EU leaders poised for clash over climate targets
In this newsletter:
1) Green Deal in doubt as EU's existential crisis deepens
Associated Press, 4 December 2020
2) EU leaders poised for clash over climate targets
Bloomberg, 3 November 2020
3) France sees EU-US push for carbon border tax under Biden
Financial Times, 3 December 2020
Financial Times, 3 December 2020
4) David Whitehouse: Another warm El Nino year
GWPF Observatory, 3 December 2020
5) Study reveals IPCC’s worst-case climate scenarios are already off-track
University of Colorado at Boulder, 30 November 2020
University of Colorado at Boulder, 30 November 2020
6) The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
Roger Pielke Jr. 30 November 2020
7) Britain's 'green industrial revolution' gets off to a bad start as renewables manufacturing company goes belly up
The Daily Telegraph, 3 December 2020
Roger Pielke Jr. 30 November 2020
7) Britain's 'green industrial revolution' gets off to a bad start as renewables manufacturing company goes belly up
The Daily Telegraph, 3 December 2020
8) UN agency hit with corruption allegations at climate projects
Financial Times, 30 November 2020
Financial Times, 30 November 2020
9) Joanna Williams: Prince Harry should dial down his eco-alarmism
The Spectator, 2 December 2020
10) GWPF/ AEF Webinar: Reforming Environmental Science
The Global Warming Policy Forum & Australian Environment Foundation, 3 December 2020
The Spectator, 2 December 2020
10) GWPF/ AEF Webinar: Reforming Environmental Science
The Global Warming Policy Forum & Australian Environment Foundation, 3 December 2020
Full details:
1) Green Deal in doubt as EU's existential crisis deepens
Associated Press, 4 December 2020
WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Polish government officials insisted on Friday that they are sticking to their tough negotiating position ahead of a key European Union summit next week that should finalize the bloc's next seven-year budget and a major pandemic recovery package.
Poland and Hungary have threatened to veto the 1.8 trillion euros ($2.1 trillion) budget because other EU countries have insisted on a new mechanism that would link funding to respecting democratic standards.
Both Poland and Hungary have conservative governments that have been at odds over rule-of-law standards with other members of the 27-member union for years.
A deputy prime minister, Jaroslaw Gowin, was in Brussels on Thursday, and according to some reports suggested during a news conference there that Poland was willing to compromise, words that some understood as Poland softening its position.
Deputy Foreign Minister Pawel Jablonski said Friday that Gowin was misunderstood, and that Warsaw's position has not softened.
Jablonski told The Associated Press that Poland's position remains as it has been from the beginning, which is that “we are ready to talk, we are ready to come to a compromise, but that there are some red lines” that Poland would not abandon.
“I think maybe he (Gowin) wasn’t precise enough with what he was saying but our position has not changed at all,” Jablonski said.
Government spokesman Piotr Mueller also tweeted that “Poland maintains its position in its entirety with regard to the regulation which determines the spending of EU funds.”
Support has grown within the 27-member bloc to find a way to put pressure on the governments of Poland and Hungary, which other countries accuse of violating fundamental democratic standards. Both countries insist they are unfairly accused and say they are being punished for their conservative values.
Full story
2) EU leaders poised for clash over climate targets
Bloomberg, 3 November 2020
A brewing spat over the European Union’s plan to tighten its 2030 climate goal is adding to a list of conflicts that the region’s leaders will have to deal with at a meeting next week, threatening to delay the start of an unprecedented green overhaul.
Old fault lines between eastern and western member states are resurfacing over the costs of an ambitious economic clean-up just as Poland and Hungary threaten to veto the bloc’s budget and a recovery fund. EU leaders will tackle these and other issues at a summit in Brussels Dec. 10-11.
At the heart of the climate conflict is the effort to deepen the EU emissions-reduction target to at least 55% by the end of the next decade from 1990 levels, a key element of the European Green Deal. Raising the ambition from the existing goal of 40% would need an additional 350 billion euros ($424 billion) per year for investment in energy production and infrastructure.
That’s a burden that risks falling disproportionately on the shoulders of coal-dependent and poorer nations, according to Poland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. Those countries are seeking changes to a draft statement by EU leaders that would ensure more financing for the region.
“Adequate financial compensatory mechanisms corresponding to the needs, as well as a just balance among member states of the efforts and opportunities linked to the transition could encourage our country and make the extremely swift steps towards emission reduction feasible for us,” Bulgaria said in a document sent to other EU nations and seen by Bloomberg News.
A potential delay in adopting the climate target could push prices in the EU carbon market lower and keep businesses from gaining clarity as they prepare for the landmark environmental clean-up. It could also shake trust in Europe’s ability to realize major initiatives, and have knock-on effects on secondary legislation planned in coming months in areas ranging from transportation to energy production.
At risk could also be the EU credibility as the leader of the global fight against climate change, a group of nine countries including Denmark, Spain, Finland and Ireland said in a document seen by Bloomberg News. Under the Green Deal, Europe wants to be the world’s first climate-neutral continent by 2050, a goal already endorsed by the heads of government.
Once they approve the intermediate 2030 objective, the EU plans to submit it as the region’s new contribution to the Paris Agreement. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres earlier this month urged the bloc to do so before an international climate summit co-hosted by the UN, U.K. and France on Dec. 12.
“It is important that the target is at least 55%,” said the group of countries also including Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden.
The biggest sticking point is defining how to reach a stricter target.
Full story
4) David Whitehouse: Another warm El Nino year
GWPF Observatory, 3 December 2020
Dr David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor
2020 is gearing up to be another warm year, strongly affected by natural and regional weather events
It’s that time of the year again when some meteorological organisations predict what the average global temperature might be for the full, current year. Not that we have all the data for 2020, obviously, for most global temperature datasets haven’t even processed November’s data yet. Making a prediction with only just over 80% of the data available is a risky procedure and most sensible scientists would be very circumspect about doing so. But these premature annual announcements are done for political purposes and, in a typical year, always as a precursor to a UN climate conference.
