Updates: polution; hunting; animal slaughter; climate change

[Anthea]

Battle to save Africa’s wild landscapes

The battle against climate change can only be won if Africa’s carbon-rich landscapes are protected for future generations, delegates at the Cop26 climate summit were told today at an event co-staged by The Evening Standard

The session at the Glasgow summit was convened by Lord Lebedev, proprietor of The Evening Standard, and the Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta.

Attendees were told by leading African politicians including Gabon’s climate change minister and Uganda and Rwanda’s Ministers of Environment how protecting Africa’s carbon-rich landscapes must be at the heart of the global climate fight - and in a way that works for the people of Africa.

Halting deforestation, particularly in carbon-rich, tropical forests, has emerged as a key theme at Cop26.

On Tuesday more than 110 leaders - representing 85 per cent of the planet’s forests - signed a declaration committing to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030.

Today’s event at the African Development Bank’s Cop26 pavilion, which was co-staged with The Independent and conservation charity Space for Giants under its Giants Club initiative, was to draw attention to the value of Africa’s carbon sinks and launch an initiative to fast-track the development of their offset sectors across the continent via national investment processes.

Evgeny Lebedev told the audience how he had first learned the value of protecting nature as a child during trips with his grandfather Professor Vladmir Sokolov, a Soviet scientist and environmentalist, on zoological expeditions to Africa.

“Nothing could have been more fascinating to a young boy than seeing all these amazing animals in iconic landscapes,” he said.

He contrasted this with another trip he undertook with his grandfather: this time to Chernobyl, three years after the nuclear meltdown.

“I first realised how much mankind was hurting the planet and themselves as a result,” he said. “Today, the outcome of humanity’s crimes against the environment are visible to us all.”

It was particularly important to protect crucial ecosystems like the Congo River Basin, he emphasised.

"Unlike other tropical rainforests, the Congo still remains a strong net-carbon sink. We must not repeat the Amazon’s deforestation catastrophe. We must preserve iconic landscapes helping to sequester carbon."

President Kenyatta celebrated the work done by Space for Giants’ Giants Club initiative to protect under threat landscapes. “I want to appreciate the Giants Club for the investment that they have made into that endeavour.”

The Kenyan President is a member of the Giants Club along with the presidents of Botswana, Gabon, Uganda, Mozambique and Rwanda. Evgeny Lebedev is the Giants Club’s patron.

The Kenyan leader noted that the Giants Club now faced its biggest ever problem: halting and reversing the degradation of ecosystems “not only in Africa, but across the globe”.

Africa accounts for roughly 18 per cent of the world’s population, he said, but contributes just four cent of global emissions.

“Yet it is Africa that will unfortunately be the biggest brunt of climate change impacts to the average of 3C warming, increasing conflicts as a result, and also increasing insecurity in our regions,” he told the audience.

“Our forests, savannahs, mangroves, swamps, coral reefs and our marine reserves are the carbon sinks of the world. Indeed, they are the basis of the very oxygen that we breathe every day.

“And yet that great public benefit that the African ecosystem provides to the world has not yet been fully acknowledged nor sufficiently protected, and we have certainly not been compensated for it.”

He noted that Cop26 offered a platform from which to change that trajectory - and that it is being demanded by those at Cop26 but also those "on the margins, and even on the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh".

He told the event: "I believe this is our opportunity. We must together create an enabling environment to invest in restoring and protecting the great natural carbon capture machines that were gifted to us by God and nature."

The audience, which included those joining The Independent’s live stream of the event, was addressed by Dr Max Graham, founder and CEO of Space for Giants.

He opened the discussion by speaking of the missed target of $100bn in climate finance which wealthy nations committed to a decade ago to help developing countries adapt to the extreme impacts of global heating.

“The world spends $623 billion every year on beer,” he noted to contextualise the sum. “We spend $57 billion a year on ice cream. And we spend over $100 billion a year on coffee."

He then pointed out that the world is spending $5.9 trillion on fossil fuel subsidies annually.

“Does anyone else find it utterly bizarre that collectively, we’re spending more money making our planet uninhabitable than we do protecting our children’s future?" he asked.

The event included Uganda’s Minister for the Environment Beatrice Anywar, Prof Lee White, the Minister of Forests, Oceans, Environment and Climate Change from Gabon, and Rwanda’s Minister of Environment Dr Jeanne d’Arc Mujawamariya.

Speakers from the conservation and private sector joined the event including Dr Akinwumi Adesina, president of the African Development Bank, David Antonioli, CEO of Verra, Wanjira Mathai, vice president and regional director for Africa at the World Resources Institute, and Peter Bacchus, chairman of Bacchus Capital and former global head of mining and metals at Morgan Stanley.

Gabon’s Minister White called the Congo Basin the “heart and lungs” of the African continent.

“There’s no 1.5C world without an intact Congo Basin,” he noted. "We lose the Congo Basin we lose 1.5C, we lose 2C, we lose 3C and we’re heading to a 4C world.”

He said that the important question was how to make forests more valuable when left standing rather then when logged in a manner that also ensured they became a commodity for local communities in the region.

“Because if the forests are not valuable, the forest will not survive. The forest that does not create jobs does not help us to adapt to the economic cost of climate change," he said. "We’re looking at sustainable forestry as a way of maintaining the forests and of giving value to the trees."

Uganda’s Minister for the Environment Beatrice Anywar arrived directly from Cop26 negotiations to join the discussion and brought with her a powerful and ultimately uplifting message.

“It is Africa that will save the world from the effects of climate change,” she told the audience.

"We have something to offer to the world," she said of Africa. "We must demonstrate it. We must take charge of the God-given opportunities and resources. We don’t have to live in a rebellious and irresponsible way by destroying the habitats of nature.

“Nature is speaking and we must listen. We have come here to deliver that and it is doable.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/a ... 64233.html

[Anthea]

Importance of protecting Kurdistan environment

ERBIL (Kurdistan 24) – Kurdistan Region Prime Minister Masrour Barzani emphasized the importance of protecting the environment through implementing proper recycling mechanisms

“The government works to protect the environment and educate the people about it,” Barzani said at a meeting with Abdulrahman Sidiq, the head of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s (KRG) Board of Environmental Protection and Improvement, on Sunday.

Sidiq briefed the prime minister of his board’s recent activities and projects.

Barzani said that his government seeks to reduce its use of carbon gases.

“My government has made practical steps in this regard, by reusing the wasted gases in the oil fields for producing electricity and recycling the trash in a proper way to reduce its impact on the environment,” the prime minister said.

Barzani also stressed the importance of protecting forests in the autonomous region.

Sidiq’s board, according to its page on KRG’s official website, “is responsible for all initiatives to protect the environment and raise environmental sustainability in the Kurdistan Region, as well as for promoting awareness of environmental issues.”

https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/story/26 ... nvironment

[Anthea]

US say words will action follow

For the first time in four years, US officials have been saying the words environmental activists and climate-conscious world leaders have wanted to hear

Listening to Joe Biden, on the stage at COP26, emphasise the US understood that greenhouse gas emissions represented an existential threat to the world – and his nation was prepared to take action – was certainly a welcome development for many conference attendees.

If there is one thing the past half-decade has underscored for the rest of the world, however, it’s the fickle nature of US politics.

Biden and the Democrats are in charge today, but they could be swept out of Congress next year and out of the White House in 2024. Donald Trump – who recently repeated his claim that global warming is a “hoax” – or someone like him could be in charge, once again withdrawing the US from the Paris Accords and rolling back the current president’s much-touted regulatory reforms.

If the US is an inconstant climate-change advocate, how much can it accomplish at COP26, when many of the pledges and emissions targets have time frames that stretch through dozens of US election cycles?

Biden, and former President Barack Obama, can offer their apologies for previous US policies. The US has brokered deals this week on methane emissions and forest preservation. It has pushed other nations to commit net-zero-emissions targets in the coming decades, with mixed results.

But until climate change becomes an issue that no long sits atop the cavernous American political divide, their promises and accomplishments could be swept away in the next electoral storm.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-59192126

[Anthea]

The world reacts to COP26

It's the end of week one at the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, and world leaders have already made some big commitments

More than 40 countries have promised to phase out coal by 2050, and another 100 leaders have pledged to end and reverse deforestation by 2030.

The US and EU, meanwhile, announced that they would partner up to cut methane emissions.

BBC reporters across the globe - from Shanghai to Sao Paulo - explain how the summit and the climate pledges are going down in their countries.

China

Chinese social media has not been flooded with criticism of the West at COP26, writes Stephen McDonell in Beijing.

