The Biden administration has laid out for the first time a set of principles that attempt to define how “high-integrity” carbon credits can play “a meaningful role” in helping cut greenhouse gas emissions and channelling “a significant amount of private capital” to combat climate change.

A 12-page policy document released by the US government on Tuesday includes provisions to ensure that carbon credit projects deliver real emission reductions, avoid harming local communities and encourage companies to decarbonise their own operations before buying offsets.

But it also recommends that businesses should be allowed to use carbon credits to cancel out some of the emissions generated by their suppliers and customers, known as “Scope 3”. A similar move by the board of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), a leading arbiter of corporate net zero plans, sparked a major backlash from staff last month.

The US government guidelines are neither binding nor enforceable. However, proponents hope they will reinforce a number of ongoing initiatives led by carbon credit developers, buyers and green groups to raise standards and boost the role of carbon markets in climate and nature protection.

Troubled market

Polluting companies, including major fossil fuel producers and airlines, spent an estimated $1.7 billion last year on voluntary carbon offsets meant to compensate their direct emissions by funding climate-friendly activities elsewhere, such as planting trees or rolling out renewable energy sources.  

But a series of revelations questioning the environmental and social benefits claimed by some developers and users of carbon credits have dented confidence in the market.

As South Africa heads to the polls, voters await stalled “just energy transition”

Scientific studies and investigative reports – including by Climate Home – have found that a growing number of projects failed to deliver the emission reductions promised. NGOs have also denounced instances of human rights abuse and environmental damage caused by carbon-offsetting activities.

“Voluntary carbon markets are a huge distraction and a waste of time and resources,” said Mohamed Adow, the Nairobi-based founder of the Power Shift Africa think-tank. “It’s sad to see politicians in the Global North desperately trying to find any way they can to avoid actually just cutting their carbon emissions,” he added.

Every tool needed

In its announcement, the US government acknowledged the shortcomings in voluntary carbon markets (VCMs), saying that “in too many instances” credits do not live up to the high standards required.

“For good reasons a lot of folks outside this room are skeptical,” National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi told attendees at the policy launch in Washington. “[They are] scared off by news stories of things that went wrong and gloss of greenwash.”

US National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi speaks during a press briefing at the White House in Washington, U.S., January 26, 2024. REUTERS/Julia Nikhinson

But, he added, that should not be seen as “an excuse to slow down but as an occasion to speed up” and do things better.

The Biden administration wants to be a leader in guiding “the development of VCMs toward high-quality and high-efficacy decarbonization actions”, the White House said. Its principles closely align with those of industry-led governance bodies that are trying to revamp the carbon market.

The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) is currently assessing project methodologies as part of its efforts to establish the first independent global benchmark for “high-integrity” carbon offsets, known as the “Core Carbon Principles”.

“We are in a climate emergency and we need every tool in the box to meet the 1.5°C [global warming] target,” said ICVCM Council Chair Annette Nazareth. “High-integrity carbon credits can mobilise private finance at scale for projects to reduce and remove billions of tonnes of emissions that would not otherwise be viable.”

Substitute for government aid

As most of the world’s largest carbon offsetting projects are based in the Global South, many rich governments view the market favourably as a way of getting dollars to developing nations without tapping into public budgets.

That is the case in the US where climate funding has fallen victim to political polarisation. President Joe Biden promised to increase international climate finance to over $11.4 billion per year by 2024. But Congress approved only a fraction of that as part of this year’s government budget: $1 billion of a spending package totalling $1.59 trillion.

In Malawi, dubious cyclone aid highlights need for loss and damage fund

The White House’s Zaidi said voluntary carbon markets can move “mountains of capital” if their integrity is improved. Better regulation could expand the market from its current size of around $1.7 billion to $1.1 trillion by 2050, according to predictions by BloombergNEF. 

Gilles Dufrasne, global policy lead at Carbon Market Watch, told Climate Home the US government will need to “walk the talk and ensure that its promises of transparency and integrity are followed up by actions”.

“There is currently no public data to measure how much finance is flowing to climate action through carbon credits and how much is staying in the pockets of Global North intermediaries and consultants,” he added.

International negotiations

The US government is also a strong proponent of private sector-led carbon credit initiatives in international climate circles.

In discussions at the COP28 climate summit last year on setting the rules for a new carbon market governed by the United Nations, Washington championed what observers described as a “light-touch, no-frills” approach that could hand a prominent role to private-sector players from the voluntary market.

The move was rejected by the European Union, causing a breakdown in the negotiations, which will resume at the mid-year UN climate talks in Bonn starting next week.

“By undermining the multilateral process … and placing more faith in private sector-governed voluntary carbon markets, the US appears to be shirking its responsibilities for financing climate action and offloading them onto the private sector,” said Trishant Dev, a carbon market expert at the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment.

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini and Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post US government backs the carbon credit industry’s push to fix itself appeared first on Climate Home News.

Living in a community on the edge of an acres-wide petrochemical plant in Texas or Louisiana means that you can see, smell, and taste plastic pollution every day. All too often leaders who are charged with making decisions about plastic pollution are too far removed from the impact and easily miss the risks to human health and the environment.

This past week, a thousand miles away, delegates from over 170 countries met in Ottawa, Ontario, to discuss just that: pollution from plastic. This meeting marks the fourth session of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4), where leaders are working to develop a legally binding, global plastics treaty ahead of final negotiations set for November.

As decisions move forward, Beyond Petrochemicals is supporting our community partners to help bring their lived experience to the negotiation process. These frontline leaders are working hard to push for a fair and effective treaty that puts public health, human rights, and the environment first.

But the petrochemical industry is at work too, placing pro-plastic ads near negotiating rooms and touting false solutions like “chemical recycling.” Industry executives continue to downplay the role of plastics in the issue of pollution, even as a new report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that plastic production emits as much carbon pollution as 600 coal-fired power plants annually. By 2050, carbon pollution from plastics production could triple, taking up as much as 20 percent of our remaining carbon budget and undercutting global efforts on climate change.

Canadian minister vows to fight attempts to weaken plastic pollution treaty

It can be hard to relate to the fluctuations of international treaty negotiations or new scientific reports when you spend each day worried about breathing in the pollutants being negotiated. It’s easy to feel like just a number—some statistic about economic hardship or disease. That’s a problem.

Firsthand experience of pollution

Communities know firsthand the impact of plastic pollution at every step of the process. Plastic pollution begins when companies drill and extract oil and gas and use it to process and manufacture petrochemicals for plastics. More than a third of the carbon pollution generated by plastic production happens during the extraction and refining of fossil fuels. And it’s not just carbon pollution, this industry is suffocating communities in places like Texas, Louisiana, and the Ohio River Valley with millions of tons of toxic, cancer-causing pollution.

The global plastics treaty can be a landmark international agreement to address the escalating crisis of plastic pollution at every step – but the only way to get an effective treaty is with the perspectives and input of the communities on the frontlines of petrochemical pollution. Because when communities are trusted to lead, real change is possible.

I have seen the power of communities declaring they are more than a number. Two women separated by a thousand miles and seemingly just as many differences dared to fight the expansion of the petrochemical industry in their community – and they won.

Jill Hunkler, Ohio Valley resident and grassroots leader

Jill Hunkler, a seventh-generation Ohio Valley resident, is a fierce advocate for her community. Faced with plans to displace her friends and neighbors to build the largest ethylene plant of its kind in the United States, she became a leader of a grassroots movement. Phone calls, emails, and meetings helped put the pressure needed on state and federal leaders and stalled what was once seen as inevitable.

Together, they were more than a number and in fact helped avert 1.7 million tons of carbon emissions per year.

Sharon Lavigne of RISE St. James

Sharon Lavigne, a retired teacher from St. James Parish, Louisiana, is tired of the moniker given to her community, “Cancer Alley.” Decades of unabated industrial development have overwhelmed this primarily Black parish leaving a wake of disease and hardship. Sharon knows her parish is more than this, that it is more than a number.

Founding the group RISE St. James, Sharon is leading a multi-generational movement to block a petrochemical and plastics facility poised to produce as much pollution as three new coal plants. Their fight against the Formosa Sunshine plant has gained global attention thanks to her leadership, spurring legal actions and rallying work to ensure this plant is never built.

Sharon and Jill are not alone. Last year, a total of five newly planned petrochemical facilities were blocked by similar community efforts. And last week, after nearly two years of community-led organizing and opposition, Encina Development Group withdrew its plans to build a toxic chemical recycling facility along the Susquehanna River in Point Township, Pennsylvania.

People coming together makes a difference. As the plastics industry works to expand – to build more petrochemical plants and create more plastic than we could ever possibly need – the perspectives of frontline leaders are essential if we are going to arrive at a global plastics treaty that supports a stable climate, a livable planet, and a just future. Alongside powerful community organizers, my colleagues and I are proud to continue this effort to stop the expansion of the petrochemical industry.

