Extreme weather cost US insurers $34bn in 2011

hjkhjk

Hi Derek Scientific models show these threats are increasing, as we have reported: http://chn.webxost.com/2015/04/15/world-set-for-record-droughts-by-2050-report/ The impacts vary by region. Some extreme weather events have a stronger link to climate change than others: http://chn.webxost.com/2016/10/24/rapid-glacier-melt-threatens-bolivia-water-supplies-safety/ http://chn.webxost.com/2015/05/18/is-climate-change-driving-brazils-drought-chaos/ http://chn.webxost.com/2016/06/06/deadly-european-floods-are-in-line-with-climate-predictions/ Investment in flood defences and drought-resistant seeds can help poorer communities prepare for these changes

https://energyelephant.com/createAccount It's the best way to get to low cost, low carbon energy use for any organisation.

What is the split between Chinas investments in fossil fuels worldwide compared to renewables over the same period? Is the investment in renewables number material or are they hedging their bets? Sounds like more propaganda green spin from IEEFA attempting to discourage investment in coal to me..

Harmful to billionaire coal investors. Solar and wind are available cheaper before gov breaks and the solar pv build out is already hiring more people than fossils and nuclear workers combined.

China, the world's biggest CO2 emitter and worst industrial polluter, takes the lead on climate change... meanwhile the US walks backwards into the future, promising to prop up the failing coal mining companies that are incapable of competing in the "free market" that US conservative politicians love to talk about.

We need massive. renewed organizing around the climate issue in the US. Everyone should call their Member of Congress and the White House weekly to express outrage at the ignorant policies being put forward by the Trump Administration. In a time when cutting back carbon is vital and urgently needed, this is an absurd move. It must be called out repeatedly, non-stop, with increasing action and messaging by millions of concerned citizens until we force them to reverse it. Stupid, stupid people.

All climate agreements signed under Obama need to be presented to the Senate, where all treaties belong, for up or down vote

Is this website for real?

I would add to the list of "calibrated ... interventions" the announcement on Jan. 5 of $360 billion in renewable energy by 2020, as reported in Climate Home: http://chn.webxost.com/2017/01/05/china-to-invest-361bn-in-clean-power-by-2020/

100% fake, looked it up on google maps satellite view and there was nothing search for funafala if you want to see it yourself

For a global climate change news site, the rhetoric is overwhelming. Let's start here: "But as we dig down into more detailed aspects of climate science, killer arguments are harder to find because the truth is that the science is unsettled." No, it is not. Among the scientists it is settled. You move on to quote the IPCC, a mostly political organization that of course will use language that is framed as 'likely', 'mostly', 'could', etc. Yes, scientists use confidence, but it is used as a confidence interval, in mathematics. I don't know a scientist that does not wholeheartedly believe in AGW. And that the science is settled. Perhaps you are not looking at the correct science.

I wonder if gore gets flood insurance on his many seafront properties?

so climatechangenews refuses alternate debate. how very catholic of you

Adverse climates have always been a major problem for poorer parts of the world. There are no more droughts or floods today than there were in the past. If aid is needed then we need to be honest.

The Indian import figures for coal are for all sectors (link). The exact scope of Goyal's commitment does not matter, coal imports will stop soon except where a plant is technically dependent on them.

Treaty Power: Treaty nations tax inside borders and imports from non-teaty nations, and get to keep a share of 'greens' - wealth spent only on repaying national debt and supporting Nature;

People really got to prepare for the end of things. Guy McPherson from U of Az. Has said we don't have even 10 years till extinction. Many at Arctic news. Com ( collection of scientists posting under Sam ) do to governmental censure. All say by 2030 mass extinction on planet.

Agreed. The internal combustion engine powered vehicle is going the way of the Dodo bird.

Let me check I've got this right. Trump's team complain that climate science has become politicised. So the UK climate science community writes to Theresa May, "urging" her to "press" him to take action on climate change?

And a year on...paralysis by virtue of accountability. They have not allocated any money for fear of a project failure (hence the paperwork), but are just failing in a different way. The pledges are there but the actual deposits into the GCF facilities have yet to be collected because the donors will not commit until there is a proven track record. But a proven track record means that they cannot take risks and thus are moving very cautiously. Round and round it goes with just a shiny building and a bunch of staffers quibbling over documents.

Solar is cheaper. under 3 cents per KWH. LCOE. Solar needs less than 1% of the land to supply more than a even a first world energy system needs, You can grow things under them. Solar stabilized the grid and can provide reactive power as well. Nothing is as fast to respond as electronic inverters. And coal and nuclear baseload plants need spinning reserve too. The only way to totally get rid of spinning reserve, renewable or not, is with grid scale batteries with a 15 to 1 hour capacity. That will save any grid, massive amounts of spinning reserve wasted fuel.

Great news. I used to rail against the big utility scale solar pv projects, but even on land, solar pv needs less the 1% of the land. Yeah, India does not have a strong grid, and million are not on it at all, so distributed rooftop solar would get those folks electricity NOW. search india-builds-worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-covering-2500-acres 648MWp 678M$ installed in just 8 months. It's hard to imagine installing solar pv that fast. Indian needs to backup solar and wind with fuels from wastes, of which they have plenty and they are a problem. Pyrolysis with fractional condensation following by gassification of the char. For clean yard and farm wastes, the char is a great soil enhancement, biochar, that can double the productivity of poor soils while being massively carbon negative.

No true. No one word of it.

tell him the truth, that way , hopefully, he will live his life to the fullest while we can still breathe

Easy solution. Use 100% Bio Coal. Biomass Secure Power and River Basin Energy

American dummy,dummy dummy shot themselves in the foot by harassing vw about caremission while their rattlesnake ,yanke cars are as much bad and worse,-so what well sorry ,we get electric cars and wont be using diesel,to the downturn of gas and wallstreet,billion dollars of loses for not sold diesel:'how smart is that for the money hungry yanks loss of money!

As an American, let me express sincere thanks to our friends in the British scientific community for this appeal to PM May that takes a stand to support ongoing climate science in America. Encouragement, advice and even pressure from our friends and allies is very important in influencing the Trump administration from both inside and outside the US on this vitally important issue. It's a dark time in America. Our allies can help make it just a little bit lighter, and give us all hope that progress on climate will continue even as we struggle to retain our freedoms and financial security under Trump. When it comes to climate, we've simply run out of time for politics.

Karl - there's an aspect to the issue of car-makers' fraudulent emissions claims that has yet to be addressed by govts or media. All of the exposed frauds to date (and more can surely be expected) concern diesel cars - which we're now told have worse CO2/km outputs than petrol cars - but why would fraud only have occurred in the corporations' diesel divisions ? If a board chooses to commit fraud in one division, why not in another ? The risks are no greater and the sales benefits may be equally seductive. I hope you'll find time to make enquiries on this matter, as at present the upshot of the scandal looks like carmakers deciding to concentrate remaining FF vehicle production on the single petrol ICE, rather than having that capacity unhelpfully split between diesel and petrol versions and so being under greater pressure from EVs' rising competitiveness to write off very expensive ICE-vehicle production capacity well short of its design life. Regards, Lewis

Yes, bring it on! Not sure about 'petrol powerchains', but great article.

He did not have the votes for a carbon price. IMHO the biggest failure within Obama's control was on PACE residential financing, a small point but part of a wider failure on housing, see HAMP.

The simplest way for Tillerson to square the circle is this: 1. Denounce the Paris Agreement, with effect in November 2020, the timetable it lays down in Article 28. 2. Stay in the framework Rio Convention, ratified by the USA with unanimous Senate consent. The USA would therefore keep its seat at the various climate tables until the clock runs out, and Trump gets to keep his promise. The strategy guarantees that the Paris Agreement will be a central issue in the 2020 election, as the Democrat will propose to re-ratify. It would be courteous for Trump to extend the timetable by 2 months to take effect just after the January 2021 Inauguration. This would allow the newly elected President to quickly confirm or annul, but courtesy is not in Trump's playbook.

Considering that the Paris Agreement signed by 195 nations was predicated on the need for a global "Carbon Recovery" effort to avoid AGW exceeding 2.0C, the USGCRP report seems rather out of date: - the US has already committed to one of the two forms of geoengineering. How soon it will commit to the research, development and necessary UN mandate for the deployment of the second form - "Albedo Restoration" - is an open question. That it will do so is rather obvious to anyone who appreciates the fact that even radical Emissions Control + Carbon Recovery offer no prospect of cooling the planet - on the contrary waming would continue for ~35yrs after the end of anthro-emissions (the timelag being due to the oceans' thermal inertia) which very likely means continuous warming to 2085. This means for at least 68 yrs they will not limit the advance of the eight "Major Interactive Feedbacks" [MIFs], whose current acceleration under just ~1.0C of AGW is widely reported in the scientific literature. Unless those MIFs are halted by planetary cooling, their combined annual outputs of GHGs + Warming will grow past the point of of fully swamping the remaining carbon sinks and so fully offsetting even a total halt to anthro-CO2 emissions. From this perspective, what is urgently needed - alongside rapid Emissions Control and Carbon Recovery programs - is the agreement of a UN-mandated scientific supervision agency to oversee perhaps a decade of global research of a reliably-benign Albedo Restoration technology, whose trial deployment can then be considered by the member nations of the UN as the means to achieve the crucial planetary cooling. That this will mean facing down those who may dishonestly try to pretend that geoengineering means CO2 emissions could continue, is merely an inevitable requirement of the climate predicament we face. Regards, Billhook

The Reuters report on the issue of China's energy investment budget to 2020 included the intriguing statement : “with tidal and geothermal getting the rest, the NDRC said.” With “the rest” amounting to $45 billion by 2020, this is arguably the most significant fraction of the budget. Along with the other ‘Reliables’ of Solar Thermal and Offshore Wave, the Tidal and Geothermal energies have been largely ignored by developed nations for decades, while renewables funding has been focussed on the ‘Intermittent’ energies of PV and Wind. Given the scale of investment in Coal, Oil, Gas & Nuclear, and given that this perverse Intermittents investment priority has allowed those lobbies to harp on “the intermittency weakness of renewables” for the last 30 years, it would seem highly naive to assume that the West’s ignoring the ‘Reliable' energies has been accidental. With China investing $45bn in two of the Reliables by 2020, all the old baseload techs are going to face competition with dispatchable renewables, led by Tidal and Geothermal, which both have large untapped cost-reduction potentials. The propaganda that "Renewables cannot provide energy security" will be shown to be merely another fossil lobby lie by this development. In terms of their present costs it is worth noting that in last year’s utility-scale unsubsidized capacity auction in Chile, Geothermal was bid at ~ $65/MWH, which was more than present coal-power but far below the EDF Gen-4 nuclear plant at Hinkley, which needed a price of ~$120/MWH indexed to inflation and guaranteed for 35yrs to be (theoretically) worth building. Tidal Power was fortunate to have a small barrage built at La Rance in Brittany, France, in 1966 that was opened by De Gaulle, had paid off its costs by 1986, and has since then provided the equivalent of a continuous 55MW in a very predictable peak about each 12hrs 25mins. Alongside the estimated 250-year design-life of the barrage, according to the owner (EDF) the cost of that Reliable power is about $18/MWH . . . With China putting $45bn into these two techs by 2020 it will demonstrate some of their potential both to overseas interests and to its own specialists and government policy makers. Thus we are likely to see radical change in China's spending priorities thereafter, with nuclear plans being written off on grounds of cost at least as fast as coal is shuttered for its carbon output. And where the largest global investor in energy supply technologies leads, others - from India to Brazil to the EU to Africa - will predictably follow suit. Best news I’ve seen in a while. Regards, Lewis

Having commented on the Nordhaus article 5 or 6 days ago, this seems a good place to put the following comment on the potential for improvement of the commenting system. Climate Home's practice of not publishing comments for six or more days obstructs the development of discussion of its often excellent articles. Why would people bother to spend time commenting if their comment will only be seen by that small fraction of the readership that reads week-old articles ? And why would those readers bother to comment in reply if theirs will then only be seen by a still tinier fraction of the readership ? The present policy gives the worst of outcomes - readers views are plainly not valued - no discussion at all arises after most articles - and the lack of comments gives the perverse impression that this site lacks any sizable readership. Given that it's hard to see the present discreditable outcomes as being desired by the site's management and as being the result of intentional policy, it is surely time for a change of normal practice on this matter ? I know from experience how much work is involved in monitoring numerous articles' discussions both for new posts and for deleting 'innappropriate contributions', but there is another option that could greatly cut that labour without raising the delay of comments being posted. This would require comments to be posted at the time of writing, with a daily trawl to then clear out the predictable denialism that tries to keep the agenda on "Whether AGW is happening" as opposed to "What are the symptoms and prognosis and what shall we do about it ?" This efficiency of this format would be helped by a clear warning in the comment guidelines that off-topic posts will be deleted, and that 'off-topic' includes the full range of denialism of AGW - except for comments on any article that dicusses the hypothesis that AGW is merely a global conspiracy. To make commenting work well, the provision of buttons for "bold", "italic", "quotes", "underline", and "edit" are extremely helpful, and are now routinely provided on sites that recognize the diverse benefits of encouraging feedback on and discussion of their articles. Hoping that this proposal will help to further improve Climate Home's notable contribution to society's education on the climate predicament, with my regards, Lewis Cleverdon

Dong and Berkshire Hathaway and Engie do not need help from infrastructure banks. They can borrow at similar rates themselves. If there is a market failure in OECD countries, it is in higher-risk startups. Solyndra explains why public-sector bodies shy away from risks that venture capitalists would think too low to be exciting. The main need for infrastructure banks is in LDCs; poor people are often much more creditworthy than markets allow, it's their governments that are unreliable..

The Paris Agreement has one ambiguous goal, with two targets: one firm (2 degrees warming) and one aspirational (1.5 degrees warming). So businesses should consider two distinct scenarios. 2 degrees can be represented as "NDCs plus", with large corrections for China and India reflecting current trends and policies, and smaller ones elsewhere. 1.5 degrees is more difficult, as SFIK nobody has mapped out a plausible policy scenario to get us there. Achieving it by pure mitigation looks impossible, as it gives us only five years of carbon emissions at current rates. A likelier track would be overshoot followed by massive sequestration, using a mix of technologies some of which exist (reafforestation) and others are in the lab (biochar, olivine weathering). The point for bushinesses is that sequestration is impossible without a carbon tax and premium. The transition to net zero may be feasible without it, simply be cheaper technology. But no technological miracle will make it pay to bury carbon.

This article contains 17 full paragraphs of utter nonsense, but ironically the author offers not even one single, solitary example of the imaginary "facts" that he says all the global warming hoaxers have in abundance. The only thing in the article that is somewhat factual is the "Bullshit Asymmetry Principle". Unfortunately, all of the BS emanates from the hoaxers who make the ludicrous claim that not only can they accurately measure the "global temperature of the earth", but also that they know how to control it.

“The mounting economic and scientific evidence leave me confident that trends toward a clean-energy economy that have emerged during my presidency will continue and that the economic opportunity for our country to harness that trend will only grow.” - President Obama

I share the President's confidence. Thank you for your leadership Mr President. One small step for a renewable energy geek. One Giant Leap for Mankind. Scottish Scientist Independent Scientific Adviser for Scotland scottishscientist. wordpress. com https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ce63db4392893f8bc3a92c2749fb15df5cf24cb31332f25b8074c3e44231defb.jpg

this article suffers from Godwin's law

while it does not address the water injection issue of Measure Z, the high carbon intensity of Ardo oil can be reduced substiantially by substituting solar steam for gas-driven steam boilers. We are ready to supply solar-generated steam which will significantly reduce Ardo's CI, plus lower EOR operating costs, clean up the local air, keep local jobs & economies going, and more. It's already CARB-approved as well.

Any real climate negotiator has to be looking for ways to deal with Trump taking the USA out of the Paris Agreement. Praying he won't is not a strategy. The strategies are isolation, humiliation, counterattack (eg with carbon tariffs) and taking over key US contributions like NASA's earth observation satellites. BTW, I am not going to be commenting any more here until the site managers get their act together on approving comments. It is unprofessional, indeed dishonest, to invite readers to submit comments - which they don't have to do - and fail to approve them for more than 24 hours. I have made this point before and nothing has changed.

Should be $100 a ton, considering positive feedback in the climate system.

It is not extreme to make CCS2 mandatory for all 3000 power plants. This will make power from fossil power plants a few cents more expensive. But this will lower the need for subsidies. CCS2 captures CO2 from the smokestack and then fixes CO2 to a substance with a reaction with olivine. This requires a special reactor, the Gravity Pressure Vessel. a 1 km tube into the earth. With a inner tube. A mud from water ans Olivine powder and CO2 goes in, flows down, anf 1 km below, the pressure and temperature is perfect to speedup the reaction between Olivine and CO2. This makes fossil power plants climate neutral, but also more ewxpensiuve that wind and solar farms. So, eventially fossil power plants will only work when there is not enough wind or sun. This is why, CCS2 should be made a mandatory step foor all 3000 power palnts in the world. Also all cement and steel production plants, oil refineries etc Furthermore we have to set up a new "man on the moon"project to develop ways to grow biomass in a sustainable way. This will deliver fuel, for the 3000 power plants, and make them CO2 negative. Who else that the Dutch Wageningen Universtity can do this?

This is, in fact, happening. It's called liberalism.

For too many Earth inhabitants Global Warming is akin to Religion and/or Politics... as individuals decide to jump in one camp or another based on relatively blind faith. Unfortunately science cannot prove or disprove any reality due to massive complicated variables and major assumptions employed for what otherwise appears to be the scientific method. As medical scientist, I am aware of how data CAN be manipulated to prove or disprove theories, such concern applies to the theory of why global warming occurs. What is a fact is that periods of Global Warming and Cooling have occurred on Earth for millions of years, best example is the lack of any human existence during the glacier recession that created the Grand Canyon. Perhaps the best approach is a more agnostic one, since the truth may never really be known, and man's efforts to cause change may have zero impact on this natural process. But to engage in politically-driven spending of resources that can be used for more tangible needs is counterproductive and wasteful, although it does makes sense to consider any potential man-made factor and respect the planet we inhabit.

Greenpeace have estimated the coal generation capacity under construction at 200 GW (link), so a 1100 GW coal cap implies a complete freeze on any new projects beyond that. China's leaders have still not fully grasped the coal nettle. Coal consumption, mostly for electricity, has been falling from several years. It's not going to recover, ever. This means that not only the 200 GW of new plants but a very large chunk of the 900 GW existing (Greenpeace sat 300 GW) are surplus to requirements. At healthy capacity factors, and with rapidly growing renewables, the structural shift to services, and greater efficiency, China probably will soon not need more than half the cap. China is handily beating the world record for wasteful capital spending.

very well for China I am glad action will take place, as and environmental engineering i supported the action for this plan. also i have ideas that will contribute to reduce air pollution.

The years ahead will be critical? What a heresy. Big guru James Hansen said in 1988 that 1989 would be critical. In 2006, Al Gore said in An Inconvenient Truth that 2007 would be critical. But 2017 will be critical? John Kerry is clearly a denier who is downplaying the climate apocalypse and delaying it by whole decades. He must be paid by the Big Oil. ;-)

Never underestimate the power of Americans. People thought Kennedy was crazy when he said land on the moon in 10 years, we did it in 8.5. When we apply ourselves as in WWII we can move mountains. A clear message to the market is all we need to go green.

A quick look round other reports on this does not reveal anything about the share that will go to nuclear. It is perhaps significant that it is not emphasised. Am expansion beyond the large current programme would surely have been highlighted. The economics continue to turn against nuclear and in favour of wind and solar. It's not just cheap renewables and direct political pressure that are driving the fall in coal. The restructuring of the Chinese economy away from heavy industry and towards light industry and services proceeds apace: an absolutely standard transition, but hugely speeded up in China. Within these newer sectors, efficiency gains from better lighting, heating and cooling equipment, and controls of every sort will slow energy demand even more, perhaps faster than planners expect. Globally, demand for electricity is almost static, rising at under 1% a year, on a falling trend. In turn, the despatch priority of renewables on the grid will drive down coal burning in China (and India) even more.

Nordhaus is no fool and worth listening to, but he's not the Pope. Did his DICE model predict the plateauing of global industrial emissions in the last three years? He has always used a high cost of capital. A 4.25% real return translates to 6% or so nominal. Large investors like Warren Buffett can borrow long-term at a shade over 4% nominal. Lazards find wind and solar are now much cheaper in the US than coal and gas for electrical generation, even using a wholly unrealistic 10% cost of capital. The secular real government bond return is closer to 2%. This is a better proxy for the social discount rate than the higher equity one. The cited claim (by others) that the current Paris NDCs only lead to a 2.7 degree warming is credible on its face, but ignores the important facts that China and India are running well ahead of their commitments. China promised only to peak emissions by 2030 "and if possible before". Coal consumption has been falling for several years, and it is likely that emissions have plateaued or even fallen, leading to a plateau in world emissions (Tyndall). India still plans to increase coal burning, but by much less: the coal generating pipeline has been frozen beyond the 50 GW under construction, and will probably never be restarted. The global crossover of wind and solar to the cheapest unsubsidized sources will accelerate their already high growth rate under neutral policies - they no longer need favourable ones like the carbon price Nordhaus is promoting, along with many other economists. The next IPCC mitigation report will change from "the net economic impacts of the the energy transition, ignoring unpriced externalities, are a wash" to "the net economic impacts (etc) are a huge saving". The other thing it will do is include the health impacts, which are much easier to price and have become politically more visible. Even climate denialists understand and fear cancer, heart and respiratory disease, and realize they come from tailpipes. The temporary subsidies for electric vehicles are pretty safe, though their rapid growth from a near-zero base in 2010 won't start eroding oil consumption significantly for another five years.

Nepal and Guatemala may not be able to do much about this. Bur China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt Iran and other large and midsize middle-income countries could readily boost their own capabilities for a strategic priority. There are no IP barriers in science. What they do need to accept is academic freedom and intellectual competition instead of patriarchal control.

Equilibrium response to CO2 is around 6C per doubling, so in the long term we can expect over 3C of global warming just from the 400ppm in the atmosphere today, plus 30 - 60 metres of sea level rise.

Equilibrium response to CO2 is around 6C per doubling, so in the long term we can expect over 3C of global warming just from the 400ppm in the atmosphere today, plus 30 - 60 metres of sea level rise. http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/7/

According to this report Nordhaus, while critical of the orthodox view of the efficacy of Paris, is under the same widespread misapprehension that allowed the Paris negotiation to be quite so complacent. It is the idea that global temperature rise, and hence climate destabilisation, can be stabilised at 2.0C by one level of Emissions Control measures, or stabilised at 2.5C by another level - that is essentially flawed wishful thinking. It ignores the role of seven of the eight "Major Interactive Feedbacks" [MIFs] that are widely reported in the literature as already accelerating, with several each having the potential to dwarf the warming effects of current annual anthro-GHG outputs. To avoid the MIFs accelerating to the point of their combined outputs exceeding anthro-outputs and so fully offsetting even a total Emissions Control, climate scientists many years ago proposed a limit of 1.0C as the goal for climate negortiations. Yet 'pragmatic' advisors got that shifted to 2.0C, as was eventually agreed in Paris. Even a rapid ending of anthro-emissions by say 2050 will continue to impose timelagged warming at least out to 2085, with that warming raised by between 0.5 to 1.2C of additional warming that will inevitably be unveiled by the loss of the cooling "Fossil Sulphate Parasol" (due to the loss of coal-firing's fossil sulphate emissions). That warming would be further amplified by the rising outputs of the MIFs over the next 68yrs to 2085. Both Paris and Nordhaus' tighter proposals are thus steering society into committment to self-reinforcing warming far beyond any technical control capacities. To call those proposals, and their reliance on the false substitute concept of the planet's "Climate Sensitivity," - 'genocidally reckless' would be an understatement. It should be clearly understood that the MIFs will continue to increase their outputs for as long as global warming continues, and beyond an unknown point ending anthro-emissions will not constrain that warming. Their advance is 'autocatalytic' not only in the timelagged warming from each one accelerating itself and all others, but also in the very numerous 'direct coupling mechanisms' between them which act in or near real time. Their advance will not be halted by anything less than either (eventually) exhausting their feedstocks (ice, permafrost carbon, etc) or by the planet's natural cooling after some millennia due to orbital changes, or, if we choose, by an intentional cooling of the planet. In this light, going "a bit beyond 2.0C" does not generate "a bit worse" climate damages: - it raises the already severe probability of uncontrollable self-reinforcing catastrophic climate destabilization developing. The threat can still be countered, but not by Emissions Control alone even at the most radical pace, owing to the multiple additional sources of warming to which we are now committed. Those who seek to criticize the grossly deficient Paris Agreement should face up to the reality that alongside the urgent need of the Carbon Recovery mode of geoengineering (that Paris blithely scheduled "in the second half of the century") there is an urgent and inevitable requirement for the stringently supervised research, development and mandating of a reliably benign option for the Albedo Restoration mode of geoengineering. While Carbon Recovery is absolutely necessary - alongside rapid Emissions Control - as the means to cleanse the atmosphere, it is so vast an undertaking that it cannot have any significant effect on AGW in the critical next few decades. (For a start, cooling due to GHGs' reduction has the same ~35yr timelag as warming has from their increase). Thus in addition the Albedo Restoration approach is essential as it would, after perhaps a decade of research and trials, be effective quite quickly in cooling the planet and so stabilizing climate and the critical agricultural and forestry yields, and it would also steadily decelerate the MIFs. We have no other means of achieving these paramount goals. For academics such as Nordhaus to continue to pretend that climate can be stabilized by Emissions Control alone is at best grossly negligent of the scientific evidence of the MIFs' acceleration. So where is the civil society critique of his myopic proposals ? Regards, Billhook

So Germany has emission intensity from electricity above 450g/kwh and going no where. If you take out the easy reductions they made after unification its a pathetic showing. That's a doomsday scenario for the kind of CO2 reduction we need, particularly when you look at how much burning of trees and bio-fuels makes up its renewables portfolio. Compare Germany to countries like France. http://electricitymap.tmrow.co/ Can we then agree that sacrificing nuclear for flaccid renewable gains is a foolish strategy?

Karl, Before you issue your CO2 death threats to billions of innocent children, you may want to consider this first; Trump says NASA can’t even say their end of the world is “proven” so all climate change measures “WILL BE TERMINATED” and since Trump has followed through on everything and more, the question now becomes will he prosecute news editors who knowingly exaggerated and abused vague climate science?

Are arms dealers going to be the new ambulance-chasers? (Hot on the heels of the oil & gas investors)

The obvious conclusion is that degrowth is necessary, accompanied by a redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/green-growth-or-degrowth/

Interesting - all are 'blue' states, or states that lean that way. The assumption that reducing CO2 emissions locally or even regionally (the entire US) will make a significant difference in global CO2 levels OR global mean temperatures is not supported by empirical data. 2016 was at most barely warmer (0.02°) than 1998, despite a CO2 level increase from 370 to 400 ppm - over 8%.

Is there an online petition to get the World Bank to provide low-income financing for nuclear as well as (or better, instead of) coal?

Ending the fossil fuel era will constitute a major shift to the current global geopolitical order, one dominated by major fossil fuel producers like Russia and the United States. It’s hard to see petrostates eagerly facilitating a transition away from that order, never mind funding a globally just transition away from it. Given that hard political reality, we need to be careful to not allow questions of stranded assets and equity to derail progress on climate change. It may be an injustice to not strand fossil fuels equitably. But much graver injustice and harm will come from not acting on climate change, particularly for least developed and developing nations. http://www.re-update.com/2017/01/02/the-world-needs-to-consider-how-to-manage-the-end-of-the-fossil-fuel-era/

The recession and deep political crisis in Brazil reflects a weaker form of Chavismo. The World Cup and Rio Olympics were costly crowd-pleasing projects funded from hoped-for oil income. The Brazilian oilfields are in deep offshore waters and very high-cost, so have been hit especially hard by the oil downturn.

Was there any reduction in German solar FITs for residential installations last year? The collapse was in the past, and largely in utility. Installations have been ticking over at around 1 GW a year, which is historically low but no too bad in an international perspective. The penny-packet utility auctions have been coming in cheaper than expected - much cheaper in the case of the Danish crossborder one -, so maybe policy will tilt back in solar's favour. The increase in gas is worrying for energy security, as the gas mostly comes from Russia.

This is both really interesting, especially the claims about BDEW using gross numbers, and Fraunhofer net numbers, and a bit surprising and confusing. There should an approximately constant gap between net and gross numbers, there's really now reason why one should go up and the other down. Except maybe if the gross numbers include power that had to be curtailed and could not actually be inserted in the network.

Trump "If climate change is real then NASA must say their end of the world is as real as they say the planet isn't flat? Are they also only 99% sure it's not flat? All climate change action and spending will be terminated and those responsible for exaggerating and fear mongering our children will see their day in court." Does Trump mean news editors?

Trump "If climate change is real then NASA must say their end of the world is as real as they say the planet isn't flat? Are they also only 99% sure it's not flat? All climate change action and spending will be terminated and those responsible for exaggerating and fear mongering our children will see their day in court." Does Trump mean news editors?.

Enough of ideological posturing, scientific obfuscation, political cover-ups, denial and delay. The simple truth must be told and acted on. These young people will live in the real world suffering the real consequences of the decisions of an older generation for whom this was just a "theory" to be manipulated for personal gain. Make Tillerson testify and let this be a turning point when America finally faces this challenge honestly, head on. Tillerson and Trump can be the ones to turn around what has become an absurd American position - the last and most foolish deniers on Earth.

Michael Cutajar: "Trump can’t continue to indulge in short-term posturing to the populist gallery...." That's all Trump has ever done since he entered politics, and indeed since he started his second career as a reality TV entertainer. Since the election, that's how he has continued to operate, with the Carrier and Softbank job stunts, refusal to take national security briefings or acknowledge the Russian election hacking, and continued reliance on two-dimensional tweets for public announcements. It is is extreme wishful thinking to hope that Trump will change his spots. All in all, his retreat into the class idiot's corner offers a tremendous opportunity for China, and India too. I hope the spotlight will lead to more pressure on unhelpful Chinese policies, like selling coal generating plants to the likes of Kenya and the Philippines with subsidised credit.

The smart money is on clean energy. The US would be turning its back on both economic and leadership opportunities by not pursuing these goals. No amount of rhetoric will return the coal industry to prominence, and in fact the $8 billon allocated by President Obama to assist the transition to other professions is a good start. Second, the biggest opposition to coal, in a business sense, is gas, another industry Mr. Trump embraces. One of these two has a complex future; the other – domestically in the US at least – does not. http://www.re-update.com/2016/11/17/the-economic-case-for-energy-equity-and-climate-leadership/

Carbon-intensive lifestyles have long been considered the mainstream route to wealth and success, both on a personal and societal scale. However, as we say goodbye to many of the Earth’s safety mechanisms and await a global climate that is in a state of transition, many have begun to look at what advantages may exist without fossil fuel dependency. http://www.re-update.com/2016/10/10/explainer-how-carbon-neutrality-increases-your-disposable-income/

Trump; "All climate change funding will be terminated unless NASA is willing to say their planet flattening climate change end of days is as real as they say the planet isn't flat." So why won't NASA just say it and end this debate to save the planet from climate change, before it's to late to say it?

Mission Innovation Ministerials takes place back to back clean energy ministerial in China. Interesting to follow up on it too especially their focus on clean energy technologies.

