Category: Climate Crisis

  • Guest post: What 1.5C overshoot would mean for climate impacts and adaptation

    Spread the love

    Original article by multiple authors republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license. 

    With average global temperatures set to see another record high this year, the chances of holding warming to no more than 1.5C continue to dwindle.

    Keeping warming below 1.5C by the end of the century – in line with the long-term goal of the Paris Agreement – now likely involves “overshooting” 1.5C and then bringing temperatures back down later by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. 

    (What this means for “net-negative” emissions is covered in a previous guest post.)

    This raises a number of unknowns in terms of what overshoot means for the impacts of climate change on the planet, people and ecosystems. 

    For example, even if global temperatures can be brought back down again by the end of the century, will the impacts of climate change also reduce? Will coral reefs be able to recover or will glaciers reform? What will it mean for the world’s coastlines, food production and endangered species?

    For the past three years, we have been working on a Horizon Europe-funded project called PROVIDE to dive deeper into what overshoot really looks like for countries, regions and cities. 

    This data is available on the Climate Risk Dashboard – a tool to help people see how climate change will affect them and how it depends on the actions taken today.

    Until carbon emissions are reduced to net-zero, the world will not stop warming. Delay will result in ever more intense climate impacts – and increase the risk of crossing irreversible thresholds. 

    Urban heat stress under overshoot

    One of the clearest and most acute impacts of climate change is on extreme heatwaves. Our findings suggest that, were global average temperatures to decline, extreme heat events in most locations will also decrease, on average. 

    But achieving a new balance in local climates would be a slow process, influenced by ongoing climate system adjustments for decades – if not centuries – to come.

    Reversing climate change would most probably take several decades, even if overshoot is limited to a few tenths of a degree. This implies that the climate risks that generations alive today will be exposed to are largely determined by collective actions today. 

    We can illustrate these differences for the risks of extreme heat stress for the Indian city of Chennai, one of 140 cities for which we modelled urban heat stress risks at 100-metre spatial resolution.  

    The chart below shows the projected annual number of days of extreme heat stress in Chennai – defined as days where wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) goes over 31C. (WBGT is a metric that combines air temperature, humidity and exposure to direct sunlight.)

    This level of heat stress approaches the limits of human survivability (without adaptation) – for example, physical outdoor labour is almost impossible under these conditions.

    Under current 2020 climate policies, leading to a best estimate of about 3C of warming in 2100, extreme heat days increase pretty much unchecked. By the end of the century, around half of the days (180) per year would experience extreme heat stress conditions (or even higher). 

    In contrast, in a 1.5C low-overshoot scenario (the IPCC Shifting Pathway), the number of extreme heat stress days would peak mid-century at around 120 days , before declining again to around 110 days by 2100 as global average temperature decreases from just above 1.5C to around 1.3C. This is a modest decline in extreme heat risk, yet a profound difference from a 3C world. 

    Projected days a year with extreme heat stress in Chennai from 2020 to 2100
    Projected days a year with extreme heat stress in Chennai from 2020 to 2100 under the climate policies of 2020 (blue) and 1.5C low-overshoot scenario called “IPCC Shifting Pathway” (green). Source: PROVIDE Dashboard

    Irreversible consequences from overshoot

    There are many other impacts of climate change that will be irreversible – for centuries to millennia – at peak temperatures, let alone if society is able to bring warming back down.

    Coral reef loss, glacier loss, sea level rise and the loss of many species and ecosystems all fall into this category.

    Yet, a lot of these losses can still be avoided by stringent mitigation. For example, our multi-scenario framework allows us to explore glacier futures showing unavoidable, or “locked-in”, risks even under the lowest emission scenario we have explored, and compare them with the avoidable risks through stringent mitigation. 

    Below, we provide an example for glacier volume projections for Peru, where glaciers serve as an essential freshwater resource during the extremely dry season of June to September. Due to past warming, glacier loss will continue over the coming decades. Under a current policy scenario (blue dots), 50% of the glacier volume might be lost as early as 2050.