2020 has been a warm year, one of the warmest – and warm years make many people throw caution to the wind, making claims based on select facts they like, ignoring the ones they don’t like.Let’s go back a few years to the early part of this decade when global temperature had been stagnating for more than ten years and not increasing significantly, as many had predicted. But then came 2014-15 when they started rising again, peaking in 2016. Many voices proclaimed that this was evidence that global temperatures were now accelerating ‘out of control’, something their models had been predicting all along. The climate was making up for all the unchanging years of the so-called global warming hiatus, it was claimed.
Never mind that the sudden rise between 2015 and 2016 was occurring much faster than could be due to greenhouse forcing alone.
Associated Press, 4 December 2020
WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Polish government officials insisted on Friday that they are sticking to their tough negotiating position ahead of a key European Union summit next week that should finalize the bloc's next seven-year budget and a major pandemic recovery package.
Poland and Hungary have threatened to veto the 1.8 trillion euros ($2.1 trillion) budget because other EU countries have insisted on a new mechanism that would link funding to respecting democratic standards.
Both Poland and Hungary have conservative governments that have been at odds over rule-of-law standards with other members of the 27-member union for years.
A deputy prime minister, Jaroslaw Gowin, was in Brussels on Thursday, and according to some reports suggested during a news conference there that Poland was willing to compromise, words that some understood as Poland softening its position.
Deputy Foreign Minister Pawel Jablonski said Friday that Gowin was misunderstood, and that Warsaw's position has not softened.
Jablonski told The Associated Press that Poland's position remains as it has been from the beginning, which is that “we are ready to talk, we are ready to come to a compromise, but that there are some red lines” that Poland would not abandon.
“I think maybe he (Gowin) wasn’t precise enough with what he was saying but our position has not changed at all,” Jablonski said.
Government spokesman Piotr Mueller also tweeted that “Poland maintains its position in its entirety with regard to the regulation which determines the spending of EU funds.”
Support has grown within the 27-member bloc to find a way to put pressure on the governments of Poland and Hungary, which other countries accuse of violating fundamental democratic standards. Both countries insist they are unfairly accused and say they are being punished for their conservative values.
Full story
2) EU leaders poised for clash over climate targets
Bloomberg, 3 November 2020
A brewing spat over the European Union’s plan to tighten its 2030 climate goal is adding to a list of conflicts that the region’s leaders will have to deal with at a meeting next week, threatening to delay the start of an unprecedented green overhaul.
Old fault lines between eastern and western member states are resurfacing over the costs of an ambitious economic clean-up just as Poland and Hungary threaten to veto the bloc’s budget and a recovery fund. EU leaders will tackle these and other issues at a summit in Brussels Dec. 10-11.
At the heart of the climate conflict is the effort to deepen the EU emissions-reduction target to at least 55% by the end of the next decade from 1990 levels, a key element of the European Green Deal. Raising the ambition from the existing goal of 40% would need an additional 350 billion euros ($424 billion) per year for investment in energy production and infrastructure.
That’s a burden that risks falling disproportionately on the shoulders of coal-dependent and poorer nations, according to Poland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. Those countries are seeking changes to a draft statement by EU leaders that would ensure more financing for the region.
“Adequate financial compensatory mechanisms corresponding to the needs, as well as a just balance among member states of the efforts and opportunities linked to the transition could encourage our country and make the extremely swift steps towards emission reduction feasible for us,” Bulgaria said in a document sent to other EU nations and seen by Bloomberg News.
A potential delay in adopting the climate target could push prices in the EU carbon market lower and keep businesses from gaining clarity as they prepare for the landmark environmental clean-up. It could also shake trust in Europe’s ability to realize major initiatives, and have knock-on effects on secondary legislation planned in coming months in areas ranging from transportation to energy production.
At risk could also be the EU credibility as the leader of the global fight against climate change, a group of nine countries including Denmark, Spain, Finland and Ireland said in a document seen by Bloomberg News. Under the Green Deal, Europe wants to be the world’s first climate-neutral continent by 2050, a goal already endorsed by the heads of government.
Once they approve the intermediate 2030 objective, the EU plans to submit it as the region’s new contribution to the Paris Agreement. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres earlier this month urged the bloc to do so before an international climate summit co-hosted by the UN, U.K. and France on Dec. 12.
“It is important that the target is at least 55%,” said the group of countries also including Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden.
The biggest sticking point is defining how to reach a stricter target.
Full story
3) France sees EU-US push for carbon border tax under Biden
Financial Times, 3 December 2020
Joe Biden’s arrival in the White House in January will give the EU and the US the chance to push for international carbon taxes and face down opposition to the idea from China, according to French environment minister Barbara Pompili.
Outlining France’s ambitious plans for joint action to limit global warming now that Donald Trump is on his way out, Ms Pompili welcomed Mr Biden’s promise to rejoin the Paris accord and contrasted the difficulty of tackling the climate crisis with solutions for the Covid-19 pandemic.
“Unfortunately, there’s no vaccine for the climate,” she told the Financial Times in an interview.
Both Mr Biden and French president Emmanuel Macron — who once urged Americans to “make our planet great again” in an ironic allusion to Mr Trump’s election slogan — regard persuading China to fulfil its climate promises as crucial to limit global warming.
Ms Pompili said of Mr Biden’s pronouncements on carbon pricing and border adjustment mechanisms: “This is an area where we’ll be able to work together, since we are pushing it at the European level and in dealings with countries such as China, which make a certain number of pledges, but don’t want to commit themselves to this type of mechanism.”
