Tag Archives: climate

The record heat recorded in many parts of the world is largely due to record high global sea surface temperatures, which will very likely remain above normal until the end of the year.

The high sea temperatures, together with other factors, also contributed to exceptionally heavy rainfall and floods in many countries and extreme drought in others.

WMO’s Provisional Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2014 indicated that the global average air temperature over land and sea surface for January to October was about 0.57°C above the average of 14.00°C for the 1961-1990 reference period, and 0.09°C above the average for 2004-2013.

If November and December maintain the same tendency, then 2014 will likely be the hottest on record, ahead of 2010, 2005 and 1998.

This confirms the underlying long-term warming trend, said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud: “The provisional information for 2014 means that fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century. There is no standstill in global warming.”

“What we saw in 2014 is consistent with what we expect from a changing climate. Record-breaking heat combined with torrential rainfall and floods destroyed livelihoods and ruined lives. What is particularly unusual and alarming this year are the high temperatures of vast areas of the ocean surface, including in the northern hemisphere.”

Informing the COP20 climate conference in Lima

The provisional statement was published to inform the UN climate change negotiations taking place in Lima, Peru. Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said: “Our climate is changing and every year the risks of extreme weather events and impacts on humanity rise.

“Fortunately our political climate is changing too with evidence that governments, supported by investors, business and cities are moving towards a meaningful, universal climate agreement in Paris 2015 — an agreement that keeps a global temperature rise below 2 degrees C by putting in place the pathways to a deep de-carbonisation of the world’s economy and climate neutrality or ‘net zero’ in the second half of the century.”

What, no El Niño?

Unusually, the high January to October temperatures occurred in the absence of a full El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

ENSO occurs when warmer than average sea-surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific combine, in a self-reinforcing loop, with atmospheric pressure systems, thus affecting weather patterns globally.

During the year, sea surface temperatures increased nearly to El Niño thresholds but this was not coupled with an atmospheric response. However, many weather and climate patterns normally associated with El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) were observed in many parts of the world.

“Record-high greenhouse gas emissions and associated atmospheric concentrations are committing the planet to a much more uncertain and inhospitable future. WMO and its Members will continue to improve forecasts and services to help people cope with more frequent and damaging extreme weather and climate conditions”, commented Mr Jarraud.

Report Highlights

Land surface temperatures

Average surface air temperatures over land for January to October 2014 were about 0.86°C above the 1961-1990 average, the fourth or fifth warmest for the same period on record.

Western North America, Europe, eastern Eurasia, much of Africa, large areas of South America and southern and western Australia were especially warm. Cooler-than-average conditions for the year-to-date were recorded across large areas of the United States and Canada and parts of central Russia.

Heatwaves occurred in South Africa, Australia and Argentina in January. Australia saw another prolonged warm spell in May. Record heat affected northern Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia and southern Brazil in October. Notable cold waves were reported in the U.S. during the winter, Australia in August and in Russia in October.

Ocean heat

Global sea-surface temperatures were the highest on record, at about 0.45°C above the 1961-1990 average.

Sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific approached El Niño thresholds. They were also unusually high in the western tropical Pacific Ocean, across the north and north-east Pacific as well as the polar and subtropical North Atlantic, southwest Pacific, parts of the South Atlantic and in much of the Indian Ocean.

Temperatures were particularly high in the Northern Hemisphere from June to October for reasons which are subject to intense scientific investigation.

Ocean heat content for January to June was estimated down to depths of 700m and 2000m and both were the highest recorded.

Around 93% of the excess energy trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and other human activities ends up in the oceans. Therefore, the heat content of the oceans is key to understanding the climate system.

Sea level and sea ice

As the oceans warm, their volume increases through thermal expansion. Water from the melting of ice sheets and glaciers also contributes to sea level rise. Local variations in sea level are affected by currents, tides, storms and large-scale climate patterns like El Niño. In early 2014, global-average measured sea-level reached a record high for the time of year.

Arctic sea-ice extent reached its annual minimum extent of 5.02 million km2 on 17 September and was the sixth lowest on record, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Antarctic daily sea ice reached a maximum daily extent of 20.11 million km2 on 22 September, setting a new record for the third consecutive year. The changes in the atmospheric circulation observed in the past three decades, which resulted in changes in the prevailing winds around Antarctica, are considered by scientists as factors related to this increase. However, it is possible that this increase is due to a combination of factors that also include effects of changing ocean circulation.

Flooding

Twelve major Atlantic storms affected the United Kingdom through the winter 2013/14 and the UK winter was the wettest on record, with 177% of the long-term average precipitation. In May, devastating floods in Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia affected more than two million people.

In Russia, in late May and early June, more than twice the monthly average precipitation fell in Altai, Khakassia and Tuva republics in southern Siberia.

In September, southern parts of the Balkan Peninsula received over 250% of the monthly average rainfall and, in parts of Turkey, over 500% of normal.

July and August were very wet in France with the two-month total being the highest on record (records begin 1959). Between 16 and 20 September, parts of southern France recorded more than 400mm of rainfall – three to four times the normal monthly average.

