CO2 have minimal estimated costs of USD 89–535 trillion this century and also have large risks and uncertain feasibility.    

Continued high fossil fuel emissions unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, implausible cleanup or growing deleterious climate impacts or both.

James Hansen et al  
Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 

Correspondence to:James Hansen (jeh1@columbia.edu) 
Received: 22 September 2016 – Discussion started: 4 October 2016 Revised: 29 May 2017 – Accepted: 8 June 2017 – Published: 18 July 2017



Go to research article  

 

Newcastle with a 0.7m sea rise by 2100, below the 2010 official government planning estimate of 0.9m.

Related: 

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

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

 

Sea level rise from ice sheets track worst-case climate change scenario: Phys.org

Credit: CC0 Public Domain 

Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica whose melting rates are rapidly increasing have raised the global sea level by 1.8cm since the 1990s, and are matching the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's worst-case climate warming scenarios.

According to a new study from the University of Leeds and the Danish Meteorological Institute, if these rates continue, the ice sheets are expected to raise sea levels by a further 17cm and expose an additional 16 million people to annual coastal flooding by the end of the century.

Since the ice sheets were first monitored by satellite in the 1990s, melting from Antarctica has pushed global sea levels up by 7.2mm, while Greenland has contributed 10.6mm. And the latest measurements show that the world's oceans are now rising by 4mm each year.

"Although we anticipated the ice sheets would lose increasing amounts of ice in response to the warming of the oceans and atmosphere, the rate at which they are melting has accelerated faster than we could have imagined," said Dr. Tom Slater, lead author of the study and climate researcher at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at the University of Leeds.

"The melting is overtaking the climate models we use to guide us, and we are in danger of being unprepared for the risks posed by sea level rise."

Will predicted sea rise inundation affect property values in Newcastle, NSW?

• 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.

"The Antarctic ice sheet, most of which is in East Antarctica, is Earth’s largest freshwater reservoir. If it all melts, it could lead to a 60-meter rise in global sea levels. Current predictions estimate global sea levels will rise one meter by 2100 and more than 15 meters by 2500." SciTechDaily

• Already many properties 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 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.

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

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

Predicted flooding of Newcastle, NSW, with a conservative 1.4m sea rise

•  The view of Newcastle above shows areas likely to be inundated by a conservative 1.4m sea level rise.

• Property above a 10m rise will become highly sought after and will greatly rise in value.

 
 

Predicted flooding of Newcastle, NSW, with a 10m sea rise

•  The view of Newcastle above shows areas likely to be inundated by a 10m sea level rise.

• Property above a 10m rise will become highly sought after and will greatly rise in value.

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

Original article by wewantclimateactionnowblogspot.com.au

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

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

These appear to be the current planning guidelines for sea rise in NSW. Many scientists would say they are too conservative.

"Sea Level Rise Planning Benchmarks This Guideline adopts the NSW sea level rise planning benchmarks in the NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement (2009). The NSW sea level rise planning benchmarks are an increase above 1990 mean sea levels of 40cm by 2050 and 90cm by 2100. These benchmark figures were established by considering the most credible national and international projections of sea level rise for the NSW coast and take into consideration the uncertainty associated with sea level rise projections. These benchmark figures are to be used in NSW when planning for sea level rise.

NSW Coastal Planning guideline: adapting to Sea Level Rise August 2010 " 

 

Newcastle with a 0.7m sea rise by 2100, below the 2010 official government planning estimate of 0.9m.

East Antarctic Melting Hotspot Identified by Japanese Expedition – Ice Melting at Surprisingly Fast Rate: SciTechDaily

"Ice is melting at a surprisingly fast rate underneath Shirase Glacier Tongue in East Antarctica due to the continuing influx of warm seawater into the Lützow-Holm Bay.

Hokkaido University scientists have identified an atypical hotspot of sub-glacier melting in East Antarctica. Their findings, published in the journal Nature Communications, could further understandings and predictions of sea level rise caused by mass loss of ice sheets from the southernmost continent.

The 58th Japanese Antarctic Research Expedition had a very rare

opportunity to conduct ship-based observations near the tip of East Antarctic Shirase Glacier when large areas of heavy sea ice broke up, giving them access to the frozen Lützow-Holm Bay into which the glacier protrudes.

“Our data suggests that the ice directly beneath the Shirase Glacier Tongue is melting at a rate of 7–16 meters per year,” says Assistant Professor Daisuke Hirano of Hokkaido University’s Institute of Low Temperature Science. “This is equal to or perhaps even surpasses the melting rate underneath the Totten Ice Shelf, which was thought to be experiencing the highest melting rate in East Antarctica, at a rate of 10–11 meters per year.”'

"The Antarctic ice sheet, most of which is in East Antarctica, is Earth’s largest freshwater reservoir. If it all melts, it could lead to a 60-meter rise in global sea levels. Current predictions estimate global sea levels will rise one meter by 2100 and more than 15 meters by 2500. Thus, it is very important for scientists to have a clear understanding of how Antarctic continental ice is melting, and to more accurately predict sea level fluctuations.

Population panic lets rich people off the hook for the climate crisis they are fuelling (excerpt); The Guardian

(Pics by this blog)

"Rising consumption by the affluent has a far greater environmental impact than the birth rate in poorer nations

When a major study was published last month, showing that the global population is likely to peak then crash much sooner than most scientists had assumed, I naively imagined that people in rich nations would at last stop blaming all the world’s environmental problems on population growth. I was wrong. If anything, it appears to have got worse.
 
Next week the BirthStrike movement – founded by women who, by announcing their decision not to have children, seek to focus our minds on the horror of environmental collapse – will dissolve itself, because its cause has been hijacked so virulently and persistently by population obsessives. The founders explain that they had “underestimated the power of ‘overpopulation’ as a growing form of climate breakdown denial”.

It is true that, in some parts of the world, population growth is a major driver of particular kinds of ecological damage, such as the expansion of small-scale agriculture into rainforests, the bushmeat trade and local pressure on water and land for housing. But its global impact is much smaller than many people claim.

The formula for calculating people’s environmental footprint is simple, but widely misunderstood: Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology (I = PAT). The global rate of consumption growth, before the pandemic, was 3% a year. Population growth is 1%. Some people assume this means that the rise in population bears one-third of the responsibility for increased consumption. But population growth is overwhelmingly concentrated among the world’s poorest people, who have scarcely any A or T to multiply their P. The extra resource use and greenhouse gas emissions caused by a rising human population are a tiny fraction of the impact of consumption growth."

Go to the revealing, complete article by George Monbiot in The Guardian


Related: Far-reaching climate change risks to Australia must be reduced and managed: Aigroup

overpopulation, affluence, technology, #climatechange, #cambio-climatico, #foodsecurity, #criminalesclimáticosdelacárcel, #人类灭绝,