America

Renewables will give more people access to electricity than coal #StopAdani 

Renewables will give more people access to electricity than coal, says IEA

D7A75P Mother with a solar panel in Lira District, Uganda, East Africa.
Around the world, more than a billion people still lack access to electricity.
This number is shrinking, down by one third since 2000, despite rising population levels, according to an International Energy Agency (IEA) special report on energy access, published today.
The report says that while coal has supplied nearly half of the progress from 2000 to date, its role is set to decline “dramatically”. This is because renewables are becoming cheaper and because the hardest-to-reach people are in remote, rural areas where off-grid solutions offer the lowest cost.
The report shows the number of people without access to electricity will shrink by another third by 2030, with 60% of these gains supplied by renewables. Furthermore, if the world commits to providing universal access by 2030, then renewables would bridge 90% of the remaining gap, the IEA says.
Recent progress
There have been spectacular gains in providing access to electricity this century, cutting the number without it from 1.7 billion in 2000 to 1.1 billion in 2016, the IEA says. 

Most of this progress has been in Asia, as the charts below show (blue, yellow and green lines and columns).

Population without electricity access, by region, 2000-2016. Source: IEA special report on energy access.
India has led the way, with 500 million gaining access to electricity.

 Sub-Saharan Africa now has the majority of people still without access, at 600 million, an increase over the past 15 years due to rising populations. 

Recently, this number peaked and started to fall (red line and columns).
Fuelling gains
The rate of progress has been accelerating, the IEA says, rising from 62 million people gaining electricity access each year during 2000-2012 to 103 million during 2012-2015.
Coal has been the main source of this new supply, generating 45% of the electricity used by people gaining access for the first time between 2000 and 2016 (purple pictograms in the chart, below).
There has also been a growing role for renewable sources of electricity, the IEA notes, with particularly rapid growth in decentralised off-grid access (dark green pictograms).

 From 2000-2012, renewables provided 28% of new access to electricity.

 This figure rose to 34% during 2012-2016.

Annual number of people gaining access to electricity by fuel type. Source: IEA special report on energy access.
There are regional differences in the sources of new electricity connections.

 In India, for example, coal generated 75% of new supplies, against 20% for renewables. (This pattern is expected to reverse, see below.)
Sub-Saharan Africa has had the most rapid recent improvement in providing electricity access, rising from 9m new connections per year during 2000-2012 to 26m per year during 2012-2016. 

Most of this acceleration is due to renewables, responsible for 70% of new access since 2012, whereas coal has not supplied any new connections in this period.
Future growth
Looking ahead, the IEA says the number of people without access to electricity will fall to around 700 million by 2030, under its central scenario.
Asia will reach close to 100% access to electricity by 2030 (lilac, yellow and green lines and columns, below) and India will meet its aim of universal access in the early 2020s (blue). 

The vast majority of the 700 million still without electricity in 2030 will be in sub-Saharan Africa.

Electricity access rate and population without electricity, by region, under the IEA’s central scenario to 2030. Source: IEA special report on energy access.
Note that this chart reflects the IEA’s central “New Policies Scenario”. 

This includes existing policies plus announced policies and intentions.

 It also reflects assumptions about the costs of different technologies and the rates of population and electricity demand growth.
Growing grid
Around the world, the share of new electricity access supplied by renewables will nearly double to 60%, up from 34% over the past five years (green, blue and yellow columns, below). 

This pattern is even more extreme in India, where the share of new electricity from renewables will triple to 60%
Coal’s role in providing electricity access “declines dramatically”, the IEA says, providing power to 16% of those who gain access over the next 14 years. 

This compares to 45% during 2000-2016.

Population gaining access and cumulative investments, by type, under the central scenario. Source: IEA special report on energy access.
Note that the IEA has been criticised for repeatedly underestimating the rate of growth of renewables, particularly solar. 

This makes its outlook, in which renewables supply most new electricity access, even more striking.
Role of renewables
If the world wants to meet the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) of providing universal energy access for all by 2030, then 90% of the additional electricity connections over and above the IEA’s central scenario will come from renewables, its report suggests.
This reflects the fact that the hardest-to-reach populations are those least likely to benefit from grid expansion. 

For these people, decentralised systems, predominantly supplied by solar (yellow columns, below), offer the “lowest cost pathway” to electricity access.