Heavy rain in central and southern Morocco in November caused severe flooding. At Guelmim, 126mm of rain fell in four days, the monthly average for November is 17mm and the average for the year is 120mm.

The monthly precipitation over the Pacific side of western Japan for August 2014 was 301% of normal, which was the highest since area-averaged statistics began in 1946.

In August and September, heavy rains caused severe flooding in northern Bangladesh, northern Pakistan and India, affecting millions of people.

Buenos Aires and northeastern provinces of Argentina were severely affected by flooding. In February, many stations in northern and central Argentina reported record rainfall totals for the month.

In May and June, precipitation totals in excess of 250% of the long term average were recorded in Paraguay, southern Bolivia and parts of south east Brazil. The heavy rain led to flooding on the Parana River which particularly affected Paraguay, where more than 200,000 people were affected.

On 29 and 30 April, torrential rain fell across the Southeast, Mid-Atlantic and Northeast of United States causing significant flash flooding. At one location in Florida, the two-day precipitation total was a record 519.9 mm.

Drought

Precipitation in the southern part of Northeast China and parts of the Yellow River basin and Huaihe River basin did not reach half of the summer average, causing severe drought.

Parts of Central America suffered rainfall deficits in the summer. Parts of eastern and some areas of central Brazil are in a state of severe drought with severe water deficits extending back more than two years. São Paulo city has been particularly affected with a severe shortage of stored water.

As of mid-November 2014, large areas of the western U.S. remained in drought with areas of California, Nevada and Texas having received less than 40% of the 1961-1990 average. Canada experienced dry conditions at the start of 2014 with many regions only receiving 50-70% of the baseline average in the west and north between January and April.

At the start of the year, northeast New South Wales and southeast Queensland in Australia had long-term rainfall deficiencies.

Tropical cyclones

Until 13 November, 72 tropical storms – storms where wind speeds equalled or exceeded 17.5 m/s (63 km/hr) were recorded, fewer than the 1981-2010 average of 89 storms.

In the North Atlantic basin there were only eight named storms. The Eastern North Pacific basin saw above average hurricane activity, with 20 named storms.

In the Western North Pacific basin, twenty named tropical cyclones formed between 18 January and 20 November, slightly below the 1981-2010 average of twenty-four storms (to the end of November).

Ten of the cyclones reached typhoon intensity. Typhoons Nakri and Halong, contributed to the high precipitation totals recorded in western Japan in August. Typhoon Rammasun displaced more than half a million people in the Philippines and China in July.

The North Indian Ocean basin recorded three storms, slightly below the 1981-2010 average of four storms. Two of these storms – Hud Hud and Nilofar – became very severe cyclonic storms.

Australia experienced a slightly-below-average number of tropical storms in 2014, with four cyclones making landfall.

In the South West Indian Ocean basin, a total of eight named tropical storms formed during the period from 1st January to April. For the full season, which started in 2013, nine storms formed, equal to the long-term average.

In the South West Pacific basin, six storms formed in addition to four in the Australian region; the combined total of 10 storms is slightly below the long-term average of 12 storms.

Greenhouse gases

The latest analysis of observations by the WMO Global Atmosphere Watch Programme shows that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O) reached new highs in 2013. Data for 2014 have not yet been processed.

Globally-averaged atmospheric levels of CO₂ reached 396.0 parts per million (ppm), approximately 142% of the pre-industrial average. The increase from 2012 to 2013 was 2.9 ppm which is the largest year to year increase, with a number of stations in the Northern hemisphere recording levels above 400 ppm.

The overall increase in atmospheric CO₂ from 2003 to 2013 corresponds to around 45% of the CO₂ emitted by human activities. The remaining 55% is absorbed by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere.

CH₄ concentrations in the atmosphere reached a new high of 1824 parts per billion (ppb) in 2013. That is approximately 253% of the pre-industrial level. Global concentrations of N₂O reached 325.9 ± 0.1 ppb, 121% of the pre-industrial level.

NOAA’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index shows that from 1990 to 2013, radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases increased by 34%. CO₂ alone accounted for 80% of the increase.

The WMO statement: Provisional Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2014.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged average, climate, Ecologic, hottest, record, surface, temperatures, year on 03/12/2014 by angelo@percorso.net.

Climate turbulence deals costly blow to olive oil yield Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

Attention all those cooks who cannot produce a meal without adding a splash or drizzle of olive oil. The price of your favourite culinary ingredient is rising fast – driven in large part by changes in climate.

Spain accounts for nearly 50% of total world olive oil production, but an unusually warm spring this year caused damage to olive trees during their flowering period.

Then a prolonged drought hit many regions – including the southern province of Andalucía, which produces 70% of Spain’s crop. As a result, this year’s harvest is predicted to be half that of 2013.

In Italy, which has 15% of world production, a mild winter and warm spring was followed in summer by cloudbursts of torrential rain in many areas.

Farmers and processors are describing 2014 as the worst year for olive oil production in living memory, with overall yields down by nearly 40%.

Trees blighted and infested

The warm spring and generally humid conditions in Italy are also believed to have encouraged the spread of the Xylella fastidiosa pathogen – which blights trees, causing them to wilt and shed their leaves – and given rise to infestations of the olive fruit fly, Bactrocera oleae.

