Climate Change

‘Stranded assets’: Will efforts to counter warming render energy reserves worthless?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...bc73a6-7a45-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html

A major threat to fossil fuel companies has suddenly moved from the fringe to center stage with a dramatic announcement by Germany’s biggest power company and an intriguing letter from the Bank of England.

A growing minority of investors and regulators are probing the possibility that untapped deposits of oil, gas and coal — valued at trillions of dollars globally — could become stranded assets as governments adopt more rigorous climate-change policies.

The concept gaining traction from Wall Street to the City of London is simple: Limits on emissions of carbon dioxide will be necessary to hold temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius, the maximum climate scientists say is advisable. Without technologies to capture the waste gases from combusting fossil fuels, a majority of known oil, gas and coal deposits would have to stay underground, or stranded.



 
Climate talks call future of energy majors into question
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c542393c-7dbf-11e4-bb0a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3LD1Uoahq


ExxonMobil and Shell would cease to exist in their current forms in 35 years under measures UN negotiators are considering for a legally enforceable global climate pact to be sealed in Paris next year.

The oil and gas these companies produce, and the coal mined by groups like Rio Tinto, would have to be phased out by 2050 in one proposal on the table at UN climate talks in Lima this week that aim to smooth a path to the Paris deal.




 
Goal to end fossil fuels by 2050 surfaces in Lima UN climate documents
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...by-2050-surfaces-in-lima-un-climate-documents

In an early evening briefing, climate scientist Dr Malte Meinshausen explained the 2050 decarbonisation date was derived from statements in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.

He said that from 2011, the world could afford to emit no more than 1000bn tonnes (Gt) of CO2 to have a good chance of staying below 2C of global warming (some poorer countries and low-lying states say the aim should be 1.5C). Meinshausen said:

At current rates we churn through 33Gt a year – 1000Gt divided by 33 means we have about 30 years left from 2011 onwards. Then the carbon budget will be exhausted.

At some point emissions have to go to zero, no matter what. There is no way around zero CO2 emissions. As long as we continue to emit CO2, the climate will continue to warm.
 
Women of 2014: Naomi Klein
The author and anti-globalisation firebrand has targeted billionaires such as Branson and Bloomberg to expose how capitalism has failed to fight global warming
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b4eca962-7fa6-11e4-adff-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3LoWZ2lGf

No one pays the slightest bit of attention to Naomi Klein as she wanders into the lobby of her London publisher’s offices. I’m not surprised. The scourge of 21st-century capitalism has arrived in a jacket and sensible jeans, carrying a smart backpack. She looks more like a holidaying librarian than the anti-globalisation firebrand once voted one of the world’s top 100 public intellectuals.

“Hi,” she says, sounding perky for someone who has spent the past three and a bit weeks promoting a new book in three countries and 11 cities, including Los Angeles, New York and her home of Toronto.

It is 15 years since Klein first burst on to the international stage, at the age of 29, with No Logo, an anti-corporate blockbuster that became a bible for an emerging movement against globalisation. She followed up with The Shock Doctrine, a 576-page assault on “disaster capitalists” exploiting catastrophic shocks to impose free-market policies on a dazed populace. Published on the eve of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, it also influenced an unfolding movement: the push for economic equality that inspired the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations and others around the world.

Now she has written This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs The Climate, another bulky indictment of economic liberalism, this time for its incompatibility with action on global warming. Its call for grassroots activists to rise up against a political system that entrenches the power of fossil fuel interests is eerily well timed. The book came out in September, just as the streets of New York and elsewhere filled with hundreds of thousands of people in some of the biggest rallies for climate change action ever seen. And it is already influencing a growing campaign demanding an end to fossil fuel investments as world leaders prepare to sign a new global climate change treaty in Paris next year.

The book has stirred a debate that is no doubt pleasing its author. (The only description she gives of herself on Twitter is: “They say I’m polarizing.”) That is one reason for the twinge of apprehension I feel as we head off to talk. On top of that, interviewing another journalist can be tricky, especially an unconventional one like Klein. One of her first jobs was reporting for Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper. She did not last long (“I was disturbed by the cynicism of the culture”) and has a bracing tendency to publicly berate the mainstream media when the urge arises.

Vogue magazine discovered this in August when it ran a flattering profile of Klein that included a photograph of her in a white shirt, next to the name of the garment’s designer. She liked the story, and the photo, she wrote on her website soon after. “However,” she told her thousands of admirers, “I did place one condition on the interview, and it’s the same one I’ve placed on all my public appearances for almost 15 years: no logos.”