Additional population gaining access and cumulative investments, by type, under the “Energy for All” scenario, compared to the central scenario. Source: IEA special report on energy access.
The report, for the first time, uses geospatial analysis, at a resolution of one square kilometre, to assess the most cost-effective ways to deliver electricity access to sub-Saharan Africa, whether through grid or off-grid solutions. 

This analysis takes into account existing and planned infrastructure, technology developments, local resources, population density and likely demand.
It is this new analysis that suggests decentralised renewables will be the cheapest way to provide electricity access for sub-Saharan Africa’s rural poor. 

Note that research suggests Africa could more than meet its electricity needs, with renewable sources alone.
The IEA puts the cost of providing electricity access to everyone on the planet at an additional $391bn over the period to 2030. 

This would nearly double total spending, adding to the $324bn already expected to be spent under the IEA’s central scenario.
The energy access-focused SDG also includes provision of clean cooking services. 

The IEA says this can best be met using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). As a result, providing universal energy access would increase CO2 emissions by 70m tonnes. 

This would be more than offset by savings of 165MtCO2 equivalent due to reduced methane and nitrous oxide from biomass used for cooking. 

The report says:
Achieving universal energy access is not in conflict with achieving climate objectives. 

The relatively small increase in total primary energy demand and the central role of renewables in our Energy for All Case means that global energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increase by just 70 million tonnes (Mt) relative to the New Policies Scenario in 2030 (0.2% of the global level).
Conclusion
The large numbers of people without access to electricity are a frequent point of contention in debates over how to address climate change.
Some proponents cite China and India’s reliance on coal to bring electricity to their populations. 

They argue that coal is cheap and must be part of the solution for the remaining 1.1 billion people that still lack access to electricity.
Not everyone agrees on how best to meet the needs of these people, who are mostly in sub-Saharan Africa.

 In a November 2016 interview, Dan Kammen, professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley and a former science envoy to the US State Department, told Carbon Brief that coal has been given too much credit as a solution to extreme poverty in Africa.
Coal doesn’t even deliver the thing for which it’s really been touted for, and that is, bringing people out of poverty because somehow it’s this least-cost fossil fuel source…I really cringe a bit when I see people touting mega fossil fuel projects as the obvious, first thing to look at…Distributed clean energy, time and time again today, has proven to be better, cheaper, more socially and environmentally positive.
As a July 2017 World Bank blog explains: “In many rural areas in Africa, impacts on economic development of grid extension in the near term may be very modest, while off-grid technologies can be more cost-effective for meeting the most highly-valued basic household needs.”
In further support of the benefits of off-grid systems, it says:
The major downside of off-grid solar is that the relatively low amount of supplied electricity limits what those systems can do for the productive use of electricity. However, electricity usage patterns in newly electrified areas in rural Africa are often such that solar is able to meet those demands. Even in grid-covered rural areas, households and micro-enterprises use electricity mostly for lighting, phone charging, and entertainment – which can easily be provided by solar panels.
Regardless of these details, today’s new IEA report shows that coal’s role in expanding electricity access is set to decline dramatically. Renewables, both on and off the grid, will provide most new connections, as the population without access falls by another third to 700 million.
If the world hopes to meet its goal of universal electricity access by 2030, then the IEA report suggests it is solar – not coal – that will bridge the gap.
Note on definitions
The IEA report defines electricity access as a minimum of 250 kilowatt hours (kWh) per rural household per year. This excludes the more than 23m “pico solar” units sold since 2010. The report explains:
People relying on ‘pico solar’ products, mainly solar lanterns which may include mobile phone chargers, are considered to be below the minimum threshold to count as having [electricity] access. Nevertheless, there are significant benefits for the poor associated with pico solar products.
You can see the range of solutions it considers in its report in the graphic, below.


Illustrative technology options for providing electricity access and the range of uses they can supply. Source: IEA special report on energy access.
The IEA says there is a “general paucity” of data on access to electricity. Its report is based on its own statistics, national statistical agencies, other publicly available data and a network of contacts in government, multilateral development banks and elsewhere.