She said there should be a “green level playing field” so that “the efforts we demand of our businesses to lower their carbon emissions and change their practices are not all thwarted by campaigns from countries like China that would make our efforts pointless”.
A co-ordinated push on carbon pricing and carbon taxes — which involve setting limits on emissions by countries or industries and trading quotas or taxing the excess — would mark a dramatic shift in the US-EU relationship over climate change.
In January, the Trump administration threatened the EU with possible sanctions over plans for a carbon tax in European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s “green new deal” programme.
France is pushing for the EU to adopt a carbon frontier tax so that European industries are not undercut by competitors exporting cheaper products based on low-cost, high-carbon inputs such as energy that are not tightly regulated in their own markets. Ms Pompili said it would be “very ambitious” to expect an EU deal next year, but France would make it a priority when it takes over the EU presidency in the first half of 2022.
France’s push to impose a carbon tax has a striking echo in Mr Biden’s own climate plan. The president-elect has said he will “stop China from subsidising coal exports and outsourcing carbon pollution” and “will impose carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations”.
China in September pledged to become “carbon neutral” by 2060, while Mr Biden wants the US to get there by 2050. Research group Climate Action Tracker has calculated in a report this month that these and other pledges would help limit global warming to 2.1C by 2100, above the Paris agreement’s 1.5C target but a better outcome than previously feared.
However, the improvement will depend on countries implementing sometimes drastic policy changes to deliver on their promises. China continues to rely on highly polluting fossil fuels to drive its industrial recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, and this year the number of proposed new coal plants in the country has risen at the fastest rate in five years.
Full story (£)
Financial Times, 3 December 2020
Joe Biden’s arrival in the White House in January will give the EU and the US the chance to push for international carbon taxes and face down opposition to the idea from China, according to French environment minister Barbara Pompili.
Outlining France’s ambitious plans for joint action to limit global warming now that Donald Trump is on his way out, Ms Pompili welcomed Mr Biden’s promise to rejoin the Paris accord and contrasted the difficulty of tackling the climate crisis with solutions for the Covid-19 pandemic.
“Unfortunately, there’s no vaccine for the climate,” she told the Financial Times in an interview.
Both Mr Biden and French president Emmanuel Macron — who once urged Americans to “make our planet great again” in an ironic allusion to Mr Trump’s election slogan — regard persuading China to fulfil its climate promises as crucial to limit global warming.
Ms Pompili said of Mr Biden’s pronouncements on carbon pricing and border adjustment mechanisms: “This is an area where we’ll be able to work together, since we are pushing it at the European level and in dealings with countries such as China, which make a certain number of pledges, but don’t want to commit themselves to this type of mechanism.”
She said there should be a “green level playing field” so that “the efforts we demand of our businesses to lower their carbon emissions and change their practices are not all thwarted by campaigns from countries like China that would make our efforts pointless”.
A co-ordinated push on carbon pricing and carbon taxes — which involve setting limits on emissions by countries or industries and trading quotas or taxing the excess — would mark a dramatic shift in the US-EU relationship over climate change.
In January, the Trump administration threatened the EU with possible sanctions over plans for a carbon tax in European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s “green new deal” programme.
France is pushing for the EU to adopt a carbon frontier tax so that European industries are not undercut by competitors exporting cheaper products based on low-cost, high-carbon inputs such as energy that are not tightly regulated in their own markets. Ms Pompili said it would be “very ambitious” to expect an EU deal next year, but France would make it a priority when it takes over the EU presidency in the first half of 2022.
France’s push to impose a carbon tax has a striking echo in Mr Biden’s own climate plan. The president-elect has said he will “stop China from subsidising coal exports and outsourcing carbon pollution” and “will impose carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations”.
China in September pledged to become “carbon neutral” by 2060, while Mr Biden wants the US to get there by 2050. Research group Climate Action Tracker has calculated in a report this month that these and other pledges would help limit global warming to 2.1C by 2100, above the Paris agreement’s 1.5C target but a better outcome than previously feared.
However, the improvement will depend on countries implementing sometimes drastic policy changes to deliver on their promises. China continues to rely on highly polluting fossil fuels to drive its industrial recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, and this year the number of proposed new coal plants in the country has risen at the fastest rate in five years.
Full story (£)
GWPF Observatory, 3 December 2020
Dr David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor
2020 is gearing up to be another warm year, strongly affected by natural and regional weather events
It’s that time of the year again when some meteorological organisations predict what the average global temperature might be for the full, current year. Not that we have all the data for 2020, obviously, for most global temperature datasets haven’t even processed November’s data yet. Making a prediction with only just over 80% of the data available is a risky procedure and most sensible scientists would be very circumspect about doing so. But these premature annual announcements are done for political purposes and, in a typical year, always as a precursor to a UN climate conference.
2020 has been a warm year, one of the warmest – and warm years make many people throw caution to the wind, making claims based on select facts they like, ignoring the ones they don’t like.Let’s go back a few years to the early part of this decade when global temperature had been stagnating for more than ten years and not increasing significantly, as many had predicted. But then came 2014-15 when they started rising again, peaking in 2016. Many voices proclaimed that this was evidence that global temperatures were now accelerating ‘out of control’, something their models had been predicting all along. The climate was making up for all the unchanging years of the so-called global warming hiatus, it was claimed.
Never mind that the sudden rise between 2015 and 2016 was occurring much faster than could be due to greenhouse forcing alone.
However, it was not a coincidence that 2016 experienced a record El Nino. For some commentators, however, an El Nino is a finite event. According to its definition – a specific temperature increase in a certain region of the Pacific – an El Nino is either on or off. Hence, they said that subsequent warm years after 2016 were warm due to greenhouse forcing, not El Nino. They argued that average global temperature since then was not influenced by any El Nino warming.
