Showing posts with label climate change denialists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change denialists. Show all posts
Friday 14 December 2018
Australia’s Chief Scientist gives the Clarence Valley’s Daily Examiner a polite serve
This is what
happens when a once proud 159 year-old newspaper
is brought by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp
and begins to publish the political rot that Andrew Bolt spews forth…….
The Daily Examiner, letter to the Editor, 11 December
2018, p.13:
Doing nothing on climate
change not an option
On Tuesday, December 4 you published an opinion piece by
Andrew Bolt titled, ‘Less marching, more learning’, which included a reference to me
‘admitting’ that we “could stop all Australia’s emissions – junk every car,
shut every power station, put a cork in every cow – and the effect on the
climate would still be ‘virtually nothing’.”
Those are Andrew Bolt’s words, not mine, and they are a
complete misrepresentation of my position.
They suggest that we
should do nothing to reduce our carbon emissions, a stance I reject, and I wish
to correct the record.
On June 1, 2017 I
attended a Senate Estimates hearing where Senator Ian Macdonald asked if the
world was to reduce its carbon emissions by 1.3 per cent, which is
approximately Australia’s rate of emissions, what impact would that make on the
changing climate of the world.
My response was that the
impact would be virtually nothing, but I immediately continued by explaining
that doing nothing is not a position that we can responsibly take because
emissions reductions is a little bit like voting, in that if everyone took the
attitude that their vote does not count and no-one voted, we would not have a
democracy.
Similarly, if all
countries that have comparable carbon emissions took the position that they
shouldn’t take action because their contribution to this global problem is
insignificant, then nobody would act and the problem would continue to grow in
scale.
Let me be clear, we need
to continue on the path of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions. The fact
remains that Australia’s emissions per person are some of the highest in the
world.
In response to the
recent IPCC report, I urged all decision makers – in government, industry, and
the community – to listen to the science and focus on the goal of reducing
emissions, while maximising economic growth.
I was upfront about the
magnitude of the task: it is huge and will require a global effort.
We’ve never been a
nation to shy away from a challenge, or from shouldering our fair share of the
responsibility for solving global issues.
Sitting on our hands
while expecting the rest of the world to do their part is simply not
acceptable.
Dr Alan Finkel AO,
Australia’s Chief
Scientist. [my yellow highlighting]
Wednesday 12 December 2018
Are Prime Minister Morrison & Co determined to reduce Australia to a hot, barren desert from sea to sea?
Human
activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming
above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global
warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to
increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2} [United Nations (2018) Global Warming of 1.5°C. Summary
for Policymakers]
United Nations, Sustainable Development, 8 October 2018:
The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC was
approved by the IPCC on Saturday in Incheon, Republic of Korea. It will be a
key scientific input into the Katowice
Climate Change Conference in Poland in December, when governments
review the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change.
“With more than 6,000
scientific references cited and the dedicated contribution of thousands of
expert and government reviewers worldwide, this important report testifies to
the breadth and policy relevance of the IPCC,” said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the
IPCC.
Ninety-one authors and
review editors from 40 countries prepared the IPCC report in response to an
invitation from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) when it adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015.
The report’s full name
is Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of
global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global
greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global
response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts
to eradicate poverty.
“One of the key messages
that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the
consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea
levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai,
Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.
Limiting global
warming
The report highlights a
number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global
warming to 1.5ºC compared to 2ºC, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea
level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C.
The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once
per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per
decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming
of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2ºC.
“Every extra bit of
warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5ºC or higher increases the risk
associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some
ecosystems,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
Limiting global warming
would also give people and ecosystems more room to adapt and remain below
relevant risk thresholds, added Pörtner. The report also examines pathways
available to limit warming to 1.5ºC, what it would take to achieve them and what
the consequences could be.
“The good news is that
some of the kinds of actions that would be needed to limit global warming to
1.5ºC are already underway around the world, but they would need to
accelerate,” said Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Co-Chair of Working Group I.