Press link for more: Carbon Brief

Advertisements

Climate Change: Politics overrides religion #Auspol #StopAdani 

When it comes to climate change, politics overrides religious views

ELIZABETH EISENSTADT-EVANS | COLUMNIST 


EDITOR’S NOTE: Last week, Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, issued a proposed rule that would repeal the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era effort to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.

If you are a Christian who has ever engaged another believer on the topic of climate change, odds are you have heard of Katharine Hayhoe.
For years, the increasingly prominent Texas Tech University climate scientist has occupied a unique position, building bridges between the scientific community, which overwhelmingly affirms that human-caused climate change is a threat to the planet, and conservative American evangelicals, many of whom are skeptical of science in general and climate science in particular.
Married to a professor of linguistics (and former climate change skeptic) who also is a pastor, Hayhoe (a native of Canada) seems to find the time to be everywhere, including Facebook and Twitter. 

Her bi-weekly “Global Weirding” videos, delivered in a positive, approachable style, tackle many of the myths and questions that dog the topic of climate change (though debate in the scientific community was essentially over a long time ago).
Approximately two years ago, I interviewed Hayhoe for a column.

 In light of the hurricanes that have inflicted massive damage and loss of life in the Caribbean and the United States, I contacted her again.
How were the storms that hit the Gulf Coast, Florida and the Caribbean altered by our warming climate?
The bottom line is that a changing climate exacerbates our natural risks. 

If we want to know why we should care about climate change, all we have to do is look around and see what types of weather extremes we are already vulnerable to in the places where we live. 

If we live in Washington or Oregon, it might be wildfires.


 In the Northeast, it’s often heavy rainfall. 

 In the Gulf Coast, one of our biggest concerns is hurricanes. 

Climate change doesn’t necessarily produce a drought or a hurricane, but it amplifies the risks associated with naturally-occurring events.


Climate change exacerbates the risks associated with hurricanes in at least three different ways:
First, in a warmer world, more water evaporates, so when a storm comes along, there is more water vapor available, which increases the amount of rainfall and the intensity of the rainfall associated with a given storm.  
Reason two is sea level rise.

 As warmer water expands and land-based ice is melting, more water behind the storm surges makes storm surges stronger.
Reason three, over 90 percent of the extra energy being trapped inside the earth’s climate system by the heat-trapping gases we produce is going into the ocean. 

With a warmer ocean, more energy is available to hurricanes, because they get their energy from warm ocean water.
We don’t expect climate change to significantly alter the number of hurricanes, but we do expect that, in a warmer world, on average, there will be more rainfall and stronger storm surges associated with hurricanes, and likely more powerful hurricanes than there would be otherwise.
Why do people expect to see more hurricanes as a proof of the reality of climate change?
In years like 2017, and in 2005, which is the last time we had so many hurricanes, many people wonder or even assume that climate change is causing more hurricanes to form.

 But the reality is that when we look at the long-term numbers, we don’t see any change in the frequency of hurricanes. 

Some years are bad years, other years have relatively few storms.
Looking to one year as proof of a long-term trend is what I think of as “the ink-blot syndrome.” We humans are always looking for patterns in the world around us, but often we are doing so based on inadequate information. 

 This desire to discern patterns from the chaos of life is a natural part of the human condition. 

It makes me think of what Jesus says (in John 4:48): 

“Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe” when, in fact, he’s already standing right in front of them.
Is it too late to mitigate the effects of climate change?
Yes, and no.

 A certain amount of change is inevitable. 

It’s as if we’ve been smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 30 years. 

We can’t expect to see no effect.
There’s all the difference in the world, though, between a future where we continue to depend on fossil fuels and a future where we transition rapidly to clean energy. 

There is still a possibility of avoiding the most widespread dangerous impacts if we act now. That’s what I talk about in my Global Weirding video, “it’s too late to do anything about climate change, right?”
When I have heard your talks or read your speeches, you sound more optimistic than many other scientists. 

Why?
Fear won’t motivate us to act long-term. For long-term, sustained action, we need hope. If we give up hope, we won’t be able to fix this problem.
That’s why I spend so much time looking for (examples) of hope, of people making a difference. If we don’t have hope for a better future, then yes —it is too late.
What changes have you seen among Christians since you began to speak out?

 How is it that you are changing evangelical minds on this issue where others before you have been unsuccessful?
When it comes to our opinions about climate change, what matters most is our political affiliation.