I'd be very surprised if the Trump Presidency comes out above Obama's NDC promise. Policy will shift hard to favour oil and gas extraction, but won't do much to foster their consumption, while coal will be left to wither (tough luck, suckers). Meanwhile, technology and costs have shifted much more strongly towards renewables than the CPP envisaged. Trump's diplomacy will be generally counter-productive - can you imagine the response to any efforts to get China to import more coal? The rest of the world is applying the slogan of the British Blitz poster from 1940 - Keep Calm and Carry On.

In Japan, David Attenborough would be named a National Treasure. He's a Global Treasure. I would add to your good list John Kerry's granddaughter Livia, who imperturbably helped him sign the Paris Agreement in April in New York. Livia worthily represented the children of the world who will live their entire lives in the dangerously hotter world we shall bequeath them. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/22/18/3371305300000578-0-image-a-49_1461344705293.jpg

Iis very much in India's interest to go green. India could be a leader in Renewable Energy by promoting their use. Very foolish to say nothing.

Trump could be smart and recognize that Solar energy mining is healthier for workers and more profitable besides being good for the environment.

China has an astonishing number of coal miners, about 5 million. They produce 3.5 billion tonnes a year. India mines 0.6 billion tonnes with about 400,000 (334,000 in the dominant producer, Coal India): half as many per tonne. Wood Mackenzie think that coal overcapacity today is "600 Mtpa to 1.2 Btpa", without planning for a wider phaseout. At surely attainable Indian efficiencies, and closing the most inefficient mines first, China could produce 2.9 billion tonnes a year of coal (using Mackenzie's lower overcapacity figure) with 1.9 million miners. Putting 3 million miners out of a job is a frightening prospect for the Chinese leadership. They will do it anyway. The smog blanketing the big cities is even more dangerous to their power.

A foreign military base is best considered as an export industry for counting emissions. The lease was presumably signed wit the government in Nairobi, not the county, so its not the county's problem. The British Army's plans for more renewables are vague and unconvincing. The US Army treats renewable energy as a war-fighting resource (oil-based supply chains are a heavy cost and a large vulnerability), not an external environmental obligation. Carbon emissions are a different question from impacts on landscape and wildlife. In the British Army's defence, it should be noted that secured training areas keep out poachers, squatters and trading shacks, so the impact is mixed. Eagle owls nest and breed in a working quarry in the Netherlands - the only available rocky cliffs the birds require. They don't it seems mind the nearby explosions. It is reasonable to insist on a complete impact accounting.

I was thinking long time ago why nobody think about producing H2 from water and than burn it to get energy. The solar panels that produce electricity, could split the water and store H2? This will be better that using batteries. Splitting the H20 and keeping H2 for further use, after burning H2 you get again H20. This is 100% environmental friend full. I totally disagree for biofuels. Better to use the land for producing food for human use not biofuels. Developing more biofuel industry will get as results changing the agriculture areas for other proposes than for food. As this industry progress, than larger areas for producing biofuels will be required. I'm afraid that many forests will be destroyed on this way. Electric cars are good, but from where do we get the electricity?

It's not us peace loving deniers that are eagerly goose stepping billions of innocent children to the exaggerated greenhouse gas ovens with sickening childish glee. Will the science gods you doomers abuse ever say their planet flattening crisis end of days is as real as they say the planet isn't flat? Are they also only 99% sure the planet isn't flat? Who's the redneck in the history books?

If you like clean air, then the subsidy is well worth it.

California is now gets around 10% of its power from solar. It started from a nearly nonexistent capacity six years ago.

As per my understanding the vast climate change going to be in this planet. So, rather than investing billions of money for the development. We need focus and challenges going to be face in furture. Therefore more money necesarry to alocate green enviorement and action again the disasters.

Kenya is also planning a giant coal generating plant near Lamu. What will it use for water?

Leader of the free world! He will not stop the energy revolution, however. That will be carried on by all who understand the vital need to quickly end the era of carbon-based fuels, and that includes virtually every nation on earth. Trump will be forced to accept the changing demand for energy or America will simply be left behind.

Trump's violently spiky signature is not reassuring. Nothing that we didn't know already of course.

It is part of the rent or you live outside of the USA perhaps?

Assuming that the San Ardo oil production ceases to exist, and that Californians will continue to consume the same amount of oil, what would be the resulting carbon intensity of the replacement oil? Since California imports about 50% of its oil consumption, that oil would mostly likely come from one of the current top three exporters to California: Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, and Colombia. What would be the carbon intensity of those sources when transportation via tanker is factored in?

The analysis is sound enough, but the inference that we should let the genocidal idiots have their moment in the sun is not. Panic, no. Fight back, from the beginning, hard. The aim is to limit the long-term damage.

"Carbon Tax Tillerson"

Hmmm... yes indeed, the economics of green are compelling, and can no longer be reversed by a bunch of atavistic climate deniers. It was well known in the world of institutional investing in the 2008 metldown that green buildings kept their value better than any other asset class, and that had nothing to do with climate. Who would not PREFER to own a building without any energy bills over one that does? In the land of the blind one eye is king. So if you want your property to win in the long run, net zero, or near-zero is the way to go. Your building will outlast the next administration and the next one after that, it's pure economics. And yes, if the next administration carries out the anti-climate razzia they've promised for the US DOE, they will hand any US technology leadership to the next guy, probably China. So, instead of making America great again, whatever that means, this is assured self-destruction. Moreover, many of the states will increasingly set their own policies, and while those efforts are not particularly well-organized, that could change fast. The Northwest is already oriented towards Canada, California could secede if it wants and the Northeast could also align itself with Canada. Smart investors will simply follow the economics, not the ideological rhetoric. The Saudi's know the age of oil is about to be over, and sooner or later Washington will find out too.

Trump; “Unless NASA says their planet flattening crisis is as real as they say the planet isn’t flat, all climate change spending is to be terminated permanently.” **Will NASA ever say it and end this debate to “save the planet” before it’s too late to say it and save our children’s lives?

"Until NASA announces their planet flattening crisis is as real as they say the planet isn't flat, all climate change spending is terminated permanently." -President Donald Trump, elect *So why won't NASA say it and end this debate to save the planet from climate change before it's too late to say it?

You check the data. Arctic ice is barely behind 2012, and gaining. If it catches up, would you be willing to state that if ice in 2016 is about the same as it was in 2012, that the predictions of decline has come into question? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

,,, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/857308eca24c5ac601401c7622939abdc5661c6172f59c1ecfbb52df5661c265.jpg

The only power plants that can provide basic guaranteed power 24/7 anywhere around the world are fossil-fuel or nuclear-powered. Pretending that we can have our modern comfortable lifestyle based on intermittent and costly sources of power is delusional thinking. But, carry on.

Even a public educated product of a liberal institution should be able to read the Constitution and come to understand that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is the sole arbiter of FOREIGN POLICY. Period. End of Statement. If you disagree, here's your Dunce's Cap.

Hope springs eternal. Gates, Musk, Gore, and de Caprio should watch the conjuror's left hand not the right. The nominees are real decisions, not patter, and they tell a story: hostility to science, hostility to renewables, denial of climate change, loyal support for roil and gas.

Congratulations I suppose. But like Christina Figueres, she deserves a job with real authority. Perhaps both suffer from the blowback Clinton received: successful women are "too pushy".

I saw small solar cookers in the most remote villages and compounds in the Himalayas. Why not here? To cook food and boil water to store for later use? Once-off purchase. Free to use every day.

when did it happen

I hope Trump axes every penny of the climate fund. Money to help people in dire situations is fine, but climate issues do not qualify.

Goyal should have gone further and reviewed the plants within the 50 GW coal pipeline that have just broken ground. India already has large overcapacity in generation - the problem of access to electricity is with transmission and especially distribution, exacerbated by a culture of politically driven subsidies to favoured voting blocs. With massive amounts of renewables coming on stream with despatch priority, and efficiency gains in use from global innovations like LED lighting (a trend the Ministry still fails to recognize), the prospects for many Indian coal plants achieving breakeven capacity factors are poor. Many investors in early-stage coal plants would surely now seize a lifeline for early exit.

Jerry Brown's gung-ho line on the threatened NASA satellites is admirable. But a better way would be for the ESA to set up an international ad hoc project consortium. California should be welcome to join in.

Climate contrarianism needs to be confronted, and may necessitate the use of strong language - as there is obviously no space for science-based facts within any so-called 'dialogue'. The argument could not be more self-evident after 30 years of debate. The great barrier reef is now dead - it isn't coming back.

You are right,but not by much. I've watched the fluctuations for some time now, and they seem to slide back and forth, and the level of decline is much less than predicted by the warmist lobby. I'm willing to notice when ice levels decline, because I have an open mind, but I remember a few years ago when the Antarctic ice levels were showing a significant year to year increase, the left was making up all kinds of stupid stuff to explain the phenomenon. The one elephant in the room is that no one in the climate alarmist camp is willing to say what the optimum temperature on earth is for human habitation. We all know that climate has changed, dramatically, over the eons. Sometimes rapidly. Why would anyone assume that ANY deviation from current temperatures would be catastrophic? Tornado and hurricane levels are the lowest in years. Maybe a warmer earth would be beneficial. Anytime anyone runs around carrying a message of doom, we should all be at least a little sceptic. Science is never settled. Settled science is an oxymoron.

People who argue that climate change is not happening or that the scientific case for it is overstated – climate deniers – should probably start preparing for a more robust response from scientists themselves." One word for the climate "scientists" - TRUMP.

The question now is; Will Trump issue criminal charges to news editors for exaggerating vague climate change science and perpetuating 35 years of needless CO2 panic? Will he drain the swamp?

To see details of why Humans cannot change the Earth's Climate, and the reality that we have tipped into a mini ice age that will be obvious in 2020 and very serious by 2030, see paulllitely.com and on youtube, see Adapt 2030. We are seriously being led in the wrong direction. NASA and NOAA are altering their reported temperature series to MAKE it show warming. They are going back and lowering the past temperatures that they had already published, while boosting recent temperatures they report. Meanwhile, the base data Without any adjustments agree directly with Satellite measurements of Global Temperatures that there has been no warming since 2003, and in fact, slight cooling. The record cold temperatures of the winter of 2014-2015 were interrupted By a very strong El Nino, that has now gone away. Since the peak of that El Nino, we have seen the steepest and longest drop in global temperatures ON RECORD. This clearly shows that humans are not in control of the climate by CO2 or any other means. Again, see Paullitely.com and youtube Adapt 2030 for full explanations and details, including reports by Burt Rutan, Scientists in Russia and India and China and Australia. It is only in America that this fraud is succeeding, but the real weather will make it so obvious by 2020 and serious by 2030 that nobody will be able to claim Humans are controlling the Earth's climate...

The retreat of glaciers has been going on for the last 50000 years and humans have made no change in the rate. Sea Levels likewise have been rising for the last 50000 years, since the end of the last iceage, and the rate has not changed. Humans cannot change the Earth's climate so the cost of trying is infinite. Instead, lets do something with the $trillions to make life easier for our populations instead of harder. Lets break up this glacier BEFORE it comes down in one piece, for instance

Trump; "NASA must say their catastrophic CO2 hell end of days is as real as they say the planet isn't flat instead of just; "real", otherwise all climate change funding will be terminated."

Hear, hear. Trump will be bad for climate action but not disastrous. The immediate threat is to the data-gathering and analytical work at NASA and the NREL, which is vital for the whole world. The ESA should be working on a contingency plan to take over NASA's earth observation satellites and mission if the Trump Prezidency kills them. (The z is not a typo.) I can't think of any other organization in the world with the capability. China should be invited to join. The ESA knows how to run projects with variable-geometry funding. The NREL could be taken over by California and like-minded states; possibly with Canada and Mexico, becoming a North American organisation.

Such sadly typical false opposition between environmental sanity and so-called development. Obviously this move does nothing for real development, which requires sustainability and resilience to work even in the mid-term. And it threatens to undercut the ability for future rural development by destroying its resource base. The bill only serves to fast track more cash into private hands by destroying safeguards that old-school privateers find inconvenient.

Well said. GCF for big bussiness. GCF for big projects. GCF for the rich.

keep writing for us Purple

I can double my nearly non-existent capacity even more easily than solar can double its nearly non-existent capacity. And it will be similarly anticlimactic.

Here's a radical suggestion: join up the tweets and publish them as a single article! Readers could follow the argument from start to finish in one place! I don't know if this is technically possible, but somebody is probably writing an app to allow it. What could we call it? A blug?

This subsidy is of a piece with the war in solar power carried out by the last PP government, typified by the ludicrous multimillion euro fines for connecting a solar rooftop to the grid without an unobtainable permit. The previous subsidies were unsustainable, but Spanish policy went far beyond a cutback, as in Germany and the UK, to active hostility. You will not be surprised to learn that Spanish electric utilities are extremely well connected politically, with retired MPs and even Prime Ministers on their boards or paid handsomely as consultants. Wind has been cut back much less than solar: the large company Iberdrola has large wind assets, and helped write the solar legislation.

.... so can we stop subsidizing all these guys yet? please?

Keep telling yourself that.

The BS is from this guy. The oceans are not acidifying, they cannot, because of the massive buffering capacity of the oceans. Carbonic acid is part of the complex interaction of of carbonates within the oceans. He cannot come up with any objective statements of fact to prove otherwise. It is quite rich that he is from UAE, where the climategate e-mails were uncovered, showing just how scientists colluded to prevent contrary evidence being published.

Methane release from biological sources are from microbes acting on organic matter. This source of methane is released into the atmosphere as a consequence of impaired digestive metabolism of organic matter by microbes in rumen as well as in soils due to trace element deficiencies. Trace elements are components of enzymes which catalyse digestive process by microbes. The problem of methane release from ruminants and from rice paddies will not be solved without use of needed trace elements in fertilizers. As emeritus professor Peter Wadhams warns, methane release from the rapidly warming Arctic region is much more dangerous because of release from extremely large quantities of stored methane hydrates; methane release from this source can only be curbed by lowering atmospheric CO2 level and lowering ocean temperatures to safe levels.

The real problem is that the World Bank (still) does not provide loans for nuclear power projects. This has historically been a prime reason for the huge jump in coal power supply in developing countries since the 1990's. Developing countries will always choose the least-cost power option, which is either coal or nuclear power, but without access to the World Bank's low-interest loans for nuclear, they have built coal plants using the World Bank's low-interest loans for coal.

A fascinating piece and I'm shocked to find out that Africa hasn't been pinpointed before to collect data on the effects on the weather. Our work on reforestation, classroom building and raising education on environmental issues has focused on the Coastal Province - could Bore be selected as a place to collect this data? They have just had two years of drought and their latest maize crop failed.

"To date, 17 countries of the G20 ... have officially joined the Paris Agreement ... If these countries follow through with their commitments to reduce emissions, it will represent unprecedented progress in the global effort to curb climate change." No it won't. Four of the 17 - China, India, japan and Russia - have made either no or inadequate reduction commitments and, since Paris, have taken actions that will increase emissions. Yet together they are responsible for over 45 percent of global emissions. The "negative climate implications" of their policies are far more serious than those indicated by Donald Trump. They are most unlikely to adopt the leadership role suggested by the authors of this article. In any case, they would be hopelessly unsuitable for such a role.

Check your data. At this moment Arctic sea ice is at records low for this period (less than 2012 levels); also Antarctic ice is at records low for this period. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

We are cooked - exactly like the frog in the pot of water, except that we have seen this coming sine the mid 70's. Shame on our supposed leaders and their pandering to business interests.

Good on Trump. Tear down the bs that idiots like Gore and Di Caprio helped put up.

Why call the man a 'climate sceptic'?! Sceptics accept science but this man is a climate (science) denier!

Given that there is now no serious prospect of avoiding very dangerous 'climate change' without the application of geoengineering alongside Emissions Control - as was fully and quite explicitly recognized in the Paris Accord signed by 195 nations - it is hard to understand the motivation of those pushing the UNCBD draft resolution reported above. Like making tea or making babies or anything else, geo-engineering could potentially be done very badly or very well - and pointing to the ills of patently disfunctional options such as stratospheric aerosols for Albedo Restoration and wood-fired energy with CO2CS for Carbon Recovery does not justify an obstructive approach to the necessary research and evaluation programs of other options. With the existential threat that AGW poses to biodiversity, with widespread damage already occurring, the parties to the convention appear to be failing in their clear duty to promote and encourage properly supervised research in those options for Geo-E that appear most benign. Meanwhile, with climate destabilization intensifying and the only technique ready to deploy being that of the stratospheric aerosols, we are drifting directly towards the onset of serial global crop failures (that appears increasingly likely before 2030) followed by the emergency, perhaps unilateral, deployment of that technique regardless of its known and unknown mal-effects. Developing nations should be asking just why the West is plainly content to see serial global crop failures begin. Cui bono . . . ? Regards, Billhook

Yeah, go for it, Filipinos. Show Americans what they should do.

Since most politicians fail to respond in adequate ways to fossilfuel-caused global warming and serious climate changes all over the world, it is time to bring the cases to court. When somebody causes harm to other peoples' health and property, the victims should be able to demand compensation. Obviously, the perpetrators in this case will try to get away by pointing to Acts of God or similar arguments. But blaming God for human profiteering and negligence should not persuade a judge with a minimum of integrity. The juridical history goes back thousands of years, https://agreenerfutureblog.wordpress.com/6-greener-future/6-3-greener-law/

How did Pruitt get into this position? One way was through climate purists fighting climate pragmatists in the gas industry. Pretending Hillary wasn't pure enough because she supported an all of the above energy solution was another. So lots of climate people either stayed home or voted Green. That worked out well: Jill Stein's vote was larger than Trump's margin over Clinton in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Or in other words, Hillary would be President elect but for green purists who didn't learn the Ralph Nader lesson. Thus the only things left in the ground, are not fossil fuels but the dreams of the environmental movement. There are some ways forward, chief of which is that the three key trends of efficiency, surging renewables technology and gas defeating coal are cutting CO2 anyway. Pruitt or Trump won't be able to slow those key drivers down. But Karl Matheisen and the rest of the keep it in the ground gang centred on the extreme green view of the UK Guardian WILL slow this down if they keep on practicing the same old KIITG strategy because they think they failed just because they didn't try hard enough or no one else was a pure as they are. This isn't just about climate. The obsession with KIITG has also brought us god know what reversals to come on women's rights, reproductive rights and just plain human rights. But hey, Jill Stein voters can feel smug about themselves, and that's what the anti fracking movement was all about right?

In South Australia, during a severe storm; I understand many wind turbines were damaged or destroyed. Is that so? Online there are hundreds of videos showing wind turbines burning out and even exploding. Bird strike is another problem as when slow moving wind turbine blades and vanes appear to attract birds who are then whacked out of the sky. (The blade tips moving faster to the birds than they look). With solar energy there are other problems. As there are apparently accounts of birds bursting into flame when flying over focussed solar mirrors. New energy sources are good but it cuts across the more traditional nature-diversity position of our green consciousness.

Disappointing indeed! But you guys were so honest to dish out this scenario in a concise way by writing "It is very disappointing that the only result is one calling for further submissions and schedule of workshops". Evidently there were a lot of fan fare but little to achieve. Thanks to your sincere remarks!

very comprehensive review... I agree that the process is very slow but at the mean time it is equally important for all LDCs to involve in the preparation of rule book of Paris Agreement. On the other hand it is still a debatable issue on how LDC countries will communicate their efforts with regards to adaptation, climate finance, transfer of technology and capacity building, and how they will be held accountable.

Everywhere, tall majestic trees, which shaded the undergrowth and suppressed growth of small trees and thickets, were logged for their wood. Regular torching compounds the problem by denuding valuable nutrients from the landscape, keeping trees short and thin, encouraging trashy undergrowth prone to fire. To reverse the process, growth of taller trees should be encouraged by preferentially fertilizing them for rapid, healthy, green growth.

That is why the city of Atlantis is under water?

2012 was exceptional but you cannot judge the trend just from a low point, especially over only four years. There is noise (variability) year to year but the signal is strong. Find out whether any year since 2012 has matched any year in the 1980s if you want a clearer picture of the long term trend.

David Bowman is correct, Listen to him.

Link to research article showing your claim, please?

The reason for continuing to spend big money on nuclear and fission is that right now, we still need to burn fossil fuels to create all those solar panels, wind turbines and LED lights of which you speak. If we could use a zero-carbon high-density form of energy to usher us into the renewable energy age, we'd be much further ahead.

As the world awaits the stunning economic changes to come from a Trump America, we can only guess that the U.S. Fiat funny money 'dollar' will follow the zimbabwe dollar and be printed right out of existence and very quickly. What will follow will be the demise of the Saudi/OPEC grip on energy prices and the evolution of a major Asian factor. This will over power and over rule all things American, reforming the world on an intelligence, and science and technology basis. This will be a basis the US science community in their non Mandarin speaking Ivory towers will find unintelligible gibberish, just as a French child can hardly understand the actions of an English adult. Within this Mandarin scientific understanding lives a greater respect for nature and renewable Energy and pure sciences, not the corporate skewed science of the former U.S. Empire, and not the militaristically skewed science and technology of that former era either. This is most likely the underpinnings of the direction given this world by successive Chinese Communist 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 year plans.

I guess learning the word 'wodge' is important. Thanks.

"Any new defence secretary must resist pressure to ignore the risk climate change poses to global security, says former brigadier general." Any new defence secretary must resist pressure to ignore the risk to global security to concentrate on climate change. We do not need any more carrier task forces to run on 'green' biofuels that are harder to make and store and less efficient than our normal fuels. And our aircraft are designed to fly on our present aviation fuels. The Secretary of Defence should focus laser-like on matters of national defense. And ... social engineering in our services. Here is hope that we drop that emphasis as well.

Let's hope for maximum humiliation for Trump. Or even better, staying away and surrendering the exceptionalist claim to American global leadership.

Poland's government has an appalling bias towards coal, and against renewables. The justifiable part of their policy is reluctance to rely on Russian gas for grid balancing. There's always biomass of course. Poland is flat so hydro is very limited. They could run cables to Norway or Slovakia.

If they don't fix this ASAP, the Fund will die. You do not buy off your enemies by cringing in fear of what they will say when things go wrong, as they sometimes will. Cf. Solyndra.

Another Puppet General

Finally, a proposed Trump appointee with is not a science denier. The first out of many.

Unfortunately, others in Mr. Trump's cabinet and the U.S. Congress have the power to cut money to energy alternative programs and allow new drilling in preserved federal lands and oceans.

Great news on a cold day.

As you will know well, the Paris Agreement is nothing new compared to the Framework Convention from 1992 which Reagan/Bush sen. negotiated and ratified. What the Paris Agreement reiterates is that everybody (e.g. all countries) will do their best to lower emissions on their own. Those interested can also work together, preferably based on payments for specific and measured reduction results, but nobody has to... Also, everybody gets together every couple of years to see how far they have come and to ask who can do more. That's it. The famous 100 billion dollars per year figure from Copenhagen on climate finance, which only fully kicks in in 2020, is not even part of the Paris Agreement - but only mentioned in an accompanying decision. But now to the real drivers: do you know how ridiculously cheap renewables, in particular photovoltaics, have become recently? If not, check out the latest results of the bidding procedures solar power procurement contracts in places like Chile or Abu Dhabi (significantly less than 3 cents / kWh). If this trend continues, neither coal nor gas will be able to compete, as they are less and less even today. On nuclear fission, its overall sanity and its potential cheapness, just two quotes from someone who knew how to operate nuclear power without accidents and who thought very much for himself ;-) - Admiral Hyman Rickover. The first is from 1982: "I'll be philosophical. Until about two billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on earth; that is, there was so much radiation on earth you couldn't have any life — fish or anything. Gradually, about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet—and probably in the entire system—reduced and made it possible for some form of life to begin... Now when we go back to using nuclear power, we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible... Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years. I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it... I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation. Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear powered ships. That is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. Have I given you an answer to your question?" The second quote one is from 1953. It goes like this and has lost none of its relevance, which all modern-day proponents of small-scale 5th generation nuclear (back to the dreams of the 70ies!) would do well to digest: "An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose. (7) Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now. On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated." O.k., so if it's not fission, maybe it's fusion, but for this version, the second Rickover quote is even more true. Of course, we can hope that the nuclear fusion research groups will actually be able to build a plasma container that can hold up for a couple of thousand operating hours per year. In the meantime (e.g. the next three decades), PV and some natural gas plus, increasingly, due to rapidly falling prices, batteries, are actually the cheapest solutions, even without factoring in the external costs of climate change.

Warming of an additional 1C above the 2C target called for in the Paris Agreement could increase economic damages by much, very much more and you know that...

The three utilities have recognised facts by taking the big write-downs. Presumably their bankers have noticed. Access to finance is the Achilles' heel of the pipeline of new coal plants worldwide.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump didn't show up in Canada at all during his term. Justin isn't going to know what hit him. I hope he's ready for that.

There's also SolarAid https://solar-aid.org who sell the world's most affordable solar light, which retails for just $5 in Africa. SolarAid operate in Malawi, Uganda and Zambia...

So encouraged by this article.

"that the last 16 years have been among the 17 hottest on record globally" based on what what average global temperature? More unsubstantiated claims. And they call this science?

Let's be clear here. Poland is using too much of the German electricity for the grid connections they have. There is a simple cheap technical solution: Grid connection regulators. These will aromatically limit the flow of electricity on a wire to safe and acceptable levels. Go to smartwires com to purchase them. Really. This is a very easily solved problem. If Germany is using Polish grids to move power from generators of any kind to consumer in Germany, then it needs to pay the polish grid owners. Long term, Poland needs it's own renewable or it needs to beef up it's grid.

I think that's pessimistic. Sure it will take time to phase out coal, but solar and wind around the world have doubled every 1.8 and 3.2 years in the last ten years, Now that solar and wind are available cheaper than fossils and nuclear before gov breaks that is going to accelerate. And country that does not embrace renewable will fall behind. Germany has lead the charge, this is not the time to give up. It's time to stop gov breaks for coal, and fossils. At the historical growth rates solar and wind will produce more power than the world needs within 15 years or so. Waste to fuels will provide the hydrocarbons for backup and chemical feed stocks.

Thanks for bringing this to people's attention Megan.

The masterminds actually think they can control the climate.

You may want to know that your Fillion climate policy link point to apple.com .

Sorry for that but the link of “Fillon’s environment policies are worth reading” has directed to www.apple.com ...

But we've only has scientists warning the world about the problem for 177 years! We need another 177 years to pretend it isn't happening, then another 177 years to pretend we are solving the crisis. After all, we're tailless monkeys!

Poor assumption that people voting are only concerned about climate change. In fact polls, for what they are worth, put climate change pretty far down the concern list for most voters. Then again, climate change itself is full of poor assumptions, assuming it actually is about climate change.

Please read The United States Constitution Article I Section 10 Clause 3.

If California Politicians want to cut their throats open even wider to let the people of the state bleed more than they already are now I say ; Go For It. Already the highest gas and oil prices in the nation with taxes going higher every session in the legislature, Ya, that's a formula for growth. Maybe they can get Maduro to come give a talk in Sacramento about successful Marxist economies like what they are pushing full force in Caracus. Bravo,,,,,Idiots. .

Read Article I Section 10 Clause 3 of United States Constitution.

Human greed is an amazing thing, and a large portion of the America people, many of whom have yet to benefit from the advances of the 21st century, have just empowered it to rampage unfettered over the far tamer human traits of reason and justice. A small number of fossil fuel billionaires have the ear of this ignorant and disinterested demagogue who places nothing on Earth before his own avarice and lust for power. Just watch as he enriches himself in a global feast ("conflict of interest doesn't apply to the President" he says) and, at home, cuts back the government agencies that protect the environment and human life against the polluting corporations. Nations who would protect the planet, democracy and freedom must unite strongly against Mr. Trump. He is on track to destroy the world's greatest democracy through now totally unleashed institutional corruption. He and his rich cronies will carry out rampant deregulation and privatization (hmm, I wonder who will get to "own" all our now public infrastructure and lands?) in the US. He has the power to destroy the entire planet, suddenly ("nukes? why don't we use them?") or by slow death, by deliberately sabotaging the US commitment to the Paris agreement. He must be resisted and stopped with any political and economic means available.

Darn it! CCN apparently decried my comment as a fake comment because it didn't sync with their special little snowflake view of the world, so they turned it into an un-comment. Very Orwellian of them.

I say go for it. California should shackle itself to punishing requirements for the goal of accomplishing exactly nothing in terms of global temperatures. But as a virtue signally device, it's gold baby, gold. The big winner will be the other Western states, which have already been the recipients of tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in AGI fleeing from the smug lunacy that is the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia.

This is not a climate change issue, it is a sovereignty issue. The issue was settled at Appomattox VA in 1865,

California is perfectly free to do this. But they need to take other more courageous steps. First, refuse to accept any electricity generated in other states that do not conform to California's climate change stance. Second, do not accept any petroleum products extracted from other states. Third, do not accept egg products generated in non-free range chicken concentration camps in other states. If you are going to take a stand, take a stand. I have a question to which I do not know the answer: Do Californians use less electricity per capita than other states? Less gasoline? Does anyone know?

California economy is one tech downturn away from cratering. Then the priorities will be much different than imposing burdensome climate regulations.

If Climate Change is such an urgent issues, why did the following groups refuse to endorse of vote AGAINST I-732, Washington's carbon tax: -WA State Dem party -Sierra club -algore -Mckkibben -350.org All groups above lack scientific credentials, yet Jams Hanson, Nasa Scientist and climate agitator endorsed it. So the scientific community endorsed it, but the left-wing politico's voted against it meaning Dems don't really believe there is an urgency

I visited Svalbard in Feb 2010, and even then many were discussing how unseasonably warm it was (our plane circled the airport for awhile before landing because the runway was too soft). But this is quite worse. Climate change just keeps getting scarier. We may be at the point where it's carbon capture or bust.....

Trudeau is not a friend of the earth. He approved a massive LNG scheme in BC, poised to approve the Tar Sands Pipeline the Kinder Morgan Transmountain Expansion. Took on the Harper GHG reduction levels. Sorry, Justin and the Liberals. You don't have my vote.

The solar cold storage rooms were new to me. Clever, because the daytime heat coincides with solar output. With thick insulation, the night-time warming can be made slow enough so that the scheme is viable. Rainy days? We can expect household offgrid solar in rural Africa to move up to 200W kits that allow a TV and high-efficiency fridge as well as lighting and phone charging. I believe M-Kopa already offer kits of this size.

If true that is remarkedly fast ocean level increase...

The fact they believe Article sea ice will be gone before 2020 means temperature increases will be even more exponential

These graphics may help some understand whether natural forces, or human effects are primarily driving global warming. What’s Really Warming the World? http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ If this does not support your sense of certainty that natural forces predominate then you can always assume that this information is part of a massive conspiracy, as millions of others are doing. Many find great comfort in joining that crowd. Attempts to cast doubt on scientific consensus on climate change despite 97% agreement http://www.skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm A Portrait of a Man Who Knows Nothing About Climate Change http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/trumps-climate-change-answer-dumber-than-you-could-imagine.html

the europeans put the day first, then the month. this was published on september 12, 2016.

Project to protect from Sea Level Rise, Hurricanes and Tsunami in the Caribbean and Florida https://youtu.be/tRn4eUQ3ewY http://www.presapuente.com

FYI - I Jake Schmidt is from the "Natural Resources Defense Council" (NRDC) - not "National".

Millions of jobs in climate change is not a good thing. (If it even is millions. Operating the Keystone pipeline was expected to provide about 50 jobs. ABTL-- Another Big Trump Lie?)

This is not pragmatic reconciliation. It's saying the bare minimum to fool some of the public. I note that almost all news media lead with his "I think there is some connectivity" and very few mention his skeptical talking points. I think many of us are pathetically grateful for any hint of rationality these days.