Both have devastated crops in many areas, and autumn hail storms have added to the woes of Italy’s olive oil producers.

Olive farmers in southern France, northern Africa and other olive oil producing regions round the Mediterranean Basin have faced similar problems.

Producers are now predicting a big hike in olive oil prices worldwide – in some markets, prices have gone up by 30%.

In its latest assessment report on global climate, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned of the impact of increasing temperatures in the Mediterranean Basin region, with the possibility of more droughts and increasing desertification.

Such warming has serious implications for a region that is a world leader in the production not only of olives, but also a wide range of other crops.

Worldwide consumption of olive oil has risen sharply over the last 20 years, with consumers rushing to buy a product that is not only a tasty addition to various dishes but is also believed to be good for the health.

Large irrigated plantations increase climate vulnerability

To meet demand, farmers and large agricultural corporations around the Mediterranean region have rushed to grub out old, often terraced, rain-fed olive groves, replacing them with large plantations of olive tree monoculture.

These newly-planted areas, particularly in southern Spain, are fed by water that is often piped in from hundreds of miles away. When there’s a drought – or when disease or pests strike – the large plantations are vulnerable.

Olive oil production is very much an up and down business. A bumper crop in the Mediterranean region in 2013 is believed to have contributed to this year’s downturn: trees are tired after over producing last year.

But the outlook is not good. As temperatures rise in southern Europe and around the Mediterranean, olive oil production will come under increasing pressure – and prices will continue their upward trend, hitting the pockets of all those keen cooks.

Kieran Cooke writes for Climate News Network.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged blow, climate, costly, deals, large, olive, production, turbulence on 02/12/2014 by angelo@percorso.net.

Three card trick – the rich countries’ plan to evade their climate obligations exposed Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

Negotiations towards the post-2020 climate agreement have been running for three years but we are yet to see real text-based negotiations.

This is not an accident, but a part of a broader strategy by those who don’t want a comprehensive and effective climate deal agreed in Paris.

Developed countries want to curb climate change without bearing the burdens and costs. To do this they need to change the climate regime and shift the burdens and costs to developing countries.

Their goal in Paris is a new mitigation-focused 2020 agreement that is weaker for developed countries than the Kyoto Protocol, and stronger for developing countries.

It would exclude meaningful commitments on adaptation, finance, technology and capacity and shift the burden of combating climate change further onto the world’s poor.

Avoiding historical, legal and moral obligations

To achieve this they will end the Kyoto Protocol by inserting 2020 targets that require no reductions (EU), inserting no targets (New Zealand, Japan, Russia), or pulling out altogether (Canada) – effectively rendering the Protocol a dead letter. To this end, they have not fulfilled their Doha commitment to revisit their inadequate 2020 Kyoto targets.

And under the plan, they must also avoid their main obligations under the Climate Convention – on mitigation for developed countries (Art. 4.2), finance (4.3), adaptation (4.4) and technology (4.5).

As these ‘differentiated’ legal obligations will not go away, so they are to be ignored in the pre-2020 period, before being supplanted by a 2020 agreement.

The developed ‘Annex 1’ countries also need to replace the principle of ‘equity’ and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ – because this is the basis of the differentiated legal commitments, and because a common-sense interpretation requires much greater effort from the developed countries.

Ultimately, developed countries want to avoid a legal obligation requiring them to show leadership, so they wish to erase the legal structure of the Annexes that requires more from them.

Instead they propose that under the new agreement countries would ‘self-differentiate’ through their own ‘nationally determined’ contributions. In effect every country would be able to do as much, or as little, as it likes.

Rather than implementing their current commitments, they seek to evade them, and shift them to poorer countries.

How the process is being controlled

This deregulation of the climate regime as it applies to the developed countries would not be voluntarily agreed to by most developing countries, so the negotiating process and documents are being used to achieve this.

To get developing countries to agree to new negotiations the impression was given that the 2020 agreement would cover all elements – mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity and transparency – but without ever actually committing to do so.

Consequently, the Durban Platform said Parties would “work” on the elements – but without clearly saying they would be part of the 2020 agreement. This impression will be maintained until the last minute.

Thus a discussion about ‘elements’ continues with the Co-Chairs collecting everyone’s ideas into a ‘non-paper’ – a non-paper that has no legal status and so can eventually disappear without trace.

The Co-Chairs have tightly managed the process to prevent real party-to-party negotiations. Instead they ‘hear’ the Parties and include what they like of what they hear in the non-paper. The intention is to play out the clock and then table a mitigation-focused text at the last minute

The developed countries, however, must still elaborate the mitigation element of the 2020 agreement. To avoid discussing the other elements, this is done by proxy through another parallel process, but without it being clear this is the real intention.

This parallel process was established with the Warsaw decision which divided the 2020 negotiations into two parts – one about ‘elements’ and one about ‘national contributions’. While ‘elements’ are put into a non-binding non-paper, ‘contributions’ have been focused on mitigation, and placed into a legal ‘decision’ text.

A cunning plan – for developed countries to avoid paying up

Under the draft text contributions on mitigation are to be compulsory. These must be provided well in advance of the Paris meeting in December 2015. To enable developed countries to avoid contributions towards their other obligations, the ‘scope’ of their contributions is otherwise to be ‘nationally determined’.