The response in China's state-controlled media to the climate summit has been fairly muted. It's not that ordinary people in China don't know that the conference is taking place, but the coverage of it has definitely been downplayed.

Perhaps Xi Jinping choosing not to attend the gathering was a key factor. To report on it might draw attention to the fact that, unlike other major nations, nobody represented China at leader level.

Also, China's media is of the Communist Party and for the Communist Party. Coverage of anything involving Mr Xi, who is the General Secretary of the Party, is tightly controlled. Media outlets here would not ignore such a meeting - to which Mr Xi sent a message in lieu of an appearance - unless they had been ordered to.

Of course the conference has, at various points, been referred to. Nationalist stirrers - like those featured in the Global Times - have criticised US President Joe Biden, particularly after he singled out his Chinese counterpart for not showing up.

But Chinese social media have not been flooded with criticism of the West at COP26 - it's all been fairly subdued.

Perhaps, for climate scientists wanting to build a sense of urgency and momentum out of this summit, ignoring what's happening there may be worse than attacking it.

US

It's all about domestic politics, writes Laura Trevelyan in New York

President Biden was determined to use COP26 to showcase American leadership on climate on the world stage - but, as MSNBC opinion columnist Hayes Brown noted, first of all, he had to apologise.

Since President Trump pulled the US out of the Paris climate accord, that "put us sort of behind the eight ball a little bit,' he acknowledged on the summit's first day.

The US has a see-saw approach to global climate agreements depending on which party has the presidency. So Americans know that whatever is agreed in Glasgow could be reversed by a Republican president in 2025.

A tractor moves through a coal prep plant outside the city of Welch in rural West Virginia

The conservative-leaning Wall St Journal pointed out that President Biden tried to paint Russia and China as "isolated holdouts" to a global consensus on reducing emissions but efforts by the US and its allies failed to get Moscow and Beijing to budge.

At home it's the position of Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, a crucial vote when it comes to getting a $500bn climate plan through Congress, that's getting attention.

Mr Manchin is from a coal producing state, West Virginia, and when he said he had lingering concerns about the spending package, headlines declared: "Biden's climate pledge risks being undermined by holdout senator."

Russia

There is no sense of a climate emergency in Russia, writes Steve Rosenberg in Moscow.

A British newspaper headline this week - Queen's plea to save our 'fragile' planet.

Russia's most popular (pro-Kremlin) daily - Should we really be scared of global warming?

It concluded we shouldn't, claiming there are "positive consequences of global warming" (especially for Russia): lower heating bills, more accessible shipping routes.

There's no sense here of a climate emergency.

Not that the Kremlin denies there's a problem. It points out that the climate in Russia is warming 2.5 times faster than the world average.

It sent a big delegation to Glasgow. No president, though. Vladimir Putin appeared by video screen only.

Still, Russia promises to be carbon neutral by 2060. It signed the Glasgow declaration on forests and land use, pledging an end to deforestation by 2030.

But it wouldn't sign up to cutting methane emissions 30% by 2030. Russia is a fossil fuel superpower and wants a "smooth" (longer) transition to greener energy.

"Everybody wants Russia to do more to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible," Vasily Yablokov of Greenpeace Russia tells me.

"I'm happy Russia now accepts climate change is happening, but I see no high ambition from our country. It looks like the Russian government's from another planet."

India

India's 2070 net zero pledge has won Narendra Modi applause in a growing nation balancing economic and environmental needs, writes Rajini Vaidyanathan in Delhi.

Although India has been a big talking point among policy makers in the weeks leading up to the COP summit, COP hasn't been such a big topic for India's masses.

But on Monday, when Prime Minister Modi announced that the country would commit to net zero by 2070, many who weren't paying much attention to goings on in Glasgow finally took note.

COP hasn't been such a big topic of conversation with the masses in India

Mr Modi's address was broadcast on prime time here, and while some around the world are frustrated India is signing up to meet these goals two decades later than the global 2050 target, here the pledges were seen as pragmatic in a growing country which needs to balance both economic and environmental needs.

They were also viewed by many as a reminder that the PM won't succumb to pressure when the West has long reaped the benefits of growth while polluting. As Mr Modi reminded the summit, "India, which is 17% of the world population, is responsible for less than 5% of emissions" - a line that many here applauded.

The First Post news website called the 2070 pledge a "bold decision... without capitulating to the uncalled for bullying by the West". And climate experts here say India's four shorter-term goals - to scale up renewables and reduce carbon emissions by 2030 - are also significant.

Australia

Australia's part in the Cop26 summit is overshadowed by politics writes Shaimaa Khalil in Sydney.

Part of Scott Morrison's job at Cop26 was to explain to the world how he was going to deliver on net zero by 2050 without phasing out coal. But the prime minister's trip to Glasgow was overshadowed by a row with French President Emmanuel Macron - and not about the climate, about submarines.

On Sunday in Glasgow, Mr Macron accused Mr Morrison of lying to him about a $37bn deal with France which collapsed under controversial circumstances. Mr Morrison replied by saying his nation would not accept "sledging" or "slurs".

And so this past week, rather than discussing the pressing climate debate and what Australia had achieved at COP26, most of the commentary here has been about Mr Morrison's character and whether the row will affect his standing domestically.

"Slipperiness is Scott Morrison's defining characteristic," wrote journalist Hugh Riminton in the Guardian. "And it was never more on show than this week as he sold "the Australian Way" on climate to a sceptical crowd in Glasgow, while openly being branded a liar by France."

Australia did make a few climate headlines in Glasgow. Along with China, Russia, India and Iran, it snubbed the international pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030, and refused to sign up to phasing out coal-fired power and stop investing in new coal plants at home and abroad.

The verdict from Australia's ABC News? A "terribly messy week" for the prime minister.

Brazil

The climate conference in Scotland feels a long way from the reality of most Brazilians, writes Katy Watson in São Paulo.

Much is made of Brazil's contribution to climate change internationally because of its immense rainforest. But with all that President Jair Bolsonaro says and does - and the fact he didn't even attend COP26 - it feels a bit different over here.

Yes, the Amazon is in the same country, but it's a long way from big cities like São Paulo and Rio, and probably feels just as distant as a climate conference in Scotland.

It's not that Brazilians don't care.

"People do want to participate and they have lots to contribute," says Silvia Cervellini, co-founder of Delibera, a Brazilian organisation helping people get involved in politics.

But since the pandemic, there's been a rise in poverty and the political and economic crisis is casting a shadow over Brazil. People have more immediate concerns. "What we need to do is enable people to make the connection with daily life," Ms Cervellini says.

And that's something that dressmaker Izildete Maria de Sousa Botelho agrees with. The 67-year-old from Minas Gerais state was selected to be part of the Global Citizen Assembly for COP.

"If we are cutting down trees, we need to rethink what we eat," she says. "We outsource the responsibility to authorities and politicians and forget that it's individual actions, it's the lack of ecological awareness that we need to work on that is causing all of this."

Iran

Many in Iran believe that it is unfair to expect the country to make any climate commitments while the sanctions remain, writes BBC Persian Service correspondent Siavash Ardalan.

Iran is among the top 10 emitters of greenhouse gases and suffers extensively from the effects of global warming. The country has seen one its worst droughts in decades this year, resulting in severe water shortages and electricity blackouts.

US sanctions and unsustainable domestic policies have only exacerbated such problems.

One member of Iran's delegation to COP26 has said that if the sanctions were lifted, "there would be no obstacle for us to reduce our emissions".

However, conservatives affiliated to President Ebrahim Raisi's government have put out statements that range from climate change denial to assertions COP26 is seeking to deprive Iran of its oil and gas.

Although the summit has been largely ignored by Iranian media, such critical views have made their way to some pro-government conservative outlets.

A few reform-minded newspapers have meanwhile echoed the dire warnings from UN officials and climate scientists while avoiding any critique of the government's low-key approach to COP26.

Public opinion is divided. Many believe that it is unfair to expect any commitments from Iran while the sanctions remain in place. Others argue that climate change has only served to downplay government incompetence.

Nigeria

COP26 is not front page news in Nigeria, writes Nduka Orjinmo in Abuja.

Nigeria, Africa's largest oil exporter, has promised zero emissions by 2060.

The big media houses have sent reporters to Glasgow but it is not front page news in Nigeria.

On Wednesday, President Muhammadu Buhari said no-one in Nigeria needed "persuading of the need for urgent action on the environment," pointing to desertification, floods and erosion in the country as "enough evidence".