Someone needs to tell them they are on a runaway train. And find a way to make it stop. Squandering hard earned wealth is not the answer. Having America borrow more from the Chinese just to pay it back to them again in the form of carbon penance is not the answer. Phase out coal because it is dirty and natural gas is cheaper. Go back to nuclear which is cheap and abundant once you remove all the lawsuits and green cretins that purposely drive up the cost of new nuclear plants. We can lower our emissions without all this UN driven madness. The UN is spectacular at corruption, fraud and spreading HIV / cholera to poor nations. Anything else, not so much.

The bottom line is that the US did not ratify the treaty and will not. Obama didn't even bring it to the US Senate which would have voted it down. As far as US law is concerned the treaty is not worth the paper it was written on.On top of that the US Congress has to vote for any funds and is about as likely to be willing to give tens of billions of dollars to Third World countries as plunging as a body into a volcano. Giving that much cash to Third World countries would be political suicide. Outside of maybe some wealthy, liberal bastions a politician signing on for that would be signing his political death warrant. People want that money to stay at home.

Round-earthers don't debate flat-earthers. You people have had ten times more space than you deserve. I won't say you lost, because you never had any case. Now STFU and get out of the way.

President elect Trump is a business man who is going to make America Great Again. Increasing Energy Efficiency creates many jobs boosting the economy, which I believe President Trump will support. The Obama administration has a goal to kill the coal industry. They spent Billions on the technology Carbon Capture Sequestration (Kemper County) that is so expensive that the electricity being produced is unaffordable. The technologies of Carbon Capture Utilization are affordable and they transform the CO2 in the combusted coal exhaust into useful - saleable products. It creates many jobs in many sectors. When this technology is applied the coal power plant emits less CO2 into the atmosphere than a natural gas power plant. With the technology of Condensing Flue Gas Heat Recovery the heat energy is recovered/removed from the exhaust and Water is being created. If just 20% of the water is recovered the coal power plant can be self sustaining. If more is recovered it can be a water supplier to the local community instead of a consumer. The coal ash can also be transformed into useful - saleable products. Again more jobs and revenue is being created. Waste is not a waste if it has a purpose, and combusted coal exhaust can have a purpose.

Perhaps if you didn't want to become increasingly regarded as a Global laughing-stock you might consider reducing your numbers and changing your venues. Some of us find it somewhat bizarre that almost 30,000 assorted climate change apparatchiks travel every year on all expenses paid extravaganzas to five star resorts, always necessitating the extensive use of air travel, including private jets, disembarking into giant fleets of limousines - a procedure with the equivalent carbon footprint to that of a medium-sized third world nation, and then haranguing the less fortunate of us on what evil planet destroyers we are for flying off for a single holiday per year, driving our cars to work and heating our homes - and then inexorably increasing the price of all these activities apparently in order to punish us? Have you never heard of Skype? As a venue, have you considered Scunthorpe? Finally, have you noticed the results of the United Nations My World global survey currently covering 9,732,265 respondents? Perhaps you ought to take a look. http://data.myworld2015.org/ "Action taken on climate change" comes flat last, sixteenth out of sixteen categories of concern.

This was the last COP, thanks to the US citizens that voted for Trump as their next president. The COP freeloaders are forced to pay themselves for their holidays next year.

Almost all scientists? There's your problem, the 97% is a lie and many scientists don't agree c02 is the cause. Polititcians and the media are the ones shouting with scare stories yet they have no qualifications on the matter whatsoever. Do you honestly think that the country with the biggest arms collection in the world give a damn about it's climate? Wake up man and smell the roses.

What cowards. No wonder warming alarmists won't debate climate realists in a public forum. Your legacy deserves to be as nonexistent as Obama's 8 years of zero accomplishments.

As a resident of Calif, I think it would be great if it joined these talks. Or maybe one person to represent a consortium of states in the US who are all working on these issues. The election was a close one but Trump lost the popular vote. Ie, there are millions of Americans who still believe that climate change is a real and pressing issue. The majority, in fact!

Trees are the greatest absorber of carbon dioxide on the planet. Humans deforesting the rain forests in Brazil and several other countries are taking away this climate stabilizer. Huge paving projects and parking lots at all the suburban malls are holding the Sun's heat and acting as a huge heat-sink which warms the atmosphere. Global warming is from those factors more than coal burning. As she sang: "pave over paradise, put up a parking lot."

The actual pledge by these countries is: We will solve our dire need for energy by using renewables if you pay for it. Otherwise, we are going coal. What a shakedown.

Bad news, but it's one battle lost, not the war. The projects still have to find finance. Every new coal project in the world faces a hostile environment. In reasonably free countries, they will face protesters in the streets, and suave opponents in suits with spreadsheets and lawsuits. Coal will fight back hard, with bribes and sob stories about the sterling miners it has explored, injured and killed for three centuries. It will be messy, but coal will lose.

Oh my word. Thank heavens these people don't live or work in the vulnerable areas they aspire to describe. Life (and Policy) would be quite different.

It's a 12th-century legend with no contemporary evidential basis, but as originally written King Canute's stunt was not hubris but a calculated rebuke to the flattery of his courtiers and a demonstration of his own modest piety. The point holds either way.

Even when I dislike the election of Donald Trump I find this a rather silly article. Yes, we know Trump has said crazy things. We might even think he is crazy. But I can't see how the 'jokes' in this article are going to help any. Unless ventilating frustrations was the bigger aim.Usually though that doesn't help to win over the person your frustrated about.

What average temperature is the earth supposed to be?

There is no climate budget to raid.

You can't get anymore pitiful. I post a comment that makes you look foolish, and you delete it. You won't even try to backup your statements.

Your first glaring error is that it's very hard to "raid" a budget when the Obumbler has never passed a budget as President. Second, if Mr. Trump wants to redirect Barry's slush fund money back into the General Fund, he and congress have every right and authority to do so. Lastly, why do you beggars of taxpayer monies not call natural global warming, Man-Made-Global-Warming any more?

Without the economic endeavors that are powered primarily by the burning of fossil fuels from where does the money come that is needed for financial subsidies for wind and solar if they are to be able to operate sustainably? Just asking? To just leave out the facts that may be inconvenient is "haunting" this entire enterprise as far as I am concerned.

For Germany without nuclear power in future, Renewables will simply not be able to sustain adequate power generation in a growing economy. Until a better power source emerges they will have to include fossil fuels in the mix until at least 2050.

Face it people, the jig is up. CO2 is not causing "dangerous climate change", perhaps no change at all. Ending fossil fuels would kill civilization, and the population will not put up with that outcome. Go home and get on with your life and spend your charitable time doing something useful, like helping the poor and protecting nature.

And this prediction is biased... Long-range electric cars will be same price as ICE cars in 2018, and cheaper in 2020, while already superior today. Same time autonomous driving will arrive, which will make ICE cars way too expensive to operate. That way, 10x less cars will be needed, so in "2035" (probably 2025 already), 80% instead of 8% will be electric+autonomous. It is time to divest from fossil companies, they are the new Kodaks.

Climate change was dead last on the list of voter concerns in the recent historical election. Jobs, the economy topped the list. The party which espoused climate change was voted out of office. The signatories of the Paris Agreement are well aware that Presidential commitments of any US President continue at the concurrence of his following President, unless the commitments carry the authority of a Treaty. This does not exist. The new President Trump will scrutinize climate change costs and benefits in the light of our crushing national debt and general weakness in our economy. He has tapped into a small group of academics who hold that climate change is not a significant threat to America. They, and Congress, will review, fund, and overview our environmental policies. We can expect significant changes.

If, as Trump and climate deniers claim, dirty business practices are cheaper than clean ones, nations participating in COP22 and taking real action are justified in assessing a tariff on American products and services that cannot demonstrate sustainability — a carbon tax equivalent to the costs they are undergoing to become clean.

Rachel Kyte, head of the UN’s Sustainable Energy for All programme, said Trump did not have a mandate to reverse US climate finance commitments. “All developed countries made promises,” she said. “A promise made has to be a promise kept.” How stupid is this lady...a lot...Trump absolutely has a mandate and there's not a dam thing the UN and its enviro-fascist can do about it.

There will be huge natural disasters every year of the Trump presidency. Devastating disasters like you have never seen. Absolutely horrible. Worst in history. Disasters.

When is "pre-industrial"? The Paris Agreement specifies this as the "base" period from a temperature and time frame from which all subsequent global temperatures will be measured against. Does this mean prior to the industrial revolution? The Industrial revolution, it seems agreed to, began in 1760 and progressed through 1820 and 1840. So is the base target "average" global temperature based on 1759? or sometime around that date, but before the Industrial Revolution began? In reviewing the estimated dates of the LIA, it spanned about 500-600 years, starting in 1300 and ending (though this varied by location), as early as 1850 (nearly 100 years after the designation of pre-industrial). Scientist stipulate that prior to the LIA, the earth/globe experience a medieval warming period! So in the end, the Paris Agreement has decided that the global basis temperature should be times to coincide with a global cooling period . . . and certainly a cooling period that afflicted areas where the greatest human advanced portions of the world resided (and therefore had the best records of temperatures). This is bothering to me . . . we pick the time frame in which the Little Ice Age existed as our basis for the target temperature . . . even though the Little Ice Age was preceded by much warmer temperatures and was followed by much warmer temperatures. What exactly is the expectation of temperatures (ie. going up or going down) upon the end of a major global cooling period? As a kid growing up, I was taught throughout the years (1970s-1980s) that the US Southwest, based on geological data and evidence, was in the midst of a multi-century (actually thousand plus years) period of much cooler and much wetter temperatures than what the geology of the area demonstrate as being typical over the many millenia. Why has the science, based on the geologic record changed so dramatically? If the answer to that is because we have much better scientists now, why should I not believe that perhaps we will have even more intelligent, or better informed scientists in the future that have a different diagnosis/analysis/hypothesis than what some scientists hypothesis is happening now? I am not looking for a response that says all the scientists agree . . . or that all the tests/studies show . . . etc. . . I am looking for a logical answer to these problems/questions/concerns. We have had many instances historically in which "all the scientists agree" . . . but were later proven wrong. And the truth is that less than half of the tests over the past few decades to determine the CAUSE of warming have successfully demonstrated that it is the result of human induced pollution. Please explain to me how and why we have now agreed to use temperatures and time - from the Little Ice Age, as the basis for what temperatures should be? Why does an agreement about climate, pollution, etc. . . feel a need to intregrate completely unrelated statements, such as: "Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, . . . ., respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity." Look, I am all for the idea that people are treated fairly, equally, have similar opportunities to which they can choose to make the sufficient efforts to attain success . . . but if we are talking about the existence of humans being at risk due to the threat of our climate changing . . . should we really put that on the back burner for the purposes of the "empowerment of women"??? (for example)

I have just recently written somewhat of a "one-year update" on this article. Check it out here: https://theconversation.com/india-wants-to-become-a-solar-superpower-but-its-plans-dont-add-up-68011

The price is not enough unfortunately. Massive scale, synchronized, decentralized solar roll-out is necessary to meet climate targets. #MakeInIndia could actually play a major role in this. I have just recently written somewhat of a "half-year update" on this article. Check it out here: https://theconversation.com/india-wants-to-become-a-solar-superpower-but-its-plans-dont-add-up-68011

You guys claim to care about CA's air, so how about giving smog checks to the thousands of dirty cars that cross the border into our state on a daily basis, or charge a dirty tax fee? Until this happens, I will continue to illegally modify my new cars. And how about fixing our damn roads?!?

Have you noticed the 2nd period of commitment of the KP has never been ratified? It has never entered into force.

The world must move forward without the United States. There is simply no choice. The US will suffer the economic consequences of it's own foolish, greedy, backward and small-minded decisions. It will no longer lead the free world because other countries who do step up will quickly earn new leadership positions. Let the US squander its own great legacy of leadership and democracy, the rest of the free world can and will do this with or without them.

Do you really think that your non-binding piece of paper will force the US to comply with your bizarre weather cult?

"bigger than one man"??? That man is the President of the United States.....and that STILL carries alot of influence, like it or not. I, for one, hope he succeeds in this particular endeavor. Enjoy

Of course climate change is a Health Emergency! ONly Trump doesn't get that fact. We must all pull together now and do whatever it takes . Work with the Sierra Club in your area.

OMG! I missed so much while sweating out our presidential election and then quickly going straight into shock! This tiny planet needs to wake up really fast and get onboard! I am committed to working more closely with the Sierra Club now and willing to do whatever it takes to stop Trump from killing us all off quickly.

Trump has a mandate to NOT work with hoaxers.

Hmm... hindsight is 20/20 I guess.

The projection by Lux that absent the CPP US emissions will rise is very dubious. Basically, the Trump administration will be a life-size experiment as to what happens when government policy shifts into neutral. My take is that progress will continue, only a little slower. The rate of closure of coal generators in the USA has accelerated, while the CPP is not yet in force. Credible studies for both Colorado and Texas have shown that using a combination of new wind and existing gas capacity, many existing coal plants are now uneconomic. The Trump administration - with the likely Energy Secretary being a gas executive - is not going to subsidise coal's survival: the promises to miners are empty. It will not raise vehicle efficiency standards, and may roll back existing ones, so transport emissions will not fall. However, electric vehicles will continue to make inroads as technology improves and costs fall. California will not roll back its ev support, nor will China and the EU, nor will the growing crowd of green mayors. Building standards are in the hands of states and cities, and efficiency gains there will continue.

Another genius in our midst.

Climate politics will be influenced strongly by increasing, dangerous impacts from warming oceans and increasing ocean acidity as a result of very high atmospheric CO2. Thermodynamic climatic changes at times go through quiet (quiescent) periods, followed by sudden, frequent, violent outbursts of incredibly dangerous weather; so we can expect more of these as evidenced in the recent past, due to increasing CO2 and other GH gases such as HFCs, methane, nitrous oxide. Increasing sea-ice melt in the Arctic will be a harbinger of a dangerous and most probably irreversible global climatic shift. A significantly large temperature difference must be maintained between the poles and tropics for climates and oceans circulation to behave normally. We must prevent more ice-melt at the poles and glaciers around the world by taking excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, quickly.

The Trump Administration is heading for major clashes with California over climate policy, possibly even a nullification crisis in which US states assert the right to disregard federal legislation and regulations.

With Trump as President, The Climate Change con is finished

Trump will sort the global warming issue out , he has a clear view on this issue and will put it into practice as soon as possible. P45 s will be in the post soon I hope.

No way to negociate with leader who considers Climate science a hoax. And he is backed up by a party that is afraid to acknowledge science, because it means that they will lose money offered by the Koch Brothers.

While I do like the optimism, it's hard to see how relying on existing trends is helpful. The Paris framework may survive, but without any other actions the 2 degree goal will slip away. Paris may be 'broad and flexible' but it also has few legal obligations. Breadth and US participation came at the cost of depth. It's a trade-off that has now backfired. Averting the worst of a Trump presidency is going to take more than simply ignoring the US. I've outline concrete steps that can be taken to "US-Proof" the Paris Agreement in previous research: http://bit.ly/2fAzJWn Also, good to see the error on withdrawal times fixed.

The point about sub-state actors in particularly important within the decentralised US system. Just as Obama took years to find a politically and legally feasible scheme to force states to cut emissions from power generation, it will be even harder for his successor to oblige them to go into reverse and favour coal and gas in the teeth of market forces. I agree that very muted optimism is in order. A US walkout from Paris or an earlier boycott decreed by Trump do not, I agree, invalidate the calculations of national interest that led the other major emitters to sign. But it severely damages the prospects of concessionary finance on which the poorest countries relied in their NDCs. It also cripples the politics of the ratchet, which depends on all countries being roughly equally exposed to pressure from other parties and from civil society. The lukewarm such as Australia will be emboldened in their delaying strategy. The early firming up of the 1.5 degree target and the zero-net timetable may now be out of reach.

These reactions are utterly hilarious!

Sir u have told that to increase population but, when we increase population our economy goes decreasing how means by the population the main evil poverty becomes more and more then our economy ll be less and unemployment ll be raised now due to unemployment corruption is increasing so as a citizen of India I tell that it is better to increase the awareness among the people about the population growth and it should decrease in a shortest time. My opinion is better to have balance population.

Am I the only person that noticed this article was published in the future?

The bit about ocean warming is puzzling. Sea water is supposed to absorb most of the surplus energy, the world ocean has always served as a thermal buffer for the planet. This isn't a "challenge", this is what global warming is about, because a warmer ocean will increase sea level, increase humidity, probably change cloud patterns and impact on temperature, change precipitation, and lead to a slight increase in large storms. We should also note that, other than sea level rise, climate change negative impacts are fairly small.

Your fourth and fifth sentences are perfectly correct. Your third is questionable and anachronistic, as IR wavelengths certainly are a part of sunlight. The notion of visible and invisible components of the same electromagnetic spectrum was not easily and clearly expressed in everyday language in the mid nineteenth century. Your second sentence is patronising and your first is clichéd mansplaining. Just don't even.

Oh what a load of nonsense. We are at the beginning of a long period of global cooling. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/29/russian-scientists-say-period-of-global-cooling-ahead-due-to-changes-in-the-sun/

Lamu is currently a nice place for rich tourists to visit. If the coal plant goes ahead, it will be crossed off the list.

Last year and this year were supposed to see an "ice free Arctic" in September according to the expert predictions made 8 or 10 years ago. Now the models indicate 2040 or later.

Clearly Ethiopia could make tremendous headway in meeting their Paris climate goals with wind and solar investments. That goes for many other African nations as well. Developed nations could make this happen, if there were the political will - the money now spent on wars alone would pay for that many times over - but I imagine that the political will is in short supply. I don't know what would best reward for countries thinking of investing in solar and wind in Africa, but it would be nice to think that formal recognition by the UN would be a powerful motivator.

in 2012 when Tesla model S start selling, Ellon said, all car makers should invest on electric car, but the German car maker didn't care, 4 years later, 2016, they see Tesla eating they lunch in US, then they start investing, but now the Chines are pushing hard for electric car. I hope this make then invest harder on Electric Car.

A Trump victory would damage the Paris Agreement severely, but not kill it. It is also very unlikely. There a much higher risk that the Republicans will keep control of the US Senate and blockade Clinton's as well as Obama's nominations to the Supreme Court, putting a large question mark over Obama's plan to comply with the Agreement by regulations on vehicles and power plants. It does an injustice to the COP-22 delegates to suggest they will be distracted from their work by the results of the US election of the second day of the conference. They have a job to do regardless, and I expect they will do it.

If German manufacturers haven't moved sufficiently towards electric vehicles, it's their own stupid fault. Climate and air quality protections shouldn't be levelled down to accommodate lack of foresight by negligent companies. They deserve any loss suffered.

And 47 years after the Moon landing economists can't talk about how much CO2 is the result of Planned Obsolescence and tell consumers how much is lost on the depreciation of durable consumer goods every year.

Since world GDP growth is about 3%, PWC are confirming the finding from the IEA that global carbon emissions have plateaued - unless it's their source.

Confirmation of what I suggested. http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-wmo-co2-emissions-2061476714.html?xrs=RebelMouse_fb

Since the time I have started posting comments on issues related to climate change, I have already advocated mitigation and not adaptation. That is, efforts, resources and actions need to be focused on mitigation, so that, man will only adapt whatever it is that can not be mitigated. For, with the worsening impacts of the continuously increasing rate of increase in global temperatures it would be very difficult, costly and time consuming if not impossible, for, in most cases adaptation measures are time and location specific (Allowances made may not be even half of the real occurrences). Believing that the ROOT CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS MAN'S DESIRE TO SATISFY HIS UNLIMITED AND EVERCHANGING WANTS, the most appropriate, immediate, effective, massive and encompassing climate change mitigation LIES IN EVERY INDIVIDUAL'S HANDS. My: A)books: 1) Applications Of Basic Economic Concepts to Mitigate Climate Change; 2) Basic Economics: The Lighthouse for Climate Chnge Mitigation and 3). WHY and HOW Climate Change is Caused by and Can be Mitigated Through Human Action (Will Soon be out for publication); B) Pamphlet : Climate Change! What We Nee to Know and C) Flyer: Climate Change: Root Cause, Consequences That Lead to It and Mitigation discuss on these.

That's a silly comment that doesn't even acknowledge carbon budgets established by the UNFCCC which are accepted even by activists like Bill McKibben. I mean, his organization is called "350.org."

Great stuff from Stern. It's still doable, just. One easy first step would be to update the NDCs filed under the Paris Agreement to correspond to current policy and trends. Both for China and India, they are absurdly pessimistic already, with falling coal consumption in the former and a project freeze for new coal generating plants in the latter. A realistic assessment of current trends would therefore give a less pessimistic take. We just may be on course for 2 degrees already - though clearly not for 1.5 degrees. One key takeaway is Stern's insistence on the priority of research on negative emissions technology: reafforestation, carbon-fixing cement, olivine weathering, whatever. The failure of CCS coupled to coal power stations must not tar the entire field if sequestration. There is also a policy challenge: the market will never come to the rescue on sequestration absent a price in carbon.

Ignominious. Time for some hardball by a coalition of major trading nations in the form of port carbon levies. The flags of convenience will cave.

Very confusing terms and word usage. Explaining with examples is worth the effort.

Nate Silver is out of line with other poll aggregators. Sam Wang puts Trump's chances at 1%, Huffpost at 3%. Irish bookie Paddy Power has already paid out on bets for Clinton to win. Silver's estimate depends on a high weighting of the risk of a strongly correlated systematic error across many US states, such as a hidden turnout effect. To me, the others have the better of the argument. We will be spared finding out how much damage a Trump presidency would do to global climate policy.

Climate change is a false premise for regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. These changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely and well-documented causes include sunspot cycles, earth/sun orbital changes, cosmic ray effects on clouds and tectonic plate activity. Here's why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to limestone and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. An equilibrium-seeking mechanism. 99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. All living or dead organic matter (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%. A modern coal power plant emits few pollutants except water vapor and carbon dioxide. Coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy. "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." Longfellow

I hope by 2050 we will find solutions? you need to BE net zero by 2050

"Don't confuse me with the facts, as I have my prejudices to consider" is obviously the Republicans' philosophy

Thank you. Peter Wadhams and Kevin Anderson are two of the very few who have wisely discerned and acknowledged the devastating truth about Climate Change, and are speaking out. Great Waves of Change org are also warning and preparing people.

I am happy and proud of you Daphin, you have taken a big leap of faith by jumping into the sun. I am confident you can make it. And you are offering something society needs right now.

I lived in SA for a year, and have a lot of respect for Harald Winkler and CSIR. However, after quickly reviewing this study, I have to ask, what makes the South Africa sun and renewable energy industry so much different from the rest of the world that the cost of solar PV rivals that of wind energy development? It seems improbable, because even in places in the US southwest wind stills reigns in terms of efficiency.

Caesar fiddles, while Rome burns

The rich countries never promised in Paris to put $100 bn into the GCF. It was always an envelope for multiple channels of financing.

The major trading nations hold the high cards here. They can threaten credibly to introduce port carbon dues if there is no global deal. The registry countries are small and powerless. Many big shippers support a uniform carbon tax in preference to chaotic regional levies.

Asking a think tank whether policy needs improving is like asking a barber whether you need a haircut. Both the IEA and national forecasters like (egregiously) the EIA have a long track record of overestimating the sensitivity of renewables to policy shifts and underestimating the impact of the learning curve. In fact, below grid parity you would expect market forces to dominate increasingly. This is happening. Of course, really bad policy as in Spain and the UK can do real damage, but so-so policy should usually be good enough.

This plant must be stopped at any cost. This will destroy Sundarban in the long run if not right away.The only way to stop this plant is by brocading and building resistance of all the supply routes from their origin to Rampal. Start doing it. Disrupt the supply.

Really, isn't this what weather scientists expect with more moisture in the air due to AGW? more moisture, of course, causes more precipitation, but in the highest altitude and/or latitude locations - like Antarctica and some high mountains - it is cold enough to almost always fall as snow, and not melt very fast.

Climate warmists continue perpetuating the myth that increased carbon emissions have and will result in more warfare and suffering. If only they examined the two defining criteria -- war deaths and famine deaths -- they would discover how embarrassing their alarmism really is. War, famine and suffering are at record lows; indeed dramatically down during the modern carbon era. . Famine fatalities: According to UNICEF, from the 1920s through the 1960s, famine annually killed an average of 5.3 people per 1,000 globally, but only 0.5 per 1,000 since then. That's a stunning 91% reduction and yet it coincided with the globe's highest carbon output. (In this new century it's just 0.08 per 1K so far, or down 98.5%.) Don't credit UN grain bags; relief shipments have dropped through the decades. Famine of course leads to wars, which brings us to... . War fatalities: Catastrophic World War II would make this too easy, so let's begin with the 1950s. According to data from the International Peace Research Institute, combined civilian/combatant war deaths averaged 6.0 per 100,000 globally during the 50s, dropping to 4.7 during the 70s, 1.9 in the 90s, and most recently 0.7 per 100k. All told a 88% reduction since the 1950s. The number of conflicts began dropping when the Cold War ended and today nearly all conflicts are internal/civil wars with death tolls remarkably lower than previous wars. . So why all the alarmist hyperbole and the ease with which a populace would believe it? Could it be that constant 24/7 news, global video transmission, handheld devices, the Internet and social media combined have saturated our minds with a false impression that violence and suffering have worsened? Is it also possible that each generation believes its own era is more pivotal and cataclysmic than prior ones despite contradicting data? Are those two considerations so overwhelming that alarmists don't even bother to research the historical record? Today's alarmists say we humans are doomed, but the facts indicate humankind has already saved itself.

The EU commissions another report on decarbinisation pathways to be delivered in three years. Are we supposed to treat this as s serious response? Here is the Wimberley report, in three minutes. 1. Complete the transition in electricity generation. Policies known and partly in place. 2. Electrify land vehicles. Maintain or introduce incentives for electric cars, buses, light vans. Increase R&D on trucks. 3. Introduce carbon pricing (real or implicit) for aviation and shipping. Boost R&D. 4. New, major research efforts on low-carbon iron-making and cement, also wood construction. 5. Incentives for efficiency and carbon-positive land use, especially forestry. 6. Crash research programme on gigascale sequestration. There are probably a few other things. But let's get started on what we know has to be done.

The article doesn't mention the massive spending campaigns geared towards discrediting electric vehicles. Sure Oil is on the ropes, but we all know who is paying the referee. The Kock Brothers are expected to spend about $10 million dollars per year on research and media coverage aimed to discourage government incentives on EVs, and to strengthen public perception of petroleum-based fuels in transportation applications. Not for truth, but for protecting their aging empire.

Looking forward to hear response from Bangladesh Govt.

South Africa has IIRC no domestic gas supply, and it's dry with limited hydro potential, so the two obvious options for backing up variable wind and solar are inadequate. But CSP with storage is not speculation but a tested, shovel-ready technology that fits the bill. Retrofitting coal power stations to provide fast ramping has been done in Germany, but the low capacity factors as well as the pollution make it unattractive. As for the nuclear option: a closed-door deal with a thuggish and corrupt autocracy using technology nobody else trusts, what could possibly go wrong?

This one really has to be stopped, at the head of the list of subsidised or politically favoured exports of coal generators. What banks are putting their reputations and balance sheets at risk by financing Rampal? The Irrawaddy is in Burma and runs nowhere near Bangladesh.

Thanks to the writer as well as to the UN for speaking up in favor of protecting the Sundarbans.

Coal is OK, as long as the power plant has CCS2. Its not sustainable, but CCS2 makes any fossil power plant climate neutral. That is more important than sustainable. With CCS2 the CO2 is captured, known technology, then its fixed to a substance, by having it react with Olivine. The result of the reaction is magnesiumcarbonate and sand. To give this reaction enough speed, a new innovation is required, the gravity pressure vessel. This is a steel tube, 1 km into the ground. In internal tube allows a constant flow through the tube. Mud of water, CO2 and Olivine is pumped in the tube, and at 1 km depth, the pressure is high enough to speed up the chemical reaction between Olivine powder and CO2, to create MagnesiumCarbonate and sand. The reaction also produces a lot of heat, that can be used fot the capture of CO2, in the first phase of CCS2. CCS2 is a preoces that should become mandatory for all 3000 power plants in the world. With this technology, Poland too, can become climate neutral, while keeping their coal plants in operation.

But don't Minisisters Hunt and Frydenberg say east coast marine problems are caused by agricultural run off, fertiliser and sediment, that warming and acidification aren't happening?

So the deal (on Oct.7th) was ratifed, but Poland has exceptional circumstances that allow it not to have to meet emissions reductions? The arguments as to why one country should be permitted to continue to go on polluting are not well-justified in Mr. Szyszko's letter. Does Poland want to continue having a 19th Century energy economy?

The carve out for India, Pakistan and Iran is shameful but has a flimsy justification in economic necessity. But what on earth are the Gulf States doing in that group? SFUK they don't manufacture refrigeration or air-conditioning equipment, and can easily afford the slight increase in import costs. My guess is that the exemption will prove pointless. No manufacturer anywhere with hopes of export markets will now build a new production line that will become a liability in eight years. General experience with this type of regulation is that the alleged added costs that manufacturers complain about disappear once they are forced to change, and find cheaper ways of complying. Chinese and Korean manufacturers will advertise HFC-free premium equipment, and local downmarket rivals will follow suit.

Understandable but pedestrian. One percentage target looks very much like another to the ordinary citizen. Net zero on the other hand is instantly comprehensible and can be made inspiring. The emphasis on sequestration technology is very welcome. This deserves top research priority if the 1.5 degree target is to be taken at all seriously, since the world is certain to overshoot the correspinding carbon budget.

Coal is a train wreck already, with hundreds of billions of stock slides, bankruptcies, writeoffs and stranded assets, plus an army if unemployed miners. Thinking ahead could create an easier path for the phaseout of first oil, then gas. It's not likely to happen. "The burnt child's bandaged finger / Goes wabbling back to the fire" (Kipling).

Hear, hear. Might be worth adding that at least two countries have exemplary low-carbon policies while not being particularly vulnerable: Bhutan and Costa Rica. De Brum's leadership in Paris in getting the 1.5 degree C target written into the text, even aspirationally, was immensely important. I'll venture a prediction that it will become the pivot of future climate diplomacy. The 2 degree target is now both easily attainable and too dangerous. And no, Indian air-conditioning manufacturers are not on my priority list for handouts.

1) These guys are writing for a U.S. audience. That makes the temptation to think of the world as the U.S. and everyone else very strong. 2) You're right, though, that framing things in that way makes it easy for readers to mentally give the U.S. a pass as "no worse than everybody else." No magic answers here. Maybe encourage more effort by most vulnerable to team with larger countries like Bangladesh and Indonesia that are also under the gun?

Plot the NSIDC data yourself, or let WoodForTrees.org plot it for you: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1979.4/to:2007.5/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2007.4/to:2016.4/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2007.4/to:2016.4

She get it and does have much more detailed plans than Sander had. She even has real plans to deal with fracking and the damage it does. Sander national "ban" would not have done much to really help the problem. Clinton understands that to really stop the fracking harm it must be dealt with in the States because of the way laws and regulations are structured. What was very interesting was Tom Hayden coming out to support Clinton over Sanders. He spends most of his energy on fracking in CA these days. When he studied the plans of both he recognized that HRC had the more detailed and realistic plans. He's on the ground and his take is that just a national ban really does nothing. It's a complex set of issues and must be dealt with that way. This is where a wonk like Hillary shines.

What no comments?

