A US youth activist interrupts UN talks to accost Washington’s top man, accusing him of threatening the lives of young people and slowing progress on a greenhouse gas cutting pact.

Five and a half years on, it’s easy to think little has changed. There’s a new man in the White House who says global warming is a hoax, his chief diplomat used to run Exxon Mobil, his top strategist reckons climate science is hokum.

Alt-right websites and climate sceptics are running riot, falsely claiming temperature records have been manipulated, urging Donald Trump to kill the climate beast once and for all.

Meanwhile the latest data from global climate agencies says the world is still warming, the Arctic is heating up fast and the oceans are steadily becoming more acidic.

It’s easy to see why some climate journalists feel it has all become too much, penning pained columns where they declare that covering this issue is mentally draining.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

Take a step back and suck in that big picture. When I led a small team back in 2011 that launched Climate Home (then RTCC) ahead of the COP17 meeting, it was much worse.

There was no global agreement on climate change, or US-China accord. The UN’s climate body was battered after Copenhagen, the EU rocked by the financial crisis.

Leaders in Beijing and Delhi clung to the idea that rich nations had the bottle (and capability) to cut emissions; the Saudis were still operating at warp speed to sink any hope of a deal.

Meanwhile scientists were taking a pasting: still the target of abuse from a network of fossil-fuel funded think tanks and conspiracy websites for the so-called climategate saga.

Clean energy leaders? They were a rare breed. US solar start-up Solyndra had just collapsed, leaving Republicans to pour vitriol on President Barack Obama’s state support for renewables.

The very idea India would bid to deploy nearly 200 gigawatts of clean power by the early 2020s would have been labelled mad. Ditto China’s plans to put $361 billion into renewables or the UK’s coal phase-out.

Imagine – on top of all of that – predicting that by 2016 the US solar sector would employ 260,000 people, BP would acknowledge some oil reserves will stay in the ground and Saudi Arabia would plan a US$5 billion clean energy binge.

2016 – the year wind outpaced coal in the EU: https://t.co/6WU75EZj2a pic.twitter.com/O8lUo1T8vr

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) February 9, 2017

I accept this may be a little panglossian for many. WWF’s 2016 Living Planet Report underlined the collapse in global biodiversity, the rapid loss of valued ecosystems across the globe.

True, if you sit in front of your laptop and repeatedly click on Ed Hawkins’ gifs detailing crashing Arctic sea ice levels or spiralling temperatures, you’ll start to sweat.

Scepticism is still necessary. China’s coal data is frequently touted as evidence of a radical clean energy shift, yet pictures of smog over Beijing tell a different tale.

Equally, is it reasonable to expect a country like India – the world’s fourth largest carbon polluter – to make carbon cuts when 250 million still lack access to the electricity grid?

In this era when nationalist leaders are winning support, is there any prospect of Western society curbing its huge appetite for energy, goods and services?

And as the just transition klaxon wails, does anyone have an adequate answer for the millions of fossil fuel and heavy industry workers who could be put out of business by climate laws?

Reporting resilience

It’s why we have made it our business at Climate Home to focus on the human angles of warming, recently partnering with CDKN to tell the stories of African communities on the climate frontline.

Take the Syrian scientist who warned his government of the impacts drought was having back in 2006, to the Marshall Islands poet whose house was submerged, and the climate refugees of Bikini Atoll who want to build a new life in the US.

Correspondents have travelled to Siberia to cover the melting permafrost, Tasmania to witness dying underwater forests and reported on attempts by Iran, North Korea and Venezuela to craft climate plans.

We’ve also built partnerships with media outlets in Brazil, India and China to allow writers in those countries the chance to explain the challenges they are facing.

It’s worrying. But it is also a fact that notwithstanding the current White House incumbent and his band of (mainly) greying men, the political shift on climate since 2011 has been spectacular.

There was moment at COP17, while running what turned out to be a 48-hour live blog, when I thought the UN climate process was dead.

It was 3am and India’s environment minister had let rip at the US and EU: “India will not be intimidated,” she bellowed to the applause of NGOs at the back of the room.

She wouldn’t let up, and you could see UN and various government officials wilting. Yet that rage prompted a remarkable huddle of men and women – top diplomats from the US, EU, China and beyond.

#COP17 in Durban,3am, and @MikeSzaboCP spots a huddle. Fascinating photo pic.twitter.com/oLI22w33Kz

— Ed King (@edking_I) February 9, 2017

Peering into the abyss of another failed summit – a potentially mortal blow – they regrouped to agree to start work on a climate pact that would become operational in 2020 [we’re now looking at 2018].

There was another moment, minutes before the Paris climate agreement was signed off, where I paced the negotiating hall with fellow reporter Lisa Friedman and watched envoys panic again.

With the pact nearly home and dry a fierce row erupted over the words “should” and “shall”, and the placement of the latter in a sentence covering rich country carbon cuts.

It was a deal-breaking moment. The US would not sign up to any deal where it was bound to make carbon cuts and emerging economies were not.

We were metres away from John Kerry, whose face was turning the same colour as his greying hair. Bulging veins across French government foreheads betrayed deep anxiety. UN apparatchiks contemplated collapse.

Again they stared into the abyss, the difference this time was a clear path lay ahead and China – remarkably – stepped in to broker a deal and spare US blushes.

Report: Foie gras, oysters and a climate deal – how the Paris pact was won

The point is, the UN’s 2015 climate deal was hard fought to the bitter end. There were multiple chances to screw it up. But ultimately 195 countries decided it was worth the bet.

UK climate minister Nick Hurd summed it up better than I can a few weeks back, when quizzed by MPs on the slow pace of progress.

“With all its downsides and the difficulty of building trust and momentum between 195 countries… in human terms, it is the most extraordinary process,” he said.

Another truth is that despite the diplomatic triumph of Paris, real leadership has come not just at the UN but from governments, NGOs and business leaders eyeing the vast opportunities ahead.

The Paris climate deal will stitch the patchwork of progress together – but the drive will come from the fast growing clean energy and green finance sectors.

Profile: Mark Carney, the unlikely climate champion

Who would have thought the governor of the Bank of England would become one of the most compelling voices on climate risk, or that Blackrock would tell investors coal is a dud bet?

Trump may wreck all of this. Or he may find his perceived worldview is outdated. As France’s erstwhile climate ambassador Laurence Tubiana told me last November: “It’s a good test”.

Whatever one country does – however large it may be – market forces, technology innovation, consumer preferences will continue to drive the low carbon transition.

Chronicling this fast-changing story are some of the best journalists I have worked with, be they from Reuters, Bloomberg and the FT or E&Enews, Carbon Brief, Carbon Pulse and Business Green.

Amid the hysteria of so-called fake news we’re missing the fact that quality news is thriving, and specialist outlets are winning new audiences and making money.

This is a great time to be a climate reporter, and a wonderful space for Climate Home’s growing network of global newshounds to thrive, backed by the site’s ever-supportive owner James Ramsey.

I wish my successor Karl Mathiesen the best of luck, covering what I think is the most important and exciting story on the planet. I’ll be reading every word.

The post What a great time to be a climate journalist appeared first on Climate Home News.

Emmanuel Macron, a former finance minister who has set up his En Marche party to run for the Elysee Palace, delivered a strong rebuke to president Donald Trump’s administration – which looks set to cull climate politics and funding.

“I do know how your new president has now decided to jeopardise your budget, your initiatives as he is extremely sceptical about climate change. I have no doubt about climate change and how committed we have to be regarding this issue,” he said.

I have a message for you guys. #ScienceMarch pic.twitter.com/ZnkFIIksdx

— Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) February 10, 2017

“So I have two messages. For the French and European researchers we will preserve our budgets ,we will reinforce our investment, our public and private investment to do more and accelerate our initiative in order to deliver in line with COP21 [the historic climate summit hosted by Paris].

“And second – a message for you guys. Please, come to France, you are welcome, it’s your nation. We like innovation, we want innovative people, we want people working on climate change, energy, renewables and new technologies.”

For more context: visit our US climate politics site

The post Flee Trump for France, Macron urges US climate sector appeared first on Climate Home News.

“With some geopolitical changes in large countries across the world we are finding that the concept of spending more to get clean energy and protect the environment is getting affected in some parts of the world,” he said.

“I’d like to reassure you that India does not get affected or dictated in policy or direction by any other part of the world.”

Goyal’s comments are the latest in a series by senior Indian officials underlining the country’s commitment to the UN’s Paris climate deal and its national target to generate 53% of power from non fossil fuel sources by 2027.

Plans released by the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) last December indicate the Delhi government wants to deliver 200 gigawatts of clean power by the mid 2020s. In 2015, prime minister Narendra Modi said he wanted to see 100GW of solar online by 2022.

Report: Women’s mosque goes solar in India clean energy push

Rated the world’s fourth largest carbon polluter after China, the US and EU, India is balancing environmental concerns with huge latent energy demand. An estimated 300 million Indians still lack access to the electricity grid.

“As far as India [is concerned] we are conscious of our responsibility as a global citizen… conscious we want to impact environment in a positive manner,” Goyal added.

“When we ratified the Paris Agreement it was full responsibility that India will meet its goals, irrespective of what happens in rest of world and in knowledge this is good for the people and the nation.

“This push to environmental consciousness is not out of compulsion because someone else tells us, not even because of the Paris Agreement but it’s an article of faith for this government we believe it’s in the best interest.”

Sourcing more gas supplies was a priority for the government, said Goyal, suggesting it would be a key factor in a new low carbon energy mix that included renewables and what he termed “clean coal”.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

The post Trump won’t impact India’s climate drive, says energy minister appeared first on Climate Home News.

But industry leaders said they were worried about the lack of political support beyond 2020, when binding EU renewable energy targets end.

Of the 24.5GW of new capacity built across the EU in 2016, 21.1GW – or 86% – was from wind, solar, biomass and hydro – eclipsing the previous high-water mark of 79% in 2014.

For the first time windfarms accounted for more than half of the capacity installed, the data from trade body WindEurope showed.

Wind power overtook coal to become the EU’s second largest form of power capacity after gas, though due to the technology’s intermittent nature, coal still meets more of the bloc’s electricity demand.

Germany installed the most new wind capacity in 2016, while France, the Netherlands, Finland, Ireland and Lithuania all set new records for windfarm installations.

Striking: 86% of Europe's new power capacity last year came from renewables. A new record share https://t.co/1R6lkmSPFj pic.twitter.com/fRe8nN3gZE

— Adam Vaughan (@adamvaughan_uk) February 9, 2017

The total capacity added was 3% down on 2015 but a surge in offshore windfarms – which are twice as expensive as those built on land – being connected in Britain saw total, Europe-wide investment hit a record €27.5bn (£23bn).

The biggest project was the Gemini windfarm off the Netherlands’ coast, which was connected to the grid last February and will be the world’s second largest offshore windfarm when finished this year. Gemini was followed in size by two other offshore windfarms, Germany’s 582MW Gode Wind 1 and 2, and the Netherlands’ 144MW Westermeerwind project.

“The installation numbers for now look OK, and the investment number is very good,” said Giles Dickson, chief executive of WindEurope. “But on the longer term outlook, only seven out of the EU’s 28 countries have clear policies and volumes [for wind power] in place for the period beyond 2020.

“We today see less political and policy ambition for renewables than we did five or even three years ago, across the member states.”

Despite Europe’s installed wind power capacity now standing at 153.7GW, it is still a relatively small fraction of the region’s 918.8GW of total power capacity.

The industry is hoping much of its growth will come from filling the gap as governments force old coal power plants to close to meet climate change goals, as the UK has committed to doing by 2025.

UK emissions have fallen 38% since 1990 on coal closures: https://t.co/EnxdjedJol pic.twitter.com/DmT8zBVnOD

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) February 8, 2017

“The EU is not putting much pressure on countries to close down old coal power plants,” said Dickson.

WindEurope’s new report, 2016 European Statistics, paints a picture of a Europe increasingly divided on wind power.

Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, which together drove much of the growth in new windfarms in the noughties, now amount to a tiny fraction of new installations. Poland last year passed a law limiting how close wind turbines can be to buildings, effectively stalling the industry there.

The result is an increasingly small number of countries connecting serious amounts of new wind power. Germany, which already has three times as much wind power as any other EU country, installed 44% of Europe’s new wind capacity last year.

Dickson said the wind power industry will be lobbying Europe’s capitals for more support in their national energy and climate plans, which member states, including the UK, have to submit to the European commission in draft form by the year’s end.

This article first appeared in the Guardian. Climate Home is a member of the Guardian Environment Network.

The post 2016: the year wind outpaced coal in the EU appeared first on Climate Home News.

That’s the pitch a group of senior Republicans will make to the White House on Wednesday, encouraging the Trump administration to modify its tone on global warming.

The group of veterans includes former treasury secretaries Hank Paulson and George Shultz along with George HW Bush’s secretary of state James Baker.

“It’s really important that we Republicans have a seat at the table when people start talking about climate change,” Baker said in an interview with the New York Times.

