Category Archives: The Mitigation Battle

PLEA Network

5 November 2015, Carbon Brief, Q&A: What does the VW scandal mean for CO2 emissions? The Volkswagen (VW) emissions scandal spilled over into climate policy on Tuesday, after the company admitted to “irregularities” in its CO2 testing results. The firm’s share price — already down 60% after revelations it had deliberately cheated air pollution tests — fell a further 9% by Wednesday morning. However, the irregularities also have implications for CO2 emissions, as well as UK and EU climate targets. Carbon Brief investigates. What are CO2 test “irregularities”? On Tuesday, VW issued a “clarification” about the CO2 emissions testing of up to 800,000 of its vehicles in Europe. The statement says: “During the course of internal investigations irregularities were found when determining type approval CO2 levels…It was established that the CO2 levels and thus the fuel consumption figures for some models were set too low during the CO2 certification process.” Though the precise nature of these problems remains unclear, it has attracted wide media coverage. The Times notes petrol cars have become embroiled in the scandal for the first time. The BBC says the “dirty laundry” is piling up for VW. The Guardian says VW might have manipulated CO2 tests, in addition to its now-notorious “defeat device” for NOx air pollution. The New York Times says VW’s pollution problems have taken a “costly new turn”. A Guardian live-blog says costs for VW could exceed the €2bn it has set aside. Current EU regulations limit car CO2 emissions to no more than 130 grammes of CO2 per kilometre, notes Politico. This is set to fall to a fleet-wide average of 95gCO2/km in 2020. In the UK, vehicle excise duty is linked to CO2 emissions meaning some cars may have had unduly low rates, says Autocar. The Telegraph says some drivers could face higher taxes. However, this year’s budget changed the rules to decouple car tax and CO2 emissions from 2017. Read More here

PLEA Network

4 November 2015, The Guardian, Most Coalition voters do not believe in human-induced climate change – CSIRO. Five years of surveys show 52% of Liberal voters believe in climate change but don’t think human activity is causing it, and 13% do not believe it is happening. Four out of five Australians believe that climate change is happening, but those who do not are much more likely to vote for the Coalition, new analysis of existing CSIRO data has found. The peak scientific research body analysed data from its past five climate change surveys to give a comprehensive look at how the public’s attitudes have changed over time. The survey was axed this year, so the figures cover the period 2010 to 2014. The research found that 78% of Australians believed that climate change was happening. In 2014, less than two in five – 39% – thought that climate change was happening but was naturally induced. Another 46% nominated humans as the main cause of environmental changes. In 2010, 50% said they believed that climate change was human-induced. Greens and Labor voters were the most likely to believe that climate change was human induced – 76% and 59% respectively. Coalition supporters were much less likely to believe that climate change existed, with 13% of Liberal voters and 18% of Nationals voters saying that they did not think climate change was happening. Most Liberal voters (52%) said they believed that climate change was happening but was naturally-occurring – 28% said they thought it was human-induced. By contrast, 31% of Labor supporters said climate change was naturally-occurring, and 59% said it was human-induced. Read More here

PLEA Network

4 November 2015, Renew Economy, Graph of the Day: Watch US electricity grid evolve before your eyes. We talk a lot about the changing shape of the electricity grid, but what does it look like? We first came across this rather hypnotic GIF via the Union of Concerned Scientists blog, The Equation, who borrowed it from Pat Knight at Synapse Energy Economics. It shows, in animated graph form, how the electricity mix has changed in each state of America over the past 15 years. And as UCS senior energy analyst John Rogers notes, the only constant in the “mesmerising” GIF is change. 

The really interesting changes come from about 2009 onwards. But Rogers sees five trends in the graph’s “undulating bars” and outlines what’s behind them:

  1. Coal waning – The most visible change in recent years, says Rogers, is shown in the shrinkage of the dark section on the left of the GIF. “Coal provided fully half of (the US’s) electricity as recently as 2006. Now it’s down to below 40 percent, as the eroding economics of coal have asserted themselves,” he writes.
  2. Natural gas growing – For the US, a big part of the decline of coal (and the rise of concerns about natural gas overreliance).
  3. Renewables surging – Another reason King Coal is falling, says Rogers: “the result of smart policies in a lot of forward-thinking states, and great cost reductions. Synapse’s Knight offers this great statistic: ‘In 2014, 11 states produced 10 percent or more generation from renewables (compared to zero states in 2005)’.”
  4. Renewables surging (wind) – Wind, the technology to beat in many US locations, now accounts for more than 10 per cent of generation in nine states, says Rogers, and more than 25 percent in two (Iowa and South Dakota).
  5. Renewables surging (solar) – At the end of the GIF’s journey, solar starts to make its presence felt, says Rogers – and it’s only just beginning to claim its share of the spotlight, with rapidly increasing scale and rapidly dropping costs. See Hawaii. Read More here
PLEA Network

4 November 2015, New York Times, The Tough Realities of the Paris Climate Talks. In less than a month, delegates from more than 190 countries will convene in Paris to finalize a sweeping agreement intended to constrain human influence on the climate. But any post-meeting celebration will be tempered by two sobering scientific realities that will weaken the effectiveness of even the most ambitious emissions reduction plans that are being discussed. The first reality is that emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas of greatest concern, accumulate in the atmosphere and remain there for centuries as they are slowly absorbed by plants and the oceans. This means modest reductions in emissions will only delay the rise in atmospheric concentration but will not prevent it. Thus, even if global emissions could be reduced by a heroic average 20 percent from their “business as usual” course over the next 50 years, we would be delaying the projected doubling of the concentration by only 10 years, from 2065 to 2075. This is why drastic reductions would be needed to stabilize human influences on the climate at supposed “safe” levels. According to scenarios used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global annual per capita emissions would need to fall from today’s five metric tons to less than one ton by 2075, a level well below what any major country emits today and comparable to the emissions from such countries as Haiti, Yemen and Malawi. For comparison, current annual per capita emissions from the United States, Europe and China are, respectively, about 17, 7 and 6 tons. The second scientific reality, arising from peculiarities of the carbon dioxide molecule, is that the warming influence of the gas in the atmosphere changes less than proportionately as the concentration changes. As a result, small reductions will have progressively less influence on the climate as the atmospheric concentration increases. The practical implication of this slow logarithmic dependence is that eliminating a ton of emissions in the middle of the 21st century will exert only half of the cooling influence that it would have had in the middle of the 20th century. Read More here