Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Syt]

[Admiral Yi]

It was good up to the capture and storage part.

[mongers]

The world governments' response to Coronavirus is likely to be a good predictor of how the world will deal with the worsening climate crisis.

[Syt]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/cop26-sets-course-for-disastrous-heating-of-more-than-24c-says-key-report?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Cop26: world on track for disastrous heating of more than 2.4C, says key report

Research from world's top climate analysis coalition contrasts sharply with last week's optimism

The world is on track for disastrous levels of global heating far in excess of the limits in the Paris climate agreement, despite a flurry of carbon-cutting pledges from governments at the UN Cop26 summit.

Temperature rises will top 2.4C by the end of this century, based on the short-term goals countries have set out, according to research published in Glasgow on Tuesday.

That would far exceed the 2C upper limit the Paris accord said the world needed to stay "well below", and the much safer 1.5C limit aimed for at the Cop26 talks.

At that level, widespread extreme weather – sea-level rises, drought, floods, heatwaves and fiercer storms – would cause devastation across the globe.

The estimate stands in sharp contrast to optimistic forecasts published last week that suggested heating could be held to 1.9C or 1.8C, thanks to commitments announced at the talks, now in their second week and scheduled to end this weekend.

Those estimates were based on long-term goals set out by countries including India, the world's third-biggest emitter, which is aiming for net zero emissions by 2070.

By contrast, the sobering assessment of a rise of 2.4C from Climate Action Tracker (CAT), the world's most respected climate analysis coalition, was based on countries' short-term goals for the next decade.

Bill Hare, the chief executive of Climate Analytics, one of the organisations behind CAT, told the Guardian: "We are concerned that some countries are trying to portray [Cop26] as if the 1.5C limit is nearly in the bag. But it's not, it's very far from it, and they are downplaying the need to get short-term targets for 2030 in line with 1.5C."

Emissions will be twice as high in 2030 as they need to be to stay within 1.5C, based on promises made in Glasgow, CAT found. Scientists have warned that beyond 1.5C, some of the damage to the Earth's climate will become irreversible.

The analysts also found a chasm between what countries have said they will do on greenhouse gas emissions and their plans in reality. If current policies and measures are taken into account, rather than just goals, heating would rise to 2.7C, based on the CAT analysis.

The findings should serve as a "reality check" to the talks, said Niklas Höhne, one of the authors. "Countries' long-term intentions are good, but their short-term implementation is inadequate," he told the Guardian.

The 197 parties to the 2015 Paris agreement were asked to come to Glasgow with two aims: a long-term goal of reaching global net zero emissions around mid-century; and shorter-term national plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), pegging emissions reductions to 2030. Scientists say greenhouse gas emissions must fall by about 45% this decade for global temperatures to stay within 1.5C of pre-industrial levels.

Countries responsible for about 90% of global emissions have signed up to net zero goals, mostly by around 2050 for developed countries, rising to 2060 for China and 2070 for India, but the NDCs for actions in the next decade do not match up. The climate responds to the cumulative carbon in the atmosphere, so if emissions are high enough in the next two decades the world could surpass the 1.5C limit even if carbon reaches net zero later.

"It's great that countries have long-term net zero targets, but they need to close the gap with short-term measures," said Hare.

The first week of the Cop26 talks was dominated by a rush of announcements, including commitments on preserving forests, private sector finance for clean energy, and countries phasing out coal. Some of these quickly started to unravel as countries appeared to renege or clarify some of their commitments.

At the start of the second week of the fortnight-long talks, sharp rifts are appearing between countries that want tougher action, specifically to force countries to revise their NDCs annually if they are not in line with 1.5C, and others wanting to stick to the Paris timetable of five-yearly revisions. There are also disputes about how countries should monitor emissions, and over climate finance for poor countries.

Hare noted there was no contradiction among the varying assessments, published last week by Melbourne University and the International Energy Agency, as they came to similar conclusions based on long-term goals. CAT also found in its "optimistic scenario" that if all targets countries had promised were fully met, temperatures would rise by 1.8C.

The UN environment programme updated its analysis of the "emissions gap" between the cuts needed to stay within 1.5C and those offered by governments. Unep found that with the recently announced pledges by China, Saudi Arabia and others, temperatures were likely to rise by between 1.9C and 2.1C, but like the IEA and Melbourne estimates, that depended on long-term pledges being fully implemented.

Hare said many of the long-term goals countries had set out lacked credibility. He pointed to Brazil, Australia and Russia. "We are concerned that there is not a seriousness of purpose at Cop26. It's very hypothetical, getting to net zero in 2050," he said.

Höhne said countries must agree to revise their NDCs every year if they were found insufficient, adding: "If we came back every five years that would be a very bad choice. If countries agree to come back every year, they would have a chance of closing the gap."

Jennifer Morgan, the executive director of Greenpeace International, said: "This new calculation is like a telescope trained on an asteroid heading for Earth. It's a devastating report. We have until the weekend to turn this thing around. That means countries agreeing how they're going come back next year and every year after that until the gap to 1.5C is closed. The ministers shouldn't leave this city until they've nailed that."

