The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP25) currently taking place in Madrid is supposed to prepare the ground for more ambitious national climate commitments. Nowhere is this more important than in the country where national leadership on climate change is least likely: the United States.

But a new report should give the world hope that it’s not too late to keep the U.S. on a path in line with global aspirations to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. This will require continued leadership from American states, cities and businesses that are already stepping up, combined with reinvigorated action from the federal government.

The U.S. is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and was the largest overall emitter for decades. Although China surpassed it in 2006, America’s cumulative emissions remain unmatched. And yet, far from leading the way on climate action, the U.S. under President Donald Trump’s administration has rolled back many federal climate and environmental rules and formally indicated its intention to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate agreement by late next year.

Fortunately, the rest of the U.S. is not following Trump’s lead. Across the country, a massive coalition of states, cities, businesses, universities, and others have declared that “We Are Still In.” Despite the federal government’s official withdrawal from the Paris agreement, they will take the necessary steps to fulfill America’s climate commitments.

This is no pie-in-the-sky declaration. The coalition’s more than 3,800 participants (and counting) include states, cities, and counties that account for 65 percent of the U.S. population, nearly 70 percent of U.S. GDP equivalent to an economy larger than China’s and over half of U.S. emissions. For example, 145 U.S. cities have committed to 100 percent clean electricity, and six have already achieved it.

But serious questions remain. How much progress can this coalition make to reduce emissions without the federal government’s support? And how much better would the situation be if the U.S. administration and Congress recommit to climate action?

These are the questions that America’s Pledge, a Bloomberg Philanthropies initiative, has been working to answer over the last year.

The conclusions are both reassuring and daunting. According to the initiative’s just-released third report, “Accelerating America’s Pledge” (produced in collaboration with the Rocky Mountain Institute, the University of Maryland and the World Resources Institute), stronger action by states, cities and businesses could reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by 37 percent (compared to 2005 levels) by 2030.

In other words, even without the federal government, the U.S. can drastically reduce emissions, improve air quality and stimulate broad-based economic gains. Success would require an expanded coalition of non-federal actors to move quickly and ambitiously to transform energy and transportation systems, including by building on the innovative measures that U.S. states, cities and businesses are already taking.

The impact of such a movement promises to extend beyond U.S. borders, with bottom-up commitments in the country leveraged to increase climate ambition around the world. This is already starting to happen. For example, Alliances for Climate Action connects cities, states, the private sector, investors, universities and civil-society organizations in Argentina, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, the U.S. and Vietnam, so that they can work with one another and with their national governments to spur climate action.

But the role of the national government remains important. Despite the potential of bottom-up climate leadership, the fact remains that the results are much better when combined with top-down coordination and oversight. The America’s Pledge report shows that aggressive U.S. federal re-engagement on climate action in the form of a comprehensive “all-in” strategy could reduce emissions by 49 percent by 2030, putting the country on track to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century.

So, despite three years of federal indifference, all hope for effective climate action in the U.S. is not lost. But we cannot afford to rest easy. The needed transformation will require broad citizen mobilization, increased energy productivity, disruptive innovation, updated market structures and forward-thinking investment. The U.S. Congress and executive branch must take aggressive, quick action, placing climate change and the associated economic transformation at the top of the policy agenda.

The rewards would be tremendous. Beyond environmental benefits, the changes outlined in the America’s Pledge report, if designed well and implemented efficiently, could boost prosperity, lower consumer costs and improve public health. By 2030, the economic transformation could deliver equal or better performance in electricity, vehicles, and buildings compared to fossil-fuel technologies and at a lower price.

For example, it is already cheaper to shut down coal-fired power plants and replace them with wind and solar than it is to keep the plants online. In addition, the transition will create new job opportunities and the careers of the future, including in renewable energy, electric vehicle manufacturing and sustainable forestry (among others). Recent analysis by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate shows that smart climate action can create global economic gains of $26 trillion by 2030, as well as generating 65 million jobs.

Non-federal U.S. actors have laid a strong foundation for climate action, and they continue to drive progress. But to achieve the necessary transformation as quickly as required, more elected U.S. officials and national leaders will need to step up.