They can, in other words, determine to offer no contributions on adaptation, finance, technology or capacity – essentially prejudicing negotiations on the scope of the 2020 agreement.

The likely result of such a process is:

Mitigation-focused contributions from developed countries, without contributions on finance, technology or capacity; and

Mitigation-focused contributions from developing countries, without contributions on adaptation.

In the absence of comprehensive contributions on adaptation, finance, technology or capacity, developed countries can declare that further work is required on these elements, and so these would not be included in the core 2020 agreement. Mitigation-focused contributions from all Parties can then serve as the basis for a mitigation-focused 2020 agreement.

To appease the United States, the 2020 agreement would merely commit countries to submit their contributions to be listed under the agreement, without having a legal requirement to fulfil those contributions. As by Paris developing countries may have already submitted contributions, it would be harder for their Ministers to find a basis to refuse to sign the new agreement.

The result would be a new mitigation-focused 2020 agreement that is weaker for developed countries than the Kyoto Protocol, and stronger for developing countries, and that excludes meaningful commitments on adaptation, finance, technology and capacity.

So, let’s pack all these things we don’t like up a bureaucratic cul-de-sac

These issues, it will be said, can be addressed outside the 2020 agreement as part of a ‘Paris Package’. Existing Convention commitments on these issues would remain, but their implementation would be sidelined in favour of work under the new 2020 Paris Agreement.

Like the Kyoto Protocol, they would be rendered ineffective, and potentially a dead letter.

While the new agreement would cover the United States, the result for developed countries would be weaker than the Kyoto Protocol which itself was inadequate to spur action. It is also likely fail to include the means of implementation required to mobilize sufficient action in developing countries.

Faced with growing climate impacts, many developing countries are likely to focus their limited resources on adaptation. Weak mitigation pledges would be locked in for another five years, and possibly ten, effectively missing the window for changing the global emissions trajectory before we cross tipping points that set us on track for catastrophic warming.

How can we thwart the rich countries dastardly plan?

The first step is to ensure the ‘elements’ of the 2015 agreement – mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity and transparency – are agreed before the ‘contributions’. This is needed to ensure a comprehensive and balanced 2020 agreement.

Then:

Developed countries must put forward contributions on mitigation in the form of QELROs (Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Obligations), as well as on providing finance, technology, capacity and transparency.

Developing countries should put forward adaptation contributions, conditional on receiving finance and technology, before putting forward mitigation contributions, to ensure adaptation is clearly part of the 2020 agreement.

Developing countries should put forward mitigation contributions – but only once developed countries have committed to put forward substantial finance, technology and capacity contributions.

The process should enable party-to-party negotiations to ensure Parties are able to negotiate with each other directly, rather than with Co-Chairs and the Secretariat.

These steps are necessary because, if developing countries commit to mitigation-focused contributions before securing the other elements, the prospects for negotiating a comprehensive and balanced 2020 agreement that addresses the needs and rights of climate-impacted people are substantially diminished.

This article was originally published by Friends of the Earth International in the form of a Briefing paper: ‘What type of climate deal in Paris?‘

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged agreement, card, climate, countries, developed, rich, three, trick on 01/12/2014 by angelo@percorso.net.

Three card trick – the rich countries’ plan to evade their climate obligations exposed Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

Negotiations towards the post-2020 climate agreement have been running for three years but we are yet to see real text-based negotiations.

This is not an accident, but a part of a broader strategy by those who don’t want a comprehensive and effective climate deal agreed in Paris.

Developed countries want to curb climate change without bearing the burdens and costs. To do this they need to change the climate regime and shift the burdens and costs to developing countries.

Their goal in Paris is a new mitigation-focused 2020 agreement that is weaker for developed countries than the Kyoto Protocol, and stronger for developing countries.

It would exclude meaningful commitments on adaptation, finance, technology and capacity and shift the burden of combating climate change further onto the world’s poor.

Avoiding historical, legal and moral obligations

To achieve this they will end the Kyoto Protocol by inserting 2020 targets that require no reductions (EU), inserting no targets (New Zealand, Japan, Russia), or pulling out altogether (Canada) – effectively rendering the Protocol a dead letter. To this end, they have not fulfilled their Doha commitment to revisit their inadequate 2020 Kyoto targets.

And under the plan, they must also avoid their main obligations under the Climate Convention – on mitigation for developed countries (Art. 4.2), finance (4.3), adaptation (4.4) and technology (4.5).

As these ‘differentiated’ legal obligations will not go away, so they are to be ignored in the pre-2020 period, before being supplanted by a 2020 agreement.

The developed ‘Annex 1’ countries also need to replace the principle of ‘equity’ and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ – because this is the basis of the differentiated legal commitments, and because a common-sense interpretation requires much greater effort from the developed countries.

Ultimately, developed countries want to avoid a legal obligation requiring them to show leadership, so they wish to erase the legal structure of the Annexes that requires more from them.

Instead they propose that under the new agreement countries would ‘self-differentiate’ through their own ‘nationally determined’ contributions. In effect every country would be able to do as much, or as little, as it likes.

