[ad_1]
Want climate news in your inbox? Register here for Climate Fwd:, our e-newsletter.
Now that the bad news has fallen, what will the world do?
A report published Sunday by 91 scientists has painted a striking portrait of the speed with which the planet is warming up and the seriousness of its consequences. In response, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned world leaders: "Do what science requires before it's too late."
The latest figures from the International Energy Agency do not suggest that many listen: carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector have continued to grow through to 2017, with a expected increase for 2018, according to the agency.
The next two months will be crucial. In December, experts and officials from around the world will gather in Katowice, Poland, for a new round of international climate negotiations.
What about the Paris Agreement?
Nearly three years ago, all countries agreed to set their own targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. This is the good news.
The agreement specifically aimed to keep warming at a temperature well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.7 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial levels. And, it has been formulated in such a way that countries will, over time, become more ambitious in reducing their emissions.
It's not going well. And it's not just because the Trump government has announced its intention to withdraw from this agreement. The United States, the largest polluter in history, is nowhere near achieving its emissions reduction goals.
Russia, one of the largest emitters in the world, has not yet ratified the Paris Agreement. Greenhouse gases from Brazil Emissions have increased recently, mainly because of the conversion of vast areas of forest to agricultural land. Jair Bolsonaro, the main presidential candidate in Brazil, also suggested withdrawing his country from the Paris agreement. Australia also seems unlikely to achieve its goals with its new Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, the country's coal industry champion.
With deficit-rich countries, some developing countries are beginning to be reluctant. Where are the funds that you promised to help us face, they want to know.
Under President Trump, the United States decided not to contribute to the Green Climate Fund, designed to help poor countries cope with the effects of climate change. The Australian Prime Minister this week also rejected the fund, saying: "I will not spend money for the world climate conferences and all this nonsense."
What is the next step?
The report released Sunday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change looms above the December negotiations in Katowice, at the heart of Poland's coal belt. The question of whether and how the report determines the content of the negotiations is now controversial.
Some countries would prefer to limit discussions to technical issues, such as the type of rules to apply to the Paris Agreement. Others, led by small island countries like the Marshall Islands, want the meeting to go much further and consider stricter emission targets.
The European Union on Tuesday He said he could put new ambitions on the table, saying the report makes "extremely urgent the strengthening of the global response to the threat of climate change."
Scientists have often been way ahead of diplomats in climate change. Thus, even activists who campaign for a more ambitious action are worried about the impact of this bombshell.
"This should be a fire under the chairmanship of the leaders and their negotiators," said David Waskow, who is following international negotiations for the World Resources Institute, a research organization. "The question is whether leaders will hear this alarm when they wake up?"
What would it take to avoid the worst?
Scientists hear that some great things must happen, and many decision-makers know it too. They include switching from coal power systems, weaning cars and trucks to gasoline, and preserving forests, as they are a big carbon sink. There is also a broad consensus that there should be a price on pollution, in the form of a carbon tax.
All this has been on the table for some time. As the president of France, Emmanuel Macron, pointed out on Twitter: "The I.P.C.C. brings scientific evidence: we have everything we need to fight climate change. But everyone must act now! "
Why is it difficult? There are political obstacles of all kinds.
In the United States, two libertarian Billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, who have deep interests in the fossil fuel sector, have nicely funded their efforts to block a carbon tax. In Brazil, the powerful agri-food lobby, supported by global demand for soybeans, has pushed convert more forest land to farmland. In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's carbon tax proposal faces strong opposition from the provinces. And China, as the factory of the world, continues to burn coal to fuel its manufacturing sector.
The only difference with China is that, for reasons of domestic political stability, Chinese leaders are eager to purify the air. China is expected to peak in 2050.
The question is, when does this political tipping point come for other countries? And does science matter?
"There is a big gap between the scientific needs and the results achieved by governments," said Mohamed Adow, who tracks climate change for Christian Aid, a London-based charity. He called I.P.C.C. report "a game changer."
"Governments have no excuses," he said.
For more information on the climate and the environment, follow @NYTClimate on Twitter.
[ad_2]Source link