But that’s clearly not the case. The build-up in temperatures before recent El Ninos is obviously not independent of its peak and neither is the decline afterwards, else why did that increase not continue after the El Nino’s ‘interruption.’ So, a year can still be showing the warming influence of previous El Nino conditions whilst not having an El Nino event, something many journalists and even the General Secretary of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), Prof Taalas, prefer to ignore.
"Record warm years have usually coincided with a strong El Niño event, as was the case in 2016. We are now experiencing a La Niña, which has a cooling effect on global temperatures, but has not been sufficient to put a brake on this year’s heat. Despite the current La Niña conditions, this year has already shown near record heat comparable to the previous record of 2016,” said Prof. Taalas.
Now take a look at global temperatures of 2020 and the past decade in general.
Looking at the monthly and quarterly data shows that quite a number of months earlier this year were affected by El Nino conditions, very different from what Prof. Taalas insinuated.
For reference here are the El Nino/La Nina years. Cold & warm episodes by season; NOAA Climate Prediction Center
Another point to consider is the distortion caused by averaging regional temperature events to draw a global picture. The BBC said that the most notable warmth this year was recorded in the Siberian Arctic, where average temperatures were 5C above average. Indeed, if you look at the graph accompanying the WMO’s press release you will immediately see that most of the warm temperature anomalies this year occurred in the Siberian Arctic – while the rest of the world has seen comparatively little change from previous years.
Another point to consider is the distortion caused by averaging regional temperature events to draw a global picture. The BBC said that the most notable warmth this year was recorded in the Siberian Arctic, where average temperatures were 5C above average. Indeed, if you look at the graph accompanying the WMO’s press release you will immediately see that most of the warm temperature anomalies this year occurred in the Siberian Arctic – while the rest of the world has seen comparatively little change from previous years.
Global map of temperature anomalies relative to the 1981-2010 long-term average from the ERA5 reanalysis for January to October 2020. Graphic: Copernicus Climate Change Service / ECMWF
This means we will have to wait several more years before being able to assess global temperature trends outside significant natural weather events. But this won’t be easy because we are currently witnessing the start of a La Nino – the opposite of El Nino – and thus the prospect of temperature stagnating or even a drop in temperatures. A strong La Nina, such as the one in 2007, could numerically depress years of global warming.
The conclusion is that whenever climate scientists or journalists talk about a very warm year that is evidently influenced by El Nino warming it is not so much about global warming, but more about significant natural as well as regional weather events that are making a big difference.
Feedback: David.whitehouse@thegwpf.com
5) Study reveals IPCC’s worst-case climate scenarios are already off-track
University of Colorado at Boulder, 30 November 2020
This new research adds to a growing literature that argues that economic growth and energy use are currently over-projected for this century.
Under the worst-case scenarios laid out in the United Nations’ climate change projections, global temperatures could increase as much as 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (more than 4 degrees Celsius) by 2100, leading to as much as 3 feet (0.98 meters) in global sea level rise and an array of disastrous consequences for people and planet. But new research from CU Boulder finds that these high-emissions scenarios, used as baseline projections in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global assessments, have not accurately reflected the slowing rate of growth in the global economy and we are unlikely to catch up to them anytime soon.
The new study, published today in Environmental Research Letters, is the most rigorous evaluation of how projected climate scenarios established by the IPCC have evolved since they were established in 2005.
The good news: Emissions are not growing nearly as fast as IPCC assessments have indicated, according to the study’s authors. The bad news: The IPCC is not using the most accurate and up-to-date climate scenarios in its planning and policy recommendations.
“If we’re making policy based on anticipating future possibilities, then we should be using the most realistic scenarios possible,” said Matt Burgess, lead author on the study and a fellow at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at CU Boulder. “We’ll have better policies as a result.”
The IPCC was established in 1988 and provides policymakers around the globe with regular research-based assessments on the current and projected impacts of climate change. Its reports, the sixth of which is due out in 2022, play an instrumental role in shaping global climate policy.
To see if IPCC scenarios are on track, the researchers compared projections from the latest report, published in 2014, and data used to prepare the upcoming report, to data gathered from 2005 to 2017 on country-level gross domestic product (GDP), fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions, likely energy use and population trends during this century.
Burgess and his co-authors show that even before the pandemic, due to slower-than-projected per-capita GDP growth, as well a declining global use of coal, these high-emissions scenarios were already well off-track in 2020, and look likely to continue to diverge from reality over the coming decades and beyond. The COVID-19 pandemic’s dampening effect on the global economy only accentuates their findings, they said.
As a result, they contend that these high-emissions scenarios should not be used as the baseline scenarios in global climate assessments, which aim to represent where the world is headed without additional climate mitigation policy.
When it comes to climate change scenarios, some scientists and climate experts fear that economic growth will be higher than the projected scenarios, and we’ll be taken by surprise by climate changes. But that is unlikely to happen, according to Burgess, assistant professor in environmental studies and faculty affiliate in economics.
This new research adds to a growing literature that argues that economic growth and energy use are currently over-projected for this century. The research also points out that the high-emissions scenarios used by the IPCC don’t fully account for economic damages from climate change.
The researchers recommend that these policy-relevant scenarios should be frequently recalibrated to reflect economic crashes, technological discoveries, or other real-time changes in society and Earth’s climate. Anticipating the future is difficult and updates are to be expected, according to Roger Pielke Jr., co-author on the paper and professor of environmental studies.
Their study does not mean that people can let their guard down when it comes to addressing climate change, the authors stress. No matter the scenario, the only way to get to net zero emissions as a society is to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions from our energy sources.
