Paris agreement Archives - Page 2 of 9 - ... on a quiet day, I can hear her breathing

Chart: Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ blows US emissions goal by 7bn tonnes

Spread the love

Original article by Josh Gabbatiss and Ho Woo Nam republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license.

President Donald Trump at a rally at the Iowa State Fairgrounds. Credit: Alex Brandon / Alamy Stock Photo

President Donald Trump’s dismantling of climate policy means the US will add an extra 7bn tonnes of emissions to the atmosphere from now until 2030, compared to meeting its former climate pledge under the Paris Agreement.

Since winning office last November, he has issued a series of executive orders and is poised to sign his “big beautiful bill” that effectively terminates Biden-era climate policies.

Carbon Brief’s analysis of modelling from the Princeton University REPEAT Project shows that this means US emissions are now set to drop to just 3% below current levels by 2030 – effectively flatlining – rather than falling 40% as required to hit the now-defunct target.

This would leave the US around 2bn tonnes short of its greenhouse-gas emissions target for that year, adding emissions equivalent to around 4% of the current global total each year

To put this in context, it is roughly the annual output of Indonesia, the world’s sixth-largest emitter.

Trump is already withdrawing his nation from its international climate obligations under the Paris Agreement.

The passage of the new Republican-backed “megabill” means that US climate targets pursued by Trump’s predecessor now appear firmly out of reach.

7bn tonnes

Trump is due to sign the so-called “big beautiful bill” into law after it was approved by the Republican-controlled US Congress on 3 July.

This “megabill” removes virtually all of the tax credits for renewable energy, electric vehicles and clean manufacturing that were at the core of Biden’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

(Ahead of the US presidential election last year, Carbon Brief estimated that, by reversing the IRA and other key policies, a Trump administration would add 4bn tonnes of emissions by 2030, compared to a continued Biden administration.)

Since his return to the White House, Trump has moved to strip away his predecessor’s climate policies, including via a series of executive actions. This includes targeting vehicle fuel-efficiency standards and power sector emissions standards.

The passage of the new bill means US solar and wind power expansion will likely slow down, as will sales of electric vehicles and energy efficiency improvements. The combined effect of these policy rollbacks can be seen in the chart below, based on modelling by the REPEAT Project.

Carbon Brief has compared the impact of Trump’s policies, including the megabill, to a pathway on which the US meets its former target, under the Paris Agreement, to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% from 2005 levels by 2030.

Trump's 'big beautiful bill' blows US emissions goal by 7bn tonnes — Source: REPEAT Project, US nationally determined contribution.

The cumulative gap between this pathway and the Trump administration’s trajectory amounts to 7bn tonnes of emissions over the next five years.

Based on the most recent central estimate of the “social cost of carbon” in 2030 from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), published under the Biden administration, those 7bn tonnes of extra emissions would cause global climate damages worth more than $1.6tn.

Under this new set of US policies, emissions are only expected to be 20% lower than 2005 levels by 2030, rather than 50-52%, meaning the nation would be 2bn tonnes short of its goal.

This amounts to just a 3% drop from 2024 levels by 2030, meaning emissions are effectively flatlining.

Renewables down, prices up

Among the hundreds of provisions in the new Republican-backed bill are several key rollbacks that are expected to affect US emissions.

Under the IRA, wind and solar projects could receive tax credits up to 2034. Following the Republican bill, most projects would need to start construction within the next year to qualify.

Without federal support, the pipeline of new renewable-energy projects is expected to contract.

The REPEAT analysts estimate that cumulative new solar capacity additions will drop by 29 gigawatts (GW) by 2030 and around 140GW by 2035. For wind power, the decrease is set to be 43GW by 2030 and 160GW by 2035.

Some renewable projects will likely be built without support, but developers will need to contend with other Trump administration policies, such as stopping federal windfarm approvals.

The lost renewable capacity is unlikely to be entirely replaced by fossil fuels, due to a multi-year backlog in the construction of gas-fired power plants.

Tax credits for nuclear and geothermal power have been retained until 2036 in the bill. While these projects generate clean electricity, they can also take a long time to build.

Other key policies in the new bill include the removal of tax credits worth up to $7,500 to purchase electric vehicles, which could result in tens of millions fewer such cars and vans being sold. Ending tax credits for low-carbon manufacturing is also expected to undo progress in building clean technologies, such as solar panels and electric cars, domestically.

Beyond its effect on US emissions, various early analyses have suggested the Republican-backed bill is likely to increase energy prices and lead to job losses.