 The most concerned group in the U.S. today is Hispanic Catholics. And the least concerned? White Catholics — with white evangelicals right behind them.
Don’t all Catholics have the same Pope, and isn’t he very concerned about climate change? 


Yes. 

And so these findings highlight how it isn’t where we go to church on Sunday — or not — that really matters when it comes to forming our opinions on climate change. For many of us, our political affiliation takes priority in writing our statement of beliefs today.
What does rejecting the science of climate change have to do with our politics?
Despite the “sciencey-sounding” objections we hear all the time — “it’s just a natural cycle,” they say, or “scientists haven’t been studying this long enough to be sure” — the real reason why most people are saying it’s not real is because they want to avoid action. We’ve been told that acting on climate requires the government telling us what type of car to drive or how to set our thermostat or even ruining the economy and threatening our personal liberties. That isn’t true at all. There are libertarian and free-market solutions to climate change, in addition to policy solutions. Which one should we choose? That’s the conversation we should be having.
Have other Christians who are scientists joined you?
Many of my fellow scientists have reached out in the past few years to tell me they support what I am doing and, in some cases, they even share my faith. But overall, from the Christian community, the reaction has been more negative than positive. The number of Christians who regularly attack me each week is depressing. But this makes me treasure those who support me even more. For example, the Christian conservation organization — A Rocha International — has invited me to give the John Stott London Lecture in London in November, on “Climate and Faith in the Public Arena.” John Stott was a famous Anglican theologian and thought leader in the evangelical world who passed away several years ago. I am incredibly honored to be giving this lecture in the church where he served for so many years.
What can a concerned Christian citizen do in his or her congregation to launch a discussion on climate change?
What we should not do is come in with a bunch of scientific facts and arguments in order to pick a fight or focus on what divides us. Instead, start a conversation on what unites us: that we’ve been given this amazing world by God, who loves us and who has made us into people who are concerned about the poor and about those who are suffering in this world — suffering that is being exacerbated by a changing climate today. We can find common ground when we share from the heart. This approach is exemplified in a sermon I gave earlier this year at an evangelical church near Philadelphia, called “How climate change affects the poor,” and by a talk I gave at Pepperdine University, a Christian college in California, called “Loving our global neighbor.”
 Elizabeth Eisenstadt-Evans is a freelance writer and nonparochial Episcopalian priest.

Press link for more: Lancaster Online

Investing in the age of #ClimateChange #StopAdani 

Countries who’ve signed the Paris Climate Agreement are looking for ways to curb carbon emissions
Marija Kramer is Head of Responsible Investment Business at Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). 

She is responsible for all aspects of responsible investing (RI) offerings, including policy development, as well as research and data screening services covering more than 13,000 global companies for institutions seeking to fully integrate ESG into their investment decision-making.

 Kramer also oversees new product development and strategic alliances in all regions of the world where RI solutions are delivered to ISS clients.

Christopher P. Skroupa: Have we reached a tipping point for mainstream investors on the issue of climate change?
Marija Kramer: I would say so. Unprecedented votes this year on climate change resolutions at some of the largest energy companies, including Exxon Mobil, would suggest mainstream institutions have crossed the Rubicon on the materiality of climate change.

 So it’s not just leading climate scientists who agree that the release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere contribute to climate change.

What we’re seeing now is that investors are focused on how a changing climate brings two highly impactful risks: transition and physical.

 Transition risks are linked to the political commitment to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

 For example, a government may choose to introduce a tax on greenhouse gas emissions that could leave several companies with unburned fossil fuel assets but support the emergence of renewable energy technologies. 

These policy and technology-related changes could directly affect the value of an investor’s portfolio.
Physical risks are linked to extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts or hurricanes that arise as a result of global temperature rises, with proponents of this argument pointing to recent storms that hit Texas, Florida and the Caribbean islands as evidence of this. 

The financial losses that can be felt by these hurricanes, alongside the more obvious humanitarian and environmental devastation triggered by the events, are materially significant for global investors far more so today than ever before.

Skroupa: How does the landmark Paris Climate Accord affect investors?
Kramer: With the adoption of the Paris Climate Accord at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP 21) in December 2015, there is a global consensus to combat climate change. 

