Thursday 6 April 2023

Word, words, words. I'm so sick of words

Words matter and I like Liam Kavanagh's discussion of climate words

Kavanagh argues that if we say “1.5 is alive” many readers will think we mean “we’ve got a practical chance of meeting 1.5 °C with the political processes we have in place”. And that, of course, is nonsense.

The IPCC Synthesis report says explicitly that we need (para C.1)

“increased international cooperation including improved access to adequate financial resources, particularly for vulnerable regions, sectors and groups, and inclusive governance and coordinated policies".

Indeed we do but we shan't get it without profound political change.

So we should stop saying the comfortable positive things. If we must say that 1.5 is alive we MUST add that it can only stay alive if we move immediately to increased international cooperation on priorities and funding, and everything else. 

As XR says - Tell the truth.

Monday 3 April 2023

Excessive optimism by the IPCC

The IPCC has been praised for the stark realism of its recent Synthesis Report[1]. And it’s true that the tone is bleaker and the language more forceful than in previous reports.

But overall I believe it’s far too optimistic. I don’t doubt the science. We do need “deep global GHG emissions reductions this decade” (paras A.4.3 and B.5.1) in order to have even a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C.

It’s the recommendations! They would be right for a world in which world leaders were good people. People who followed the evidence to find then implement solutions to the climate crisis.

That’s not the world we live in.

The climate emergency is a global crisis, well beyond the control of any one state. The IPCC rightly describes international cooperation as a “critical enabler” (para C.7.6, also para C.1). But you might as well ask Boris Johnson to unite with the EU or Vladimir Putin to respect human rights.

Over and over again progress at the UNFCCC COPs has been blocked by leaders who care more for short-term national advantage and the profits of oil companies than long-term global survival. In the UK, USA, Russia, China, Hungary, Italy, India – it would be tedious to go on – the last decade has the rise of nationalists who barely even claim to respect international law and democratic values. The willingness of countries to collaborate on anything except trade is markedly lower than it was when the UNFCCC process started.

And let’s look at money. We need, the IPCC says, “improved access to finance for low-emissions infrastructure and technologies, especially in developing countries (C.2.5)”.

In the real world the major nations have so far failed consistently to provide climate finance at the long-promised $100B per year. And they have yet to agree numbers or a mechanism to pay for the loss and damage they have caused.

There is just no chance that they will suddenly see the error of their ways and do what’s necessary.

So I just ask this. Shouldn’t the IPCC  be writing for the world we actually live in?



[1] IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report (2023)

Wednesday 30 November 2022

1.5C still possible says IEA - on which planet?

Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, says that 1.5C is still possible. 

Really?

To support this the IEA says that investment in clean energy is increasing fast, driven by Russian aggression against Ukraine. That's doubtless true but largely beside the point. To keep within 1.5C we don't need more clean energy - we need less dirty energy. Because its dirty energy that drives climate change. The current position is that both are growing in order to meet increasing total demand.

To reduce dirty energy we need to turn off all fossil fuel-burning electricity generators, starting with coal. We need to decarbonise transport and industry. You know the rest I'm sure. 

The IEA says that fossil fuel use might peak this decade. The latest IPCC report says that emissions have to reduce 45% by the end of the decade. That sounds very different from 'peaking' to me.

And the UN agrees. It forecasts a 2.6C increase if countries meet their pledges - itself wildly unlikely. I'm sure Fatih Birol lives on a nice planet. I wish it were mine.


Tuesday 8 November 2022

Social justice and the climate crisis

Some climate activists and Green politicians say that there is no conflict, even alignment, between climate change mitigation and social justice.

That sounds good. And if they mean that we Greens should advocate policies that promote social justice and climate change mitigation then I agree. We should. 

But some make the stronger claim that social justice and climate change mitigation cannot be different. That, unhappily, is wrong.  

Because they are standing at the wrong end of the telescope. They are looking at policies we may have for the UK. That's a legitimate focus. Much of my own policy work has that focus. But that's not how we'll fix the global heating and the biodiversity crises because, well, they are global.

An effective solution to a global problem is necessarily a global one. In practice it has to be a long-term, think at least 20 year, programme. And it will cost tens of trillions of dollars.  

And it will need global governance. What form will this take?

How about a multinational, consensus-seeking process? Sounds good. Sounds realistic. But that's what we have and it's failed. And the very factors that have created this failure – short-termism, economic fetishism, nationalism, billionaire power – make effective reform impossible.

How about 'muscular leadership' by a single nation? The only nation with the clout and which might develop the insight is the US. (Please don't laugh.) Plainly the US is not ready to play this role. It may never be ready and by the time it becomes ready it will no longer have the clout.

What's left? Only, I suggest, joint leadership by the US and China. And by leadership I mean a mixture of sticks and carrots with the willingness to impose solutions when persuasion fails.

Neither country is currently ready to play this role and, in my judgement, neither will be ready for five, maybe ten, years. By which time we will stand on the edge of a climate precipice from which only the most vigorous action can save us. That action may have to include domestic food and energy rationing and solar radiation management.

That might be enough to save us from global catastrophe. And it might not.

But what is clear to me is that there will be no spare time, money or attention to achieve other goals. Goals such as social justice, respect for human rights and the maintenance of democracy. Much of that will have to take second place and the best we can hope for is that this neglect or even backtracking is purely temporary. 

I do not recommend this. I do not like this. It runs counter to my values in almost every way.

But I do not see an alternative that is at once effective and credible.

I wish I did.