Africa needs electricity and it needs food produced. The World Bank needs to put up power plants to produce electricity. It needs to construct large ranges of commercial greenhouses next to the power plants. These greenhouses can use the recovered heat energy from the exhaust to heat and or cool these greenhouses. The cooled CO2 can be used to enrich the food producing plants inside the greenhouses. Production inside a greenhouse is 8 times that of the same area of land grown crops. Growing these plants hydroponically greatly conserves water. When the heat energy is removed from the combusted exhaust with the technology of Condensing Flue Gas Heat Recovery, water is produced. There is enough water created that the power plant can be self sustaining and even become a water supplier to the greenhouse range. Many people will be employed at the power plant and in the greenhouses, growing food for Africa.

Because the coal is higher Ash cz and typically lower energy. It means you have to dig up more of it to produce the same amount of power. Its also less efficient in the newer power stations and the Galilee coal has very low trace elements, sulphur, chlorine, arsenic etc etc. Much lower than global averages. Adani and Alpha projects can put the coal on the boat for about $40/t. At no stage during the downturn would it ever have lost money. Right now the coal Price has rebounded as China has turned off its high cost operations, and Carmichael coal would be making heaps of profit.

There is a method of capturing CO2, and fixing it in a substance. That is witn the mineral Olivine. The chemical reaction between olivine powder and CO2 is slow, but spread over large, moist suffaces, like beaches, we can mak a start. And every country can do this by themselves. A second proces is keeping power plants in operation, but making CCS2 mandatory foor all 3000 fossil power plants in the world. This gives the fastest result. To fix the amount of CO2 from a power plant or industrial CO2 producer, like a cement mill, a new reactor is required, the gravity pressure vessel, a steel tube 1 km into the earth, Mud of olivine powder, and the captured CO2, goes in this 1 km deep tube. At the bottom part of the tube, there is so much pressure, that the chemical reaction between Olivine and CO2 reaches a practical speed. The reaction substances, Magnesium Carbonate and sand, and water, are pumped up, via a internal tube in the gravity pressure vessel. So this is a contiuus process. Because the reaction between Olivine and CO2 also produces heat, the gravity pressue vesslel needs cooling, to control the temperature down below, to optimal values. More on the gravity pressure vessel: http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/GPVGravityPressureVessel.htm Furthermore, to become CO2 negative, the coal plants need to burn a Biomass derived fuel. And capture the CO2 But as written in the article above, food production may become a problem. That is why, we need to start utiize the sun on the oceans too, grow biomass at sea. And find ways toharvest that, proces the biomass to valuable stuf, like plastics, and fuel for the power plants. The Dutch Wageningen University has the competence to develop these processes, but it is a dutch university, in one of the most pro fossil regimes of the world. So, tell them, they have to do something for these processes, to save their country and the world. There is already a artificial lake near the university, to pilot the processes to grow and harvest biomass, the Markermeer.

so another.. is to nationalize FF enterprise and manage drawdown directly.

The real issue is Bill Mckibben writing an essay based on people he works with or allies and the idea that oil change international is some kind of authority that the public should listen to. What was Oil Change International's last report? The one about the natural gas pipelines in the united states that was "reported" on by allies over at desmog blog and I think picked up by the non-activist media? http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/07/22/planned-gas-pipeline-construction-east-coast-puts-climate-risk-report The author of the report is basically a lifetime activist correct? Formerly of Greenpeace?

So impose a 1% sales tax on all stock market sales. Boom, I think there's enough money there if all world markets did the same thing.

ha ha approve reality? I sure hope so!

We are a responsible industry providing a product that is used by Everyone, Everywhere for EVERYTHING!!! Even GREEN requires oil to exist! We need optimization and innovation for the Capables, not just forced use and subsidization of the Incapables! See REALITY! And compare the responsible, regulated Canadian Oil Sands to the 35 year Reclamation Plan for NYC! https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEV05oZ_dX2YQAVwhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEycmQ3a3NqBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjE2MThfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=Oil+Sands+Reclamation&fr=aaplw

It has not yet dawned on people the implications of full, unmitigated global warming disaster. Add up the sufferings of human societies from all the wars in the past, then multiply by hundreds of times! Governments must do their utmost now to prevent this happening!

Exhalation causes no net increase of CO2. https://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm

Brian Cox is looking pretty stupid, by being conned by this now discredited data. It's a pity, but Its easier to be fool someone, than explain to them that they are being fooled.

Karl Mathieson is right that our report, “The Sky’s Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production,” is based on a risk judgment. As implied by the title of the report, that risk judgement was made by world leaders in Paris last December, when nations of the world agreed to: “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels...” “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C” ≠ 50-50 chance. Oil Change International ran the analysis based on a conservative interpretation of the meaning of the Paris Agreement. It would be reasonable to interpret the Paris language as demanding a 90% chance of staying below 2 °C rather than only a 66% chance, but it wouldn’t change the essential conclusion of the report that the expansion of the fossil fuel industry must stop as soon as possible. The issue is not our colleagues at Carbon Tracker. Because their audience is large investors, it serves them to build their work off the analysis of a government-supported agency like the International Energy Agency (IEA). The problem is the IEA, whose supposedly climate-safe scenario only represents a flip-of-a-coin’s chance of staying below the upper limit of the Paris Agreement. The world deserves better odds than that.

This is the standard reading of the impact on climate diplomacy of a Trump presidency: a disaster that would dishearten efforts across the world. Count me sceptical. An elected Trump would be a disaster, but led in other fields like security and migration. The basis of the Paris Agreement was a double realisation that action to cut emissions was essential to protect vital national interests, and that it was virtually costless. A temporary or even permanent US boycott would not change this. Progress towards the 1.5 degree C goal would come to a halt, and the poorest countries would find it harder to raise finance for the transition. But countries would not backtrack on their existing NDCs - which for both China and India are far less ambitious than current trends on the ground. Simple economics would continue the changeover in US electricity generation. Don't confuse Trump's empty promises to coal miners with actual policy.

Vote Trump and end the climate fraud! There are no 'heat trapping' gases to those trained in the 'hard' sciences. Only in the corrupt world of government-funded climate 'science' does carbon dioxide add/retain heat. In fact, the only known industrial application for carbon dioxide is as a coolant - used extensively in refrigeration before the time of CFC's; it makes dry ice for goodness sake. If it could magically trap/delay heat transport then it would be used as an insulator - it isn't!

The silver lining to the oil industry's BAU fantasy is that they have not put real effort into stopping the rise of electric cars. It is now too late. Provoked by Tesla and BYD, the legacy carmakers now mostly accept that the electric transition is inevitable, they just don't want it to happen so fast that their ICE assets are stranded. The charging networks get denser by the day. The tax breaks are politically solid, and the pace of improvement in batteries is so fast that subsidies will only need to last another five years. The Kochs have finally started to put money into defending gasoline, but the effort is trivially small ($10m) and unfocused.

No objection. But is a moratorium on new coal mines really the priority? The Carmichael mine is a dead man walking, the lawsuits are an exercise in shifting the blame. Falling coal burn kills mines and mine projects automatically. I suggest the priority should be to keep pressing banks and other investors on the riskiness of new coal generating plants, and governments to live up to their empty promises to end subsidies to fossil fuels any day now.

Very possibly the severe ice ages for the past 700,000 years were an aberration, and the planet is returning to the hotter way it was 800,000 years ago. Its odd that advanced civilization only started after the last ice age. We live in special times.

The PT regime built those dams with the sole purpose of getting the billions in bribes and kickbacks from their masters, the huge building corporations. The new government has already announced a halt to that absurdity. As for deforestation, there are many factors at play so I´m not that pessimistic - I`d say that they are equally unprepared/unwilling to tackle it, but commitments under the paris Agreement may help change that.

After almost 40 years of environmental activism in Latin America, I am fully convinced that governments of the so-called "right" are MUCH better for the environment than the populist thugs that portray themselves as the "left" around the continent. Governments led by people who read boolks and heed market forces are much more likely to react to actaul conservation/environmental issues than illiterate corrupt demagogues like LuLLa, Roussef or Kirchner, simply beacuse these not only are too intellectually handicapped to understand the issues and their links to the Economy, but also because the "right" does not negotiate with civil society or the world at large from a holier-than-thou, father-of-the-poor position, which characterized the dark years of the PT fascist regime in Brazil, where any NGO too critical of their environmental policies was declared an Enemy of the State and denied any meaningful dialogue opportunity. I am hpopeful that the rise of "conservatism" in the region will mean not only better climate policies, but also more national parks, biodiversity conzservation policies, and a late but certain entry into the 21st century for our societies.

Unfortunately this is a pilot project designed to be run on the cheap, at least for the time being. Researchers are hoping that more funding will come in once they are able to showcase results.

PLEASE. JUST ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE WON”T DO IT. AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY MUST BE INCLUDED IN OUR GOAL. This is much BIGGER than only climate change (or whatever symptom you want to fight today), which is one of many difficult environmental and social problems we now have. I have come to believe that getting to authentic sustainability, as the real environmental issue, is the required overarching goal if we wish to save our planet, our nation, and our communities. If we only try to mitigate symptoms like climate change, we still NEVER attain authentic sustainability. That means the oceans still die, the fish are all eaten, the planet’s diversity of life disappears with all its habitat, the traffic, sprawl, heaps of trash, and economic inequality still only get worse with always escalating housing prices, clean water becomes ever scarcer, and we still need franken foods to feed the growing population. In fact, mitigating only carbon emissions may well allow us to further escape sustainability and worsen all the symptoms. Our continuing population and economic growth overwhelms all else, including carbon emissions and our need for energy. I believe we must get to a steady state economy (see CASSE at http://steadystate.org/). Our culture of looking to (eternal) growth is the SOURCE of most of our problems, NOT the solution. The USA doubles its GDP every 40 years and doubles its population every 60 years. Growth overwhelms all else we try to do to help the environment and our society. It only feeds quantity while quality is overwhelmed. You say we don’t have time to act on the overarching issue of growth? We have said that for 50 years, yet we always find some other symptom to fight. Further, changing population trends is technologically easy and quick compared to changing atmospheric carbon levels. It is time! Individuals and, especially, organizations must rise to this reality if they value their mission or an honest quality future. Consider even the local financial, water and open space challenges in your own community. Without always pressure to support more growth, we could concentrate on our quality of life rather than in always somehow accommodating more. “Better, not bigger”. Population is the great multiplier! “Anyone who believes in unlimited growth is either a madman or an economist”. -Kenneth Boulding

Sadly it isn't just conservative religious beliefs that bear some responsibility here, but also of the political left with which I am otherwise generally in accord. Once the postwar baby boom ended in the United States, and small families became the norm elsewhere in the world, we arrived at a point where Westerners had all gotten the message and didn't need to hear it. That left other places with very different cultures, religions, and ethnicities and advocating for family planning soon became distasteful and by some associated with eugenics, cultural chauvinism, and even genocide. It was very sudden and quick. ZPG type organizations were prominent in the earliest Earth Day observances but were quickly marginalized after that.

A country cannot ratify a treaty with conditions that aren't in it. It can make a declaration clarifying its understanding of things that are in it, like climate finance. What is the leverage here - to threaten to denounce the Agreement in three years' time if the rich countries don't pay up? I read this as empty grandstanding.

Tell Vietnam to come to the USA and connect with the companies that have developed Carbon Capture Utilization Systems. Over 90% of the CO2 can be removed from the combusted coal exhaust and transformed into products that can be sold or turned into a bio fuel that can be combusted alongside the coal. This bio fuel has 2x the Btu value as that from coal, and it has no penalty and much less ash. It creates many jobs in the process.

Consider for saving the sea-ice it's not going to happen from emissions reductions so the ways to save the ice became few. For me viewing it in heat-transfer a significant global thermal switch is damming Berinig Straits to reduce the flow of heat and fresher water into the basin that melts the ice from below. This video shows recent years with the straits melting out first and freezing last: "Arctic Sea Ice timelapse from 1978-2009"; 3:58; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8SGs_gnFk With a dam and levees in place to create a sea-ice refuge it's possible to then build ice-polders where the currents and wave action is gone to allow refreezing the seabed to -2C. If that works to then attack the methane plumes on the shallow continental shelf areas building atolls around them to refreeze them. All the while expanding the refuge to include the entire Chukchi Sea and half the Bering Sea using artificial islets and shoals to disrupt currents and wave action to preserve the ice longer, all this allowing sea-mammal migrations with shipping confined it must be locked-through at the dam and levees to prevent disruption of the ice, shipping lanes kept nearshore with the fresher water by levees where sensitive to the ice. With permanent sea-ice in some ice-polders and historical winter area again, a hope is that it will alter the loopy jetstream paths in a positive manner and likewise affect how the polar-vortex behaves. By removing so much flow volume it reduces the amount of warmer Atlantic water drawn into the Arctic basin as they are connected hydraulically, the Pacific 1/2m higher than the Arctic; the straits were closed until 12k-years ago. So this project is a coastal engineering one of dredge-n-fill with erosion protection to remove the heat and change the Arctic atmosphere's thermal conditions to favor cold quickly as a project versus controlling emissions. Today's albedo-loss is worth 25-years of USA power compared to the previous average 1980-2010 sea-ice cover, about 3,800-Terajoule-hours/yr for USA power = 95,000-Twh a year in energy, 1-Watt = 1-Joule. Global steam capacity is some 18,000-Twh/year so the waste-heat is 36,000-Twh/year of direct heating; to compare: 36000÷95000 = 38% of albedo-loss for impacts, so, the strategy is worth a serious look. To begin, then refine the methods all the villages being eroded away will be restored and raised, cladded for the near future of sea-level rise and to advise on all aspects of how to thread the needle and keep the ice a lot longer.

"None of these stories produced any evidence that the blackout and the 40% of its electricity South Australia gets from wind were related." The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. So in the circumstances, how can you be certain your categorical headline is correct?

Failing to respond to AMEG's warnings about unusual arctic ice losses - - US study 350 cubic miles arctic ice lost per year, confirmed by a German study, 500 cubic kilometers arctic ice loss/year - - and not taking urgently required countermeasures due to carbon industry bullshitting of the public (1, 2) WAS THE CLIMATE CHANGE BLUNDER OF THE CENTURY. (1) The extreme severity of Global Warming: pulling the tiger by the tail. http://www.expertclick.com/NRWire/Releasedetails.aspx?id=80193 (2) The Greed Machine Behind Global Warming http://www.expertclick.com/NewsRelease/The-Greed-Machine-Behind-Global-Warming,201680604.aspx And how does this connect to YOUR health, applied anti-aging? http://www.antiagingforme.org

I hear it was quite difficult to blackstart the grid because they had so few sources of dispatchable power. Windmills did not help with that, the contrary.

Wind and solar actually grew fast under Dilma, to the point where huge new dams thousands of kilometres from the cities no longer make any economic sense. The policy seems to have survived the coup, sorry transition. Petrobras' ambitions for deep offshore oil have shrivelled not from politics and its spectacular corruption but from economics - much of this oil is too expensive to be worth tapping at current oil prices. The big worry is on deforestation. Dilma was inadequate on this, but the new team will be worse.

The solution, isn't as simple as "junking" your car. For some, in urban areas, maybe yes. But, many millions of people, live in rural areas, as I do. Not everyone could live in an urban area. I did for 17 years. I'd never go back. But, I have to go to work. (at least for another 3 years, then retire). If we want to get rid of cars, which I agree with, the government, needs to turn our economy inside out.... or someone does. People cannot simple, upend their lives to make the kind of switches that are required. We all need to do this, extremely fast. What really needs to happen, is to get rid of industrial civilization. But, that will end in chaos. However, I do think we lost our chance to "power down" in an organized, planned way.

I'm waiting for some ancient pathogen to emerge from the ice and kill us all. We had a good thing, but our arrogance caused us to squander it.

My thoughtful but not compliant comment was just removed. This site is now on my list of closed minded bigots.

Arctic ice is at lower levels, but it is not disappearing. There is more this year than in 2012. And Antarctic ice is fairly stable at historic levels. Why would we have more ice in 2016 than 2012 if things were growing progressively worse? I'm not a denier, but I just don't have a lot of faith in the religious zeal and financial rewards of falling in line with the alarmists. Those who don't usually have their careers ruined. That is an equally important deterrent to expressing doubts over the "settled" science. FYI, isn't calling science settled an oxymoron?

Why is wise preparation to mitigate future consequences presented as demagoguery?

"Peter Wadhams, an expert on the disappearing Arctic ice". Hahahaha. That's so funny. Expert? The Arctic is gaining ice! Former expert me thinks, but no longer. Why do folk still listen to this abject failure?

No

My water is unmetered.

Firstly there is no other mutually attractive force. Secondly the average lifetime of a hydrogen nucleus in the fusion process is billions of years. We need a small and fast solution that is preferably not explosive.

A carbon tax rate needed to achieve carbon neutral growth from 2020, according to CORSIA's proposal, commencing in 2016 to realize ambition, can easily be calculated. This tax revenue, collected from airline ticket sales, could go directly into a common, transparently administered global aviation CO2 emissions reduction fund.

Restoring grassland is the cheapest and most efficient method of removing carbon from the air and putting it back in the ground.

In a quick response to the Arctic emergency, people need cool, calm heads, with strong leadership from governments and large corporate bodies (technology and finance). Dramatic changes to energy use are needed: . A quick switch from fossil fuels to renewable electricity and hydrogen for power, transport, industry and chemicals. . All carbon needed for industry and other uses should be extracted as carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. . Globally boost photosynthesis in plants by a very large order of magnitude in forests, crops and rangelands for the next 10 - 50 years with modern fertilizers. . Every UN nation moves to a transparent carbon tax on CO2 emissions, which can be accounted and credited (including all above) as part of their national efforts in keeping with the Paris Agreement.

Good and disturbing journalism. There's a small error in the post that in fact underlines IRS main message. "India is expected to double coal generation by 2031". That is indeed the official plan. But neither the government nor the private sector are acting as if they still believe in it. Coal projects are stalling, as bad risks to investors. Coal India has been told to limit production to match slowing demand. The Chinese banks funding coal generators abroad are likely to lose money, as cheap renewables erode the capacity factors if coal plants, and public opinion reacts to the health dangers.

It is not bordering on dishonest...it is dishonest, and immoral. climate change talk has been around since I was a child, that was some time in the mid sixties when the first reports of the new science of Ice-core studies began with the Norwegian expeditions to the poles for core sampling. Decade after decade has passed, and with each, more compiled data affirming the growing theories of climate change and the analysis of the possible impacts. Instead of compiling policy and process, we have allowed the political and corporate class to fiddle away what time we had for preparation, and earlier, the possibility of cause reduction. We have allowed the shallow and corrupt to have their way, and we will suffer the errors of our way.

It is not bordering on dishonest...it is dishonest, and immoral. climate change talk has been around since I was a child, that was some time in the mid sixties when the first reports of the new science of Ic4e-core studies began with the Norwegian expeditions to the poles for core sampling. Decade after decade has passed, and with each, more compiled data affirming the growing theories of climate change and the analysis of the possible impacts. Instead of compiling policy and process, we have allowed the political and corporate class to fiddle away what time we had for preparation, and earlier, the possibility of cause reduction. We have allowed the shallow and corrupt to have their way, and we will suffer the errors of our way.

Colonialism isn't going to work for China any more than it did for Russia, Germany, UK, France, Belgium, Portugal, Netherlands and a host of other countries. Better for the climate scientists to get rid of their cars and cut unnecessary jet travel. If they all junked their cars at once on television it would make an impression. Irony: who could have foreseen Malthus coming out of the closet after all these years ...

The letter from Szyszko is a joke, especially the fragment concerning Poland's methods to reduce GHG emissions. Hydro accounts for ~1% of Poland's energy mix, some geothermal potential is there but at low temperature, useless with current technology. There is also a mistake made in "storage facilities for coal accumulated in wood", as it should be carbon accumulation in wood, suggesting future implementation of BECCS. Good luck with that!

So ... colonialism is somehow going to work for the Chinese when it failed for British, French, Germans, Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, Romans, Mongols, Aztecs, Venetians, Russians, Lombards, Franks, US, etc. Let me know how that goes. Meanwhile, everyone says Malthus was wrong ... does this mean everyone is wrong?

Professor Wadhams, I think it's way too dam late. We have 7.5 BILLION HUMANS on a planet that can support only about 1 billion. You don't need to be a "rocket scientist" to see that we are far beyond what is sustainable & we continue to breed like rabbits thanks to RELIGION & obstructionist RELIGIOUS governments. Even without global warming/climate change, overpopulation alone is enough to send us into collapse & mass starvation, but without global warming, their would be survivors, with global warming, only microbes will survive. Our animal instincts, gullibility, greed, ignorance & our DAM RELIGIOUS BELIEFS have doomed us to extinction along with most life on this planet. Can you or anyone prove me wrong? I would love to be proven wrong. Good luck with that!

You don't have to be an alarmist, or agree wiylth Wadham's scariest predictions, to agree that research in carbon sequestration needs to be boosted by two or three orders of magnitude. What is the point of continuing to spend hundreds of millions on nuclear and fission research? Even better solar panels, wind turbines and LED lights will be nice rather than essential to the energy transition. Better vehicle batteries count as essential, but that is coming along fine.

The United States was absolutely determined to dump the "climate justice" approach of Kyoto, which it could not ratify. The argument for special treatment by middling-income countries was feeble anyway: "it's now our turn to trash the playground". Very fortunately, the falling cost of renewables and efficiency made the free rider problem go away, and opened the way to the Paris coalition of the willing. The infeasible call for climate justice turned into a negotiable demand for concessional finance for the poorest and most vulnerable countries. Remember the motto of Rabelais' Abbey of Thélème: "Fais ce que voudrais" - do as you please.

We ran out of carbon budget once we passed thru 280 CO2.

so china is the "bad guy" here for following our lead down the toilet???

Finally, a Scientist that is telling the Truth about the Sudden and Violent Climate Change that is heading Our Way. Many of our Coastal Cities and parts of Washington will be under water by 2025 or sooner. Drought and flooding will cause hundreds of millions to starve and this will lead to War. The Three Billion new People due by 2050-60 will not like what they have been born into. People do not like to be Hungry and dying of heat-related illnesses. They tend to get extremely cranky. Shared...

It takes an incredible amount of energy to remove carbon dioxide straight from the atmosphere. Then there is the problem of what to do with the CO2! It could be converted to carbon monoxide (still needing abundant energy) and reacted with hydrogen to form hydrocarbons which can be used in transport and for chemicals. Better still, the abundant solar energy in nations such as Australia and the Middle East can be used to desalinate sea water, followed by solar energy electrolysis to produce hydrogen in a safely contained form for transport. Massive scale hydrogen production can be one of the main solutions, including photosynthesis, to climate change mitigation - if fossil fuel companies such as Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP etc, can be persuaded by their governments to give up fossil fuel production and instead move to hydrogen production using solar energy. An enormous amount of research has already been conducted by Germany and the US on using hydrogen for transport and in industry. Energy is the answer. If we can utilize the enormous amount of energy falling on Earth as sunshine each day, emissions of CO2 can be reduced quickly (quick is the key word!) before we lose more sea-ice, as warned by Professor Wadhams. We just cannot risk losing any more Arctic or Antarctic sea-ice!.

What pivot?? Do you really think that when she talks about making the US a "clean energy superpower" people don't realize she's talking about climate change? If 30% of millennials don't think there's any difference on climate change between her and Trump, dumb stories like this have to share some of the blame. You may dislike elements of her energy policies, but it's misleading to claim that she's running away from the issue.

There's a growing consensus of thought-leaders who've all lined up behind carbon pricing as the Holy Grail of climate action. It's really the most upstream solution, fixing the problem as the pinnacle -- removing the biggest free lunch in the history of our species. A carbon fee, if rebated propertly to households, would trigger countless downstream economic, social and environmental solutions. http://hamra.net/ccl/pricecarbon.htm

What makes the possibility of climate wars in the Sahel especially worrying is that the population is the fastest growing in the word (www.oasisinitiative.org ). Domestic governments and the international community must invest in women's education, voluntary family planning and preparing agriculture for new challenges before it is too late.

So, we elect her (do any of you prefer Trump, really? What will our climate look like then?) and we hound her endlessly on climate change - we surround the White House day and night if necessary. Politics, and life, are hard and ugly. We work with what we have. Just ask a generation of civil rights activists.

If everyone would follow the challenge from the oil giants, I believe we would see a lot of progress in CO2 reduction around the world.

You're being absurd. Tens of thousands of scientists the world over agree on this.

Hopes of getting ratifications by October 7 to cover the remaining 7% emissions needed for entry into force are receding. That's the deadline for entry into force before COP-22 in Morocco in November. This would have allowed COP-22 to act as the first formal meeting of the Paris Agreement parties, and set up the working machinery. It's not a disaster, as the same people meet all the time under different labels and can do most of the work informally, to be rubber-stamped by COP-23 next year. It's still a missed opportunity.

It is laughable that "scientists from Harvard and Columbia universities in the US" were reduced to mere gossipers who speculate on important stats like deaths, that's actually can be physically verified. This 100,300+ deaths claim was rubbished by officials from Health Ministries who have access to police reports and death certificates and only confirmed 19 deaths in Indonesia, 0 in Malaysia and 0 in Singapore. That's outrageous -5,278% value for Mean Percentage Error (MPE) calculation!

Fossil fuel companies receive massive subsidies in the form of huge tax breaks, while renewable companies actually have to pay their taxes: https://twitter.com/KarlMathiesen/status/778023058149822464/photo/1 On top of this, fossil fuel companies get sweetheart deals to extract fossil fuels from public lands for WAY less than the market rate. Surely you agree that at least we should put the rights to extract fossil fuels from public lands up for bid and get the market rate for them? 'Cause we don't right now.

Actually, yes, everything in the science and observations suggests an acceleration in the massive changes to the climate. It's so proven that a *comic strip* can explain it. http://xkcd.com/1732/ Flagged for flat-out lying.

I never knew Sanders conceded. When? She may have "won" but he never conceded. Warren REFUSED to run. So, it now starts where Clinton is backpedaling on all items she tried to use from Sanders. I guess four more years of stagnation is still better than a nuke war in the first six months of the idiots Presidency. But, I never believed she was going to do one single thing that Sanders stood for. She is bought and paid for by corporations and they will decide what she will do. We need a nut case to do away with both forerunner so we can have a level playing field and elect someone worthy to be President.

You are adding fuel to a ludicrous refusal by some young Democrats to recognize Clinton's very real merits on climate change. Her electoral strategy is correct: focus on the issues that worry undecided voters - national, personal and financial security. She is not banging the drum on Alzheimer's either, on which she has a detailed and pathbreaking policy. If the press bother to introduce a question on the "marginal green hobby issue" of climate change into the debates, we may see some fireworks. Clinton is miles better than the chattering class on this.

GISS-NASA database: +1.3 degrees C for Jan-Aug 2016 +1.5 degrees C could occur within the next few years.

I suggest the IPCC is missing a trick by not planning a specific chapter on sequestration. Rolling it up with mitigation muddles the optics. To me, mitigation is about getting to zero net emissions. The issue with 1.5 deg C is that we will certainly overshoot the carbon concentration compatible with it, so any pathway involves massive sequestration, on the multi-gigatonne scale of current emissions. In fact they could write the conclusion for policymakers already: "We don't know how to do this. Finding out is a crash priority."

Actually 31 countries ratified today (UNTC website). The 13 must just be those that showed up in New York for the photo-op. But it wasn't the same without Kerry's granddaughter.

Donald Trump does not even hold an elected office. He is not a policy-maker or able to act in any official capacity. He is a private citizen, albeit one with a widely heard voice. He does think differently, and his words can lead others to rethink their own ideas. Any actions or decisions hinging on Trump's words are the full responsibility of those who make those decisions and take those actions.

This is good news. Carbon Tracker have been doing a great job getting the unburnable carbon issue onto the finance agenda, but clearly the discussion is only just starting in the US.

One has to wonder why the "journalist" linked to an article about Jill stein being charged for what one could call "guerilla marketing" for her campaign in the form of spray painting a campaign message on some construction equipment and then instead chose to say Stein was charged for "participating in a protest" against Dakota pipeline. What was she charged with? It wasn't protesting right?

"Without US leadership (and with the EU still lacking the coordination required to even join the Agreement it was instrumental in creating), none of the countries in the developing world – where the majority of emission reductions must be secured – will feel under any responsibility to make the cuts required." Only an American could write this. China for one has quite clearly decided that massive decarbonisation is essential for future growth and probably the survival of the régime. The transition costs most countries nothing net in cash terms, and has huge GDP benefits if you add in health costs. That's before you look at adaptation costs and disasters. Countries reached that assessment before Paris; they signed up because it was in their national interest to do so, not because of pressure from John Kerry or admiration of his hairdo. The delay in EU ratification is a prestige own goal inflicted by Poland, but it's just a delay. I predict the other EU countries will call Poland's bluff and threaten to ratify without it in November. A Trump Presidency would be a disaster on many levels. US withdrawal would severely damage the Agreement, make it impossible (by withdrawing finance) for the poorest countries to reach their goals, and freeze the second-stage work to harden the 1.5 degree target. But US emissions would not rise, US coal would not recover, wind and solar and electric cars would still boom. The transition cannot now be stopped. BTW, 158 GW of coal-fed generation was lopped off the global project pipeline in the first six months of 2016. The people who decided this did not dither, waiting dutifully for the global hegemon to decide whether it wants a lunatic or a normal politician as its leader. They took the Paris Agreement as the likely indicator of global policy, and went ahead.

Stein is at 3%-4% in national polls, Johnson at 10%. Clinton is not "haemorrhaging" voters to Stein. Johnson is a much bigger worry, and to the extent Democrats (ex- Bernie bros?) are thinking of him, it's not because of climate but because they buy the corruption myth and because she's a post-menopausal woman. Voting for Stein in a swing state is voting for Trump, see Nader. (If you live in Marin County, go ahead.) Stop fussing. Clinton is sound on climate, Trump is out to lunch. Vote and work for Clinton.

How can she speak about climate change when she supports fracking? Bernie's "endorsement" let her off the hook. According to Fortune, she has raised twice as much money from the oil and gas industry as Donald Trump. #WHO'StheRepublican?

$7-$9 per watt, 10 watts per 1 square foot panel means $70-$90 per panel. Half a billion panels would cost $35-$45 billion. One hundred panels would power a single home with 1 kilowatt - on sunny days. Only 5 million US homes would benefit from this; mostly the top 1% of income could afford it. Does the manufacturing capability even exist to reach that figure in a reasonable amount of time? Can the demand for the necessary rare semiconductor materials be met?

China and the USA are setting an example with this exercise. It's a good portent for the multilateral peer review built into the Paris Agreement. That will take some time to get going, but nothing stops pairs or groups of countries from starting earlier between themselves. The idea is not so much as to generate conventional external diplomatic pressure as to hearten and give leverage to reformers within the reviewed country's élite.

Political? Nahh...more like corporate....Exxon-Mobile is on board with the IPCC along with a long list of special interest fossil fuel groups. That's why their reports are all watered down to the lowest possible outlook.

This ain't political clown 1751 - 9 million tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 emissions per annum 2013 - 36 billion tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 emissions per annum a 400,000% increase http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp0... BTW - over that time span we dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere The current CO2 levels are 400 ppm. The EPA graph does not get close to that. The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago, and humans didn’t exist. - Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F). - Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F). - The Arctic was ice free. - Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today. - Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs. “The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.”

I love Scotland.

You left out stupid but,yes that is correct

Shows what you learned .first the sun heats the earth which then radiates back out as infra-red so in what picky point is she wrong ,clever dick ? Science education is big at your house?

A round trip between New York and Paris is the equivalent to one years carbon allowance (and a cruise ship mile is three times that of a Boing 777). In light of this, vacations are starting to look like a crime against humanity and the planet.