Thought-provoking plan from highly respected conservatives to both strengthen the economy & confront climate risks: https://t.co/U6kmrQTPth

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) February 8, 2017

In a line that will chime with many of his political ilk, Baker added he did not accept humans were the key driver of warming, but said doing nothing was a massive gamble.

“I don’t accept the idea that it’s all man made… but I do accept that the risks are sufficiently great that we need to have an insurance policy.”

The proposed carbon tax would start at US$40 a tonne of carbon dioxide and gradually increase, signalling US intent to cut emissions to business and rewarding citizens with tax dividends.

In one example cited on the proposal – the Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends – a family of four could recoup as much as $2,000 in payments in the first year of roll-out.

Why $40?
The figure is roughly in line with US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calculations on the damage a tonne of CO2 can inflict on the planet. It’s much higher than carbon prices in the EU (just over $5) and China’s pilot carbon pricing schemes ($2-5) but in contrast to those schemes the revenue would be redistributed to households. It would raise $200-300 billion a year.

“Carbon dividends would increase the disposable income of the majority of Americans while disproportionately helping those struggling to make ends meet,” says the report.

“Yet these dividends are not giveaways; they would be earned based on the good behaviour of minimizing our carbon footprints.”

In a sop to US right-wingers the plan includes a complete repeal of Barack Obama’s flagship plan to reduce emissions from the power sector, on the basis it would no longer be necessary.

Yet the proposal stresses that the “initial carbon tax rate should be set to exceed the emissions reductions of current regulations,” to ensure it wins bipartisan support.

Report: check the blueprints for Trump’s climate wipeout

The proposals are likely to be fiercely opposed by some of Trump’s supporters like the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which describes any such tax as “market rigging”.

US secretary of state Rex Tillerson is a noted supporter of a revenue neutral carbon tax, arguing at his confirmation hearing last month it would replace the “hodgepodge” of current measures.

“If a carbon tax is put in place, it has to be revenue-neutral. All the revenues have to go back out to the economy through reduced employee payroll taxes,” said the former Exxon-Mobil CEO.

“This is simply a mechanism to incentivize choices that people are making. It’s not a revenue-raiser.”

The post Top US Republicans pitch $40 carbon tax to Trump appeared first on Climate Home News.

Backed with €1 million from the Dutch government and further support from Japan and the UN Environment Programme, the project is being billed as an adaptation skills-hub.

“I’m not looking for a theoretical institute,” Dutch environment minister Sharon Dijksma told Climate Home, stressing the need to ramp up support for at-risk countries.

“If Bangladesh asks us for help in making an adaptation programme we could support it by organising that – we know a lot about combatting rising sea levels.”

Other areas of focus are likely to include climate resilient crops, water management and the potential to use new technologies to boost farming efficiency, she said.

These kind of preparations are essential for vulnerable and developing countries given the projected impacts of climate change, highlighted in a 2014 report from the UN IPCC climate science panel.

#Russia has just started work on a #climate adaptation plan due in 2018, reports Olga Dobrovidova @thegreendrafts https://t.co/vSMwHD7P9N

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) February 7, 2017

The €1 million funding would not reduce the Netherlands support for global adaptation projects it is committed to, but it could help leverage more funding for an under-resourced issue, Dijksma stressed.

“We [developed countries] made a promise to deliver $100 billion by 2020 and this will not prevent that, but €1m here could have a multiplier effect far bigger than that,” she said.

Of the $367 billion directed towards climate-rated projects in 2014, just $27 billion was allocated for adaptation, a Climate Policy Initiative study revealed in late 2016.

Bangladeshi climate adaptation expert Saleemul Huq welcomed the initiative, and urged the centre to take advantage of his country’s deep knowledge of community based adaptation.

“Setting up a global centre of excellence on adaptation to climate change in the Netherlands is an excellent initiative as they have a lot of experience in structural adaptation solutions,” he added.

“This needs to be a centre that genuinely supports, empowers and benefits those on the ground, with locally-relevant and people-centred solutions,” said Harjeet Singh, ActionAid’s global climate change lead.

“We hope that this initiative will also help strengthen national and regional institutions in vulnerable countries, which are still in dire need of resources for research and implementation.”

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

The post Netherlands invests €1m in global climate adaptation centre appeared first on Climate Home News.

With a delivery date pencilled in for mid-2018, ministry of environment officials told Kommersant, a business daily, they wanted to “get the regions to think about working on adaptation plans — so far most of them are busy dealing with consequences but many of those negative changes require adaptation”.

Yet at a recent meeting with the ministry only six regions out of 85, including Moscow and Saint Petersburg, were able to report any progress made on the issue as others point to a lack of funding, Kommersant reports.

The Russian government also adjusted its 2020 climate change action plan in late January, outlining extra risk assessment and adaptation needs for permafrost degradation, sea level rise, increased rainfall and extreme weather events.

Interview: Exxon has ‘excellent future’ in Russia says ex-energy chief

The new version of the plan, first approved in 2011, has various ministries and local officials preparing their plans in 2017-2020.

Permafrost degradation is apparently one of the new adaptation priorities, with these particular risk assessment and adaptation strategies slated for July and December 2018.

A 2016 Country Level Impacts of Climate Change project report by Russia rated both observed and projected impacts associated with terrestrial permafrost, which covers two thirds of the Russian territory, as “high”, with observed “destruction of buildings and infrastructure” due to permafrost thawing.

Alexey Kokorin of WWF Russia told Climate Home that other clear adaptation priorities for Russian regions should include extreme weather, freshwater resources and human health.

Think #climatechange is a hoax? Visit #Norway, says @VidarHelgesen https://t.co/m1U5tLxWU8 pic.twitter.com/StAcaR8oH7

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) February 7, 2017

He also noted some confusing language on the permafrost issue, where the plan actually points to the northward shift of the southern permafrost border instead of overall degradation.

Ministry estimates suggest that Russia loses some 30-60 billion roubles (approximately £400 to 800 million) to extreme weather events every year, and climate change would cost the country up to 1-2% of GDP annually by 2030.

Projected costs for the most affected areas, including Siberia and the Russian Far East, could reach 5% of their regional GDPs.

At the annual UN climate summit in Marrakech, Alexander Bedritsky, Russia’s climate change envoy, confirmed that the country does not intend to ratify the Paris agreement in the near future, citing the need to evaluate its impact on the economy of the world’s fifth largest carbon emitter. This analysis should be ready by early 2018.

The post Russia starts work on climate adaptation strategy appeared first on Climate Home News.

That’s one of the fastest rate of emissions cuts in any developed country, nearly passing an EU-wide 2030 goal of 40% carbon pollution cuts.

The reason for the dramatic fall? Coal is on its way out. Fast. According to a 2016 analysis by the Carbon Brief website, UK coal use hit its lowest level for 150 years.

“Changes in the relative wholesale price of coal versus gas, an increase in the UK’s carbon tax last April, the closure of the SSI steelworks in Redcar, the rise of renewables and a rebound in nuclear output all contributed to the reduction in coal use in 2015,” it says.

“Renewables’ share of generation was up from 19% in 2014, an increase of nearly a third. Within that, the largest increases were for solar, up 87%, and biomass, up 44%. In total, renewable output has more than tripled since 2010.”

ANALYSIS: UK electricity in 2016

9% coal (lowest ever)
25% renewables (record high)
21% nuclear
43% gashttps://t.co/rSRz4q7J2f pic.twitter.com/oSvrhACsKT

— Simon Evans (@DrSimEvans) January 6, 2017

The final figures for 2015 say emissions fell 3.8% on 2014 levels, meaning the country is on track to meet its commitments under its carbon budget running to 2017.

Energy still accounts for the largest chunk of UK emissions at 29%, followed by transport (24%), business (17%), residential (13%) and agriculture (10%).

But the stats also illustrate how the government has relied on cleaning up energy and waste emissions to meet its goals.

In contrast, emissions from the transport fleet have only fallen 2% since 1990, while farming, land use and residential emissions also refused to drop.

The government is expected to pay more attention to these sectors in a much-delayed emissions reduction plan, now promised “during 2017”.

Report: Brexit Britain plan boosts smart grid and electric cars

The post UK emissions have fallen 38% since 1990 on coal closures appeared first on Climate Home News.

Despite near unanimous opposition from Democrats, Pruitt could be approved by Congress this week, taking a over a department he took to court 14 times while Oklahoma Attorney General.

The letter, signed by more than 400 former Environmental Protection Agency employees variously listed as librarians, directors, analysts and senior attorneys, argues Pruitt’s climate scepticism makes him an unfit choice.

“We are most concerned about Mr. Pruitt’s reluctance to accept and act on the strong scientific consensus on climate change,” they write.

Report: EPA airbrushes climate as Pruitt nears confirmation

Despite a wealth of research indicating climate change poses a risk to the health of Americans, Pruitt “persists in pointing to uncertainty” to resist taking regulatory action to solve it, they add.

On Monday, EPA employees in Chicago protested against Pruitt’s candidacy, in what the Washington Post described as an “unusual move”.

The EPA is tasked with rolling out Barack Obama’s flagship climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, which mandates emission cuts from US energy plants.

President Donald Trump has promised to ditch the CPP, labelling Obama’s set of environmental regulations a “disgrace” during last year’s run for the White House.

VIDEO: Bernie Sanders grills Pruitt on causes of climate change

The post Over 400 ex-EPA staffers protest Trump environment pick appeared first on Climate Home News.

At this time of year they should be around minus 16C. Instead locals are having to adapt to a fast-changing environment, one that leaves Norway’s environment minister Vidar Helgesen in a sweat.

“What is happening now is a harbinger of things to come, we are seeing drastic changes,” he tells Climate Home in an interview.

“One of our major glaciers is retreating one metre a day, two kilometres in five years. It’s happening very fast and the world should take note.

“This will happen faster in the Arctic. We know a 2C rise in global average temperatures means up to 4C in the Arctic.”

The unusual conditions should alarm all governments, he says, given the Arctic’s influence on global weather patterns and the evolving links between climate change and issues such as conflict and migration.

For the third time this winter, the North Pole may hit the melting point this wk. Explainer: https://t.co/Z6rvybuGM1 pic.twitter.com/YyTze6Ntih

— Andrew Freedman (@afreedma) February 6, 2017

With around 10% of Norway’s population living within the Arctic circle, climate change is a live issue for politicians in Oslo.

On land, residents face melting permafrost and unusual temperatures impacting agriculture. At sea diminishing Arctic ice opens up the country’s seas to foreign trawlers and Russian warships.

“Traditionally we have viewed the Arctic through an economic and security angle. Most of our ocean territory is in the Arctic and we have a history of harvesting the oceans,” says Helgesen.

“Since the end of the cold war we have seen gradually more economic attention, but now evidently security is back as a major issue.”

2016: record low amounts of sea ice, particularly in the Arctic pic.twitter.com/DHH7NT2cFh

— Ed Hawkins (@ed_hawkins) January 18, 2017

By security he means Russia – the hulking colossus that Norway shares an Arctic border with.

Bodø Air Station is one of NATO’s frontline bases facing off Moscow: Norwegian jets routinely shadow Russian bombers as they test the alliance’s defences.

At sea, Russia plans to build three new icebreakers, Reuters reported last month, as Arctic sea routes become more accessible.

Old Soviet bases are being reactivated, radar equipment and anti-aircraft missiles are being upgraded.

Last week the US military revealed the levels of its concern with the publication of a 16-page Arctic strategy, urging more investment in military hardware and training.

Pentagon: Arctic melt requires updated US strategy https://t.co/Rlsdbcr6sA pic.twitter.com/ybPdMaiFsZ

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) February 3, 2017

One concern is that as the ice melts, historic claims from Russia, Canada and the US together with other Arctic nations on portions of the oil and mineral-rich ocean will cause friction.

Another worry is that ice-free routes will see a surge in shipping. According to the UN’s IPCC climate science panel Arctic shipping lanes could be open for four months a year by 2050. There are already signs of an uptick in traffic.

Norway is taking action; buying fighter jets, patrol aircraft and submarines and has banned the use of heavy fuel oil near its Arctic coastlines.

Despite signs Donald Trump wants to pull the US back from the multilateral arena, Helgesen is confident the Arctic Council – a forum bringing together 8 nations with Arctic interests – can resolve any disputes.

Barack Obama’s Arctic envoy Admiral Papp is no more, but Helgesen hopes to meet his replacement soon to ensure “stable cooperation” with Washington continues.

Senior US officials pledged continued support at last month’s Arctic Frontiers Conference, he says, stressing there is “no change in direction” as far as he can see from the new administration.

“Even through the Cold War we had well functioning arrangements with the Soviet Union on fishing,” Helgesen adds.

The post Think climate change is a hoax? Visit Norway appeared first on Climate Home News.

That’s the bold claim in a Mail on Sunday article that, at time of writing, had been shared 36,000 times and boasted 1,600 comments.

It’s a strong allegation, directed at a study from the reputable National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and one that was pounced upon by climate sceptic lawmakers in the US.