    Yet this does not need to happen. In fact, stringent mitigation pathways (green dots) are still possible that give a four-in-five chance of preserving 50% of today’s glacier ice in Peru, avoiding the worst and helping to maintain some of their vital uses.

    Chart illustrating risks of losing 50% of 2020 glacier volume for Peru today and in 2030, 2050 and 2100
    Chart illustrating risks of losing 50% of 2020 glacier volume for Peru today and in 2030, 2050 and 2100, under the climate policies of 2020 (blue) and 1.5C low-overshoot scenario called “IPCC Shifting Pathway” (green). Shading highlights the avoidable risk. Source: PROVIDE Dashboard.

    Overshoot risks for the biosphere

    Climate change represents a major threat to biodiversity globally. We modelled species at risk from local extinction for about 135,000 terrestrial fungi, plants, invertebrates and vertebrates based on the Wallace Initiative. 

    Under the assumption that the 1950-2000 reference climate was suitable for the species at question, we model the proportion of species for which the local climate becomes unsuitable under ongoing climate change. 

    In the chart below, we illustrate the risks to species in one of the countries with the world’s richest terrestrial biodiversity, Brazil. Under the current policy scenario (blue dots), the likelihood of 50% of species being at risk of local extinction rises to 74% by 2100. Yet, our analysis shows that this likelihood can still be avoided almost entirely by stringent mitigation (green dots). 

    Chart showing the likelihood of 50% of Brazilian species being at risk of local extinction today and in 2030, 2050 and 2100
    Chart showing the likelihood of 50% of Brazilian species being at risk of local extinction today and in 2030, 2050 and 2100, under the climate policies of 2020 (blue) and 1.5C low-overshoot scenario called “IPCC Shifting Pathway” (green). Shading highlights the avoidable risk. Source: PROVIDE Dashboard.

    It is important to highlight that species loss does depend on a range of factors – of which climate suitability is only one. Yet there is a range of other human-caused stressors to biodiversity loss and a complex interdependencies of species and food webs in particular in the most biodiverse ecosystems implies the risk of knock-on effects and ecosystem tipping points. 

    We also note that our results do not necessarily imply global species extinction and do not allow us to quantify if and how species survival under different overshoot trajectories would emerge. 

    Overshoot will stress adaptation planning

    Overshoot outcomes matter for climate risk assessments. Yet, in contrast with the prominence of overshoot pathways in the climate mitigation literature, their implications for adaptation planning have not been widely explored.

    Overshoot would increase the threat of climate change that society needs to adapt to – and make that adaptation more difficult. Some options may become unavailable due to limits of adaptation. 

    Also, timescales matter. Reversing an overshoot will take decades. Even assuming reversibility of climate hazards in the future as temperatures come down, this might only matter for adaptation decisions that involve a planning horizon of 50 years or more.

    This is illustrated in the chart below, from our recent Nature study. This shows a stylised trajectory of warming (top chart) with overshoot (red bars) and how it compares to planning horizons for some example adaptation options (green bars), the lifetime of those measures (blue bars) and the intergenerational equity they involve (bottom chart).

    The possibility of reversing long-term impacts in the future does not reduce the urgent need to act now on closing the wide gap in current adaptation efforts.

    Figure showing stylised temporal evolution of a reversible climate impact driver
    Figure showing: a) stylised temporal evolution of a reversible climate impact driver under a peak and decline scenario. Dashed lines indicate a low and high overshoot outcome with median timescales of global temperature reversibility typically in line with those from the IPCC AR6 database; and b) stylised illustration of adaptation-relevant timescales starting in 2030, including different planning horizons for adaptation planning (green bars) and lifetimes of individual adaptation measures (blue), and the effect of applying discounting (reflecting societal preferences towards intergenerational equity) to future damages and adaptation benefits. Source: Schleussner et al. (2024)

    Limit peak warming and aim for long-term decline

    While our results clearly underscore the importance of limiting peak warming to as low as possible, there are also very good arguments for aiming for a long-term global temperature decline, irrespective of the peak warming level. 

    For a wide range of time-lagged climate impacts, such as ice sheet, peatland and permafrost loss, as well as large-scale irreversible tipping points, achieving temperature decline well below 1.5C is key to limiting long-term risks from global warming. 