Jules Kortenhorst is CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute. Andrew Steer is president and CEO of the World Resources Institute. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate © (www.project-syndicate.org)

As world leaders gather in Madrid for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP25), they must address more than future targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
They must also address the harm to people and livelihoods that climate change is already causing.
Strengthening our ability to adapt to climate change has never been more urgent.
Many regions are experiencing major difficulties as a result of higher global temperatures and changing weather patterns.
We must do more to help citizens and governments tackle issues such as rising sea levels, wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters, and increased coastal erosion.
Even if we meet the Paris agreement’s goal of limiting the average global temperature increase to well below 2C, at least 570 cities and some 800mn people will be at risk from rising sea levels and more frequent and destructive storms.
And these dangers will grow as temperatures climb ever higher.
The very existence of some island countries and coastal communities will be threatened.
It is thus essential to reduce the risks that climate change poses to humans and the economy.
Unless action is taken, climate change will reduce global GDP per capita by more than 7% by 2100, with equally severe consequences for countries, whether they are rich or poor, hot or cold.
The economic and broader social benefits of adaptation to climate change are clear.
In September, the Global Commission on Adaptation issued a report calling on governments, businesses, and communities to take urgent action to step up adaptation measures.
The report finds that an investment of $1.8tn across five key areas – early warning systems, resilient infrastructure, agriculture, mangrove protection, and resilient water supplies – from 2020 to 2030 could generate $7.1tn in benefits.
Still, today’s investment gap is huge.
The climate challenge demands much deeper co-operation between the public and private sector to increase green investment.
We need to ensure that infrastructure is built to cope with the increased impact of climate change and develop clear global standards for disclosing the climate risks that investment projects pose.
For example, how will a city cope with increased flood risk, and how will agricultural land be maintained productively as droughts grow more severe? Big and small investors alike should know exactly how their money could be affected by a changing climate.
Here, public investment institutions like the European Investment Bank can assist with adaptation in many ways.
The EIB has long invested in projects that reduce emissions and help countries adapt to climate change.
But now we are making even larger strides toward strengthening adaptation, by deepening our expertise, creating new systems to ensure the resilience of our investments, and working closely with the public and private sectors.
For example, we will no longer fund infrastructure projects that are not climate resilient.
Accordingly, we have introduced a climate risk-management system, and are adding climate adaptation criteria to all infrastructure projects.
The EIB will also be focusing on adaptation from the very earliest stages of project preparation, both through advisory services and technical assistance.
Whereas we have gained much experience in the field, many of our public- and private-sector clients may lack the resources or expertise to assess climate risks.
For example, the EIB has been working closely with the Caribbean Development Bank to ensure that all of its projects consider climate risks, and to develop a pipeline of climate-friendly investment projects worth more than $300mn.
Finally, the EIB plans to increase its support for innovative technologies such as weather analytics and climate-resilient food systems, to help companies, individuals, and communities prepare for climate change.
To that end, the EIB now supports the Climate Resilience and Adaptation Finance and Technology Transfer Facility (CRAFT), the first private-sector fund dedicated to addressing these problems in developing countries.
The EIB is also raising its climate-finance target, so that at least 50% of its lending will support environmental sustainability by 2025 – an increase from around 30% today.
And by 2030, the EIB Group plans to support $1.1tn of climate action and environmental sustainability investments through loans and grants, including for developing countries to help them strengthen the resilience of roads, railways, ports, farmland, sanitation and drinking water systems, and digital-communication networks.
Underinvestment in adaptation is particularly a problem for low-income countries, most of which are located in hotter, more vulnerable regions.
Supporting these countries’ efforts to adapt to climate change is essential to their ability to develop.
Yet we also must not lose sight of the big picture.
The higher global temperatures rise, the less we will be able to rely on adaptation.
Scientists estimate that we are now heading for a temperature increase of 3-4C by the end of the century, with disastrous consequences for people around the world.
The world’s most vulnerable populations are already bearing the brunt of climate change, because they are the most exposed to the risks and have the fewest resources with which to adapt.
But, given that all cities, regions, and countries are facing some type of climate risk, the adaptation imperative simply cannot be ignored. – Project Syndicate

* Emma Navarro is Vice President of the European Investment Bank.

In the fight against climate change, one tool is proving increasingly popular: litigation. From the U.S. to India, activists, governments and concerned citizens are suing at a breakneck pace. Supporters want the courts to force oil companies, energy users and governments to pay for past harms and avert future threats. Opponents say climate change policy is a matter for national governments and international treaties, not a handful of judges.

1. Why turn to the courts?

Activists and environmentally minded lawyers are seeking new ways to use the law to slow global warming and assign responsibility for the resulting economic damages. They’ve been given new urgency by President Donald Trump’s decision to remove the U.S. from the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Some believe courts are uniquely suited to impose controls where legislatures and government agencies have failed. U.S. states and cities seeking redress in the courts say it is the only avenue open to them as the federal government has spent the past three years trying to undo climate regulations put in place by President Barack Obama.