The report finds that
limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching”
transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global
net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about
45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This
means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from
the air.
“Limiting warming to
1.5ºC is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would
require unprecedented changes,” said Jim Skea, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group
III.
Allowing the global
temperature to temporarily exceed or ‘overshoot’ 1.5ºC would mean a greater
reliance on techniques that remove CO2 from the air to return global
temperature to below 1.5ºC by 2100. The effectiveness of such techniques are
unproven at large scale and some may carry significant risks for sustainable
development, the report notes.
“Limiting global warming
to 1.5°C compared with 2°C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems,
human health and well-being, making it easier to achieve the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals,” said Priyardarshi Shukla, Co-Chair of IPCC
Working Group III.
The decisions we make
today are critical in ensuring a safe and sustainable world for everyone, both
now and in the future, said Debra Roberts, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
“This report gives
policymakers and practitioners the information they need to make decisions that
tackle climate change while considering local context and people’s needs. The
next few years are probably the most important in our history,” she said.
The
Denver Post,
8 December 2018:
Global emissions of
carbon dioxide have reached the highest levels on record, scientists projected
Wednesday, in the latest evidence of the chasm between international goals for
combating climate change and what countries are actually doing.
Between 2014 and 2016,
emissions remained largely flat, leading to hopes that the world was beginning
to turn a corner. Those hopes have been dashed. In 2017, global emissions grew
1.6 percent. The rise in 2018 is projected to be 2.7 percent.
The expected increase,
which would bring fossil fuel and industrial emissions to a record high of 37.1
billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, is being driven by nearly 5 percent
emissions growth in China and more than 6 percent in India, researchers
estimated, along with growth in many other nations throughout the world.
Emissions by the United States grew 2.5 percent, while emissions by the
European Union declined by just under 1 percent.
As nations are gathered
for climate talks in Poland, the message of Wednesday’s report was unambiguous:
When it comes to promises to begin cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that
fuel climate change, the world remains well off target.
“We are in trouble. We
are in deep trouble with climate change,” United Nations Secretary General
António Guterres said this week at the opening of the 24th annual U.N. climate
conference, where countries will wrestle with the ambitious goals they need to
meet to sharply reduce carbon emissions in coming years.
“It is hard to overstate
the urgency of our situation,” he added. “Even as we witness devastating
climate impacts causing havoc across the world, we are still not doing enough,
nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption.”
Guterres was not
commenting specifically on Wednesday’s findings, which were released in a trio
of scientific papers by researchers with the Global Carbon Project. But his
words came amid a litany of grim news in the fall in which scientists have warned
that the effects of climate change are no longer distant and hypothetical, and
that the impacts of global warming will only intensify in the absence of
aggressive international action.....
When
hard-right, anti-science, fundamentalist ideology in Australia descends into
madness………….
The
Guardian, 10
December 2018:
As four of the
world’s largest oil and gas producers blocked UN climate talks from “welcoming”
a key scientific report on global warming, Australia’s silence during a key
debate is being viewed as tacit support for the four oil allies: the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia
and Kuwait.
The end of the first week
of the UN climate talks – known as COP24 – in Katowice, Poland, has been mired by
protracted debate over whether the conference should “welcome” or “note” a key
report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC’s 1.5 degrees
report, released in October, warned the world would have to cut greenhouse gas
emissions by about 45% by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5C and potentially
avoid some of the worst effects of climate change, including a dramatically
increased risk of drought, flood, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of
millions of people.
The UN climate
conference commissioned the IPCC report, but when that body went to “welcome”
the report’s findings and commit to continuing its work, four nations – the US,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Russia,
all major oil and gas producers – refused to accept the wording, insisting
instead that the convention simply “note” the findings.
Negotiators spent two
and a half hours trying to hammer out a compromise without success.
The apparently minor
semantic debate has significant consequences, and the deadlock ensures the
debate will spill into the second critical week of negotiations, with key
government ministers set to arrive in Katowice.