REPEAT estimates household energy costs are likely to be $165 higher in 2030 and more than $280 higher by 2035, following the passing of the bill.

Some of this increase can be attributed to fewer electric vehicles on the road, leading to higher petrol and diesel consumption and prices. Slowing construction of solar and wind projects as power demand increases will also likely affect the cost of electricity.

Without tax credits to boost the construction of new generation capacity, residential electricity prices are set to increase by 7% – or $110 – by 2026, for the average US customer, according to analysis conducted for trade body the Clean Energy Buyers Association.

In the state of Wyoming, the same analysis found that electricity prices may rise by as much as 30% over the next year. Other firmly Republican states, such as North Carolina and Tennessee, are also expected to see near-term price rises in the double digits.

Methodology

Modelling of the impact of the Trump administration’s “big beautiful bill” is from the REPEAT Project, a joint initiative of the Princeton University ZERO Lab and Evolved Energy Research.

The project has assessed the emissions impact of the executive actions that the Trump administration has already taken to unwind Biden-era policies, as well as the bill itself.

Carbon Brief compared this trajectory out to 2030 with a straight-line pathway towards the official US climate target for 2030. This is set out in the US’ nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement. It is worth noting that the Trump administration is withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement.

Original article by Josh Gabbatiss and Ho Woo Nam republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license.

Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.

Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.

Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes' concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country's economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy. — Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.

Post author:dizzy
Post published:10 July 2025
Post category:Climate Crisis Climate Emergency Climate Science Denial Donald Trump plutocracy the filthy rich Trump
Post comments:0 Comments

Earth is heading for 2.7°C warming this century. We may avoid the worst climate scenarios – but the outlook is still dire

Spread the love

Sven Teske, University of Technology Sydney

Is climate action a lost cause? The United States is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement for the second time, while heat records over land and sea have toppled and extreme weather events have multiplied.

In late 2015, nations agreed through the Paris Agreement to try to hold warming well under 2°C and ideally to 1.5°C. Almost ten years later, cutting emissions to the point of meeting the 1.5°C goal looks very difficult.

But humanity has shifted track enough to avert the worst climate future. Renewables, energy efficiency and other measures have shifted the dial. The worst case scenario of expanded coal use, soaring emissions and a much hotter world is vanishingly unlikely.

Instead, Earth is tracking towards around 2.7°C average warming by 2100. That level of warming would represent “unprecedented peril” for life on this planet. But it shows progress is being made.

How did we get here?

Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen since industrialisation began around 1850. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is far and away the most common greenhouse gas we emit, while methane and nitrous oxide also play a role. These gases trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere, preventing it from radiating back out to space.

In 2023, 41% of the world’s energy-related CO₂ emissions came from coal, mainly for electricity generation. Some 32% came from burning oil in road vehicles, and 21% from natural gas used for heating buildings and industrial processes.

The world is certainly feeling the effects. The World Meteorological Organization confirmed 2024 was the hottest year on record, temporarily hitting 1.5°C over the pre-industrial era. In turn, the world suffered lethal heatwaves, devastating floods and intense cyclones.

flooded houses, climate change. — Extreme weather hit hard in 2024. Pictured: Flooded houses after Cyclone Debby hit Florida. Bilanol/Shutterstock

How are we tracking?

In 2014, the world’s peak body for assessing climate science – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – began using four scenarios called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). These four big picture climate scenarios are based on what actions humanity does or doesn’t take. They comprise:

rapid climate action, low emissions (RCP 2.6)
two scenarios of some action and medium emissions (RCP 4.5 and 6.0)
no action, high emissions (RCP 8.5).

The numbers refer to how many more watts of heat strike each square metre of the planet.

Of these four, only the RCP 2.6 scenario is compatible with the Paris Agreement’s goal of holding climate change well under 2˚C.

But Earth is tracking towards somewhere between RCP 2.6 and 4.5, which would translate to about 2.7°C of warming by 2100.

IPCC experts also developed five pathways of possible social, economic and political futures to complement the four scenarios.

Of these pathways, we are tracking closest to a middle of the road scenario where development remains uneven, the intensity of resource and energy use declines, and population growth levels off.

While effective, these scenarios are now more than a decade old and need to be updated. In response, my colleagues and I produced the One Earth Climate Model to outline rapid pathways to decarbonise. We set an ambitious carbon budget of 450 gigatonnes of CO₂ before reaching net zero – a pathway even more ambitious than the RCP 2.6.