“The Obama administration pushed their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity,” tweeted congressman Lamar Smith, a Republican who says climate science is bunkum.

There are signs Smith and other US lawmakers will use the story to bolster their calls for NOAA to be defunded and the US to pull out of its international climate commitments.

The agency accused of manipulating data is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a government body and one of the largest climate science institutions in the US. The man accusing it of this is John Bates, one of NOAA’s former employees and author of a long blogpost on data security and transparency over the weekend. A number of climate scientists have come to the defence of NOAA and the paper’s lead author Tom Karl, but too late to prevent the story’s spread across right-wing and conspiracy sites.

But is it true? Climate Home contacted 10 envoys and ministers involved in the Paris climate summit. Not one said this report made an iota of difference to its result.

“No single paper had a significant role in shaping the outcome of the conference,” Norway’s climate and environment minister Vidar Helgesen told this website.

“What mattered in Paris was the strong message from business and investors that we need to take climate risk seriously.”

An EU negotiator at the COP21 summit told Climate Home they “did not recall any discussion” of the NOAA paper during talks.

“We base our positions on the IPCC [UN science panel] and I don’t think those said we should do less because of a pause. We did not need extra encouragement.”

Editor-In-Chief of @sciencemagazine @jeremymberg just sent me this re Mail on Sunday article. Yellow is full response to @DavidRoseUK pic.twitter.com/DFMUqa4xS8

— Roz Pidcock (@RozPidcock) February 6, 2017

Andrew Light, a senior member of the US State Department’s negotiating team in 2015 said he was “incredulous” at the idea the paper had any influence on talks.

“Before we negotiated a single word in Paris, 188 countries had put forward pledges for the meeting,” he said. “You’re gonna tell me what got all of them to go through those discussions was based on one NOAA study?”

Oleg Shamanov, Russia’s top climate negotiator, told Climate Home the only “authoritative source” of climate science was the IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5).

“It’s my firm belief that it was politics, not science, that really influenced  negotiations,” he said in an email.

The IPCC’s AR5 study was also cited as “the most influential science” by WWF-UK chief climate advisor Stephen Cornelius and New Zealand diplomat Jo Tyndall.

“The timing of its release made it the most valuable and authoritative scientific input, and the sheer weight of scientific opinion standing behind it was unmatched by any other reports,” Tyndall said.

Another veteran observer of over a decade of IPCC and UN talks said: “I can’t remember a single person referring to it afterwards at UNFCCC talks.

“Calling it ‘huge’ is nonsense since the IPCC also went on about uncertainties about the ‘hiatus’ in its reports.”

South African ambassador Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko, chief negotiator for the G77 group of developing countries in Paris was another to dismiss any link.

Me neither! But then again what is the yardstick for rigor & veracity for the DM https://t.co/TzWP2Y5EsD

— Amb. Mxakato-Diseko (@Amb_MxDiseko) February 6, 2017

Other “facts”included in the Daily Mail story demonstrate a loose grasp what actually was achieved in Paris.

The paper cites a pledge to deliver US$100 billion in climate aid by 2020, a warming ceiling of 2C and an EU pledge to cut emissions 40% by 2030 as areas agreed in Paris.

Yet these are all pre-Paris commitments signed off – in the case of the $100 billion – as early as 2010.

Also missing from the Mail’s report is acknowledgement that many climate scientists – and journalists – forensically questioned the study on its release in June 2015.

It received wide coverage: Reuters, the New York Times and BBC were among those who covered its release and claims that the so-called hiatus in global warming had been exaggerated.

Climate science is a matter of national security, says the Pentagon in Arctic strategy: https://t.co/Rlsdbcr6sA pic.twitter.com/6zurNqrrbm

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) February 6, 2017

It’s worth noting the study was challenged by other climate scientists at the time and the news reports carried their views. NASA’s Gavin Schmidt highlighted “uncertainty” in the study.

Thomas Stocker, a Swiss scientist who led the UN’s 2013 climate science study, was another who cautioned against reading too much into the report.

Piers Forster, a climate scientist at Leeds University, told the BBC this was “not the last word” and there was a need to better grasp “short-term fluctuations in climate”.

Two years on and global temperatures show little sign of stalling: 2017 is likely to be warmer than the long term average, said the Met Office last month, although it’s unlikely to beat 2015 and 2016 – the hottest years since records began.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

The post Contested NOAA paper had no influence on Paris climate deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

The country now boasts over 77 gigawatts of installed solar PV, up from 34 at the end of 2015.

According to Reuters the provinces that saw the fastest growth were Shandong, Xinjiang and Henan, with Xinjiang, Gansu, Qinghai and Inner Mongolia enjoying highest power capacity.

New climate science war?

Amid fears leading US science institutions may be defunded under Donald Trump’s presidency comes a report claiming global warming figures were exaggerated.

Daily Mail on Sunday reporter David Rose said he had uncovered “astonishing evidence” that data had been manipulated ahead of the 2015 Paris climate conference.

“World leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data,” he wrote – pointing the finger at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The truth may be less exciting. According to Carbon Brief, a website specialising in fact-checking, the NOAA figures have been verified by a number of other agencies.

NEW | Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise | Guest post by @hausfath https://t.co/e7gGNGxIKc pic.twitter.com/BruRecUo34

— Carbon Brief (@CarbonBrief) February 5, 2017

Rose’s claim that NOAA’s results “can never be verified” is patently incorrect, writes Zeke Hausfather, an analyst at Berkeley Earth, an independent temperature analysis project.

“What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results,” he adds.

The Daily Mail article was corrected midway through Sunday, tweeted Rose, to remedy a “previous inadvertent omission that NOAA and Hadcrut [another data set] use different baselines.”

Trump’s great repeal

Don’t say you weren’t warned. Donald and Republican lawmakers are on the move, laying out plans to scrap laws curbing methane emissions, venting from gas wells and pollution from coal mines.

The push, reports the New York Times, has its genesis in a document sponsored by the Koch Brothers – owners of a vast array of fossil fuel assets.

“The document carried the title ‘A Roadmap to Repeal,’ a concise list of Obama administration environmental regulations that a Koch brothers-backed group was pressing President Trump and Congress to quickly reverse after Inauguration Day. It was a tally of rules that energy industry executives and lobbyists had waged a futile fight against for eight years, donating millions of dollars to lawmakers who vowed to help block them, filing lawsuits to try to overturn them and hiring experts to generate reports that questioned the need for them.”

#GOP wants to gut bipartisan Sec.1504 of #DoddFrank that requires oil, gas, mining co's to disclose payments to foreign governments.

— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) February 2, 2017

EIU coal report

ICYM – this report by the Economist Intelligence Unit on why coal use in Europe looks terminal is worth a read. Quick take: it’s going, but it will need a hefty policy push out of the door.

Why #coal use is falling in the EU: useful report by @TheEIU https://t.co/iUQ3qq9AUQ pic.twitter.com/ZSR9HcbqPY

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) February 2, 2017

Blackrock’s climate warning

Top asset manager Blackrock is weighing in with another climate warning to investors.

“Climate change is an issue of growing importance for clients who are increasingly concerned that they could lose money if they don’t adjust their portfolios to take account of global warming,” Jessica Huang, a member of Blackrock’s impact team told the FT.

Poland’s smog

Warsaw’s hospitals reported a 50% spike in patients during heavy smog episodes last month, reports phys.org.

“In Paris, authorities announce smog alerts and take action when pollution exceeds 80 microgrammes per cubic meter per day. “In Poland, the alert level is 300 microgrammes,” it quotes Piotr Siergiej from the NGO Alarm Smogowy.

Thai govt’s climate report

Thailand has released its second major climate assessment, according to the Bangkok Post:

“A series of research papers in the report showed that every sector will be affected by climate change, including agriculture, fisheries, tourism and healthcare. One study showed that adverse weather will cause a decline in seasonal crops all over the country. Rice, sugar cane and cassava growing areas risk instability in production.”

Australia’s new climate chief

PM Malcolm Turnbull has picked Sid Marris from coal industry lobby group the Minerals Council of Australia as his next climate advisor. Guardian Australia has the story.

New editor

Karl Mathiesen takes over from me as Climate Home editor from the end of this week – he has loads of plans for the site and is keen to hear from our loyal readers. You can drop him a line at km@climatehome.org

The post Crib notes: China’s solar PV capacity doubled in 2016 appeared first on Climate Home News.

An updated US military strategy for the Arctic says “diminishing ice levels” due to warming temperatures pose a series of security risks to the country.

Released this week at the request of Alaska senator Dan Sullivan, a Republican, the 16-page document says the US must boost investment in its military assets around the North Pole.

“Diminishing sea ice will give rise to new economic opportunities in the region while simultaneously increasing concerns about human safety and protection of a unique ecosystem that many indigenous communities rely on for subsistence,” reads the Arctic Strategy.

“The breaking up of sea ice also threatens existing detection and warning infrastructure by increasing the rate of coastal erosion.”

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

In stark contrast to claims Trump’s administration may axe funding to climate science programmes, the Pentagon report says weather and climate science is a matter of national security.

“Robust observations, remote sensing capabilities, and modelling of the space, air, sea surface, ice, and ocean environments that affect operations in the Arctic are key aspects of domain awareness and safe operations, particularly in a remote and harsh region,” it says.

Citing NASA’s findings that the Arctic is “warming more rapidly than the rest of the planet”, the report says planners must consider the safety of their teams when evaluating environmental risk.

In a statement Sullivan – who sits on the influential Senate Armed Services Committee – said he hoped president Trump and Pentagon officials would “take a serious look at this document” and start work on a comprehensive Arctic strategy.

Trump’s new defence chief General James Mattis was confirmed in his post on 20 January, 12 days before this document was published.

“After nearly two years of advocacy and bipartisan efforts, I am pleased that we finally have a much more serious military strategy for the Arctic region,” said Sullivan. 

“While this strategy is not perfect – including a failure to offer how best to counter the common threat it identifies – it is a dramatic improvement from the 2013 version which was more platitudes and pictures than actual substance.”

Report: Watch the Arctic melt away as the Earth warms

The Arctic is believed to hold over 20% of the world’s oil and gas reserves, and is also rich in minerals – all of which will be easier to access as sea ice levels recede.

In recent years Russia has invested heavily in the region. According to Reuters the scale of military build-up is the largest since 1991, seeking to impose control over half a million square miles of ocean.

Andy Holland, director of studies at the American Security Project, a bipartisan think tank based in Washington DC, said there was growing consensus among lawmakers of the need for a clearer Arctic plan.

“There is pressure to do this – and external pressure from the Russians. There have been a number of articles saying the Russians are militarising the Arctic,” he said.

Holland, who was recently in Norway speaking to NATO officials at the Bodo airbase, on the edge of the Arctic, said they reported an increase in Russian activity in the past year. “They are clearly pushing,” he added.

The post Pentagon: Arctic melt requires updated US strategy appeared first on Climate Home News.

Brexit has created a dynamic debate about how we organise environment policy from here on. The UK will regain competencies it has not had for many years (and with them, the force of public pressure to act).

It will also have the opportunity to replace a traditionally prescriptive EU law with outcome-focused, enabling, UK law and policy.

So it was fascinating to be in Brussels for the BlueGreen conference laid on by the Association of Conservative and Reformists in Europe (ACRE) under the leadership of Dan Hannan MEP. (Not to be confused with the New Zealand’s National Party BlueGreens).

The conference has probably been most famous amongst the climatati for the attendance of Myron Ebell. But to focus on this obscures the some of the underlying difference and debate within the conservative movement.

Well done @Greenpeace for standing up to #Myron Ebell I hope to get my chance shortly! #BlueGreenSummit pic.twitter.com/pUvAScyY3o

— Gregory Barker (@GregBarkerUK) February 1, 2017

What did I learn from the conference? Well first, there is a solid commitment to science-based public policy.

All panellists, whether you agreed with them or not, were interested in and cited data on environmental outcomes. Whilst the climate debate didn’t actually come up much, Lord Barker (no relation!) made an impassioned defence of scientific expertise (remember Margaret Thatcher’s support for the IPCC).

Second, civil society does not understand conservatism.

(Lord) Greg Barker, Michael Liebreich, Ian Duncan MEP and others were all booed as ‘climate deniers’ by the mob outside, an assertion as wrong as it is ignorant.

As Zac Goldsmith has argued, until true environmentalists work with the conservative coalition, bad and marginal policy will be the order of the day. (For more on this see this Niskanen Centre blog, itself run by a former Competitive Enterprise Instituter).

Conservatives get on well with debate (dare I say, free speech), and don’t get on well with no-platforming.

Michael Liebreich perhaps hit the nail on the head when he said ‘I have been called a fully paid up member of the Green Blob, and (by US climate scientist Michael Mann no less) a climate denier. That terminology makes no contribution to intellectual debate.’

A neglect of conservative policy tools by the environmental movement has seen it (a) make bad policy and (b) lose its place in the conservative coalition (most notably the US).

Property rights, the rule of law, free markets and through them innovation, can help deliver. As Paris found over Copenhagen, a pragmatic, bottom-up ratchet works: a top-town target driven negotiation fails.