Most of the world’s
countries spoke out in fierce opposition to the oil allies’ position.
The push to adopt the
wording “welcome” was led by the Maldives, leader of the alliance of small
island states, of which Australia’s Pacific island neighbours are members.
They were backed by a
broad swathe of support, including from the EU, the bloc of 47 least developed
countries, the Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean,
African, American and European nations, and Pacific countries such as the Marshall
Islands and Tuvalu.
Australia did not speak
during the at-times heated debate, a silence noted by many countries on the
floor of the conference, Dr Bill Hare, the managing director of Climate
Analytics and a lead author on previous IPCC reports, told Guardian Australia.
“Australia’s silence in
the face of this attack yesterday shocked many countries and is widely seen as
de facto support for the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait’s refusal to
welcome the IPCC report,” Hare said…..
Australia’s environment
minister, Melissa Price, arrived in Katowice on Sunday, with negotiations set
to resume Monday morning.
“The government is committed to the Paris
agreement and our emissions reduction targets,” she said before leaving
Australia. “Australia’s participation in the Paris agreement and in COP24 is in
our national interest, in the interests of the Indo-Pacific region, and the
international community as a whole.”
Price said a priority
for Australia at COP24 was to ensure a robust framework of rules to govern the
reporting of Paris agreement targets. “Australia’s emissions reporting is of an
exceptionally high standard and we are advocating for rules that bring other
countries up to the standard to which we adhere.”
The latest
Australian government
figures, released last month, show the country’s carbon
emissions continue to rise, at a rate significantly higher than recent
years.
Australia’s emissions,
seasonally adjusted, increased 1.3% over the past quarter. Excluding emissions
from land use, land use change and forestry (for which the calculations are
controversial), they are at a record high..... [my yellow highlighting]
Greenhouse gas emissions in Australia to date.....
The
Guardian, 11
December 2018:
Patrick Suckling (sitting on panel right),
Australia’s ambassador for the environment, waits as protesters disrupt an
event at the COP24 climate change summit in Katowice, Poland. Photograph:
Łukasz Kalinowski/Rex/Shutterstock
Australia has reaffirmed
its commitment to coal – and its unwavering support for the United States – by
appearing at a US government-run event promoting the use of fossil fuels at
the United
Nations climate talks in Poland.
Australia was the only
country apart from the host represented at the event, entitled “US innovative
technologies spur economic dynamism”, designed to “showcase ways to use fossil
fuels as cleanly and efficiently as possible, as well as the use of
emission-free nuclear energy”.
Its panel discussion was
disrupted for several minutes by dozens of protesters who stood up suddenly
during speeches, unfurling a banner reading “Keep it in the ground” while
singing and chanting “Shame on you”.
Patrick Suckling,
Australia’s ambassador for the environment, and the head of the country’s
negotiating delegation at the climate talks, spoke on the panel. His nameplate
bore a US flag…..
…Simon Bradshaw, Oxfam
Australia’s climate change policy adviser, said it was “extremely
disappointing” to see Australia line up behind the US in pushing a pro-coal
ideas.
“It is a slap in the
face of our Pacific island neighbours, for whom bringing an end to the fossil
fuel era is matter of survival, and who are working with determination to
catalyse stronger international efforts to confront the climate crisis. And it
is firmly against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of Australians.”
Bradshaw said continuing
to use coal was not only uneconomic, but would “be measured in more lives lost,
entrenched poverty, rising global hunger, and more people displaced from their
land and homes”.
He said the advice of
the IPCC showed emphatically there was no space for new coal and that
Australia’s position on coal was isolating it from the rest of the world.
The Climate Vulnerable
Forum, a group of 48 countries most acutely affected by climate change, has
committed to achieving 100% renewable energy production by the middle of the
century at the latest. Other developed countries, including the UK, France,
Canada and New Zealand, have committed to phasing out coal power by 2030.
