U4 AOS2 Pt 1 Flashcards
Causes of climate change
- Burning fossil fuels
releases CO2 → enhanced GHG effect → gl warming → CC
- 85% (34% oil, 27% coal, 24% gas) of all E bought comes from burning FF → 9.5bn tonnes from ground to atm per yr
- min progress w switching to renewables bc 2010-19 FF only dec 2% as prop of E use
- consumption inc over time e.g. 50% of all GHG emissions = w/in last 30 yrs
- gl temp inc 1.1C since pre-ind + 0.8C since early C20 - Deforestation → deplete C sinks + emit more GHG in process bc a) trees release C when die + b) wood burning = releases CO2
o UNFAO est 18mil acres for. lost/yr
o WWF est 15 GHG emissions = from defor → #2 anthropogenic source of C (contributes 6-17%)
o 2010 Gl For Resources Assess report defor release 1bn tonnes C into atm/yr - Agriculture
a) cattle release methane → inc enhanced GHG effect → gl warming → CC
b) inc use of fertilisers → inc nitrous oxide (x300 impact of CO2) → inc enhanced GHG effect → gl warming → CC
- subsistence farming → 48% defor
- commercial farming → 32% defor
t/f total farming → 80% defor
Details of resource exploitation as a key aspect of climate change
Three types:
o FF (oil, gas, coal = dirtiest) = 80% world’s energy consumption
o Subsoil minerals (iron, aluminium etc)
o Deforestation
Consequences of resource exploitation as a key aspect of climate change
• 2019 UN Report → res extract occurring x3 faster than in 1970 + responsible for 50% gl GHG emissions + 80% biodiv loss
• Deforestation
→ deplete C sinks + emit more GHG in process bc a) trees release C when die + b) wood burning = releases CO2
o UNFAO est 18mil acres for. lost/yr
o WWF est 15 GHG emissions = from defor → #2 anthropogenic source of C (contributes 6-17%)
o 2010 Gl For Resources Assess report defor release 1bn tonnes C into atm/yr
• Soil erosion (hum activity inc rate 4-10x) caused by land degredation thru defor/tillage for agri/overgrazing
→ desertification:
o Sahara desert expanded 1.5mil sq km
o Gobi desert in Ch expanding at rate of 3370km/yr
→ inc pressure on food sec
→ sediment in waterways → inc flooding
• GHG inc – burning FF, defor + agri → gl temp = 1.1C inc above pre-ind + 0.8C above early C20
• Natural disasters = caused by defor ( loss of nat buffers) + drier cond inc C emissions
o 2015 5mo bushfires in Indo emitted more GHG than J or Ger on 1yr
• Forced mig bc impacts of CC = food insec, flooding, forest fires etc
o Intl Org for Mig est mig due to CC will reach 150-200mil/yr by 2050
Impact of nationalist interests as a key aspect of climate change on the US’s response
- 2017 T announce US w/draw from PCA
- 2021 Glasgow US X sign up to coal phase-out deal – this is bc coal mining = 53K jobs in the US → during T admin EPA sought to repeal Clean E Plan
- CC denial – 2012 T tweet w 67K likes = “the concept of gl warming was created for and by Ch IOT to make US manufact non-comp” = EP + NS – links back to w/drawal from PCA
Impact of nationalist interests as a key aspect of climate change on the Europe’s response
o 2010s coal consumption dec everywhere except Asia
o 2020 demand for gas plummet bc COVID
o 2021 demand for gas inc but supply down → price of gas inc
→ 18% inc in use of coal to gen E in Eur = 1st annual inc since 2017
→ 2021 record high E prod from coal = 15.3bn GHG = 40% of total GHG
o 2022 EU sanction R FF imports → R retaliate by exporting none to EU → problem bc ½ Eur’s coal comes from R → EU must source elsewhere but alt coal sources = cheaper than alt gas sources → resurgence of coal ind in EU
→ It PM Draghi + Ger announce might reopen closed coal plants
→ UK announce 3 coal plants planned to close in 2022 will stay open
→ EU climate chief justify temporary inc in coal consumption/prod bc still aim to meet 2030 goal of reducing coal consumption 55% below 1990 levels = problem bc prod more cumulative GHG emissions despite same endpoint