    Overshoot is clearly not an alternative way to achieve a similar climate outcome. Effectively limiting climate risks requires restricting peak warming as low and as close to 1.5C as possible – and then aim for long-term decline to reduce the climate impact legacy of human-caused emissions.

    This guest post is by:

    Dr Carl-Friedrich Schleussner leads the integrated climate impact group at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and is a scientific advisor at Climate Analytics, Berlin.

    Prof Rachel Warren, professor of global change and environmental biology at the University of East Anglia.

    Dr Fabien Maussion, associate professor in glaciology at the School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, UK.

    Dr Niels Souverijns, urban climatologist at VITO Belgium and guest professor at KU Leuven.

    Dr Quentin Lejeune, a climate scientist who has led the development of the PROVIDE Climate Risk Dashboard at Climate Analytics.

    Original article by multiple authors republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license. 

  • Thinks of the Day :: I don’t have much time for COPs

    Spread the love

    I used to cover COP climate conferences quite closely. Be good if they achieve something but I don’t have much time for them now.

    COP29 is for oil deals

    Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
    Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
    Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels. Second version, corrected text.
    Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels. Second version, corrected text.
  • Young People Can’t Afford to Give Up on International Climate Action

    Spread the love

    Original article by Hailey Campbell republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

    Demonstrators from several environmental groups including Extinction Rebellion and Sunrise Movement demand broad action at a youth-led climate strike near City Hall on December 6, 2019 in New York City. (Photo: Scott Heins/Getty Images)

    Youth voices at COP represent the needs of the upcoming generations who will have to either assert our rights to a just climate future or figure out how to survive the catastrophic impacts that accompany a warmer planet.

    Donald Trump is once again elected president of the United States only days before more than 30,000 people are expected to attend COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan to negotiate new global commitments on protecting the planet not only for those inhabiting it today, but also for future generations. Trump’s victory is sounding alarm bells in the climate community as his administration has made their disregard for global climate action abundantly clear across their campaign, but the world recognizes we cannot afford inaction.

    When Trump announced his plans in 2017 to withdraw the country from the Paris agreement, an international treaty to limit global temperature rises to 1.5°C, Gebru Jember Endalew, chair of the Least Developed Countries group, which represents 48 countries, stated “global climate momentum will continue with or without the U.S.” China also joined the E.U., Canada, and many more governments to reiterate their commitment to the agreement and global climate action.

    Even if the Trump administration chooses to ignore the importance of investing in our planet, climate change will continue to affect our lives.

    In 1995, the first Conference of the Parties (COP) was held in Berlin, Germany and subsequent COPs have produced targets to curb emissions, appropriate much-needed funds to tackle climate change, and build transparent reporting processes. The U.S. often sets the tone at COP as the country’s decisions around climate ambitions and climate finance have a global ripple effect. This year’s conference will be the fifth COP I’ve attended. It’s always been clear to me that youth climate activists and frontline communities are a crucial part of the COP process—pushing governments, like the U.S., which is the world’s largest historical polluter, to create and abide by ambitious targets and to address loss and damage so the planet is livable for all. And it’ll be no different this year, especially with a Trump win. Youth voices at COP represent the needs of the upcoming generations who will have to either assert our rights to a just climate future or figure out how to survive the catastrophic impacts that accompany a warmer planet.

    We need all the help we can get. U.S. state and local officials are stepping up, as they did in 2017. A coalition of more than two dozen governors committed to achieving “the Paris agreement’s goal of keeping temperature increases below 1.5°C” as did large coalitions of U.S. mayors, county officials, and business leaders. In fact, I had the honor of being present as an intern for the City of San Antonio when my mayor signed a resolution with his commitment. The bipartisan group consists of governors from Washington state all the way to Puerto Rico who are committed to curbing emissions and accelerating climate action. States like California have also been working with other nations, such as China, to promote climate policy. Even if the U.S., at a national level, fails to act once again, it’s encouraging to see local and global communities committed to multilateral action.