Activists have long sounded the alarm against oil drilling, but there is little sign of action

But he wants access to climate finance - some of the $100bn annually available to developing economies - and foreign investment in Nigeria's gas sector to help the country wean itself off its major revenue earner, oil.

The president struck the right notes for those in Glasgow but back home people, in homes powered by gasoline generators imported from China, live in a different reality.

No-one here has experienced a stable power supply in their lifetime and if it takes burning coal to achieve that, few will reject it for the sake of the climate.

Climate activists, especially in the oil-producing Niger Delta region, have long sounded the alarm about the impact of oil drilling and gas flaring but there is little sign of any action from the government and the international oil firms.

Saudi Arabia

Even as Saudi Arabia seeks to achieve net zero by 2060, the country is boosting its oil production, writes Middle East Business Correspondent Sameer Hashmi.

For a long time, the world's largest oil exporter, Saudi Arabia, had resisted calls from Western countries to set a definite target to reduce carbon emissions.

Then last month, the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, announced that the country had set a goal of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2060.

But, even as the Saudis seek to achieve that objective, they are boosting their oil production capacity to cater for global demand.

The country's top officials have repeatedly said tackling climate change is necessary, but that it cannot be done by "demonising" hydrocarbons. The energy minister believes the world needs both fossil fuels as well as renewables.

Most officials I spoke to there supported the crown prince's goal and his efforts to promote economic diversification by investing in new industries. The response by environmental activists though was more muted.

Link to Article - Photos:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59036722

[Anthea]

World on track for 2.4C warming

Despite pledges made at the climate summit COP26, the world is still nowhere near its goals on limiting global temperature rise, a new analysis shows

It calculates that the world is heading for 2.4C of warming, far more than the 1.5C limit nations committed to.

COP26 "has a massive credibility, action and commitment gap", according to the Climate Action Tracker (CAT).

The Glasgow summit is seen as crucial for curbing climate change.

But the prediction contrasts with optimism at the UN meeting last week, following a series of big announcements that included a vow to stop deforestation.

COP26 is expected to finish this week.

The projection comes as the UK's Met Office warns that a billion people could be affected by fatal heat and humidity if the global average temperature rises by 2C above pre-industrial levels.

The report by Climate Action Tracker looks at promises made by governments before and during COP26.

It concludes that, in 2030, the greenhouse gas emissions that warm the planet will still be twice as high as necessary for keeping temperature rise below 1.5C degree.

Scientists say that limiting warming to 1.5C will prevent the most dangerous impacts of climate change from happening.

The COP summit held in Paris in 2015 laid out a plan for avoiding dangerous climate change which included "pursuing efforts" to keep warming under 1.5C.

But when governments' actual policies - rather than pledges - are analysed, the world's projected warming is 2.7C by 2100, suggests Climate Action Tracker. The Tracker is backed by a number of organisations including the prestigious Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

"This new calculation is like a telescope trained on an asteroid heading for Earth. It's a devastating report that in any sane world would cause governments in Glasgow to immediately set aside their differences and work with uncompromising vigour for a deal to save our common future," said Greenpeace International's executive director Jennifer Morgan.

However, the world's outlook has improved since the Paris climate summit in 2015 when Climate Action Tracker estimated the policies put the planet on track to warm by 3.6C.

Climate Action Tracker blames "stalled momentum" from governments for limited progress towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

Click on chart to enlarge:


It says new promises by the US and China to reach net zero have slightly improved its forecasting on temperature rises. But it concludes that the quality of most government's plans to limit climate change is very low.

Reaching net zero involves reducing greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible, then balancing out any remaining releases by, for example, planting trees - which remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

More than 140 governments have promised to reach net zero, covering 90% of global emissions.

But Climate Action Tracker says only a handful have plans in place to reach the goal. It analysed the policies of 40 countries and concluded that only a small number are rated "acceptable", covering a fraction of the world's emissions.

"If they have no plans as to how to get there, and their 2030 targets are as low as so many of them are, then frankly, these net zero targets are just lip service to real climate action," said Bill Hare, chief executive of Climate Analytics, one of the groups behind the Tracker.

The main driver of the gap between promises and projections is continued coal and gas production, the organisation concludes.

A false dawn
Analysis box by Matt McGrath, environment correspondent

With one sharp jab, this Climate Action Tracker report has punctured the balloon of optimism that's been swelling since the start of this conference.

For days now, a number of observers, including the formerly conservative International Energy Agency, have been pushing a narrative that the new net zero goals from countries like India plus the long list of announcements made here in Glasgow had pushed the prospective temperature rise this century down to 1.8C.

That seemed like huge progress from the 2.7C that the UN Environment Programme had announced at the start of the conference.

So how has the confusion come about?

The problem comes from the inclusion of long-term pledges to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

More than 140 countries, covering 90% of global emissions have announced a mid-century-ish carbon neutrality target - China's is 2060, India's 2070.

According to the CAT, these goals are giving "false hope".

Based on what countries have put on the table for 2030, the world is set to warm by 2.4C by 2100. That picture gets a bit better if you include the US's and China's long-term targets, which reduces the temperature to 2.1C.

If every country implemented their long-term net zeroes, then 1.8C could indeed be possible.

But the reality is that, without a serious plan for 2030, most of these longer-term goals will not be realised.

That's why the real focus for the negotiators here must be on the actions that countries take over the next nine years.

Any deal agreed here will need to have a strong and credible pathway for the next decade. Otherwise Glasgow will be judged a failure.
.........................................................................................

What has been agreed at COP26?

The summit is still negotiating a deal that all 197 countries will agree on. But a series of side deals were announced last week:

More than 100 world leaders promised to end and reverse deforestation by 2030, including Brazil, home to the Amazon rainforest

The US and the EU announced a global partnership to cut emissions of the greenhouse gas methane by 2030 - reducing methane in the atmosphere seen as one of the best ways to quickly reduce global warming

More than 40 countries committed to move away from coal - but the world's biggest users like China and the US did not sign up

Some new pots of money were announced to help developing countries adapt to climate change and deal with the damage and loss it brings - but many say it's not enough

Link to Article - Photo - Video:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59220687

[Anthea]

What's the difference between

1.5°C and 2°C of global warming?

GLASGOW, Nov 8 (Reuters) - Over and over at the U.N. climate summit in Glasgow, world leaders have stressed the need to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius

The 2015 Paris Agreement commits countries to limit the global average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to aim for 1.5°C.

Scientists have said crossing the 1.5°C threshold risks unleashing far more severe climate change effects on people, wildlife and ecosystems.

Preventing it requires almost halving global CO2 emissions by 2030 from 2010 levels and cutting them to net-zero by 2050 -- an ambitious task that scientists, financiers, negotiators and activists at COP26 are debating how to achieve and pay for.

But what is the difference between 1.5°C and 2°C of warming? We asked several scientists to explain:

WHERE ARE WE NOW?

Already, the world has heated to around 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels. Each of the last four decades was hotter than any decade since 1850.

"We never had such a global warming in only a few decades", said climate scientist Daniela Jacob at the Climate Service Center Germany. "Half a degree means much more extreme weather, and it can be more often, more intense, or extended in duration."

Just this year, torrential rains flooded China and Western Europe, killing hundreds of people. Hundreds more died when temperatures in the Pacific Northwest hit record highs. Greenland saw massive melting events, wildfires ravaged the Mediterranean and Siberia, and record drought hit parts of Brazil.

"Climate change is already affecting every inhabited region across the globe," said climate scientist Rachel Warren at the University of East Anglia.

HEAT, RAIN, DROUGHT

More warming to 1.5°C and beyond will worsen such impacts.

"For every increment of global warming, changes in extremes become larger," said climate scientist Sonia Seneviratne at ETH Zurich.

For example, heatwaves would become both more frequent and more severe.

An extreme heat event that occurred once per decade in a climate without human influence, would happen 4.1 times a decade at 1.5°C of warming, and 5.6 times at 2°C, according to the U.N. climate science panel (IPCC).

Let warming spiral to 4°C, and such an event could occur 9.4 times per decade.

A warmer atmosphere can also hold more moisture, resulting in more extreme rainfall that raises flood risks. It also increases evaporation, leading to more intense droughts.

Click on chart to enlarge:

To further enlarge image, open image in new tab, press Ctrl +

ICE, SEAS, CORAL REEFS

The difference between 1.5°C and 2°C is critical for Earth's oceans and frozen regions.

"At 1.5°C, there’s a good chance we can prevent most of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheet from collapsing," said climate scientist Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University.

That would help limit sea level rise to a few feet by the end of the century - still a big change that would erode coastlines and inundate some small island states and coastal cities.