Heather McTeer Toney is also the author of Before the Streetlights Come On: Black America’s Urgent Call for Climate Solutions. She was appointed by President Barack Obama to serve as a regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Southeast region. In 2004, she became the first woman and African American to be elected mayor of Greenville, Mississippi, a position she held until 2011.

The post ‘More than a number’: Global plastic talks need community experts appeared first on Climate Home News.

I was six when I started catching shrimp in the waterways of Louisiana. I inherited the livelihood that sustained my father, grandfather, and generations before them. My boat in the Gulf of Mexico is my second home. But I may lose it all – in part to Japan’s dangerous investments in fossil gas.

Eight years ago, fossil fuel companies and their government allies moved Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) projects into the region and turned our fishing community upside down. The Calcasieu Pass LNG export terminal was just 300 feet from my house, and promised “deep-water access, proximity to plentiful gas supplies and ease of transport for buyers”. Vibrations from its operations were so intense they knocked pictures off my wall. My wife suffered a heart attack, and my children were frequently ill. Facing dire health consequences and daily interruptions, my family was driven from our home.

Most people don’t realize that Japan is bankrolling LNG and the destruction along the US Gulf Coast. Japanese private banks MUFG, Mizuho, and SMBC are the first, second, and third biggest financiers of LNG export projects in the US. These banks have committed more than $13 million,  $11 million, and $10 million respectively to US-based LNG projects.

On April 10, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida will meet with President Joe Biden in Washington, DC to discuss the US and Japan’s commitment to promoting stability in the world and the advancement of clean energy supply chains. Biden clearly understands the need to take a hard look at the impacts of future LNG development as indicated by the pause he announced recently.

His administration has called the climate crisis the “existential threat of our time,” and sees the US as a champion to support other world leaders’ transition to green energy. But my family, and so many around me, are still waiting for change.

Travis Dardar drives his boat on the water with the Calcasieu Pass LNG terminal shown in the background. (Photo: Susanne Wong / Oil Change International)

Massive LNG tankers now crowd the water and wildlife is disappearing. Before the Calcasieu Pass LNG terminal started operating last year, local fishermen caught about 700,000 pounds of shrimp annually. The shrimp catch is now down nearly 90%, with no compensation for losing our livelihoods.

The devastating impacts of LNG on communities like mine and our unwavering opposition is the reason why in January President Biden paused LNG export approvals. The US Department of Energy is supposed to consider how to determine whether these projects are in the public interest and to take into account impacts on communities, ecosystems, and climate. Unfortunately, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm recently indicated this pause could be lifted within the year, when what we really need is for President Biden to stop all new LNG export projects for good.

European court rules climate inaction by states breaches human rights

Increasingly, the international community recognizes fossil fuels’ toxic effects on the environment and communities and the momentum is shifting towards clean energy.  Yet, Japan is still driving the expansion of gas and LNG in the US, across Asia and globally. In spite of Japan’s declining LNG demand at home, Japan is staking its economic growth on pushing governments across South and Southeast Asia to import LNG.

I invite Prime Minister Kishida to travel on my boat while he is in the US to see for himself the impact of Japan’s dirty energy projects on Gulf communities.

Air pollution hits health

Health deterioration in my community is unsurprising, given the plant’s pollution emissions. Long-term exposure to LNG chemicals can lead to heart disease and certain types of cancer, and living near a pollution center has been linked to increased stress, depression, and other mental health problems.

According to research by the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, the Calcasieu Pass LNG export terminal violated its air pollution permits on 286 of the first 343 days it was in operation – 83% of its first year. Rather than working to clean up its operations, Venture Global, the gas company behind the LNG facility, petitioned the state air quality agency to increase its allowable pollution limits. If the gas project already built can’t even follow pollution regulations, how can we expect the two plants posed for construction upstream to do so?

Despite this, the Gulf area buzzes with Japanese LNG operations. The proposed Calcasieu Pass 2 terminal is part of a 20-year contract with JERA, Japan’s largest gas company and the world’s largest LNG buyer. JERA agreed to buy 1 million tons of LNG annually from the project. INPEX, Japan’s largest oil and gas producer, also signed a 20-year contract to buy 1 million tons of LNG annually. These corporate operations and their profits are behind Japan’s push to expand LNG markets around the world.

Zambia’s fossil-fuel subsidy cuts help climate and kids – but taxi drivers suffer

Japan has developed a regional initiative, the Asia Zero Emissions Community, that will expand and prolong the use of fossil fuels by proposing to abate their emissions. This is a greenwashing effort to push governments in Asia to adopt dangerous distractions like hydrogen, ammonia, and carbon capture and storage. In reality, this will expand and prolong the harm of fossil fuels on communities like mine.

Although Biden’s pause on LNG export authorizations is a step in the right direction, it’s hard to celebrate here in Cameron Parish. LNG tankers dominate the water, and fishers are left to collect the scraps of our communities and livelihoods. Even with the setbacks, our community hasn’t given up hope. I founded Fishermen Interested in Saving Our Heritage (FISH), a united front that will fight to protect our homes, the environment, and access to the Gulf waters. We are focused on saving our way of life.

As the largest LNG exporter in the world, the US holds major influence in this tainted market. During their upcoming meeting, I urge Prime Minister Kishida and President Biden to recognize our future in renewables and stop sacrificing frontline communities for profit.

The post Louisiana communities are suffering from Japan-funded LNG exports appeared first on Climate Home News.

He replaces John Kerry who stepped down last month to campaign for Biden’s presidential bid.

The appointment received a mostly positive reaction from climate diplomats and campaigners, with praise for Podesta’s experience, contacts and knowledge. But some concerns were raised about him combining this new role with his domestically-focussed climate job.

Whereas Kerry was a climate envoy, Podesta will only be an adviser to the President. Unlike envoys, advisers do not have to be approved by the US Senate.

Podesta will oversee the US’s diplomacy up to and at Cop29 in Azerbaijan, which will start six days after the US election. His key task will be to negotiate a new long-term climate finance goal with developing countries.

Old hand

Seventy-five-year-old Podesta has been a high-profile figure in Washington DC for decades. He was president Bill Clinton’s chief of staff from 1998 to 2001 and acted as Barack Obama’s climate advisor in 2014-15, while the Paris Agreement was being negotiated.

In 2016, Podesta led Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential bid against Donald Trump. During the campaign, thousands of personal emails allegedly from Podesta were posted online after his account had been hacked.

Rich nations miss loss and damage fund deadline

In September 2022, Biden appointed him to oversee the rollout of the $369 billion green spending bill – the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

Podesta has been a strong defender of the IRA as it faced accusations of protectionism from Europe, the Far East and across the developing world. He told the Financial Times last year that the US makes “no apologies” for prioritising American jobs in its push for clean energy.

Steady pair of hands

Most big US green campaign groups like the National Resources Defence Council and Center for Climate and Energy Solutions welcomed his appointment.

E3G analyst Alden Meyer told Climate Home Podesta was “the ideal pick for this job” as “he has the experience, relationships and deep understanding of climate policy and politics needed to do an outstanding job”. “Most importantly”, he added, “he has the full confidence of president Biden”.

Abroad, Podesta’s announcement was broadly welcomed too although campaigners criticised the US’s climate record.

Saudi Arabia cancels plan to raise oil pumping cap

As Brazil’s then environment minister, Izabella Teixeira worked with Podesta on the Paris Agreement. She told Climate Home he was a “good choice” and “a man that understands very well the power of the dialogue” and “a good player of the multilateral system”.

Peruvian diplomat Manuel Pulgar-Vidal worked with Podesta as president of Cop20 in Lima. Now with WWF, he told Climate Home he “warmly welcome[d]” the appointment”.

“His role in securing the Paris Agreement, and recently in implementing the IRA, is testament to his skill and dedication,” Pulgar-Vidal said.

Li Shuo, from the Asia Society, described him as a “steady pair of hands” who “has extensive experience working with China during the Obama years and knows his Chinese counterparts well”.

“I hope his appointment will ensure consistency as the US and China follow the engagement path outlined by the Sunnylands agreement reached last year”, Li added.

Skepticism

But Harjeet Singh, from the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said the appointment “casts a shadow of doubt over the US’s commitment to global climate leadership”.

He said that Podesta was likely to focus on domestic action and “tread even more cautiously on the international stage than Kerry did”, suggesting that “international negotiations will become a secondary priority”.

“It reflects a continuous disregard for the US’s historical duty to provide developing nations with financial and technological support,” he said, adding “the international community grows increasingly skeptical of the US’s readiness to fulfill its global responsibilities.”

For Cop29 to succeed, rich nations must get their parliaments to agree more finance now

Mohammed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, told Climate Home he hoped Podesta could bring the “urgency and purpose” of the IRA to his international climate diplomacy.

But, he added, the US “remains the world’s ultimate petro-state” as it is the biggest producer of oil and gas and has the largest historic emissions.

“Pairing this with the US offering a paltry amount in climate finance at the recent Cop28 talks and it’s clear that Podesta has a big job on his hands to get the US to be part of the solution to the climate crisis, rather than being part of the problem”, he said.

The post John Podesta replaces Kerry as top US climate diplomat appeared first on Climate Home News.