“We’re still affecting the climate and the challenge of reducing emissions is as hard as ever,” said Pielke Jr. “Just because it’s not the worst-case scenario doesn’t mean that the problem goes away.”
The full study is available online at Environmental Research Letters.
University of Colorado at Boulder, 30 November 2020
This new research adds to a growing literature that argues that economic growth and energy use are currently over-projected for this century.
Under the worst-case scenarios laid out in the United Nations’ climate change projections, global temperatures could increase as much as 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (more than 4 degrees Celsius) by 2100, leading to as much as 3 feet (0.98 meters) in global sea level rise and an array of disastrous consequences for people and planet. But new research from CU Boulder finds that these high-emissions scenarios, used as baseline projections in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global assessments, have not accurately reflected the slowing rate of growth in the global economy and we are unlikely to catch up to them anytime soon.
The new study, published today in Environmental Research Letters, is the most rigorous evaluation of how projected climate scenarios established by the IPCC have evolved since they were established in 2005.
The good news: Emissions are not growing nearly as fast as IPCC assessments have indicated, according to the study’s authors. The bad news: The IPCC is not using the most accurate and up-to-date climate scenarios in its planning and policy recommendations.
“If we’re making policy based on anticipating future possibilities, then we should be using the most realistic scenarios possible,” said Matt Burgess, lead author on the study and a fellow at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at CU Boulder. “We’ll have better policies as a result.”
The IPCC was established in 1988 and provides policymakers around the globe with regular research-based assessments on the current and projected impacts of climate change. Its reports, the sixth of which is due out in 2022, play an instrumental role in shaping global climate policy.
To see if IPCC scenarios are on track, the researchers compared projections from the latest report, published in 2014, and data used to prepare the upcoming report, to data gathered from 2005 to 2017 on country-level gross domestic product (GDP), fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions, likely energy use and population trends during this century.
Burgess and his co-authors show that even before the pandemic, due to slower-than-projected per-capita GDP growth, as well a declining global use of coal, these high-emissions scenarios were already well off-track in 2020, and look likely to continue to diverge from reality over the coming decades and beyond. The COVID-19 pandemic’s dampening effect on the global economy only accentuates their findings, they said.
As a result, they contend that these high-emissions scenarios should not be used as the baseline scenarios in global climate assessments, which aim to represent where the world is headed without additional climate mitigation policy.
When it comes to climate change scenarios, some scientists and climate experts fear that economic growth will be higher than the projected scenarios, and we’ll be taken by surprise by climate changes. But that is unlikely to happen, according to Burgess, assistant professor in environmental studies and faculty affiliate in economics.
This new research adds to a growing literature that argues that economic growth and energy use are currently over-projected for this century. The research also points out that the high-emissions scenarios used by the IPCC don’t fully account for economic damages from climate change.
The researchers recommend that these policy-relevant scenarios should be frequently recalibrated to reflect economic crashes, technological discoveries, or other real-time changes in society and Earth’s climate. Anticipating the future is difficult and updates are to be expected, according to Roger Pielke Jr., co-author on the paper and professor of environmental studies.
Their study does not mean that people can let their guard down when it comes to addressing climate change, the authors stress. No matter the scenario, the only way to get to net zero emissions as a society is to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions from our energy sources.
“We’re still affecting the climate and the challenge of reducing emissions is as hard as ever,” said Pielke Jr. “Just because it’s not the worst-case scenario doesn’t mean that the problem goes away.”
The full study is available online at Environmental Research Letters.
6) Roger Pielke Jr: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
Roger Pielke Jr. 30 November 2020
Much of climate research is focused on implausible scenarios of the future, but implementing a course correction will be difficult
A 2015 literature review found almost 900 peer-reviewed studies published on breast cancer using a cell line derived from a breast cancer patient in Texas in 1976. But in 2007 it was confirmed that the cell line that had long been the focus of this research was actually not a breast cancer line, but was instead a skin cancer line. Whoops.
Even worse, from 2008 to 2014 — after the mistaken cell line was conclusively identified — the review identified 247 peer-reviewed articles putatively on breast cancer that were published using the misidentified skin cancer cell line. A cursory search of Google Scholar indicates that studies continue to be published in 2020 mistakenly using the skin cell line in breast cancer research.
The lesson from this experience is that science has momentum, and that momentum can be hard to change, even when obvious and significant flaws are identified. This is particularly the case when the flaws exist in databases that underlie research across an entire discipline.
In 2020, climate research finds itself in a similar situation to that of breast cancer research in 2007. Evidence indicates the scenarios of the future to 2100 that are at the focus of much of climate research have already diverged from the real world and thus offer a poor basis for projecting policy-relevant variables like economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions. A course-correction is needed.
In a new paper of ours just out in Environmental Research Letters we perform the most rigorous evaluation to date of how key variables in climate scenarios compare with data from the real world (specifically, we look at population, economic growth, energy intensity of economic growth and carbon intensity of energy consumption). We also look at how these variables might evolve in the near-term to 2040.
We find that the most commonly-used scenarios in climate research have already diverged significantly from the real world, and that divergence is going to only get larger in coming decades. You can see this visualized in the graph below, which shows carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels from 2005, when many scenarios begin, to 2045. The graph shows emissions trajectories projected by the most commonly used climate scenarios (called SSP5-8.5 and RCP8.5, with labels on the right vertical axis), along with other scenario trajectories. Actual emissions to date (dark purple curve) and those of near-term energy outlooks (labeled as EIA, BP and ExxonMobil) all can be found at the very low end of the scenario range, and far below the most commonly used scenarios.
Our paper goes into the technical details, but in short, an important reason for the lower-than-projected carbon dioxide emissions is that economic growth has been slower than expected across the scenarios, and rather than seeing coal use expand dramatically around the world, it has actually declined in many regions. It is even conceivable, if not likely, that in 2019 the world has passed “peak carbon dioxide emissions.”