But blow past 2°C and the ice sheets could collapse, Mann said, with sea levels rising up to 10 metres (30 feet)- though how quickly that could happen is uncertain.

Warming of 1.5°C would destroy at least 70% of coral reefs, but at 2°C more than 99% would be lost. That would destroy fish habitats and communities that rely on reefs for their food and livelihoods.

FOOD, FORESTS, DISEASE

Warming of 2°C, versus 1.5°C, would also increase the impact on food production.

"If you have crop failures in a couple of the breadbaskets of the world at the same time, then you could see extreme food price spikes and hunger and famine across wide swathes of the world," said climate scientist Simon Lewis at University College London.

A warmer world could see the mosquitoes that carry diseases such as malaria and dengue fever expand across a wider range. But 2°C would also see a bigger share of insects and animals lose most of their habitat range, compared with 1.5°C, and increase the risk of forest fires - another risk to wildlife.

'TIPPING POINTS'

As the world heats up, the risk increases that the planet will reach "tipping points", where Earth’s systems cross a threshold that triggers irreversible or cascading impacts. Exactly when those points would be reached is uncertain.

Droughts, reduced rainfall, and continued destruction of the Amazon through deforestation, for example, could see the rainforest system collapse, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere rather than storing it. Or warming Arctic permafrost could cause long-frozen biomass to decompose, releasing vast amount of carbon emissions.

"That's why it's so risky to keep emitting from fossil fuels ... because we're increasing the likelihood that we go over one of those tipping points," Lewis said.

BEYOND 2°C

So far, the climate pledges that countries have submitted to the United Nations' registry of pledges put the world on track for 2.7°C of warming. The International Energy Agency said Thursday that new promises announced at the COP26 summit - if implemented - could hold warming to below 1.8°C, although some experts challenged that calculation. It remains to be seen whether those promises will translate into real-world action. read more

Warming of 2.7°C would deliver "unliveable heat" for parts of the year across areas of the tropics and subtropics. Biodiversity would be enormously depleted, food security would drop, and extreme weather would exceed most urban infrastructure's capacity to cope, scientists said.

"If we can keep warming below 3°C we likely remain within our adaptive capacity as a civilization, but at 2.7°C warming we would experience great hardship," said Mann.

https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/wh ... obal-en-GB

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

[Anthea]

Militaries evading emission cuts

A research project launched on Tuesday has criticised leading militaries for significantly under-reporting data on their contributions to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as delegations including Iraq continue to negotiate global targets for keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees during the second week of the COP26 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow

The collaborative Military Emissions Gap project by the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) and UK-based Lancaster and Durham universities has thrown the state of military GHG emissions open, publishing the world's biggest arms spenders and military emissions data reported to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and calling for greater action to reduce emissions.

In a highly contentious exclusion from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, militaries across the globe have been so far exempt from reporting emissions data and committing to targets to reduce GHG emissions - a matter that CEOBS have called on governments to address by committing to meaningful military emission cuts by COP27, supported by Human Rights Watch (HRW), citing the increasingly destructive impact of emissions on the lives, health, and livelihoods of people globally.

During the project’s launch at the COP26 “Arctic Basecamp” in Glasgow, United Kingdom, on Tuesday morning, panellists discussed the current flaws in military emissions reporting, stressed the importance of widening the scope of reporting to cover emissions created across the cycle of conflicts, and called on militaries across the globe to take action to address the destructive consequences of their supply chains: both during conflict, and in the aftermath.

The Pentagon has warned of the security risks the changing climate poses. Last week, NATO Secretary General and former climate envoy Jens Stoltenberg told an audience at COP26 that the world's armies must keep pace with global efforts to tackle climate change and cut their huge carbon footprints, recognising the considerable impact of the military on global emissions.

Scientists have estimated that militaries account for up to 5% of global emissions; more than civilian aviation. US military spending leads the world in terms of expenditure per capita, and research in 2019 showed that if the US military were a country, it would be the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.

According to data from a project at Brown University, since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the US military has emitted 1,212 million metric tons of GHG. Indeed, if the US military was a nation state in the Middle East, it would rank as the region's eighth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

The US military has been continuously involved with Iraq for over three decades, since Saddam Hussein launched his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Discussing the impact of emissions sources in conflict on Monday’s panel, CEOBS’ Eoghan Darbyshire made the staggering point that the 1991 Gulf War contributed to 2% of all global CO2 emissions that year, with the US burning 727 oil wells and destroying other infrastructure in the region.

A 2010 study found that the early years of the 2003 US invasion produced around 600 million tonnes of CO2 emissions; a statistic that may appear irrelevant compared to the direct cost of war, but nonetheless contributed to severe consequences on the country’s environment that remains today

In addition, Darbyshire told the audience that the post-conflict phase of military involvement often sees even greater emissions, with rapid surges caused by weak governance, outmoded infrastructure, the huge carbon cost of reconstruction, and a surge in deforestation as people turn to alternative methods for fuel and provisions - as well as deliberate tactic of war.

The Kurdistan Region’s Forest Police and Environment Directorate told Rudaw last May that over 4,000 dunams of land had been burned by Turkish bombardments in Duhok province since January; environmental degradation resulting from the Turkey-PKK conflict. Last week at COP26, Turkey joined more than a hundred countries in signing an agreement to combat deforestation, although it has continued to cut trees in Kurdish-populated areas at home and in the Kurdistan Region.

During the Islamic State (ISIS) war, environmental destruction was a deliberate tactic, with the group burning and destroying farms, pouring oil down wells, and setting fire to a chemical plant in Qayyara, southeast of Mosul, resulting in deaths and hundreds of respiratory issues. Amnesty International has reported on ISIS’ attack on Yezidi land in Sinjar, destroying farms and rendering areas uninhabitable; a legacy that prevents the return of many thousands of survivors today.

According to Darbyshire, the intensity of gas flaring dramatically increases during periods of conflict, with Syria, Libya, Yemen and Iraq responsible for 15% of all global flaring emissions. This summer, the Kurdistan Regional Government took steps to stop flaring associated gas, giving oil production companies in the Kurdistan Region 18 months to put a complete end to flaring.

As they scramble to increase pressure on COP26 delegates, charities have warned of widespread water crises in Iraq, and estimated that current climate policies could cause a 64% GDP hit to vulnerable countries. In a report published on Monday, Christian Aid estimated that even if the world limits heating to 1.5 degrees, countries on the front line of climate change - including Iraq - face reductions in GDP of -13.1% by 2050 and -33.1% by 2100. More obviously, when oil is “net-zeroed” out, many predict that middle eastern economies are set to collapse.

The European Union’s EEAS Climate Change and Defence Roadmap is a first - and limited - step towards integrating climate change into the defence actions of the EU, but the Military Emissions Gap hopes that greater visibility will increase public pressure on other military organisations, including the US. The team wants this latest data (or lack thereof) to increase transparency, accountability, and action. “What they do not count, we can’t see. And what we cannot see, they will not cut”, three academics involved in the project wrote on Tuesday.

https://www.rudaw.net/english/world/09112021

[Anthea]

Stronger carbon cutting needed

Countries are being urged to strengthen their carbon-cutting targets by the end of 2022 in a draft agreement published at the COP26 Glasgow climate summit

The document says vulnerable nations must get more help to cope with the deadly impacts of global warming.

It also says countries should submit long-term strategies for reaching net-zero by the end of next year.

Critics have said the draft pact does not go far enough but others welcomed its focus on the 1.5C target.

The document, which has been published by the UK COP26 presidency, will have to be negotiated and agreed by countries attending the talks.

The document may be just seven pages long but it attempts to steer COP26 towards a series of significant steps that will prevent global temperature rises going above 1.5C this century.

Perhaps the most important part of that is getting countries to improve their carbon cutting plans.

To that end this draft decision urges parties to "revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets in their nationally-determined contributions, as necessary to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022".

It will be interesting to see how countries such as China, India, Brazil and Saudi Arabia respond to this request to put new plans on the table by the end of next year.

There is some comfort for developing countries to see that their financial needs are recognised as countries are asked to mobilise climate finance "beyond $100bn a year" and the draft welcomes steps to put in place a much larger, though as yet unspecified, figure for support from 2025.

Loss and damage, an issue of key importance to the developing world, is included in the draft with encouragement to richer countries to scale up their action and support including finance for poorer nations.

The document also calls on countries to accelerate the phase out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels - but has no firm dates or targets on this issue. Campaigners will welcome the inclusion and will hope it survives into the final text.