Announcing the move on Friday morning, President Joe Biden said the pause on all pending export permits for liquified natural gas (LNG) “sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time”.

The decision comes after Biden faced mounting pressure from environmentalists and climate activists to apply the brakes on the US build-up of fossil fuel capacity. The groups represent an important voter base for Biden as he seeks reelection in November.

The US is the world’s largest exporter of LNG and shipments are expected to keep soaring as a result of projects already approved and under construction.

But the review will put on hold the planned development of at least four more gas export terminals on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

That includes the Calcasieu Pass 2 (or CP2), a facility in Louisiana described by campaigners as a “carbon bomb”. If built, it could ship up to 24 million tonnes of gas every year.

New climate tests

Biden said his administration “will take a hard look at the impacts of LNG exports on energy costs, America’s energy security and our environment”.

A White House statement said the pause would allow the White House to integrate “critical considerations” that have emerged since the last analysis of gas export approvals was carried out five years ago.

That includes the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. Gas supporters have historically promoted it as a “cleaner” fossil fuel because of its reduced carbon dioxide emissions compared to coal.

But LNG is primarily made of methane, a much more potent earth-warming gas. While burning it turns it into carbon dioxide, methane leaks during transport can push its lifetime emissions higher than those of coal, according to a new study by methane expert Robert Howarth currently undergoing peer review.

Liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities in Texas. Photo: Tim Aubry / Greenpeace

Max Gruenig, senior policy advisor at E3G, said Biden’s decision is a “significant shift” because the Department of Energy, which is responsible for assessing the projects, has historically only taken economic benefits into account.

“They will have to come up with a new methodology to assess what is beneficial to the public that includes externalities like climate change”, he added. “But the problem is, of course, as soon as you publish the details of the methodology, you risk being litigated against and attacked in court. The pause allows the Biden administration to avoid this and buy itself more time until the election”.

Elections in sight

Campaigners hailed the White House announcement as a “bold step” and “a historic win”. Ben Jealous, executive director of the Sierra Club, said the decisions “makes it clear that the Biden administration is listening to the calls to break America’s reliance on dirty fossil fuels and secure a livable future for us all”.

Sixty percent of US voters surveyed in a poll by Data for Progress, a progressive think tank last November supported limiting gas exports.

Gruenig said that the Biden administration had been “growing more careful” about climate considerations in energy infrastructure after approving the Willow oil project in Alaska. “I don’t think the White House expected that would cause such a massive backlash from the climate community”, he added.

Zimbabwe looks to China to secure a place in the EV battery supply chain

Biden’s statement attempts to draw a dividing line with his likely opponent Donald Trump. He criticised “MAGA [Make America Great Again] Republicans” who “willfully deny the urgency of the climate crisis, condemning the American people to a dangerous future”.

Gruenig believes the LNG expansion freeze will bolster US credibility on the international climate stage, where many developing countries and campaigners regularly point fingers at American hypocrisy over fossil fuel investments.

Lobbyists fan energy security fears

Industry groups have condemned the pause as a “win for Russia” and “a loss for American allies”. As rumors of Biden’s plans swirled around in previous days, the prevailing narrative from pro-gas lobbyists has been that the approvals freeze would put Europe’s future energy security at risk.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine forced the bloc to look for alternative gas sources, US LNG exports to Europe have increased rapidly.

But analysts believe this is going to change soon as a result of rapid renewables rollout and better energy efficiency. By 2026, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts European gas demand will be one-fifth below the pre-war level of 2021.

Cop29 host Azerbaijan launches green energy unit to sceptical response

Existing LNG installations should be able to satisfy that demand without any further expansion, according to IEEFA. Their analyst say that, just taking into account terminals already being built, US export capacity by the end of this decade will be three-quarters higher than European demand.

A group of 60 European lawmakers largely from Green parties made that point in a letter to the White House on Thursday, arguing that the fossil fuel industry is using Europe as “an excuse” to expand gas exports. “The demand for new gas from industry voices in Europe is a false one”, they said. 

While using pro-Europe rhetoric, gas producers could actually be looking to sell their products in other, more promising markets. Venture Global, the owner of the CP2 terminal in Lousiana, has signed purchase agreements with Japan and China, for example.

The post US government pauses new gas export terminals in ‘historic win’ for climate appeared first on Climate Home News.

But not all its people. Because of the USA’s huge emissions, financial power and  electoral system, our hopes lie largely on those in a few swing states – like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona.

In 2020, we spoke to grassroots campaigners trying to boost climate voter turnout in Georgia. They were crucial in swinging the Senate then, which allowed a huge climate bill to be passed in 2022. The planet needs the likes of them again.

1.Who will win the US election?

Of all the world’s elections, the USA’s is the one that matters the most for the climate. The policies of the world’s second biggest polluter swing wildly depending on who is in the Oval Office.

The vote on November 5 is likely to pit Joe Biden against Donald Trump. Polls and bookmakers currently suggest Trump is more likely to win.

That would put a major dampener on climate hopes ahead of Cop29, on November 11.

We know where both men stand. As president, Trump withdrew the US from the Paris agreement. Biden re-joined it on his first day in office and pushed through $369bn of green spending.

On the same day as the Presidential election, Americans will also vote for all the seats in the House of Representatives and a third of those in the Senate.

Republican control of the House of Representatives is a big barrier to US climate finance. Given Democratic turnout is usually higher when there’s a Presidential election, there’s a chance Democrats could win control and at least deliver on their $3 billion promise to the Green Climate Fund.

Donald Trump being sworn in as US president in 2016 (Pic: White House photo)

2.What will the new global finance target be?

Compared to fossil fuels, finance was low profile in 2023 – to the anger of developing countries.

But 2024 should be its year, as countries have to negotiate a new finance goal for 2025 onwards by the time they leave Cop29 in Baku in November.

Expect debate over who should pay and who should receive, as well as how much should be given and to what.

Separately, France and Kenya have launched a taskforce on how to get money for climate which isn’t just from governments.

Options include taxes on international shipping, aviation, financial transactions and fossil fuels.

The US, Germany and others will continue their push to squeeze more money out of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund for climate.

3.Will emissions finally start going down?

Almost every year so far, the world’s humans have pumped out more greenhouse gas than any year before, sparking depressing headlines about “record emissions”.

But 2023 could well be the last year of this.  A report by Climate Analytics finds a 70% chance that emissions will peak in 2023 and start falling in 2024.

The International Energy Agency thinks something similar – but the US government’s forecasters are more pessimistic.

Whether emissions peak or not, the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will keep going up. A bath tub doesn’t empty because you put less water in it each year – you have to pull the plug out.

Climate Analytics says emissions are likely to peak this year but how fast they decline depends on policies (Photos: Climate Analytics)

4.When will the loss and damage fund start spending?

Before rich nations agreed to a loss and damage fund at the end of 2022, they argued that it would take years and years to set up – too long to be useful.

After governments agreed on most of the details in 2023, 2024 may be the year they are proved wrong.

Regional groups are appointing their board members to the fund now.

Then the board needs to meet, agree policies, receive the money it’s been promised and start dishing it out.

What’s for sure is that there will be loss this year and there will be damage – droughts, heatwaves, storms and more. So the victims can’t wait.

5.Will countries firm up adaptation targets?

After two years of talks, at Cop28 this year governments agreed to draw up targets on adapting to climate change in areas like healthcare, food security and protecting nature.

They will now spend two years discussing whether there should be numbers attached to those targets and what those numbers should be.

Developing countries want the numbers – like a target to reduce adverse climate impacts on agricultural production by 50% by 2030.

But developed nations argue numbers can’t show how well you’ve adapted to climate change.

They will hash out this debate at Bonn in June and at Cop29 in Baku in November.

Seaweed farmers in Tanzania are having to move into deeper waters as seaweed-killing bacteria thrives in warming seas (Photo: Natalija Gormalova / Climate Visuals Countdown)

6.Will governments get rid of fossil fuel subsidies?

Since 2009, governments have kept promising to get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels – but not really doing so.

At Cop28, a dozen nations including France and Canada joined a coalition to try and finally turn this promise into action.

They committed to drawing up an inventory of their fossil fuel subsidies by Cop29 in November.

Inventories can lead to action. When a Dutch inventory revealed they were spending $40bn a year subsidising fossil fuels, protesters braved water cannons to block off the country’s parliament, rocketing the issue up the agenda. Will the same happen elsewhere?

7.Will coal-to-clean deals keep disappointing?

Just energy transition partnerships (Jetp) faced a brutal reality check in 2023, as investment blueprints were finally unveiled.

Rich countries are offering most of their money as loans not grants. Ambitious plans to switch off coal plants early in South Africa, Indonesia and Vietnam are now much more uncertain as a result.

As the money starts flowing in 2024, the implementation of the first few projects should give a flavour of how effective and just the transition will be.

The energy transition deal aims to wean Indonesia off coal, which now takes up nearly half of the country’s electricity mix. Photo: Kemal Jufri / Greenpeace

8.Will new treaty target plastic production?