Wells Griffith, a Trump
administration adviser speaking alongside Suckling on the panel, said the US
would continue extracting fossil fuels, and warned against “alarmism” about
climate change…… [my yellow highlighting]
Trend emissions levels are inclusive of all sectors of the economy, including Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) |
Reading Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: June 2018 [PDF 39 pages] released on 30 November 2018 it is highly unlikely that the Morrison Govenment will be able to meet Australia's commitments under the Paris Agreement.
Australia was closer to meeting Paris Agreement goals in 2013 under a Labor federal government than it is today under a Coalition federal government.
Friday 9 November 2018
When will the Federal Government realise there is a Climate Emergency?
The need for urgent and
effective action on climate change is becoming a major issue in Australia . More people are starting to realise that we
are facing a climate emergency and that we are being caught short largely
because of the incompetence of our Federal Government which continues to be
captive to climate denialists and the coal lobby.
The message from the
October 20 Wentworth byelection does not appear to have resonated with Prime Minister
Morrison and others in his Government.
Morrison is equating the devastating swing against the Government with
the electorate’s concern about the dumping of their popular member, Prime
Minister Turnbull. While that was
certainly a factor, there were other concerns about the Government’s poor
performance with a major one being its lack of effective climate action.
Despite all that
Wentworth voters said about climate change (as well as the way they voted),
there are Government members who claim Wentworth cannot be seen as comparable
with other electorates. Wentworth is different! According to them, climate
change is not a major issue elsewhere.
It will be interesting to see if this wishful thinking lasts until next
year’s federal election campaign.
While Wentworth
indicated the growing public concern about climate change, other recent
developments in relation to climate have further shown how out of touch the Government
is.
Morrison started his
Prime Ministership with the determination to assist drought-affected
farmers. But he brushed aside any
linking of this latest severe drought with climate change. However, the National Farmers Federation and
an increasing number of farmers acknowledge the link and understand that simply
throwing drought relief money at the problem is only a short-term solution. Calls for discussion about land use in parts
of the country are growing. These
include consideration of the viability of some forms of farming and whether
farming will be sustainable in some areas as climate change impacts worsen.
The latest data on
Australia’s climate emissions for the twelve months to March 31 was released
late on the Friday afternoon of the Grand Final weekend (September 28). The
Government had been sitting on this data for months and quite obviously did not
want it noticed – for good reason. The
report showed that emissions have continued rising as they have every quarter
since the end of the carbon price in 2014. Emissions continue to increase
simply because the Government does not have an effective policy to curb them.
Despite this bad result,
the Prime Minister and Melissa Price, the Minister for the Environment, managed
to put a positive spin on the figures. Price
claimed Australia would beat its 2020 target – an impossible achievement. And Morrison, ignoring reality completely,
claimed Australia was on track to achieve its 2030 Paris targets and would do
so “in a canter”. This is despite the analysis
of experts who say we will fall drastically short unless there is an urgent
change in government policy.
The recent dire
announcement by the IPCC has shown just how urgent the climate issue is. According to an analysis of the IPCC report
published by the Climate Council “limiting global warming to 1.5°C would
require rapid and far-reaching transitions during the coming one to two decades
– in energy, land, urban and industrial systems”. (The aim at Paris was to keep global
temperature rise well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and to attempt to
limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. A rise of 2°C would produce
catastrophic effects.)
At war within itself, our
Government just does not have either the interest in the issue or the will do
what is essential - to act effectively across the board to reduce our emissions
drastically. This is in spite of the Wentworth result and all the polls
indicating that a growing number of people are concerned and want effective
action.
As well as concerned individuals, scientists, environmentalists and
farmers, it is significant that many in the business community, who know they
need to take measures to protect their businesses in a carbon-constrained
world, also want effective action from the government.
Just what are the
chances of the current Government coming to its senses and acting in the
national interest? At the moment that
seems unlikely. We may have to wait for
a change in government - unless a grass roots campaign across the nation
persuades Morrison that he has no chance of political survival unless he
changes tack.