Scientists have warned that keeping temperature rises to 1.5C - beyond which the worst impacts of climate change will be felt - requires global emissions to be cut by 45% by 2030 and to zero overall by mid-century.

The draft agreement proposes an annual high-level ministerial round table on pre-2030 ambition, beginning at next year's COP conference, likely to be in Egypt.

To further underline the importance of the 2030 target, it also asks UN secretary general Antonio Guterres to convene world leaders in 2023 to consider how efforts are shaping up.

David Waskow, from the World Resources Institute, said there would be opposition to the idea of coming back with new plans next year from a range of countries.

"On the question of the revisiting and strengthening of targets, there are certainly parties who have been pushing back, the Saudis and Russians have been quite clear on that, others have been less blunt," he said.

"The other countries who are pushing back are many of the vulnerable countries, who don't comprise that large percentage of global emissions often or have very limited resources to develop nationally-determined contributions and then to implement them."

'Cross our fingers and hope'

Loss and damage, an issue of key importance to the developing world, has been included in the draft with encouragement to richer countries to scale up their action and support, including finance for poorer nations.

But campaigners said these parts of the text were weak and were essentially a "box ticking exercise".

The document also calls on countries to accelerate the phasing out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels - but has no firm dates or targets on this issue.

"This draft deal is not a plan to solve the climate crisis, it's an agreement that we'll all cross our fingers and hope for the best," said Jennifer Morgan from Greenpeace International.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is returning to the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow later and will urge nations to "pull out all the stops" to limit warming.

Speaking ahead of his appearance, Mr Johnson said: "This is bigger than any one country and it is time for nations to put aside differences and come together for our planet and our people," he said.

"We need to pull out all the stops if we're going to keep 1.5C within our grasp."

Research published at the summit on Tuesday indicated the short-term plans put in place by countries would see a rise of 2.4C.

While about 140 nations have pledged to reach net zero emissions by around the middle of the century, scientists have said their short-term plans for 2030 are not strong enough to limit the rise in temperatures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59231477

[Anthea]

Cop26 too weak to stop disaster

World leaders will have to return to the negotiating table next year with improved plans to cut greenhouse gases because the proposed targets agreed at the Cop26 summit are too weak to prevent disastrous levels of global heating, the three architects of the Paris agreement have warned

Christiana Figueres, the former UN climate chief who oversaw the 2015 Paris summit, and Laurence Tubiana, the French diplomat who crafted the agreement, have told the Guardian the deadline is essential if the world is to avoid exceeding its 1.5C temperature limit. Laurent Fabius, the former French foreign minister who also oversaw Paris, added: “In the present circumstances [targets] must be enhanced next year.”

The last-ditch intervention by such senior figures, with the Glasgow talks reaching their final hours, reveals the heightened alarm among many experts over the chasm between carbon targets and the deep cuts necessary to limit temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

Current national plans – known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – would lead to 2.4C of heating, according to an influential analysis this week by Climate Action Tracker.

Countries are currently expected to return with better pledges in 2025, but many are now demanding the deadline should be brought forward. This is seen as the most closely fought area of disagreement as the UK hosts struggle to broker a deal.

“If that [five years] is the first time that countries are called to increase their ambitions, honestly that’s going to be too late,” said Figueres, founding partner of the Global Optimism thinktank.

“This is critically important. We need much more urgency, as this is the critical decade. We need to come back next year. We can’t wait five years for new NDCs.”

Figueres and Tubiana said forcing countries to return with improved targets next year was allowed under the legal provisions of the Paris agreement. The European Union and the UN secretary-general, António Guterres, have also intervened to support the proposal. Guterres told the conference last week: “Let’s have no illusions: if commitments fall short by the end of this Cop, countries must revisit their national climate plans and policies. Not every five years. Every year.”

Tubiana, now chief of the European Climate Foundation, said: “It’s really important that we come back next year, and in 2023. That must be central to any outcome in Glasgow. This is necessary to fulfil the Paris agreement.”

Since the Paris agreement was signed, binding countries to limit temperature rises “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels while “pursuing efforts” to a 1.5C limit, new science has shown that breaching the 1.5C threshold would lead to disastrous impacts, some irreversible, including the inundation of many low-lying areas. Heating has now reached 1.1C, and extreme weather is already taking hold around the world.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said emissions must be cut by 45% by 2030 to stay within 1.5C.

Figueres said the strengthened science means the five-yearly revisions – often called a “ratchet” – set out in the Paris agreement should be hastened. “The Paris agreement was deliberately written to continue to improve its provisions according to the best available science,” she added.

Tubiana also stressed that the spirit of the Paris agreement was based on climate science. “We must base decisions on the science,” said Tubiana. “That’s why we have the ratchet mechanism in the Paris agreement. We must agree to come back next year, as this gap [between NDCs and scientific advice] is a really big problem.”

Many other senior participants, observers and countries in the talks have also told the Guardian they back the call by Figueres and Tubiana.

Mary Robinson, chair of the Elders Group of senior statespeople, and previously a UN climate envoy, UN commissioner for human rights and president of Ireland, said: “They have to come back next year, that is needed to fulfil the terms of the Paris agreement. We need much more urgency, we need pressure. How can we say we are aligned with 1.5C if we don’t agree to come back?”

The question of when and how to revise NDCs is crucial because although the Glasgow talks will continue at least to the end of Friday, and probably well into this weekend, there is now no possibility that governments will toughen their NDCs at this summit. But a clause in the draft text that will form the main outcome of the talks would allow for a return next year to update and strengthen the targets.

The US also wants countries to have to come forward with stronger plans on a more frequent basis, but balks at the idea that all parties should have to revise their whole NDCs annually, as they can be complex documents involving multiple commitments across many government departments.

Xie Zhenhua, China’s head of delegation, said: “Whether the NDCs should be updated annually depends on what content is in it. Stable and long-term NDCS are more helpful for countries to carry out action to achieve targets.”

Xie also indicated that a “global stocktake” – a mechanism under the Paris agreement for countries to assess their NDCs in 2023 – might be a moment for revisions.

There may be room for compromise with the world’s two biggest emitters, who signed a surprise cooperative pact on Wednesday committing them to work together on emissions cuts in the next decade, in a major boost for the Cop26 summit.

A new draft outcome text is set to be drawn up by delegates in the early hours of Friday morning, and discussed ahead of the 6pm deadline for the talks to finish. However, previous Cop conferences have tended to go on well into Saturday and sometimes Sunday.

Other sticking points yet to be resolved in the draft text include climate finance for poor countries to help them cut carbon and cope with the impacts of extreme weather, and ways to help them with “loss and damage” – the ravages of extreme weather so severe that they cannot be prepared for or adapted to.

There are also question marks over how countries should monitor and report on their emissions, and controversial provisions for countries to use carbon trading or offsetting to help meet their emissions-cutting targets.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... architects

[Anthea]

COP26: Call for urgent action

A new draft agreement at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow has stepped up calls on governments to urgently tackle climate change

It asks countries to reveal their plans to massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a much faster speed than previously.

But it softens commitments to reduce use of coal and other fossil fuels.

It also asks countries to strengthen their support for poorer countries fighting climate change.

The deal must be agreed by all countries at the meeting.

Negotiations could go late into Friday or longer. The UN meeting is seen as crucial to limiting the worst effects of global warming.

On Friday the UN chief Antonio Guterres said COP26 would probably not achieve its aims and the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C is on "life support".

Scientists say that limiting warming to 1.5C compared to pre-industrial levels will protect us from the most dangerous impacts of climate change - it is a key part of the Paris agreement that most countries signed up to.

Meeting the goal requires global emissions to be cut by 45% by 2030 and to zero overall by 2050.

One example of the impact of global temperature rise above 2C is the death of virtually all coral reefs, scientists say.

The draft agreement - also called a "cover decision" - is the second version released this week. Governments and representatives have been negotiating details of the first draft published on Wednesday.

A key sticking point was climate finance - the money promised by richer countries to poorer countries to fight climate change. It is controversial because developed countries are responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions but developing countries see the worst effects of climate change.

Despite the promises made at COP26 so far, the planet is still heading for 2.4C of warming above pre-industrial levels, according to a report by Climate Action Tracker.
Media caption,

What has been agreed at COP26?