Report: Myron Ebell visits Number 10, does not meet PM

Third, whatever happens on the fringes, the main argument between Conservatives and the left is whether growth is the problem or the solution, not whether environmental challenges should be met or ignored.

Michael Liebreich scotched the false dichotomy of ‘de-growth vs externality-heavy growth’. He argued (a) the earth is not a closed system (because of solar energy) and (b) that with inexhaustible energy (now coming in at 3 cents in Morocco), waste can be constantly recycled (or, entropy can be reversed).

Again, Margaret Thatcher’s insight, echoed by Matt Ridley and Dan Hannan, was that growth/wealth and environmental protection correlate, that is an inescapable human reality. But as the great lady said ‘it must be growth that does not plunder the planet today’.

The UK Conservative government has been consistent and clear on its position.

The Prime Minister told the Republican convention that multinational institutions are key to tackling the “threats we face today – global terrorism, climate change and unprecedented mass movements of people.” Note: she told the Conservative Party Conference roughly the same thing last year, and affirmed Paris in Parliament.

Check the blueprints for Trump’s climate wipeout – @edking_CH analysis: https://t.co/73NY8msmUx pic.twitter.com/YxFpr8fTbI

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 31, 2017

Boris Johnson assured Parliament that the Government will “use our influence to help the US see it’s responsibilities” on climate change, and the Paris Climate agreement has support from figures across the cabinet ranging from Philip Hammond, Greg Clark, Andrea Leadsom, Amber Rudd, Nick Hurd, Ben Gummer and more.

Yes, Myron Ebell visited Number 10: that speaks more to their very sensible desire to build any bridges with the Trump administration they can, than to their reflections on policy.

What did I make of Myron Ebell? He was polite, informed & compelling. I envied his suit + cowboy boots. I agreed with him that property rights, free markets, and the rule of law have been neglected policy tools. I hope one day he might apply these principles to carbon.

It was clear he had moved on from the transition planning team. Whatever that planning might have been, Trump seems happy to back his people (cf James Mattis on torture). As Elon Musk said last week, Rex Tillerson is committed to a carbon tax.

Conservatives are a varied bunch. Things are all to play for.

Sam Barker is Director of the Conservative Environment Network, if you want to catch up on the conference, he live-tweeted it @repairinglease

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

The post Green groups don’t get conservatives – it’s time this changed appeared first on Climate Home News.

Janos Pasztor, who served with Ban at the UN from 2008-2012 and 2015-2016 will launch the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance initiative (C2G2) in New York on 16 February.

Speaking from Nairobi where he was discussing his plans with officials at the UN Environment Programme, Pasztor said all options to tackle climate change should be discussed.

“As much as the Paris [climate] Agreement was a major step forward we know that even if all countries meet their targets we’re still looking at warming of 3C,” he tells Climate Home.

“To assume it will be 100% [successful] is not realistic, and we are saying to reach these ambitious goals we need to think seriously on what else to add in to massive mitigation efforts.

“Some scientists are saying this is not enough, and we should consider solar radiation management to make sure we don’t go beyond 1.5C to 2C. These are plausible scenarios and we need to think seriously about all options.”

UN to extend freeze on climate change geoengineering: https://t.co/XcVN2IkYOF pic.twitter.com/tpAMK7MMDm

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) December 7, 2016

The term geoengineering covers a wide range of technologies and proposals. These include spraying fine particles into the atmosphere to filter rays from the sun and fertilising oceans with iron filings to promote growth of carbon-sucking organisms.

Less exciting but currently more realistic are vast tree planting schemes and capturing emissions from burning bioenergy crops (BECCS).

The problem, Pasztor explains, is that many of these technologies have potentially planet-altering consequences, and there are few rules in place to govern basic experiments.

“There is hardly anything,” he says, pointing to the London Protocol as an example. It regulates the dumping of “materials” into the ocean for geoengineering purposes but aside from that offers little guidance.

Last last year the UN’s biodiversity body extended its warning against large-scale geoengineering, although it did urge countries to cooperate on future research projects.

“There is practically no real discussion in climate risk management. There is a debate in the scientific community but little in the policy community,” he says.

“That’s where we need the big change. We need to shift debate from academia to policy communications at international level in order to encourage government action.”

Report: US opens door for climate geoengineering research

Using some geoengineering techniques could buy the planet time to fight climate change, says Pasztor, but don’t expect quick results.

He sees this as a 5-year project, one that will take him around the world as he builds a picture of how governments and policymakers see this vexatious issue and what they want to do about it.

This week he meets UNEP director Erik Solheim, next stop is India to work out how officials in Delhi could feed into rule-making.

And there’s a far bigger issue lurking.

Countries taking an active interest in radical climate technologies include the US, Germany, UK, China and Japan – but the impacts of firing mini-mirrors into the atmosphere may not be equal everywhere.

A 2013 study by a team at the UK Met Office revealed that while the release of fine particles in the Northern Hemisphere stratosphere could manage solar radiation, it would also cause a massive drought in the Sahel.

“Geo-technologies may produce a global good of somehow improving the climate… but there could be local impacts and these could be quite bad and negative. How do you deal with a global good but some end up suffering more than others?” asks Pasztor.

“I could envisage an agreement where we decide to do cloud seeding and recognise Sahel will be hit and triple development assistance to the region to make sure water wells are dug and whatever else is needed to counteract negative impacts.”

Thank you @ErikSolheim and @UNEP colleagues for an excellent discussion today of issues related to governance of climate geoengineering pic.twitter.com/EDxGn89Wbb

— Janos Pasztor (@jpasztor) February 2, 2017

Still, he’s preparing for a rough ride. Opposition to the use of land in developing countries for energy crops is intense, suspicion over how and who would “seed the clouds” with sun-blocking particles rages across social media (conspiracies galore on twitter at #chemtrails).

Many argue the priority should be mitigation technologies, which Pasztor says is a “false argument,” as he too agrees the priority must be cutting carbon.

This is not an either-or he contends, but it must an option.

“It could possibly give a breathing space for decarbonisation or make sure that if we overshoot [the 2C warming limit], we don’t overshoot for too long,” he says.

“Government officials, intergovernmental officials, some of my craziest conservationist friends… they agree unanimously we must deal with this.

“They’re not all pro – some are very much against it. But all agree it must be discussed, we need a dialogue and to bring it to the level where politicians can deal with it.”

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

The post Geoengineering rulebook could be ready by 2020s appeared first on Climate Home News.

“It is a welcome development that all concerned agencies of government are now ready to ratify the Paris Agreement,” said Senator Loren Legarda, chair of the Senate climate committee.

“Once the Executive ratifies and transmits the instrument of ratification to the Senate, I would actively shepherd the Senate’s immediate concurrence.”

It is a welcome development that all concerned agencies of government are now ready to ratify the #ParisAgreement.

— Loren Legarda (@loren_legarda) February 1, 2017

President Rodrigo Duterte was originally hostile to the deal, which he claimed would restrict his country’s economic growth and allow wealthier countries to continue polluting.

Legarda said once ratification was complete, the Philippines would work with “fellow vulnerable countries” to compel major greenhouse gas emitters to commit to larger carbon cuts.

“The issue of climate justice, which is one of the concerns of the administration, is enshrined in the Agreement. If we ratify, we become part of the succeeding meetings about the Paris Agreement,” she said.

So far 126 countries have ratified the UN climate agreement, which came into force last November.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

The post Philippines ready to ratify UN climate deal, says senator appeared first on Climate Home News.

As the World Economic Forum convened in Davos, many were asking what should be expected from the incoming president Trump and his team have focused on the costs of U.S. involvement in mitigation and adaption activities: how much is spent, where the money’s going, and what’s the opportunity cost for American infrastructure.

Even with the Obama administration’s last-minute transfer of $500 million (USD) to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Trump may still back out of the remaining $2 billion not yet disbursed, as well as slash billions more in U.S. federal government spending on climate-related programs. Trump cannot cancel the Paris Agreement; but he can slow things down by withdrawal or by bogging down progress.

It’s disheartening that the U.S. would abruptly change course just as leaders in business, government, and civil society have (finally) come to appreciate that climate change is an urgent threat to global prosperity. The world will continue moving forward with or without Trump. But the task becomes that much harder and the chance of success that much lower.

Check the blueprints for Trump’s climate wipeout – @edking_CH analysis: https://t.co/73NY8msmUx pic.twitter.com/YxFpr8fTbI

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 31, 2017

But it doesn’t have to be this way. At the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), we think about climate change in terms of opportunities: for sustainable and inclusive economic growth that creates climate -resilient infrastructure, poverty alleviation, and improved health outcomes for developing and emerging countries.

From a green growth perspective, mitigating and adapting to climate change globally represents an incredible investment opportunity. Green growth is the deal of the century. It’s curious that the supposed Dealmaker in Chief doesn’t recognize this.

The quintessence of Trump’s message is that he’s going to get America winning again. Well, there is no greater competition today than the race to finance the roughly $3-4 trillion in annual infrastructure investment projected in emerging markets, at least one fifth of which would be direct investment in climate change mitigation and adaptation projects.

The amount of current investment will need to increase two- or even threefold if we are to bridge the climate financing gap, estimated at $2.5-4.8 trillion between 2016 and 2030.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

Clearly, demand for investment is there. So, too, are the green growth technologies that will generate healthy returns for investors. Innovations in science, manufacturing, business, and public policy – many coming out of the U.S. and supported by public investment – have enabled the drastic reduction in solar PV and battery storage costs, which will only get cheaper.

In short, the world has reached a tipping point for renewable energy to compete with fossil fuels without subsidies, albeit with less fanfare than the latest Trump Twitter war. Not only has solar reached grid parity with coal in most places in the world, but solar is rapidly becoming cheaper than the cost of transmission.

This, along with the cost of batteries reducing by 14% per annum, will very shortly question the necessity for a grid at all.  It is now fossil fuels – currently receiving more than two times as many subsidies as renewables in the US– that will increasingly depend on government support in order to remain competitive.

For those building long term investment sensitivity models, the regulatory risk associated with fossil fueled projects will become an increasingly unpredictable variable, while the opposite is true for the renewable alternatives.

Prepare for a G20 climate showdown, @LaurenceTubiana tells @edking_CH: https://t.co/CFtKT9amQm pic.twitter.com/r6T9Mn95tG

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 31, 2017

The need for subsidies and supporting regulatory environments within fossil fueled investments will only increase. The long-standing issue with intermittent renewable power generation has been around storage.

Should storage prices drop low enough, however, then grid instability worries are removed, and new areas, such as transportation, are opened up. Electric vehicles become a reality. Dyson announced in 2016 that it will invest $1.4bn in battery technology over the next five years.

Tesla recorded the highest single-day sales for a product with 180,000 Model 3s ordered on the first day of launch. Some believe this is the start of a market disruption, with the vast majority of road transportation being electrically powered by 2025.

The U.S. is currently in the renewables race, but lagging behind. If Trump wants America to “win,” there are three things he can do. The first is to do no harm – essentially, to avoid backsliding on any of the international commitments multilateral climate initiatives or domestic climate policies already in place.

Writing for @ClimateHome, Japan's former #climate ambassador sketches a strategy to combat #Trump https://t.co/ZSVubpb1bZ

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 26, 2017

Secondly, he can get out of the way. Remove the tax subsidies if he must from the solar industry in the US – but then do the same to the oil and coal industries; leaving a level playing field for the energies to compete.

Lastly, support and increase public investment in green growth projects in developing countries. Public capital is critical for accelerating private investment in emerging markets. The knock on effect of this will accelerate growth – and consumer demand – in these countries, thereby creating the consumers of tomorrow for U.S. goods and services.

For a President looking to get America winning again, the path to me seems clear: Level the playing field for energy infrastructure investments at home in the U.S., and build the customers of tomorrow in emerging markets by delivering on America’s commitments to the Paris Agreement.

Leaders of the world’s largest companies realize the opportunity; we can only hope the Dealmaker-in-Chief does too.

Fenella Aouane is Principal Green Finance Specialist at the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI)

The post Memo to Donald: green growth is the deal of the century appeared first on Climate Home News.

Asked about the chances of the US quitting the Paris Agreement, Al-Falih said “I don’t know about this,” and added: “I think he wants a mixed energy portfolio that includes oil, gas, renewables and make sure the American economy is competitive. We want the same in Saudi Arabia.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qco2OWcEMSA

The post Saudi oil chief hails Trump’s ‘realistic’ energy plans appeared first on Climate Home News.

That’s the prediction of Laurence Tubiana, France’s climate change ambassador from 2014-2016 and one of the architects of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

“It is key,” she tells Climate Home. “It is something we should prepare for carefully, it should be a test of governments, civil society, companies to stick to the [Paris Agreement] goals.”

If the advent of Donald Trump’s reign as US president strikes fear into the hearts of environmentalists, the prospect of Angela Merkel fighting their corner at the Hamburg G20 offers some relief.

The German chancellor faces an election later this year, but remains bullish on the need to slash greenhouse gas emissions and has told her administration to make it a priority for 2017.