Government negotiators are currently debating a draft of a new plastics treaty, which they hope to finalise by the end of 2024 – after meetings in Ottawa in April and Busan at the end of November.

One option being fiercely debated is whether to set limits on the amount of plastic each country can produce.

While the majority of European and African countries want limits, the US and Saudi Arabia are resistant.

Plastics are made from oil and gas. With electricity systems and vehicles transitioning to renewable electricity, oil and gas companies see plastics as a lifeline which this treaty could take away.

9.How will companies prepare for the EU’s carbon border tax?

Many developing countries have long seen the European Union’s carbon border tax and elements of the USA’s Inflation Reduction Act as unfair protectionist trade measures, dressed up in concern for the environment.

These complaints were high-profile at Cop28 – with China and others trying to get them put on the official agenda. The United Nation’s trade chief – Costa Rica’s Rebecca Grynspan – recently echoed these concerns and they’re likely to keep rising up the agenda in 2024.

The EU’s carbon border tax incentivises companies making certain polluting products outside of the EU to clean up their manufacturing – or at least to say they’re cleaning up. As the 2026 start date for the tax nears, we expect more stories about companies greenwashing to lessen their tax burden and about the impact of the tax on ordinary people in developing countries, aluminium workers in Mozambique for instance.

Bratsk aluminium smelting facility in Russia will be affected by the EU’s border tax (Photo credit: UC Rusal/WikiCommons)

10.Will carbon markets gain integrity?

Carbon markets – and the voluntary one, in particular – are facing a credibility crisis. Scandal after scandal has put the spotlight on the wildly exaggerated claims and environmental and social issues of many projects. Demand has slowed down as a result.

The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market – a new regulator-like body – is trying to steer buyers away from dodgy offsets and onto quality ones. It is expected to apply its quality label on the first batch of credits at the start of the new year.

After talks collapsed at Cop28 earlier this month, Article 6 negotiations will resume in Bonn in June. The US and EU are at loggerheads. Another bitter battle seems likely.

The post Ten climate questions for 2024 appeared first on Climate Home News.

There was no outcome document and no grand announcements. Nothing to impress the Republican congressmen who gave Kerry a grilling over China’s alleged climate failings last week.

But Xie was never going to get up and say that Kerry had talked him into abandoning new coal plants – any more than Kerry ever going to say Beijing had pressured him into giving more climate finance and removing American tariffs on Chinese solar panels.

The gains were more incremental. With expectations low, the meetings were cautiously hailed by experts as a “small win” and “an important step in what will be a complex rescue operation”.

US-China cooperation on climate had long withstood geopolitical tensions, but talks froze after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in 2022. Since then, they have slowly resumed.

Now, the “rescue operation” will continue with two more meetings planned before Cop28. In a press conference, Kerry said they’ll talk about two US priorities – coal and methane.

Success would be if China finally publishes its methane strategy. Or reforms of its electric grid to translate its booming number of solar panels and wind turbines into growth in renewables’ share of China’s electricity, a link that isn’t as automatic as you might think.

But, as China reiterated this week, the talks are still hostage to the wider relationship. Any high-profile US defence of Taiwan’s sovereignty could set them back to square one.

This week’s news:

• Biden’s union-friendly green jobs pitch meets sceptical response
• Frans Timmermans steps down from EU’s climate leadership
• Dozens of oil & industry lobbyists attended secretive shipping emissions talks
• Under record heatwave, US and China “unstick” climate talks
• EU and Argentina strike gas, hydrogen & renewables deal
• Australia will update the ‘fantasy’ net zero plan it inherited

…and comment:

• Open letter from 14 countries to G20: Safeguard a liveable future
• The EU-Mercosur trade deal will harm Brazil’s indigenous communities

While Kerry and Xie were dining in Beijing, another big hitter was preparing to leave the climate diplomacy stage.

Frans Timmermans has been the straight-talking, passionate face of the EU’s climate policy since 2019.

But now he’s leaving Brussels to try and become the next prime minister of his native Netherlands.

Who will lead the EU at Cop28 is unclear and, with Xie suffering health problems and Kerry considering retirement, it could be all change at the top by Cop29.

The post US-China talks thaw in heatwave – Climate Weekly appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a combative discussion with Republicans on Congress’s house foreign affairs committee this Thursday, Kerry was asked by Republican Brian Mast if he was “planning to commit America to climate reparations”, adding the US would have to “pay some other country because they had a flood or they had a hurricane”.

Before he could finish, Kerry jumped in: “No. Under no circumstances.” As Mast moved to write “no” on a prop behind him, Kerry joked: “Why don’t you create an exclamation point beside it too?”

Some media outlets and campaigners interpreted this as a refusal to pay into a new loss and damage fund that is scheduled to be set up at Cop28 in November. But several experts told Climate Home that was the wrong interpretation, defending the USA’s position of rejecting liability.

At last year’s Cop27, countries agreed to set up a fund to help victims of extreme climate-related disasters, focusing on countries particularly “vulnerable” to climate change.

At this year’s Cop28, nations will clarify operational details such as who contributes money to the fund and who receives it.

Climate reparations

Alden Meyer, a veteran Washington-DC based climate campaigner and policy analyst at climate think-tank E3G, told Climate Home that Kerry was rejecting the notion of climate ‘reparations’, which “was in bold letters on the big chart that Chairman Mast had behind him as he asked the question”.

Meyer said that the US has “always rejected any suggestion of liability or that it must provide compensation for its historical emissions” and Mast “was using a deliberately loaded term to characterise loss and damage, and Kerry refused to take the bait.”

With corporate climate cheats on the chopping block, net zero is growing up

The word reparations implies liability, Meyer added, and is also “a particularly charged term in the US given our atrocious history on slavery and continuing systemic racism”.

In an interview with The Guardian in January, Kerry said the US was committed to contributing with loss and damage finance. “How can you look somebody in the eye, with a straight face, and not accept the notion that there are damages, there are losses? We see them all around the world,” he said.

Loss and damage fund

In yesterday’s Congress session, Kerry said that, among his objectives for upcoming Cop28 in Dubai, was the “finalisation” of the loss and damage fund created last year.

“(The fund) is simply a recognition…it does not have any liability in it – we specifically put phrases in that negate any possibility of liability but it is there to try and help some of these vulnerable less developed areas from the problem that they’re facing,” he testified.

Avinash Persaud, a finance adviser to Barbados’s prime minister Mia Mottley and a member of the transitional committee hammering out the details of the new loss and damage fund, defended Kerry’s position.

“There is an unhelpful conflation between climate reparations and funding an international loss and damage fund. Reparations imply payment for past deeds. The loss and damage fund finances a resilient recovery after a climatic event, including slow onset events,” Persaud said.

He also defended the USA’s “global solidarity”, saying that it contributes to international relief after disasters and is helping expand development banks’ lending for climate resilience.

But, he added “immediate relief is not enough” and linked rich countries “unwillingness” to contribute to a loss and damage fund to developing countries “unwillingness” to spend money cutting their emissions. “Solidarity, along the lines of capacity to contribute, is in everyone’s long-run interests,” he said.

In Congress, that argument was not shared by Republican Tim Burchett who said: “You’ve also agreed that countries need to pay poor and developing countries for loss and damage due to climate change, why do the good folks in east Tennessee – they work very hard for their dollars – why do they have to pay for a flood in Africa or South Asia?”

Kerry responded: “We’re not specifically paying for a flood in Africa although sometimes money may go to something like that but the United States is proudly the largest humanitarian donor in the world…we try to help the world”.

The post Kerry rejects “climate reparations” but praises loss and damage fund appeared first on Climate Home News.

Financial support from the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) will help a state-controlled plant on the island of Borneo turn 40% more oil into products like jet fuel and diesel.

In a closed door meeting last Thursday, Ex-Im’s board approved $99.7 million in support for the Balikpapan oil refinery run by Indonesia’s national oil company Pertamina. Ex-Im said the loan would enable an expansion of the facility, alongside fuel efficiency and safety upgrades.

‘Untenable’ decision

But the plan has been criticised for seeming to contradict a climate finance commitment.

At Cop26, the US and 19 other countries signed the Glasgow Statement pledging to end new direct public finance for overseas fossil fuel projects by the end of 2022.

Since then the US has been accused of backsliding on its promise. Unlike other signatories, the White House has not released publicly any policy explaining how the pledge would be implemented.

Shruti Shukla from advocacy group the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said the lack of transparency is allowing for “untenable” decisions to slip through.

“To spend the limited public finance available on the upgrade of an oil refinery is not the best use of those resources which should go towards clean energy alternatives,” she said.

Cop28 moots oil and gas initiative despite greenwash accusations

Adam McGibbon, a campaigner at Oil Change International, said president Joe Biden risks not being trusted to keep climate promises by “breaking” the Glasgow pledge.

A senior Ex-Im official told Climate Home News that the agency is trying to align with the Biden administration’s climate agenda while still respecting its statutory limitations, including the prohibition against discrimination based solely on industry, sector or business.