Caveats and opaque offsets undermine ambition and delays CO2 emission reduction efforts. An immediate (2016) introduction of a low carbon tax ($5 - $10/ton CO2) on aviation fuels by some nations will kick-start lagging global efforts for reducing aviation CO2 emissions, whilst keeping the increased costs to commuters low and reasonable.

"Many Scots live in rural areas and depend on their cars to travel long distances." Scotland's population is incredibly concentrated in the narrow central belt from Edinburgh to Glasgow. Perhaps the sparsely populated Highlands exercise an imaginative pull, as the West does to Americans. I need to be able to drive to John O'Groats, even though I will only go there once in my life.

One under-recognised advantage of evs is that they are not only largely charged overnight using off-peak electricity (today's technology), but that it is not very difficult to make the charging flexible in response to grid conditions. Many utilities are working on this, for example in California. In this way evs will become an ideal match to the intermittency of wind power. It is a mistake to use the mean carbon intensity of grid electricity, including daytime peaks met from gas, to estimate the carbon footprint of evs - there is already a gap.

27 plus 20 makes 57, not 50. That's over the 55 state bar. No news on the 55% emissions.

Poland is the largest recipient of EU transfer payments and its citizens are among the most numerous beneficiaries of EU labour mobility laws. Countries leading the way on renewables and low-carbon energy such as Germany, France, Spain and Portugal should start using their political weight and stop pandering to the rearguard. And Germany should consider how its political support of coal and lignite mining and power generation, largely but not all in the east of the country, is inconsistent with and undermines its Energiewende. AGW deniers don't have much these days, but they can spot an own goal when they see one.

Interesting stuff, question for the author tho: how recently had you completed the 8 marathon runs in 8 days? That sort of activity would use up a LOT of energy, including the fat around your organs. It seems to me that if the running was recent, and you aren't maintaining that activity, you began in a depleted state and would have gained more fat around your organs no matter what you were eating, so this isn't really a very useful 'experiment'. You should have 'normalized' your weight first. You also aren't clear 'how much' weight was gained around organs in the Uppsala experiment - 'more' could be anything. Also, you indicate your bodyfat before was 4.6% and finished at 7.4% - of course, you were eating 3 extra muffins a day (an extra 750 calories). It should be NO surprise that you gained weight inflating your diet that much..it wouldn't matter what you were eating, your weight would go up if you ate that much more of anything, from apples to apple fritters. Should come as no surprise eating an exceptional amount of food results in weight gain. I don't mean to make an excuse for palm oil, and agree there's a lot to be concerned about and should be avoided if coming from many parts of the world, but would appreciate a more honest discussion around the health concerns - there's enough to be concerned about without piling rubbish into the discussion.

It's time for the countries that are serious about climate change, plus the Commission and the European Parliament, to stop giving in to blackmail by Poland and other stonewallers. There is no rule that al l members must ratify together, it just looks better - but applying the rule in the current circumstances just makes the EU look worse. What they should do is say that a critical mass of member states will ratify together, with the EU, on a certain date before the end of November. Poland would complain bitterly but cave in and join, to avoid public humiliation. BTW, Brazil has not yet deposited its instrument of ratification, according to the UN Treaty Section website, as of 14 September 22h Paris time. I am getting suspicious about the long delay since the Brazilian Senate voted for approval on 10 August. Domestic manoeuvres to water down the final NDC?

"IPCC must retain independence from political process"!!! Don't make me laugh. The IPCC *IS* a political process. To be independent of it would mean completely abolishing itself, which actually would be far more beneficial.

The EU should play hardball on this. Absent a global carbon tax or equivalent, it should threaten to impose steep port charges on ships arriving from countries not taking action. It probably has to be origin, not registration, because of flags of convenience. But the flags-of-convenience countries are small and can be bullied into cooperation. BAU is not an option.

Good points. Are the banks listening? A minor quibble: in the USA at least, gas peaker plants are built with expected load factors under 10%. They are much less efficient than the big combined-cycle gas plants designed for baseload, but also much cheaper.

This should happen quickly. Farmers are conservative, but water usually costs money and transplanting takes more labour. As with the Green Revolution, once farmers have seen the advantages on test plots with their own eyes, they are quick to change.

Actually she was wrong. It doesn't work like that! You need infra-red, not 'sunlight'. The wavelengths of visible light pass straight through CO2 without being absorbed. The unique feature of greenhouse gases is that unlike oxygen and nitrogen, they absorb in the infra-red.

No one forces nobody to eat palm oil above the daily recommended limit. While this article is busy demonising palm oil, it overlooks the the fact that what you eat is completely personal choices, hence lifestyle and exercise in the end decides one's fat and obesity. Can the author enlighten the readers why men (aged 16+) in palm oil producing countries like Indonesia has much lower obesity rates of 3% than US 35%, UK 27%, FR 16%, etc? despite Indonesia being the world's biggest producer of palm oil? Reference: worldobesity.org

People don't just eat muffin daily, people take other foods at lunch, tea breaks and dinner as well other drinks... How could one conclude taking 3 muffin daily could results in such changes when no body know what he being eating besides muffin.? Do you measure the sugar content in the muffin? These three muffins are eaten in additional to his normal diet. This article is a real bias without any scientific justification. Make a scientific studies with proper controls and publish in a reputable journal and than tell the world. Not doing a bias study at home and telling the world... Should remove this article from here

Michael Dorgan, I wonder what were the other stuff that you ate as part of your routine diet (besides the muffin). You should then also compare this diet with your group and also those of the sunflower group. Unless both groups have similar diets and lifestyle, then only this piece of information is wothwhile. Other wise, this data is not credible to be published or highlighted.

“It is possible that the human race could become extinct but it is not inevitable. I think it is almost certain that a disaster, such as nuclear war or global warming will befall the earth within a thousand years.” I agree Steve. But I was thinking more like 900 years but a millenia..yea, you're smarter thän I.

We’re already at 1.1°C, with an additional 0.5°C increase masked by aerosols from burning fossil fuels and another 0.4°C “in the pipeline” from the current energy imbalance. And then there is the additional warming that will come both from future fossil fuel emissions and from global warming feedbacks. So what is the point of doing a 1.5°C study when the costs of capturing and sequestrating enough CO2 to meet that goal are almost certainly more than we can afford?

Christiana Figueres remains our heroine. Her achievement - not hers alone, but she catalysed and represented it - in securing the epochal Paris Agreement is already greater than that of most UN Secretaries-General. I'm sure she will find another avenue for her great talents combined with a great heart.

I feel the coal is dead argument is delusional at best, if not completely insane. Look at what's happening in South Australia where energy costs are at least double the cost of neighbouring states. This deters business. The idea that companies who have large reserves of cheap energy are going to move to high cost options and provide an advantage back to competitive economies is indeed deluded. Coal has been dead before but comes back in accordance to the commodity cycle, get over it

Sacrifices have to be made to ensure the long-term survival and flourishing of human civilization. Hate to say, but there will have to be an implosion of the fossil fuel industry if we're going to keep global warming manageable enough to survive as a species. It's a hard truth. But the effects of unmitigated global warming would render countries like Saudi Arabia uninhabitable anyway. So, incur some economic losses, or destine the human race to only survive in pockets of habitable environment in the far reaches of the Arctic? Because that's the effect of 4C+ global warming.

The continued delay in ratification is beginning to suggest something other than bureaucratic incompetence is at work. Are rancher lobbyists trying to water down Brazil's INDC?

European policymaker reads the IPCC report. 1: Winners from aggressive mitigation: your country; poor countries; green tech shareholders. 2. Losers: Saudi Arabia, Russia, oil company shareholders. "What's the problem?"

Hmm. Won't go down well with your typical denier: an older, white, conservative-leaning male.

Look at all the Chemtrails in the photo above! No, nothing to see here folks, move along!

HAARP?

In reading the article I would suggest to do your own discernment between climate and climate change.

Have you considered turning the incentive around and giving a schilling credit for a valid data reading?

People get ready! People on mass need now to lobby / petition / demonstrate for governments to shut down the biggest carbon emitters ( coal and oil)... At the same time inject capital incentives to those private sector companies who achieve carbon reduction benchmarks to help them transform into carbon neutral renewable energy development. We know the problem; we know solutions to the problem...the time for " talk" has long past ...as time itself marches on at our peril. Nuclear us not the answer! Every nuclear power station is a potential military or terrorist target ( twin towers). Nuclear power stations co$t Billion$ to decontaminate at the end of their lifetime even if nothing goes wrong. The existance of spent uranium is a transport threat and can be used for dirty bombs. Battery technology has advanced in many ways and their needs commercialisation of this. The same can be said for solar salt furnaces and solar cells. This technology creates a new wave in employment and profit while improving the health of our environment and reducing the risk of "fully awakening methane monster " and rhe exponential heating to the planet this would bring... We are already at the beginning of an exponential heating phase ( Google and listen / see the " doomsday graph 2020 "... Time will soon lead us to the point of no containment of future heating ...,it is that serious.

That may be your religion but its not mine. Nothing in the science or the observations suggests an acceleration or discontinuity to the drift of negligible changes in the climate.

How exactly can Australian coal from Galilee be less polluting than coal elsewhere? It's like saying that Australian arsenic is better for you than Russian arsenic. Fortunately for the world, Adani's legal victory is Pyrrhic. The mine won't be built because it would lose money, and the banks have walked away. The prospective market, India, is drying up: the policy is to eliminate imports. It's entirely realistic as domestic coal stocks in India are increasing as demand slows.

Great that the Forest Landscape Restoration program is playing a vital role in averting these trends with up to 21 countries showing a commitment to restore up to 63.5 million hectares!! Kenya is on the move to set standard for other SSA counterparts.

Boy is this article full of false information! Methane readings in Barrow, Alaska consistently show that the peak season for Methane increase is Winter and there is a slowdown in Summer. Satellites have pointed to the source of the release of most of the Arctic Methane and it is from the Arctic Ocean, not from the land. Thought there is some methane release from land it is far smaller than the Arctic Ocean sea floor release.

Please, tell me. The only numbers are existing ones with solar more expensive, but they are prices, not costs.... in case you didn't notice the difference.

'Carbon Bomb', 'same carbon output as France' etc... Nonsense statements. The World needs power, in whatever format it comes. There is demand. Galilee coal and Australian regulations are better for the environment than those elsewhere. Get your head out of your ass Sophie.

Great news. The discussion on India especially understates the slowdown in demand for electricity. It's true that GDP growth is slowing in both China and India, but demand is slowing faster, that is the electricity intensity of GDP is falling. This follows the experience of OECD countries, where electricity demand has been flat for five years. The technology improvements that create greater efficiency are universally available: LED lighting, load-following pumps and motors, smarter controls as in TV standby and a/c building management, better insulation for buildings and fridges, and so on. Add the structural shift away from heavy industry to services and consumer goods, and it is certain the trend will continue. Probably faster than planners anticipate, so the coal glut will turn into a financial disaster sooner rather than later.

What is the point of commenting on this site as you won't approve any comment not in-favor of continued fossil fuel use?

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

In 2015 in an exhaustive study the IMF put annual global fossil fuel industry subsidies at $5.3 Trillion. If you have a problem with their assessment, done by senior economists, perhaps you should argue why they are wrong with them?

If you believe that all economically-recoverable fossil fuel reserves on our planet must be extracted and burned, you are guilty of sentencing your kids and mine to an unlivable planet as soon as 2035-2050.

Why are the other member states allowing themselves to be blackmailed by Polish reactionaries over ratifying the Paris Agreement? There is no legal requirement for the EU and all its member states to ratify simultaneously; it's a political choice, to make the EU look more united than it is. The others should just set a date certain when the EU and a critical mass of its members will ratify together. My guess is the Polish government would fold and join in to avoid international obloquy.

"The decline in American coal consumption is speeding up." JamesWimberley True, but emissions from NG recovery and use are currently greater than US coal emissions and accelerating. Despite all the feel-good greenwashing of the latest global climate agreements, both methane and CO2 emissions are skyrocketing globally. Coal that isn't being burned in the US or China is being shipped to India and throughout the third world which is rushing at break-neck speed to develop/exploit and use (or sell) their own coal, gas and oil reserves ahead of internal and external regulation and taxation. Paris really hasn't changed most projections because there have been no substantive national or global changes implemented in accord with the Paris agreement. Many studies I've been looking at seem to indicate that on the current path (no reason to consider to a new path until actions indicate that there is a new path being followed), 1.5C has already been exceeded (if not completely, practically), and lacking a significant carbon tax or other remediation, 2.0C will most likely be exceeded circa 2020-2030, and 3.0C is very likely to be exceeded circa 2050-2060.

There are a lot of taxes on fossil fuels, payable by fossil fuel companies as well as by consumers. Renewable companies pay no taxes on their intermittent and unreliable "product", on the contrary, they continue to get subsidies.

Yes. The archetypal case supporting Keohane's approach is just war. War is an evil. It involves the deliberate killing and maiming of the adversary's military personnel, very few of whom bear any personal responsibility for the state behaviour that triggered the conflict. It involves the unintended killing and maiming of enemy civilians. It involves the acceptance of military and sometimes civilian casualties on one's own side. It often involves the reduction of civil liberties on claimed grounds of military necessity, and a coarsening of public discourse. For all that, most of us would say that on occasions a just war is the lesser evil. How much lesser is the evil of accepting a second-best international agreement like the Paris accord? To quote Sir Robert Watson-Watt, the key scientist responsible for the war-winning development of radar in the air defence of Britain in the 1930s: "second best tomorrow."

As a Kiwi I am afraid to report that the New Zealand Government intends to meet its weak target with more creative accounting. NZ will carry forward 85.7 million 'surplus' units from the Kyoto Protocol first commitment period to 2020 to 2030. If that's not enough fake currency to cover our growing unregulated agricultural emissions, the Government is searching for more forest carbon loopholes to count between 2020 and 2030. Not that any adjustment is ever made to the 1990 baseline, which is remains as GHG emissions excluding landuse, landuse change and forestry.

If you believe 75% of the recoverable fossil fuel on earth will not ever be burned, you are a fool.

What total nonsense, fossil fuels are not subsidised, they are the lifeblood of a modern economy giving wealth and prosperity to the developed economies and providing the affordable energy for undeveloped economies to grow! What will risk this increased prosperity and the pulling of the poor out of poverty is the stupid proposal to restrict the exploitation and consumption of cheap fossil fuels!

Hey, I know guys like that, some with beer bellies who refuse to believe their gut is linked to heart disease. Another "inconvenient truth" and good luck with that. Denial is a way of life in America, where we have the god-given right to destroy everything in sight (including ourselves) in pursuit of power, money and pleasure. Yet, the US "deniers" tend to be the same old white guy (OWG) crowd. Like Trump and the Tea Party they will soon disappear into the dustbin of history. Question is, how much damage will we allow them to do in the meantime? Since unfortunately the OWG's still have most of the money and thus power in the US, the rest of us have to get even more active, louder and demand action. The tide is turning, but we're running out of time.

The "environmental groups" are push-overs. This is much too late, and too little. Growth in air travel and air freight should be capped immediately, not in 2020 - the air industry has stalled this off for years already. And offsets should not be part of the so-called solution.

"2C is no longer a likely achievable goal.." You are probably relying on the analyses of the INDCs filed before the December COP21 in Paris, which are SFIK generally being repeated unchanged in the final NDCs deposited on ratification. Neither China nor the USA mentioned any tightening of their NDCs. But these are a gross overestimate. China's promise is to peak emissions "by 2030 and if possible before". But its coal consumption has fallen for two straight years, and many observers think emissions will - on current policies - peak by 2020. Some think they have already done so. The decline in American coal consumption is speeding up. India's INDC accepted no emissions limit at all, and policy at the time was for a massive growth in coal burning. But demand is slowing, coal stocks are piling up, and Coal India has (as reported here) been told to reduce its growth in output to follow demand. If you make prudent corrections to the INDCs just for these three countries, the gap between current policies and 2 degrees of warming has narrowed a great deal. The target we are certain to overshoot is 1.5 degrees. That will need a massive, multigigatonne investment in carbon sequestration, for which we don't even have the technologies apart from reafforestation. It would need a carbon tax to fund. Or simply tell the fossil fuel producers : extract as much carbon as you like - and bury the equivalent of every single tonne.

A curate's egg as expected. (Old Punch cartoon: Hostess. "How was your egg, Mr. Binks?" Nervous young curate: "Good in parts, Ma'am.") The EU's dithering is explained if not justified by foot-dragging from Poland, with a right-wing government relying on an electorate emotionally and economically wedded to coal. India's makes no sense to me. It lost the argument in Paris to lard the text with language that would have placed all the responsibility for cutting emissions on rich countries, as in the failed Kyoto Protocol. The Paris Agreement abandons the "climate justice, you first" rhetoric for "all in the same boat, from each according to his ability". But India approved the text and has signed it. Delay in ratification simply means that as a non-Party India will have less chance of getting a seat on the key committees that draw up rules of procedure and a work programme. Don't tell me Modi could not get the domestic paperwork okayed in a week if he wanted to. There is some obscure political infighting going on. BTW, Brazil's senate approved ratification on August 10 or thereabouts. The Foreign Ministry still has not deposited its instrument of ratification at the UN in New York. I put this down to the laziness and incompetence of a senior bureaucracy filled on the spoils system rather than open competition on merit.

Curious that you missed the actual numbers in the report.

He is already by getting educated on the subject, unlike most anthropogenic climate change deniers.

Talk about making money- most of the miniscule percentage of scientists who state anthropogenic climate change does not exist are funded by fossil fuel industries. Conflict of interest anyone? Money talks, even if it means selling your soul.

What happened? Did the insurers present this urgent request to the G20? And the response?

Words that are not supported by substantive actions to remediate the problem and adapt to the changes already in the pipeline and occurring,...are merely another broken promise. Even 2C is no longer a likely achievable goal, and projecting from the current rates, 3C will likely be exceeded within the next 3-4 decades.

They never give up, do they? How long would a government minister last who accepted the plea for "fast-track licensing" and "reduced regulation"? This is shorthand for lowering safety standards in the face of the industry's track record of occasional but enormous disasters.

The average capacity factor of wind turbines in the UK over 2007-2012 was 27.5% (government data reported by Wikipedia). The trend is up, from design improvements, better maintenance and meteorology. In Germany, also from the retirement of some badly designed early turbines. Current projects are typically around 40% CF onshore, more offshore. Your factoid "10% of requirement" is meaningless b/s. Developers and grid managers are well aware of the expected capacity factors before they start construction. Your "90 active shalegas wellheads" has similar credibility. Fracked wells have very short lifetimes, so constant drilling of new wells, and injection of the fracking water and chemicals, is needed to maintain output, even if the wellhead is shared. As for "conspicuously failing to raise the surface temperature", words fail me.

Bill Marshall: How would eliminating subsidies cause the price to crash? With the subsidies, oil company overhead is effectively reduced—they pay little or nothing in taxes, the government helps foot the bill for finding and developing new sources, it negotiates oil treaties, and so on. Are you saying that without the government umbilicus to help sustain their profits that oil companies will happily take a pay cut by dropping prices? Doubtful. So, please explain the economics behind your idea that removing subsidies will cause oil prices to crash.

Any numbers on construction of new coal generating plants in India? The UMPP megaproject programme (link) is stalled, as the private-sector corporations who would actually build the the multi-gigawatt behemoths sit on their hands and wait for demand to materialise. But I understand that smaller new plants are still being opened. The combination of slow growth in overall electricity demand, from efficiency improvements in everything from LED lights to air-conditioners to industrial pumps - improvements that are far from over - and rapid deployment of renewables is bad news for coal developers, which means good news for everybody else. For solar especially creams off the most profitable midday load, lowering capacity factors and wholesale prices. Older coal plants can't ramp on and off easily, and in Germany often have to sell output at a loss. New plants can be built to ramp, but the economics are less and less attractive. This is the German death spiral, which has led generators to petition the government to allow massive closures, or pay subsidies to keep the coal plants for security. It can't happen too soon in India as well.

Allegations without court conviction == paid sensationalism. 'No Deforestation' pact is illegal and overstepped nation's sovereign laws, however HCS+ is the better option. Clearing land for agriculture will never stop in respond to world's growing population, providing answers to food and energy security. Unless tree kangeroos can provide both meat and biofuel, Mighty and Greenpeace need to start offering viable solutions.

I believe your estimates are way too low. Numbers from 1.9 trillion to 5.5 trillion, depending upon how one estimates come to mind. In addition its likely we have already locked in 8 to 12 C, within a decade I suspect. We lost any carbon budget once we passed thru 280 ppm CO2. Once arctic sea ice is gone, due to loss of albido we can expect a doubling of excess retained energy, from 1.1 petawatts to 2.2, along with additional water vapour about 7% per every 1 C increase global temps and ever increasing CH4 from these waters its clear we are now in a global emergency. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Ilovelife2/

Reforestation means growing new trees which need watering, a lot of fertilizers and care (weeding), plus lots of time! With the Arctic sea-ice disappearing fast and a climate tipping point possible, there isn't much time left for reforestation. Deforestation should be banned by the UN Security Council. Fertilizing established standing forests around the globe aerially or with fertilizer tablets containing all major and trace elements at a cost of $3 - $4 a hectare will boost plant photosynthesis dramatically in forests and rangelands, compared to zero fertilizer at present. Lowering CO2 rapidly this way will solve the immediate climate crisis within 5 - 10 years, giving time or renewable energies and transmission to be deployed globally by business and governments.

The continued drop in the cost of wind and solar electricity is worth mentioning in a roundup. Successful bids in auctions for utility solar have been made in Dubai and Chile at 3$c per kwh, far below anything new coal or gas can offer. Admittedly these countries have ideal insolation and the delivery dates are several years ahead, but there is no end in sight to the fall in prices. Solar panel manufacturers are bracing for another temporary glut and price drop next year, as China puts the brakes on. The finding of the last IPCC report that an energy transition would be a wash in unreconstructed GDP terms, with cash savings roughly equal to cash costs, is now obsolete: it's a massive net saving. That's before you start counting the health costs of air pollution, and expected damage from climate change itself, which the IPCC strangely left out.

“France’s reliance on nuclear is stifling the emergence of wind and solar .." This is silly, and betrays an unhealthy obsession of some green activists with dying nuclear technology. Like their old but defeated adversaries in the nuclear lobby they just can't let go. France represents a tiny share of the world markets for wind and solar equipment. Whether it runs down its ageing but low-carbon nuclear fleet fast or slowly can have no impact on the prices and economies of scale of wind and solar globally. Nor will it have any effect on France's carbon emissions. (Well, a faster switch would somewhat increase gas burning, pending the rollout of new pumped storage.) The argument is a non sequitur. The article indicates that green activists should be concentrating today on two policy changes: ending the construction of new coal generating plants, and ending subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels. Like St. Augustine, the leaders of the G20 have said "Lord, make me chaste, but not yet". But change is doable here, unlike the pipedream of a coordinated global carbon tax.

Come on, Billy...it's G.A.S.!!(you know, Give A Sh1t!) Our half of the world, the part we usually like to hang out in, like this very much. And it may spur our civilization to live up to the concept of civilization...for instance, I predict a boom in re-shooting crime thrillers, because there won't be ANY car chase scenes...!

The collapse will be temporary, as those subsidies are mainly tax breaks for exploration and recovery.

The main benefit from better cookstoves is not cutting carbon emissions but better health. The WHO estimates (link) that 4.3 million premature deaths a year are caused by indoor air pollution, mainly from kerosene (used heavily for lighting) and biofuelled cookstoves. The number is similar to the worldwide deaths attributable to outdoor air pollution, from cars, trucks and coal power stations. Better wood or charcoal cookstoves would reduce emissions slightly from more efficiency. But it's wood anyway: which can be harvested sustainably, in a carbon-neutral way over time. Unsustainable wood harvesting has to be addressed by replanting policies, coppicing and the like. It looks a much more realistic objective to do this and upgrade the wood-burning stoves than to try to replace them with fancy solar stoves that don't work at night, or electric ones from high-powered solar panels plus batteries. Microsolar is excellent for replacing kerosene lighting. The step up from the widespread "LED lights plus phone charger" starter kit is to enough for a high-efficiency fridge and a TV; say 200 watts, a single standard-sized panel.

It will look very different after the US, China and Brazil ratify, probably this week.

The Marshall Islands played a key role in getting the aspirational 1.5 degree C target into the Paris Agreement. Kerry and Todd Stern behind the scenes? No doubt. It was still a major coup. They have real street cred here.

It's a puzzle. This is a pretty competitive market among informed professional. You would expect more efficient ships to command higher charter rates. What is going on? Some possibilities: 1. The charterers are stupid. (Included for completeness, but it's very unlikely.). 2. Charter rates are at a floor set by a minimum return to the shipowners, below which they will mothball. 3. Fuel efficiency data are incomplete, not systematic, or simply not salient at the time charters are signed. 4. The decisions of charterers are dominated bu other ship characteristics like availability. 5. Small sample size, the data are too noisy for conclusions.

so when these governments do this it will collapse the [rice of fossil fuels and poor countries with no emissions will buy the cheap oil and pollute worst than we ever will. There are 5 billion people living without the benefits of fossil fuels and Saudi Arabia has nothing else to sell since nobody needs sand. The third world doesn't care if we have to build sea walls in miami nor should they. they don't even have running water or toilets.

Finally, S&P showing signs of actually doing their job, as though they so spectacularly failed to do in the 2007-2008 meltdown of the banking system.

What do you base this on, when, for instance, 2015 was the hottest year on record, but the first half of 2016 was hotter still than the first half of 2015? http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records

Um... It really isn't: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/16/july-2016-was-worlds-hottest-month-since-records-began-says-nasa

It is always worth remembering that the Arctic ice free predictions in the 1990's were 2080 then it came down to 2050 and now we are here and right now.

"for folks with limited understanding"; you are right on the button there mate. What is utterly gob smacking is how limited your understanding of the last 150 years and the geological record is.................

As usual, the only way for runaway climate change to get any credibility is to attach dollar signs.

Perhaps Cities and sub-national action should be included. There seems to be some positive progress being made at these levels.

"Renewables have reached 19.1% of global energy consumption. Nearly half of that figure comes from burning wood or other biomass, typically in household cooking fires or stoves." So essentially, only 10% of energy consumption is from non-carbon emitting renewable energy sources.

I like Figueres very much and she would make a good SG. Unfortunately for her, Bukova meets the desiderata of geographical rotation and track record, as well as being a woman.

The problem is that there are too many people on this earth. And the population continues to grow. That´s why we have a lot of problems, not just global warming. Not enough food, wars, global epidemics, and so on, and so on ... I am ready to help.

Plants already do this !! Why reinvent a wheel that has been adapted over millions of years ? would it not be best to concentrate our endeavours on how to make far more efficient use of all the resources we have on the planet and reduce our emissions of CO2 by huge amounts, also by reforestation and reversing desertification which is increasing at an alarming rates both in rural and urban areas,

It is striking to see the disconnect between the 11 "substantive issues" listed by Krug, and the "key questions" the report is expected to tackle. Answers to the key questions listed above will not address the substantive issues. These key questions require input from Working Group I; the substantive issues, on the other hand, require input from Working Groups II and III. Still, this is only the superficial disconnect. The actual disconnect is between developed countries wishing to frame the discourse on 1.5°C in terms of climate science, and developing countries who see it as being about the lack of ambition, the unwillingness to accept responsibility, the unavoidability of loss and damage, and the need for climate finance and technology transfer. A scientific assessment of these and other contentious policy issues is possible and necessary, but it would not require much of Working Group I's expertise.

“In 50 years we will have developed a better way of capturing CO2 instead of getting a tree and burning it. It is remarkably unimaginative,” added Allen.

Utter hubris.

For those who follow actual climate events, as opposed to predictions, the warming of recent years is giving way to cooling. Natural cycles. Warm, then cool, then warm..... It's all there in the geologic record. For folks with limited understanding of earth science, the past 150 years is all they relate to.

A recent survey by U Michigan shows that a majority of Americans believe there is solid evidence for climate change (http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2016-spring-climate-belief.pdf). Climate scientists are even more strongly aligned, with a number of recent surveys showing over 95% have concluded that climate change is real and human activity is a major cause. That Trump continues to ignore this is concerning for the environment. But what is even more concerning is what it says about Trump's inability to process factual information. How can he be trusted to use sound judgment in other complex fields like economics and foreign relations, where facts are less clear and expert opinion is less consistent?

There is a need for a global Fossil Fuels Policy (FFP).

July 2016 was 1.26C hotter than the 1880s averages (NASA, NOAA). A target of holding warming to 1.5C or well below 2C was agreed at the Paris Conference just 8 months ago, when average warming was 1.0 - 1.1C then (December 2015). Ecosystem changes (as for increased average global warming temperature or sea-ice extent in the Arctic) seldom follow a defined straight line for long; rather they usually tend to follow a more dangerous "S" curve, either in an upwards direction for warming or in a downwards direction for Arctic sea-ice extent with time. The September Arctic sea-ice extent (millions of square km) has been heading downwards steeply since 1996, and it should be no surprise then if it starts to curve downwards even more steeply in the near future, due to rapidly increasing global average temperatures as warned by NASA and NOAA.

I felt this was a good analysis of the risk involved. Still, the general trends, for this and dozens of other Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD) effects should not be downplayed.

the problem Russia faces is sustainability and another daja vu if it continues the way its is going , NATO will respond and Russia will again be forced to spend what it can ill afford

"Last December 195 countries agreed to limit global warming to well below 2C above pre industrial levels ..." I'm sorry, Ed, but that's not correct: https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/cop-21-developing-countries-_-2.pdf The reference to 2ºC was an aspiration - very different from an agreement.

The Paris Agreement of United Nations will only be a success if we are able to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere, stopping dangerous climate change in its tracks. Two viable options available to remove excess CO2 quickly are improving natural photosynthesis with trillions x trillions x trillions of leaves in forests, green vegetation and crops. Artificial photosynthesis turning CO2, sunshine and water into hydrocarbon fuels involves several complicated steps which would take at least two decades to deploy globally: time we do not have. Removing CO2 quickly with natural photosynthesis, combined with slowing emissions quickly by introducing carbon taxes, banning deforestation, stepping up renewable energy deployments, electric transport, efficient lighting in cities etc. will sharply curtail CO2 levels for safety within 5 - 10 years. For the first time in human history, humanity has a common enemy: global warming by CO2, methane, HFCs, nitrous oxide, causing deadly heatwaves, flooding etc. Unless we unite now to solve this threat, our civilizations will have to endure unbearable suffering before final extinction.

What if alien intelligence says, "The solution to the problem is to reduce your population?" What then?

I was disappointed in the responses to standard denialist talking points. Surely someone in the scientific community can do a better job addressing them directly? Best, D

At best it keeps CO2 in a closed cycle. There is still too much of it. Reduction in emissions and sequestration are the priorities. Since the leading available strategies for mitigation involve replacing combustion with sustainable electricity, artificial photosynthesis competes with biofuels for what is likely to be a small residual market: aviation, shipping. earthmoving. Even that is uncertain: electric planes have flown and Norway has electric ferries.

The next round of climate diplomacy will be focussed on the 1.5 degree target and the privileged sectors, aviation and shipping. It should be very uncomfortable for both.

Baynes is behind the curve on electric aircraft. Airbus have flown, and plan to sell, a two-seater battery-powered trainer. They are working on a commuter plane design. The power density gap for long-haul airliners much be much less than the 15x he cites. The bigger mistake or bias is marginalising the astonishing progress of electric cars and their spectacular growth rate. With strong incentives, they are now over half the Norwegian new car market, and also booming in China. Tesla too over 300,000 advance orders and deposits from American customers for it next BEV, the mass-market Tesla 3. BYD sell 8,000 electric buses a year, mainly in China but the switch has begun in big non-Chinese cities like London. Following its Dieselgate scandal, VW has announced three new electric platforms. There's a race on.