Rationale for adapting to climate change
Some effects of CC = irreversible:
• No response to prep for inevitable impact of CC → lower gl agri yield 5-30% by 2050
• ½ gl pop could exp water shortages at least 1mo/yr by 2050
Adaption to CC = LT beneficial econ investment:
• investment in adaption of $1.8tr 2020-30 → generate $7.1tr benefits later
• $1 in CC prep → $4-7 savings in nat disaster response
→ must inc resiliency of soc + bio systems to help recovery from more extreme weather events + minimise damage
Methods for adapting to climate change
• Flood protection installations
• Rainwater storage
• Altering building regulations e.g. higher foundations
• Buying out homeowners in flood-prone areas e.g. NJ
• Alterations to agri practices
• Migration
→ new policies utilising local knowledge of specific environ (cosmo view of development)
Examples of adapting to climate change
• Toronto req new lg city buildings to incl green spaces on roof → cool city + reduce E consumption in summer 5-15%
• Mex govt pay farmers X fell trees → prevent landslides
• Japan build stadium on stilts → store excess water??
• 2015 PCA enshrine Green Climate Fund – goal = raise $100bn/yr by 2020 to help developing st adapt to CC
Challenges to adapting to climate change
• UNDP est $86bn/yr needed for adaptation in dev states
• UN Environ Prog est adaptation will cost $140-300bn/yr by 2030
• 2017-18 only $30bn invested in adapt gl
Rationale for reducing climate change
Limiting extent of CC (ideally 1.5C but max is 2C) is necessary to stop climate catastrophe
Methods of reducing climate change
• Inc E efficiency
• Phasing out FF
• Switching to low-C energy sources
• Reforestation/afforestation
• Restoring grasslands (avoid defor)
• C capture + storage
• Emissions tax
• Subsidies
• Emissions trading schemes
Details of PCA
• Key provisions:
o Peak gl emissions asap
o Adaptation
o Climate finance – pledge min $100bn/yr by 2020 to help LICs adapt
o A3: NDCs should be “ambitious”, “represent a progression over time” and set “with the view of achieving the purpose of this agreement”
• 195 UNFCCC members signed + 193 + EU ratified = 95% gl emissions
• Enhanced Transparency Framework → st must report of mitigation efforts every 2 yrs → subject to technical + peer scrutiny
• A7 = adaption
o Define goal = ensure capacity (e.g. renewable E), resilience (e.g. storm shelters) + reduce vulnerability (dec occurrence of extreme weather events)
o Encourages all st to create NAPs → plan + implement adaption strategies
→ NAP principles:
1. Approach should be st-driven, gender-sensitive + transparent
2. Based on science X business
3. X be prescriptive/duplicate other st models – must be tailored to facilitate st engagement w + ownership of adaptation process
• Article 9 = finance
o Should 50/50 bw adaption + mitigation efforts
o Reaffirmed HIC commitment to mobilise $100bn/yr by 2020 to LICs adaption
• Intl Co-op Intiatives
o mechanism to bypass st reluctance to address CC bc NIs
o prov NSAs w framework to contribute to CC response
e.g. Gl Covenant of Mayors = 9K cities, 127 st, 770mil residents
Evidence of PCA’s effectiveness
- 193 + EU nst ratified = covers 95% gl emissions
- 1/3 reduction in GHG emission growth rate
- 90% gl emissions covered by net-zero targets
- Article 7 “formalises the intl consensus on the urgency of vulnerability reduction” (making CC a now problem) – Lesinkowski of McGill Uni
- May 2021 125/154 developing st in process of planning/implementing NAPs
- 90% NAPs ID terrestrial/wetland ecosystems + food security + 79% ID freshwater resources + human health = key priority → PCA improving understanding of what foci of policies should be
- Adaptation financing inc from 2013 $52bn → 2019 $79bn