Crucially, the projections in the figure above are pre-Covid19, which means that actual emissions 2020 to 2045 will be even less than was projected in 2019.
Full post
7) Britain's 'green industrial revolution' gets off to a bad start as renewables manufacturing company goes belly up
The Daily Telegraph, 3 December 2020
Anger and dismay as company seen as central to hopes of delivering renewables manufacturing sector collapses despite £52m investment
Roger Pielke Jr. 30 November 2020
Much of climate research is focused on implausible scenarios of the future, but implementing a course correction will be difficult
A 2015 literature review found almost 900 peer-reviewed studies published on breast cancer using a cell line derived from a breast cancer patient in Texas in 1976. But in 2007 it was confirmed that the cell line that had long been the focus of this research was actually not a breast cancer line, but was instead a skin cancer line. Whoops.
Even worse, from 2008 to 2014 — after the mistaken cell line was conclusively identified — the review identified 247 peer-reviewed articles putatively on breast cancer that were published using the misidentified skin cancer cell line. A cursory search of Google Scholar indicates that studies continue to be published in 2020 mistakenly using the skin cell line in breast cancer research.
The lesson from this experience is that science has momentum, and that momentum can be hard to change, even when obvious and significant flaws are identified. This is particularly the case when the flaws exist in databases that underlie research across an entire discipline.
In 2020, climate research finds itself in a similar situation to that of breast cancer research in 2007. Evidence indicates the scenarios of the future to 2100 that are at the focus of much of climate research have already diverged from the real world and thus offer a poor basis for projecting policy-relevant variables like economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions. A course-correction is needed.
In a new paper of ours just out in Environmental Research Letters we perform the most rigorous evaluation to date of how key variables in climate scenarios compare with data from the real world (specifically, we look at population, economic growth, energy intensity of economic growth and carbon intensity of energy consumption). We also look at how these variables might evolve in the near-term to 2040.
We find that the most commonly-used scenarios in climate research have already diverged significantly from the real world, and that divergence is going to only get larger in coming decades. You can see this visualized in the graph below, which shows carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels from 2005, when many scenarios begin, to 2045. The graph shows emissions trajectories projected by the most commonly used climate scenarios (called SSP5-8.5 and RCP8.5, with labels on the right vertical axis), along with other scenario trajectories. Actual emissions to date (dark purple curve) and those of near-term energy outlooks (labeled as EIA, BP and ExxonMobil) all can be found at the very low end of the scenario range, and far below the most commonly used scenarios.
Our paper goes into the technical details, but in short, an important reason for the lower-than-projected carbon dioxide emissions is that economic growth has been slower than expected across the scenarios, and rather than seeing coal use expand dramatically around the world, it has actually declined in many regions. It is even conceivable, if not likely, that in 2019 the world has passed “peak carbon dioxide emissions.”
Crucially, the projections in the figure above are pre-Covid19, which means that actual emissions 2020 to 2045 will be even less than was projected in 2019.
Full post
7) Britain's 'green industrial revolution' gets off to a bad start as renewables manufacturing company goes belly up
The Daily Telegraph, 3 December 2020
Anger and dismay as company seen as central to hopes of delivering renewables manufacturing sector collapses despite £52m investment
Claims that Scotland is on the brink of a renewables revolution have been 'exposed as a myth’ after a firm seen as central to building a wind farm manufacturing sector went into administration.
Fife-based BiFab, a steel fabrication firm, called in administrators despite being supported by £52 million in public money, with the Scottish Government a joint owner of the company.
It blamed in part a decision by SNP ministers to withdraw a financial guarantee for a £2 billion contract to build eight wind farm jackets - the huge structures that secure turbines in place - for the Neart Na Gaoithe wind farm project off the east coast for the collapse.
Opposition MSPs said that the failure of the Scottish Government to support the firm would cost thousands of jobs in the renewables sector and said the country had been left an “industrial desert”.
The company’s board attacked both the UK and Scottish Governments, saying it had been left unable to compete with foreign competitors which received far greater public support.
Meanwhile, the Unite and GMB trade unions said BiFab’s administration “exposes the myth of Scotland's renewables revolution, as well as a decade of political hypocrisy and failure in Scotland and the rest of the UK."
Speaking at Holyrood, Nicola Sturgeon said she was “deeply disappointed” by the development but denied that she could have done more.
Full story (£)
Fife-based BiFab, a steel fabrication firm, called in administrators despite being supported by £52 million in public money, with the Scottish Government a joint owner of the company.
It blamed in part a decision by SNP ministers to withdraw a financial guarantee for a £2 billion contract to build eight wind farm jackets - the huge structures that secure turbines in place - for the Neart Na Gaoithe wind farm project off the east coast for the collapse.
Opposition MSPs said that the failure of the Scottish Government to support the firm would cost thousands of jobs in the renewables sector and said the country had been left an “industrial desert”.
The company’s board attacked both the UK and Scottish Governments, saying it had been left unable to compete with foreign competitors which received far greater public support.
Meanwhile, the Unite and GMB trade unions said BiFab’s administration “exposes the myth of Scotland's renewables revolution, as well as a decade of political hypocrisy and failure in Scotland and the rest of the UK."
Speaking at Holyrood, Nicola Sturgeon said she was “deeply disappointed” by the development but denied that she could have done more.
Full story (£)
8) UN agency hit with corruption allegations at climate projects
Financial Times, 30 November 2020
The United Nations Development Programme is facing several allegations of fraud and corruption linked to the multibillion-dollar Global Environment Facility, according to documents seen by the Financial Times.