A series of agreements between groups of countries have been announced so far:

In a surprise announcement, the US and China agreed to work together this decade to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C

More than 100 world leaders promised to end and reverse deforestation by 2030, including Brazil, home to the Amazon rainforest

The US and the EU announced a global partnership to cut emissions of the greenhouse gas methane by 2030 - reducing methane in the atmosphere seen as one of the best ways to quickly reduce global warming

More than 40 countries committed to move away from coal - but the world's biggest users like China and the US did not sign up

Some new pots of money were announced to help developing countries adapt to climate change and deal with the damage and loss it brings - but many say it's not enough

A new alliance that commits countries to setting a date to ending oil and gas use - and halting granting new licences for exploration - was launched

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59221790

[Anthea]

Seven ways to curb climate change

The COP26 climate summit in Glasgow has been billed as a last chance to limit global warming to 1.5C. But beyond the deals and photo opportunities, what are the key things countries need to do in order to tackle climate change?

1. Keep fossil fuels in the ground

Burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and especially coal, releases carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, trapping heat and raising global temperatures.

It's an issue which has to be tackled at government level if temperature rises are to be limited to 1.5C - the level considered the gateway to dangerous climate change.

However, many major coal-dependent countries - such as Australia, the US, China and India - have declined to sign a deal at the summit aimed at phasing out the energy source in the coming decades.



2. Curb methane emissions

A recent UN report has suggested that reducing emissions of methane could make an important contribution to tackling the planetary emergency.

A substantial amount of methane is released from "flaring" - the burning of natural gas during oil extraction - and could be stopped with technical fixes. Finding better ways of disposing of rubbish is also important, because landfill sites are another big methane source.

At COP26, nearly 100 countries agreed to cut methane emissions, in a deal spearheaded by the US and the EU. The Global Methane Pledge aims to limit methane emissions by 30% compared with 2020 levels.



3. Switch to renewable energy

Electricity and heat generation make a greater contribution to global emissions than any economic sector.

Transforming the global energy system from one reliant on fossil fuels to one dominated by clean technology - known as decarbonisation - is critical for meeting current climate goals.

Wind and solar power will need to dominate the energy mix by 2050 if countries are to deliver on their net zero targets.

There are challenges, however.

Less wind means less electricity generated, but better battery technology could help us store surplus energy from renewables, ready to be released when needed.



4. Abandon petrol and diesel

We'll also need to change the way we power the vehicles we use to get around on land, sea and in the air.

Ditching petrol and diesel cars and switching to electric vehicles will be critical.

Lorries and buses could be powered by hydrogen fuel, ideally produced using renewable energy.

And scientists are working on new, cleaner fuels for aircraft, although campaigners are also urging people to reduce the number of flights they take.



5. Plant more trees

A UN report in 2018 said that, to have a realistic chance of keeping the global temperature rise under 1.5C, we'll have to remove CO2 from the air.

Forests are excellent at soaking it up from the atmosphere - one reason why campaigners and scientists emphasise the need to protect the natural world by reducing deforestation.

Programmes of mass tree-planting are seen as a way of offsetting CO2 emissions.

Trees are likely to be important as countries wrestle with their net zero targets, because once emissions have been reduced as much as possible, remaining emissions could be "cancelled out" by carbon sinks such as forests.



6. Remove greenhouse gases from the air

Emerging technologies that artificially remove CO2 from the atmosphere, or stop it being released in the first place, could play a role.

A number of direct-air capture facilities are being developed, including plants built by Carbon Engineering in Texas and Climeworks in Switzerland. They work by using huge fans to push air through a chemical filter that absorbs CO2.

Another method is carbon capture and storage, which captures emissions at "point sources" where they are produced, such as at coal-fired power plants. The CO2 is then buried deep underground.

However, the technology is expensive - and controversial, because it is seen by critics as helping perpetuate a reliance on fossil fuels.



7. Give financial aid to help poorer countries

At the Copenhagen COP summit in 2009, rich countries pledged to provide $100bn (£74.6bn) in financing by 2020, designed to help developing countries fight and adapt to climate change.

That target date has not been met, although the UK government, as holders of the COP presidency, recently outlined a plan for putting the funding in place by 2023.

Many coal-dependent countries are facing severe energy shortages that jeopardise their recovery from Covid and disproportionately affect the poor. These factors stop them moving away from polluting industries.

Some experts believe poorer nations will need continuing financial support to help them move towards greener energy. For instance, the US, EU and UK recently provided $8.5bn to help South Africa phase out coal use.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59205648

[Anthea]

COP26: Delegates walk out in protest

Hundreds of delegates have walked out of COP26 to join a protest outside the summit.

Activists took to the stage to express frustration at a lack of results from the UN conference on its final day.

Members of environmental groups and trade unions were among those who sang "power to the people" as they left the arena to join hundreds of protesters in the street outside the blue zone.

The summit was due to close at 18:00 but talks are continuing.

Climate talks went on through the night on Thursday and a new draft deal was produced on Friday morning.

COP26 President Alok Sharma called on countries for a "final injection of that can-do spirit" to get a deal in Glasgow over the line.

Nicola Sturgeon said on Friday evening that she was "cautiously optimistic" about the outcome and that there were signs a deal was "inching forward" in the right direction as negotiations moved beyond the deadline.

She told COP26 leaders "don't fail" and said she wanted negotiators to be able to "look the next generation in the eye" with an agreement that would increase global temperatures by no more than 1.5C and urged them not to leave until a good deal had been achieved.

The first minister said there had been "big concessions", including from the United States on adaptation funding for developing countries.

She told BBC Scotland the final agreement would depend on the political will, determination and leadership that is shown in the hours ahead.


Hundreds attended the protest in the streets outside the venue

The latest draft agreement has watered-down commitments to end the use of coal and other fossil fuels.

While the language around fossil fuels has been softened, the inclusion of the commitment in a final deal would be seen as a landmark moment.

Protests, however, have been taking place with campaigners claiming the summit is falling far short of what is required.

Following a "People's Plenary" session in one of the main halls organised by the Cop26 Coalition, activists from around the world marched through the venue with a group of indigenous activists leading the procession.

They carried banners and red ribbons to represent the red lines crossed by negotiators.

At a rally next to the COP26 venue, campaigners gathered for a street disco which turned sombre as speakers who came from inside the blue zone addressed the crowd.

One of the speakers, a 15-year-old from Chad, told how Lake Chad has dried up by 95% since the 1950s.

But despite being accredited for the summit the teenager said she has been excluded from key meetings.

She added: "No one is listening. No one is doing anything."

Another speaker alluded to the weather and praised those who have braved the wet conditions.

She told the audience: "I hope you leave drenched in hope."


Extinction Rebellion activist Sarah (left) said she believed that COP had failed

Sarah, 29, an Extinction Rebellion activist from Glasgow, was helping to hold up sign outside the UN blue zone which read: "A Giant COP Up".

She told the BBC: "We are here today because COP has failed.

"COP has essentially been a giant trade show in which the fossil fuel executives have a bigger presence than delegates from countries most affected by climate change.

"It has shown that leaders, such as our own government, are content to let people suffer and let people die rather than take the action that is required."

Sarah said solutions to the climate crisis lie outside the barricaded SEC and on the streets, where some of the most affected groups have gathered to make their voice heard.


Dr Caroline Palmer and husband Malcolm Redford

Dr Caroline Palmer and husband Malcolm Redford took a train from Lancashire to make their voices heard

The retired GP, 67, said: "I have got grandchildren and I feel very worried about what life is going to be like for them. It is our duty to do what we can to hold our government to account.

"They keep making promises but what we need is action. It's getting critical now."

Mr Redford, 68, wants to see an end to the extraction of fossil fuels and more affordable electric cars.

The former teacher said: "We need to make real choices to keep 1.5 alive otherwise we have lost."


Nayara Castiglioni Amaral is among the largest delegation of Brazilian activists to ever attend a COP

Nayara Castiglioni Amaral has been in Scotland for the last fortnight as part of a delegation from a Brazilian youth organisation.

Carrying a cardboard cut-out of the country's environment minister she expressed concern about the impact of her government's policy on indigenous communities.

The 29-year-old said: "We need more ambitious goals and we need to protect our tribal people as they take care of our environment."

Nayara said one of the highlights of her trip was last Saturday's march which organisers say attracted 100,000 people.

She added: "It was one of the biggest protests that we have ever seen and it was beautiful. It was really powerful to be there."


People had gathered since the morning at the Finnieston Street protest



Earlier on Friday, Oxfam staged a city centre photo-call featuring world leaders dressed as firefighters attempting to cool down a burning earth with cups of water.

A Norwegian activist attending the protest, Gustav Paulsen, said: "Norway's oil fund should be used as a lighthouse to show the rest of the world how to develop alternative methods for our energy. We have the money to do it."