- Mayor Reed of ATL promise city use 100% renew E by 2035 = overcoming
- by 2018 EU had achieved dec GHG emissions 23% = almost 1/2 way to 55% goal
- gl warming 2015 4-5C → currently 2.5C → 1.9C if current NDCs implemented properly + on time
- Intl Co-op Initiatives → PMI’s actions centred around 2C, mitigation + adaptation
Evidence of PCA’s lack of effectiveness
- 3 major emitters = X parties of PCA (Iran, Turk + Iraq)
- USAID report current commitments X suffient to meet max ceiling of 2C
- July 2022 Climate Action Tracker report 0 st’s NDCs + policies = compatible with PCA 1.5C target + only 2/9 on track for 1.5-2C are HICs = largest emitters + Turk/ Iran = critically insufficient but X parties of PCA
- Oct 2021 UNEP Emissions Gap Report:
o updated NDCs only dec predicted 2030 emissions 7.5% when 55% is needed reduction amt
o GHG emissions must be ½ by 2030 to have chance of meeting 1.5C
o Net-zero pledges could lim warning to 2.2C but many NDCs delay action until 2030/are incomprehensive/lack clear plan (see below) - Climate Action Tracker report 73% net-zero targets = inadequate e.g. only party to incl intl shipping/aviation = UK
- UNIPCC est $100bn/yr goal = x10 below amt needed
- Adaptation financing progress slowing – 2018-2019 only inc $1bn/yr + stalled bc COVID
- 2017-18 only $22/72bn climate aid prov by OECD st to LDCs = grants
- Only OECD st to meet its expected climate finance contribution in grants = Norway = comparatively sml econ → total climate aid = $1bn
- 2019 only ¼ climate finance → adaption = X 50/50 bw mitigation/adaptation
- NDCs when compared to actual policies → on track for 2.7
COP26 Details
• 31 Oct-13 Nov 2021
• 5yr check-up on PCA expectation that ambition inc
• Est Glasgow Climate Pact
• Main issues to address:
o Future of coal
o X meet $ goal
o Carbon pricing – part of A6 seeking to est comprehensive intl carbon market
o Lack of ambition of NDCs – pre-G commitments on track for 2.2C if actually implemented
o Defor
o Methane
o Adaption
o Agri
o Net zero targets
Evidence of COP26’s effectivness
- Defor = 130 st/85% gl forests promise X defor by 2030
- Finance = 450 financial instit responsible for $130tr assets promise align portfolios w 2030 net zero i.e. divesting from FF
- Climate finance = promise $500bn in 5 yrs + x2 proportion to adaptation
- Agree to meet again in 2022 + 2023
- Coal = 40 st agree phase out coal in 2030s incl Pol, Viet, Chile, Sth Afr
- US sign agreement to X finance FF proj overseas = sig bc #1 aid donor
- GCP = 1st explicit mention of FF in a COP decision = 196 st sign
- Apr 2022 Nature Journal report current pledges → 1.9C
- Achieved consensus abt 1.5C = the “planetary boundary”
- “elements of the G package are a lifeline for my country” climate envoy from Marshall Isl
Evidence of COP26’s lack of effectiveness
- X agreement for 50/50 mitigation/adaptation $ split
- Methane scheme = Ch, R, Ind X sign up
- Coal phase out = US, Ch, Aus, Ind X sign up + 2030s = vague → Juan Pablo Osornoi of Grpeace: “Overall this statement falls well short of the ambition needed on FF in this critical decade”
- HICs blocked move to est ‘loss-and-damage’ funds to compensate LICs for irrev damage of CC esp bc X their fault
- Apr 2022 Nature Journal warn 1.9C depends on st delivering promises on time + in full = esp worrying bc many X have policies yet that reflect commitments
- NIs of Ind + Ch prove able to mold gl CC policy bc water down GCP coal promise from “phase out” → “phase down”
- X agreement to end FF subsidies = problem bc IEA warn we need close 40% of 8.5K coal-fired pwr plants by 2030 to have chance @ 1.5
- 1.5 warming = 3C warming in parts of Afr = unbearable
- Currently 200 projects (“carbon bombs”) exploring for new FF = “locking in” climate disaster
Reasons for UN’s lack of effectiveness