Report: Germany makes climate change G20 priority

Asked about Merkel, who was involved in UN climate talks as an environment minister in the early 1990s, Tubiana is unequivocal. “She is a leader,” she says.

The question is how far Merkel wants to push it, both at the G20 and in other forums.

The early indications are positive. An EU source recently told Climate Home Germany and China had discussed taking over the Major Economies Forum, a group of 17 nations founded by the US in 2009 to talk climate.

It looks unlikely team Trump know what the MEF is, let alone have plans to resurrect it. But there’s an opportunity, spies Tubiana, for a “different grouping and design” to reflect a new world order.

“I think Germany is thinking who it could invite to a new MEF,” she adds. It’s an intriguing question, reflecting a multi-polar climate landscape.

Check the blueprints for Trump’s climate wipeout – @edking_CH analysis: https://t.co/73NY8msmUx pic.twitter.com/YxFpr8fTbI

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 31, 2017

While the US and China are way out front as the world’s biggest emitters, the chasing pack is huge. The EU, Russia, India, Indonesia, Brazil and a flock of fast-growing Latin American countries are big players.

We are looking at “distributed leadership” says Tubiana. She acknowledges the US-China climate deal in 2014 as vital for the Paris Agreement, but says it was a floor – not a ceiling – of global action.

She cites the self-described “High Ambition Coalition” of developed and vulnerable nations that emerged in Paris. “Now there are new African countries leading – look at Ethiopia, Kenya and others like Morocco which I think will continue to push on after hosting COP22 [the 2016 UN climate summit]”.

It’s a theme she returns to frequently, a conviction that tackling climate change is no longer an issue of getting the US and China to act.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

Take, for example, Saudi Arabia. The oil-rich Kingdom has long tried to block efforts to deliver a global climate pact, right up to 2015 when it found itself outflanked and thin on friends.

That’s one narrative. Tubiana plays another, describing a shift in political opinion in Riyadh over the past 2-3 years, to the point where its state oil firm can announce plans to invest up to $5 billion in clean energy.

“It’s a first step. They don’t feel anymore this [the UN climate deal] is an enemy. They have a huge interest in diversifying,” she says, recalling her multiple visits to the Saudi capital ahead of the Paris talks.

“It makes sense, it’s rational, logical and it was decided and prepared. For me it’s the resilient part of the huge reforms they are implementing.”

Canada offers another potential source of leadership, with Justin Trudeau’s government keen to differentiate itself from Trump, and pushing – slowly – for a greener economy.

Tubiana knows Ottawa’s environment chief Catherine McKenna well, and describes Canada’s stance on climate as a “balance” between oil-wealthy states like Alberta and the desire to green its economy.

Critics – including this site – have asked how Trudeau’s support for multiple oil pipelines marries with his desire to promote his country as a climate progressive.

Tubiana is prepared to be more generous: “We see he is really committed and I have no doubt about this, it’s important for him to show Canada is not an annexe of the US.

“I think we can rely on them… we see the compromises and the difficulties but they are part of the coalition of the ones who want an ambitious deal.”

196 countries to Trump – UN must tackle climate change: https://t.co/Eyj1C7eoWy #COP22 pic.twitter.com/dHmFY5Jqaa

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) November 18, 2016

Still, no conversation on climate leadership is complete without discussing Beijing and Washington, so long the twin heartbeats of global climate talks.

An attempt by countries to stand up for the Paris Agreement last November, with the “Marrakech Call” underlining global support for the UN deal “did not seem to resonate” with Trump’s team, she admits.

“It was important to demonstrate to the new administration there is a cost to exit, but the best way is to increase action at home. The big concern is funding – nobody can fill the gap the US would leave,” she says.

Yet with China – as with Germany – there lies the kernel of hope, she says, a country so vast that once set on course it will not deviate.

“It was striking in Davos, I have no doubt about their policy, the line is clear: they want to lower their coal use and be the first to win the electric car race.

“They have a strategy and they have all the resources to deploy it, and from what I see of this AIIB [Beijing-headquartered Asian infrastructure bank] they will not fund any more coal.

“There is no sign the green economy is panicking – what will have to happen is implementation at home to change the atmosphere.”

The post Laurence Tubiana: prepare for G20 climate showdown appeared first on Climate Home News.

Ebell, a vocal US climate sceptic who wants the US to quit the Paris climate agreement was pictured leaving May’s official residence – but Number 10’s press office said he was not there to talk climate change and did not meet key powerbrokers.

“The prime minister did not meet Myron Ebell today… nor did any ministers or senior members of staff,” said a spokesperson. “He was visiting Number 10 for a meeting with advisors in his capacity as director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.”

In a talk on Monday, Ebell described environmentalists as the “greatest threat to freedom” facing the US.

IMAGES: Trump adviser and #climatechange denier Myron Ebell visits 10 Downing Street. More images via @AlamyNews (https://t.co/DngrpZM61k) pic.twitter.com/CbafciyaZG

— Mark Kerrison (@veripix) January 31, 2017

The post Myron Ebell visits Number 10, does not meet PM appeared first on Climate Home News.

So it proved with Myron Ebell, director of environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian Washington DC think tank, who spoke in London on Monday.

Ebell never met Trump. But he headed Trump’s environmental transition team in 2016, formulating a plan for how the new president should tackle pollution and climate change.

He quit his post on 20 January when the president-elect finally took over the White House, having left what he says was a “confidential” set of proposals for office.

Ebell would not discuss what was in his submission, though he strongly hinted at a wide-ranging cull of green policies and regulations he described as a “threat to freedom”.

Green movement is "a threat to freedom", says Trump advisor: https://t.co/2uigEtixYf pic.twitter.com/gfJZuSFxfg

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 31, 2017

A US withdrawal from the UN’s Paris Agreement was imminent, he suggested. Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon would see to that, he added.

So it this a case of wait and see, smoke and mirrors? Not quite.

In early December the CEI published what it called a “Pro-growth agenda for the 155^th Congress”, which included a detailed set of policy proposals penned by Myron Ebell.

His 26-page thesis offers an insight into his thinking, and that of his transition team, and from the start the disdain for renewables and climate science is clear

“Today, critics claim unchecked carbon energy use will cause catastrophic climate change. However, the climate models producing scary impact assessments increasingly diverge from reality. More important, the climate change mitigation policies those critics advocate pose serious risks to American prosperity, competitiveness, and living standards.”

First on the wishlist is axing the Paris deal.

“The Paris Climate Agreement endangers America’s economic future and capacity for self-government. However, based on nothing other than President Obama’s claim that the agreement is nonbinding, unenforceable, and, therefore, not a treaty, many lawmakers do not see how it would suppress domestic energy production or extort billions of taxpayer dollars in ‘green’ foreign aid.”

Ebell and the CEI recommend Trump clarify the PA is a treaty, insist it should be subject to a vote in Congress and submit it to the Senate, where it is unlikely to secure the required 66 votes.

They warn the PA’s reporting commitments are legally binding and would leave the US open to a “multi-decade global political pressure campaign” from over 190 countries.

“In addition, the agreement will pressure Congress to pay developing countries billions of dollars annually in ‘climate finance’ for renewable energy projects.”

Second is a call to “defund” the UN’s climate body (UNFCCC), which receives around US$4 million a year from the US government.

The CEI sees this as simple: under US law the government should not fund UN agencies which grant Palestine full membership as a state, which the UNFCCC did in 2015.

Barack Obama’s administration got round this by arguing the UNFCCC – which stands for UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – is a treaty not a UN agency.

The CEI disagrees, citing its staffing levels and the fact it hosts conferences every year.

“Just as Congress cut off funds to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) when the ‘State of Palestine’ joined that organization in 2011, so now it should terminate funding for the UNFCCC and its related bodies, such as the Green Climate Fund.”

Third, Trump should “overturn” Obama’s clean power plan, which regulates power plant emissions, underpinned by a 2009 court ruling that said greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.

“In a nutshell, the CPP sets a carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emission standard for existing coal power plants that no new coal power plant can meet and then gives owners and operators the ‘choice’ to comply by reducing the output of coal power plants, shutting them down entirely, or ‘investing’ in new renewable generation.”

Rejecting the climate science that forms the foundation of the CPP and calculations on how cutting emissions will benefit the US public, the CEI recommends Trump declare it unlawful.

Fourth, the US should amend the Clean Air Act – which was used by lawmakers to regulate CO2 – to ensure it can no longer do so.

“Congress should curb the EPA’s overreach by clarifying that it has no power under the CAA to make climate policy.”

Fifth, Trump should repeal the Clean Power Plan’s CO2 standards for power plants.

“The Clean Air Act gives the EPA no authority to kill the future of coal-based power. Yet under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) rule, if utilities want to build coal power plants they can, but doing so will bankrupt them. The rule sets a performance standard of 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour (1,400 lbs. CO2 /MWh) for new coal power plants. Since today’s state-of-the-art coal plants emit 1,800 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour, the rule is a de facto ban on the construction of new coal plants.”

Sixth, Trump and Congress should oppose all carbon taxes (Note: incoming US secretary of state Rex Tillerson is a fan of a revenue neutral carbon tax).

According to the CEI, a CO2 tax is “market rigging policy” and amounts to “picking winners”.

“The function of a carbon tax is identical to that of cap and trade: to pick energy market winners and losers. As President Obama put it, the point of pricing carbon is to ‘finally make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America’.”

The CEI adds the impact of such a tax would lead to the loss of 600,000 coal jobs and lead to a decline in GDP of $2.3 trillion by 2038, although it does not consider how many jobs would be created in lower carbon sectors.

“The power to tax is the power to destroy. Congress should not give the federal government another weapon for bankrupting industries that provide affordable, reliable energy to the people and economy of the United States.”

Seventh, Trump should scrap US calculations of what the “social cost of carbon” could be.

This sounds wonky but it’s important: the SCC is effectively an estimate of the likely damages the release of a tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) judges this to be around $36 a tonne – significantly higher than market carbon prices but a lot lower than a 2015 estimate of $220.

These sums underpin US climate policy, but are roundly rejected by the CEI, which says climate science is flawed and argued the EPA’s damage projections are “made-up”.

“However, recent developments in climate science—including the growing divergence between models and observations and numerous studies indicating that the vast majority of climate models are skewed toward greater warming—indicate that the state of the climate is better than feared, not worse than predicted.”

It’s not clear what these recent developments are – Richard Betts, Met Office head of climate impacts research told Climate Home that recorded data is still within the ranges of projections compiled by the UN’s climate science panel.

“Even if all integrated assessment model inputs were correct, SCC estimation would still be one-sided and misleading, because it disregards the social costs of carbon mitigation policies.”

This is something of a misrepresentation. The SCC is typically used as part of a wider cost-benefit analysis.

Eighth, freeze biofuel subsidies, a policy first deployed under George W Bush. The CEI recommends Congress should…

“Freeze the renewable fuel standard’s blending targets below the ‘blend wall’ – the quantity of ethanol that can be sold domestically given the incompatibility of mid- and high-ethanol blends with the vast majority of vehicles and infrastructure, and anaemic consumer demand for such blends because of their inferior fuel economy.”

Ninth (this is the last one), the CEI says all scientific agencies must meet rigorous standards that they currently do not abide by, urging for new “weight of evidence” tests.

It also urges government to plump for “the least burdensome regulation when selecting regulatory measures” and asks for “all data and research used to justify regulations to be publicly available in order to promote transparency”.

The post Check the blueprints for Trump’s climate wipeout appeared first on Climate Home News.

The tiny Pacific Island state will host the 2017 meeting at the UN climate body’s headquarters in Bonn, Germany, where talks will continue on developing a set of rules for the 2015 Paris Agreement.

“Our Presidency will keep the interests of all nations – including those that are low-lying and vulnerable – at the forefront of our negotiations,” Frank Bainimarama said.

“We are also focused on turning the words and commitments of the Paris Agreement into measurable actions on the part of all nations, and are calling for transparent systems of accountability and practical outcomes to ensure the agreement is a success.”

There was no mention of the US in Bainimarama’s short statement, which was released after meetings with UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa.

Report: Trump planning review of UN treaties, funding

Intense speculation surrounds continued US participation in the Paris climate deal, which president Donald Trump threatened to “cancel” during his campaign.

Myron Ebell, a former advisor to President Trump told media on Monday he would stick to that pledge, and that the country could pull out imminently.

“The US will change course on climate policy… Trump wants to unleash American energy production,” said Ebell, who was part of the president’s transition team after he won office.

Last November Bainimarama issued a personal invitation to Trump to visit Fiji and see for himself the impacts of rising sea levels and extreme weather linked to climate change.

“I again appeal to the president-elect of the United States, Donald Trump, to show leadership on this issue by abandoning his current position that man-made climate change is a hoax,” said Bainimarama.

“I say to the American people: you came to save us then and it is time for you to help save us now,” he said, referring to Washington’s support for Fiji during the second world war.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

The post Fiji says 2017 climate summit to focus on vulnerable nations appeared first on Climate Home News.