And Ada Lopez, from Mexico, who dressed as a skeleton, said it was important an agreement was reached "because 2.4C is a straight line to doomsday".


Gustav Paulsen travelled from Norway to protest at COP26

Those represented at the rally included indigenous people, farmers, trade unions and environmental NGOs.

They joined young people staging a Fridays For Future Strike, one week on from the march which saw thousands walk from Kelvingrove Park to George Square.

It ended with a rally during which Swedish activist Greta Thunberg branded COP26 a "failure"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... t-59260776

[Anthea]

COP26: New global climate deal

A deal aimed at staving off dangerous climate change has been struck at the COP26 summit in Glasgow

The Glasgow Climate Pact is the first ever climate deal to explicitly plan to reduce coal, the worst fossil fuel for greenhouse gases.

The deal also presses for more urgent emission cuts and promises more money for developing countries - to help them adapt to climate impacts.

But the pledges don't go far enough to limit temperature rise to 1.5C

A commitment to phase out coal that was included in earlier negotiation drafts led to a dramatic finish after India and China led opposition to it.

India's climate minister Bhupender Yadav asked how developing countries could promise to phase out coal and fossil fuel subsidies when they "have still to deal with their development agendas and poverty eradication".

In the end, countries agreed to "phase down" rather than "phase out" coal, amid expressions of disappointment by some. COP26 President Alok Sharma said he was "deeply sorry" for how events had unfolded.

Click to enlarge chart:


UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he hoped the world would "look back on COP26 in Glasgow as the beginning of the end of climate change".

"There is still a huge amount more to do in the coming years. But today's agreement is a big step forward and, critically, we have the first ever international agreement to phase down coal and a roadmap to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees," he said.

Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the planet was "hanging by a thread". "We are still knocking on the door of climate catastrophe... it is time to go into emergency mode - or our chance of reaching net zero will itself be zero."

As part of the agreement, countries will meet next year to pledge further major carbon cuts with the aim of reaching the 1.5C goal. Current pledges, if fulfilled, will only limit global warming to about 2.4C.

If global temperatures rise by more than 1.5C, scientists say the Earth is likely to experience severe effects such as millions more people being exposed to extreme heat.

Main achievements of the deal:

Re-visiting emissions-cutting plans next year to try to keep 1.5C target reachable

The first ever inclusion of a commitment to limit coal use

Increased financial help for developing countries

"We would like to express our profound disappointment that the language we agreed on, on coal and fossil fuels subsidies, has been further watered down," Swiss environment minister Simonetta Sommaruga said. "This will not bring us closer to 1.5C, but make it more difficult to reach it."

Despite the weakening of language around coal, some observers will still see the deal as a victory, underlining that it is the first time coal is explicitly mentioned in UN documents of this type.

Coal is responsible for about 40% of annual CO2 emissions, making it central in efforts to keep within the 1.5C target. To meet this goal, agreed in Paris in 2015, global emissions need to be reduced by 45% by 2030 and to nearly zero by mid-century.

"They changed a word but they can't change the signal coming out of this COP - that the era of coal is ending," said Greenpeace international executive director Jennifer Morgan.

However, Lars Koch, a policy director for charity ActionAid, said it was disappointing that only coal was mentioned.

"This gives a free pass to the rich countries who have been extracting and polluting for over a century to continue producing oil and gas," he said.

Sara Shaw, from Friends of the Earth International, said the outcome was "nothing less than a scandal".

"Just saying the words 1.5 degrees is meaningless if there is nothing in the agreement to deliver it. COP26 will be remembered as a betrayal of global South countries," she said.

Finance was a contentious issue during the conference. A pledge by developed nations to provide $100bn (£75bn) per year to emerging economies, made in 2009, was supposed to have been delivered by 2020. However, the date was missed.

It was designed to help developing nations adapt to climate effects and make the transition to clean energy. In an effort to mollify delegates, Mr Sharma said around $500bn would be mobilised by 2025.

Scientists say extreme weather events, such as severe flooding, are becoming more frequent because of climate change

But poorer countries had been calling throughout the meeting for funding through the principle of loss and damage - the idea that richer countries should compensate poorer ones for climate change effects they are unable to adapt to.

This was one of the big disappointments of the conference for many delegations. Despite their dissatisfaction, several countries that stood to benefit backed the agreement on the basis that talks on loss and damage would continue.

Delegations pushing for greater progress on the issue included those from countries in Africa, such as Guinea and Kenya, as well as Latin American states, small island territories and nations in Asia such as the Philippines.

Lia Nicholson, delegate for Antigua and Barbuda, and speaking on behalf of small island states, said: "We recognise the presidency's efforts to try and create a space to find common ground. The final landing zone, however, is not even close to capturing what we had hoped."

Shauna Aminath, environment minister for the low-lying Maldives, said: "We have 98 months to halve global emissions. The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees is a death sentence for us."

Link to Article - Photos:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59277788

[Anthea]

Reuters Analysis:

COP26 message to business: clean up to cash in

Summary:

New Carbon market rules set to drive investments

1.5C target adds pressure for more net-zero plans

Scrutiny of fossil fuels could shake-up industries

GLASGOW, Nov 14 (Reuters) - The hard-fought Glasgow Climate Pact sent a clear message to global companies and executives: reassess business strategies and carbon footprints to reap monetary rewards, or lag and risk losses.

The deal announced late Saturday, ending two weeks of fraught negotiations between nearly 200 nations, pushes countries to do much more to curb climate-warming carbon emissions. That pressure will increasingly be imposed on investment and industry to bring emissions associated with their businesses in check.

The Glasgow pact also delivered a breakthrough on rules for governing carbon markets, and took aim at fossil fuel subsidies.

Beyond the political negotiations, the Glasgow gathering brought in many of the world’s top CEOs, mayors, and leaders in industries, including finance, construction, vehicles and aviation, agriculture, renewable energy and infrastructure.

"COP26 has unleashed a wall of new private sector money," said Gregory Barker, executive chairman at energy and aluminium company EN+ Group, by email. "For business everywhere, one thing is certain, big change is coming and coming fast."

Two separate investment conferences on the side of the U.N. climate summit touted profits to be made for those who meet environmental conditions for the cash. Many deals were announced, including plans for a standards body to scrutinise corporate climate disclosures that will challenge boardrooms. read more

GOAL OF 1.5 DEGREES

With the pact reaffirming a global commitment to containing global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit), along with "accelerated action in this critical decade," boards can expect tougher national pollution policies across all sectors, particularly in transport, energy and farming.

That will leave the companies without a plan to adapt to a low-carbon economy looking exposed, U.N. High-level Climate Action Champion Nigel Topping said.

"If you haven't got a net-zero target now, you're looking like you don't care about the next generation, and you're not paying attention to regulations coming down the pipe," Topping said. "Your credit rating's at risk, and your ability to attract and keep talent is at risk."

Adding to the pressure, financial services firms with around $130 trillion in assets have pledged to align their business with the net-zero goal. Increasingly, they will lean on the boards of corporate climate laggards.

CARBON MARKETS

The summit’s deal resolving rules for the global trading of carbon offset credits was applauded by business for its potential to unlock trillions of dollars in finance to help countries and companies manage the energy transition.

Observers said the agreed rules addressed the biggest worries and would likely prevent most abuses of the system.

The non-profit We Mean Business coalition, which works with corporates on climate, said the rules "have the potential to unleash huge investments".

By putting in place the framework for a global trading system, the pact also brings the world closer to having a worldwide price on carbon - demanded as a priority by investors and companies before the talks.

A global price would allow companies to more accurately assess the value of assets, as well as costly externalities - driving more climate-aligned decisions on anything from where to build factories to which companies to buy or products to launch.

With carbon offsets tied to efforts to preserve nature, more than 100 global leaders during the conference pledged to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. Companies and investors also said they would ramp up forest-protection efforts.

FOSSIL FUELS

For the first time, the deal saw countries acknowledge that fossil fuels were the main cause of climate change, and called for an end to "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies". It did not say how to determine if subsidies could be justified.

It singled out coal, the most polluting of the fossil fuels, though at the 11th hour switched from urging a "phase out" in coal-fired power to a "phase down".

The change in wording, following objections by India, China and other coal-dependent nations, was seen by developing economies as an acknowledgement that industrialised nations are mostly responsible for the climate problem. But many in wealthy economies worried it could mean years more of unbridled emissions as developing nations grow.

Calling the move "dangerous and damaging for the climate," Germany’s biggest industry association warned it could hobble its industries as they are forced to abandon the cheap fossil fuel international competitors can still use.