Rather than implementing their current commitments, they seek to evade them, and shift them to poorer countries.

How the process is being controlled

This deregulation of the climate regime as it applies to the developed countries would not be voluntarily agreed to by most developing countries, so the negotiating process and documents are being used to achieve this.

To get developing countries to agree to new negotiations the impression was given that the 2020 agreement would cover all elements – mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity and transparency – but without ever actually committing to do so.

Consequently, the Durban Platform said Parties would “work” on the elements – but without clearly saying they would be part of the 2020 agreement. This impression will be maintained until the last minute.

Thus a discussion about ‘elements’ continues with the Co-Chairs collecting everyone’s ideas into a ‘non-paper’ – a non-paper that has no legal status and so can eventually disappear without trace.

The Co-Chairs have tightly managed the process to prevent real party-to-party negotiations. Instead they ‘hear’ the Parties and include what they like of what they hear in the non-paper. The intention is to play out the clock and then table a mitigation-focused text at the last minute

The developed countries, however, must still elaborate the mitigation element of the 2020 agreement. To avoid discussing the other elements, this is done by proxy through another parallel process, but without it being clear this is the real intention.

This parallel process was established with the Warsaw decision which divided the 2020 negotiations into two parts – one about ‘elements’ and one about ‘national contributions’. While ‘elements’ are put into a non-binding non-paper, ‘contributions’ have been focused on mitigation, and placed into a legal ‘decision’ text.

A cunning plan – for developed countries to avoid paying up

Under the draft text contributions on mitigation are to be compulsory. These must be provided well in advance of the Paris meeting in December 2015. To enable developed countries to avoid contributions towards their other obligations, the ‘scope’ of their contributions is otherwise to be ‘nationally determined’.

They can, in other words, determine to offer no contributions on adaptation, finance, technology or capacity – essentially prejudicing negotiations on the scope of the 2020 agreement.

The likely result of such a process is:

Mitigation-focused contributions from developed countries, without contributions on finance, technology or capacity; and

Mitigation-focused contributions from developing countries, without contributions on adaptation.

In the absence of comprehensive contributions on adaptation, finance, technology or capacity, developed countries can declare that further work is required on these elements, and so these would not be included in the core 2020 agreement. Mitigation-focused contributions from all Parties can then serve as the basis for a mitigation-focused 2020 agreement.

To appease the United States, the 2020 agreement would merely commit countries to submit their contributions to be listed under the agreement, without having a legal requirement to fulfil those contributions. As by Paris developing countries may have already submitted contributions, it would be harder for their Ministers to find a basis to refuse to sign the new agreement.

The result would be a new mitigation-focused 2020 agreement that is weaker for developed countries than the Kyoto Protocol, and stronger for developing countries, and that excludes meaningful commitments on adaptation, finance, technology and capacity.

So, let’s pack all these things we don’t like up a bureaucratic cul-de-sac

These issues, it will be said, can be addressed outside the 2020 agreement as part of a ‘Paris Package’. Existing Convention commitments on these issues would remain, but their implementation would be sidelined in favour of work under the new 2020 Paris Agreement.

Like the Kyoto Protocol, they would be rendered ineffective, and potentially a dead letter.

While the new agreement would cover the United States, the result for developed countries would be weaker than the Kyoto Protocol which itself was inadequate to spur action. It is also likely fail to include the means of implementation required to mobilize sufficient action in developing countries.

Faced with growing climate impacts, many developing countries are likely to focus their limited resources on adaptation. Weak mitigation pledges would be locked in for another five years, and possibly ten, effectively missing the window for changing the global emissions trajectory before we cross tipping points that set us on track for catastrophic warming.

How can we thwart the rich countries dastardly plan?

The first step is to ensure the ‘elements’ of the 2015 agreement – mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity and transparency – are agreed before the ‘contributions’. This is needed to ensure a comprehensive and balanced 2020 agreement.

Then:

Developed countries must put forward contributions on mitigation in the form of QELROs (Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Obligations), as well as on providing finance, technology, capacity and transparency.

Developing countries should put forward adaptation contributions, conditional on receiving finance and technology, before putting forward mitigation contributions, to ensure adaptation is clearly part of the 2020 agreement.

Developing countries should put forward mitigation contributions – but only once developed countries have committed to put forward substantial finance, technology and capacity contributions.

The process should enable party-to-party negotiations to ensure Parties are able to negotiate with each other directly, rather than with Co-Chairs and the Secretariat.

These steps are necessary because, if developing countries commit to mitigation-focused contributions before securing the other elements, the prospects for negotiating a comprehensive and balanced 2020 agreement that addresses the needs and rights of climate-impacted people are substantially diminished.

This article was originally published by Friends of the Earth International in the form of a Briefing paper: ‘What type of climate deal in Paris?‘

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged agreement, card, climate, countries, developed, rich, three, trick on 01/12/2014 by angelo@percorso.net.

World Bank to focus on ‘all forms of renewable energy’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The World Bank will invest heavily in clean energy and only fund coal projects in “circumstances of extreme need” because climate change will undermine efforts to eliminate extreme poverty, says its president Jim Yong Kim.