The editor had agreed to this “in writing”, and had since been “extremely apologetic”, removing the offending reference online and agreeing to publish a correction. So has she forgiven them? “I actually really do think now that it was just an oversight,” she says, shifting in her chair. “I wasn’t so sure at first but, having spoken with the reporter, I do think that it was just an oversight and they are genuinely sorry and embarrassed.”

Actually, Vogue got off lightly. If there is a hallmark of Klein’s work, it is her unrelenting dissection of the powerful. In This Changes Everything, she targets billionaires professing a concern for the climate, including Michael Bloomberg, New York City’s former mayor, and Microsoft’s co-founder, Bill Gates, for not doing more to ensure their vast wealth did not end up being invested in fossil fuels.

None gets such a pasting as Sir Richard Branson, the flamboyant entrepreneur who made a widely reported 2006 pledge to invest $3bn of profits from his transport businesses over the next decade to fight climate change, but has only delivered around $230m by Klein’s reckoning. He is the only one to respond to the book so far, which has annoyed Klein even more. “I got a personal letter from Branson telling me that I should stop saying things that are untrue, yet not pointing to anything specific that is wrong,” she says. “If Richard Branson points out any actual error in my book, I will happily correct it but I’m not going to just be intimidated by being told I’m wrong and to stop talking.”

Branson said through a spokesman that he had written because he did not believe he had broken his 2006 pledge, as he had only said he would direct proceeds from his transport businesses to climate projects. He had “optimistically estimated” this might amount to $3bn but then his companies were hit by the 2007-2008 financial crisis.

Either way, Klein says she was not trying deliberately to embarrass anyone, and only mentioned individuals to make the broader point. “I really do believe Michael Bloomberg and Richard Branson understand climate change better than pretty much any other billionaire alive, and if they’re not able to reconcile their economic activity with that knowledge, then that is telling us something important about the system’s ability to self-correct.”
 . . . 

For a woman who has spent much of her adult life promoting activism of one type or another, Klein is by no means an earnest agitator. She is not a vegetarian. She flies, though she tries to do meetings by Skype. The last film she saw was the new X-Men movie (on a plane). And though she loves the precision and “quiet rage” of Silent Spring, the 1962 Rachel Carson book credited with launching the modern environmental movement, Klein is not an avid marcher. She did go on the huge climate protest in New York on September 21, which she helped to promote, but as far as she can remember, “I don’t think I chanted.”

That does not mean she is not determined. In fact, she is driven in the way Russell Brand is outgoing. She tacked her honeymoon (with Canadian documentary film-maker Avi Lewis) on to a research tour of Asian sweatshops, and discovered she was pregnant with her son Toma while she was with Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York.

The source of her intellectual confidence is not hard to spot. Her American paternal grandparents were Marxists. Her father moved to Canada after protesting against the Vietnam war. Her mother, the feminist film-maker Bonnie Sherr Klein, made Not a Love Story, a landmark documentary about the pornography industry.

Avi Lewis has a similar background: his father, Stephen Lewis, was a prominent centre-left politician; his mother, Michele Landsberg, is a writer and social activist. I imagined that must mean family get-togethers are full of intensely political discussions but Klein says not, mainly because there are so many children underfoot. “I can’t remember the last time I finished a sentence when talking with Avi’s dad because there are always toddlers running around.”

And while Klein may not do much chanting, it is hard to think of many other writers whose work has been so central to the movements for social and economic equality over the past 15 years. “She is a uniquely smart person,” says Bill McKibben, the American writer who founded the
350.org environmental campaign group, of which Klein is a board member. “She sees patterns and understands them in ways that very few people do,” he says. “She thinks ahead. She’s not reactive.”

Klein also played a role in one of the most eye-catching climate change campaigns of recent years, a push modelled on the anti-apartheid divestment campaign in South Africa that is trying to stem investment in fossil fuels. McKibben says he and Klein both started discussing the idea of the campaign after spotting a 2011 report by a small London think-tank, Carbon Tracker, which highlighted the value of the vast quantity of proven fossil fuel reserves that may need to stay in the ground to avoid risky global warming.

“No one had really paid any attention to it, at least in the States,” says McKibben, who went on to speak at rallies across the US. “She was instrumental in helping figure a lot of that out. Then she decided to have a baby so I ended up having to go do the whole tour about the thing by myself. She’s been a huge, smart help in thinking it through.”