"This concentrates emissions in countries with less stringent climate measures and unilaterally wears on companies that already need to cope with large financial burdens," the Federation of German Industry said Sunday.

Still, the very mention of coal and fossil fuels in the Glasgow pact was hailed as progress in U.N. climate talks, which for decades have skirted the issue.

Saker Nusseibeh, chief executive of the international business of asset manager Federated Hermes said the result would put pressure on some oil companies that were "not as forthcoming as others".

He also said "coal companies will have to think very carefully about their future plans".

Meanwhile, the world's biggest economies are driving the shift.

The top two, the United States and China announced plans to cooperate on climate action, including bringing down emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane.

Elsewhere, six countries, including France, joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, committing to halting new oil and gas drilling.

Twenty countries including the United States and Canada pledged to halt public financing of fossil fuel projects overseas, and 23 nations promised to phase out coal-fired power.

A number of companies in sectors including transport are already betting big on increased electrification, with U.S. car makers Ford (F.N) and General Motors (GM.N) among those saying they will phase out fossil fuel vehicles by 2040. read more

The Glasgow talks have "drawn attention to the great opportunities arising from a different form of development – stronger, cleaner, more efficient, more resilient and more inclusive," said climate economist Nicholas Stern. The breakthroughs "seek to make clean and green production competitive in all these areas by 2030".

https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/co ... 021-11-14/

[Anthea]

Enormous Hole Whaling Left Behind

The mass slaughter of whales destroyed far more than the creatures themselves

In the 20th century, the largest animals that have ever existed almost stopped existing. Baleen whales—the group that includes blue, fin, and humpback whales—had long been hunted, but as whaling went industrial, hunts became massacres.

With explosive-tipped harpoons that were fired from cannons and factory ships that could process carcasses at sea, whalers slaughtered the giants for their oil, which was used to light lamps, lubricate cars, and make margarine.

In just six decades, roughly the life span of a blue whale, humans took the blue-whale population down from 360,000 to just 1,000. In one century, whalers killed at least 2 million baleen whales, which together weighed twice as much as all the wild mammals on Earth today

All those missing whales left behind an enormous amount of uneaten food. In a new study, the Stanford ecologist Matthew Savoca and his colleagues have, for the first time, accurately estimated just how much. They calculated that before industrial whaling, these creatures would have consumed about 430 million metric tons of krill—small, shrimplike animals—every year. That’s twice as much as all the krill that now exist, and twice as much by weight as all the fish that today’s fisheries catch annually.

But whales, despite their astronomical appetite, didn’t deplete the oceans in the way that humans now do. Their iron-rich poop acted like manure, fertilizing otherwise impoverished waters and seeding the base of the rich food webs that they then gorged upon.

When the whales were killed, those food webs collapsed, turning seas that were once rain forest–like in their richness into marine deserts

But this tragic tale doesn’t have to be “another depressing retrospective,” Savoca told me. Those pre-whaling ecosystems are “still there—degraded, but still there.” And his team’s study points to a possible way of restoring them—by repurposing a controversial plan to reverse climate change.

Baleen whales are elusive, often foraging well below the ocean’s surface. They are also elastic: When a blue whale lunges at krill, its mouth can swell to engulf a volume of water larger than its own body. For these reasons, scientists have struggled to work out how much these creatures eat. In the past, researchers either examined the stomachs of beached whales or extrapolated upward from much smaller animals, such as mice and dolphins.

New technologies developed over the past decade have provided better data. Drones can photograph feeding whales, allowing researchers to size up their ballooning mouths. Echo sounders can use sonar to gauge the size of krill swarms. And suction-cup-affixed tags that come with accelerometers, GPS, and cameras can track whales deep underwater—“I think of them as whale iPhones,” Savoca said.

Using these devices, he and his colleagues calculated that baleen whales eat three times more than researchers had previously thought. They fast for two-thirds of the year, subsisting on their huge stores of blubber. But on the 100 or so days when they do eat, they are incredibly efficient about it. Every feeding day, these animals can snarf down 5 to 30 percent of their already titanic body weight. A blue whale might gulp down 16 metric tons of krill.

Surely, then, the mass slaughter of whales must have created a paradise for their prey? After industrial-era whalers killed off these giants, about 380 million metric tons of krill would have gone uneaten every year. In the 1970s, many scientists assumed that the former whaling grounds would become a krilltopia, but instead, later studies showed that krill numbers had plummeted by more than 80 percent.

The explanation for this paradox involves iron, a mineral that all living things need in small amounts. The north Atlantic Ocean gets iron from dust that blows over from the Sahara. But in the Southern Ocean, where ice cloaks the land, iron is scarcer. Much of it is locked inside the bodies of krill and other animals. Whales unlock that iron when they eat, and release it when they poop. The defecated iron then stimulates the growth of tiny phytoplankton, which in turn feed the krill, which in turn feed the whales, and so on.

Just as many large mammals are known to do on land, the whales engineer the same ecosystems upon which they depend. They don’t just eat krill; they also create the conditions that allow krill to thrive. They do this so well that even in the pre-whaling era their huge appetites barely dented the lush wonderlands that they seeded. Back then, krill used to swarm so densely that they reddened the surface of the Southern Ocean.

Whales feasted so intensely that sailors would spot their water spouts punching upward in every direction, as far as the eye could see. With the advent of industrial whaling, those ecosystems imploded. Savoca’s team estimates that the deaths of a few million whales deprived the oceans of hundreds of millions of metric tons of poop, about 12,000 metric tons of iron, and a lot of plankton, krill, and fish.

Whaling proponents sometimes argue that whales’ gargantuan appetites threaten the food security of coastal nations, dismissing modeling studies that disprove this idea, according to Leah Gerber, a marine-conservation biologist at Arizona State University who wasn’t involved in the new study. By contrast, the empirical results from Savoca’s study “will be hard to refute,” Gerber told me.

The new study, says Kelly Benoit-Bird, a marine biologist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, in California, is an important reminder of how “exploited species are part of a complex web, with many effects cascading from our actions.” Killing a whale leaves a hole in the ocean that’s far bigger than the creature itself.

There are more whales now than there were even a few years ago—in early 2020, scientists rejoiced when they spotted 58 blue whales in sub-Antarctic waters where mere handfuls of the animals had been seen in years prior. But that number is still depressingly low. “You can’t bring back the whales until you bring back their food,” Savoca said. And he thinks he knows how to do that.

In 1990, the oceanographer John Martin proposed that the Southern Ocean is starved of iron, and that deliberately seeding its waters with the nutrient would allow phytoplankton to grow. The blooming plankton would soak up carbon dioxide, Martin argued, and cool the planet and slow the pace of global warming. Researchers have since tested this idea in 13 experiments, adding iron to small stretches of the Southern and Pacific Oceans and showing that plankton do indeed flourish in response.

Such iron-fertilization experiments have typically been billed as acts of geoengineering—deliberate attempts to alter Earth’s climate. But Savoca and his colleagues think that the same approach could be used for conservation. Adding iron to waters where krill and whales still exist could push the sputtering food cycle into higher gear, making it possible for whales to rebound at numbers closer to their historical highs.

“We’d be re-wilding a barren land by plowing in compost, and the whole system would recuperate,” says Victor Smetacek, an oceanographer at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, in Germany. (Smetacek was involved in three past iron-fertilization experiments and has been in talks with Savoca’s group.)

The team plans to propose a small and carefully controlled experiment to test the effects of iron fertilization on the whales’ food webs. The mere idea of that “is going to be shocking to some people,” Savoca admitted. Scientists and advocacy groups alike have fiercely opposed past iron-addition experiments, over concerns that for-profit companies would patent and commercialize the technology and that the extra iron would trigger blooms of toxic algae.

But with Savoca’s new estimates, “we now have a much better idea of exactly the quantity of iron that whales were recycling in the system and how much to add back so we don’t get bad effects,” he said. His goal isn’t to do something strange and unnatural but to effectively act as a surrogate defecator, briefly playing the role that whales did before they were hunted to near extinction. These creatures would still face many challenges—ship strikes, noise pollution, entangling fishing gear, pollutants—but at least food supplies would tilt in their favor.

Whaling almost destroyed a thriving food web, “but in the sliver we have left, I see a lot of hope,” Savoca said. He’s not talking about restoring long-lost ecosystems, such as those that disappeared when mammoths and other land-based megafauna went extinct tens of thousands of years ago. “This is a system that was alive and well when our grandparents were alive,” he said. “And we want to bring it back.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... obal-en-GB