Biden’s appointees

Ex-Im is the official export credit agency of the US. It operates as an independent authority but its board members are appointed by the US president and confirmed by the Senate.

The sitting president, Reta Jo-Lewis, was picked by Biden in February 2022. The current government selected three of the board’s members, while the other two were appointed by Donald Trump.

Local business group tries to keep South Africa’s coal plants alive

Like other countries’ export credit agencies, Ex-Im is influential in directing investment towards specific sectors by offering exporters government-backed loans, guarantees or insurance. This limits the risk taken by companies selling services and goods in countries or industries considered high risk.

Production boost

The new loan will allow the Balikpapan refinery to increase its capacity by nearly 40%, with the production of up to 360 million barrels of oil per day.

According to Ex-Im, the project will unleash 2.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year. That is as much as the annual carbon footprint of Iceland or Guyana.

A petrol station operated by oil and gas company Pertamina in Indonesia. Photo: tian yake/Flickr

Pertamina claims the project “not only aims to increase the refinery capacity but also realises a green refinery”. This is because the facility plans to switch to the production of a more energy-efficient type of gasoline.

Indonesia relies mostly on oil and coal for its energy supply. In November 2022, the US and Japan led a group of rich nations and banks in pledging $20 billion to speed up the country’s transition from coal to clean energy. But the plan has no provisions for phasing out other fossil fuels.

Support for US jobs

Ex-Im justified its backing of the project by claiming it would allow Indonesia to reduce its reliance on imported fossil fuels and said it would support hundreds of jobs for US manufacturers.

The project previously received much greater support from the South Korean export credit agency, which committed $1.19 billion to finance the oil refinery expansion in December 2022. Korea Eximbank said its support helped Korean engineering giant Hyundai win a construction contract on the project.

Vietnamese anti-coal campaigner freed early from prison

Unlike the US, however, South Korea did not sign the public finance pledge at Cop26 in Glasgow.

Analysts and campaigners told Climate Home News that the Indonesian oil refinery expansion falls within the scope of the Glasgow agreement to end public subsidies for fossil fuels projects overseas.

The UK stopped direct government support for the fossil fuel energy sector overseas in March 2021. Its guidance explicitly includes oil refining within its scope. France also put an end to providing public finance to international fossil fuel projects, including oil refining, last November.

Pledge backsliding

The US – together with Germany – has not yet published its public finance policies to meet the Glasgow agreement, according to a recent report by Oil Change International.

Ex-Im’s support for the oil refinery appears to contradict a claim made last month by G7 climate ministers that public support for unabated fossil fuel energy overseas had ended in 2022.

The NRDC’s Shukla said any more financing of fossil fuel projects would send the wrong message ahead of Cop28. “We hope there are no more similar projects that slip through.”

Oil and gas projects accounted for around 27% of Ex-Im’s portfolio in the fiscal year ending in September 2022, rising by one percentage point compared to the previous period. The agency is currently considering financing other fossil fuel projects, including an oil and gas field in Bahrain.

The post US backs Indonesian oil refinery despite pledge to end fossil fuel finance appeared first on Climate Home News.

Ian brought powerful winds, heavy rainfall and storm surges to Florida and Cuba, where it knocked out the electricity grid. In Cuba, at least two people died in the storm and in Florida at least ten were killed. The storm also caused  in Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic. 

The Category 4 hurricane, which is one of the most powerful to ever make landfall in Florida at 150mph, is also set to be one of the costliest storms in US history.

Chuck Watson, a disaster modeller at Enki Research, said the storm could cost the US up to $67 billion in economic damages. Besides damaging homes and infrastructure, the hurricane also ruined orange farms in the largest producing state, causing orange juice prices to surge. 

Only around 30% of the damage is covered by commercial insurance, Watson told Climate Home News. 60% of Florida residents do not have flood insurance, according to a 2020 McKinsey report. 

Damage to expensive properties and infrastructure on Florida’s coastline has also contributed to the enormous overall cost. “Explosive growth in coastal zones, regulatory factors, and so forth means more property with higher values in danger zones,” Watson said. 

Hurricane Ian may cause wider ranging economic impacts due to “fragile capital markets, on the tail end of the housing bubble,” Watson added. “Reconstruction values may be significantly higher than market values,” he said, adding that it could cost $400,000 to rebuild a $200,000 beach house due to having to meet new flood regulations. 

Nord Stream pipeline blowouts highlight vulnerability of fossil fuels

Emily Wilkinson, a senior researcher and specialist in global risks and resilience at ODI thinktank (formerly the Overseas Development Institute), told Climate Home News that the building regulations are struggling to keep pace with the intensifying impact of hurricanes in the region. 

“Every time the building codes get updated they become out of date because of the impacts of climate change,” said Wilkinson. The number of properties damaged by Hurricane Ian suggests that “a lot of housing wasn’t built to code, but also that the building codes may not be sufficient,” she said. 

There aren’t any estimates for the economic damages in Cuba, as most households and firms are not insured, Emily Morris, a research fellow at the UCL Institute of the Americas, told Climate Home News. But the damage is thought to be significant as the hurricane badly damaged agriculture and in particular Cuba’s tobacco crop, the country’s main agricultural export. 

The storm would deliver a major blow to Cuba’s economy, she said. “Scarce foreign exchange will need to be diverted to recovery, and this will further set back the country’s import capacity for other goods that are vital to recovery: raw materials, spare parts and capital equipment, as well as consumer goods,” Morris added. “Inflation, which has been galloping since 2021, is likely to be even harder to bring under control.”

Just two weeks ago, Hurricane Fiona also caused heavy damages in the Caribbean and Canada, with massive blackouts and water cuts in Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic and up to $700 million in damages to Canadian infrastructure.

These disasters came shortly after leaders from developing countries issued a call for loss and damage finance at the UN General Assembly. The UN’s Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, called on developed economies to issue a windfall tax on oil and gas companies to pay for loss and damages caused by climate change.

Gap to 1.5C yawns, as most governments miss UN deadline to improve climate plans

Wilkinson said that hurricanes in the Atlantic were increasingly leading to a lot more rainfall, which was causing huge economic damages. “This has been happening progressively for the past 10 years – every year there is a record level of impact,” she said. 

Scientists say climate change has intensified hurricanes like Ian. “As Hurricane Ian bears down on Florida, we already know it’s stronger and will dump a lot more rain than the same hurricane would have a hundred years ago,” Professor Katherine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, wrote on Twitter. 

Despite the enormous economic damages, Wilkinson said loss of life was very limited as “both countries have very good preparedness systems.”

“Cuba, even though it’s a low income country, has extremely good forecasting capabilities and prepares very well for these events,” she said. 

This article was updated with the revised death toll on 30 September 2022.

The post Hurricane Ian could cost US $67bn in economic damages appeared first on Climate Home News.

Results of the Iowa Democratic presidential caucus on Monday have been delayed by inconsistencies in reporting the data.

The US will formally leave the 2015 Paris Agreement on 4 November 2020 after Trump decided to withdraw. Formally rejoining the climate accord would take a just month.

Policies by leading candidates in Iowa, based on their published plans:

BERNIE SANDERS

Domestic

Sanders aims for “100% renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonisation of the economy by 2050 at latest”.

His foresees creation of  20 million jobs, including in renewable power, steel, construction, energy efficiency retrofitting, sustainable agriculture. He says he would “directly invest a historic $16.3 trillion public investment toward these efforts, in line with the mobilisation of resources made during the New Deal and WWII”.

He would declare climate change a “national emergency”.

Sanders, accusing the fossil fuel industry of “greed”, says he would make it pay for pollution and prosecute it “for the damage it has caused”.

International

Sanders would “commit to reducing emissions throughout the world, including providing $200 billion to the Green Climate Fund, rejoining the Paris Agreement, and reasserting the US’ leadership in the global fight against climate change”.

Sanders says the policies would help slash emissions both at home and abroad. “We will reduce domestic emissions by at least 71% by 2030,” he says, and help developing nations make deep emissions cuts.

UK’s Boris Johnson urges all countries to set net zero emissions goals in 2020

JOE BIDEN

Domestic

He says he would “ensure the US achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050”.

The “Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face”.

On his first day in office he plans to go beyond the platform he shared, as vice president, with former President Barack Obama by signing executive orders on clean energy and environmental justice. Under the Paris Agreement, Obama pledged cuts in greenhouse gases of 26-28% by 2025, below 2005 levels.

Biden says his climate and environmental justice proposal will make a federal investment of $1.7 trillion over the next ten years, leveraging additional private sector and state and local investments to total to more than $5 trillion.

International 

Biden says he “will go much further” than just recommitting the US to the Paris Agreement. Biden “will lead an effort to get every major country to ramp up the ambition of their domestic climate targets”.

He will make sure those commitments are “transparent and enforceable, and stop countries from cheating by using America’s economic leverage and power of example,” his campaign says. Climate change would be integrated into trade, national security and foreign policies.