It is the world’s first legally binding commitment to limit global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, with a stretch target of 1.5°C.
Part of the agreement includes ensuring that financial flows are consistent with the 2-degree target. 

Meeting this target requires a global effort to shift capital from carbon-intensive to low-carbon industries, but also heavily invest in energy-efficiency in the former. 

Significant investments in renewable energy, smart-grids and energy-efficient storage systems will be needed as well as a fade out of fossil fuel subsides.

Some countries are considering using carbon pricing, taxes and cap and trade systems as financial mechanisms to curb emissions.

 The net effect of this is that many investors are beginning to measure the carbon exposure of their portfolios and, where needed, rebalancing portfolios to offset the presence of high carbon-emitters with companies that have lower greenhouse gas emissions or are on a path to reduce them in the future.
Skroupa: How can investors manage climate-related risks and opportunities?
Kramer: Performing a carbon footprint analysis is the first step for investors who want to understand their portfolios’ impact on the climate and vice versa. 

A carbon footprint analysis shows a portfolio’s carbon emissions based on the ownership it has of the underlying investments.
For example, if an investor owns 1% of a company, the investor also owns 1% of the company’s carbon emissions and the portfolio footprint is the total of these ‘owned’ emissions. 

The analysis shows where the largest exposures are located (specific companies and sector-wide), which can in turn trigger an internal conversation around the strengths and limitations of the current investment strategy.
The next step would be to add more information to the analysis to determine if the investments are on a 2-degree pathway. 

Innovative tools, such as Climetrics, a climate impact rating for funds, also provide investors with much needed insight on the climate change impact of funds’ portfolio holdings, as well as asset managers’ own applications of climate impact as an investment and governance factor.
Skroupa: As an ESG data, analytics, research, and advisory provider, how is ISS supporting investors in the age of climate change?
Kramer: ISS-Ethix supports investors globally with developing and integrating responsible investing policies and practices into their strategy, and execute upon these policies through engagement and voting.

 Our climate solutions enable investors to understand what climate change means for their investments by providing timely data and actionable intelligence on climate change risk and its impact on investments.
ISS-Ethix can also provide reports that enable investors to understand their carbon footprint and wider climate impact, complying with disclosure frameworks such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, the California Department of Insurance’s Coal Disclosure, Article 173 of the French Energy Transition Law, the Montreal Pledge and specific guidelines for investors in other jurisdictions.
The transition to a low-carbon economy requires a massive transformation, including transition efforts to be made by global capital markets. Faced with this new reality, investors have to start asking themselves the following questions: Will my current investments make sense in a 2-degree world, and how can I spot the largest risks and opportunities in the transition to a low-carbon economy?

Press link for more: Forbes

The Great Barrier Reef needs your help #StopAdani #Auspol #Qldpol #ClimateChange 

The Great Barrier Reef May Not Be Dead Yet, But It’s Not Far Off
Share this article and help save the reef.

Shock and dismay struck the Internet when Outside Magazine released an obituary stating that scientists had declared the Great Barrier Reef dead.

 Thankfully, these reports were not accurate. 

Although the 25 million-year old organism is in grave danger, it is not dead yet. 

Scientists and environmentalists are taking to social media to set the record straight.

Environmental reporter Tony Davis tweeted, “Reports of the Great Barrier Reef’s death are greatly exaggerated, say scientists, booing Outside Magazine.”

 And the Cornell Cooperative Extension at Rockland County, an environmental nonprofit organization, tweeted “Great Barrier Reef is Dying NOT Dead!

 ‘The message should be that it isn’t too late… not we should all give up.'”
It may be a relief to know that the GBR isn’t dead, but this scare should be taken as a wake up call, especially considering we are a big reason for the reef’s deteriorating health. 

Coral on the reef are dying due to a phenomenon called coral bleaching. 

Changes in condition, like warmer water temperatures, cause coral to become stressed, which causes the algae living in their tissues to leave. 

When this happens the coral turn white, hence the term coral bleaching, and the coral is left vulnerable and more susceptible to disease. 

According to a report by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, 93% of the reef is affected by bleaching.


How is this our fault? 

Two words: global warming.

 As our oceans temperatures continue to rise, more and more bleaching events are occurring and causing sections of the reef to die. 

According to a survey by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 22% of the reef’s coral are dead. 