Asked whether the incoming US administration would quit an international climate deal, as threatened, Patricia Espinosa acknowledged Trump had a “different attitude” to his predecessor.

But she told dpa-AFX sectors like car making would not see the biggest growth as the world faces an industrial revolution.

“With this huge changeover, America has excellent opportunities because renewable energies appeal to the American entrepreneurial spirit,” she said. “Ultimately, this is also about the competitiveness of the USA.”

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

Espinosa cited commitments by California, New York, Chicago and Seattle as evidence there is still an appetite for climate action in the US.

And she dismissed the suggestion that other countries might also backtrack from the Paris climate pact if Trump pulls out.

At time of writing, 127 countries including China, India and the EU28 had ratified the accord, agreeing to hold global warming “well below 2C”.

Climate action remains a “top priority” for China, Espinosa said, as it tackles choking smog at home and develops clean export industries. “China is rapidly developing into the most important manufacturer of clean technologies worldwide.”

The post UN climate chief to Trump: this is about competitiveness appeared first on Climate Home News.

“The environmental movement is the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity in the modern world,” he said, speaking in London at an event hosted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic think tank.

Investors who have sunk billions into solar and wind energy are “gullible” he said, the science behind global warming is “vastly exaggerated”, the writing is on the wall for the UN’s climate body.

Ebell’s views are significant, as he was charged with leading the Trump’s transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which under Obama tackled climate change.

Admitting he has never actually met the president, the veteran lobbyist nonetheless expressed confidence Trump saw talk of a climate crisis as “overblown and overstated”.

Steve Bannon’s appointment as Trump’s key strategist was a sign of his disdain for climate science, suggested Ebell, pointing to Bannon’s appointment of climate sceptic journalist James Delingpole when he ran right-wing news site Breitbart.

Heading for a press conference on Trump’s climate plans purely for the pleasure of watching leftie journalists squirm. Good use of time?

— James Delingpole (@JamesDelingpole) January 30, 2017

Yet pressed on what the Oval Office will do next on climate change, Ebell was evasive – perhaps reluctant to burn bridges with the administration, perhaps acknowledging Trump is hard to predict.

“We did produce an action plan and an advisory document,” he said, which was based on policies Trump discussed during his presidential campaign.

While Ebell would not discuss this “confidential” document, he did indicate it advised Trump how the US can ditch the Paris climate deal and turn off funding for the UN climate body and Green Climate Fund.

It also outlined how the administration can “repeal all rules” linked to greenhouse gases such as the Obama era clean power plan regulating emissions from energy plants.

“The US will change course on climate policy… Trump wants to unleash American energy production,” said Ebell, speaking to a room of around 50 journalists.

Asked if a shift in global investments towards clean energy would impact the White House, Ebell demurred. “I’m not an investment guru,” he said.

Ebell on climate science

“The people of America have rejected the ‘expertariat’ about one thing after another including climate policy… climate scientists are in this for the glamour and the fame”

“If were going to have some warming it should have started… it has been vastly exaggerated.”

The best and “cleanest” way for the US to ditch its international climate commitments is to “withdraw from the framework convention”, he suggested, adding it “may be down the line”.

Rex Tillerson, former Exxon boss and Trump’s pick for chief diplomat, is on record supporting the Paris Agreement. America should keep a seat at the table, he said in his confirmation hearing.

Ebell is betting he’ll be overruled: “If Rex Tillerson  disagrees with the president – who will win that? The president was elected and Rex Tillerson was appointed. I’d say the president was odds on to win.”

Still, he expected despite Trump’s blistering fusillade of executive orders ranging from bans on immigration to a medical insurance repeal, the climate piece will take time.

With the nomination of environment chief Scott Pruitt yet to win approval from Congress, the web of policies based on a 2009 court ruling that greenhouse gases are a danger to the public will stand.

Once Pruitt is in office, this should be a priority, said Ebell: “There are numerous grounds that it should be undone and I hope that it will be undone.

“My personal view is he should and the EPA should start the regulatory process to do that.” Pruitt’s confirmation vote is slated for Wednesday.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

The post Trump advisor: green movement a ‘threat to freedom’ appeared first on Climate Home News.

The amount of energy used to produce a unit of gross domestic product (GDP) dropped 5% in 2016, the state-run Xinhua news agency reports.

The share of low carbon power in the energy mix rose from 17.9% to 19.5%, said NBS, which counts natural gas and large hydro as “clean energy”.

The world’s top carbon polluter still sources over 64% of its power from coal – the world’s most carbon intensive fuel – but intends to cut this to 55% by 2020.

The government plans to invest $361 billion in clean energy by 2020, as China aims to supply 20% of power from non-fossil sources by 2030.

Still, analysts have previously cast doubt over the accuracy of China’s energy statistics, which are gleaned from hundreds of organisations that use differing methodologies.

“There’s a lot more transparency on emissions than before, but the side that is more sketchy is calculations for economic growth, and that’s worth scrutinising,” cautions Sam Geall, executive editor of ChinaDialogue.

Report: China reveals 2016 coal power crackdown

The post China energy efficiency improved in 2016, reports Xinhua appeared first on Climate Home News.

HSBC, JP Morgan Chase and Credit Suisse are among the banks vying to help the oil-rich Kingdom start its transition towards a low carbon future.

“First investments under the plan could occur this year,” reported Bloomberg, which broke the news that Riyadh planned to diversify away from oil and gas back in 2015.

Current Saudi clean energy targets include 10 gigawatts from wind, nuclear and solar by 2023. By 2030 the government wants  to secure 30% of power from low carbon sources.

Analysis: Can Saudi Arabia’s regime survive in a greener world?

The post Saudi Aramco planning $5 billion clean energy binge appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Paris Agreement went into effect with record-breaking speed; countries amended the Montreal Protocol to phase-down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), the most potent class of greenhouse gases; and the world created a global market-based mechanism to reduce CO2 emissions from civil aviation, to name just a few.

Then the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States suddenly raised doubts about whether the country will continue to play a leadership role and cooperate with other nations on climate policies.

President Trump’s derisive comments about climate change and the equivocation (at best) that his cabinet appointees have shown for international climate policies could put the United States at odds with the world.

But at this critical juncture, America should not become a climate isolationist. The rest of the world appears determined to press ahead in tackling climate change’s threats to humanity’s future, and there are many good reasons the United States should not pull out of the international climate action movement.

#Trump timeline: tracking the US #climate action crackdown https://t.co/4Nk9HhR8Ys

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 25, 2017

America’s most steadfast allies and trade partners support the Paris Agreement. One-hundred and ninety four countries joined the Agreement; only three did not (Syria, Nicaragua and Uzbekistan).

Many of the 130 heads of government who came to Paris in December 2015 emphasized the wide-ranging impacts of climate change on health, well-being and security, and ultimately, each of the countries that joined the Agreement did so in their own self-interest.

As countries worked to create the Agreement, the landscape of global diplomacy was forever altered, with climate change breaking out of its historical silo to become an issue as central to international diplomacy as trade and security. This has also been reflected in the G7 and G20, where climate change has come to the center of the agenda.

Withdrawing from this wave of cooperation risks much. Countries are now clearly assessing each other’s contributions to the stability of the global climate regime as a strong measure of whether they are good partners more broadly.

If the Trump administration doesn’t honor its international commitments on climate change, they very well may find it difficult to engage countries on the new administration’s priority issues.

2000s flashback

We’ve been here before. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell described the reaction when President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol.

As he told the New York Times, “when the blowback came, I think it was a sobering experience that everything the American president does has international repercussions.”

This assessment was echoed more recently by former U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, who went on to say that a withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would probably be, “much, much more significant than what happened before.”

Leaving the Paris Agreement would indicate the United States is abandoning its place in the international climate regime, where other countries will surely step into the vacuum and reap the benefits of global leadership.

And just staying in the Agreement is not enough—failing to also honor our commitments or help generate international progress could isolate the country from continued global engagement on this core issue.

World leaders from Chancellor Merkel of Germany to President Xi of China have made clear the importance of continued U.S. engagement on climate change.

The first test of the Trump administration may come soon at the G7 meeting in Italy in May or the G20 meeting in Germany in July, when we may see host countries propose an extension of the strong language on climate change delivered at the last meetings of these fora.

Gagged: US #climate scientists face uncertain future https://t.co/6RrfXUCr3Z pic.twitter.com/uib5llg5Yq

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 26, 2017

The United States could stay in the Paris Agreement while putting a stop to the policies that make it possible for it to hit its pledge of reducing emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. This would equate to ceding the race for the global clean energy economy, estimated to be a $6 trillion market by 2030. This would be a huge missed opportunity.

The private sector clearly understands this opportunity. In January, 630 businesses and investors – including DuPont, General Mills, Hewlett Packard and Pacific Gas and Electric – signed an open letter to then-President-elect Trump and Congress, calling on them to continue supporting low carbon policies, investment in a low carbon economy and U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement.

Indeed, the view that the Paris Agreement is at odds with our economic-self-interest fails to acknowledge the transition that is well underway. In South Carolina alone, the clean energy economy grew from an almost $1 billion industry in 2013 to a $3.8 billion industry in 2016.

China is already capitalizing on this economic reality by investing $360 billion in renewable energy through 2020, creating 13 million more jobs. Like China, many countries will be more than happy to fill any economic void the United States leaves behind.

When asked her views on climate change, Governor Nikki Haley, nominated by President Trump to be ambassador to the UN, said “we should do what is right, but not at the peril of our businesses.”  What is right is staying in the Paris Agreement and everything else around it that the United States helped build to make it possible.

Strategic isolation

A sweeping 2016 report released by U.S. intelligence agencies found that climate impacts can create political and social instability. In 2015, G7 foreign ministers commissioned a study, A New Climate for Peace, and began pursuing measures to better coordinate activity on climate security risks.

If the United States does not lead or cooperate on such initiatives, it will find itself outside of this critical conversation, and strategically isolated in the process.

If the United States pulls out of the Paris Agreement or ceases its pursuit of measures to reduce emissions at home, it will further isolate itself from the world by making this problem worse rather than better.

The only way to minimize the risk climate change poses is to simultaneously prepare for impacts and address causes. The U.S. military cannot do its job of protecting the homeland or American interests abroad if it is hamstrung by a refusal to address the reality of climate change or its impact on international security.

America cannot afford to be a climate loner, nor can the world afford for it to become one. If President Trump is to live up to his promise to be a president for all Americans, then he will honor U.S. climate commitments in the name of security and prosperity.

Andrew Light is a former senior climate advisor at the State Department. David Waskow is Director of the International Climate Initiative at the World Resources Institute. This article first appeared on the WRI website.

The post Diplomatic blowback of US climate retreat may hurt Trump appeared first on Climate Home News.

Reuters news agency has reported from Washington that the new president’s team has told the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the climate change page from its website.

Reuters says two EPA employees told it they were notified on 24 January that the team had instructed the Agency’s communications unit to remove the page, which contains links to scientific global warming research and detailed data on emissions.

“If the website goes dark, years of work we have done on climate change will disappear,” one of the EPA staff members told Reuters. Both asked not to be named, and their claim has not been independently confirmed.

But Myron Ebell, who helped to guide the EPA’s transition between Donald Trump’s election last November and his swearing-in on 20 January, said the move was not surprising. “My guess is the web pages will be taken down, but the links and information will be available”, he said. Mr Ebell has been described as a climate contrarian.

Buckle up, folks. This is only the start. #resist https://t.co/qXQ2v94jsi

— Rogue NASA (@RogueNASA) January 26, 2017

In a linked development, the Trump transition team has told the EPA to freeze grants and contracts, and has restricted the freedom of its scientists to communicate with the public. 

A similar ban was imposed at the US Department of Agriculture, where scientists at the agency’s main research arm were barred from any public communication about their work, but it was later reported to have been lifted.

The CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Rush Holt, said: “We are concerned about reports that federal agencies – including the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency – have issued directives to staff that may silence the voices of scientific researchers and others working for the federal government.”

He hoped the directives were a temporary measure. But he said: “Censorship, intimidation, or other restriction on the freedom of scientists employed or funded by governmental organisations to communicate their unclassified scientific findings and assessments not only to each other but also to policymakers and to the public is inimical to the advance of science and its appropriate application in the policy domain.”

Rogue Twitter accounts are fun, but gov't employees and scientists are very afraid of being fired if they speak out & share facts. #resist

— Rogue NASA (@RogueNASA) January 25, 2017

Andrew Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists  (UCS) said: “If you care about clean air, clean water and policies that actually protect people, you need the best independent science – and actions like this make it harder for Americans to benefit from science.

“That the administration has moved so quickly to clamp down on scientists shows that the Trump administration is more focused on lifting rules on polluters than keeping our air and water clean.”

The UCS says the attempts to restrict scientists working for federal agencies is “a complete change from the scientific integrity policies in operation at 26 agencies during the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency.”

One of the co-chairs of a newly-formed group, the Scientists’ March on Washington, Caroline Weinberg, said the news of the restrictions had “lit a fire under us.”