Hildegard
Northern Rivers
29th October 2018
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to
make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300
words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com.au for consideration. Longer posts will
be considered on topical subjects.
Monday 5 November 2018
Scott Morrison doesn't know watt's watt
This was the ‘interim’
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison
on ABC TV The Drum, 23 September 2018:
SCOTT MORRISON: I want
more dispatchable power in the system.
ALAN JONES: Could you
stop using the word dispatchable? Out there they don’t understand that.
SCOTT MORRISON: Well,
real power, OK?
ALAN JONES: Real power.
SCOTT MORRISON: Well,
fair dinkum power.
So what
exactly is this “dispatchable power” the Prime Minister is talking about
whenever he cites “fair dinkum power” that “works when the sun isn’t shining and the
wind isn’t blowing”.
This is what Energy
Education:has to say on the subject:
Dispatchable source of
electricity
A dispatchable
source of electricity refers to an electrical power system, such as
a power plant, that can be turned on or off; in other
words they can adjust their power output supplied to the electrical grid on
demand.[2] Most
conventional power sources such as coal or natural
gas power plants are dispatchable in order to meet the always changing
electricity demands of the population. In contrast, many renewable energysources are intermittent and non-dispatchable, such
as wind power or solar
power which can only generate electricity while their energy flow is
input on them.
Dispatch times
Dispatchable sources
must be able to ramp up or shut down relatively quickly in time intervals
within a few seconds even up to a couple of hours, depending on the need for
electricity. Different types of power plants have different dispatch times:[3]
Fast (seconds)
Capacitors are
able to dispatch within milliseconds if they need to, due to the energy stored
in them already being electrical, whereas in other types of power storage such
as chemical batteries the power must be converted into electrical energy.
Hydroelectric facilities are also
able to dispatch extremely quickly; for instance the Dinorwig hydro power
station can reach its maximum generation in less than 16 seconds.[4]
Medium (minutes)
Natural
gas turbines are a very common dispatchable source, and they can
generally be ramped up in minutes.
Solar thermal power plants can
utilize systems of efficient thermal energy storage. It is possible to design
these systems to be dispatchable on roughly equivalent timeframes to natural
gas turbines.
Slow (hours)
While these systems are
typically regarded as only providing baseload power, they often have some flexibility.
Many coal and biomass
plants can be fired up from cold within a few hours. Although nuclear power
plants may take a while to get going, they must be able to shut down in seconds
to ensure safety in the case of a meltdown.
What this tells us is that renewable energy can and is used
as “dispatchable power” and often responds faster than coal-fired power.
Battery
storage by way of home battery installations and mega battery
installations such as the Tesla system in South Australia are just two successful
examples of storing renewable power for later use – making it dispatchable
power.
According to the Melbourne
Energy Institute, South
Australia’s new mix of renewables and traditional source of energy is working
well.
What has
become increasingly obvious over the years is that once
renewable energy via wind and solar reaches a reasonable scale it becomes cheaper
than coal and other fossil fuels. That is where Australia is now.
Yet Scott
Morrison apparently doesn’t understand how electricity generation and the
national power grid work – it’s a though he has been asleep for the last
decade. Because he
appears to believe that renewable energy systems have not evolved to meet
market demands.
Therefore, based
on his erroneous views Morrison states he is “going
to force them [electricity wholesalers]
to put more fair dinkum, reliable energy, power, into the system”.
Expensive,
polluting, coal-fired power supplying electricity to Australian homes at maximum cost to ordinary consumers.
Sunday 14 October 2018
Scott Morrison and climate change policy
On 8 October
2018 the UN International Panel On
Climate Change issued this media release:
Incheon, Republic of
Korea, October 8 – Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid,
far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said
in a new assessment. With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems,
limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with
ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) said on Monday.
The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C was approved by the IPCC on Saturday in Incheon, Republic of Korea. It will be a key scientific input into the Katowice Climate Change Conference in Poland in December, when governments review the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change.