US Democrats will carry global hopes for climate action to 2020 poll

PETE BUTTIGIEG

Domestic 

“We aspire to make our society a net-zero emissions one no later than 2050, working aggressively toward immediate targets,” Buttigieg says.

As milestones, he plans to double the clean electricity generated in the US by 2025. By 2035, build a clean electricity system with zero emissions and require zero emissions for all new passenger vehicles.

By 2040, require net-zero emissions for all new heavy-duty vehicles, buses, rail, ships, and aircraft and develop a thriving carbon removal industry. By 2050, achieve net-zero emissions from industry, including steel and concrete, manufacturing, and agriculture sectors.

He would “enact a price on carbon and use the revenue to send rebates to Americans”.

International 

“We will take the steps necessary to rejoin the Paris Agreement on the first day in office and make clear to the world that we are ‘back in, and all in’,” he says.

Buttigieg says he would mobilise support for climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing nations, including “doubling” the US pledge to the Green Climate Fund (GCF). Trump cut off contributions to the GCF after Obama pledged an initial $3 billion. Part of the plan would be to “redevelop bilateral and multilateral relationships on climate change and clean energy with nations like China and India”.

ELIZABETH WARREN

Domestic 

Warren was an original co-sponsor of a Green New Deal proposed by Senator Ed Markey and representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, committing to a 10-year drive to achieve domestic net-zero emissions by 2030.

Her website says “independent economists have estimated that Elizabeth’s plans to address the climate crisis will inject over $10 trillion dollars into our economy and create over 10 million new jobs”.

Among goals, “by 2035, we will achieve 100% clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy in electricity generation. By 2030, we’ll reach 100% zero emissions for all new light-duty passenger vehicles, medium-duty trucks, and all buses. By 2028, we’ll attain 100% zero-carbon pollution for all new commercial and residential buildings.”

Warren plans to sign an executive order on her first day as president imposing a moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases, including for drilling offshore and on public lands.

International 

She says a “Green Marshall Plan” will provide American-made clean energy technology to countries that need it most. “She’ll commit $100 billion over ten years to offer discounts to countries hardest hit by the climate crisis, or as an incentive for regulatory changes that further reduce emissions,” her website says.

Countries will be required to join the Paris Climate Agreement – 187 of 197 nations have so far ratified the deal – and eliminate domestic fuel subsidies as a precondition for entering trade negotiations with the US.

We need your help… Climate Home News is an independent news outlet dedicated to the most important global stories. If you can spare even a few dollars each month, it would make a huge difference to us. Our Patreon account is a safe and easy way to support our work.

AMY KLOBUCHAR

Domestic

“In her first 100 days as President, Senator Klobuchar will introduce and work with Congress to pass sweeping legislation that will put our country on a path to achieving 100% net-zero emissions no later than 2050,” her plan says.

She would revive the Obama-era Clean Power Plan for cutting emissions and “will negotiate even stronger emissions standards that account for the progress states have already made”.

Among other measures, she would toughen fuel economy standards, and set “ambitious goals” to reduce the carbon footprint of the federal government. Klobuchar has proposed a $1 trillion infrastructure package that will modernise aging energy infrastructure.

International 

She would work to get back into the Paris Agreement “on day one” as part of a goal to “reestablish US international leadership on climate”.

Klobuchar “will work with international leaders to build consensus around stronger goals to limit global warming to no more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit” (1.5 degrees Celsius)”.

She would also seek to “establish meaningful enforcement of international climate goals.”

That would mean “making accountability for climate commitments a central part of our international agenda, taking on China’s efforts to promote dirty energy sources in other countries, and considering climate goals in all types of international assistance”.

The post Democratic contenders in Iowa caucus aim to rejoin Paris accord in green goals appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Pope will make a high-profile trip to the United States next week, with stops in DC, New York, Philadelphia, before flying to Cuba (Pic: Aleteia Image Department/Flickr)

By Alex Pashley

Pope Francis implored European Union officials on Wednesday to get the “desired result” at this year’s crunch UN climate summit, as he renewed an advocacy drive a week before addressing US lawmakers.

In a private meeting with environment heads of the 28-member bloc in Rome, the pontiff encouraged all to back efforts to curb climate change and poverty through new development goals, its official broadcasting service said.

“Dear Ministers, the COP21 summit is fast approaching and there is still a long way to go to achieve a result that is capable of bringing together the many positive stimuli that have been offered as a contribution to this important process,” said a translation of the speech by Vatican Radio.

“I strongly encourage you to intensify your work, along with that of your colleagues, so that in Paris the desired result is achieved.”

Carole Dieschbourg of Luxembourg addressing Pope Francis on behalf of EU environment ministers at audience @Pontifex pic.twitter.com/dzRUgDorm5

— Lars-Hjalmar Wide (@LarsHjWide) September 16, 2015

The head of the Catholic Church made an unprecedented intervention in a June encyclical providing a moral dimension to claims to conserve the planet.

“We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth,” he told his flock of 1.2 billion worldwide.

Green campaigners warmly welcomed the moral dimension it brought to the conversation. Meanwhile, it rattled climate-sceptic conservatives in the US and Poland.

Almost 200 nations are crafting a global warming agreement to be signed off at a Paris summit known as COP21 in a bid to cap rising temperatures to 2C by 2100.

The UN’s top climate chief yesterday acknowledged that national pledges, that form the backbone of a deal, won’t be sufficient to meet that target. Countries must agree to deepen emission cuts at regular intervals.

The EU, for its part, has committed to a 40% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.

The Pope will visit the US from next week, and address Congress on September 24, as countries sign off on ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ at the UN’s annual assembly in New York.

Analysis: Why should you care about the Sustainable Development Goals?

The audience with the EU, the third-largest emitting bloc, comes two days before it finalises its negotiating strategy for Paris.

“Pope Francis is appealing to policy makers directly to care for creation and ensure the poor and excluded are protected from the worst impacts of a changing climate,” said Bernd Nilles, secretary general of the international alliance of Catholic development agencies, CIDSE. 

“EU Environment Ministers need to muster the courage and leadership to look beyond short-term electoral cycles and take lasting decisions for the common good.”

Wendel Trio, director at Climate Action Network said the visit “could not be more timely”, with the EU facing scrutiny over the strength of its goals to combat climate change.

“Hopefully, the Pope’s moral weight will have tangible impact on political leaders in Poland. If not the mounting costs of bankrupting coal industry, perhaps their strong Catholic beliefs could convince them to stop blocking further EU action on climate change,” he said.

The post Pope urges EU ministers to step up climate fight appeared first on Climate Home News.

Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is now Ban Ki-moon’s UN climate envoy (Pic: NYC Mayor’s Office)

By Gerard Wynn

US cities and business were unprepared for climate change which would become rapidly more dangerous without urgent cuts in carbon emissions, found a report published on Tuesday by the “Risky Business Project”.

The study attempted to add greater regional detail to existing climate projections, to mobilise action to cut emissions as well as to prepare for unavoidable changes.

“Our findings show that, if we continue on our current path, many regions of the U.S. face the prospect of serious economic effects from climate change,” said the report, “The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States”.

“If we choose a different path – if we act aggressively to both adapt to the changing climate and to mitigate future impacts by reducing carbon emissions – we can significantly reduce our exposure to the worst economic risks from climate change, and also demonstrate global leadership on climate.”

Climate studies usually find great difficulty in forecasting regional changes, because of the complexity of atmospheric and ocean physics, and the uncertainty surrounding future carbon emissions and other pollution.

For example the recent U.S. National Climate Assessment, produced by federal government agencies, documented only a broad sweep of expected climate changes this century.

Tuesday’s analysis used expertise from researchers at Rutgers and Berkeley universities, and was led by the Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg and the former US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

PRESS CONFERENCE: Bloomberg and Paulson launch study

“The Risky Business Project is designed to highlight climate risks to specific business sectors and regions of the economy, and to provide actionable data at a geographically granular level for decision-makers.”

“It is our hope that it becomes standard practice for the American business and investment community to factor climate change into its decision-making process.”

The study described expected regional changes, focusing on heat waves, storm surges and sea level rise, from the near to the long term.

Within the next 15 years, it predicted that the annual cost from coastal damage along the eastern United States and Gulf of Mexico would rise by more than $7 billion, as a result of sea level rise and more powerful storms and hurricanes.

It forecast falling yields of staple crops in the southern United States, and a rising bill from growing energy demand during hotter summers.

Underwater

Looking further ahead, crop yields could more than halve in the Southeast, lower Great Plains, and Midwest.

And the report projected massive losses of coastal property as a result of sea level rise.

“If we continue on our current path, by 2050 between $66 billion and $106 billion worth of existing coastal property will likely be below sea level nationwide, with $238 billion to $507 billion worth of property below sea level by 2100.”

“Property losses from sea level rise are concentrated in specific regions of the U.S., especially on the Southeast and Atlantic coasts, where the rise is higher and the losses far greater than the national average.”

By the end of the century, the hottest part of the country would see several months each year with daytime temperatures exceeding 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 degrees Celsius), given current trends in carbon emissions.