The birth of Toma, now two years old, was one of two important events Klein experienced as she was working on This Changes Everything. The other was a diagnosis of thyroid cancer that led to surgery in May, just as she was finishing the copy-edit for the book. “You can see my scar,” she says, pointing to her neck, where in fact it is hard to see anything. Her health test results since have been good but it was clearly a difficult time. “When you have your thyroid removed, they have to replace it with drugs, so it takes a while to get that right,” she says. “Thyroid is your hormonal engine, so it’s a funny thing to lose control over. But it seems to be going away. I actually think maybe it’s chilled me out a little bit.” Later, when we go upstairs for a photography shoot, she says, “I’m getting to like my scar. It looks as if I had my throat cut and survived.” There was, however, always the possibility of one awful side effect: “I could have lost my voice. They go so close to the vocal cords.”

Her voice had seemed fine a few nights earlier, when I saw her give a talk organised by The Guardian in a large hall packed with admirers and, in my section, the powerful whiff of serious cyclists. Her lengthy speech was heartily applauded. But I found myself thinking that her real influence lies in the clarity of her writing rather than her ability to perform in public.

That’s not to say she is dull but she is definitely more lively in less predictable circumstances, such as the interview she recently did with US political satirist Stephen Colbert. “You’re a damned Canadian. How dare you come down here. You never lived under a capitalist system!” said Colbert. “You can let go of your Canadian fantasies,” Klein retorted. “My government is actually keeping the George W Bush dream alive. We have a complete merger of oil and state and we’re digging up the Alberta tar sands as fast as we can — and my mayor smokes crack.” (A dig at Toronto’s colourful former mayor, Rob Ford.)

So could the next step for Naomi Klein be a run for public office herself? “I don’t think so. I don’t think I would be very good at it,” she says, not sounding totally convinced. She would not rule it out for her husband, and she has been “interested” to see how some grassroots movements no longer reject the idea of institutional politics.

She also thinks climate change is the sort of issue that is so urgent and important that “you’ve just got to do what it takes”.

“We’ll see,” she says. “But in terms of my running, I don’t have any intention of doing that.”
 
UN members agree [NO] deal at Lima climate talks
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30468048


The agreed document calls for:
  • An "ambitious agreement" in 2015 that reflects "differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities" of each nation
  • Developed countries to provide financial support to "vulnerable" developing nations
  • National pledges to be submitted by the first quarter of 2015 by those states "ready to do so"
  • Countries to set targets that go beyond their "current undertaking"
  • The UN climate change body to report back on the national pledges in November 2015
 
Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2009/roulette-0519



Sokolov AP, Stone PH, Forest CE, et al. Probabilistic Forecast for Twenty-First-Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (Without Policy) and Climate Parameters. Journal of Climate 2009;22(19):5175-204. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1


The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model’s first projections were published in 2003, substantial improvements have been made to the model, and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available.

The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections; for example, the median surface warming in 2091–2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study.

Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the twentieth century due to volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting gross domestic product (GDP) growth, which eliminated many low-emission scenarios.

However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger twentieth-century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warming at the end of the twenty-first century is only 4.1°C.

Nevertheless, all ensembles of the simulations discussed here produce a much smaller probability of warming less than 2.4°C than implied by the lower bound of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) projected likely range for the A1FI scenario, which has forcing very similar to the median projection in this study.

The probability distribution for the surface warming produced by this analysis is more symmetric than the distribution assumed by the IPCC because of a different feedback between the climate and the carbon cycle, resulting from the inclusion in this model of the carbon–nitrogen interaction in the terrestrial ecosystem.
 
Arctic’s Disappearing Ice Means Changing Ecology
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/12/arctics-disappearing-ice-means-changing-ecology/


Lee Cooper, a researcher at the University of Maryland, has been exploring Northern Alaska and the Arctic Ocean for more than thirty years.

COOPER: “You go to someplace like Barrow, which is the most northern community in Alaska and just a few years ago, you could always expect to see sea ice on the horizon even in the summer. Nowadays sometimes it’s hundreds of miles beyond the horizon where the sea ice is. We just got off a Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker, and the interesting thing was we had a hard time finding sea ice.”

Cooper says the disappearing ice is changing the ecology of the Arctic Ocean.

COOPER: “We are finding that organisms are moving north further than we’ve seen them before. There’s a potential for fish to move north into what used to be waters too cold for them to reproduce, and so the whole ecosystem could change as the sea ice disappears.”
 