A copy of a draft report by UNDP’s office of audit and investigations, dated November 2020, described “financial misstatements” worth millions of dollars across UNDP’s portfolio of GEF-funded projects around the world.
The report highlighted problems including signs of “fraudulent activities” at two country offices and “suspicions of collusion among the various project managers” at another, without naming the countries.
“Issues identified by the audit could seriously compromise the achievement of the objectives of the audited entity,” the report said.
The GEF was set up in 1991 as part of the World Bank to help fight environmental challenges such as deforestation, species conservation and pollution. It has since split out to become an independent organisation and disbursed more than $21bn in 170 countries, including $7bn in projects managed by the UNDP.
The audit of the UNDP’s GEF-funded projects — which covers 2018 and 2019 and is the first review of its kind since 2013 — comes against a backdrop of rising concern from some donor countries over management and oversight issues at the UNDP.
An investigation by Foreign Policy in 2019 published whistleblower accounts alleging the misappropriation of millions of dollars at a UNDP-run GEF project in Russia. Twelve donor countries — including the US, France, Australia and Japan — have since sought an independent review of the UNDP’s handling of that project, according to a letter seen by the FT.
“Matters of misconduct and misappropriation of funds continue to obstruct sustainable development across the world,” the donors said in March in the letter to Achim Steiner, the UNDP administrator since 2017.
Full story (£)
Financial Times, 30 November 2020
The United Nations Development Programme is facing several allegations of fraud and corruption linked to the multibillion-dollar Global Environment Facility, according to documents seen by the Financial Times.
A copy of a draft report by UNDP’s office of audit and investigations, dated November 2020, described “financial misstatements” worth millions of dollars across UNDP’s portfolio of GEF-funded projects around the world.
The report highlighted problems including signs of “fraudulent activities” at two country offices and “suspicions of collusion among the various project managers” at another, without naming the countries.
“Issues identified by the audit could seriously compromise the achievement of the objectives of the audited entity,” the report said.
The GEF was set up in 1991 as part of the World Bank to help fight environmental challenges such as deforestation, species conservation and pollution. It has since split out to become an independent organisation and disbursed more than $21bn in 170 countries, including $7bn in projects managed by the UNDP.
The audit of the UNDP’s GEF-funded projects — which covers 2018 and 2019 and is the first review of its kind since 2013 — comes against a backdrop of rising concern from some donor countries over management and oversight issues at the UNDP.
An investigation by Foreign Policy in 2019 published whistleblower accounts alleging the misappropriation of millions of dollars at a UNDP-run GEF project in Russia. Twelve donor countries — including the US, France, Australia and Japan — have since sought an independent review of the UNDP’s handling of that project, according to a letter seen by the FT.
“Matters of misconduct and misappropriation of funds continue to obstruct sustainable development across the world,” the donors said in March in the letter to Achim Steiner, the UNDP administrator since 2017.
Full story (£)
9) Joanna Williams: Prince Harry should dial down his eco-alarmism
The Spectator, 2 December 2020
‘What if every single one of us was a raindrop?'
I have no idea what goes into the Californian drinking water, but the Duke formerly known as Prince Harry seems to have been knocking it back.
We are fortunate indeed that, despite having fled State-side to secure greater privacy, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex continue to send us regular character-improving missives. This week sees Harry return to a favourite theme: climate change.
Speaking at an online event to mark the launch of WaterBear, a new subscription television platform for environmental and conservation documentaries, Harry pondered:
“‘Every single raindrop that falls from the sky relieves the parched ground. What if every single one of us was a raindrop, and if every single one of us cared?’
The ground in my little corner of Kent is far from parched right now, but I guess the fact I am also not a raindrop indicates that Harry is not speaking literally. Indeed, I am sure he is quite genuine when he says: ‘Being in nature is the most healing part of life, I truly believe that's one reason why it’s there.’ Perhaps it is understandable that Harry has come to see nature as existing for his personal healing. Unlike, say, the survivors of earthquakes, tornadoes and floods, who might hold a very different view of nature.
It is all too easy to mock the one-time heir to the throne turned Hollywood royalty, who comes complete with Netflix tie-in and, sadly, corona-curtailed frequent flying.
But what if instead of laughing, we take Harry seriously? His recently acquired penchant for woke suggests he has his finger (almost) on the pulse of elite opinion. Whether by design or by accident, Harry soaks up the zeitgeist before reflecting it back to us with all the sophistication of a Malawian elephant.
Take another statement Harry made at the WaterBear launch:
“‘But the moment you become a father, everything really does change because then you start to realise, well, what is the point in bringing a new person into this world when they get to your age and it’s on fire?’
This rhetoric of the world being ‘on fire’ is the language used by Greta Thunberg, David Attenborough and Extinction Rebellion protesters. It comes from people who are feted, not mocked. It is the language heard in UN assemblies and the UK Parliament.
Laughing at Harry means we avoid having to take him seriously and subjecting his words to serious criticism. And we need to question the merit of the ‘world on fire’ message. Sure, it makes for an evocative, powerful and disturbing image. But it is also terrifying and fatalistic. As Harry suggests, it leads inevitably to the question, ‘what is the point in bringing a new person into this world?’ Indeed, what is the point of doing anything if our fate is so definitely sealed?
And for all Harry talks about his future progeny, many climate activists have brought the deadline forward. Back in 2018, the UN warned that we have just 12 years to limit a climate change catastrophe. So, only ten more to go. If the world is truly on fire, we need to do far more than imagining ourselves to be raindrops.