"With more than 6,000 scientific references cited and the dedicated contribution of thousands of expert and government reviewers worldwide, this important report testifies to the breadth and policy relevance of the IPCC," said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC.
Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries prepared the IPCC report in response to an invitation from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) when it adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015.
The report's full name is Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
"One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes," said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.
The report highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2°C.
"Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems," said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
Limiting global warming would also give people and ecosystems more room to adapt and remain below relevant risk thresholds, added Pörtner. The report also examines pathways available to limit warming to 1.5°C, what it would take to achieve them and what the consequences could be. "The good news is that some of the kinds of actions that would be needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C are already underway around the world, but they would need to accelerate," said Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Co-Chair of Working Group I.
The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require "rapid and far-reaching" transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.
"Limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes," said Jim Skea, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
Allowing the global temperature to temporarily exceed or 'overshoot' 1.5°C would mean a greater reliance on techniques that remove CO2 from the air to return global temperature to below 1.5°C by 2100. The effectiveness of such techniques are unproven at large scale and some may carry significant risks for sustainable development, the report notes.
"Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being, making it easier to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals," said Priyardarshi Shukla, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
The decisions we make today are critical in ensuring a safe and sustainable world for everyone, both now and in the future, said Debra Roberts, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
"This report gives policymakers and practitioners the information they need to make decisions that tackle climate change while considering local context and people's needs. The next few years are probably the most important in our history," she said.
The IPCC is the leading world body for assessing the science related to climate change, its impacts and potential future risks, and possible response options.
The report was prepared under the scientific leadership of all three IPCC working groups. Working Group I assesses the physical science basis of climate change; Working Group II addresses impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; and Working Group III deals with the mitigation of climate change.
The Paris Agreement adopted by 195 nations at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in December 2015 included the aim of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change by "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels."
As part of the decision to adopt the Paris Agreement, the IPCC was invited to produce, in 2018, a Special Report on global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. The IPCC accepted the invitation, adding that the Special Report would look at these issues in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
Global Warming of 1.5°C is the first in a series of Special Reports to be produced in the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Cycle. Next year the IPCC will release the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, and Climate Change and Land, which looks at how climate change affects land use.
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) presents the key findings of the Special Report, based on the assessment of the available scientific, technical and socio-economic literature relevant to global warming of 1.5°C.
The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) is available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15 or www.ipcc.ch.
The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C was approved by the IPCC on Saturday in Incheon, Republic of Korea. It will be a key scientific input into the Katowice Climate Change Conference in Poland in December, when governments review the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change.
"With more than 6,000 scientific references cited and the dedicated contribution of thousands of expert and government reviewers worldwide, this important report testifies to the breadth and policy relevance of the IPCC," said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC.
Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries prepared the IPCC report in response to an invitation from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) when it adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015.
The report's full name is Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
"One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes," said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.
The report highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2°C.
"Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems," said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
Limiting global warming would also give people and ecosystems more room to adapt and remain below relevant risk thresholds, added Pörtner. The report also examines pathways available to limit warming to 1.5°C, what it would take to achieve them and what the consequences could be. "The good news is that some of the kinds of actions that would be needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C are already underway around the world, but they would need to accelerate," said Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Co-Chair of Working Group I.
The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require "rapid and far-reaching" transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.
"Limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes," said Jim Skea, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
Allowing the global temperature to temporarily exceed or 'overshoot' 1.5°C would mean a greater reliance on techniques that remove CO2 from the air to return global temperature to below 1.5°C by 2100. The effectiveness of such techniques are unproven at large scale and some may carry significant risks for sustainable development, the report notes.
"Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being, making it easier to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals," said Priyardarshi Shukla, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
The decisions we make today are critical in ensuring a safe and sustainable world for everyone, both now and in the future, said Debra Roberts, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
"This report gives policymakers and practitioners the information they need to make decisions that tackle climate change while considering local context and people's needs. The next few years are probably the most important in our history," she said.
