Michael Note: Here is another example of excellent, thorough science being hijacked by political, economic and fossil fuel interests. It is no surprise that Saudi Arabia blocked the report, trying to undercut the science. Just like the United States is cutting out words like "global warming" and "climate change" from its official policy statements.
Published on 06/27/2019 by Climate Home News.
There will be no further formal discussions of the IPCC’s findings at the UN after Saudi Arabia fought to undermine the findings of the global scientific community.oé Farand
A major report on 1.5C has been excluded from formal UN climate negotiations, after Saudi Arabia tried to discredit its scientific underpinnings.
Discussions came to a deadlock at the talks in Bonn after a small group of countries refused to engage in substantive discussions over how the report’s findings could be used to inform policies on increasing the pace and scale of decarbonisation.
The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lays out the differences between 1.5C and 2C - a matter of survival for many vulnerable countries including small island states which pushed for the findings to lead to more ambitious carbon-cutting policies.
At the closing plenary, which took place amid soaring summer temperatures in the former west German capital, a five-paragraph watered-down agreement put an end to formal discussions on the report.
The agreed text expressed “appreciation and gratitude” to the scientific community for the report, which it said “reflects the best available science” and notes “the views expressed on how to strengthen scientific knowledge on global warming of 1.5C”.
It offers no way forward for the report to be considered further in formal negotiations.
In the final meeting of the talks, diplomats came together to express their disappointment. Franz Perrez, lead negotiator for Switzerland, wore a t-shirt with the message “science is not negotiable” and urged countries to use the report to inform their policies and “make the right decisions”.
A diplomat from Costa Rica said the IPCC report on 1.5C represented “a great triumph of science” and that “the quality of the work and the robustness of the conclusions are a tremendous achievement”.
“We recognise that many messages of the special report are difficult to accept,” she said, adding: “On climate change, listening to the science is not a choice but a duty. If we are asking the world to change, we also, as representatives, need to be willing to change.”
For full article, CLICK.
My go to climate scientist is Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Here are some of the problems he found with the Paris Agreement in his talk, Paris, climate & surrealism: how numbers reveal another reality.
Here is my best understanding of the situation at the IPCC -- the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
There are different working groups. Working Group I specializes in the science behind global heating, and it is detailed and spot on. This is a tremendous resource. But Working Group III has its focus on "mitigation" -- how to slow down and reverse global heating. What do we have to do, exactly.
Apparently Working Group III is filled with economists, politicians and fossil fuel related representatives. Notice that their solution includes the use of fossil fuels through this century. And they have NEGATIVE EMISSIONS technology which will have to capture billions of tons of CO2 from the air and where fossil fuels are burned, liquify it, and then inject it miles into the Earth. There is no single example of a model carbon capture and storage plant. This is hanging our future on a scheme that may not be scalable or workable or safe, just so we can continue with fossil fuels and our lives as they are now.
"The problem is that the Paris deal is built on the assumption that highly speculative technologies are going to save us from climate catastrophe; specifically one called BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. The idea behind BECCS is to grow massive tree plantations around the world to absorb CO2 out of the air, then harvest the trees, convert them into pellets, burn them in power stations for energy, capture the CO2 that's emitted from the smokestacks and store it deep under the ground. Voila: net-negative emissions.
But BECCS has never been proven at scale; it is science fiction. In order to work as the Paris deal hopes, it would require plantations covering two to three times the size of India - a third of the planet's arable land. Not only would this make it impossible to feed the world's population, it would also be an ecological disaster. A team of researchers led by German scientist Vera Heck has found that BECCS would trigger a 10 percent loss of global forest cover and a 7 percent loss in biodiversity. It also risks driving further water scarcity, soil depletion, and chemical loading into ecosystems.
In other words, BECCS might help with climate change, but only by pushing us into other crises."
For Full Article: CLICK
"In the not-so-distant future, places like Phoenix and Tucson will become so hot that just walking across the street will be a life-threatening event. Parts of the upper Middle West will become a permanent dust bowl. South Florida and low-lying sections of the Gulf Coast will be underwater. Some people may try to stick around and fight it out with Mother Nature, but most will not. "People will do what they have done for thousands of years," says Vivak Shandas, a professor of urban studies and planning at Portland State University. "They will migrate to better climates."
"But given the risks that New Orleans faces from rising seas and increasingly intense storms, that long-term future is in question. When I bring this up with Paul, she balks: "Worrying about the future is a luxury for privileged people. My friends here are worried about putting dinner on the table tonight, not what is going to happen in the city 20 or 30 years from now.""
Excellent article in Rolling Stone on how global heating will change where humans can live. For full article CLICK.
"What to do? For one, don’t be fooled. Don’t be lulled into thinking that humanity can engineer its way out of global warming, that we can get around it without radically changing the way we live. Otherwise we’ll inevitably end up with half-measures that leave the biggest problems to our children, and to theirs." Mark Buchanan, Bloomberg View
For Full Article: CLICK
Here's the bottom line:
The world emits 40 billion tons of CO2 every year.
We know how warm the planet will get for a certain CO2 level.
We call this our CARBON BUDGET.
We have 4 more years to go to carbon zero to keep below 1.5°C.
We have 20 more years to go to carbon zero to keep below 2.0°C.
The Problem: no one wants to cut their carbon emissions.
These fake solutions make us relax and keep on burning fossil fuels like business as usual.
Read the document below for a better understanding.