The ‘end-is-nigh’ alarmism beloved by campaigners does far worse than seed passivity. It can lead to eco-anxiety, a phenomenon described by Psychology Today as a ‘psychological disorder afflicting an increasing number of individuals who worry about the environmental crisis’. In a survey carried out for the BBC, almost three in five (58 per cent) children said they were concerned about the impact climate change will have on their lives. Nearly one in five claimed to have had a bad dream about the climate crisis, while 17 per cent said their concerns affected their capacity to sleep and eat normally. Poor Greta may find solace for her own struggles through activism, but this is disastrous for other people’s children.
Harry reminds us that when it comes to children, ‘We can't steal their future, that’s not the job we’re here for.’ Instead, he urges us to think about how we can ‘have our desire fulfilled without taking from our children and generations to come?’ Sadly, this stoking of generational grievances does little other than cultivate a sense of victimhood in young people. Young people have not had their futures stolen. Our planet is not literally on fire. Climate change and our response to it must, of course, be taken seriously, but despite the ever-shifting deadlines of activists, our future is not already mapped-out.
If Harry wants to make a difference, his next sermon should dial down the psychedelia and fear-mongering. We already have more than enough celebrities skilled in regurgitating the woke zeitgeist.
10) GWPF/ AEF Webinar: Reforming Environmental Science
The Global Warming Policy Forum & Australian Environment Foundation, 3 December 2020
The GWPF jointly hosted a webinar with the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF). It focusses on how to reform the quality of the environmental research that underpins environmental policy in Australia, with particular reference to the Great Barrier Reef, bushfire prevention and management, and the Murray-Darling Basin. Featuring Dr Peter Ridd, Joanna Nova and Alan Moran
The Spectator, 2 December 2020
‘What if every single one of us was a raindrop?'
I have no idea what goes into the Californian drinking water, but the Duke formerly known as Prince Harry seems to have been knocking it back.
We are fortunate indeed that, despite having fled State-side to secure greater privacy, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex continue to send us regular character-improving missives. This week sees Harry return to a favourite theme: climate change.
Speaking at an online event to mark the launch of WaterBear, a new subscription television platform for environmental and conservation documentaries, Harry pondered:
“‘Every single raindrop that falls from the sky relieves the parched ground. What if every single one of us was a raindrop, and if every single one of us cared?’
The ground in my little corner of Kent is far from parched right now, but I guess the fact I am also not a raindrop indicates that Harry is not speaking literally. Indeed, I am sure he is quite genuine when he says: ‘Being in nature is the most healing part of life, I truly believe that's one reason why it’s there.’ Perhaps it is understandable that Harry has come to see nature as existing for his personal healing. Unlike, say, the survivors of earthquakes, tornadoes and floods, who might hold a very different view of nature.
It is all too easy to mock the one-time heir to the throne turned Hollywood royalty, who comes complete with Netflix tie-in and, sadly, corona-curtailed frequent flying.
But what if instead of laughing, we take Harry seriously? His recently acquired penchant for woke suggests he has his finger (almost) on the pulse of elite opinion. Whether by design or by accident, Harry soaks up the zeitgeist before reflecting it back to us with all the sophistication of a Malawian elephant.
Take another statement Harry made at the WaterBear launch:
“‘But the moment you become a father, everything really does change because then you start to realise, well, what is the point in bringing a new person into this world when they get to your age and it’s on fire?’
This rhetoric of the world being ‘on fire’ is the language used by Greta Thunberg, David Attenborough and Extinction Rebellion protesters. It comes from people who are feted, not mocked. It is the language heard in UN assemblies and the UK Parliament.
Laughing at Harry means we avoid having to take him seriously and subjecting his words to serious criticism. And we need to question the merit of the ‘world on fire’ message. Sure, it makes for an evocative, powerful and disturbing image. But it is also terrifying and fatalistic. As Harry suggests, it leads inevitably to the question, ‘what is the point in bringing a new person into this world?’ Indeed, what is the point of doing anything if our fate is so definitely sealed?
And for all Harry talks about his future progeny, many climate activists have brought the deadline forward. Back in 2018, the UN warned that we have just 12 years to limit a climate change catastrophe. So, only ten more to go. If the world is truly on fire, we need to do far more than imagining ourselves to be raindrops.
The ‘end-is-nigh’ alarmism beloved by campaigners does far worse than seed passivity. It can lead to eco-anxiety, a phenomenon described by Psychology Today as a ‘psychological disorder afflicting an increasing number of individuals who worry about the environmental crisis’. In a survey carried out for the BBC, almost three in five (58 per cent) children said they were concerned about the impact climate change will have on their lives. Nearly one in five claimed to have had a bad dream about the climate crisis, while 17 per cent said their concerns affected their capacity to sleep and eat normally. Poor Greta may find solace for her own struggles through activism, but this is disastrous for other people’s children.
Harry reminds us that when it comes to children, ‘We can't steal their future, that’s not the job we’re here for.’ Instead, he urges us to think about how we can ‘have our desire fulfilled without taking from our children and generations to come?’ Sadly, this stoking of generational grievances does little other than cultivate a sense of victimhood in young people. Young people have not had their futures stolen. Our planet is not literally on fire. Climate change and our response to it must, of course, be taken seriously, but despite the ever-shifting deadlines of activists, our future is not already mapped-out.
If Harry wants to make a difference, his next sermon should dial down the psychedelia and fear-mongering. We already have more than enough celebrities skilled in regurgitating the woke zeitgeist.
10) GWPF/ AEF Webinar: Reforming Environmental Science
The Global Warming Policy Forum & Australian Environment Foundation, 3 December 2020
The GWPF jointly hosted a webinar with the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF). It focusses on how to reform the quality of the environmental research that underpins environmental policy in Australia, with particular reference to the Great Barrier Reef, bushfire prevention and management, and the Murray-Darling Basin. Featuring Dr Peter Ridd, Joanna Nova and Alan Moran
Click on image to watch the webinar
The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.thegwpf.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.