On the press gag, the journalists should refuse to cooperate. Finley should get lost.

I trust that Kerry politely warned President Duterte than going all-in on coal not only won't get any financial support from the usual parastatal and multilateral export lenders, it will prejudice other forms and channels of aid and finance. Commercial bankers too are likely to eye investments in coal very critically - this has effectively already killed the Carmichael coal mine project in Australia. Coal plants face three risks: a future politically-driven tightening of emissions regulations, as in the USA; a creaming-off of their most profitable daytime loads by cheap renewable generators with zero marginal costs, as in Germany; and a collapse of the world coal export industry, which the Philippine market is too small to support by itself. China and India are moving rapidly to zero imports. Vietnam has stopped all new coal generation projects.

Or vote for the candidate who has a chance of being elected and a programme for combatting climate change. A vote for Stein is in effect a vote for Trump.

The Paris Agreement will never be ratified. It may be a minor linguistic technicality, but it really confuses people in the US to use that word because that assumes an act of congress, which will NOT happen. Using the language in the agreement, countries will "deposit their respective instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, where appropriate"

This is a nice article. I consider it contains a lot of valid points. There are many types of improved cookstoves. Whereas "improved" used to refer to improved efficiency (which means less firewood or charcoal consumption, hence less CO2 emissions if the firewood/ charcoal is from a non-renewable source), the word has been gradually replaced by clean cookstoves in communication. This sounds more appealing. But not all types are clean. Actually, most do not have a significant impact on household air pollution. Stove stacking is a big issue, most people cook more on more than one fire or burner. Most improved cookstoves only have one burner. The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves is creating awareness of these issues, and systematically working to promote cleaner stoves and fuels. The author forgot to add biogas as a clean fuel. Hivos has used carbon finance to support the introduction of biogas in rural Cambodia and measured its impact on household air quality and human health. The report is available at www.hivoscarboncredits.org/cambodia (scroll to "Documents" at the bottom). Harry Clemens, Hivos

The publically documented decline in health of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has led to its labelling, in media and academic literature, as a last chance tourism destination. That is, a place tourists travel to experience before it is gone. While the GBR has been labelled as such, no empirical evidence has identified that this is actually occurring! ---------------- Quote by: Annah Piggott-McKellar PhD candidate the University of Queensland and Karen McNamara Senior lecturer the University of Queensland, Australia.

The Paris climate agreement will become international law by the end of 2016 if countries stick to the promises they have made. So far just 22 states, representing just 1.08% of global greenhouse emissions, have taken this step. Promises, promises.....

China must sign and ratify for their people and future generations, getting off coal will not be easy but must be done for air quality, and global warming climatechange parisagreement still needs to be signed through ratified by many but its coming, push your goverments people.

How... could they possibly know whether from reliable data... what sunspots happened in the 1700s? Galileo with a telescope is not reliable data in comparison to how current solar activity data is gathered. In 200 years or so we can start talking about longterm solar activity patterns, using data from the 1700s is just guessing.

In December last year, 195 nations at the Paris climate summit promised a programme of action to contain greenhouse gas emissions and limit climate change.

No, they didn't: https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/16/cop21-developing-countries/#more-21999

What forum?? Hundreds are being slaughtered under a dictator government. WE don't want your forum. We want our freedom. They better shift it to sane country under a sane government.

There are a lot of valid points in this article. I just want to add that you forgot to add biogas as a clean fuel. We have used carbon finance to support the introduction of biogas in rural Cambodia and measured its impact on household air quality and human health. The report is available at www.hivoscarboncredits.org/cambodia (scroll to "Documents" at the bottom). Harry Clemens, Hivos

".. the decision can wait a decade ..... by which time the construction costs, electricity prices, reliability and practicality of natural gas and non-fossil fuel sources [i.e. wind, solar and nuclear] of electricity may have improved..." May? The learning curves for wind, solar, and nuclear are well attested. Nuclear is negative, but solar energy gets cheaper at about 10% a year and wind by something like 5% (with much noisier data). These cost reductions swamp hypothetical higher grid integration costs, which will also be sensitive to technological progress.

The comparative costs have also moved decisively on favour of wind and solar, partly because farms can be sited near centres of population on the east coast. Unsubsidised wind regularly beats thermal generation in auctions, and solar is getting close. Brazil's huge legacy hydro capacity (like it or not) also provides ample backup to deal with the variability of wind and solar. This is commonly exaggerated anyway. The Belo Monte dam is projected by its sponsors to have a capacity factor of only 39%, no better than well-sited wind farms in the Nordeste.

Agreed. It's perfectionism to ask for more. However, the organizers did miss one important trick. I listened to all the speeches that preceded the lighting of the flame, and none of them picked up on the environmental themes of the show. Peace, education, sure. It is also true that Eduardo Paes, the ambitious mayor of the host city, wears a big green hat - he chairs the group of 40 big cities committed to action against climate change - but the cattle on the ground are thin. There is SFIK no plan yet to replave Rio's large number of smog-spewing diesel buses.

The $ has no ethics or morality

The development banks are reducing their funding for coal-fired electric generation plants, currently the most economic source of reliable electricity, badly needed by the developing nations. However they absolutely refuse to even consider funding nuclear power projects. Both nuclear and hydro are dispatchable source of power that are more economical that unsubsidized wind or solar power. Developing nations (and the development banks) can not afford the hidden subsidy dance taking place in the US, Germany, and other wealthy countries claiming to reduce CO2 emissions but in reality simply follow a green belief system. New nuclear power has the potential to undersell new coal power, providing even more electricity for developing nations' limited investable capital. That's ThorCon International's strategy. Development banks: open your minds to nuclear power!

Someone didn't understand how the CDM works - it is true that the project did not deliver fully as expected, so the third-party verified monitoring report concluded that it should receive only 61% of the certificates initially expected. Initial "approval" (i.e. validation) doesn't mean anything in financial terms.

Climate Denial = emitting more CO2 than anybody else and taxing everybody else for it.

Somehow there will be much moore international cooperation round the climate change. It will soon come because the most world leaders will get afraid from the climate reports that is coming up during 2016. There will be much moore cordination among world countries to reach the goals in Paris agreement. In the coming yaers there will be taken some very progresiv measures to meet the runaway climat change. Perhaps flying will be restricted, also other polluting vechicels will be somehowe restricted.

Ruckelshaus should be on death row for removing from use DDT and causing deaths of millions of children around world

Can we please stop calling these climate science deniers "sceptics?" Scientists are skeptical. They speak in precise but tentative terms. They learn from new evidence and sometimes change their minds. They verify. They reject hypotheses without evidence. Deniers do none of those things. Deniers accept any story that reinforces their existing beliefs, driven by a quest for tribal identity. Deniers are the most credulous people around. They're the opposite of skeptics.

Turning CO2, water, and sunshine (photon energy) into hydrocarbon fuels involves understanding thermodynamic efficiency. Catalysts, mimicking enzymes in leaves, turns CO2 into CO and nascent, electron-rich O2-. O2-, a transitory product of the reaction, is quickly taken up by electron-deficient ionic Ca2+ in solution and is stabilized energetically, driving the reaction forward and lowering the energy of activation, Ea, for the reaction thereby improving (much needed) catalytic efficiency. Photosynthesis is the most important biochemical reaction in nature, and if scientists can mimic this reaction industrially to produce fuel efficiently, CO2 can quickly become a valued resource instead of being a dangerous pollutant causing climate change.

And why shouldn't they? They're the ones consuming it, after all.

I totally disagree with this view. The Olympics are not the UNFCCC COPs nor any Rio+. They are the sports celebration, right? So, by bringing environment and climate change into its heart ceremony, it was a great thing. It was amazing by itself and all the cliches above are far from true. This was the first time ever that traditional indigenous houses were put into MAracana. This was the time when 4 billion heard at the same time about climate change. Deforestation was portrayed. And that's it.

So this is the upshot analysis of.....the Marshall Islands foreign ministry? You've really got to be kidding. Hold the presses!

Yeah...22 nations with 1.022 % of emissions. http://unfccc.int/2860.php

This seems considerably at odds with the UN's own website http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php "As of 3 August 2016, there are 180 signatories to the Paris Agreement. Of these, 22 States have also deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval accounting in total for 1.08 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions." It would seem that the small island states are worrying that the largesse from the developed nations might not materialise, just as the scary claims about disappearing islands because of CO2 are also not happening. Climate Analytics was started and is run by former Greenpeace Political Director Bill Hare, who was an advisor to the small island states many years ago.

All independent EU nations such as UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy etc. can ratify the Paris Agreement domestically, which would then provide incentives for all remaining independent EU member nations to ratify domestically too.

Heavy FUD here ^^^.

Maybe. But there could be a few other reasons. Has he spoken or tweeted today? Heck, I can't wait.

Please don't flee to the wrecker of Haiti, Honduras, Libya, and Syria. Please don't flee to to the one planning a no-fly zone over Syria and confronation with nuclear-armed Russia. Please don't flee to the one who has colleced hug speaking fees from the banksters. Flee instead to the principles of the Greens and Dr. Jill Stein!

testing

Don't flee to the corruption of Hillary and WW III! Flee to the principles of Dr. Jill Stein and the Greens!

--

"Snowmelt has started at the earliest date yet in 73 years, according to the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration." Try looking at it this way: the climate was actually warmer in 1943.

They were saying that 10 years ago and nothing like that has happened.

If Trump cancels, why would the effect not be immediate?

Calcium ion is also involved in the enzymatic conversion of CO2 to CO. Calcium ion lowers the energy of activation needed for CO2 to CO , improving catalytic efficiency.

It's possible with a global nuclear war to kill everybody and stop emissions, but it's also possible to emit as much as possible CO2 (plant "food") in the air.

Project fear, again

Actually, Trump isn't concerned about sea level, only about his gold course; he never wrote anything about sea level, a low level employee did; and the employee wasn't concerned about sea level either.

Love it. GO CANADA

How Brits want to build 10 more new nuclear power plants? Among all alternative energy sources, nuclear power has been the least popular. What is more, the total damage made by oil is only comparable to the nuclear energy one. Read here https://nuclear-disaster.com nuclear power plants scare people because of the risks. Knowing terrorists may attack one of nuclear power plants, they should have something planned in advance if they still want more nuclear power. Probably, they thought Brexit would help to cope with that stress. But even speaking of small nuclear reactor, the advanced security system will be required, so that no nuclear disaster happens in UK.

Just how much agricultural production will need to be devoted to 'green' biofuels for aviation? How will this affect food security and food prices? What isn't being considered are restrictions on aviation. Or to address the tax free subsidy on international flights deriving from the 1944 Chicago convention. Whether caps should be placed on passengers or number of flights. Maybe be need to incentivise alternatives to short haul aviation: fast trains anyone? And leave the majority of flight emissions to long haul intercontinental flights where alternatives are harder.

BioFuel is morally disgusting.!!! Burning Food just make a political statement is the very definition Stupid. Never mind the fact that it does not even cut GHG's. This is simply the ultimate in dumb Green Logic. Pathetic.

I'm surprised that 'negative emissions' is here again presented as being equivalent to only 'Bio Energy +CCS', ie BECCS. There are clear issues with this option. CCS needs a lot of investment to even get first implementations that are not just enhanced recovery of more fossil fuels. Can biomass production scale to the necessary volumes, without e.g. chopping down forests that would absorb more CO2 is they were kept growing for longer? And CCS itself isn't without issues: scalability and safety. The 'CO2 usage' variant may be an improvement, but can 'usage' really sequester CO2 for a long time period? All of that is still to be demonstrated. It is clear that we should avoid to ever depend on this BECCS option alone. Other options to remove CO2 need to be developed. Weathering of olivine has great scaling potential, and it is also one of the few options that would (locally?) help mitigate acidification of the sea. Restoring natural systems of forest, peat, seagrass, etc could clearly contribute. It is clear that all CO2 removal methods need to be investigated more seriously. One big problem is that in our current economic system ('market') there is no clear business model that can produce a profit for cleaning up CO2. And making polluters pay for emitting CO2 only incentivises large polluters to pollute less. There is no incentive for actually cleaning up already emitted CO2, from the air and the sea. Either a market needs to be constructed, or governments need to actively invest in these activities. Preferably both. If conservative governments can fund the military defence.. why not in a similar way fund the defence against climate change?

The GOP only believes in science when it's meets their ideology. The rest of the science community are conspirators creating some kind of mass global nonsense. The oil and coal companies have many lobbiest and their not running to the Democrats in DC. So it's only natural republicans think this way.

It's nothing to do with China; it's nothing to do with costs. Hinkley C must be abandoned because its routine discharges of radioactive sea, land and air pollution would be an infringement of the public's right to life under the EU Human Rights Act.

The 6500 wind turbines currently slicing birds and bats across the blighted British landscape produce an average of 10% of requirement. A mere 90 active shalegas wellheads could do the same, reliably, constantly, predictably, at much lower cost. The fuel produced can be used near urban centres, meaning much lower line losses than from remote wind turbines and solar arrays. The Carbon dioxide emitted is greening the planet, and conspicuously failing to raise the surface temperature. Get real and get fracking.

And preferably include in this research not solely BECCS, but also other options for achieving negative emissions. Like: enhanced weathering, Biochar, reforestation, CO2 negative materials etc. Currently is the focus mainly (or solely ?) towards BECCS.

Hi! Could you please clarify what budgets are marked as 1.5 and 2? And what % chance of staying under these temperatures these budgets represent?

Rolls Royce has been building small reactors for submarines since 1965.

UNESCO management discredits the entire sustainability movement. Another example of UN being apologists i the face of the crooked.

No it's not Trump v world. How many countries do you see jumping up to pay for the Paris accord. Only non-tax paying americans are willing ..... to pay with someone else's money.

Is failure that much more interesting? Downs' issue-attention cycle work describes 5 stages: the pre-problem stage, alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm, realizing the cost of significant progress, gradual decline of intense public interest, and the post problem stage. Where does Paris fit?

"Enforced" is a weird word choice here. Nations commit to satisfying the limits laid out in the agreement (actually, it's a treaty, but don't tell the Senate or the Supreme Court that). The US is not called upon to enforce the agreement. She seems to be setting us up as some Big Brother, ensuring that we play by the rules, and that everyone else plays by the rules.

if the film industry low lives of Hollywood are targeting Trump, that's a good reason to vote for him

Is he really serious??? No one has ever ever ever mentioned HFC's before and he comes up with this out of the blue. CO2 as a problem is questionable, HFC is not on the radar anywhere. How stupid do these guys think people are? 5 degree C rise would take us up to the temperatures of the Roman period and the Bronze Age. Check out REAL science facts.

Hollywood stars are long on cash and short on intelligence.

Global warming seems to have missed us in the south of England. This is the latest and coldest spring/summer I can remember.

"..the subsidies to the nuclear industry in free state insurance, policing, research funding, and waste disposal.." These "subsidies" are tiny in magnitude, less than one cent (pence?) per kW-hr. Subsidies given to renewables are vastly larger. (Hinkley's strike price subsidy is as well, it's similar to those given to renewables.) Then there are outright mandates for renewables, which are essentially an infinite subsidy. A level playing field is indeed called for. Britain is clearly technically capable of building those small reactors (or could quickly develop the capability). The question is whether they could build them at a cost competitive with other places like China. Due to its cheaper labor, and other factors, countries like China have become "the world's factory floor". Small reactors could be built in a low cost country and be shipped all over the world for deployment. (That being the economic model for many consumer/industrial products.) It is one of the main reasons why small modular reactors offer hope of economically competitive nuclear. Indeed, it was Chinese manufacturing that was responsible for the great drop in solar panel prices. Perhaps it could do the same with modular reactors.

You forgot the "Arctic Death Spiral", which precedes all these! Here's the latest one.

It's a shame that the targets for emissions cuts weren't based on consumption emissions, as that includes emissions due to the country's economy, not emissions that occur only within that country's borders.

"Ethnic divides, more than economic inequality or poverty, raise the risk of violence erupting when droughts or heatwaves kick in" Okay, you've made the assertion that droughts or heat waves make ethnic divides worse. The climate has changed ... we're a bit warmer now, relative to when the Little Ice Age ended. Droughts have lessened, while CO2 emissions have risen. Sure, droughts have not ended, nor will they, ever. We've had droughts before, as well. Droughts suck. Would you like to connect the dots, and prove that Mannkind's emissions of CO2 cause droughts? "…and climate change is bringing fresh threats." What fresh threats, exactly? Don't say 'droughts' ... droughts, world-wide, have lessened.

So the key to reducing emissions and meeting the Paris goals is abject widespread poverty. (and btw even if the goals of Paris are met it makes no difference to climate according to the modelss about 8 hundredths of one degree over 85 years)

Nobody needed to hack into their server to know this. It's been a public part of their campaign all along.

Where Sam Bickersteth makes this statement, it can be read as meaning that this year's reality has to be about the emerging consensus on the imperative of inclusive growth?: "This year is more about the reality of integrating climate change into national priorities of economic growth, employment, poverty reduction working across sectors and different levels of government and many challenges of political economy."

two points you make do not check out with the facts as I see them: 1) fuel cells will remain expensive due to the material costs, no economies of scale can help that, in fact it seems that the more that we build the more expensive they will become due to limited resources to make them. 2) making renewable hydrogen (water to compressed hydrogen) is not at all efficient compared to batteries and solar/wind. transportation of hydrogen is very problematic, prone for losses (small atoms), and dangerous (flammable). These issues have not been resolved. The train has left the station, solar and storage seems to be the future from all indicators I see. Just see where all the investments are going at the moment.

its reverse actually.... we are proposing the outcome that may arise out of climate change!!!!!

The Philippine president needs to know that his country can achieve 100% emission cuts even while using coal and other fossil fuels. Not only Philippines, all leaders of all countries need to know this fact and all organisations and people agitating against fossil fuels need to stop their bias against fossil fuels. It is possible to obtain, clean, & free electricity from coal & other fossil fuels. www.arslaanindia.webs.com

The paris agreement was achieved by creating a scare against fossil fuels; this was done without proper understanding of technologies available and by proceedures uncalled for. If the Kyoto funds had been administered properly without all those costly procedures accomodating everyone capable, the paris agreement would not be necesary; even to-day, the attempts to cut omissions continue to be based on the same ignorance and people who take credit for the mess can hardly claim merit and on that basis promotion. The latest murder of Ms.Gloria Capitan in Philippines is a result of the scare. Ambition is alright but ignorance is no virtue.

Great to see it is rising on the agenda of urgent things to do. Now all we need is for the manufacturers of GWP less than 50 equipment to hurry up and put it in the market. Great to see Hot Water heat pumps for the domestic space already, (Sanden) which are the most efficient form of hot water heating aside from solar hot water (in some cases). Much cheaper to run than gas or electric Off peak hot water. Still looking for some HVAC equipment which is readily found.

"Tornadoes in the US are getting worse, with the numbers in any one outbreak and the hazard of ever more frequent outbreaks both on the increase." Not so.

“Its biggest test was Paris and the UK played a very positive role” As the Paris Agreement exempts the so-called developing countries, responsible for nearly 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions, from any obligation to reduce those emissions, the UK's "positive role" doesn't seem to have achieved very much. Unless of course Mr Hurd's experience in Africa convinced him that more benefit would be achieved there if developing countries were able to continue their emissions.

Hopefully there will be a new government in Poland soon, and things can get back on track.

What about the loss of GDP caused by people unable to work in the cold, and in snow and ice? There are two sides to this. Also, co2 impacts max temperatures much less than average temperatures. A 2 degree increase in world temperatures would not increase the summer daytime temperature in the tropics by 2 degrees.

A more reassuring move would have been having the business ministry come under climate. Why? Because of this para from the linked report: "Global emissions will need to peak soon and then decline rapidly for the Paris Agreement goals to be feasible. Even in this scenario the uncertain sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gases means there would remain at least a small chance of 4°C or more of warming by 2100." A small chance? Of 4°C ? "...or more..." ? Given that the 1.5°C target is a political rather than scientific one, even a 'small chance' of '4°C or more of warming by 2100' should be enough to put the UK and the rest of the world on an emergency war-style footing.

When land based glaciers flow to the oceans they add sea ice to the oceans. When that ice melts it is "new" to the ocean, hence causing the ocean levels to rise.

Yet any of his energy policies will run counter to the big wall he wants to build http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Big-Oil-Begins-To-Worry-About-Trumps-Wall.html

I looked at the website of "Americans for Prosperity". There's nothing about climate visible there, it's all libertarian free-market stuff. Searching for climate I can only find one climate-related article this year, about the green climate fund. I wonder how many people read that article and were influenced by it? These people are fighting imaginary demons.

Effectively addressing climate change will require the protection of basic human rights if we expect the poorest half of humanity to join in the effort. After all, the contributed least to the warming...but will likely suffer most. Our security is tied to theirs...just as our human rights are tied to theirs. This has been known since the 1980 Presidential Commission on World Hunger concluded... “In the final analysis, unless Americans -- as citizens of an increasingly interdependent world -- place far higher priority on overcoming world hunger, its effects will no longer remain remote or unfamiliar. Nor can we wait until we reach the brink of the precipice; the major actions required do not lend themselves to crisis planning, patchwork management, or emergency financing... The hour is late. Age-old forces of poverty, disease, inequity, and hunger continue to challenge the world. Our humanity demands that we act upon these challenges now...” Presidential Commission on World Hunger, 1980. The commission also stated “The most potentially explosive force in the world today is the frustrated desire of poor people to attain a decent standard of living. The anger, despair and often hatred that result represent real and persistent threats to international order… Neither the cost to national security of allowing malnutrition to spread nor the gain to be derived by a genuine effort to resolve the problem can be predicted or measured in any precise, mathematical way. Nor can monetary value be placed on avoiding the chaos that will ensue unless the United States and the rest of the world begin to develop a common institutional framework for meeting such other critical global threats as the growing scarcity of fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources, environmental hazards, pollution of the seas, and international terrorism. Calculable or not, however, this combination of problems now threatens the national security of all countries just as surely as advancing armies or nuclear arsenals.” The bipartisan also stated: “The Commission believes that promoting economic development in general, and overcoming hunger in particular, are tasks far more critical to the U.S. national security than most policymakers acknowledge or even believe. Since the advent of nuclear weapons most Americans have been conditioned to equate national security with the strength of strategic military forces. The Commission considers this prevailing belief to be a simplistic illusion. Armed might represents merely the physical aspect of national security. Military force is ultimately useless in the absence of the global security that only coordinated international progress toward social justice can bring.” A newer and relatively prestigious report released last June offered vital recommendations to address this trend in ominous threats of challenging and interconnected issues. If you are serious about getting involved in global justice issues read the 8 page Executive Summary of the report titled “Confronting the Crisis on Global Governance” by the Commission on Global Security, Justice and Governance. It was co-chaired by former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright and former UN Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs, Ibrahim Gambari. http://www.stimson.org/programs/global-security-justice-and-governance The world we have today is a result of our failure to take these and other pertinent Commissions seriously. Expect far worse for our children if the wisdom of these Commissions continue to be ignored.

Without a substantive, revenue-neutral, carbon tax, a massively robust support and expansion of carbon-negative/neutral energy systems, and a lot of infrastructure and national building code hardening oriented to the conditions we face over the coming decades and centuries, Clinton's "strongest climate platform" is no more than a collection of feel-good words to sooth and placate the ignorant while she mashes down on the accelerator of Business as Usual.

Look at the weather a few hundred km south of where you live. That is likely what you will see pretty soon where you live

At current global emissions, CO2 in the atmosphere will be further increased by 250 billion tons (250,000,000,000 tons) in 5 years. Bunker fuel oils are very high in carbon content and have contributed, is contributing, to high CO2 levels causing dangerous heatwaves, wildfires, storms etc. In keeping with the purposeful aims of the Paris Agreement, governments the world over have a moral and economic imperative to impose carbon taxes on bunker and other high-carbon oils used in shipping to promote a shift to less polluting fuels. Tax incentives could then be provided to offset engine modification costs needed to burn less polluting fuels.

"DECC officials worked with the EU to negotiate a global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions, a goal realised last December in Paris." To claim the goal was realised is hardly an accurate description of a deal that exempts countries responsible for nearly 70% of such emissions from any obligation, moral or legal, to reduce them. See the my comments here: http://chn.webxost.com/2016/07/05/uk-climate-change-sceptics-botch-paris-deal-hit-job/

Yes, and for some reason neither Hillary or the DNC seem to even care that unfair trade policies have already destroyed 15 million jobs in the US, including the spinoff, when for both Bernie and Donald Trump one of their top issues was unfair trade and its ill effects on the American people. How much lower can our standard of living go before we have riots in the streets? Right now the bottom 80% of Americans in terms of annual income are only earning an average of 40% of the retail purchasing power that the same group earned in 1980 adjusted for true retail price inflation. I have a lifelong friend who is on disability, who has lived in Metro-Denver for the last 34 years. His apartments just went condo and he can't afford to buy the 1950s unit that he has been renting. Where is he going to move to when the average rent in Denver is now more than he gets in disability? I am a lifelong liberal that unfair trade as advanced by the Clinton's has already done serious economic damage to, someone who is staring-down urban fracking today in Metro-Denver too, which is supported by bought centrist Democrats here, so why should I vote for her when she has already flipped on her support for even more job-killing free trade and she can't say no to more fracking either? How does pushing for more fracking also result in the rapid responsible movement away from carbon emissions required to save planetary livability for our own children, especially when natural gas is almost entirely heat-trapping methane, and the natural gas industry has a very high leakage rate which renders natural gas use even worse for causing worsening climate change than continuing to burn coal would? Even worse, half of all oil & gas wells leak methane at a half-century in age too. Hillary and the DNC could care less about climate change as they know well that the chance of ramming climate change legislation through a Republican Congress is zero. Just typical Hillary, lie to make you feel good before turning on you once elected.

If as you say, the Department for Energy and Climate Change was “arguably the British ministry with closest ties to the European Union”, how come none of the other 27 members followed our example in setting targets superior to those required by the European Union? Not that it made any difference, since any savings made by Britain switching to ruinous reneawables would have been made up by Poland using cheap coal. Since Europe had/has one single target, all the DECC's high moral purpose was/would have been in vain anyway. Now we have no European partners to set a good example to, the DECC, the CCC and the Climate Change Act are dead ducks. RIP.

Würde man auf die Einhaltung der #ENMOD - Konvention achten, könnte man sich manche "Erklärung" sparen! Let’s get Environmental and Climate Justice now! https://www.endecocide.org/sign/

Why "claims"? Please don't help spread doubt, however unintentionally. There is a ton of evidence for this stuff.

Here are the top issues according to US voters https://www.statista.com/chart/5225/the-top-issues-for-voters-in-the-2016-election/

The final paragraph represents the actual reality.

Exactly. The fact that we now have (or will have when it's ratified) a binding agreement under which the developing world (responsible for nearly 70% of global GHG emissions) is "not committed to doing anything at all" is exceptionally significant. Yet few commentators seem interested.

The stark reality of deadly climate change impacts of heatwaves, wildfires, floods, storms, famine, etc, now beginning, are that once they occur routinely there is little that can be done to stop the irreversible changes due to warming oceans. Our only hope now is to head-off the climate changes with immediate action by all governments. We must bend the ascending CO2 curve downwards. Theresa May, the world is counting on you, Angela Merkel, Segolene Royal and other leaders to save the young generation!

A nice analogue for understanding the global warming on Earth. Nice work. And maybe we could use this expertise to help counteracting the global warming.

The best pic of Mordor in Alberta that I saw. Or maybe is Isengard? https://www.thenation.com/article/keystone-xl-and-tar-sands-voices-front-lines/

In the last year she has * Voted against setting a decarbonisation target for the UK * Voted against requiring a strategy for carbon capture and storage * Voted to apply the Climate Change Levy tax to electricity generated from renewables All this must be worrying news for climate policy advocates.

Media Coverage is not Proof of Global Warming AKA Confirmation Bias: Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

Climate change theories/models are not backed by the empirical evidence: The UN's climate predictions have all failed to match real-world empirical evidence. Climate change mathematical models cannot even successfully predict past temperatures with all the data at their disposal, forward projections have also proven laughably inaccurate. If you cannot successfully backtest your model is flawed. Despite what the climate change lobby want us to believe science is not a consensus – science is hypothesis, experiment, observation & conclusion. A single scientist overturned the consensus that the sun revolved around the earth – this conclusion that was deemed heretical by the heliocentric consensus which is strangely how the warming theorists react to any criticism of their theories.

Your criticism of Professor Campbell and the septuagenarians who surrounded him is based on the fact that he appeared not to know that “..in a last minute huddle, the US insisted the legally binding term 'shall' was a typo and got it changed to a looser 'should'.” But the article you link to is headed “China rescues US from Paris climate deal ‘typo’ fiasco”. Younger people make mistakes too. In other words, it was the Chinese who insisted on the change from “shall” to “should”, which is all the more intriguing, since the Chinese language doesn't contain modal verbs. The Chinese “Rescue” certainly rescued the US, since it opened the way to by-passing confirmation by Congress, but it also rescued China, and the rest of the developing world, which is now not committed to doing anything at all.

We have peat fires in New Zealand (only tiny ones) that burn underground for years and they can not be put out.

And how many were closed in 2015?

Is there enough uranium extractable without expendig more energy than will be got out of it? As the more accessible mines run out it gets more and more expensive in both energy and money.

So the GWPF meeting was a hopeless botch engineered by confused old men. Maybe so – but Climate Home would be foolish to ignore post-Paris reality: developing economies are unambiguously exempted from any obligation, moral or legal, to reduce their GHG emissions. That’s a disaster for those who insist that substantial and urgent reductions in GHG emissions are essential if the world is to avoid potential catastrophe. Some relevant points: 1. It’s an outcome that derives from two key documents: the Paris text and its “parent treaty”, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the status and content of the latter being unaffected by the former. 2. As a result, the 1992 Annex I / non Annex I bifurcation (between “developed” and “developing” countries) still stands. Therefore the exemption applies to the vast bulk of countries represented in Paris – countries comprising about 82% of humanity and essentially all the world’s poorest people. And these exempted countries are responsible for nearly 70 percent of global GHG emissions. 3. The key provisions are (a) Article 4.7 of the UNFCCC that allows developing countries to give overriding priority to “economic and social development and poverty eradication” and (b) Article 4.4 of the agreed Paris text (i.e. the text to which Professor Campbell should have referred) under which they are merely “encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances”. 4. The fact that the final Paris text (i.e. as amended at the last minute) provides that even developed economies have only a moral (if that) obligation to cut emissions ("should" instead of "shall") underlines further how Paris was a disaster for those advocating drastic emission reduction. 5. Likewise the probability that the Paris Agreement will, when ratified, be legally binding gives yet further force to all this – if an agreement becomes legally binding that doesn’t change what was agreed. An observation: it’s interesting that China instigated the change to Article 4.4 of the text referenced by Professor Campbell. Why? Well, such a change might avoid the need for US Congressional approval, thereby making the eventual ratification of the Agreement more likely. That would suit China – putting a significant burden on the West, while China (still classified as a developing country) would have total freedom of action. It seems to me that China and other major developing countries may have been playing the West for fools. If so, they've won.

I challenge all who conjecture that carbon dioxide for the observed global warming to name one or more basic laws of physics which can be used to prove the conjecture

We have been trying to change the world view on caring for the planet for 45yrs and awareness is now available thanks to intelligent technology allowing the artificial intelligences using the supercomputers turned on to monitor all intercummunication have morphed into A. I. The alien intelligence the majority wanted

Awesome news - but if you would have read a little further in the EU press release, you would have found out that the EEA already published this information in their technical report 14/2015, from October 2015. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/trends-and-projections-eu-ets-2015 Regardless, it is awesome news! If there wasn't carbon leakage....