Talking ahead of a UN climate summit in Peru next month, Kim said he was alarmed by World Bank-commissioned research from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, which said that as a result of past greenhouse gas emissions the world is condemned to unprecedented weather events.

“The findings are alarming. As the planet warms further, heatwaves and other weather extremes, which today we call once-in-a-century events, would become the new climate normal, a frightening world of increased risk and instability.

“The consequences for development would be severe, as crop yields decline, water resources shift, communicable diseases move into new geographical ranges, and sea levels rise.”

“We know that the dramatic weather extremes are already affecting millions of people, such as the five to six feet of snow that just fell on Buffalo, and can throw our lives into disarray or worse.

“Even with ambitious mitigation, warming close to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is locked in. And this means that climate change impact such as extreme heat events may now be simply unavoidable.”

‘Only in extreme need will we do coal again’

But the Bank, which has traditionally been one of the world’s largest funders of fossil fuel projects and has been accused of adding to the problem of climate change, said it could not ignore the poorest countries’ need for power.

“We are going to have to focus all of our energy to move toward renewable and cleaner forms of energy”, said Kim.

“But on the other hand we believe very strongly that the poorest countries have a right to energy and that we not ask these energy poor countries to wait until there are ways of ensuring that solar and wind power can provide the kind of base load that all countries need in order to industrialise.

“The stakes have never been higher. We cannot continue down the current path of unchecked growing emissions. The case for taking action now on climate change is overwhelming, and the cost of inaction will only rise.”

Kim was backed by Rachel Kyte, World Bank group vice president and special envoy for climate change. “It will only be in circumstances of extreme need that we would contemplate doing coal again”, she said.

“We would only contemplate doing [it] in the poorest of countries where their energy transition as part of their low-carbon development plan means that there are no other base load power sources available at a reasonable price.”

“The focus is on being able to ramp up our lending and the leveraging of our lending into all forms of renewable energy. That’s the strategy. It includes everything from all sizes of hydro through to wind, to solar, to concentrated solar, to geothermal. I think we’re invested in every dimension of renewable energy. That is what we’re concentrating on.”

Now, what about oil, gas and other fossil fuels

The bank’s report showed that with a 2C warming, soya and wheat crop yields in Brazil could decrease 50-70%: “In the Middle east and north Africa, a large increase in heatwaves combined with warmer average temperatures will put intense pressure on already scarce water resources with major consequences for food security.

“Crop yields could decrease by up to 30% at 1.5-2C and by almost 60% at 3-4C. Pressure on resources might increase the risk of conflict.”

Climate change posed a substantial risk to development and cutting poverty, the report said, adding that action on emissions need not come at the expense of economic growth.

But the bank made no commitment to cut funding for oil or other fossil fuel exploration. Analysis earlier this year by Washington-based NGO Oil Change International showed that the bank had funded $21bn (£13bn) of fossil fuel projects since 2008, including $1bn of oil and other fossil fuel exploration in 2013.

“The bank has taken an important first step in essentially stopping its support for coal-fired power plants, but climate change is caused by more than just coal”, said Stephen Kretzmann, director of Oil Change International.

“The vast majority of currently proven fossil fuel reserves will need to be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, but last year the bank provided nearly $1bn in support for finding more of these unburnable carbon reserves.”

John Vidal is Environment Editor for the Guardian.

This article was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced with thanks via The Guardian Environment Network.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged bank, climate, energy, focus, forms, only, renewable, world on 26/11/2014 by angelo@percorso.net.

World Bank to focus on ‘all forms of renewable energy’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The World Bank will invest heavily in clean energy and only fund coal projects in “circumstances of extreme need” because climate change will undermine efforts to eliminate extreme poverty, says its president Jim Yong Kim.

Talking ahead of a UN climate summit in Peru next month, Kim said he was alarmed by World Bank-commissioned research from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, which said that as a result of past greenhouse gas emissions the world is condemned to unprecedented weather events.

“The findings are alarming. As the planet warms further, heatwaves and other weather extremes, which today we call once-in-a-century events, would become the new climate normal, a frightening world of increased risk and instability.

“The consequences for development would be severe, as crop yields decline, water resources shift, communicable diseases move into new geographical ranges, and sea levels rise.”

“We know that the dramatic weather extremes are already affecting millions of people, such as the five to six feet of snow that just fell on Buffalo, and can throw our lives into disarray or worse.

“Even with ambitious mitigation, warming close to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is locked in. And this means that climate change impact such as extreme heat events may now be simply unavoidable.”

‘Only in extreme need will we do coal again’

But the Bank, which has traditionally been one of the world’s largest funders of fossil fuel projects and has been accused of adding to the problem of climate change, said it could not ignore the poorest countries’ need for power.

“We are going to have to focus all of our energy to move toward renewable and cleaner forms of energy”, said Kim.

“But on the other hand we believe very strongly that the poorest countries have a right to energy and that we not ask these energy poor countries to wait until there are ways of ensuring that solar and wind power can provide the kind of base load that all countries need in order to industrialise.

“The stakes have never been higher. We cannot continue down the current path of unchecked growing emissions. The case for taking action now on climate change is overwhelming, and the cost of inaction will only rise.”