If we want to save one of the seven natural wonder of the world, we need to act now.

Press link for more: Propeller.LA

Heatwaves in September #ClimateChange #auspol #StopAdani 

Late-September heat wave leaves climate experts stunned.
“Never been a heat wave of this duration and magnitude this late in the season,” reports NOAA
Sep 27, 2017, 4:06 pm


Places where temperatures are projected to be within one degree of a record high Wednesday. CREDIT: National Weather Service via WashPost/WeatherBell.com.

Century-old records across the Midwest and East Coast are being shattered by a monster late-September heat wave — the kind of extreme weather we can expect to get much worse thanks to President Donald Trump’s policies to undermine domestic and global climate action.

[And Australian government’s determination to go ahead with the Adani Coal Mine] 
“There has never been a heat wave of this duration and magnitude this late in the season in Chicago,” the National Weather Service reported Tuesday evening.
From Wednesday through Tuesday, for example, Chicago sweltered through “the only occurrence on record of 7+ consecutive 90°[F] days entirely within September.”

 Every day of the heatwave was 92°F or above, and every one set a new record high for that date.
“Summer in some regions of the world will become one long heatwave even if global average temperatures rise only 2°C [3.6ºF] above pre-industrial levels,” finds a study published Monday in Nature Scientific Reports. 

The Paris climate agreement, which Trump has decided to pull out of, seeks to limit global warming to “well below” 3.6ºF.
On Wednesday, another study showed the connection between deadly heat waves and climate change. 

Scientists with World Weather Attribution (WWA) released an analysis of Europe’s blistering summer heat, which included the heat wave so deadly it was nicknamed “Lucifer.” 

The researchers found, “climate change increased the chances of seeing a summer as hot as 2017 by at least a factor of 10 and a heat wave like Lucifer by at least a factor of four since 1900″ (emphasis in original).
New study: ‘Super heat waves’ of 131°F coming if global warming continues unchecked
Back in the United States, the current heat wave has set records across the Midwest and East. 

On Monday, 92ºF was the hottest Burlington, Vermont had ever been that late in the year — by a full seven degrees, the Washington Post reported. On Sunday and Monday, Buffalo, New York saw its latest-ever consecutive 90ºF days. Records for hottest day or hottest series of days this late in the year were crushed in Minneapolis; northern Maine; Ottawa, Canada; and Green Bay, Wisconsin.
“It’s perhaps obvious that global warming means more frequent and intense heat waves,” climatologist Michael Mann noted in an email to ThinkProgress. “But what is less obvious is how climate change may be impacting the behavior of the jet stream in way that causes more persistent weather extremes, giving us even more extreme and longer-duration heat waves than we would otherwise expect.”
The National Weather Service tweeted out a chart showing this very effect.


The scientific evidence and analysis is getting stronger and stronger that carbon pollution is changing the jet stream in ways that cause high pressure ridges that block or stall weather patterns.

 A similar effect stalled Superstorm Harvey over Houston, leading to a once-in-25,000-year deluge.
“Many of the worst heat waves in recent history, including the 2003 European heat wave and the 2011 Texas/Oklahoma heat wave, were associated with this effect,” Mann said.
CO2 is changing the jet stream in ways that will create more Harveys
Climate science predicted a weaker jet stream, and Harvey stalled because of a weakened jet stream.
The latest science makes it very clear that stronger heat waves are becoming far more likely, thanks to global warming — and that the warmer it gets the worse the heat waves will get.
Indeed, the new Nature Scientific Reports study finds that for each additional 1.8°F of global warming during the summer, there would likely be:
15 to 28 more heat wave days each year

Heat waves would last 3 to 18 days longer

The peak intensity of heatwaves will increase 2.2°F to 3.4°F

But while the rest of the world is working to limit additional warming as much as possible, Trump’s policies would take us to upwards of 5.4°F or more additional warming. In the worst case, we can see as many as 80 more heat wave days, heat waves could be 50 days longer, and the peak intensity could be as much as 10°F higher than it is now.