The US, European Union and China together represent about 28% of the global population, but are responsible for 56% of historic emissions (926 gigatonnes) . The pathways compatible with 1.5°C give them a remaining carbon budget of 243 Gt CO₂. China would require the largest carbon budget to reach decarbonisation.

For this to happen, by 2050, the world would have to be 100% powered by clean sources and phase out fossil fuel use. This would limit global warming to around 1.5°C, with a certainty of just over 50%. We would also have to end deforestation within the same timeframe.

Emissions peak – are we there yet?

Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have still not plateaued, despite sharply increasing renewable electricity generation, battery storage and lower-cost electric vehicles.

But there has been real progress. The EU says its emissions fell by 8.3% in 2023 compared to 2022. Europe’s net emissions are now 37% below 1990 levels, while the region’s GDP grew 68% over the same period. The EU remains on track to reach its goal of reducing emissions by at least 55% by 2030.

Australia’s emissions fell by 0.6% last year. The country is now 28.2% below June 2005 levels, which is the baseline set for its Paris Agreement goal of a 43% reduction by 2030.

In the US, emissions are still below pre-pandemic levels and remain about 20% below 2005 levels. Since peaking in 2004, US emissions have trended downward.

The world’s largest emitter, China, is finally cutting its emissions. Huge growth in renewables has now led to the first emissions drop on record, despite surging demand for power. This is good news. For years, China’s domestic emissions remained high despite its leading role in solar, wind, EVs and battery technology.

China produces almost one-third (31%) of the world’s energy-related carbon emissions – not least because it is the workshop of the world. Every cut China makes will have a major global effect.

According to the IPCC, limiting warming to around 1.5°C requires global emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest. It now looks like the peak may occur this year.

Despite daily negative news, the decarbonisation train has left the station. In 2024, renewables accounted for more than 90% of growth in electricity production globally. Electric vehicles became cost competitive, while heat pumps are developing fast and solar is on a winning streak.

So, is it too late to save the climate? No. The technologies we need are finally cheap enough. The sooner we stop climate change from worsening, the more disasters, famine and death we avert. We might not manage 1.5°C or even 2°C, but every tenth of a degree counts. The faster we make the shift, the better our climate future.

Sven Teske, Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.

Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.

Post author:dizzy
Post published:28 May 2025
Post category:Climate Crisis Climate Emergency Climate Science Denial Donald Trump Elon Musk Neo-liberalism Trump
Post comments:0 Comments

‘1.5ºC Is Dead’: Climate Movement Holds Funeral for Paris Agreement Target

Spread the love

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

Members of the “Red Rebel Brigade” led a procession around Cambridge, England as part of a funeral for the Paris agreement’s 1.5°C temperature target on May 10, 2025. (Photo: Derek Langley)

“We felt we needed a physical space where we could grieve together for what we are losing, and reflect on how to respond to the challenge now in front of us,” said Alex Martin of Extinction Rebellion Cambridge.

Extinction Rebellion and other climate organizations on Saturday held a funeral for the Paris agreement’s 1.5ºC temperature target in Cambridge, England.

“The mock funeral idea grew out of the need to process the enormity and sadness of this moment,” Alex Martin of Extinction Rebellion (XR) Cambridge said in a statement. “While many people are distracted by 1,001 things on their phones, we felt we needed a physical space where we could grieve together for what we are losing, and reflect on how to respond to the challenge now in front of us.”

Almost a decade ago, parties to the Paris treaty agreed to work toward limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5ºC—but 2024 was the hottest year in human history, and countries around the world show no signs of reining in planet-wrecking fossil fuels anywhere near the degree that scientists warn is necessary to prevent catastrophic climate breakdown.

“Crossing 1.5ºC for a whole calendar year is a wake-up call for the world,” said Olympic gold medalist and XR U.K. spokesperson Etienne Stott, highlighting another alarming record from last year. “If we want to avoid crossing further tipping points we need a complete transformation of society.”

Extinction Rebellion and other climate groups held a funeral for the Paris agreement’s 1.5°C temperature target in Cambridge, England on May 10, 2025. (Photo: Derek Langley)

Scientists from universities in the United Kingdom and Germany warned in a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Earth System Dynamics last month that humankind is at risk of triggering various climate tipping points absent urgent action to dramatically reduce emissions from fossil fuels.

“There are levers policymakers can pull to rapidly phase out fossil fuels, but this requires standing up to powerful interests,” Stott said Saturday. “Activists need to build power, resilience, and the world we want to see in our communities; but we also need to keep seeking the spark that will cause the worldwide transformation we need to see.”