2. Who are the defendants?

In the U.S., it’s mostly the big oil companies, but energy producers and state and federal agencies have also been sued. Governments are the targets in much of the rest of the world, including Canada, Pakistan, India and Uganda. In Europe, local and national governments have been sued because their clean-air plans fail to meet minimum European Union requirements. These include emissions caps that target older, less efficient diesel cars that are more harmful to the environment.

3. What’s the argument?

Some claim the oil and gas industry created a “public nuisance” — an illegal threat to community welfare. Others target their products as unreasonably dangerous to the planet’s health. In the U.S., state officials have claimed that the oil corporations knew about the dangers of climate change for decades and schemed to hide the information. Many cases are based on the claim that the health of the environment is a public trust, held by the government for the benefit of future generations.

4. So it’s about human rights?

Yes, human-rights arguments are a small but growing approach. Plaintiffs make the case that climate change has threatened or taken away the basic rights to shelter, health, food, water and even life. Arguments range from Colombian children’s claims that the deforestation of the Amazon deprives them of a healthy environment, to the assertion of hundreds of elderly Swiss women that their country has not done enough to protect them from rising global temperatures.

5. How have governments responded?

They argue that judges should not be setting government policies. And they often say that the social and economic benefits from pollution sources outweigh the environmental concerns. That was the case South Africa made when it was challenged for building a coal-fired power station, since 16 percent of the population still has no access to electricity.

6. What about energy companies?

They point to the vast economic benefits created by their products. And they say that individuals, industries and governments willingly contributed to climate change through their use of fossil fuels. They deny seeking to mislead consumers about global warming and accuse plaintiffs’ lawyers of demonizing them in search of a big bonanza.

7. How have the cases fared?

Environmentalists have won major cases against the Netherlands, Colombia and South Africa. And pending suits have changed behaviors. Germans, for example, are avoiding buying diesel cars since more of them are getting banned from cities that fail to meet standards for particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.

8. How have lawsuits fared in the U.S.?

Initially badly. A federal judge threw out a suit by New York City against five of the world’s biggest oil companies in 2018. (An appeals court is considering the city’s arguments to reinstate the case.) But the Trump administration, like its predecessor, has so far been unsuccessful in derailing a suit brought by youths who claim the government’s role in causing climate change is a violation of their Constitutional rights. A federal appeals court in San Francisco is considering whether the case can go forward to trial. There are more than a dozen “public nuisance” lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies responsible for billions of taxpayer dollars spent on acclimating to a warming world, or picking up the pieces following unprecedented hurricanes, floods and wildfires. Exxon Mobil Corp. is being sued in New York City (the trial is over and a judge is considering the case) and Massachusetts for allegedly hiding its early knowledge of climate change from the public and misleading investors about the future financial impact of global warming.

9. Why do environmentalists keep trying?

They’re seeking their tobacco moment. Anti-smoking activists and the families of cancer-stricken smokers lost claims against Big Tobacco for decades in the U.S. before the 1990s. A group of state attorneys general turned the tide by teaming up with top private lawyers to take on the industry in state courts. The victory resulted in settlements totaling $246 billion and permanent changes in the sale and marketing of cigarettes. It’s a model that climate change activists would love to duplicate.

