4 August 2015, The Guardian, G20 countries pay over $1,000 per citizen in fossil fuel subsidies, says IMF. World’s leading economies still paying trillions in subsidies despite pledges to phase them out, new figures show. Subsidies for fossil fuels amount to $1,000 (£640) a year for every citizen living in the G20 group of the world’s leading economies, despite the group’s pledge in 2009 to phase out support for coal, oil and gas. New figures from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) show that the US, which hosted the G20 summit in 2009, gives $700bn a year in fossil fuel subsidies, equivalent to $2,180 for every American. President Barack Obama backed the phase out but has since overseen a steep rise in federal fossil fuel subsidies. Australia hosted the most recent G20 summit, where prime minister Tony Abbott was forced to reaffirm the commitment to the phase out, but it still gives $1,260 per head in fossil fuel subsidies. The UK, which is cutting renewable energy subsidies, permits $41bn a year in fossil fuel subsidies, which is $635 per person. In contrast, Mexico, India and Indonesia, where per capita subsidies average $250, have begun cutting fossil fuel support. The vast fossil fuel subsidies estimated by the IMF for 2015 include payments, tax breaks and cut-price fuel. But the largest part is the costs left unpaid by polluters and picked up by governments, including the heavy impacts of local air pollution and the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change. The [new] figures reveal the true extent to which individual countries are subsidising pollution from fossil fuels – Lord Nicholas Stern. The IMF, which published a global estimate – $5.3tn a year – of fossil fuel subsidies in May, calculates that ending fossil fuel subsidies would slash global carbon emissions by 20%, a huge step towards taming global warming. Read More here
Category Archives: Global Action Inaction
3 August 2015, Potsdam Institute, CO2 removal cannot save the oceans – if we pursue business as usual. Greenhouse-gas emissions from human activities do not only cause rapid warming of the seas, but also ocean acidification at an unprecedented rate. Artificial carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere has been proposed to reduce both risks to marine life. A new study based on computer calculations now shows that this strategy would not work if applied too late. CDR cannot compensate for soaring business-as-usual emissions throughout the century and beyond, even if the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration would be restored to pre-industrial levels at some point in the future. This is due to the tremendous inertia of the ocean system. Thus, CDR cannot substitute timely emissions reductions, yet may play a role as a supporting actor in the climate drama. Ocean acidification affects the shells of plankton like Pteropods. “Geoengineering measures are currently being debated as a kind of last resort to avoid dangerous climate change – either in the case that policymakers find no agreement to cut CO2 emissions, or to delay the transformation of our energy systems,” says lead-author Sabine Mathesius from GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “However, looking at the oceans we see that this approach carries great risks.” In scenarios of timely emissions reductions, artificially removing CO2can complement efforts. “Yet in a business-as-usual scenario of unabated emissions, even if the CO2 in the atmosphere would later on be reduced to the preindustrial concentration, the acidity in the oceans could still be more than four times higher than the preindustrial level,” says Mathesius. “It would take many centuries to get back into balance with the atmosphere.” Read More here
23 June 2015, Common Dreams, ‘A Great Day for Corporate America’: US Senate Passes Fast Track. ‘Shameful’ vote all but ensures approval of mammoth trade deals like the TransPacific Partnership. In a win for multinational corporations and the global one percent, the U.S. Senate on Tuesday narrowly advanced Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) —ensuring for all practical purposes the continued rubber-stamping of clandestine trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The cloture motion to end debate needed 60 votes and it got just that, passing the chamber60-37. The full roll call is here. A final vote will come on Wednesday. Having overcome the biggest hurdle, the legislation is expected to pass, and will then be sent to President Barack Obama’s desk to become law. Read More here
18 June 2015, Carbon Brief, China has greatest potential to raise climate ambition: The world is not on track to avoid dangerous climate change and China has the greatest potential to close the gap in climate ambition, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). In a special report on energy and climate change the IEA has added up the combined impact of current climate pledges and other likely policies, including China’s hotly anticipated contribution for the post-2020 period. Dr Fatih Birol, IEA chief economist, says in an interview with Carbon Brief that these pledges are far from what would be needed to limit warming to below 2C. We’ve taken a look at which countries would make the biggest contribution to bridging the gap towards 2C, under the IEA’s cost-neutral bridge scenario.
Climate ambition gap
The climate ambition gap is widely recognised. Last week, UN climate chief Christiana Figueres told Carbon Brief it was “completely clear” that current pledges would be insufficient to avoid 2C of warming above pre-industrial temperatures over the course of the century – the internationally agreed climate target. The IEA’s new assessment suggests they would instead put the world on track for 2.6C by 2100 and 3.5C after 2200. Their long-term impact may be “rather small”, says Birol, but that’s largely because they extend at most 15 years out to 2030. The pledges collectively bend the world’s emissions trajectory (blue line, below) away from business as usual emissions (green line) by 6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2). Even in the short term, however, the gap between the pledges and what would be needed for 2C (yellow line) grows rapidly, reaching 9GtCO2 in 2030.
Emissions growth under the IEA’s ‘current policies’ scenario, corresponding to business as usual (BAU), compared to the path with current climate pledges, the IEA’s bridge scenario and a scenario consistent with 2C. Source: IEA special report on climate and energy, IEA World Energy Outlook 2014. Chart by Carbon Brief.