Press link for more: Think Progress

Sea Level 2M Higher by 2100 #StopAdani #ClimateChange #Auspol #Qldpol 

Fingerprinting’ the Ocean to Predict Devastating Sea Level Rise
Scientists are using satellites to identify where increasing sea levels could result in the most destructive storm surge as hurricanes grow more powerful due to climate change.
Sep. 18, 2017

The St. Johns River rises from storm surge flood waters from Hurricane Irma on September 11, 2017, in Jacksonville, Florida.Sean Rayford/Getty Images/AFP

Scientists are “fingerprinting” sea level rise around the world in an effort to identify coastal areas most at risk from devastating storm surge, as hurricanes grow increasingly destructive.
Warming ocean temperatures due to climate change can fuel more powerful storms. 

Hurricane-force winds push water onto land, putting lives and property at risk while rising sea levels in coastal areas have magnified the impact of such storm surge.

 Now a new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters verifies the accuracy of a satellite-based monitoring tool called “sea level fingerprinting.” 

The technology detects varying patterns in regional sea levels, which can be used for predicting how climate change will affect future storm surge in flood-prone coastal areas.
“Sea level fingerprints tell us about how sea level rises regionally around the globe due to melting ice sheets and changes in water storage,” said the study’s lead author, Isabella Velicogna, a professor of Earth system science at the University of California, Irvine, and a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. “Sea level fingerprints will provide information on where sea level rises faster and therefore the coastline is more vulnerable to storm surge.”
The bulk of the data used for the project was collected by a pair of Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites that can detect movement of water on Earth – such as sea level rise or depletion of freshwater aquifers – by measuring the resulting gravitational changes. Velicogna and her coauthor Chia-Wei Hsu, a postdoctoral scholar at U.C. Irvine, compared 12 years of sea level fingerprint data with data taken by seafloor pressure sensors that measure the overlying mass of water and ice. While the physical measurements are considered most accurate, Velicogna and Hsu found the satellite-derived measurements were very similar.
The scientists concluded that the satellite data provides a fairly accurate picture of sea level fingerprints that could create a roadmap for better placement of seafloor pressure sensors. These sensors may be used to improve sea level fingerprint calculations in the future – and help people in vulnerable coastal zones better understand the extent of storm surge when a hurricane strikes. Velicogna said that based on sea level fingerprint data, it’s already become clear which geographic regions are most vulnerable to floods.
“The greatest rise is not near the ice sheets – where sea level will actually fall – but far from the ice sheets,” said Velicogna. “So, the largest increase in sea level is going to be at low latitudes” where the water mass of melted ice is redistributed over large areas.


Global sea levels have increased by an average of 3in (8cm) globally since 1992, with some areas experiencing a rise greater than 9in (23cm), according to NASA. If climate change continues at its current pace, increased warming may melt enough of Earth’s ice caps, ice sheets and glaciers to raise average sea levels as much as 6.6ft (2m) by 2100.
The two GRACE satellites have been collecting data about Earth’s gravity field for the past 15 years, allowing scientists for the first time to calculate the depletion of freshwater supplies in aquifers around the world and the rate at which glaciers are melting. But one of the satellites has nearly exhausted its nitrogen fuel supply and its battery is failing. While NASA and its partner, the German Aerospace Center, have stabilized the failing satellite, they announced last week that both GRACE satellites would be decommissioned after a final mission ends in November. Now the space agencies are rushing to put a new pair of satellites, GRACE-Follow-On, into orbit by early 2018 to avoid an interruption in the collection of crucial data.
In the meantime, scientists will continue monitoring the seas in an attempt to predict floods before they happen, especially before major storms. “Sea level fingerprints will provide information on where sea level rises faster and therefore the coastline is more vulnerable to storm surge,” said Velicogna.

Press Link for more: News Deeply.Com

We’re in a race against time! Demand climate action #StopAdani #auspol 

We’re in a race against time!
A most important video. Every thing is at stake & your actions will determine the future of humanity!

“Burning Coal Has Consequences!” #StopAdani #Auspol 

Environmental groups win court battle over approach to climate analysis of coal mining
Bureau of Land Management failed to conduct proper climate analysis of coal leases, court rules.
Sep 15, 2017, 3:07 pm

The coal leases are part of an expansion of the Black Thunder Mine in Wright, Wyoming. CREDIT: AP Photo/Matthew Brown


The coal leases are part of an expansion of the Black Thunder Mine in Wright, Wyoming. CREDIT: AP Photo/Matthew Brown

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Bureau of Land Management failed to adequately consider the climate impacts of several coal leases in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, delivering a major win to environmental groups who challenged the agency’s environmental analysis of the leases.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated the BLM, part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, violated federal law by skipping in-depth analysis of the potential climate impacts from four coal leases that would extend the production life of the nation’s two most productive coal mines, the North Antelope Rochelle mine and the Black Thunder mine.