Kim was backed by Rachel Kyte, World Bank group vice president and special envoy for climate change. “It will only be in circumstances of extreme need that we would contemplate doing coal again”, she said.

“We would only contemplate doing [it] in the poorest of countries where their energy transition as part of their low-carbon development plan means that there are no other base load power sources available at a reasonable price.”

“The focus is on being able to ramp up our lending and the leveraging of our lending into all forms of renewable energy. That’s the strategy. It includes everything from all sizes of hydro through to wind, to solar, to concentrated solar, to geothermal. I think we’re invested in every dimension of renewable energy. That is what we’re concentrating on.”

Now, what about oil, gas and other fossil fuels

The bank’s report showed that with a 2C warming, soya and wheat crop yields in Brazil could decrease 50-70%: “In the Middle east and north Africa, a large increase in heatwaves combined with warmer average temperatures will put intense pressure on already scarce water resources with major consequences for food security.

“Crop yields could decrease by up to 30% at 1.5-2C and by almost 60% at 3-4C. Pressure on resources might increase the risk of conflict.”

Climate change posed a substantial risk to development and cutting poverty, the report said, adding that action on emissions need not come at the expense of economic growth.

But the bank made no commitment to cut funding for oil or other fossil fuel exploration. Analysis earlier this year by Washington-based NGO Oil Change International showed that the bank had funded $21bn (£13bn) of fossil fuel projects since 2008, including $1bn of oil and other fossil fuel exploration in 2013.

“The bank has taken an important first step in essentially stopping its support for coal-fired power plants, but climate change is caused by more than just coal”, said Stephen Kretzmann, director of Oil Change International.

“The vast majority of currently proven fossil fuel reserves will need to be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, but last year the bank provided nearly $1bn in support for finding more of these unburnable carbon reserves.”

John Vidal is Environment Editor for the Guardian.

This article was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced with thanks via The Guardian Environment Network.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged bank, climate, energy, focus, forms, only, renewable, world on 26/11/2014 by angelo@percorso.net.

World Bank to focus on ‘all forms of renewable energy’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The World Bank will invest heavily in clean energy and only fund coal projects in “circumstances of extreme need” because climate change will undermine efforts to eliminate extreme poverty, says its president Jim Yong Kim.

Talking ahead of a UN climate summit in Peru next month, Kim said he was alarmed by World Bank-commissioned research from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, which said that as a result of past greenhouse gas emissions the world is condemned to unprecedented weather events.

“The findings are alarming. As the planet warms further, heatwaves and other weather extremes, which today we call once-in-a-century events, would become the new climate normal, a frightening world of increased risk and instability.

“The consequences for development would be severe, as crop yields decline, water resources shift, communicable diseases move into new geographical ranges, and sea levels rise.”

“We know that the dramatic weather extremes are already affecting millions of people, such as the five to six feet of snow that just fell on Buffalo, and can throw our lives into disarray or worse.

“Even with ambitious mitigation, warming close to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is locked in. And this means that climate change impact such as extreme heat events may now be simply unavoidable.”

‘Only in extreme need will we do coal again’

But the Bank, which has traditionally been one of the world’s largest funders of fossil fuel projects and has been accused of adding to the problem of climate change, said it could not ignore the poorest countries’ need for power.

“We are going to have to focus all of our energy to move toward renewable and cleaner forms of energy”, said Kim.

“But on the other hand we believe very strongly that the poorest countries have a right to energy and that we not ask these energy poor countries to wait until there are ways of ensuring that solar and wind power can provide the kind of base load that all countries need in order to industrialise.

“The stakes have never been higher. We cannot continue down the current path of unchecked growing emissions. The case for taking action now on climate change is overwhelming, and the cost of inaction will only rise.”

Kim was backed by Rachel Kyte, World Bank group vice president and special envoy for climate change. “It will only be in circumstances of extreme need that we would contemplate doing coal again”, she said.

“We would only contemplate doing [it] in the poorest of countries where their energy transition as part of their low-carbon development plan means that there are no other base load power sources available at a reasonable price.”

“The focus is on being able to ramp up our lending and the leveraging of our lending into all forms of renewable energy. That’s the strategy. It includes everything from all sizes of hydro through to wind, to solar, to concentrated solar, to geothermal. I think we’re invested in every dimension of renewable energy. That is what we’re concentrating on.”

Now, what about oil, gas and other fossil fuels

The bank’s report showed that with a 2C warming, soya and wheat crop yields in Brazil could decrease 50-70%: “In the Middle east and north Africa, a large increase in heatwaves combined with warmer average temperatures will put intense pressure on already scarce water resources with major consequences for food security.

“Crop yields could decrease by up to 30% at 1.5-2C and by almost 60% at 3-4C. Pressure on resources might increase the risk of conflict.”

Climate change posed a substantial risk to development and cutting poverty, the report said, adding that action on emissions need not come at the expense of economic growth.

But the bank made no commitment to cut funding for oil or other fossil fuel exploration. Analysis earlier this year by Washington-based NGO Oil Change International showed that the bank had funded $21bn (£13bn) of fossil fuel projects since 2008, including $1bn of oil and other fossil fuel exploration in 2013.

