Monday 23rd of December 2024

emissions....

Are you OK? It seems an important question as the unhinged and unrestrained president Donald Trump is swept back into power and the world contemplates the implications for the climate, for civil discourse, for women, for minorities, for society as a whole, and for our children and their children.

 

World teeters on brink as Trump and cronies prepare to flood the zone with shit     By Giles Parkinson

 

We have, of course, been here before. This time round, however, the guard rails have been removed: Trump will be back in the White House and in control of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the judiciary and, thanks to fellow and like minded billionaires who own it or fund it, mainstream and social media. Only the filibuster stands in his way.

It’s a kick in the guts to those who care about the future. The implications weigh heavy on anyone minded to consider them: Trump is a climate denier who describes the science as a hoax and his vow to wind back policies and frack, frack, frack, will – according to the best estimates – add around four billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030, when the opposite needs to happen.

That, of course, means that the small window to cap average global warming within the Paris climate target of 1.5°C is all but lost. But by how big a margin it will be missed will depend on the actions elsewhere in the world. That includes Australia but mostly it is China, whose role could get complicated with the threat of a tariff war.

Trump has been especially enabled by the likes of Tesla and Twitter/X boss Elon Musk, who used to say that his prime mission was to end the use of fossil fuels in the grid and transport with electric cars, storage and renewables.

Musk’s technology, the cars and the batteries in particular, have helped tip the balance towards a green energy transition. But he now appears more concerned by other ideological pursuits.

Bizarrely, Musk now dismisses the science – maybe if greenhouse emissions get close to 1,000 parts per million it might be hard to breathe, he has said. He is obsessed about getting to Mars, and is happy to enable and promote misogynists and conspiracy theorists on his social media platform. On earth, or at least in cyberspace and the Metaverse, Musk is, to borrow a phrase, flooding the zone with shit.

What does that mean for Australia?

The good news – and these things are comparative – is that at least in the short term, the green energy transition will continue apace.

While wind and solar stocks plunged in the US in anticipation of Trump’s fossil fuel fracking frenzy, and his planned dismantling of the Inflation Reduction Act, the program in Australia accelerates, as we report here, with added urgency.

Australia is getting close to the half way mark of kicking fossil fuels out of the grid, and replacing them with wind, solar and storage – essential for any significant emissions cuts in the broader economy.

Some argue that the tipping point – aided by new technology, falling prices, better engineering, and deep pocketed investors – has already arrived.

But that won’t stop others from trying to throw a spanner in the nacelle, as it were, and Australia’s conservative Coalition – emboldened by the chutzpah of the Trump campaign and the backing of the Murdoch and Musk media machines – will continue with its campaign of mischief and misinformation.

What the Coalition and Peter Dutton have learned is that if you do flood the zone with shit – it’s the Steve Bannon mantra – then a lot will stick, particularly when you find ways of making people fearful.

So expect to hear a lot about immigration, transgender, women, elites and any other group that can easily be demonised in a tweet or an Instagram post.

The federal Coalition’s pursuit and promotion of nuclear power as a solution for Australia is about as nonsensical and incoherent as anything that Trump has ever proposed, but as the New York Times’ Seth Abramson notes in a depressing analysis, many of the public are too frivolous, selfish, self-interested, ignorant, or petty to care.

And, I would add, they are also too fearful, too impressionable, and too vulnerable to the machinations of billionaires who want to be trillionaires, and their supporting cast of psychopaths, to care.

Which brings it back to those who do care. The world has seen the likes of Trump, Abbott, Morrison before. The work has fallen to others to get on with the job – be it sub-national governments, investors, and campaigners. There is a lot at stake.

In Australia, that means individuals, too. Which is a good thing. The grid has changed so much, thanks largely to the massive popularity of rooftop solar, that consumers and communities here are in a position not enjoyed by others in the world: They are poised, quite literally, to take the power into their own hands, if only they were allowed.

Their ability to do so will grow with the rollout of EVs, vehicle to grid technology, heat pumps, and software that allows and promotes demand management.

The biggest impediment appears to be the system itself, and entrenched interests. Voters in the US and Australia are being hurt by changing economic circumstances and inflation. Trump managed to con the US public by pretending that he wasn’t part of the system, or the problem.

His attack on established and respected institutions is echoed in Australia by Dutton and co, who appear more concerned about protecting the vested and often venal interests of legacy industry – many now crouching behind the veil of net zero by 2050 that they know they can use as an excuse rather than a target.

It seems to be working. Polls put the Coalition at a 52-48 per cent advantage, just six months out from the federal poll. At least in Australia there is strength in minor parties, and their role has never been as crucial as it is now. The world is is in desperate need of grown-ups. Australia cannot afford to follow the American path.

So, when the rest of us are able to pick ourselves up from the floor, and check with others that they are OK, then it might be time to set about convincing doubters that the push to zero emissions offers a safe and more prosperous future, and the chance to be part of a community rather than oppressed by a system.

Sadly, it’s not yet apparent that enough in the green energy industry have learned how to do that, or even that they know that they should.

Good luck, take care, and don’t give up. We won’t.