In addition to the Cambridge and U.K. arms of Extinction Rebellion, Saturday’s action was organized by Cambridge Greenpeace, Cambridge Stop the War, and the Organization of Radical Cambridge Activists (ORCA).

Varsity, the independent student newspaper at the University of Cambridge, reported that the marchers “rallied at Christ’s Pieces, where they heard from one of the organizers, who emphasised the harm caused by exceeding 1.5ºC of warming.”

“The march then proceeded up Christ’s Lane and down Sidney Street, led by a group of ‘Red Rebels,’ dressed in red robes with faces painted white, followed by ‘pall bearers’ carrying coffins painted black, with the words ‘Inaction Is Death’ in white,” according to Varsity. “The procession was completed by a samba band who drummed as they walked, followed by protesters carrying a large sign reading ‘Don’t silence the science,’ along with many other smaller placards.”

Photos from organizers show participants displaying banners with messages such as “No Future on a Dead Planet,” and additional messages painted on the black coffins: “1.5ºC Is Dead,” “Act Now,” “Ecocide,” “RIP Earth,” and “Web of Life.”

“Politicians have broken their promises to keep global temperature rises to a livable 1.5ºC,” declared Zoe Flint, a spokesperson for XR Cambridge. “For decades, people around the world have been resisting environmental devastation in their own communities and beyond—often facing state repression and violence as a result.”

“With dozens of political protesters now in prison in this country, that repression has come to the U.K. too,” Flint noted. “But when those least responsible for climate breakdown suffer the worst effects, we can’t afford to give up the fight.”

Parties to the Paris agreement are set to gather next in November at the United Nations climate summit, COP30, in Belém, Brazil.

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

Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.

Post author:dizzy
Post published:11 May 2025
Post category:Climate Crisis Climate Emergency Climate Science Denial Extinction Rebellion
Post comments:0 Comments

Oil group Equinor must explain climate discrepancy, minority owners say

Spread the love

North Sea oil rigs in Cromarty Firth, Scotland. Credit: joiseyshowaa (CC BY-SA 2.0)

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/oil-group-equinor-must-explain-climate-discrepancy-minority-owners-say-2025-04-22/#:~:text=OSLO%2C%20April%2022%20(Reuters),minority%20shareholders%20said%20on%20Tuesday.

OSLO, April 22 (Reuters) – The board of Norway’s Equinor (EQNR.OL), opens new tab must explain how the company’s plan to raise oil and gas production aligns with its stated commitment to the Paris agreement on curbing climate change, a group of minority shareholders said on Tuesday.

Equinor, which is 67% government owned, this year joined the likes of Shell (SHEL.L), opens new tab and BP (BP.L), opens new tab in promising higher petroleum output while scaling back investment in renewables.

In a resolution to be voted on at Equinor’s May 14 annual general meeting, the minority owners said there were “material inconsistencies” between the company’s climate strategy and the policy expectations expressed by its majority shareholder.

Those expectations, laid out by Noway’s government two years ago, included Equinor setting targets and implementing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions “in both the short and long term” in line with the 2015 Paris climate accord.

…

Article continues at https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/oil-group-equinor-must-explain-climate-discrepancy-minority-owners-say-2025-04-22/#:~:text=OSLO%2C%20April%2022%20(Reuters),minority%20shareholders%20said%20on%20Tuesday.

Post author:dizzy
Post published:27 April 2025
Post category:BP Equinor Rosebank Shell
Post comments:0 Comments

Trump returns: nine things to expect for the climate

Spread the love

Jack Marley, The Conversation

Climate scientists are probably among those most aggrieved by Donald Trump’s return as US president.

Trump has scoffed at the increasingly dire warnings of these scientists and declared his enthusiasm for digging up and burning the coal, oil and gas that is overheating Earth. His empowerment of the far right dims prospects for collective solutions to collective problems, but what is he likely to change about US climate policy?

This roundup of The Conversation’s climate coverage comes from our award-winning weekly climate action newsletter. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed.

Trump has not published a climate agenda. To discern his impact on domestic and international policy, we have to sift through statements, appointments to political positions and the record of his first term.

Here, our academics glean grim portents for the years ahead – and some continuities with supposedly pro-climate presidents of the past.

1. It’s still ‘drill, baby, drill’

Trump’s three-word campaign slogan, “drill, baby, drill”, is intended to sum up his plans for the US oil and gas industry. It’s also an apt summary of existing US energy policy.