• X mechanism to force st to set specific target by specific date → X compulsion to set ambitious target
• NDCs = X binding → X penalty for failing to meet target
o PCA = “no action, just promises” – James Hansen, NASA scientist
• X sufficient to resolve CC
o “even if we meet every target… we will only get to part of the where we need to go” – Obama 2016
o “This deal alone won’t dig us out of the hole we’re in, but it makes the sides less steep” – exec director of Gr Peace
• Net-zero targets shift CC from what UNEP exec dir calls a “now problem” to a “future problem”
• St prioritise NIs → give climate aid to LDCs in form of loans + bilaterally to reap econ return
• X meeting A9 50/50 split goal bw mitigation/adaptation bc st who aren’t LDCs/low-lying isl st X receive any benefit from adaptation financing but mitigation efforts = good for everyone (NS + EP)
• Vague deadlines (coal phase-out 2030s, overall coal phase-down 2040s) → “the sml print seemingly gives countries enormous leeway to pick theirn own phase-out date, despite the shiny headline” - Juan Pablo Osornoi of Grpeace
• Commitments made by businesses = X binding
• Ukr war used as excuse to delay speed of coal phase out/down → exposing weakness of vague deadline
Details of the EU’s 2020 climate + energy package
set 2007 enacted 2009
- 20% cut in GHG emissions from 1990 levels
- Emissions Trading Scheme = covers power + industry sectors (45% EU’s GHG emissions) + targeted 21% reduction on 2005 levels
- Effort Sharing Decision = binding national GHG reduction targets based on wealth for housing/waste/agri/transport
- Car regulation - 20% EU energy from renewables
- Renewable Energy Directive - 20% improvement in energy efficiency
- Energy Efficiency Directive = set cohesive regulation abt E eff for rentals/household appliances/lighting/renovations on govt housing
Effectiveness of the EU’s 2020 climate + energy package
Positive:
- ETS generate 15.8bn EUR for member st = demos effectiveness of binding/financially incentivising GHG reduction scheme
- 80% 15.8bn EUR from ETS climate + energy policy = financing adaptation + mitigation
- 2013-15 all member st compliant w ESD targets
- 2016 emissions 23% dec from 1990 levels = achieved goal1
- GDP grew 53% over same period
- EU share of gl emissions 17.3% 1990 9% 2018
- 2016 ETS industries emissions 26% dec below 2005 levels = achieve goal2
- 2016 renewable E = 17% = on track for 2020
Neutral:
- Carbon intensity ½ but gl dec 58%
- 10 st expected to have renewable E surplus
- 2017 avg car emission = 118.5g/km = 22g/km reduction since 2010 = meets <130g/km req but X close enough to 2020 goal of <95g/km
Limited:
- 2016 ESD only achieve 11% reduction of emissions
- 2016 estimates showed Malta/Belg/Fin/Ir X meet ESD targets by 2020 = only achieved bc COVID
Reasons for lack of/effectiveness of EU’s 2020 climate + energy package
Firstly, the EU’s 2020 package was effective because their strategies were included in EU directives and thus were binding. Secondly, the EU had a clear follow-up process for when states fell short of targets, requiring they submit a corrective plan. Also, the EU made sure to pre-empt shortfalls by offering policy advice to Malta, Belgium, Finland and Ireland in 2016 when they were not on track for their 2020 target. Finally, the EU used financial incentives to encourage desired behaviours. For example, the ETS rewards emitting less than the maximum allowance and any shortfall bars states from selling any excess the next year, preventing states from racking up carbon debt without financial consequences.
However, the failures of the EU’s 2020 package can be attributed to the fact that while the EU’s master strategy was detailed, it did not supply member states with a specific plan for how they could reach their designated targets.