Republished from Renew Economy, 7 November 2024

https://johnmenadue.com/world-teeters-on-brink-as-trump-and-cronies-prepare-to-flood-the-zone-with-shit/

 

BIDEN'S WAR IN UKRAINE AND IN THE MIDDLE-EAST ARE DOING MORE DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT — WHILE HE HAS PRETENDED TO REDUCE EMISSIONS...

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without one way or the other…”

         Gus Leonisky

ruining renewables....

Latin America: When climate change ruins renewables
Tobias Käufer

Climate change has been disrupting Latin American efforts to make its energy more renewable. Countries are now searching for new solutions and everything from nuclear power to green hydrogen is being debated.

In Ecuador and Cuba, power cuts for hours at a time, sometimes even days. In Brazil, energy bottlenecks. Although Latin America is seen as a global forerunner in renewable energies, the impact of climate change is starting to cause problems. Droughts lasting weeks mean less water flowing through rivers and water reservoirs that power hydroelectric plants. And the less water, the less electricity.

Now countries in the region are beginning to squabble over distribution too. 

Colombia has halted electricity exports to Ecuador, citing concerns for its own power supply. Colombia has also been suffering a severe drought.

Even though the causes for the power problems are unique to each country, the consequences are the same: energy rationing and power blackouts. This is why many countries are now debating how best to stablize their energy supplies.

Nuclear energy up

El Salvador, for example, plans a return to nuclear energy. "We want to have the first research reactor by 2030," Daniel Alvarez, head of the country's General Directorate of Energy, Hydrocarbons and Mines, announced at a forum organized by the Latin American Energy Organization in October.

Other countries are also showing renewed interest in nuclear energy, with a new generation of small modular reactors seen as particularly promising. The general opinion is that nuclear energy is free of emissions and can therefore be classified as green.  

Lithium hype 

Lithium also belongs to the energy debate in Latin America. Lithium is an indispensable part of electric vehicle (EV) batteries and it is hoped that carbon-neutral EVs will one day replace fossil-fuel powered engines on the street. At least, that's the plan. But resistance is growing in many Latin American countries.

As droughts become more frequent, they are increasingly wary of an extraction process that requires large volumes of water. In Peru, a mining project high in the Andes is drawing criticism. There, the Macusani Yellowcake mining company, a subsidiary of the Canada-based American Lithium Corp., is looking to mine 9.5 million tons of lithium on the Quelccaya glacier in the Carabaya region.

Environmental activist Vito Calderon has criticized the way the project affects the water supply for local communities. "The freshwater from the region flows into the Inambari, Urubamba and Azangaro basins, which feed Lake Titicaca," he told Radio France Internationale. Calderon fears the freshwater could be contaminated or removed from the natural cycle.

 What about green hydrogen?

The initial excitement over what is known as green hydrogen has also become more muted. "Worldwide doubts about the strategic industry for Chile's future" Chilean online news outlet Emol wrote a few days ago, summing the general mood up. The high cost of investing in green hydrogen is also causing hesitation.

Instead, Alex Godoy-Faundez, director of the sustainability research center at Chile's University of Desarrollo has called for more realism and for taking small, manageable steps. 

"Timelines should outline short-term goals that ensure that investment projects are profitable and eco-friendly,” Godoy-Faundez said.

Investment in Brazil

However in Latin America's largest country, Brazil, enthusiasm over green hydrogen has continued unabated. There's almost nowhere in the world like Brazil's undeveloped northeast, where electricity and therefore green hydrogen can be produced from renewable sources so cheaply, the country's media enthuse. Brazil could become a new global energy hub, they suggest. Foreign investors have already done deals with Brazilian states like Ceara and Pernambuco.

"Unfortunately, German investors are not among them," Ansgar Pinkowski, founder of the Brazil-based agency Neue Wege ("new paths" in English), told DW. His business specializes in providing information on the green energy transition and contacts between Europe and Brazil.

"With the recently passed laws for sustainable hydrogen, the risks for investors have also become much lower and more calculable," he said. As a result he predicts that, "we will see very strong economic growth in the region in the next few years, from which all sections of the population will hopefully benefit."

This article was originally published in German.

 

https://www.dw.com/en/latin-america-when-climate-change-ruins-renewables/a-70740024

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without one way or the other…”

         Gus Leonisky

 

 

 

COP29: money......

COP29: Who pays climate funding for developing countries?

 

This year more than ever, the UN climate conference is about how much support developing countries can expect to receive to combat the increasingly dramatic consequences of climate change.

 

 

 

The UN climate conference is all about money. Who will pay developing countries for the consequences of climate change? In a year that saw millions of people hit by extreme weather disasters, the annual UN climate summit is taking place in Azerbaijan, a petrostate with little interest in leaving its climate-damaging fossil fuels in the ground. 

Azerbaijan has huge untapped renewable energy potential, but around 60% of state revenue comes from fossil fuels and it plans to "markedly increase" oil and gas production in the coming years.

"As the head of a country rich in fossil fuels, of course, we will defend the right of these countries to continue investments and production," said Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev in April at a preparatory meeting for COP29. 