Since 2008, when Democrat Barack Obama was elected, oil production has soared from a 50-year low of 6.8 billion barrels a day to 19.4 billion in 2023.

A dry landscape littered with oil derricks. — Not starved of investment: an oil field in California. Alizada Studios/Shutterstock

“The United States is already producing more crude oil than any country ever,” says Gautam Jain, an energy and finance expert at Columbia University.

“Oil and gas companies are buying back stocks and paying dividends to shareholders at a record pace, which they wouldn’t do if they saw better investment opportunities.”

2. We won’t always have Paris (or even Rio)

Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 Paris agreement on the first day of his second term (it took him six months to do it last time).

Jain frets that he may go further and exit international negotiations entirely, by rescinding his country’s membership of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Rejoining would be “nearly impossible”, Jain says, as a future president would need the consent of two-thirds of the Senate.

The US risks dropping the mantle of climate leadership on China, he adds. A recent analysis by Oxford economists Matthew Carl Ives and Natalie Sum Yue Chung suggests that that ship may have sailed years ago.

“China already processes most of the clean energy supply materials and has an advanced manufacturing base that is more capable of scaling up production to meet the rising demand,” they say.

3. The bucks stop here?

A US retreat from international climate diplomacy would afflict people who are particularly vulnerable to the mounting crisis in Earth’s atmosphere. Jain highlights how Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden donated several billions of dollars more towards renewable energy and adaptation in the developing world, compared with Trump in his first term.

However, a 2023 study that estimated each country’s “fair share” of this climate finance pot according to income, population size and historical emissions, issued this withering assessment while Biden was president:

“Based on these metrics, we found that the US is overwhelmingly responsible for the climate finance shortfall,” says environmental economist Sarah Colenbrander (University of Oxford).

“The world’s largest economy should be providing US$43.5 billion of climate finance a year. In 2021, it gave just US$9.3 billion – a meagre 21% of its fair share.”

4. Biden’s green tax credits may endure…

Trump could keep some Biden-era investments in clean energy (tax breaks for investors in renewables, for example) as the benefits are accruing in Republican states, Jain says.

He may still cut tax credits for people buying electric vehicles, though. This would slow the transition from combustion-engine transport by making it harder for people to afford an EV. (Biden’s 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs hasn’t help either).

5. … but his methane tax probably won’t

Jain predicts that the greatest damage inflicted by Trump will be to the regulation of fossil fuels and emissions. In his crosshairs is a federal charge for the release of methane from oil and gas wells and pipelines.

Biden identified cutting methane emissions as a potential brake on the accelerating pace of global heating. That’s because methane is a greenhouse gas that lingers in our atmosphere for decades instead of centuries like CO₂ and is far more potent in trapping heat during that time.

Reducing methane emissions could reduce climate change quickly – a climate action lifeline we will be sorry to see thrown away.

6. The nuclear option

Trump seems to have a soft spot for one low-carbon energy source: nuclear power. Perhaps because civil nuclear maintains the skills and supply chains needed for its military applications?

7. Up is down, left is right

Democrats may regret making “trust the science” their dividing line against Trump.

Eric Nast, an environmental governance expert at the University of Guelph, tracked how the first Trump administration altered language on US government websites.

He expects Trump to disguise his regulation bonfire as “strengthening transparency” (blocking air pollution standards that rely on private health data) and championing “citizen science” (dismissing academics from advisory boards for private citizens rich in time and money, who might benefit from scrapping rules and limiting scrutiny).

8. Fighting fire with money

Tesla’s Elon Musk, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg attended Trump’s second inauguration. Their presence – plus a pointed farewell speech by Biden – has provoked murmurs of “oligarchy”: rule by people whose immense wealth and influence has utterly captured ostensibly democratic societies.

At the still-raging LA fires, an oligarch-friendly response to climate change has presented itself: firefighters-for-hire.

“As public firefighters struggle to cope, affluent residents and businesses have turned to private firefighting services to protect their properties,” says Doug Specht, a University of Westminster geographer.

9. Arctic relations

What explains Trump’s sudden interest in the Arctic? Oil, gas and critical minerals newly liberated by thawing ice in a region warming four times faster than the global average says engineer Tricia Stadnyk at the University of Calgary.

“The second Trump administration is aware of both the new opportunities and risks as global temperatures shatter new records and thresholds, and an ice-free Arctic becomes a possibility,” she says.

Jack Marley, Environment + Energy Editor, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.