Cassandra returns

For the last 4 years I've been heavily involved with developing the Green Party's policy on the Climate Emergency. I will have more to say about that in the future but this blog is my personal views. So here's the first.

1.5 is not alive. It's dead. Even the most optimistic IPCC '1.5 compliant' scenarios go above 1.5 within 50 years though get below it by 2100 - by assuming lots of negative emissions. And those scenarios are purely theoretical. They don't even get lip service from the big emitters.

The probable result of every nation meeting its NDC commitments would be much worse, more like 3 degrees than 1.5. And how likely is it that every nation will meet its NDC commitments ? 

Very unlikely. Emissions  have risen almost every year for half a century. They are not reducing and there is little sense in forecasting peak emissions until we see some, even very slight, reductions. To put it another way, the UNFCCC process, the COPs, has failed.

So are we on track for 3 degrees? 

I don't think so. it's likely that we will exceed 2 degrees this century and that this will create massive positive feedback effects, such as the release of vast amounts of methane from under the arctic tundra. The results of that will be an increase of more, perhaps much more, than 3 degrees. 

This isn't quite inevitable. There are still ways back. But they get harder, technically and politically, with each passing month.

Tuesday 26 November 2019

A flight to folly

We face a climate emergency. Parliament has said so. This view is backed by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, organised by the IPCC, by the Committee on Climate Change and by innumerable economists. And it’s been confirmed this month by floods in Yorkshire and wildfires in Australia and California.
 
To end this global emergency every country must reduce its carbon emissions – which come mainly from burning fossil fuels. As a matter of simple justice that obligation must fall most heavily on the countries that have made the greatest historical contribution to climate change and which are still most profligate in their use of them. That means us. Specifically it means local and national government.

How does Luton Council propose to meet this obligation? It proposes to make matters worse. The Luton Airport Expansion Project 'SIFT 2' report (p60) says:
“… by far the most significant GHG emissions impact will be from aircraft cruise emissions i.e. emissions from aircraft over 3,000ft. As a result every option is judged to have a Large Adverse impact

In 2018 16.5 million passengers used Luton Airport. Carbon emissions were estimated as 2.2MtonsCO2e, that’s about half of one percent of all UK domestic emissions. To allow for the increased radiative forcing due to high-altitude emissions we should double that number. So one percent – just from one airport. 

LLAL now proposes to increase the capacity of the airport to at least 36 mppa (“in the region of 240,000 aircraft movements per year”). That’s a 118% increase. The carbon emissions are then expected to be 3.9 MtonsCO2e – again we need to double that. If that occurs in 2039 and if the UK meets its climate change obligations that will comprise c5% of UK domestic emissions – still from just one airport.

It’s morally outrageous. 

It’s also economic nonsense. Luton Council and Airport are assuming that flying will continue to grow for many years into the future. But this ignores:

  • The increasing effects of climate change.
  • The growing realisation, by politicians and the public, that the climate emergency is a major threat. When Nigel Farrage AND Jeremy Clarkson both express climate concern in a single week we can see that something has changed
  • More specifically the acknowledgement by the Committee on Climate Change that aviation growth has to be restrained. 

 A simple extrapolation suggests that our government will, however reluctantly, take steps to restrain that growth. It may not be next year or even by 2024 but it will come. And where will the Airport's  business case be then?

Tuesday 20 November 2018

Climate change goes construction mainstream


Last week we were asked to look at 'How to Make Your Home More Environmentally Friendly' on the Stanmore Contractors website. We were promised:

“plenty of valuable information such as:
  • How increasing populations, strained natural resources, carbon emissions, and deforestation are all contributing towards global warming.
  • The many health and economical benefits of reducing our carbon footprint, and having an energy efficient home.
  • Tips and advice on how to assess energy efficiency
  • Making the most of government schemes and incentives”
Frankly I was expecting puffery and special pleading. I was pleasantly surprised.
The site gives a simple and accurate account of climate change. It mentions sea level rise, Arctic ice, droughts and heatwaves and notes that “hundreds of coastal towns, cities and islands around the world [are] at risk of being underwater within the next century.” And it’s uncompromising about human responsibility for this, referring to both fossil fuels and population increases. That last point is better than some environmentalists I could mention!
So what are we to do? There are lots of suggestions, all sensible though some rather minor, and home insulation, part opf Stanmore’s business, is not given excessive space. It does mention the need to eat less meat but not the need to fly much less.
Let me repeat – I’m glad to see an ordinary business addressing climate change.
But there’s a problem – really three problems. First the site does not say that climate change is a crisis that threatens many lives. The death toll from the Paradise fire is still rising as I write and 993 people are missing. That’s in a rich country but most of the death and damage will be in poor countries with much worse services.
Second it does not say that we are on track for catastrophe:
  • The world is on course for 3-4 degrees of warming.
  • The UK’s policies are too weak to deliver the fifth carbon budget.
  • No (or almost no) country has policies consistent with keeping within 1.5 degrees – the Paris target.
Third the advice implies, by omission, that we can address climate change by relatively minor lifestyle changes and some green shopping. And that’s nonsense. Of course it doesn’t say that and the author probably knows better but there it is.
Avoiding a climate breakdown requires immediate, vigorous action by every government. It requires major investments by businesses in every sector. And it requires all of us to accept change we really won’t like.
Perhaps I'm asking too much. Stanmore is a business, not a political party or a Green lobby. And the advice from environmental NGOs often falls into the same trap.
Yet it adds to the sense that avoiding catastrophic climate change will be easy. It won’t.