Ilham's words hinted at the agenda the nation might set as host of the conference that will bring lawmakers from nearly 200 countries to the capital Baku to negotiate climate action. 

How much should developed countries help developing ones?

Alongside drastically cutting emissions, countries face another major negotiating challenge — that of agreeing how much financial support developing countries should get to help deal with the consequences of a warming world and to decarbonize their economies. 

Wealthy countries including the USA and Japan as well as European Union member states previously pledged to mobilize $100 billion (€93.3 billion) a year by 2020 to support developing nations. The target was first reached in 2022. But so far, a significant proportion of the funding has come in the form of high-interest loans, resulting harsh criticism and accusations of broken promises. 

Niklas Höhne, a climate policy expert with the New Climate Institute, a German NGO, believes states might agree to a figure of between $200 billion and $700 billion in Azerbaijan. 

"That would be a fair financial deal between the wealthier countries responsible for climate change and poorer countries suffering most from climate change," said Höhne. 

Developing nations, including India and many African countries, have repeatedly called for annual financing of up to a trillion dollars — a tenfold increase on the current pledge. Industrialized nations have dismissed those figures as unrealistic and want China and oil-rich Gulf states to share the financial burden. 

 Dispute over who will pick up the climate tab

Since the industrial revolution, which started in 18th-century Great Britain and was when people started burning fossil fuels in large quantities, rich countries have historically contributed the most to global warming. But China, for instance, has recently become a major emitter of climate-damaging greenhouse gases.

Still, in official documents, China is labeled a developing country, meaning it is theoretically a recipient of climate financing alongside poorer states that have barely contributed to the climate crisis. 

United Arab Emirates (UAE), which hosted the 2023 climate conference, is also officially considered a developing country. Observers saw the petrostate's 2023 pledge to provide climate funding to poorer countries as a glimmer of hope that wealthier developing nations might be willing to share financial responsibility.

During the UAE summit, the global community for the first time agreed to tackle the cause of the climate crisis by "transitioning away" from fossil fuels in the energy system.

Still, the planet continues to warm. Humanity is on track to radically overshoot the 2015 Paris Agreementto keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial times unless fossil fuel use is cut rapidly and drastically.

Current policies would see planetary heating of about 3.2 C by the end of the century. 

No climate protection without emissions reduction 

"There's a huge disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality when it comes to claiming you'll be 1.5 C aligned and then not meeting one of the central tasks," said Alden Meyer, a senior US and international climate policy analyst at E3G, a Europe-based climate think tank. 

The EU, in particular, is pushing for increased funding to developing countries to be linked to more climate protection. At the same time, UAE, Azerbaijan and next year's climate summit host Brazil all have plans to expand fossil fuel production, continued Meyer. Similar trends can be seen in the USA, CanadaNorwayAustralia and the United Kingdom.

Paris Agreement signatories also must present new climate targets next year, but most have not yet produced a draft, according to Höhne.

Meyer expects that the COP agenda will include calls for industrialized nations to double funding for adaptation to climate change. Adaptation measures could include early warning systems for storms or flooding, coastal protection, green spaces to combat heat in cities or improved protection for power plants in storm or flood areas. An increase to about $40 billion annually is on the table. 

The talks are set to address further developing and implementing the new loss and damage fund, with negotiations expected on upping financing from the initial pledge of around $800 million. 

In 2023, the nine worst climate disasters in developing countries caused around $37 billion in damagealone, according to the Heinrich Böll Foundation, a think tank linked to the German Green Party. The debate as to whether China or wealthy oil states should participate in the loss and damage fund will gain traction at again this year, say observers.

US election results, war: Is 1.5 C still achievable?

This year's tug-of-war over money is being exacerbated by the continuing economic difficulties faced by households because of the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as economic instability and Russia's war in Ukraine, which has led to huge increases in global military spending.

Donald Trump's reelection as president of the US, the world's largest economy and second-largest producer of climate-damaging emissions, will also have an impact on negotiations and is cause for concern among climate action advocates. 

During his first tenure in office, Trump cast doubt on climate science, quashed a number of environmental laws and withdrew from the Paris Agreement. During his election campaiging, he made it clear that if elected for a second term, he would remain an anti-climate action president and that the extraction of coal, oil and gas would be a priority under his leadership. 

"His push to ramp up fossil fuel production, disregard for international agreements, and refusal to provide climate finance will deepen the crisis, endangering lives and livelihoods" said Harjeet Singh of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, a global campaign which aims to stop expansion of fossil fuel exploitation.

Trump's rollback on the USA's climate commitments threatens to undermine trust in an already crisis-laden international political system, Singh said. 

If the world is to limit warming to under 1.5 C as agreed in Paris, global emissions must peak before 2025. The target still could be achieved in time, according to analysts. 

This article was originally written in German.

https://www.dw.com/en/cop29-who-will-pay-climate-funding-for-developing-countries/a-70724069

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without one way or the other…”

         Gus Leonisky

 

SEE ALSO: https://www.dw.com/en/azerbaijan-intensifies-repression-ahead-of-cop29-host-role/a-70726763

 

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/33287