“We were inspired (well, infuriated) by the current attacks on science from the new administration”, she wrote in an email. “Slashing funding and restricting scientists from communicating their findings (from tax-funded research!) with the public is absurd and cannot be allowed to stand as policy.”

This article was produced by the Climate News Network

The post Gagged: US climate scientists face uncertain future appeared first on Climate Home News.

It will sequester only so much carbon, but there are sure to be other benefits, according to some fresh thinking by a distinguished plant ecologist.

And is the world listening? Probably not. The planet’s stock of natural wild woodland – the technical term is intact forest landscape – which protects biodiversity, stores carbon and manages the water supply, is dwindling.

A new study calculates that the area of intact forest landscape shrank over the first 13 years of this century by almost 1 million square kilometres, and the rate of loss has accelerated dramatically in the most recent three years.

Research such as this is vital because, although the most visible attempts to reduce global warming and mitigate climate change depend on lowering greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion, there is another, parallel, approach: to limit the emissions that spring from land use change, chiefly by preserving natural forests.

Bookmark our Trump timeline to follow the crackdown on climate science, policy and diplomacy: https://t.co/4Nk9HhR8Ys

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 26, 2017

Christian Körner of the University of Basel in Switzerland argues in the journal Science that forest trees will sequester more atmospheric carbon than they release only while they stay alive.

Trees may grow faster in response to rising temperatures and the fertilising stimulus of more available carbon dioxide, but if the lifespan shrinks as a consequence, any gain will be shortlived.

So commercial plantations are not the answer. He and colleagues at Basel have already demonstrated that mature forests are intricate vegetable co-operatives that have devised intricate ways of sharing resources and managing nutrients.

Other studies have separately confirmed that old forest giants paradoxically store more carbon than young, fast-growing competitors, and that natural, highly diverse woodland is a better instrument for atmospheric carbon absorption.

“The most effective way to enhance forest carbon storage,” Professor Körner writes, “is to prevent logging old-growth forests and to extend the forested land area. Once these new forests reach their storage capacity, they will not sequester additional carbon, irrespective of how fast trees grow and turn over carbon.”

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

So to contain global warming, natural forests must be protected. But forest is being lost: burned, felled, or cleared for farmland or mineral extraction.

Scientists from the US, Russia, Germany and Canada report in Science Advancesthat they used satellite data to monitor changes from 2000 to 2013 in intact forest landscape.

They define this as “a seamless mosaic of forests and associated natural treeless ecosystems that exhibit no remotely detected signs of human activity or habitat fragmentation and are large enough to maintain all native biological diversity, including viable populations of wide-ranging species”.

And they found that these landscapes dwindled by 919,000 square kilometres over the first 13 years of this century. Altogether, at the beginning of the century, 65 countries could boast these intact forest landscapes.

Russia surrendered 179,000 sq km, Brazil 157,000 sq km and Canada 142,000 sq km: this alone added up to 52% of the total. Romania lost all its intact landscapes; Paraguay 79% of them.

How Ireland bent EU #climate rules to protect its farting cows, by @climatemegan https://t.co/NTWvZGPr6U pic.twitter.com/cw8KXOE8y2

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 25, 2017

And, the scientists warn, if this rate of loss continues, Paraguay, Laos, Cambodia and Equatorial Guinea will lose all their intact forest landscapes within the next 20 years.

Logging was the principal agency of loss, and farming expansion came second. Palm oil plantation accounted for just 0.2% of the total loss. Fires linked to human action accounted for 21%. In Australia, 64% of loss could be linked to gold and other mineral exploitation.

The authors warn that the density of stored carbon in tropical climates was far greater in these intact forest landscapes than in the rest of the forest zone.

But these same intact landscapes can be “reduced very rapidly, in a matter of months and years, by increased fragmentation and access, even without changes in tree canopy cover.

“On the other hand, intactness is hard to gain, at least within a short time span. That is why intact landscapes should be treated as having high (or even the highest) conservation value.”

This article was produced by the Climate News Network

The post Russia, Canada, Brazil record vast forest loss appeared first on Climate Home News.

Revenge against everything liberal and everything Obama in his puerile attempt to call the shots. Richard Branson may be feeling his sage advice did nothing to change him.

In my view, at least as far as this inaugural period is concerned, he is acting so much more driven by an ardent urge to show off his presidency and nullify Obama than by his conviction against climate science and climate actions.

The decisions on two oil pipelines, gag order to the EPA, elimination of climate pages from websites of the White House are very serious indeed, but may look like belonging to this revenge category.

What will come after this inaugural period is most serious as it will reflect his personal core. Is he really anti-climate and opposed to energy transition?  Is he rotten to the core?

First, the property developer knows barely anything about climate change let alone basic energy issues. Just see this article and see how he is completely out of his depth on energy.

…Back in late May Robert Murray, the CEO of the major US coal producer Murray Energy, told a coal industry conference that the week before he had been summoned by Donald Trump to discuss energy policy options. Murray, who has a long history of generously funding Republican candidates, was happy to oblige as Trump had become the presumptive Republican nominee.

Murray recounted he suggested Trump should help increase US Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports in order to reduce the domestic gas glut.

Murray, who has no interests in US gas production, wasn’t being charitable towards another industry struggling with low prices. The domestic gas glut has driven domestic prices down so far coal has become uncompetitive. Exporting gas currently consumed domestically would simply ensure less competition for Murray Energy’s coal.

Murray said Trump liked the idea but asked “What’s LNG?”

Despite Trump’s rudimentary understanding of energy issues Murray told SNL Trump was “the horse to ride” in the campaign for US President.

And ride he did….

From my small vantage point, he is a “malleable piece of clay” (Frank Bruni NYT). He is not a man of deep conviction. He’s not a man of principle.

It may (or might remotely) be possible that once he hits the pale, once he felt fullness after a streak of revenge, he would then move to another pathological spasm: burning ache for winning adulation, adoration and acclaim.

He derided the intelligence community and then visited the CIA to appease them.

Many things could happen from here. We must keep our fingers crossed. Rex Tillerson could play a role (despite his half climate conviction) in bringing his boss from his parochial intoxication to the reality.

However strongly and strenuously he brags he is the best on all issues, he can’t beat the harsh market reality that coal is being defeated, renewables are on the rise and all what BNEF and its ilk are reporting is the new truth, not alt-truth or alternative facts.

#Trump timeline: tracking the US #climate action crackdown https://t.co/4Nk9HhR8Ys

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 25, 2017

POTUS also should be reminded that his plan to deliver old jobs to the Rust Belts by digging coal and scrapping regulations in favor of fossil industries would only allow enterprises to use age-old and non-competitive technologies.

President Trump said he would be “the greatest job producer God ever created”.

But those jobs are not going to be high tech innovations and do not ensure the future of the US. It’s only that those folks who lost their jobs get back to the old assembly lines. How can one boast about all this invoking God? How is this to make America great again if at all?

He must be reminded that the whole gamut of clean energy technologies provides finer and better paying jobs that won’t flee beyond borders.

He must be reminded that the whole new life style and new sustainable socio-economic structure, new thriving clean economy, beautiful and efficient urbanization and new nimble transport are capable of pushing the US (and world) economy forward with the same vigour and increased job opportunities.

NEW: Trump planning review of UN treaties, funding – report https://t.co/jn6SsWGFwe #climate #UNFCCC

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 25, 2017

Moving on to the international context, I think all great climate leaders are today saying this is the time the rest of the world keeps its strongest climate and energy front.

The rest of the world must tell him planetary conditions are not negotiable. The global community must reject his business strategy to punish adversaries and bring them to his knees.

This is not acceptable when it comes to the living conditions of our grandchildren. I was writing in Japanese media that if the US drops out, China would surely take the leadership. In Davos, President Xi said he would.

I welcome this and wish them tell the world loudly enough to be audible to all Americans. China may be beholden to coal now, but it aims at new civilization which is devoid of fossil fuels.

China intends to be the top leader and supplier of all modern innovative clean technologies and make them available to the poorest part of the world. China avant-garde and the US retro-garde.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

Lastly on the future of the Paris Agreement. You know and I know that many American politicians hate global systems. They think international bureaucracy comes at the expense of national interest.

Trump Administration is now sounding a possibility of bilateral free trade agreement in place of the TPP. To the extent this is the harbinger of their new thinking/strategy, the US might be amenable to a climate regime with fewer associates if I dare err on the side of extreme optimism.

A club idea put forward by my friend, Nat Keohane might provide a light through a dark tunnel.

I have also been advocating a new trading scheme with major emitters (30 countries with 90% of the global emissions).

This can save the planet from warming of above 2C and can be executed without scrapping the PA.

Mutsuyoshi Nishimura is Japan’s former climate ambassador and was special advisor to the cabinet on climate change

The post Mr Trump, planetary conditions are not negotiable appeared first on Climate Home News.

The paper’s Interpreter columnist Max Fisher said he had viewed two draft executive orders from president Trump which outline cuts to US funding for the UN and a review of its support for multilateral treaties.

The first order, named “Auditing and Reducing U.S. Funding of International Organisations”, would directly impact the UN’s climate body because it has granted Palestine full membership.

According to Fisher the order demands a termination of financial support “for any United Nations agency or other international body that meets any one of several criteria. Those criteria include organizations that give full membership to the Palestinian Authority or Palestine Liberation Organisation.”

196 countries to Trump: UN must tackle climate change

The Bonn-based UN climate body relies on the US for $4million of support every year, around a fifth of its annual budget.

In addition, Fisher writes, the order calls for then enacting “at least a 40 percent overall decrease” in remaining United States funding toward international organisations.’

A second order, named a Moratorium on New Multilateral Treaties, says the US will reassess all treaties with more than one nation.

“The order says this review applies only to multilateral treaties that are not “directly related to national security, extradition or international trade,” but it is unclear what falls outside these restrictions,” writes Fisher.

“For example, the Paris climate agreement or other environmental treaties deal with trade issues but could potentially fall under this order.”

Speaking to the BBC World Service, Fisher said the documents do not mention the US quitting the 2015 Paris climate deal – which was agreed by 195 countries and came into force last year – but “if you read it it certainly looks like they are paving the way,” he said.

Under UN rules the US would have to give one year’s notice to leave the UNFCCC and four to quit the Paris Agreement. Trump does not need Senate approval to depart either.

The post Trump planning review of UN treaties, funding – report appeared first on Climate Home News.

Low cost oil producers like Saudi Arabia have traditionally rationed supply to control prices, but as carbon cutting policies curb demand, they may instead try to sell as much as possible while they still can, said BP chief economist Spencer Dale.

“It seems increasingly likely that not all barrels of technically recoverable oil will be extracted,” he said.

The oil major’s central scenario continues to predict global demand for its products will grow over the next 20 years, albeit at a slower rate. It revised up the growth forecast for electric vehicles and renewable energy from last year’s outlook.

The post BP revises oil forecasts amid climate policy surge appeared first on Climate Home News.

Canada’s Justin Trudeau there, speaking to a school kid in November 2016 who asked him what he’d say to a world leader who thought climate change was baloney (just imagine).

Roll on a few months and the guardian of climate scientists, banshee of warming disasters had this to say about the construction of a vast oil pipeline through Canada and the US.

“I’ve been on record supporting Keystone XL… we know we can get our resources to market more safely and responsibly while meeting our climate change goals.”

Keystone XL, it is estimated, would carry 800,000 barrels of tar sands oil every day over nearly 900 miles. It’s dirty stuff, by anyone’s reckoning. Each barrel would have a carbon footprint 17% higher than conventional oil, said the State Department.

Truly, you might say, Trudeau is a man for all seasons, presidents and energy mixes. Usually the last one that he happens to spot.

#Trump timeline: tracking the US #climate action crackdown https://t.co/4Nk9HhR8Ys

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 25, 2017

To place this in context, this is a man who has keenly – and successfully – tried to rebrand Canada as a climate progressive, pushing it back into the heart of UN climate summits.

Where before the North American energy giant was seen as a blocker, Trudeau directed his media-savvy environment chief Catherine McKenna to play a central role in securing a global climate deal.

At UN climate summits in 2015 and 2016 McKenna talked passionately about the dangers of climate change to Canada, the perils of Arctic melt and the concerns of first-nations.

She even managed to get into the so-called High Ambition Coalition pushing for a tough climate pact – that despite Canada’s carbon cutting pledges getting a tough ride from green groups.

In June 2016 US environment chief Gina McCarthy talked of “kindred sprits in Canada”, alluding to what seemed a rock-solid climate alliance between Trudeau and Barack Obama.

FLASHBACK: June 2016 – Canada, Mexico and US agree new #climate partnership https://t.co/eh6bKo37lx pic.twitter.com/FXemxY8bZy

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 25, 2017

Caps on methane emissions, a 2025 goal to source 50% of electricity from low carbon sources and a ban on Arctic oil drilling were among the headline initiatives secured by Ottawa and DC.

This followed on a national deal to implement a carbon tax by 2018, built on legal frameworks delivered by provinces through 2015 and 2016.