Wednesday، 04 December 2019 10:07 PM

On the same September day that activist Greta Thurnberg gave a fiery speech in New York demanding world leaders tackle climate change, Mexico’s president was touting achievements of a wholly different kind: increasing funding for oil production.
“We’re investing in refineries. It hasn’t been done for a long time,” President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador told reporters at a news conference in Mexico City.
“What was invested this year is going to be repeated next year,” promised Lopez Obrador, noting that the government had already funnelled more than 12bn pesos ($600mn) towards revamping oil production.
The leftist leader, who was elected in a landslide last July, has framed the investment as a way to wean Mexico off its dependency on foreign energy supplies, as well as fuelling economic development through increased oil production.
But at a time when countries are facing mounting pressure to curb emissions and stave off threats from a warming climate, environmental experts say the Mexican government is moving in the wrong direction.
“While Mexico should be abandoning (oil) production, they’re rehabilitating refineries … under a logic of national sovereignty,” said Leon Avila, a professor of sustainable development at the Intercultural University of Chiapas.
“It’s an archaic perspective, based on production in the 70s during the oil boom, and they think they can do the same thing — when really we’re in another context,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Last Monday, Mexico’s government announced it would expand the rules of its “clean energy certificates” (CEL) programme to make them available to older hydroelectric plants operated by state utility company CFE.
The programme previously applied only to new projects, creating an incentive for local and foreign firms to invest in green energy.
The CEL-certified energy can be sold to big companies that are required to obtain a percentage of their electricity from clean sources.
But in a statement on Tuesday, CFE director general Manuel Bartlett Diaz said that, in line with the president’s vision for energy sovereignty, there was “no reason to subsidise private (electricity) generating companies”. Industry leaders and environmental experts said the move weakens incentives for renewable energy investment, and risks Mexico’s compliance with the 2015 Paris Agreement to fight climate change.
The Mexican CCE business council said on Tuesday that the change could jeopardise up to $9bn in foreign and local clean energy investments tied to the original CEL rules.
“The decision detracts from the only mechanism considered by law to drive Mexico’s energy transition and meet the mandatory national clean energy adoption goals,” the CCE said in a statement.
The Lopez Obrador administration has emphasised its commitment to tackle climate change and adhere to the Paris accord.
At a UN climate conference last December, Sergio Sanchez, then undersecretary for environmental protection, said the government would implement “concrete policies and actions focused both on reducing emissions and adapting to climate change”.
The Mexican senate last week also called on the federal government to declare a “climate emergency” and take necessary steps to address climate threats.
Those can range from wilder weather and rising seas to more crop-killing droughts that can drive worsening poverty and migration.
But at a press conference the following day, the president shied away from recognising climate change as a crisis.
“We have already considered a series of measures to face the climate change phenomenon in the Development Plan,” Lopez Obrador said.
But the president’s description of the plan — listing conservation efforts but omitting any policies to reduce emissions — irked environmentalists.
“There is a lack of understanding for the climate crisis we are confronting,” said Claudia Campero from the Mexican Alliance Against Fracking, an advocacy group.
According to Avila, the university professor, the president has prioritised ending Mexico’s entrenched poverty but is using oil as the primary engine to drive prosperity.
“He should care about climate change, but between climate change and going down in history for ending poverty…
well obviously he prefers that,” Avila said.
Among Lopez Obrador’s most important projects is the construction of a new oil refinery in his home state of Tabasco.
The project is set to cost $8bn, and the government says it would generate up to 23,000 jobs.
But besides boosting Mexico’s carbon footprint, the refinery, at a coastal site, is vulnerable to climate threats, environmental experts said.
Local media reported this week that the property had flooded due to heavy rains.
Environmentalists also point with concern to the government’s proposed 2020 budget, which would see fossil fuel funding continue to increase.
Under the proposal, the energy ministry’s budget would jump more than 70% compared to last year, to 48.5bn pesos ($2.4bn), following a budget increase this year of over 900% compared to 2018.
According to an analysis of the budget published in September by a coalition of environmental groups, 96% of the money is intended to support oil and natural gas related projects.
“There is no room for more development of fossil fuel extraction,” said Campero, the fracking opponent.” (But) that’s far from being the vision of this government.”
The budget does include about 56bn pesos ($2.8bn) for “adaptation and mitigation of the effects of climate change,” but of this, 70% is being set aside for transporting natural gas, a somewhat cleaner fossil fuel, Campero said.
A spokeswoman for the Mexican environment ministry did not respond to numerous requests for comment.
Conspicuously absent from the budget, advocates say, is funding for expanding renewables, despite the country’s potential to adopt clean energy.
According to a 2017 study from the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which focuses on promoting democracy and social programmes, 80% of Mexico’s energy currently comes from fossil fuels.
But the country’s landscape and weather conditions mean it could supply its electricity needs entirely from renewable sources, the study noted.
The Lopez Obrador administration has appeared reticent to capitalise on this potential, however.
In January, the government cancelled a public auction for companies to bid on clean energy contracts.
“Mexico is a very rich country in terms of its potential in renewables,” said Pablo Ramirez, a campaigner at Greenpeace Mexico.
“But since the arrival of the new administration, that’s been completely scrubbed off the map.”
Mexico’s 2020 budget is awaiting final approval by congress this month. – Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Qatar has stressed the importance of natural gas in meeting the economic and environmental challenges facing energy consumers around the world.

Many countries around the world are searching for the right balance of reliable and secure sources of energy, which can drive their growth, while addressing environmental concerns at the same time, HE the Minister of State for Energy Affairs Saad bin Sherida al-Kaabi told the 21st ministerial meeting of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF).

“In this effort, many are discovering the versatile, flexible, economic, and environmental qualities of natural gas as a key enabler in the journey to achieve a lower-carbon economy,” he said.

He stressed on Qatar’s commitment to ensuring the continued availability of reliable LNG (liquefied natural gas) supplies to world markets, and to promoting greater growth in the LNG industry, as well as to serving the growing needs of its clients.