    My first COP was under the first Trump administration, and I remember feeling disappointed and embarrassed seeing my country failing to step up and lead on climate action. While everyone else had pavilions, announcements, and a large presence, the U.S. had a small office. Because of all the advantages the U.S. has gained by exploiting other communities, cultures, and nature, the U.S. had and still has so much historical and current responsibility to do better. Seeing national and global leaders reiterate their climate commitments gave me hope then and serves as a reminder today—efforts to tackle the climate crisis will continue regardless of the U.S. election results.

    Even if the Trump administration chooses to ignore the importance of investing in our planet, climate change will continue to affect our lives. Attribution studies show human-induced climate change is making heatwaves, like the ones in the Southwest, hotter and more likely, while hurricanes and droughts have become more severe and destructive. Climate change is severely costing the environment and the economy. According to the World Economic Forum, “climate change is costing the world $16 million per hour.”

    This horrific and costly reality isn’t inevitable. Phasing out fossil fuels, the biggest contributor to climate change, and investing in a greener and cleaner future for all are the antidotes. This is not the time to give up on climate cooperation, but rather strengthen the commitment to it. We cannot be paralyzed by fear. We’ll be at Baku calling for equitable and funded climate solutions, because if climate multilateralism is in jeopardy, so is our future, and we can’t afford to give up on either.

    Original article by Hailey Campbell republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

  • As Biden Adviser Speaks at COP29, Green Groups Say Act Before Trump Takeover

    Spread the love

    Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

    John Podesta, U.S. senior adviser to the president for international climate policy, speaks to the media during a United Nations climate summit on November 11, 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan.  (Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

    “President Joe Biden must reject all pending LNG export permits and stop the expansion of fossil fuels.”

    As the U.S. senior adviser to the president for international climate policy addressed the United Nations summit in Azerbaijan on Monday, green groups urged the outgoing Democratic administration to do whatever it can to tackle the global crisis before Republicans seize control of the White House and likely both chambers of Congress.

    “I want to address tonight a topic that is on everyone’s mind—the U.S. election,” John Podesta, President Joe Biden’s adviser, told the crowd in Baku on the first day of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29), less than a week after President-elect Donald Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris.

    Although votes are still being counted, Republicans have secured a majority in the U.S. Senate and are on track to retain control of the House of Representatives—paving the way for Trump’s plans to roll back the Biden-Harris administration’s progress on the climate emergency and “drill, baby, drill,” which would lead to a surge in planet-heating pollution.

    “Podesta’s speech must be followed by swift action to limit U.S. fossil fuel expansion and achieve a strong COP29 outcome.”

    “For those of us dedicated to climate action, last week’s outcome in the United States is obviously bitterly disappointing,” Podesta acknowledged, “particularly because of the unprecedented resources and ambition President Biden and Vice President Harris brought to the climate fight.”

    Noting that Biden pledged to halve emissions this decade, rejoined the Paris agreement, signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and promised $11 billion in international climate funds, Podesta warned that “the next administration will try to take a U-turn and reverse much of this progress.”

    “As President Biden said in the Rose Garden last week, setbacks are unavoidable, but giving up is unforgivable. This is not the end of our fight for a cleaner, safer planet. Facts are still facts. Science is still science,” he continued. “This fight is bigger than one election, one political cycle, in one country. This fight is bigger still.”

    “We can and will make real progress on the backs of our climate-committed states and cities, our innovators, our companies, and our citizens, especially young people, who understand more than most that climate change poses an existential threat that we cannot afford to ignore,” he added. “Failure or apathy is simply not an option.”

    https://twitter.com/pass_blue/status/1855977029885173929?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1855977029885173929%7Ctwgr%5E5aeb2c3e442822bdef98b9b393761ae5e7d8f1c7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Ftrump-and-climate-change

    Sorry, this content could not be embedded.
    X

    Responding to the envoy’s remarks in a Monday statement, Collin Rees, United States program manager at Oil Change International, said that “if John Podesta and President Joe Biden are committed to doing everything possible to continue climate progress despite Donald Trump’s reelection, this moment demands a bold agenda that goes beyond locking in clean energy gains and takes real action toward a just transition off fossil fuels.”