A Cop26 spokesperson said: "We know that the window to keep 1.5C alive is closing but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear that it is still achievable. As today's reports make clear, we've seen genuine progress in the first week of Cop26, but we have a lot more to do."

Labour's Ed Miliband, the shadow business secretary, said: "The test of Cop26 has always been what concrete commitments it would deliver by 2030, the decisive decade to keep 1.5C alive. This report is an important reality check on the government's attempt to greenwash Glasgow."

Green party co-leader Adrian Ramsay said: "Today was the day the sugar coating fell off the Cop26 talks to reveal the bitter pill that world leaders are going to force us to swallow if they don't take much stronger action. This report shows that action in the next 10 years is vital. Long term targets, promises and non-existent technofixes, with no actual policies to get us there, are worth nothing. It shows that most global leaders have been asleep at the wheel. This is their wake-up call."

[Admiral Yi]

In the year, twenty one hun-de-red, if man is not yet dead..

Seriously, I question the value of such a long term projection in terms of changing people's attitudes.

[crazy canuck]

Pretty good at letting people know we are already in deep shit and it is just getting deeper with every year of delay.

[Jacob]

In the year, twenty one hun-de-red, if man is not yet dead..

Seriously, I question the value of such a long term projection in terms of changing people's attitudes.

Then perhaps the purpose of the long term projection is not to change people's attitude, but to lay out the facts to the best of our ability to those who are interested in the facts.

[The Minsky Moment]

It was good up to the capture and storage part.

I agree terrible analogy.

Beer fridges are an effective, well established commercial technology that is mass produced at scale reasonable cost

Where carbon capture and storage technology is none of those things.

[mongers]

Seriously flooding in Sri Lanka, 17 of 25 provinces affect, many killed, some places reported rainfall approaching a years worth in short time.

[Sheilbh]

COP is technically ending today but normally runs into the weekend with negotiations.

From what I can see on the Guardian (and comments from the High Ambition Group representing particularly exposed developing countries and the e3g think tank) it looks like the UK as host is pushing for a (comparatively) high ambition agreement - albeit in weird UNese. Obviously that might fail and end with no agreement, but I think it probably is the right approach.

In particular I think it's absolutely essential and worth dying on a hill for this agreement to be the first COP agreement that specifically calls out fossil fuels and commits to phasing out coal - apparently no previous COP agreement has ever actually named fossil fuels which I find slightly mind-blowing. Apparently the stuff on climate finance for the developed world is also a lot stronger than the first draft which is good.

I'm not sure if it's in the latest draft but one thing I saw in the first draft which I thought was quite good was that basically NDCs would be discussed at every annual COP with countries expected to increase their ambition instead of only doing this every five years (even though there wouldn't be a full agreement every year). It seems like a good idea.

But overall it seems like negotiators still think something is possible - and the US-China announcement was very positive. Hopefully there is an agreement because so far it does feel like it's been broadly positive - and it would be nice to set a precedent of successful focused COPs after Paris (following the disappointment of Copenhagen and previous failures).

[Sheilbh]

Looks like there'll be an agreement this evening - now is time for countries to make statements and so far everyone is saying they're unhappy with the text but won't re-open it in "the spirit of collaboration", which is a positive sign, and that it keeps 1.5 ambition alive which was a key objective.

It looks like the commitment to phase out coal and fossil fuels has survived (though China, India and Vvenezuela have objected), as well as the end to "inefficient" subsidies (apparently the reference to inefficient subsidies is to protect subsidies to individuals which are common in the developing world and may even include things like the winter fuel allowance for pensioners in the UK). It will also have the ratchet mechanism where countries have to submit new NDCs that should be more ambitious every year until we get on to a sub-1.5 degree path. In the run-up to this COP far more countries than before have now submitted NDCs so they'll al be getting reviewed/updated annually.

The loss and damage section is still too weak for many developing countries but is a step in the right direction. It looks like the developed world are still not willing to think about any form of compensation, just "technical assistance".

All over though if this is agreed I think the really important thing may be the precedent of a successful big COP in Paris being followed by another one, after the relative inaction in COPs between Kyoto and Paris, I think that's a big positive step (of course if Trump wins in 2024 then...).

Edit: And last minute drama - and it is dramatic because this is happening on the plenary floor not in private - but India proposed a change to the text from a "phase-out" of unabated coal to a "phase-down" of unabated coal. Developing and particularly exposed countries were very angry as they'd been told that they couldn't re-open the text - but have registered their grievances. But to preserve the deal everyone went along with it.

Sharma in the Presidency literally on the edge of tears when he apologiesd for the breakdown in process and urged countries to "protect the package" so support the last minute change to not lose the other bits that had been agreed (and got a strong round of applause). But the change was agreed to not lose the rest of it. Still working through the text though it seems the main things now are countries recording their objections and grievances around specific bits in the record but not seeking to change it.

