Climate Change Thread

[ReluctantSamurai]

Cherry blossoms bloomed about a few weeks earlier than usual in Japan and South Korea. It bloomed about a week earlier in the States.

A corollary to that, that doesn't get much attention outside the science community: pollinators are not keeping in sync with the plants they are supposed to pollinate, hence many trees and crops are not producing fruit, or producing in much lower quantities. Flora are adapting much quicker to climate changes, while insects and other pollinators are much, much slower in timing their emergence and activities to changes in their environment.

[ReluctantSamurai]

This is what I fully expected to happen as struggling economies across the globe strive to recoup losses. It follows a similar pattern following the financial crisis of a decade ago:

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021

Global energy demand is set to increase by 4.6% in 2021, more than offsetting the 4% contraction in 2020 and pushing demand 0.5% above 2019 levels. Almost 70% of the projected increase in global energy demand is in emerging markets and developing economies, where demand is set to rise to 3.4% above 2019 levels. Energy use in advanced economies is on course to be 3% below pre-Covid levels.

Demand for all fossil fuels is set to grow significantly in 2021. Coal demand alone is projected to increase by 60% more than all renewables combined, underpinning a rise in emissions of almost 5%, or 1 500 Mt. This expected increase would reverse 80% of the drop in 2020, with emissions ending up just 1.2% (or 400 Mt) below 2019 emissions levels.

Coal demand is on course to rise 4.5% in 2021, with more than 80% of the growth concentrated in Asia. China alone is projected to account for over 50% of global growth. Coal demand in the United States and the European Union is also rebounding, but is still set to remain well below pre-crisis levels. The power sector accounted for only 50% of the drop in coal-related emissions in 2020. But the rapid increase in coal-fired generation in Asia means the power sector is expected to account for 80% of the rebound in 2021.

While renewables are also making significant gains, those gains will be more than offset by projected use of easily accessible fossil fuel. Just like a long-term addiction, giving up fossil fuels is going to be a long, painful process. With the earlier article noting the continued massive funding of fossil fuels by banks and other lending institutions since 2016, it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to reach even the modest goals for reducing carbon emissions by 2050....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It will be a long transition. Especially with reluctance over nuclear power leaving it as something of an either or choice. Still, the growth in efficiency of renewable power generation has been heartening -- the more cost effective it becomes, the easier to transition.

[ReluctantSamurai]

A rather under-the-radar negotiation...or put another way...an outright attempt at environmental extortion, is set to occur during President Biden's environmental summit set to kick off today [Earth Day]:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...to-save-amazon

The US is negotiating a multi-billion dollar climate deal with Brazil that observers fear could help the reelection of president Jair Bolsonaro and reward illegal forest clearance in the Amazon.

Senior US officials are holding weekly online meetings about the Amazon before a series of big international conferences. Ministers and ambassadors from Britain and Europe are also involved. But rather than those who know forest protection best, their Brazilian interlocutor is Bolsonaro’s environment minister, Ricardo Salles, who has overseen the worst deforestation in more than a decade.

Salles is asking for a billion dollars every 12 months in return for which, he says, forest clearance would be reduced by 30-40%. Without the extra foreign cash, he says Brazil will not be able to commit to a reduction target.

That sounds like it could come out of any Hollywood mob movie...'pay us, or else...'

There is also potential cannon fodder for Biden's political opponents:

This is a risk for Biden, who is on the verge of doing what Trump never did: give cash to a Brazilian president who has eviscerated forest protection agencies, lethally mismanaged the Covid crisis, and is seen as a danger not only to Brazil, but the world.

Izabella Teixeira, the former Brazilian environment minister, said the US and the UK were poised to pay off a government that is holding the planet to ransom. “They have to offer money to Bolsonaro’s government so he doesn’t block the Cop meetings,” said Teixeira, who represented Brazil in several international conferences during the administrations of Dilma Rousseff.

Opening the hen-house door for the fox:

But Salles, who became environment minister in 2019, has no credibility with those who defend the forest. He has tried to monetise the region and promoted mining and agribusiness, and under his watch the rulebook for Amazon protection, which reduced deforestation by 80%, has been shelved, monitoring agencies have been eviscerated, 15,000 sq km of forest have been cleared, and Brazil has backtracked on its international commitment to cut carbon emissions.

Salles already has access to substantial international funds. About $500m from Norway and Germany sits idle in the Amazon Fund, which was frozen by the environment minister because he disliked the strict conditions on deforestation that came with it. This raises questions about what any new funds would be used for, and by whom.