“We all have the same objective: To place natural gas at the heart of the energy industry as a fuel of the future to affirm our true belief that natural gas is a cornerstone in the energy transition and a destination fuel, not merely a transition fuel,” he said.

Drawing attention to unprecedented recurrent climatic conditions, including mean temperatures, turbulent seasonal cycles and extreme events, al-Kaabi had recently said it is time to take another look at natural gas and the number of advantages it has to make it a pivotal element in any strategy to tackle environmental challenges.

Qatar has highlighted the efforts to reinforce its position as the world’s leading LNG producer, which include the North Field expansion to increase the LNG production capacity to 110mn tonnes per annum by 2024, and a major ship-building campaign to build up to 100 LNG carriers over the next decade.

Almost three years after Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk unveiled solar roof shingles as part of his push to buy SolarCity, the automaker says it finally has a version of the tiles that it can mass produce.

“It’s been quite hard,” Musk said on a conference call late Friday. “Roofs need to last a long time. When you add electrification to the roof, it’s a fair bit of complexity.”

The sleek roof is a key part of Tesla’s push to revive its struggling solar business. Musk unveiled the product in 2016, but the company hasn’t been able to bring production up to full scale. The photovoltaic tiles are designed to resemble regular shingles, unlike solar panels atop a roof.

The latest version of the shingles was introduced after Tesla lost its status as the biggest U.S. rooftop solar company. It’s also been sued by Walmart Inc. over fires at a half-dozen of the big-box stores that had Tesla solar systems, and the company still faces litigation from shareholders over the controversial SolarCity acquisition.

The world needs to spend $50 trillion on five areas of technology by 2050 to slash emissions and meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of halting global warming, Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a report.

To reduce net emissions of carbon to zero, the world would have to eradicate the equivalent of 53.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, according to the report, which identified renewable energy, electric vehicles, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and biofuels as the key technologies that could help meet the target.

Carbon emissions from fossil fuels hit a record last year, but estimates vary of how much it would cost to meet the Paris target of keeping the global temperature rise to within 2 degrees. The International Renewable Energy Agency says $750 billion a year is needed in renewables over a decade. United Nations scientists say $300 billion spent on reclaiming degraded land could offset emissions to buy time to deploy zero-carbon technologies.

Here are Morgan Stanley’s estimates for the five key technology areas and some of the companies leading the drive.

Renewables

• Renewable power generation will require $14 trillion by 2050, including investments in energy storage.
• Renewables would need to deliver about 80% of global power by then, up from 37% today, meaning an additional 11 000 gigawatts of capacity, excluding hydro-power.
• Solar energy’s rapidly falling cost will make it the fastest-growing renewable technology over the coming decade with a 13% compound annual growth rate.
• Stocks that could benefit include: CGN New Energy Holdings Co., China Resources Power Holdings Co. and China Suntien Green Energy Co.

Electric vehicles

• With passenger cars currently pumping out about 7% of greenhouse gas emissions, some $11 trillion will be needed to build factories, expand power capacity and develop the batteries and infrastructure needed to switch to electric vehicles.
• With increased investment, annual EV sales could grow from 1.3 million units in 2018 to 23.2 million in 2030, lifting the total number of electric vehicles to 113 million by 2030 and 924 million by 2050.
• Some of the companies to watch: Beijing Easpring Material Technology Co., Rohm Co. and Panasonic Corp.

Carbon capture and storage

• Almost $2.5 trillion would be needed for technologies that capture carbon and store it.
• While it currently costs about $700 million to capture a million tons of carbon a year, the cost of building CCS plants is expected to drop 30% by 2050.
• With more than 200 000 megawatts of new coal-fired generation capacity under construction, CCS is the only option to offset the emissions of these plants, Morgan Stanley says.
• The bank’s top picks include Air Liquide SA and Bloom Energy Corp.

Hydrogen

• About $5.4 trillion is needed for electrolyzers to make the gas, which can help provide clean fuel for power generation, industrial processes, vehicles and heating.
• In addition, $13 trillion would be required to increase renewable energy capacity to power the plants.
• Another $1 trillion would be needed for storage, with additional investment for transportation and distribution.
• Leading players include: Johnson Matthey and Air Liquide.

Biofuels

• Almost $2.7 trillion should go into biofuels like ethanol, which are currently mixed with petroleum products but will spread eventually to areas such as aviation.
• About 4% of global transportation fuel will be biofuel in 2030.
• Ethanol, the most-used biofuel at the moment will grow at about 3% a year, while a type of biodiesel called hydro treated vegetable oil will achieve must faster growth, quadrupling production by 2030.
• Companies invloved include Neste Corporation and Sao Martinho SA.