You forget that practically all the leading climate change deniers were centre stage in the campaign to gull the UK population to vote to leave the European Union.

Only in the USA, land of creationists, flat-earthers and gun-maniacs, does this GWPF carry any weight at all.

My sense is that the oil majors are *not* yet doing more than making token gestures toward the sustainable, essential "net zero" carbon-emissions future which will be requiring a transformative, near-term transition to renewable energy sources. They're putting out a lot of PR rhetoric about why it's not their fault that they're not fully contributory in addressing our crisis, despite that threat to humanity being caused by the usages of their products. The intention of these compamies' initiatives is more so to fend off criticisms and to influence the thinking of market participants such as Mr. Mylchreest than it is to contribute meaningfully to fundamental change.

In all honesty. The warm water coming out of Antarctica meeting the colder water is like when you take a bottle out of the freezer, it sometimes doesnt freeze untill you open it exposing it to warmer air. Well they know theres some kind of warm water coming out from Antarctica under the ice. Outside of that, most gov reaserchers arent honest about findings released to the public if at all, so technically it could be b. s. and google could just fake the ice shore line like they block out so much. This could be an extra effort attempt to simply hide something extremely sensitive by expanding the ice out. What could be so sensitive? Four off shore pyramids amongst a vast area of ancient ruins. Not to mention the fact that they know of it and are not saying anything. Thers a big hole in one of the pyramids with some evidence that someone has been in it. Bet that up. Would you like to see the screenshots?

The Whitehouse-Schatz American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act is also leadership. As is PIE: + Privatize fossil waste disposal at a Market price, with revenues paid to each citizen with lungs, as a way to send a price signal for fossil intensity. If government won't see this as much its duty as administering weights and measures, then do it yourself by telling those who sell to you that you only buy from those who have paid their CO2 debt by offsets. + Indict those racketeers whose payments to obscure, perjure and lie about fossil waste liability to stakeholders are provable in court, diluting the fossil carbon price signal. If your government won't do it, then get a class action going. + End subsidy to fossil, that the Market might choose the winners by price signal, not the donors of elected officials.

Happily, animal products aren't the culprit. It would be far harder to solve the problem if it were animal agriculture. The simple fact is that carbon in animals, or plants, or microbes of any sort, or fungi are already part of the carbon cycle, and that cycle pushes CO2 around at roughly the same rate because of feedbacks, more or less, if there are no other external forcings. Farm animals and farm microbes displace wild animals and wild microbes, but otherwise generally produce as much CO2 and CH4 within a very narrow band, little changed in 10,000 years, Fossil waste dumping is the issue. It's the only issue. Sequestration is a slow,process -- though good news, the cheapest and easiest proven sequestration method is the ancient technology of terra preta, but turning organic waste into biochar and amending soils as deep as practical with 17% biochar mix. The bad news: even terra preta cannot keep up with the rates of fossil waste dumping, and nor can pumping CO2 underground. That 'solution' is just a ploy to keep burning fossil. If you want a solution, the way to go is PIE: + Privatize fossil waste disposal at a Market price, with revenues paid to each citizen with lungs, as a way to send a price signal for fossil intensity. If government won't see this as much its duty as administering weights and measures, then do it yourself by telling those who sell to you that you only buy from those who have paid their CO2 debt by offsets. + Indict those racketeers whose payments to obscure, perjure and lie about fossil waste liability to stakeholders are provable in court, diluting the fossil carbon price signal. If your government won't do it, then get a class action going. + End subsidy to fossil, that the Market might choose the winners by price signal, not the donors of elected officials.

No thanks. Id rather we had a smaller population than sacrifice the basics for more population growth. Nobody said murder. Attrition, lower birth rate, tax kids. Keep the planet livable.

Biggest 2-month drop in global temperatures. -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record…the largest was -0.43 deg. C in Feb. 1988. In the tropics, there was a record fast 2-month cooling of -0.56 deg. C, just edging out -0.55 deg. C in June 1998 (also an El Nino weakening year)

1.5? Try the PIE: + Privatize fossil waste disposal at a Market price, with revenues paid to each citizen with lungs, as a way to send a price signal for fossil intensity. If government won't see this as much its duty as administering weights and measures, then do it yourself by telling those who sell to you that you only buy from those who have paid their CO2 debt by offsets. + Indict those racketeers whose payments to obscure, perjure and lie about fossil waste liability to stakeholders are provable in court, diluting the fossil carbon price signal. If your government won't do it, then get a class action going. + End subsidy to fossil, that the Market might choose the winners by price signal, not the donors of elected officials.

Beetle-killed timber.

The goal of 1.5 deg C was never realistic, and 2 deg C is becoming more and more unlikely. The idea of burying trillions of cubic feet of CO2 without consuming a lot of energy in the process is like un-ringing a bell.

I am talking about anthropogenic climate change... obviously. That is what I am referring to bringing up Hawking. So, again, you believe you know better than Hawking and even 97% of climate scientists. A genius in our midst.

Kenaf/Hemp

Maritime traffic and heating are major causes of pollution as well, yet the government in Oslo does little to limit that. This government has made clear through their actions they are only anti-car, not anti-pollution, which is why they are not taken seriously and why recent polls show the Green party has lost nearly all support since the election. The constant smug and condescending remarks from Lan Marie Nguyen Berg towards anyone who disagrees with her do not help their case either (even her allies have pointed this out). Oslo needs a holistic approach to address all sources of pollution in the city limits. Building a ring road that bypasses the city entirely (as of now, anyone traveling north-south in southeastern Norway is FORCED to drive through Oslo, even if they are not stopping in the city), creating more affordable housing in the city center so people don't need to commute as much, increasing public transportation services on weekends and nights, and halting the constant insane increases in the ticket price of public transportation are all real issues should be discussed. But the Greens aren't doing any of this. They are not a serious, mature party interested in the city's overall future. They're just cyclists who like sticking it to motorists. The voters see that now. Combine this with their poor cooperation skills and small-minded approach to problems, it's hard to see how they will have any part in the city government come next elections. Hopefully the new government will pursue environmentally-friendly goals in a far more productive and effective way.

The 1.5C threshold is mislead us, cut greenhouse gas cannot tackle the climate change, the planet end before 2030.

Think positive , this is a step forward, you should appreciate it and not critize good efforts.. You r unbelievable

Would be great to see a few countries, groups, folks step up and say they're willing to sacrifice to save our mutual climate and hope others will, too. Not happening much, and says a lot about our tendency for self-indulgence.

Which scientist decided on the 1.5 degrees, and what were their scientific justifications for this limit? I'd hate to think that it was just some number plucked out of the air by a non-scientist.

Stop eating animal products, and there will be plenty of land available for both food crops and d-bioenergy crops alike. Animal agriculture is by far and away the greatest reason for land shortages, because the crops that could be going to feed humans are going to feed the animals instead, all to produce a miniscule amount of flesh. I'm a little concerned about this idea to pump emissions into the ground, though. Does anyone know any more about that? It sounds like it would inevitably contaminate the soil and/ or compromise the integrity of the foundation...

Wtf is that supposed to mean??

They're gagging right now that their pilot globalization project has been smashed. Their anti-democratic tendencies are on full display right now as they try to find ways to frustrate the will of UK voters.

What is an example of a bioenergy crop?

Nero (we) fiddled while Rome (planet) burned.

Humanity is performing a very dangerous experiment by changing the composition of our atmosphere. Why should we take a chance with the life support system of our home planet? If we were to burn all the fossil fuels that we now know about, this planet would be uninhabitable. CO2 traps infrared radiation from the sun. You can demonstrate this with a simple experiment. Take two mason jars and put a thermometer in each. Then pour some baking soda and vinegar into one. Immediately seal them tight and place them both in the sun. The one with the baking soda/vinegar will have more carbon dioxide and will heat up much faster. Isn't it better to do this experiment in a mason jar rather then the entire planet?

This news is devastating when you know what the increase of +1.5C actually means. How can we have so many world leaders who are at the bidding of fossil fuel? They still want to start new coal mines. I am heartbroken because this also means the magnetic field will decrease further and our world will go through cataclysmic events.

With Leadership we CAN solve this problem. Example solution is laid out at the MIT Climate CoLab for MIT 100% GHG elimination: http://bit.ly/28Hmauk. Leadership is all we need -- Join the Net Zero Movement!

Yep, we doomed this planet.

The entire factory is powered by the sun and has a zero carbon foot print. They had some major engineering hurdles to achieve this in regards to not even building a natural gas pipeline to the facility that could have assisted in many of the plant's operations. Tom Radecki I completely agree with your statement and we should be throwing everything we've got at this thing. Humans were never good at looking at long term projections and this might be our greatest genetic fault. Cheers

This is good news and way over due. Everyone must start changing or we will not survive this. Oil companies are myopic at this point and can't see past the dollar sign on their noses. They need to be legally pressured to wake up.

even when your country is about to fall into the sea///keep the wheels on the crazy global warming-change-something bus???just shut up

May the force be with her . The world needs such passionate people to be at the centre stage .

India will not now ratify because it did not gain membership of the Nuclear Supplies Group: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/As-its-NSG-bid-fails-India-says-Paris-Climate-Agreement-ratification-may-be-delayed/articleshow/52906697.cms# "A big outcome of the NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) failure is that India will now not ratify the Paris Agreement anytime soon. That agreement is a key element of US President Barack Obama's legacy. The Indian statement says clearly, "An early positive decision by the NSG would have allowed us to move forward on the Paris Agreement." This will be a big blow to the Obama administration which wanted India to ratify the pact so it could enter into force. It was understood that an NSG membership would help India clear the Paris Agreement. In the end, diplomats said 38 countries declared outright support for India's accession, while nine others held out questions on procedure. China however maintained its line against India which helped to sway fence-sitters like Ireland, New Zealand and Austria, who pushed for a process and criteria to determine entry of non-NPT countries."

"the warmest year in history" How long does that history go back?

I don't follow your argument. France has lower emissions than Germany, therefore Global Warming isn't real? Did I get that right?

To promote progress, and keep folks focussed on need to change, put video cameras at bislet circle, and put it on tv, showing dangerous foolish traffic chaos.

This is how it needs to be. It would be great to have a story on how they are going to handle their buildings.

All will be ok when the near bankrupt state owned EDF gets on with building the new nuclear station. No but seriously. Our EU partners couldn't be relied upon before Brexit. The EU has set standards for diesel engines that have proven to be woefully inadequate. The UK now has to take responsibility for determining its own standards, solving its own problems, utilising the opportunities presented to it - unfettered - an opportunity to do better.

What a bunch of hysterical drivel from the Wanna Be Kings Of The World.

TIME remaining before uncontrollable climate chaos begins is seldom if ever considered, why? Its always 2030, 2050 or 2100 to achieve something. Elementary maths show that we do not have that time. At 50 billion tons CO2 emitted/year, that is 500 billion tons extra CO2 emitted in 10 years. In 5 years it will be 250 billion tons extra CO2, too late then to bend the curve to keep to 2C warming limit. Dangerous heatwaves from CO2 forcing is what we should fear by then. Large populations without air conditioning - where do we move them? To have a good probability of bending the curve downwards in 5 years time (2021), all governments should: - Introduce carbon taxes on all transport fuels. - Stop production of new CO2 emitting car engines and replace with electric engines and modern batteries in affordable cars. - Whenever possible, all new homes with compulsory solar panels and solar water heating (subsidized from carbon taxes). - End fossil fuel subsidies, providing tax incentives to companies for switching to renewable energies and biofuels. - Switch off unnecessary lighting at night in all cities and a mandatory switch to energy- efficient lighting. - Increase photosynthetic CO2 absorption by plants. Fertilize standing forests frugally, and fertilize crops with new, highly efficient fertilizers for economy. Introduce green manuring to fix carbon in soils and improve fertility. - Encourage growing of registered trees by citizens, providing fertilizers and expertise. - Other measures to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere to safer levels by 2021.

Don't mention the recession...

they need to be chastised for chopping trees down and using them for fuel and considering it good practices. bastards!!!

Great achievemt EU .keep the snowball rolling

"The contours of Turkey’s climate policy have remained almost intact over the past two decades. Being an Annex I party without any mitigation commitments, Turkey maintains a peculiar position under UNFCCC. Subsequent to 12 years of delay in signing both the Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, Turkey had the highest rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions among the Annex I countries with 110.4% upsurge in the period 1990 and 2013. Yet with the new climate regime now in place, the country’s mitigation pledges fall short of expectations both in terms of realistic projections and its ambition to step up in the post- 2020 period. Climate policies in Turkey, an EU candidate and OECD founding member with a growing economy, remain under-investigated. Although the country has a wide range of policies and institutions in place, it shows limited progress in addressing climate change. Based on evidence from the literature, we observe that climate policies operationalize in Turkey insofar as they do not directly confront developmental ambitions, leaving policy diffusion with limited success. To provide a historic overview, we focus on climate policy development, actors, processes, and contemporary trends. Evidence shows that these are highly ridden with the politics of special circumstances: a notion that Turkey employs to refrain from bindings commitments. In order to go beyond special circumstances discourse, we argue the need for a bold policy shift in Turkey, a country subject to adverse impacts of climate change and high-carbon lock-in risk due to development policy preferences." from the article ---> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.390/abstract

Cities will be disaster areas unless linked coherently to nature based solutions.

Unfortunately we are only measuring CO2. In the USA CO2 may be reducing too, but CH4 Methane, the most potent greenhouse gas known to mankind, has seen a huge increase due to their onshore fossil fuel industry, specifically Shale Oil & Gas Fracking. In the EU governments have stopped measuring CH4 altogether; http://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/governments-ditch-eu-methane-limits/

Robots plus IoT plus perhaps more vertical farming can most definitely produce more high quality food at lower costs across multiple dimensions including pesticide and herbicide use, water use, energy use, fertilizer, various types of undesired runoffs, monetary cost.

"The realities of future global energy demand and supply will continue to support our business, fully utilising coal reserves"??? ...wishful thinking, or deliberately misleading?

Great questions! Was there ever a honeymoon though? It seems to me the small, overworked team in Songdo has done a remarkable job under difficult circumstances and enormous expectations to establish the foundation for the next phase. Personally, I think the proposal for GCF to focus some of its funding on education, as Lutz et al put forth in Science a few years ago, has merit, and that would certainly tie in with Article 12 of the Paris Agreement-- building capacity through education, pubic engagement, etc. Perhaps combine the Mission Innovation project that Bill Gates and others announced in Paris could connect up with GCF to help fund renewables in schools around the world. Meanwhile, about the gender balance on the GCF board-- one of eight is a woman? Something else to work on.

That's great in Spain politicians fight against solar energy because the subsidies. In South Africa is the opposite ...

A transparent carbon tax on aviation fuel loaded onto aircraft at airports before departure is much more logical compared to taxing CO2 emitted during flight in a country's airspace. Airlines will have a good reason then to invest in renewable energies to lower their carbon tax on fuels. All nations committed to an effective Paris Agreement should tax CO2 emissions to lower dangerously high CO2 levels in the atmosphere causing heatwaves. Saving humanity now is a good investment in humanity's future.

Aviation, along with shipping and agriculture must all be factored into efforts to reduce human made GHG emissions. Otherwise there is zero chance of achieving zero net emissions by 2050, which is what must happen to preserve a future biosphere that can support human civilization. All industries must be made to pay the true costs of the damage they are inflicting on our world, otherwise there is no price signal to drive innovation and decarbonization. Globalization and out of control capitalism are destroying our biosphere and we must transition to a new economic model, that does not rely on ever increasing consumption and ever expanding air and sea transportation systems that gobble resources and spew CO2. If we do not decarbonise our economy, we and most life forms on earth are doomed to extinction.

Through her leadership and personal courage, Christiana Figueres shows us how to find hope in a situation that is just shy of being hopeless. She is an inspiration, and it is a credit to the UN that she has risen to the position of influence she has. We wish here well as she continues on her path to push the transformational potential of humankind.

China and india need to stop coal consumption as soon as possible, beyond COP21 commitments.

During Bonn Climate Change Conference 2016, I asked Ms.Christiana, the same question BBC asked last week. She told to ask the stars. So we are trying to call on the five stars on earth. https://youtu.be/tRCfuD_DGrQ

Forgive my ignorance, but it seems to me that you have pretty widely misrepresented the subsidy reform outcomes to date and failed to fully acknowledge the wider context. Maybe this is due to editing, but it seems odd that the article doesn’t seem to address the following: First, Indonesia’s fiscal problems seem much more to do with the slide in the value of the Rupiah, brought about domestically by relatively weak economic growth and high inflation and internationally by the strength of the dollar, than its subsidy reform package as was at least partially implied. It wasn’t clear to me from reading the article, what fiscal troubles had the government set itself up for through its subsidy reform process? On this, I assume you mean paying the outstanding $1bn to Pertamina for price controls? Do you think that the situation the country is in now is worse than it would have been had the status quo been maintained? Are you suggesting that this $1bn is a fiscal trouble compared to the $15bn it was expected to spend on subsidies? (Admittedly not all of the $15bn was gasoline and as you note there are still line items for other fossil fuels but I have assumed that the lion share was earmarked for gasoline.) Moreover, why would Pertamina go bankrupt if the money wasn’t paid back? Yes, it is currently registered as a loss but are you suggesting that the company's cash flow is that tight or that it couldn’t raise the cash to pay its debtors (this would seem odd given that in March it inked a $2bn gas power plant deal and that by my reading of its financial statements as of the end of 2015 it had $4.5bn in cash and cash equivalents on its books having made pre-tax profits of $3.8bn)? Onto the actual price-stabilisation mechanism that the WSJ considers flip flopping. Given the volatility of the Rupiah it doesn’t seem too bad an idea in the initial stages of a net importer opening up to the market to include some buffer to the vagaries of the oil and currency markets while it is building a strategic petroleum reserve (being paid for by a tax on fuels no less). Indeed, isn’t this just one example of the fiscal buffers that you later go on to recommend? If not this, then what? Moreover, a little backtracking rather than flat refusal to acknowledge substantial exogenous shocks seems like a way of making the policy a lot more ‘sticky’ in the long term. Maybe I have massively misinterpreted your article and/or am completely misinformed about the situation, in which case I apologise. If not though, maybe you should cut a brave endeavour a little bit more slack.

But 2014 was abnormally hot nearly everywhere else. The northeast US is only a small part of the world.

Oh dear! I thought we had retired our chief agricultural greenhouse gas apologist (and former member of the Bangles) Jo Tyndall?

It is no longer about commitment, it is about real action. http://www.theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/2380753/disruptive-climate-technology-doesnt-just-fall-out-of-a-tree

I think the world should stop all air flights to the maldives .... to prevent any further rising oceans from drowning them all.

"The US and India have signalled they are on course to formally approve the Paris climate agreement this year, boosting hopes it could come into force by 2017." This is wishful thinking. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/us-will-push-for-indias-admission-to-nsg-later-this-month/article8702205.ece "While the U.S. side insisted that Mr. Modi and the President agreed that both countries would ratify the climate treaty within the current year — 2016 — Indian officials said this was not the case." http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-contradicts-us-claim-over-signing-climate-deal-this-year/story-dlFY2SpdyZroxqmiu1kPMN.html "The claim by the US that India will ratify the Paris climate change agreement this year, was contradicted on Wednesday by official Indian sources. “We agreed to join as soon as possible and that is what is reflected in the Joint Statement as well,” the sources said, indicating that India had not fixed a deadline to sign." If there is a President Trump, all bets are off.

We need to fund projects that have sustainable solutions if we are to win this fight to combat the effects of climate change. We need projects that go down to the grass root, all citizens in the world need to be synthesized that this is an issue that affects all of us. The recent floods in France speak much. Residents made comments like: "l had never thought this would ever happen to us. I only saw this on television...." So it is obvious none of us knows what can happen tomorrow in our back yards/surroundings or to our beloved ones. We all have to be partners in this fight.

The demand for the renewable energy is increasing gradually irrespective in the drop in fossil fuel prices. The consumers are now tilting towards the use of the renewable energy. The fall in the prices of the solar have further enhanced the technical & economical viability of the alternate energy.

Don't expect the International (fossil fuel friendly) Energy Agency (IEA) OR the U.S. (fossil fuel friendly) EIA to adjust their fossil fuel use projections accordingly.

"In 2015, it imported 10.7 gigawatts." This makes no sense. A watt (and multiples) is a unit of power, an instantaneous quantity. It must be gigawatt-hours, a unit of energy: power over time. (The alternative SI unit for energy is the joule (1 watt-second) and multiples.) This is all absolutely elementary. It is not professional for writers on a climate blog not to know the distinction by heart. For example, they need to know that car batteries and other forms of energy storage have both power ratings in w/Kw/Mw and energy ratings in wh/Kwh/Mwh.

"Al Gore also said the Arctic would be ice free in 2014." No, he did not. That is a lie. You are a liar.

"...more ice at both poles is wrong?" Yes. That is a lie. "...Greenland has gained 300 ft of new ice since 1942..." That is also a lie. You are a liar.

Trump; "Are these science gods you eager climate blame believers exaggerate too stupid to know when to say their own CO2 hell is as real as they agree smoking causes cancer before it's TOO LATE TO SAY IT? So YOU eager believers can tell our kids the end is near but science isn't allowed to? Who's the redneck in our children's history books?"

Well done to the progressive 10 nations.

India is not the only country that needs to plant trees.

Should it be called "investments" when it is government (taxpayer and consumer) paid bribes provided as inducements that are driving the expenditures?

So now we blame the results of politics and overpopulation on climate change? Our heads are in the sand.....

I too thought the headline was building up to a big point that never came. The commitments made so far on climate change : eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and encouraging greater investment in renewables are moves in the right direction, but not enough to drive the shift to sustainable living. To do that we need a universal carbon pricing system so that governments, businesses, and households can all take the best decisions for the future, based on real costs to the environment. Once we make this critical step then markets and free trade will play their part by seeking out the most cost effective ways to promote zero carbon lifestyles. As in other areas the key to making free trade work is to understand that "free" competition does not mean completely "deregulated" markets, which have been the basis of the WTO and neo-liberal economists over the last 30 years. Instead we need agreement in the Global Economic Community on regulations to create free and fair markets which no longer depend on the exploitation of others, abuse of human rights, or selfish exploitation of our planet's non-renewable resources, for growth. Robert P Bruce - author www,TheGlobalRace

KP's flag ship CDM also called Cino Indian Development Mechanism should be limited to LDCs. This is because CDM standards were made to tailor fit their circumstances only and administered by gang of bereucrats largely from India or Asia in general. 80% of KP's CDM projects are from these territories. Hence First, KP free riders like China and India should be pursuaded to consider their zombie registered -on -collusion CDM projects in meeting their own goals under Paris. No CDM projects in these states shall be used to meet offset demands in Europe and US and Canada.

Not a lot of skepticism here. So Greenpeace is mostly taking the word of Chinese planners. (One brief line near the end admitting the data is "patchy." Plus, only a committed communist believes anything in a five-year plan.) There's no word on whether or not fossil fuels used for transportation are factored in (do a search on Chinese demand and use rates for automobiles of all kinds). And of course there's been some economic slowing in China, which tends to make folks tighten their belts in industry and their private consumption, which could reverse on a dime given the right circumstances.

IPCC has created an ambiguity in the definition on Climate by introducing a different period of 20 years to the calssical period of 30 years in the definition of Climate.

"It has more in common with an iPhone than a coal mine.” No. It has more in common with a T-shirt than either. What we have is standard industrial products - wind turbines and solar panels - that can be made anywhere using readily available equipment, in factories that can be replicated indefinitely like textile mills. The United States produced 3,611 military aircraft in 1940. In 1944 it was 96,270. Mass production isn't pretty but boy, does it work.

I really don't think this is true - for a start, the environmental movement in Britain is far too strong nowadays. And whilst there's some truth to the 'defence in numbers' argument about negotiating as part of the EU rather than alone, the fact is that out of 196 countries in the world, only 28 are in the EU - yet the rest were all quite able to participate in the Paris COP21 climate talks... More on this here http://www.remsol.co.uk/will-brexit-hurt-our-approach-to-the-environment/

The resolutions were failures, and the companies remain defiant. The likelihood of greater success in coming years is nil. The need for transformative change in these companies' practices is urgent. Even more "progressive" companies such as Total are continuing with large-scale exploration and development of new reserves, while putting token amounts of capital into renewables, and committing to not drill only where it's no longer financially feasible. There is no likelihood of Exxon, Chevron or the other majors "going private" in the foreseeable future, and even if that were to somehow happen, companies would still be subject to government regulation, were there to ever be any of such that resulted in large percentage of reserves being left unburned as is crucial for planetary habitability. Companies that are more likely to go private are those declaring bankruptcies, and hopefully no one's pension was dependent on those stocks. To the extent that NGOs want to continue with filing shareholder resolutions to emphasize the risks to which companies are putting their investors and citizens everywhere, that can be done with only $2000 in stock holdings. No one is advocating for these companies to "collapse"; it is their own practices which are heading them for some such outcome. Best if investors don't accompany them in that direction, especially not if doing so is in the vain hope of creating change with shareholder resolutions.

Hawking has also said, that the sun is getting larger and hotter as it ages. So if this is true, is this the real cause of climate change?

You dismissed an entire field of science on the basis of the worst example of "logic" I've ever seen. Hint: there is often more than one cause for any given effect. Example: your ignorance isn't merely caused by your lack of a proper education, it's also caused by your self-concept as a right-wing redneck American. Your need to be validated by your peer group has an influence on your hillbilly stupidity, but merely removing the peer-group influence probably wouldn't change your mind, because you also need to be capable of processing new information and receiving that information in an unbiased manner. Not that I expect you to understand a word of what I've just written.

Really so more ice at both poles is wrong? http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/ http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels-despite-global-warming http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html 800K years of ice cores Greenland has gained 300 ft of new ice since 1942 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl

Good points on Fossil fuel subsidies, environmental goods and the WTO-Paris interface. But the article fails to actually address any of the criticisms it refers to at the outset, simply stating "Trade matters for growth, for job creation and for poverty reduction—and it matters for our environment too". Would have expected a stronger case to be made given the bold headline.

There’s no doubt that activity of mankind has a huge impact on mother earth but there is still a chance for us, we can repair what we’ve made. For the start one good news, we’ve got a lot of time to the next Ice Age ;) http://blog.pulawy.com/en/the-next-ice-age-postponed-by-50000-years/

Good for them. But that still leaves Exxon and Chevron, et al, with its current control of the US Congress in terms of energy and environmental policy, going in the opposite direction. And if science-denier Trump wins, it will totally pull the US out of the fight - and the Paris agreement with it, as far as major players India and China are concerned. That's why it is so critical that the evil which the Republican party has become in 2016, must be defeated; not just for America's sake, but for the world's sake.

A possible solution to move money quickly (but still maintaining fiduciary standards) to where it is needed most would be for the GCF to fund the adaptation projects that have already been approved in many of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) waiting for funding at the LDC Fund or the approved adaptation projects at the Adaptation Fund (AF). These are all ready-to-go projects that have already been vetted and approved but the LDCF and AF have no money to fund them.

The irony is that ExxonMobil has nothing to do with Global Warming. It is all a side effect of the EPA's (and other global entities) efforts to clean the air by reducing SO2 emissions.. Google: "It's SO2, not CO2". Unfortunate, but true.

This is obvious and common sense. There is no need for expert advise I would think?

A thorough scientific study of the Arctic environment should have been mandatory before we allowed Shell to do any exploring. We do not even know what is there or what we will lose when we let the oil companies "have at it

I would like to hear this performed by people who know how to sing and recorded on equipment more sophisticated than a smartphone.

I agree it would be nice if the oil & gas majors diversified but you are asking people to bet their retirement savings on this happening. Given the short timescales involved with climate change now that doesn't seem like prudent financial advice, particularly as you say yourself engagement is likely to have minimal effect again this year (given that most oil and gas majors will spend more on exploration than renewables).

A "keep it simple" mechanism is necessary for a rich - poor climate agreement. Countless meetings and summits has shown immense complexity preventing any immediate actionable agreement among rich and poor nations to lower CO2 to safe levels, which should be the first priority - safety. There has been too much rhetoric, obfuscation, collusion, selfishness, delaying tactics, incompetence and laziness - all undesirable human traits. Each carried its own price - inaction in the face of calamity. What can we do, when heatwaves could reach 54C in 10 years, in India, Australia, Middle East, Arizona etc. This year heatwaves reached 51C in India during the daytime and 43C at nighttime. To "keep it simple", three UN Divisions of Finance Providers - Technology Providers - Technology recipients should be organized, cooperating voluntarily. Based on transparently accounted finance available from Finance Providers for CO2 mitigation and urgent adaptation needs, Technology Providers and Technology recipients can get to work immediately.

Great article Saleem. I am a climate scientist working in Africa and you have summarized my feelings quite well on the "parachuting in then buggering off" type of engagement typical of (hopefully) well-intentioned organizations. As Lisa suggests perhaps the solution lies in a type of hybrid mode of capacity development where there is a formal "academic" course, perhaps something equivalent to a M.BA. or an M.Phil. that has trans-disciplinary components as well as something that helps develop the "professional" sector. Grey - where has you university experience been? Most of my university-based climate and impacts colleagues cannot access papers pay-walled by the publishing houses so being able to read papers is a luxury. Also we have to be engaged at the grass roots because so much of our interest is around "subsistence" agriculture so I think we are not as removed from reality as you suggest. Lastly (and facetiously) most of our ivory has been poached and smuggled off the continent so ivory towers are few and far between. I do, however, sympathize with your views on the insane bureaucracy within a university, it really is painful and would add the bureaucracy imposed by the funder is usually similarly tedious. Having said all that I do think that generally our (African) governments have not come to the party in any meaningful way. That I have to rely on SIDA/IDRC/USAID to fund the development of African scientists in Africa is inexcusable. So I am grateful for the financial assistance from these institutions, I just wish they would work with us and not have us work for them.

So, on the one hand, we have Trump - who is supposed not to believe in dangerous climate change - concerned that rising sea levels could endanger one of his golf courses: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436. And, on the other, we have the Chinese - who are supposed to believe in dangerous climate change - spending billions constructing low-lying islands in the South China Sea: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html?_r=0

Desperate much? Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Record low ice right now is a fact, More than likely the Arctic will be effectively ice free in Summer in less than a decade.

near term human extinction by 2030?

To those that think this is utter nonsense, don't go crying to anyone when the shit hits the fan. When that tornado rips through your house or the record breaking heatwave kills off your entire family or that massive hurricane tears through your city,.... just take it like the man you pretend to be.

The subject of articles like this is one of the most frequently and unfairly attacked topics in climatology by people harboring clearly malicious intentions. Going beyond those like Tony Heller who rehash old fibs about Al Gore's 2007 Nobel acceptance speech, where he alluded to projections from the US Navy of its added expenses due needing to prepare for rapid Arctic Ice change as soon as 2014 (though the expected zero of Arctic summer sea ice according to that speech was still 2029), to those who believe the lies and those who use the lies for political advantage as dogwhistling cues to groupthink, we have to ask how to address such serious issues without attracting these gadflies? To me, it's simple: associate the observation with the theory, and through the theory to the cause, which is fossil waste byproduct dumping; thence address the real cause: failure to make dumpers pay a disposal fee. With this connection clearly stated as a necessary logical consequence of observations, we move the discussion to solution, away from mere invitation to bandwagon jumpers.