In other words, give us your money, but don't tell us how we can spend it.

Time pressures could weaken resolve. Biden wants a success to announce at his climate summit later this month and the UK will be looking for progress at Cop26 in November. Environmentalists fear a rushed deal with an insincere negotiating partner could be worse than no agreement. Unless payments are tightly pegged to emissions-reduction results, they could be frittered away on dubious carbon credits, vague development plans, benefits to land-grabbers and a huge new greenwashing system for fossil-fuel companies.

An indication of just which way the wind blows on Brazil's intentions:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-deforestation

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions has never been a priority for the Brazilian government. Take its own climate fund, from which about $100,000 was channelled into sanitation measures rather than the mitigation of national carbon emissions. Of course, sanitation is essential to health and wellbeing in our cities, but it is far from a significant source of emissions. The government also slashed the budget of the Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama), the department within the environment ministry responsible for monitoring deforestation. In the first half of 2019, £2.2m was allocated for inspections; last year, the figure was £700,000.

What the government is missing is not cash, but a commitment to the truth. It denied the existence of fires in the Amazon as the flames were burning. Brazilian news is saturated with scandals that show persistent government action to weaken environmental bodies, roll back legislation, and ignore international agreements. Two years ago, it dismissed the head of the INPE – the National Institute of Space Research – for the simple fact that the institution had compiled data on the rise of deforestation. Last week, it dismissed the head of the office of the federal police, who had led the largest investigation into the illegal extraction of wood in the history of the Amazon. It has replaced experienced civil servants with individuals without any forestry expertise in several departments, and it intends to effectively shut down ICMBio, Brazil’s foremost institution dedicated to the protection of natural reserves.

It will be interesting to see if the environmental gangster gets what he wants...more money to continue the destruction of the Amazon....

[spmetla]

If it was another President of Brazil besides Salles it'd make great sense. As you've pointed out we couldn't trust him one bit to use the money to not just burn more forest.

There is actually a point to paying them to keep the forests undeveloped as for developing nations the economic incentive to exploit lucrative land versus a global benefit that is good for the climate but not the bottom line. Sorta like the endangered species throughout the world, it seems hard to justify to people in or on the edge of poverty to preserve animal X because we like them and their important to the broader ecosystem. The national park systems in Africa make those countries a good bit of money which offsets higher patrols to try and stop poachers. Something similar needs to be done for forests, reefs, etc.. Unfortunately doing it through the UN would be slow, inefficient, and undoubtedly corrupt. Direct nation to nation though is extremely uneven too though as the globe benefits while select countries may choose to pay or not pay.

the more cost effective it becomes, the easier to transition.

I know a lot of people that are looking into the electric cars now just for practicality, no longer a 'statement' because the costs are finally near the same costs as the gas versions and the ranges are far enough for most consumers.

I know once they have electric pickup trucks with a range of about 500 miles that aren't more than a few thousand dollars more than gas pickups I'll probably get one of those too.

Same with the electric rooftops, especially here in hawaii where we have some of the highest kw/hour costs in the nation. It's economical to go solar into the grid despite the high upfront cost so a lot of people have done that.

[ReluctantSamurai]

There is actually a point to paying them to keep the forests undeveloped as for developing nations the economic incentive to exploit lucrative land versus a global benefit that is good for the climate but not the bottom line.

I actually don't disagree with that. The global impact of further decimation of the Amazon probably exceeds $1 billion a year. What I'm mostly concerned about is who that money is being given to...which is why I provided the second link showing just how unconcerned the current Brazilian regime is with climate change. It's a billion dollars wasted if Bolsonaro and Salles just continue to burn forest land without any repercussions...

And sorry Brazil...a 30-40% reduction in deforestation just doesn't cut it. For that kind of money, it'd better be double that amount....

[ReluctantSamurai]

This is precisely why Brazilian strongman Bolsonaro cannot be entrusted to do anything that remotely resembles contributing to climate change policy:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-talks-pledge

Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro has approved a 24% cut to the environment budget for 2021 from the previous year’s level, just one day after vowing to increase spending to fight deforestation.

Speaking on Thursday to the summit organised by US President Joe Biden, Bolsonaro pledged to double the budget for environmental enforcement and end illegal deforestation by 2030.

Bolsonaro vetoed a list of environmental budget provisions worth 240 million reais, including outlays for environmental enforcement.

Can't believe a single word that falls out of his mouth....