2014 Was The Hottest Year On Record Globally By Far
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html

The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2014 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.27°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.63°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.70°C per century.

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)
1st. 2014(+0.27°C), 2nd. 1998(+0.22°C), 3rd. 2013,2010(+0.20°C), 5th. 2005(+0.17°C)


 
Much of world's fossil fuel reserve must stay buried to prevent climate change, study says
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says


McGlade C, Ekins P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 [deg]C. Nature 2015;517(7533):187-90. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/full/nature14016.html

Policy makers have generally agreed that the average global temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions should not exceed 2 °C above the average global temperature of pre-industrial times.

It has been estimated that to have at least a 50 per cent chance of keeping warming below 2 °C throughout the twenty-first century, the cumulative carbon emissions between 2011 and 2050 need to be limited to around 1,100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (Gt CO2).

However, the greenhouse gas emissions contained in present estimates of global fossil fuel reserves are around three times higher than this, and so the unabated use of all current fossil fuel reserves is incompatible with a warming limit of 2 °C.

Here we use a single integrated assessment model that contains estimates of the quantities, locations and nature of the world’s oil, gas and coal reserves and resources, and which is shown to be consistent with a wide variety of modelling approaches with different assumptions, to explore the implications of this emissions limit for fossil fuel production in different regions.

Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2 °C.

We show that development of resources in the Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil production are incommensurate with efforts to limit average global warming to 2 °C.

Our results show that policy makers’ instincts to exploit rapidly and completely their territorial fossil fuels are, in aggregate, inconsistent with their commitments to this temperature limit.

Implementation of this policy commitment would also render unnecessary continued substantial expenditure on fossil fuel exploration, because any new discoveries could not lead to increased aggregate production.
 
Last edited:
Hansen J, Kharecha P, Sato M, et al. Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature. PLoS ONE 2013;8(12):e81648. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0081648

We assess climate impacts of global warming using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data. We use Earth’s measured energy imbalance, paleoclimate data, and simple representations of the global carbon cycle and temperature to define emission reductions needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disastrous impacts on today’s young people, future generations, and nature.

A cumulative industrial-era limit of ~500 GtC fossil fuel emissions and 100 GtC storage in the biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the Holocene range to which humanity and other species are adapted.

Cumulative emissions of ~1000 GtC, sometimes associated with 2°C global warming, would spur “slow” feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4°C with disastrous consequences.

Rapid emissions reduction is required to restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible effects.

Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice.

Responsible policymaking requires a rising price on carbon emissions that would preclude emissions from most remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels and phase down emissions from conventional fossil fuels.
 
Anderson K, Bows A. Beyond “dangerous” climate change: emission scenarios for a new world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 2010;369(1934):20-44. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full

The Copenhagen Accord reiterates the international community’s commitment to ‘hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius’.

Yet its preferred focus on global emission peak dates and longer-term reduction targets, without recourse to cumulative emission budgets, belies seriously the scale and scope of mitigation necessary to meet such a commitment.

Moreover, the pivotal importance of emissions from non-Annex 1 nations in shaping available space for Annex 1 emission pathways received, and continues to receive, little attention.

Building on previous studies, this paper uses a cumulative emissions framing, broken down to Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 nations, to understand the implications of rapid emission growth in nations such as China and India, for mitigation rates elsewhere.

The analysis suggests that despite high-level statements to the contrary, there is now little to no chance of maintaining the global mean surface temperature at or below 2°C.

Moreover, the impacts associated with 2°C have been revised upwards, sufficiently so that 2°C now more appropriately represents the threshold between ‘dangerous’ and ‘extremely dangerous’ climate change.


Ultimately, the science of climate change allied with the emission scenarios for Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 nations suggests a radically different framing of the mitigation and adaptation challenge from that accompanying many other analyses, particularly those directly informing policy.
 
Last edited:
Smoke and Mirrors Will Not Save Us From Anthropogenic Climate Disruption
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/28443-smoke-and-mirrors-will-not-save-us-from-acd

In an article that appeared in mid-November in the French online journal A l'encontre, Daniel Tanuro analyzed the "unprecedented" and "historic" agreement between the United States and China resulting from Barack Obama's encounter with Xi Jinping just before the November G20 conference in Brisbane.

The insufficiency - to put it mildly - of this agreement, in comparison with the warnings issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its most recent report, is unbridgeable, he points out.
 
Back
Top