“Over the longer term, during portions of the year, extreme heat could surpass the threshold at which the human body can no longer maintain a normal core temperature without air conditioning. During these periods, anyone whose job requires them to work outdoors, as well as anyone lacking access to air conditioning, will face severe health risks and potential death.”

American hedge fund manager and philanthropist Tom Steyer is one of the backers of this new study (Pic: Climate Week NYC/Flickr)

Such forecasts echoed the recent reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC reviews the published science on climate change every six years or so.

In its latest assessment of climate impacts, published in March, the IPCC reported that at higher levels of carbon emissions this century, parts of the globe may become uninhabitable.

“Core body temperatures will reach lethal levels under sustained periods of wet-bulb temperatures above about 35C,” said the chapter of the IPCC report focusing on health impacts.

“Working conditions are hazardous at lower thresholds. The U.S. military, for example, suspends all physical training and strenuous exercise when the wet bulb globe temperature exceeds 32C.”

“Global mean warming of roughly 7°C above current temperatures would create small land areas where metabolic heat dissipation would become impossible. An increase of 11-12C would enlarge these zones to encompass most of the areas occupied by today’s human population.”

Under a scenario where carbon emissions were double or more today’s levels, global average surface temperatures would rise by 3-8C by 2100, compared with pre-industrial levels, the IPCCC estimated.

The post Climate change threatens US business warn Bloomberg and Paulson appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: Google)

By Gerard Wynn

US wind installations are performing even worse than a very poor 2013, while coal power generation and carbon emissions rise, show new data.

US carbon emissions are on course for a second successive annual rise in 2014.

Coal-fired power generation is rising on the back of higher gas prices, and as utilities run ageing coal plants into the ground, show the latest energy data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) earlier this month proposed the first ever US national cap on power sector emissions.

The EPA will cap the sector’s emissions at 30% below 2005 levels in 2030.

Because emissions have already fallen substantially over the past decade, the target is equivalent only to an 18% cut compared with last year’s levels.

While that is less significant, the latest data suggest that it may still force a big change, compared with presently rising emissions.

The EPA carbon cap may also counter a sharp slowdown in wind power installations, and boost solar.

Gas price

Growth in US coal-fired power generation is comfortably outstripping a rise in renewables.

US coal generation from January to May rose by 43 terawatt hours compared with the same period last year, show the EIA data.

That is more than four times the corresponding rise in wind and solar power generation.

Gas-fired power fell by a little over 10 TWh, show the data, published on Monday.

The rise in coal has nothing to do with new generating capacity.

Data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission show that new US coal installations are falling year on year, after the EPA ruled that any new coal-fired power plants should install expensive carbon capture and storage equipment.

The United States installed some 4.8 gigawatts of new coal-fired power in 2012, falling to 1.5 GW last year, and has not installed any in the first five months of this year, the FERC data show.

Coal-fired power generation is rising because of rising wholesale gas prices.

EIA data show that electric utilities paid an average 10% more per unit of natural gas in April this year compared with the same month last year. Coal costs rose just 1%.

Wind market

The FERC data make depressing reading for the wind industry.

The industry continues to slow this year, compared with last year, the worst year for new installed wind capacity in the United States since 2004.

That puts the industry on course for its worse year in 10 years

In January to May, the United States added just 678 megawatts of wind capacity, compared with 962 MW for the same period last year, show FERC data published on Friday.

The reason for the slowdown is the failure so far of the United States to renew a tax credit which makes wind power competitive compared with coal and natural gas.

There is a large pipeline of planned wind projects, which qualified for a now expired tax credit by starting some minimal construction last year.

It is unclear when or whether those projects will be completed, however. The latest data suggest they some may stay on the drawing board.

The post US wind headed for dismal year as carbon emissions rise appeared first on Climate Home News.

By Gerard Wynn

New U.S. regulation of carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants amounted to “crumbs”, given the urgency of the climate problem, said veteran climate scientist James Hansen.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a cap on power sector carbon emisisons, to 30% below 2005 levels in 2030.

US President Barack Obama is trying to regulate carbon emissions via the EPA, by-passing Congress.

That is after he failed to win support five years ago for a proposed climate bill, losing out to Republicans over the feared impact on energy prices in the teeth of the financial crisis.

But the EPA ruling was inadequate, argued Hansen, a veteran climate scientist who stepped down from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies last year.

Hansen is now an adjunct professor at the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

“President Obama had an opportunity when first elected, when his party had control of Congress, when he had 70% approval rating, when the country expected him to lead,” said Hansen, in his latest post on the Columbia University website.

“That was the time he should have explained to the public that we must have a rising price on carbon emissions, it would increase the price of fuel at the pump, but if all the money went to the public it would spur the economy.”

“Why is Obama reduced to fighting for carbon crumbs via regulations? The next Presidency will be a new opportunity, but this time groundwork must be done.”

Hansen has long argued for a national “carbon fee and dividend” approach to emissions regulation, rather than the cap and trade approach which Obama attempted, and failed to win support for, in 2009.

Hansen’s preferred approach would see an upstream tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels, the cost of which energy companies would pass to consumers. Such energy costs would be cancelled out, however, by the revenues of the tax, which would be paid entirely in equal amounts to all U.S. residents.

Hansen preferred that approach to cap and trade, which is rather cumbersome as it involves creating an entirely new, articifial market in emissions permits.

In its ruling announced earlier this month, the EPA gave states a flexible approach to meeting the carbon cap, for example by cutting energy demand or tweaking their energy supply mix.

Analysis of carbon emissions since 2005 shows that US power sector emissions have already fallen by 15%, halfway towards the EPA’s 2030 target with a decade and a half to go.

In addition, even without the proposed ruling, almost all the expected power plant closures in the next few years would be coal, the most carbon emitting form of power generation, because these were the oldest and due for retirement.

That raises the question what extra difference the EPA rule will make.

The post US cap on coal sector emissions “carbon crumbs” – Hansen appeared first on Climate Home News.

By Gerard Wynn

Climate change may drive a shift to more wind and solar power generation, to conserve water, a U.S. Department of Energy report said this week.

The report found a risky mutual dependence between water and energy.

Energy was needed to pump, treat and transport water, while water was needed to cool electricity generating equipment in thermal power plants such as gas, coal, nuclear and concentrated solar power.

Such thermoelectric power accounts for 40% of all U.S. freshwater use.

Climate change including more storms and droughts would intensify those mutual risks, the report said.

“When severe drought affected more than a third of the United States in 2012, limited water availability constrained the operation of some power plants and other energy production activities,” said the report, “The Water-Energy Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities”.

“Shifts in precipitation and temperature patterns—including changes in snowmelt—will likely lead to more regional variation in water availability for hydropower, biofeedstock production, thermoelectric generation and other energy needs. Rising temperatures have the potential to increase the demand for electricity for cooling.

“These changes and variations pose challenges for energy infrastructure resilience.”

Solutions included less water-intensive forms of power generation including wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) power; greater efficiency of fossil fuel generation; and the use of alternative water supplies, ranging from “produced water” in oil and gas extraction to solar-powered desalination.

The report calculated that the U.S. energy mix was already moving in the right direction, towards using less water, as result of rising wind and solar power generation, replacing coal.

“While more than 90 percent of the (power generating) capacity set to retire requires cooling, only 45 percent of the planned additional capacity requires cooling,” it said, referring to expected additions and retirements through 2017.

Among thermoelectric generation technologies, nuclear power was the most dependent on water, withdrawing around 45,000 gallons per megawatt hour, followed by gas, coal, concentrated solar and geothermal power.

CLIMATE

The link between thermoelectric power and water was growing more dangerous because of climate change, the Department of Energy report said.

Rising temperatures would put a premium on water supplies.

A U.S. National Climate Assessment  last month said climate change was affecting every region of the United States.

“Although the extent varies by region, nearly the entire country has experienced increased average temperatures, a trend that is expected to continue,” the Department of Energy said.

Climate change would also threaten energy and water supplies through more frequent storms, which could damage overhead power lines, in turn interrupting water supplies.

In addition, thawing permafrost could disrupt oil and gas operations in Arctic Alaska while more intense storm events and sea-level rise could affect coastal and offshore energy infrastructure.

Climate change would add to other risks including rising migration to water-stressed regions such as California.

California is at present enduring one of its most severe droughts in decades, with most of the state’s reservoirs presently around half historical levels for the time of year.

“Projected population growth in the arid Southwest will amplify pressure on water and energy systems in that region,” the report said.

“In the electricity sector, higher summer temperatures result in a compounded challenge of increased demand for cooling and reduced thermal efficiencies for power plants. Conversely, electricity demand for heating is reduced with higher winter temperatures.”

The post US water stress may drive shift to renewable power appeared first on Climate Home News.

A solar thermal power plant in India (Pic: Wikipedia)

By Gerard Wynn

The ability of solar thermal power to store electricity confers huge grid management benefits which help offset its high up-front cost, a US government report calculated this week.

Solar photovoltaic (PV) power dominates the generation of electricity from sunlight, with concentrated solar power (CSP), or solar thermal, coming a distant second.