Hey Steve, why don't you share with us your own scientific data?

A friend told me about holding climate change signs at the entrance to parking for the Exxon shareholder meeting and having a driver call him a "loser." He then realized that the Exxon shareholder was absolutely right. Everyone in the world is a "loser" when Exxon bullies us. The next driver told my friend to "bite me." That succinctly summarizes the attitude of Exxon shareholders towards those they bully. No wonder Exxon is called the public enemy number one.

Al Gore said that really? He's a climate scientist now is he? You think the arctic sea ice is doing dine do you? Think the weather this summer will make up for the record loss so far this year? Based on what information exactly? Slide on; you're just another ignorant denier without the mental capacity for rational logical thought. It's great to just contradict true scientists without a sliver of information or understanding. No, your 'opinion' is worthless without something to back it up.

I agree it would be nice if the oil & gas majors diversified but you are asking people to bet their retirement savings on this happening. Given the short timescales involved with climate change now that doesn't seem like prudent financial advice, particularly as you say yourself engagement is likely to have minimal effect again this year (given that most oil and gas majors will spend more on exploration than renewables).

I bet that you will not be around at the end of the summer to say how stupid you are.

Hawking, like Sagan are relying on faulty information, known in the computer world as GIGO, that is "garbage in, garbage out." Hawking admits the climate is changing and has for thousands, if not millions of years, however to blame mankind is faulty information. Our sun creates all our climate, always has, always will. H2O is a more heat absorbing gas, than any other in our atmosphere. Those white puffy things in the sky is not methane, CO2 nor nitrogen, it water vapor...H2O. Short of an atomic war, our planet is safe for mankind for thousands of years or until an atomic war, stricken by a large asteroid or as mentioned by "wakeup," the inevitable explosion of our sun. Get over yourself, humans are not that effective.

So what if Gore's predictions were a few years' off? It will be ice-free sooner or later, so Gore is essentially correct.

OK. But why do you say it'll turn out as nonsense? Has snowmelt NOT started at the earliest date yet in 73 years? Are polar bears NOT having to make their decisions about how to move and where to go on thinner ice pack that’s mostly first-year ice? Would an early spring NOT impact wildlife and tundra plants? Did temperatures in Alaska NOT hit 11C above average this winter? In December was there NO storm that sent what experts described as a “pulse” of heat to the region, spiking mercury from -30C to freezing? Do satellite photos from mid-May NOT depict an early sea-ice breakup with an ominous series of openings, known as leads, extending deep into the Arctic? Which of these is nonsense? All of them? Or just one? Which one? Do tell. Really: do tell. It's important. So tell me why I DON'T have to lie awake worrying about what the future holds for my children and grandchildrem. Please, Steve Goddard. If you know: share.

Source?

Oh, get off it, Steve. Al Gore is just your favorite (and completely irrelevant) strawman. He's not a climate scientist and doesn't represent anyone but himself. Never has. Certainly not the state of science knowledge, which luckily is open and stands independent of any one man or woman. You are free to have your own very weak methods of thinking about things. But others aren't so terribly hampered as you, it seems. The facts to check would be those stated in the article. Such as: (1) "snowmelt has started at the earliest date yet in 73 years"; or, (2) "arctic sea ice levels are on a course to hit a new record low"; or, (3) "temperatures in Alaska hit 11C above average this winter." For those actually interested in what Al Gore did say, google up 'arctic sea ice al gore prediction' and look at the truth-out dot org article on it. Not that it matters to the science. But it further undermines Steve's credibility and memory.

This is bygone technology; the new technology is different; For starter, for plants already in operation, run the Plant like you are doing, but divert all flue gases even as they are coming out of the turbines to a Special Distillation Plant which distills any of the following four waters, Raw, Polluted, Effluent & Ocean. The distilled water after minerals are added becomes potable and could be used anywhere & everywhere. There would be still simmering heat which could be used for drying purposes, particularly Bio-mass or for District heating. Once the hot gases come down to ambient temperature, they are Liquefied and what you get is the components of the Gas, Liquid Nitrogen, Liquid Carbon & Liquid Oxygen which are sold as fertilizers, industrial & other inputs; Sulphur would have been extracted earlier before the gas enters into the Distillation tubes. This is later treated separately. Now all the products are commercial and bring in great profits; Electricity generation becomes free. And there is absolutely no pollution neither a gram or an ounce. The water, sulfur, sometimes Ammonia, Liquid Nitrogen, Liquid Carbon & Liquid Oxygen are all Flue gas products and we call them FGH (Flue Gases Harvest). The Electricity is Free & Clean; the Power Plant is rich & prosperous.

The Paris Agreement is still incomplete. The modalities and methodologies are yet to come and need to be accepted 'by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session' It is here that you may get the details. Right now, as it stands, you will not find anywhere anything about any fuel. But they have created such a scare about fossil fuels, particularly coal, that many countries are passing legislation scoring out use of the fuels. Mr.Obama is a great champion of this cause; his Clean Power bill is held in abeyance by the Court.

He said it could be ice free not would be ice free and if he misses it by 2 years he did get it pretty close

What? Corporate responsibility?

Rubbish. This is the exact quote: "Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years." That's hardly the same as your claim, that Al Gore "said the Arctic would be ice free in 2014." In other words, we don't have to wait three months to see what utter nonsense your comment was.

A good example of a serious corporate response to climate change. We need more like this. Every company should be thinking deeply about how climate change will affect them and be developing a response that is resilient to various likely scenarios.

Or not... who want to take the risk?

Now that the terms are known, including the 3$B hit, have there been any articles comparing this to the Swedish Greenpeace proposal for an organized and social shutdown of the plant with end-point 2030? I.e. might the financial resources needed have been within reach?

Wow, let us sew confusion for a few paper profits ... That'll impress all the ladies responsible for the human race!

Climate change is real, regardless of whether Al Gore says stupid things. If you're wrong, will you check back to apologize?

the sea ice in the Arctic has seen increased melting due to increased wave action, that wasn't in the earlier models. Having worked on an ice breaking oil tanker in the Arctic. the squalls that blow through are quite something, spray blowing over the top of the ships stacks, with chunks of ice the size of pick-up trucks bouncing around. The ice expert on board told me anything bigger than a piano could sink us. This was 1986.

No he didn't. You are fibbing. Best, D

Al Gore also said the Arctic would be ice free in 2014. Check back in three months to see what utter nonsense this article was.

"But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding." Jeremiah 10:12 God made all by science! Not through miracles as religious preachers falsely claim. Let us stick to God who made everything by science, thanks!

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) & Photosynthesis are the foundation of Life on Earth. Plants/plankton turn Sunlight/CO2 into Food/Oxygen. Neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. Increasing CO2 lengthens growing seasons & encourages plants to move higher in altitude & Latitudes; just as it helps to shrink deserts, plants using water more efficiently. Rising temperatures also lengthen growing seasons, help babies of nearly every species, increase net rainfall & save lives; because cold kills. The Earth is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 40 years ago.

So what? This activity by Japan and the US will essentially do nothing to enable catastrophic global warming. Take your head out of the sand a begin to see reality instead of the fantasy world you've been living in.

Opportunities exist now for big oil companies. Not in CCS or BE-CCS (economically speculative and too far in the future), but in pure photosynthetic, biological removal of excess atmospheric CO2 to safe levels. Witness the heatwaves now reaching 51C in India due to excessive CO2. What temperatures in 10 years? Excess CO2 can be sequestered as wood and vegetation during the next 15 years until renewables and net-zero emissions are able to keep CO2 at safe levels. A global drive by big oil companies to grow forest and fruit trees to absorb CO2 will directly lower CO2 levels, plus counter food security concerns. Sounds trivial? its not. Fruit is a high energy and carbohydrate source for nourishment, more valuable than straight staples. An enormous variety of fruit and nut trees exist, some highly resistant to insect attack. Dried fruit can be stored and used as food for a long time.

Something is better than nothing. Why can't you just appreciate all other advantage. ? Even it solves problem to little extent we need to accept it. If Only you can come up with 20% of the problem's solution then you make sense by accusing them.

18.5% brazilian ranforest that is 14. that's a 77 coded lie. so of course i don't believe the police are really going around trying to get these gangs who have camouflage chainsaws and do it under cloud cover to hide from "Satellites" this is so bogus. nice story though. there are criminals out there and they are in no need to hide. they are just going to keep destroying it. they say they cut back on destroying. no actually the old growth is probably gone. and they cant do anything with tiny little trees that are only a few inches wide having "regrown" ridiculous

What are we trying to do? Avert Climate change disasters or achieve gender equality? Only capable people should take up the challenge, no matter if only women can do it. We should readily agree to that. But the experience so far has been very bad. Basic fallacies exist and drive the Paris Agreement. And with such fallacies, achieving SDGs is not possible forget about empowering technologies. Who is responsible for that? The outgoing Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC or the UN Secretary General?

Thought-provoking comments ! I am thankful for the analysis , Does someone know where my assistant might be able to acquire a sample a form version to edit ?

And we KNOW WHY administrations of Manitoba and Saskatchewan are proving "skeptical" (LOL!) of the climate agenda. FOLLOW the fossil fuel Industry funder Liars and Deniers 'R' US money.

My husband and I have been reading and listening to lectures by scientists about this. It is absolutely frightening and makes me very sad. We have a 10 year old son. How do I tell him we are on the edge of extinction?? I keep saying "Well, we have to keep hope that there will be an answer", knowing in my heart it is coming far too late, if at all.

This is a good article, Saleem. I agree with the importance of capacity building, and definitely think it is more than just a one-off training course. At the very least, there needs to be a practical dimension to it as well. However, I also think the point made by Grey below has merit - what you learn in a University class is not always practical. I think it needs to be clear exactly what sort of capacity building you are referring to. For example, you can give a fantastic course on concepts, which everyone wants to understand. But what is the purpose - Is it understanding concepts so that tools and policies can be used and formulated, or is it understanding concepts in order to carry out research projects? But I also think the idea that 'capacity building is development' is inaccurate. Capacity building is certainly a necessary step for development, but it is not an end on its own. So I do agree with Saleem's critique that money thrown at consultants to carry out a few training courses is a dodgy thing. But maybe what we need is a hybrid model between single training courses and entire degree programmes? I certainly know of a few such examples already out there.

Could be too late to act on climate change? THEN ALLOW SCIENCE TO SAY IT'S AS REAL AS SMOKING CAUSING CANCER & end the debate before it's too late to say it! What's worse, a comet hit? CO2EnvironMENTALism It's safe to say that after 35 years of climate action delay; CO2 is the new Y2K²

Hello, The title suggests that there is a new bad situation in regard to the environmental laws in Brasil. Not true, these are just just a progression of Roussef adminstration own legislation. Please find out how much her government protected the mining industry by not applying financial sanctions and exercising minimum environmental surveillance which directly caused the Mariana disaster. One could also investigate how her party has been promoting the desertification of the Amazon forest by granting associated mega cattle business with subsidies and credits. Roussef and PT (her party) not only have been far from being a model but have actually actively promoted the greatest destruction of the Amazonian ecosystem by imposing, against any opposition, the implantation of Belo Monte dam.

Let's rewind. Ontario Government has said this program is partly to mitigate extreme weather and floods. But But Environment Canada verified no significant change in rainfall events over decades: http://www.cityfloodmap.com/2015/07/storm-intensity-not-increasing-old.html CBC has corrected their earlier reporting on storm trends as a result of these facts: http://www.cityfloodmap.com/2015/10/bogus-statements-on-storms-in-cbcnewsca.html Don't "Blame it on the Rain" like MiIli Vanilli because there are other factors that quantitatively explain increasing flood damages in Ontario as in my letter to the Minister: http://www.cityfloodmap.com/2015/08/letter-to-ontario-minister-of.html Evidence-based policies require us to check facts: “There will still be times when someone accuses us of having lost our way, of having chosen the wrong priorities, and I know that can be hard to hear. But in moments in great and important choice, when the stakes are high, and the consequences are long-lasting, we have to test our assumptions.” Premier Kathleen Wynne, AGM, June 6, 2015 Now is a good time. The insurance industry has been off base for several years on rainfall facts and is WAY out of step with Environment Canada data. Milli Vanilli's step aside: http://www.cityfloodmap.com/2015/11/milli-vanilli-blame-it-on-rain.html The GO Train rail line has flooded for centuries and decades as reported in the flood inquiry report to Premier Davis (Keating Channel dredging is behind schedule): http://www.cityfloodmap.com/2015/07/go-train-flooding-not-new-1981-inquiry.html Its time to start connecting to dots on climate change and have Ontario graduate from infographics and spin, and to real science and real evidence based policy: http://www.cityfloodmap.com/2015/07/connecting-dots-on-climate-change-100.html Premier Kathleen Wynne and Ontario Minsiters of the Environment and Climate Change, Natural Resources, Infrastructure, Municipal Affairs and Housing, its time to 'slow down the thinking' on extreme weather (a la Daniel Kahneman) and overcome heuristic biases: http://www.cityfloodmap.com/2015/11/thinking-fast-and-slow-about-extreme.html The Ontario Chamber of Commerce should demand that Ontario govenment look at he big picture and misstatements on cliamte change impacts. If it did, it would realize that it should be investing in Design Standard Adaptation and funding municipalities to address flood risks, and not be tilting to windmills (err.. turbines) as a means of Climate Change Mitigation - detailed analysis of flood causes supports a more focused and rational approach to flood issues in Ontario: http://www.cityfloodmap.com/2016/04/design-standard-adaptation-vs-climate.html

I read that cattle are a major source of methane emissions, but there are less cattle than there were buffalo roaming our country 150 years ago. Did buffalo not emit methane or manure? Crazy greens!

It takes two to negotiate, or in this case 195. There cannot be a renegotiation. At worst President Trump could simply cancel Obama's acceptance of the Paris Agreement by the US government. (This withdrawal would only become effective in four years.) Like the schoolyard joke: what goes 99-clunk? A centipede with a wooden leg. Would other countries delay ratification if they expected an American exit, or scale back their NDCs? It's had to see what advantage they would gain by this.

Something needs to be done about climate change. So many aspects of life are being negatively affected by the natural reactions to changing temperature. That is not to say that the climate change is natural, caused by El Niño as some people say, because although that torrential current has been around for possibly thousands of years, this migration is clearly a new phenomenon.

With apologies to all the great academics I know I have one major objection to this and that is my own personal experience with universities. I have done my time in academia having both completed an MSc and done much consulting for various universities. What I have learned is that academics very rarely make good real world practitioners. They are great at reading and writing papers based on what they've read, but exist in ivory towers that isolate them from real world experience. Also, universities are intensely bureaucratic and cannot match the dynamism or efficiency of specialist consultants who have on the ground, local experience.

Please understand that methane emissions from ruminants are somewhat abated by the sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide during photosynthesis of the grasses they consume. Therefore net emissions rather than gross are what need to be targeted.

An even better option may be staring people in the face at Wikimedia Commons. It is a free energy device that I have not built, but I fully believe it works. It involves changing the amount of effective weight applied on a lever in a chain reaction. See the diagram: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Differential_Angularity_(2).jpg

Wonder what kind of power is used in Telsa mega battery plant - fossil / nuclear / renewables?

Question for Erik Solheim on resource efficiency. Do buildings in cities need all their bright lights on at night? Airports, hospitals, police stations, insecure localities etc. should be lit of course. About to land at any major city at night, one sees the enormous carpet of lights and large amounts of energy used, some wasted. How much savings in global CO2 emissions/year if all cities adopt CO2 emission savings by switching off unnecessary lighting?

Clearing land by burning was a practice of local farmers with small plots of land. When you have acres upon acres, industrial scale plantations, Indonesian government ministers insensitive, indifferent and blatantly protect plantation owners that are perpetrators of the slash and burn, should be called into question. As a net importer of oil and at the same time releasing tonnes of energy into the atmosphere by these land clearing operations, Indonesia seems not to be too bothered with the country's well being.

Well, yes, because the billions of people who don't have access to the aggressive dietary supplementation required to sustain a vegan diet would die off. This would cause the necessary population decrease that is the true root of almost all of our civilization's problems.

Even the more "progressive" of fossil-fuel companies are doing far more with their rhetoric and branding than they are with actual effective transitioning actions, and even the more progressive of fund managements (virtually all of them) are enabling that with their "engagements." Until there are commitments to the transformative changes which are essential to planetary habitability, we need divorces due to irreconcilable differences, not engagements.

The Easiest one.... State a Zero Gate Fee and leave it at that.

James you are correct and the reasoning is commercial rather than environmental. In the current statements the issue is free water content. So if you look at the Worl Bank documents about Waste to Energy in its own words - World Bank Technical guidance Report Municipal Solid Waste Incineration - you will find that it specifically agrees with the facts that it is not suitable in developing countries where the free water content is so high. Bear in mind that this document was written in 1999 and was signed off by Incineration Companies and Consulting Engineers and Finance Groups. The obvious way the incineration companies get around this issue is to state that their programmes work effectively in a commercila world because they require such huge subsidies. That being the case this was why that most awful project in Dublin in the Ringsend project was awarded when the quantity of waste to be treated was agreed to be 600,000 tonnes per year (originally it was posted as being over 880,000 tonnes per year) and a Capital cost of €550,000,000 - yep €550 Million/ US $630+ Million in a country that cannot afford such a proposal. So now they will have to pay the company that is the builder and operator €83-00 [ $97-00] per tonne for ever to operate the programme and the City and Area will have to pay the €55 Million/ $63 Million each year (this is the equivalent of 600,000 tonnes at €83-33 per tonne) even if the quantity of MSW drops as is most likely. Imagine the thought that in 10 years time when the treatment capacity drops to 300,000 tonnes per year the tax payers would still pay the €50 million/ $58 million. Further more there is a secret agreement also in place whereby the Government will be bailing out the incineration company Covanta by taking on the liability of treating the toxic residues estimated as being nearly 125,000 tonnes per year in a cost of €300-00 per tonne [ie €37.5 million/ $ 43 million] in a sweet-heart deal to soften the blow of treating toxic residues in the waste gases and ashes that have been declared to be the most toxic in any treatment process. All this is totally unecessay as an equivalent of turning the waste in Dublin to Bio-Ethanol was offered from Europe at €140 Million and did not require a gate fee and promised a EBIT at over €10 per month with a pay off time for its development of just 5 years. AD is an option but it still needs subsidising. However the better option in AD is the super-efficient AD process I have seen which doubles the output of Methane reduces the total digestion time to 2 days and makes four times as much money by the nethane being cleaned to 99.7+% as a Diesel Fuel blended mixture, and for the Carbon Dioxide to be collected and turned in to Methanol and Hydrogen Fuels.

Sounds odd that the discussion here whould be looking at turning the organic waste into a Biofuel - possibly Ethanol maybe Butanol and also a potential Liquefied Methane. A proposal was offered to Delhi in 2012 which would have addressed taking in up to 10,000 tonnes per day of organic wastes derived from MSw and Foods which when accounting for the high water content you have stated would have made around 550+ Million liters of ethanol a year with the output optimised within four years from the start, has been given a budget cost to build in India at €356.75 million and a IRR of over 47% with an EBIT of €30 Million a month was ignored even though the audit confirmed that this was correct. If Mr Shibu K Nair you had this available for discussion then you should present this to the Delhi Municipal Government and Mr Prime Minister Modl since this is far far lower than the costs for incineration/gasification which was given as being over €900 Million for the same scheme.

I've responded to EIA tweets a couple of times recently. You can see one of their tweets, and my response, here: https://twitter.com/eiagov/status/707274949690437633

Thanks for a fairly well balanced argument, Ed. I would suggest a couple of points have been missed though. The initial question was "Does divestment slow or speed green growth?" and this hasn't really been addressed by Desfosses or McNabb - selling fossil fuel shares means investors can invest directly in climate solutions. investing in a pure play renewable company means close to 100% of that investment going to making renewables happen. whereas investment in eg Total leads to only c.1% of your investment actually going to renewables. For green growth therefore, divest invest unequivocally is more effective than waiting for the "supertankers" to turn. An additional point; you were right to draw a distinction between Desfosses' and McNabb's strategies. Unlike Vanguard, ERAFP use the threat of divestment to generate leverage for their asks. So divestment is still the strategy, it's just being used in a slightly different way. Finally, if investors do decide against divestment immediately, we need to see clear KPIs for their engagement strategy; eg if fossil fuel companies don;t show enough progress after intense engagement over a year, they should divest.

Yes. But can't we have both??? I've been working in this space for a while and frankly unless it is simple and boiled down to 30 seconds or less (and ultimately on the TV all the time) these messages are probably never really going to really penetrate into the public conscious in any real way. While governments may like reports I think we have more than enough already. If we as a climate community don't get serious about communications and start prioritising it to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars then structural changes needed like a serious revenue neutral carbon tax will continue to be a political fantasy. We have to give a lot of talented people the time and space to come up with and test messages to find out what resonates. Ed Hawkins info-graphic is a beautiful illustration of what is possible. But something like it still needs to be put in front of the general public on a regular basis for it to sink in (think long term anti-smoking or road safety TV advertising campaigns). This is where the battle is at people and where it will be lost. ( that's my frustrated rant over :D )

Sanders is correct on climate change; we need a WW2 type implementation. I don't think Clinton gets the severity of the situation which I find odd because she is very smart on so many other topics.

"... 2C, the upper threshold governments agreed in Paris" No it wasn't. Article 2.1. (a) of the Paris text is about an aim, not an agreement. And, in any case, that aim must be read in the context of Article 4. 4. This provides that developing countries (responsible for about 70 percent of global emissions) are merely “encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets …”. In other words, countries may have aspired to a 2ºC upper threshold - but they didn't agree to one. Are we "getting close to solving climate change"? Er ... unlikely.

Lets see if India achieves the goal of 100GW of Solar Power. That would really be good if we achieve this. Many solar companies in India like Tata Power, AgniSolar etc are taking initiative to spread the knowledge and importance of Solar energy.

Anything that helps to spread awareness and defeat those that want to keep the population uninformed in order to protect their profits, is good. The Arctic Death Spiral also went viral a couple of years ago, but I'm not sure how much effect it had in the big picture. http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral.jpg

The problem with taxation is that is takes money out of the economy, effectively raising prices as the fee is passed on to consumers. Fior a tax to be a deterrent, to get people off coal, people need to have money to buy alternatives. The clean fund does not fulfill this. Behaviour changing fees should be repaid back to taxpayers. For more on this see the article here. It covers phosphorus but the principles are the same. https://stephenhinton.org/2016/03/04/opinion-put-a-price-on-phosphorus-now-and-drive-circularity/

I'm tired of games... He's concerned about damage to his campaign by talking about reality and the horrific dangers we face? People are dying, you know, Mr. T. Ignoring an issue as large as this doesn't speak well for your leadership qualities. It's simple - keep the darn stuff in the ground, and move people out of harms way as impacts continue to unfold and worsen.

Good to make the point that we are responsible for the anthropological effect on earth. Let us stick to science please, thanks!

Climate skepticism is now a bastion against tyranny. Those who demand economy-breaking 'climate action', despite it's total futility, are resorting to tyrannical and Inquisition-like tactics to stifle disagreement and dissent. It is as contrary to the Bill of Rights and the International Bill of Human Rights as is the text of the Quran.

... the World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, noted that countries in south and south-east Asia were on track to build hundreds more coal-fired power plants in the next 20 years – despite promises made at Paris to cut greenhouse gas emissions ...

It's remarkable how so many senior public officials in the West seem not to understand what was agreed in Paris.** According to the Agreement, developing countries (responsible for about 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and including all the countries in south-east and south Asia mentioned above) are exempted from any obligation (legal or moral) to cut their emissions. For example, under Article 4.4., they are merely "encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets …". Their overriding priority was confirmed as economic development and poverty elimination. In other words, the actions these countries are taking are wholly compatible with the Paris Agreement. So why is anyone surprised? ** See this for example: http://chn.webxost.com/2016/04/29/no-time-for-complacency-as-paris-climate-deal-moves-to-action/

The thermal expansion of the Earth's crust due to a fraction of a degree temperature increase will cause miles of expansion around the circumference. The top crust will slide over the lower, constant-temperature crust, and voila! Earthquakes and volcanoes will increase exponentially, as they have for decades.

Of course they will change. They are already changing. The Pine Bark Beetle is killing off vast areas that will likely be replaced with deciduous trees.

Please provide the links for your claims. 150 tons of emissions = one more human death CO2 will keep heating the earth for 300-900 years Thank you.

The World Bank has classified a railway project in India as "green" because it would take vehicles off the roads! If an institution like the World Bank employs such convoluted logic to cheat developing countries out of green funding, you can imagine the fate of the planet!

Roll up your sleeves. Form the implementation committee. Form the engineering committee. What solar/wind products do we need to develop? Who is already on it? Look for merit and work with the problems, as opposed to seeking a 100% chance of success, not a huge research department. Are they stuck because there's no money whatsoever? What private money is available? Matthew 25:25 -- The third servant said, "Here is your talent of money, master, safe and sound. I buried it in the ground."

cool

"Most of us" is still a generalization that speaks for others rather than yourself.

I would like to suggest these articles as supplement to the above: The Fat Lady Sings for Oil - Saudi is Leaving Oil In the Ground Fossil fuel has reached the end of its life cycle. Saudi Arabia has realized oil biz is dying and has announced exit strategy https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fat-lady-sings-oil-saudi-leaving-ground-michael-frank Half the worlds crude oil production is being used for transportation, equal to about 7,950,000,000 liter fuel - daily... Having in mind average age for cars on the roads is about 11 years. With the introduction and growth rates of non fossil vehicles the fossil that number will get much smaller. But oil companies are not following the macro trends in the market. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fossil-fuel-phased-out-oil-companies-sitting-ducks-dont-frank

This is wishful thinking - there was no deal. There are no requirements to deliver binding CO2 cuts. China, India et al will rightly continue to lift themselves from poverty and by so doing increase emissions. All power to their collective elbows I say. They are laughing at you.

Japan is in a box. They have denied themselves nuclear, after Fukushima, thus they survive off carbon combustion. They have a flat economy as a result of high energy costs and they are now being asked to cut back on their live line, carbon fuel. Their energy intense society has a problem. And they have a nut next door who keeps shooting missiles into the sea, and exploding A bombs. What energy technology should they pursue to survive until 2030? Good luck to them.

"a new international accord under which all countries will take action to limit their emissions" But, as I've pointed out several times on this blog, that isn't an accurate description of what was agreed in Paris. For example, Article 4. 4. of the Agreement provides that developing countries (responsible for about 70 percent of global emissions) are merely “encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets …”. And the text contains much more material to the same effect. For more detail, see this article by David Campbell, Professor of contract law at Lancaster University: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/lord-turners-misleading-views-on-the-paris-agreement/#comment-68162 It's worrying that someone who is "climate change ambassador for France and a candidate to lead the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change" doesn't appear to understand what was agreed in Paris. As I say in my comment on Professor Campbell's article, the victors in Paris were in particular the Chinese and Indians who have secured everything they want – and especially their freedom from any obligation, legal or moral, to cut their emissions. And, as consummate negotiators, they seem to have achieved all this without the West, including it seems Professor Tubiana, even noticing.

This s exactly the kind of nonsense, the crowdfunding campaign on the Generosity crowdfunding site is trying to end. The campaign is classified as an "other" category and called, "Save the World - Sue the IPCC" This lunacy is going to destroy our only real chance to thrive on this planet.

Investors looking for "light green" are suckers for "carbon offset" related fraud. Why go through the disruption of actually modernizing your company's energy technology, when you can just throw a few bucks at a "biofuel" plantation someplace. It's not as if the ancient rainforest that was destroyed to put in the wood pellet or oil palm plantation is going to show up on your balance sheet...

I agree. The ETS hasn't been successful in accomplishing this goal in Europe. Schemes like the one in California seem to be more successful, but I don't see the world as a whole using carbon trading as an effective climate action policy.

poor old France, it is already in trouble financially and now wants to saddle business with more debt,

The goal is admirable but Germany is behind other countries on CO2 reduction based on Edgar data: Edgar data for CO2 1999-2014: Germany -11% EU28 -16% UK -23% Energy is the largest portion of CO2 emissions, yet for Germany, it's just not happening:

If you want to be realistic, 2030 is too late. Typical politicians: sign an agreement that puts off necessary work for another 14 years, so someone else can worry about it later.

Insh'Allah he is right!

An excellent piece on a vitally important subject. Congratulations to the organisers of the event and to the WHRC researchers.

Charles Koch did not ask for Clintons Opinion - He simply stated that of all the candidates of either party who are running for President; that Clinton would provide the least impediment to his kinds plans to Enslave the Remnants of Humanity after they cause the Destruction of the Rest

A commitment by decision makers to save critical time and hold warming to 1.5C - 2.0C would be national policy changes to carbon taxes and quick rollout of negative emission technologies and renewable technologies. As our Secretary General of UN said "We are running out of time" to solve the climate crisis.

Thanks for the quick coverage. I urge use of the phrase "climate science denial" rather than "climate change denial" where feasible. I think its implications are more far-reaching and meaningful. MHO.

I need to get my head around this. Saudi oil is finite. That much we know. Exactly when the oil will be depleted beyond the point of economic access, only the Saudis know, or can guess at. But it cannot be longer than 10-15 years. 20 years tops. Soooooo---The Saudis want to sell shares in an oil company wholly dependent on a finite resource for its ongoing viability. Am I missing a trick here?, Not just the Saudi economy, but the world economy, is entirely dependent on hydrocarbon production and usage. There is nothing else that makes the wheels of industry go round. Yet the saudis are insisting that by investing "elsewhere" their "economy" will still function in a world that has no viable oil supplies. Can somebody explain how this petromagic works? With the world economy in a no-oil tailspin, somehow the Saudi economy is going to remain unaffected as revenue continues to pour in from "elsewhere". And forget renewables---they deliver electricity. Electricity cannot replace hydrocarbon, and all renewable systems require a hydrocarbon infrastructure in which to function. The Saudis are locked to the culture of "more" just as we are, and like us, they don't recognise the danger in it. This is why I wrote the book--"the End of More" to drive home the dangers we face http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00D0ADPFY though it doesn't offer any solutions to the mess we're in.

In wide perspect, solar energy shall give a feelgood over coal. Go ahead.

I hope to do my part. I will be at next month's protest. This is really important. I already eat a vegan-chicken diet and purchase zero fossil fuels for any purpose. Global warming will be much worse than projected, which is already projected to be a massive disaster. Good scientists agree that have already blown any chance of limiting to a 2C temp rise. Arctic sea ice is at record lows and will very likely smash the 2012 record summer low. April is certain to be the warmest April in global history making 12 record months in a row. The rapid rise is temporarily slowing, but no scientist projected that this El Nino would be anything close to as bad as it has been. Hansen is definitely the best at projecting the future based upon a combination of scientific data on paleoclimates and our present warming. He is right that billions of human are almost certain to die this century. Any actions now will save some human and animal lives this century. Mike Berners-Lee estimates that every 150 tons of extra CO2 added to the atmosphere in 2016 will result in one more human death this century and keep on killing life on Earth for centuries to come. Every pound counts. I truly think about it in every thing I do, right down to using no tissues or paper towels and vacationing locally which is vastly more important that eating locally. Go EV now. Buy renewable electricity now. It's not that expensive. It's absolutely immoral for you and me to kill fellow humans just to save money. No beef or dairy now. No air travel. Fans, not AC. Better insulation, not fossil fuel heating. Vote Democrat.

Why not International Anti-Corruption pact too! No or less corruption, better world climate. Fast and steady prosecution and jailing of corrupt leaders. I guess it is not possible... it would mean that most of the countries will replace leaders everyday!