    “There is no shortage of critical work to be done before Biden leaves office,” Rees argued. “Here at COP29, the United States must support a new, transformative global finance goal in which rich countries pay their fair share in high-quality, grant-based finance and work to submit a Paris-aligned nationally determined contribution committing to do its fair share of climate action and phase out fossil fuels.”

    In the United States, Rees argued, Biden must “finalize studies on the dangerous impacts” of new liquefied natural gas exports, “reject deadly projects like the Dakota Access oil pipeline and pending LNG facilities in the Gulf South,” and urge Congress to block the latest attempt by outgoing Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) “to destroy bedrock environmental protections.”

    Looking toward next week’s Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) meeting, Rees said that “Biden’s administration must support a global agreement to end export credit finance for oil and gas projects, a process which could end tens of billions of dollars in international finance for fossil fuels every year. This agreement would limit the global climate damages Trump and his fossil fuel cronies are able to perpetrate.”

    “Podesta’s speech must be followed by swift action to limit U.S. fossil fuel expansion and achieve a strong COP29 outcome,” he stressed. Leaders at other climate organizations—who have often argued that Biden hasn’t gone far enough to tackle the fossil fuel-driven crisis—issued similar demands on Monday.

    https://twitter.com/benjamingoloff/status/1855964481316151781?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1855964481316151781%7Ctwgr%5E5aeb2c3e442822bdef98b9b393761ae5e7d8f1c7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Ftrump-and-climate-change

    Sorry, this content could not be embedded.
    X

    Emphasizing that “climate diplomacy on a boiling planet doesn’t stop for a climate denier,” Ben Goloff, senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, called on Biden officials to “use the next two months to set up a bulwark of protections and secure their climate legacy.”

    “Beyond urgently getting IRA money out the door, John Podesta must commit the U.S.’s fair share of global climate finance and announce an ambitious NDC climate target,” Goloff said, referring to nationally determined contributions for the Paris agreement.

    Biden, he added, “has to make good on last year’s agreement to transition away from fossil fuels by rejecting pending mega-polluting project,” and “should also act quickly to fill all federal judicial vacancies as a wall of defense to Trump’s rampage of legal attacks.”

    Jamie Minden, acting executive director of the youth-led movement Zero Hour, also declared that “before Trump takes office, President Joe Biden must reject all pending LNG export permits and stop the expansion of fossil fuels.”

    “Our climate is on the brink of collapse, and it is sheer madness that politicians continue to expand and subsidize deadly fossil fuels,” Minden said. “Young people are fighting for our planet because we are facing the worst consequences of the unrelenting greed of these selfish politicians.”

    Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

    Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
    Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
    Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels. Second version, corrected text.
    Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels. Second version, corrected text.
  • Extreme Weather Events Linked to Climate Change Have Cost the World $2 Trillion Over the Past Decade, Report Finds

    Spread the love

    https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-extreme-weather-events-global-cost.html

    Parts of Sanibel Causeway and its bridge are washed away after Hurricane Ian passed through in Sanibel, Florida on Sept. 29, 2022. Joe Raedle / Getty Images

    According to a new report by the International Chamber of Commerce and consultancy firm Oxera, extreme weather events over the past 10 years have cost a total of $2 trillion globally. The countries that have faced the biggest losses include the U.S., China and India.

    The report tracked nearly 4,000 extreme weather events from 2014 through 2023. In total, the results found that these events affected more than 1.6 billion people and cost around $2 trillion in economic losses.

    Over just the past two years, losses linked to extreme weather cost the world $451 billion. According to the report, that is about 19% more than the losses from the previous 8 years analyzed in the study.

    “The data from the past decade shows definitively that climate change is not a future problem: major productivity losses from extreme weather events are being felt in the here and now by the real economy,” John W.H. Denton AO, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement.

    The report also warned about the increase in frequency of these extreme weather events, noting that there has been an 83% increase in climate disasters when comparing 1980–1999 to 2000–2019. 

    …

    Original article at https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-extreme-weather-events-global-cost.html