The IPCC is the leading world body for assessing the science related to climate change, its impacts and potential future risks, and possible response options.
The report was prepared under the scientific leadership of all three IPCC working groups. Working Group I assesses the physical science basis of climate change; Working Group II addresses impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; and Working Group III deals with the mitigation of climate change.
The Paris Agreement adopted by 195 nations at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in December 2015 included the aim of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change by "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels."
As part of the decision to adopt the Paris Agreement, the IPCC was invited to produce, in 2018, a Special Report on global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. The IPCC accepted the invitation, adding that the Special Report would look at these issues in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
Global Warming of 1.5°C is the first in a series of Special Reports to be produced in the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Cycle. Next year the IPCC will release the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, and Climate Change and Land, which looks at how climate change affects land use.
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) presents the key findings of the Special Report, based on the assessment of the available scientific, technical and socio-economic literature relevant to global warming of 1.5°C.
The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) is available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15 or www.ipcc.ch.
The aforementioned summary forms part of the scientific findings
informing the IPCC 6th Assessment Report currently being prepared by
the working groups.
Australian Prime Minister and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison sought to downplay its significance because it made
no specific recommendations on a country by country basis.
He stated that last year the “same report” said that “Australia was
right on the money when it came to the mix of climate change policies.
.@ScottMorrisonMP: on the climate report: This report deals with the global situation, it does not provide recommendations to Australia or Australia’s program.— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) October 8, 2018
MORE: https://t.co/Cj9SlGufQm #newsday pic.twitter.com/VXRgEesW5i
As far as I
can tell last year’s special report did not give Australia a glowing endorsement.
If one wants an IPCC opinion on Australia's climate change policy one has to go documents such as this......
If one wants an IPCC opinion on Australia's climate change policy one has to go documents such as this......
This
is an excerpt from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (Working
Group II Report "Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability") on the subject of Australia:
As prime minister Morrison has recently announced he will not be honouring Australia's $200 million pledge to the UNFCCC sponsored global Green Climate Fund (GCF).
It is no secret that Scott Morrison admires US President Donald Trump and right wing American politics generally.
As Morrison argues an inability for Australian action on climate change to make a real difference to ongoing global warming, given we only produce est. one percent of all annual global greenhouse gas emissions, one suspects that he would also agree with this reasoning behind the latest Trump administration refusal to act on climate change.
Adaptation
is already occurring and adaptation planning is becoming embedded in some
planning processes, albeit
mostly at the conceptual rather than implementation level (high
confidence). Many solutions for reducing energy and water consumption in urban
areas with co-benefits for climate change adaptation (e.g., greening cities and
recycling water) are already being implemented. Planning for 1375 25
Australasia Chapter 25 reduced water availability in southern Australia and for
sea level rise in both countries is becoming adopted widely, although implementation of specific
policies remains piecemeal, subject to political changes, and open to legal
challenges. {25.4; Boxes 25-1, 25-2, 25-9} Adaptive capacity is
generally high in many human systems, but implementation faces major
constraints, especially for transformational responses at local and community
levels (high confidence). Efforts to understand and enhance adaptive capacity
and adaptation processes have increased since the AR4, particularly in Australia.
Constraints on
implementation arise from: absence of a consistent information base and
uncertainty about projected impacts; limited financial and human resources to
assess local risks and to develop and implement effective policies and rules;
limited integration of different levels of governance; lack of binding guidance
on principles and priorities; different attitudes towards the risks associated
with climate change; and different values placed on objects and places at risk.
{25.4, 25.10.3; Table 25-2; Box a5-1} [my yellow highlighting]
Successive Coalition federal governments (with Scott Morrison as a cabinet minister) typified this half-hearted approach to climate change mitigation. After four years the largely ineffective Emissions Reduction Fund is almost empty, the Renewable Energy Target has been all but abandoned and the National Energy Agreement is defunct, with the government's attention turned towards growing fossil fuel energy.As prime minister Morrison has recently announced he will not be honouring Australia's $200 million pledge to the UNFCCC sponsored global Green Climate Fund (GCF).