Still, the polish is starting to wear off, and Canada’s climate perkiness shows signs of drooping.

The pressure Trudeau faces from the oil-rich heartlands of Alberta – Canada’s Texas – is intense, illustrated in a painful “Town Hall” event he fronted on Tuesday.

Pinned on his recent comment that fossil fuels and oil sands will need to be phased out in time, a man wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat accused him of being a “liar or confused”.

“You’re in Alberta right now, sir. You’re not in Ottawa,” he shouted at Trudeau. “Yet when you come to Calgary, you tell people you’re sorry.”

Analysis: 6 bits of crucial context for Trudeau tar sands “gaffe”

Angry man received an apology from a mollified PM. “We know our transition off of fossil fuels is going to take a long time. My responsibility now… is making sure Canadians have good jobs,” he said.

“Making sure communities are prospering… and doing it in a way that understands our responsibility to the environment and future generations.”

Politically it was the wise answer. Scientifically Trudeau’s stance is highly dubious. As he told the kids last November, it’s important to “listen to all major climate science organisations”.

Do that and the answers are clear: the estimated tar sands reserves contain enough CO2 to bust half the remaining carbon budget scientists say is left before 2C of warming is highly likely.

Unlocking Keystone XL makes this more likely, as do the other two pipelines signed off by Trudeau ahead of Christmas.

It’s a tough job being Canada’s PM, one made even harder by the election of Donald Trump. But the science is there, and Trudeau has a decision to make.

Will he do the right thing and the smart thing?

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

The post Justin Trudeau: climate leader or charlatan? appeared first on Climate Home News.

May flies to Washington DC on Friday to meet a man who has wasted little time in trying to erase US climate policies, gag climate scientists and boost domestic oil production.

Climate Home understands a letter coordinated by Labour MP Mary Creagh, who chairs the influential Environmental Audit Committee, will be sent to Downing Street on Thursday and published on Friday.

One of those supporting the missive, SNP MP John McNally, told Climate Home that May should underline the “global threat” posed by rising temperatures. “There is no place for denial,” he said.

#Trump timeline: tracking the US #climate action crackdown https://t.co/4Nk9HhR8Ys

— Climate Home News (@ClimateHome) January 25, 2017

The office of Green Party MP and fellow EAC member Caroline Lucas said she would be sending a separate communique to Number 10, urging May to seek assurances the US will not abandon the UN’s Paris agreement.

During the presidential campaign Trump said he would “cancel” the deal, which was signed off by 195 countries and came into force last year.

“Theresa May has a duty to make a stand – and to demand assurances from President Trump that he will not abandon the Paris climate change agreement,” said Lucas.

“Failing to bring up climate change with President Trump would be a dereliction of duty from Theresa May, and we urge her to put this global challenge at the top of her agenda for their meeting.”

Asked by former Labour leader Ed Miliband during Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions if she would raise the issue with Trump, May replied she hopes “all parties” will respect the pact.

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

Last year was the hottest on record according to data from the World Meterological Organisation (WMO), registering at 1.1C above pre industrial levels.

Nick Mabey, director of the London-based E3G think tank and a former advisor to the Blair government in the 2000s said a clear UK message on climate was vital to protect global efforts.

“Trump is a dealmaker and he wants to know how much we care, he’s watching how the world responds to what he’s doing,” said Mabey.

“We are a close ally and this will help them work out how to play the G7. If they think the UK is going soft they would be emboldened.

“Blair emphasised the security links of climate change with Bush, and that administration was far more aggressive towards multilateralism… if we can work with Bush we can deal with Trump.”

The post Talk climate sense to Trump, British MPs urge Theresa May appeared first on Climate Home News.

In the Arctic scientists reckon diminishing floating ice levels around the North Pole are a direct result of warming temperatures and extreme weather events linked to climate change.

Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at Reading University, has captured the collapse in Arctic ice in the latest of his viral gifs (check out his 2016 global temperatures visual here).

According to recently release data from leading climate monitoring agencies, 2016 was the hottest year on record, 1.1C above the pre industrial average.

2016: record low amounts of sea ice, particularly in the Arctic pic.twitter.com/DHH7NT2cFh

— Ed Hawkins (@ed_hawkins) January 18, 2017

The post Watch the Arctic melt away as the Earth warms appeared first on Climate Home News.

“Environmentalism is out of control” Trump told the CEOs of Ford, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler at the White House, in quotes first reported by The Independent.

“We want regulations but we want real regulations that mean something,” he said. “We’re going to make the process much more simple for the auto companies and everybody else who wants to do business in the United States.”

Few details emerged from the meeting on the specific regulations Trump was referring to, but standards introduced by Barack Obama’s administration in 2011 aim to double fuel efficiency by 2025.

Last week Trump’s pick for environment chief Scott Pruitt said he would not commit to maintaining California’s decades-old ability to enforce its own vehicle emission standards, which are tougher than those at federal level.

Trump’s comments are the latest indication he intends to deliver on his campaign promises to cut pollution laws and boost the fossil fuel industry. On Tuesday the president also announced he would approve the construction of two controversial oil pipelines: Keystone XL and Dakota Access.

BREAKING: Trump signs executive actions to advance the construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines.

— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) January 24, 2017

The post Donald Trump: environmentalism is ‘out of control’ appeared first on Climate Home News.

Werner Hoyer, president of the ‘EU’s bank’, said its links with the UK would be in “limbo” once talks start on the country’s exit from the 28-country bloc later this year.

“We would be missed in the UK if we had to reduce our business there or disappear completely,” he said at a Brussels press conference, contemplating the departure of a country that holds 16% of the bank’s shares.

The UK may yet remain a member of the EIB, said Hoyer, but this will likely be a topic for a mooted two years of Brexit negotiations. This week ministers halted the sale of the country’s Green Investment Bank, pending a review.

A lack of policy certainty from policymakers in London has hit the country’s clean energy sector, although prime minister Theresa May has slated it as a key part of her new industrial strategy.

Regionally Hoyer said the bank would meet its target of spending just over £17 billion a year on climate related issues by 2020, part of a global shift in resources from development banks.

“We, Europeans, must lead the free world against climate skeptics,” he said.

The post EIB sounds Brexit warning over UK clean energy funding appeared first on Climate Home News.

The decision has little cost for India, which bears few responsibilities under the protocol, but its ratification of the 2012-2020 period indicates Delhi’s desire to protect the UN climate process in the face of threats from new US president Donald Trump.

“In view of the critical role played by India in securing international consensus on climate change issues, this decision further underlines India’s leadership in the comity of nations committed to global cause of environmental protection and climate justice,” read a government statement.

“Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by India will encourage other developing countries also to undertake this exercise.”

First agreed in 1997, the protocol mandated most wealthy countries – bar the US, Canada and Japan who either left the accord or refused to join – to make greenhouse gas emission cuts from 2008-2012 and help poorer nations green their economies.

Kyoto Protocol: 10 years of the world’s first climate change treaty

Governments agreed the extension to the first commitment period at the 2012 Doha climate summit, but so far only 75 countries have ratified the amendment (KP2).

While the EU is meeting its targets under KP2 the bloc has not completed ratification due to internal squabbles with Poland over the allocation of carbon credits.

Kyoto’s replacement – the 2015 Paris climate agreement – will see developed and developing nations take steps to reduce emissions, although it has not yet become operational.

“India has always emphasised the importance of climate actions by developed country parties in the pre-2020 period,” the statement added.

“Besides, it has advocated climate actions based on the principles and provisions of the convention, such as the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.”

Weekly briefing: Sign up for your essential climate politics update

The post India hails ‘climate leadership’ with new Kyoto commitment appeared first on Climate Home News.

Downing Street won’t say if climate change will make the talking points when May meets Donald Trump – but in an interview on the BBC on Sunday she said trade and security would feature.

“I will be talking to Donald Trump about the issues we share and how we can build on the special relationship,” she said. “It is the special relationship that allows us to say when something is unacceptable.

“Whenever there is something I find unacceptable, I won’t be afraid to say that to Donald Trump.”

Foreign leaders Trump has already spoken to include Canadian PM Justin Trudeau and Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto.

ICYM – Team Trump did not wait long to make their mark.

Soon after the bronzed billionaire made his inaugural address the White House website underwent a rapid re-vamp, losing all references to climate change.

Instead a series of pledges to erase Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, support so-called clean coal and reduce “burdensome regulations” were listed as priorities.

“Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years,” it added.

Big as-yet-unanswered questions include future US participation in the UN climate talks and Paris Agreement, and the outstanding $2 billion owed to the Green Climate Fund.

Sam Adams, US director at the World Resources Institute described the disappearance of references to climate change as “truly disturbing”.

“The website’s lone climate reference is to eliminate the Climate Action Plan, which is a wholesale attack that flies in the face of common sense and would do harm to all Americans.”

What could Trump do next: his climate and energy options 

Cabinet picks

It’s taking an age but expect the key figures in the Trump administration to be confirmed this week. That means former Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson taking on State Department, climate sceptic Scott Pruitt running the environment agency and oil-lovin’ Rick Perry managing energy.

California’s climate plan

With impeccable timing, California released its own climate plan on Friday: aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

Here’s the basics from a press release:

“The proposed plan continues the Cap-and-Trade Program through 2030 and includes a new approach to reduce greenhouse gases from refineries by 20 percent. It incorporates approaches to cutting super pollutants from the Short Lived Climate Pollutants Strategy. And it acknowledges the need for reducing emissions in agriculture and highlights the work underway to ensure that California’s natural and working lands increasingly sequester carbon.”

UK industrial plan

The government will deliver a  draft set of proposals for a new industrial strategy on Monday – which will offer a sense of how green this government’s thinking is.

Here’s May’s spiel in the pre-launch bumpf:  “Our modern Industrial Strategy is a critical part of our plan for post-Brexit Britain. As we leave the EU it will help us grasp the bigger prize: the chance to build that stronger, fairer Britain that stands tall in the world and is set up to succeed in the long-term.”

This briefing from Policy Exchange – an influential think tank close to the government – offers a sense of how climate considerations could be tackled in the new strategy.

“The UK… has the potential to develop and produce low carbon and environmental technologies – building on its existing strengths, as well as spotting emerging opportunities. The UK has a world-class science and research base, but needs to do more to bridge the ‘valley of death’ between basic research and commercialisation, and create a regulatory environment which encourages innovation and entrepreneurship.”

OPEC’s oil cuts

…are going faster than expected, the body announced on Sunday. “The deal is a success… all countries are sticking to the deal… results are above expectations,” Russian energy chief Alexander Novak told Reuters.

Under a deal brokered last year, 11 of OPEC’s 13 members agreed to significant output cuts in the first six months of 2017, in an attempt to reduce a glut of oil on world markets and boost prices.

“Despite demand usually being lower in the first quarter in winter, the actions taken by the Kingdom and many other countries has impacted the market in a tangible way and we have seen the impact in spot prices,” said Saudi Arabia’s oil minister Khalid al-Falih.

Healthy journalism

The medical journal The Lancet has announced it is launching The Lancet Planetary Health, a new online open access title looking specifically at the intersection of climate and environmental issues with health.

“The path has been set – a path that responds to climate change, and could lead to enormous advances in public health over the course of this century. But we must act decisively, and fast,” said Richard Horton, Lancet editor in chief.

The post Crib notes: Will Theresa May tackle Trump on climate? appeared first on Climate Home News.

A policy brief posted on a fast-revamped White House website underlined the new administration’s desire to scrap what it termed “burdensome regulations on our energy industry”.

“President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.

“Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years,” it added.

Trump's promise: killing Climate Action Plan & Waters of the US Rule will boost wages <$30billion in 7 yrs. https://t.co/gwTMxtPpR8

— Lisa Friedman (@LFFriedman) January 20, 2017

The plan will come as no surprise to seasoned observers of US politics, but their appearance on the White House website emphasises a cull of climate policies and support for the fossil fuel industry will be a priority.

“President Trump will refocus the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] on its essential mission of protecting our air and water,” reads another line.

Make #oil great again! @WhiteHouse updates website with President Trump's plan for #energy https://t.co/1UYQQIS6Fl #OOTT #climatechange pic.twitter.com/yrRZ4txR6X

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) January 20, 2017

Coal communities will be cheering at the pledge to resurrect the industry and invest in so-called “clean coal”.

"The Trump Admin. is also committed to clean coal technology, and to reviving America’s coal industry, which has been hurting for too long." https://t.co/R9Yn31xktZ

— Simon Evans (@DrSimEvans) January 20, 2017

There’s no mention of Trump’s position on the flagship Paris climate agreement or whether he will try and remove the country from the UN’s climate body. Remember Trump said he wanted to “cancel” the deal.

Eagle-eyed observers also spotted an absence on the White House website – a dedicated section on climate change is no more.

RIP @WhiteHouse climate webpage. pic.twitter.com/1E7nbBJ7MV

— Amy Harder (@AmyAHarder) January 20, 2017

The post Trump White House to ditch ‘harmful’ US climate plan appeared first on Climate Home News.