[Syt]

Unless there's concrete timelines in the agreement with annual review of progress, I feel this is just lip service from many of the participants.

[Sheilbh]

Unless there's concrete timelines in the agreement with annual review of progress, I feel this is just lip service from many of the participants.

I think that is now in place in terms of countries needing to submit NDCs every year which will increase ambition until there's a path to 1.5.

But ultimately I can't see any other way for climate diplomacy to work. Each country is the one that needs to make the changes even if there is collaboration and there's no green super-power who can enforce or monitor, so because it's trust based it's got to be agreements like this rather than decisions from above and because it's the UN it's in fairly torturous language And as it's based on climate diplomacy which needs consensus (there's no qualified majority voting just "consensus of the COP") it's always going to be compromise and disappointing.

I think keeping that process alive and moving forward is important, I think the ratchet mechanism is good and the first ever mention in a COP document (in 26 years) of fossil fuels and particularly the commitment to "phase-down" coal is important. That Glasgow appears to have worked is a sign that Paris is working and there's now an agree climate rule-book and in this last year we've gone from 30% of the global economy having NDCs to net zero, to over 90% of the global economy having one. Plus the commitments outside COP on things like methane (for the first time), deforestation etc.

That's progress which is, I think, on its own worth supporting. As I say I think the mere demonstration that climate diplomacy can work from session to session is good - especially the US-China statement despite tensions - and that this one seems to have had a cooperative atmosphere throughout between all parties which has not been the norm in the past.

[Syt]

Not really climate change, just your normal pollution.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-59258910

Delhi smog: Schools and colleges shut as pollution worsens

Authorities in the Indian capital, Delhi, have shut all schools and colleges indefinitely amid the worsening levels of air pollution.

Construction work has also been banned until 21 November but an exception has been made for transport and defence-related projects.

Only five of the 11 coal-based power plants in the city have been allowed to operate.

A toxic haze has smothered Delhi since the festival of Diwali.

The levels of PM2.5 - tiny particles that can clog people's lungs - in Delhi are far higher than the World Health Organization's (WHO) safety guidelines. Several parts of the city recorded figures close to or higher than 400 on Tuesday, which is categorised as "severe".

A figure between zero and 50 is considered "good", and between 51 and 100 is "satisfactory", according to the the air quality index or AQI.

Some schools had already shut last week because of pollution and the Delhi government said it was mulling over a lockdown to improve air quality as dense clouds of smog engulfed the city.

A mix of factors like vehicular and industrial emissions, dust and weather patterns make Delhi the world's most polluted capital. The air turns especially toxic in winter months as farmers in neighbouring states burn crop stubble. And fireworks during the festival of Diwali, which happens at the same time, only worsen the air quality. Low wind speed also plays a part as it traps the pollutants in the lower atmosphere.

Every year as winter approaches, there's a sense of déjà vu for us living in Delhi. The morning skies take on an ominous grey colour, we complain of stuffy nose and itchy eyes, and hospitals start to fill up with people complaining of wheezing and breathing difficulties. Those of us who can afford it, rush to buy expensive air purifiers. The mere act of breathing in Delhi becomes hazardous.

The city routinely tops the list of "world's most polluted capitals" and we obsessively start checking apps that provide a reading of the air quality index. We look at the levels of PM2.5, the lung-damaging tiny particles in the air that can exacerbate a host of health issues, including cancer and cardiac problems, and PM10 - slightly larger particles, but still pretty damaging.

Levels of PM2.5 below 50 are considered "good" and under 100 "satisfactory". Right now, it's 363 in Delhi - in some areas, it's almost 400. In the suburb of Noida, it's nearly 500.

Every year, as the air turns murky, the Indian Supreme Court hauls the state and federal governments into court, asking them what they intend to do to clean up the air. On Tuesday, after a prodding from the court, the authorities took some action.

But these measures are like putting a bandage on a bullet hole - they have been tried in the past and have made little difference to the city's air in the long term. Experts say cleaning up the air requires drastic measures that are not a priority for the country's leaders. They warn that at the onset of winter next year, we'll be back where we are now.

This year, the pollution has become so dire that it prompted a stern warning from India's Supreme Court, which directed state and federal governments to take "imminent and emergency" measures to tackle the problem.

Following the hearing, a meeting was called by Delhi's Commission for Air Quality Management and emergency measures were announced.

Other measures announced by the panel include a ban on the entry of trucks in Delhi and the neighbouring states of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan until 21 November, except those carrying essential commodities.

The panel also directed Delhi and other states to "encourage'' private offices to allow 50% of their employees to work from home during the period to cut down vehicle emissions and dust levels.

India's pollution problem is not just limited to Delhi.

Indian cities routinely dominate global pollution rankings and bad air kills more than a million people every year, a report by US research group, the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC), said. It added that north India breathes "pollution levels that are 10 times worse than those found anywhere else in the world" and, over time, these high levels have expanded to cover other parts of the country as well.

[The Brain]

I remember when I landed in Delhi. Air was fucking nasty.

Edit: Shut up katmai.