It is no secret that Scott Morrison admires US President Donald Trump and right wing American politics generally.
As Morrison argues an inability for Australian action on climate change to make a real difference to ongoing global warming, given we only produce est. one percent of all annual global greenhouse gas emissions, one suspects that he would also agree with this reasoning behind the latest Trump administration refusal to act on climate change.
The Washington Post, 28
September 2018:
Last month, deep in a
500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a
startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees by the end of this century.
A rise of seven degrees
Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels
would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve
in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater
without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother
large parts of the globe.
But the administration
did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail
to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate
change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already
sealed.
The draft statement,
issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was
written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel-efficiency
standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would
increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would
add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.
“The amazing thing
they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon
dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re
saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who
served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from
1993 to 2002.....
Thursday 13 September 2018
Australia has a prime minister who rejects realitiy and embraces idiocy
Scott Morrison with a coal specimen supplied by the Minerals Council of Australia ABC News, 9 February 2018 |
During an interview
with the ABC 7.30 program on 11
September 2018 Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison declared he is “troubled” by the politics of envy in
Australia and has “a very strong view” on what fairness means.
His version
of “fairness” is a redefinition far removed from the contents of any dictionary
wherein it is usually taken to mean impartial and just treatment or behaviour
without favouritism or discrimination.
His expresses
his version of fairness as “those that have a go get a go” or “a fair go for
those that have a go”– phrases that are inherently judgemental.
It seems that in Morrison's world only individuals who are already capable of helping themselves in some fashion will deserve
assistance from others.
Morrison
again refused to say why the parliamentary Liberal Party changed leaders and in the interview sought to divorce himself from both the spill process and outcome, as though he
wasn’t a participant in those rolling leadership ballots.
But what
caught the attention of a numbers of viewers was his response to two questions.
The first response contained Morrison's assertion that he had separated climate/ environment and energy policies and admissions that he was removing climate change targets from future energy policy and was giving no guarantee of future funding for greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
The first response contained Morrison's assertion that he had separated climate/ environment and energy policies and admissions that he was removing climate change targets from future energy policy and was giving no guarantee of future funding for greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
The second involved his belief that there was a need for additional legal protections of religious freedoms when none were being threatened.......The moment @ScottMorrisonMP condemned my great grandchildren to death. @abc730 #auspoll #climatechange pic.twitter.com/eKlhfEY7jc— Fr Rod Bower (@FrBower) September 11, 2018
For Scott Morrison the primary fear of a majority of the Australian population is less important that demonstrating his missionary zeal to institutional Christianity and his unwavering support to the fossil fuel industry.Sales: "Can you give me an example at the moment where people's religious freedoms are being impinged?"— Greg Jericho (@GrogsGamut) September 11, 2018
Morrison: "That's not the point. Australians want to be sure that in the future those things won't be"
oh dear #abc730
Friday 7 September 2018
The new Australian Minister for Energy & Liberal MP for Hume Angus Taylor has "thought hard" about climate change for over 30 years.....
Excerpt form House of Representatives Hansard, 24 September 2014:
Mr
TAYLOR (Hume) (15:44): It is a great pleasure to speak on this matter
of public importance because I have had a deep concern about climate change for
over 30 years. I have watched the snowline rise south of here, and it is
something that I have thought hard about for over 30 years. That has meant that
I have come to the conclusion that there are three things that taking climate
change seriously really means. The first is effective and consistent policies
that actually contain global atmospheric concentrations. Secondly, that you
bring the Australian people along with you. Thirdly, you protect the Australian
economy so that we can pay for all of this. Let me tell you what I believe it
does not mean. It does not mean throwing lots of money at the problem for the
sake of it. It does not mean passing encyclopedias of legislation. It does not
mean putting endless programs in place. It does not mean establishing a cavalry
of so-called independent advisers and advisory boards. It does not mean turning
up at lots of global meetings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)