“The bank has taken an important first step in essentially stopping its support for coal-fired power plants, but climate change is caused by more than just coal”, said Stephen Kretzmann, director of Oil Change International.

“The vast majority of currently proven fossil fuel reserves will need to be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, but last year the bank provided nearly $1bn in support for finding more of these unburnable carbon reserves.”

John Vidal is Environment Editor for the Guardian.

This article was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced with thanks via The Guardian Environment Network.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged bank, climate, energy, focus, forms, only, renewable, world on 26/11/2014 by angelo@percorso.net.

World Bank to focus on ‘all forms of renewable energy’ Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

The World Bank will invest heavily in clean energy and only fund coal projects in “circumstances of extreme need” because climate change will undermine efforts to eliminate extreme poverty, says its president Jim Yong Kim.

Talking ahead of a UN climate summit in Peru next month, Kim said he was alarmed by World Bank-commissioned research from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, which said that as a result of past greenhouse gas emissions the world is condemned to unprecedented weather events.

“The findings are alarming. As the planet warms further, heatwaves and other weather extremes, which today we call once-in-a-century events, would become the new climate normal, a frightening world of increased risk and instability.

“The consequences for development would be severe, as crop yields decline, water resources shift, communicable diseases move into new geographical ranges, and sea levels rise.”

“We know that the dramatic weather extremes are already affecting millions of people, such as the five to six feet of snow that just fell on Buffalo, and can throw our lives into disarray or worse.

“Even with ambitious mitigation, warming close to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is locked in. And this means that climate change impact such as extreme heat events may now be simply unavoidable.”

‘Only in extreme need will we do coal again’

But the Bank, which has traditionally been one of the world’s largest funders of fossil fuel projects and has been accused of adding to the problem of climate change, said it could not ignore the poorest countries’ need for power.

“We are going to have to focus all of our energy to move toward renewable and cleaner forms of energy”, said Kim.

“But on the other hand we believe very strongly that the poorest countries have a right to energy and that we not ask these energy poor countries to wait until there are ways of ensuring that solar and wind power can provide the kind of base load that all countries need in order to industrialise.

“The stakes have never been higher. We cannot continue down the current path of unchecked growing emissions. The case for taking action now on climate change is overwhelming, and the cost of inaction will only rise.”

Kim was backed by Rachel Kyte, World Bank group vice president and special envoy for climate change. “It will only be in circumstances of extreme need that we would contemplate doing coal again”, she said.

“We would only contemplate doing [it] in the poorest of countries where their energy transition as part of their low-carbon development plan means that there are no other base load power sources available at a reasonable price.”

“The focus is on being able to ramp up our lending and the leveraging of our lending into all forms of renewable energy. That’s the strategy. It includes everything from all sizes of hydro through to wind, to solar, to concentrated solar, to geothermal. I think we’re invested in every dimension of renewable energy. That is what we’re concentrating on.”

Now, what about oil, gas and other fossil fuels

The bank’s report showed that with a 2C warming, soya and wheat crop yields in Brazil could decrease 50-70%: “In the Middle east and north Africa, a large increase in heatwaves combined with warmer average temperatures will put intense pressure on already scarce water resources with major consequences for food security.

“Crop yields could decrease by up to 30% at 1.5-2C and by almost 60% at 3-4C. Pressure on resources might increase the risk of conflict.”

Climate change posed a substantial risk to development and cutting poverty, the report said, adding that action on emissions need not come at the expense of economic growth.

But the bank made no commitment to cut funding for oil or other fossil fuel exploration. Analysis earlier this year by Washington-based NGO Oil Change International showed that the bank had funded $21bn (£13bn) of fossil fuel projects since 2008, including $1bn of oil and other fossil fuel exploration in 2013.

“The bank has taken an important first step in essentially stopping its support for coal-fired power plants, but climate change is caused by more than just coal”, said Stephen Kretzmann, director of Oil Change International.

“The vast majority of currently proven fossil fuel reserves will need to be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, but last year the bank provided nearly $1bn in support for finding more of these unburnable carbon reserves.”

John Vidal is Environment Editor for the Guardian.

This article was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced with thanks via The Guardian Environment Network.

This entry was posted in Ecologic and tagged bank, climate, energy, focus, forms, only, renewable, world on 26/11/2014 by angelo@percorso.net.

Post navigation

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Eco Bio III Millennio

„“

Tag Archives: climate

Bottoms up! ‘Head in sand salute’ is the new climate protest Updated for 2026

BLM sued – no environmental review of coal leasing since 1979 Updated for 2026

WMO: 2014 set to be the hottest year on record Updated for 2026

Climate turbulence deals costly blow to olive oil yield Updated for 2026

Three card trick – the rich countries’ plan to evade their climate obligations exposed Updated for 2026

Three card trick – the rich countries’ plan to evade their climate obligations exposed Updated for 2026

World Bank to focus on ‘all forms of renewable energy’ Updated for 2026

World Bank to focus on ‘all forms of renewable energy’ Updated for 2026

World Bank to focus on ‘all forms of renewable energy’ Updated for 2026

World Bank to focus on ‘all forms of renewable energy’ Updated for 2026