That is because solar PV is cheaper to install, especially at lower levels of sunlight.

But the United States is poised to quadruple its installed CSP capacity this year, with five new utility-scale plants, to 1.3 gigawatts.

The ability of CSP to store electricity adds an important grid benefit, according to a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a research arm of the US Department of Energy.

That will help states meet both renewable energy targets and still balance the grid.

Solar PV is variable according to the strength of the sun, and that creates a headache for grid operators because of its inability to store electricity.

By contrast, CSP can store electricity, and so can be used to back up variable solar PV instead of using gas or coal-fired power, found the NREL report, “Estimating the value of utility-scale solar technologies in California”.

The savings were generated by the avoided cost of both building and running back-up fossil fuel capacity.

The report focused on the state of California, because of its abundant sunshine and ambitious climate legislation: California’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requires the state to increase electricity generation from eligible renewable energy resources to reach at least 33% of total retail sales of electricity per year by 2020.

Beyond 2020, California targets a further reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 80% of 1990 emission levels by the year 2050, which may require a greater roll out of renewable power in the longer term.

Salt

CSP works by using sunlight to heat a liquid oil, which can then either be stored or used to generate steam and drive a turbine. The heat can used to melt salt in insulated tanks; the molten salt releases heat as required when it re-freezes.

Such energy storage adds a vital edge over solar PV, which dispatches power to the grid at the instant it generates electricity. Solar PV also provides grid management value, by replacing fossil fuel capacity and avoiding burning fossil fuels.

But CSP provides at least twice the benefit, because of its ability to store power, the NREL calculated.

CSP provided total grid management value of $94.6 to $107 per MWh, compared with $47.1 to $58.2 for solar PV, under a scenario of 33% renewable power in the grid.

The NREL report did not compare such benefits with the lifetime operating costs of solar power, dominated by the upfront cost of installing the equipment given zero fuel costs.

However, the Department of Energy recently updated its estimates for that levelised cost of energy (LCOE), in its Annual Energy Outlook 2014.

The AEO 2014 calculated the LCOE of CSP and solar PV at $243 and $130 per MWh for new projects respectively.

A crude comparison with the grid management benefits suggests that solar PV still has the value advantage, but CSP adds important flexibility.

The post Alternative solar source offsets high costs by storing energy appeared first on Climate Home News.

Pic: Sterling College/Flickr

By Gerard Wynn

Hotter summers and heavier rainfall in Vermont will threaten the maple syrup industry, but also see some crop benefits, the first US state-level assessment of climate change impacts found this week.

The climate assessment aimed to bring home to Americans the local and personal risks of failing to curb carbon emissions.

The University of Vermont led the study, which partnered with federal and state agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.

It was based on the recent US “National Climate Assessment”, the third and most recent in a series published by the United States every four years and mandated by the US government in 1990.

The national assessment last month said that climate change was “moving into the present”, having widespread, visible impacts on the US people and economy, a view the Vermont report echoed.

“Climate change is no longer a thing of the future; it is affecting Vermont today,” the state assessment said.

“The Vermont Climate Assessment (VCA) is the first state-scale climate assessment in the country and speaks directly to the impacts of climate change as they pertain to our rural towns, cities and communities, including impacts on Vermont tourism and recreation, agriculture, natural resources and energy.”

“Wetter winters and extended dry spells in summers will place more stress on important tree species such as sugar maple and red spruce, which have already experienced periods of decline in Vermont.”

“Of particular significance are adverse effects to agricultural production, including dairy, fruit and maple syrup, more frequent flooding and heavy downpours, and negative influences on winter recreation industries due to reductions in snow cover.”

Political

Climate change is a polarising issue in the US Congress, with the vast balance of support for climate action from Democrats.

It was unclear to what extent the Vermont Climate Assessment was driven by local congressmen, including two senators, a democrat (Patrick Leahy) and independent (Bernie Sanders), and democrat member of the US House of Representatives, Peter Welch.

US President Barack Obama failed to pass a draft climate bill in his first term, a failure that analysts have attributed to the Republican Tea Party’s success in mobilising grassroots opposition. A focus on local, state-level climate risks might counter such opposition.

It was also unclear to what extent other US states may follow the Vermont initiative.

Vermont is the sixth smallest US state by area and the second smallest by population.

Its climate report highlighted increasing local climate impacts, including more frequent and intense downpours, a longer frost-free growing season and higher night-time temperatures.

“The state’s average temperature has increased by 1.3F since 1960; the most recent decade was Vermont’s hottest on record. Rainfall records show that heavy rainfall events are becoming more common and pose threats of flooding.”

“As a result of warmer winters, the time that Vermont’s rivers and lakes are frozen each winter is decreasing by 7 days per decade. Spring has started 2 to 3 days earlier per decade which has increased the growing season by 3.7 days per decade. Due to warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons, Vermont has already transitioned from hardiness zone 4 to zone 5 from 1990 to 2006.”

Regarding future impacts, the report saw an average temperature rise of another 3F warming by 2050 under a low emissions scenario, higher than global average warming recently projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The post Vermont’s maple syrup threatened by climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

The US added 1,032MW of wind capacity in 2013, a sharp drop from 12,885 MW in 2012 (Pic: LA Bonita/Flickr)

By Gerard Wynn

The US wind industry remains in a slump and could even fare worse than a poor 2013, federal energy data show, as uncertainty weighs over the extension of a key subsidy.

The latest data contradict industry predictions of a massive US rebound this year from a poor 2013.

The US industry is on track for its lowest growth in a decade, after capacity additions in the first four months of the year halved compared with the same period last year.

The industry is pinning its hopes on a reported surge in the number of new projects under construction, but developers may be in no rush to complete the projects which have qualified for a now expired tax credit.

US wind energy growth has historically followed a boom-bust cycle, in line with the repeated extension and expiry of the federal tax credit.

The shale gas revolution has cut US power prices and market incentives for wind power, leaving the industry more dependent than ever on the subsidy.

The fact that growth has slowed again compared with the start of last year suggests that 2014 will be another poor year.

The United States cumulatively added some 427 megawatts of new wind power capacity from January to April this year, show the latest data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

That compared with some 962 MW added in the same period last year, and 1,636 MW in the same four-month period in 2012.

Grim news?

The FERC data record when new electricity generating installations are grid-connected and come on line.

Some caveats should be considered.

First, there are some collection differences, where FERC data at the beginning of 2013 appear to lag those of the wind energy industry, and may have included a surge in installations at the end of 2012.

If so,  that would make the start of 2014 appear worse in comparison with the same period last year.

Second, the energy regulator has in the past revised its figures over time as it fine tunes its data, but by successively smaller amounts in the past three years.

Third, the wind energy industry has in the past managed to add a lot of capacity in the second half of the year, depending on the urgency to meet a subsidy expiry deadline, as at the end of 2012.

But there should be no such mad rush in the second half of this year, even if the tax credit is renewed.

Subsidies

The US wind power industry is supported by a federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) which provides a tax credit for each kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity produced by a wind farm during the first 10 years of operation.

The credit is worth around 2.2 to 2.3 cents per kWh.

Developers in 2012 rushed to meet a deadline to complete their projects by Dec. 31 2012, to qualify for the credit.

The tax credit was subsequently extended, but only until the end of 2013; and the deadline this time was to start rather than complete construction.

The credit has now expired for new projects, but an extension is up for consideration by the Senate, having been approved by the Senate Finance Committee in April alongside other tax provisions.

Prospects for 2015?

The proposed extension, under the draft bill titled “Expiring Provisions Improvement Reform and Efficiency (EXPIRE) Act of 2014”, would allow tax credits for projects which started construction by the end of 2015.

The PTC has been extended mostly in one- and two-year intervals since its inception in 1992, and was allowed to expire in 1999, 2001, 2003 and 2012.

That has resulted in a boom-bust cycle, as illustrated by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

New US wind installations collapsed last year, to just 1,559 megawatts (MW) in 2013 from 12,305 MW the year before, according to FERC data.

Their latest data make grim reading for the industry, with a slump in capacity additions through April even from last year’s low levels.

The data seem to confound industry expectations for a rebound in growth this year.

The Global Wind Energy Council last month published its 2014-2018 forecast, and anticipated a more than three-fold increase in new, North American wind capacity installations this year, to 10,000 MW.

The AWEA reported last month a surge in new projects under construction.

“There is currently more wind power capacity under construction than at any time in the history of the U.S. wind industry. There are more than 13,000 MW of utility-scale wind development under construction across 95+ projects in 21 states,” it said, in its “U.S. Wind Industry First Quarter 2014 Market Report”.

However, that surge in new construction was no doubt partly to meet the tax credit deadline at the end of 2013.

Now that they have secured the credit, developers may have no rush to complete, with a question mark over when they will come on line. The latest FERC data suggest that may not be before late 2014 or 2015.

Meanwhile the uncertainty over the extension of the credit does nothing to support a pipeline of new projects.

The post Why is the US wind industry in the doldrums? appeared first on Climate Home News.