 The two surface mines sit on federal land in northeast Wyoming.

In 2012, the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians brought a lawsuit against the BLM, arguing the agency failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act when it concluded that issuing the leases would not result in higher national carbon dioxide emissions.


“Burning coal has consequences, and the court’s decision today recognizes that our environment is more important than pandering to an obsolete industry,” Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director for WildEarth Guardians, said Friday in a statement.
A district court upheld BLM’s decision to issue the leases. 

But the environmental groups in January 2016 appealed the case to the 10th Circuit.

 In overturning the lower court’s ruling, the appeals court concluded the BLM’s analysis was arbitrary and capricious and that its decision-making record for the coal leases did not include any clear support for its conclusion.


The decision comes one month after a federal judge blocked a proposed expansion of an underground coal mine in Montana because the project’s climate change impacts were not adequately considered by the federal Office of Surface Mining. 

In the Montana case, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled the agency inflated the economic benefits of the Signal Peak Energy’s Bull Mountain coal mine while minimizing its environmental impact. 

The judge ordered the company to stop mining in the proposed expansion area pending further studies.
Judge blocks coal mine expansion, citing lack of adequate climate analysis
Expansion would make Bull Mountain the nation’s largest underground coal mine.
In Friday’s decision, the appeals court remanded the Wyoming case to BLM to revise its environmental impact statements and records of decision. The court, however, decided not to do away with the leases. The court noted that three out of the four leases are actively being mined.
Although there are more than 1,000 coal mines in the United States, the North Antelope Rochelle and Black Thunder mines currently produce about 20 percent of the coal used to generate electricity in the country. The mine expansions would add two billion tons to the nation’s total coal production. The Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians stated in their lawsuit that this additional two billion tons of coal would drastically increase the amount of carbon emitted by coal-burning power plants.
While the court’s decision may not significantly affect the Wyoming leases, it “will have a dramatic impact on how the BLM and the Department of the Interior assess future land leases for fossil fuels — giving the public a clearer picture of how public land used for extraction by fossil fuel companies will impact the most significant environmental threat facing the world today,” the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians said.
“Today’s decision sheds new light on the destructive consequences of leasing our most precious lands to corporate polluters who value their balance sheets more than public health,” Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said in a statement. “Climate change is the most pressing environmental issue we face, and this decision recognizes a simple truth: BLM’s choices matter. It can no longer stick its head in the sand and ignore its contribution to the climate problem.”

Press link for more: Think Progress

#Irma & #Harvey should kill all doubt #climatechange is real. 

Irma and Harvey should kill any doubt that climate change is real

By By Michael E. Mann, Susan J. Hassol and Thomas C. Peterson

As we begin to clean up from Hurricane Harvey, the wettest hurricane on record, dumping up to 50 inches of rain on Houston in three days, and await landfall of Irma, the most powerful hurricane on record in the open Atlantic Ocean, people are asking: What is the role of human-induced climate change in these events, and how else have our own actions increased our risks?

Fundamental physical principles and observed weather trends mean we already know some of the answers — and we have for a long time.
Hurricanes get their energy from warm ocean waters, and the oceans are warming because of the human-caused buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, primarily from the burning of coal, oil and gas.

 The strongest hurricanes have gotten stronger because of global warming.

 Over the past two years, we have witnessed the most intense hurricanes on record for the globe, both hemispheres, the Pacific and now, with Irma, the Atlantic.

We also know that warmer air holds more moisture, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has increased because of human-induced global warming.

 We’ve measured this increase, and it has been unequivocally attributed to human-caused warming. 

That extra moisture causes heavier rainfall, which has also been observed and attributed to our influence on climate. 

We know that rainfall rates in hurricanes are expected to increase in a warmer world, and now we’re living that reality.

And global warming also means higher sea levels, both because ocean water expands as it warms and because ice in the mountains and at the poles melts and makes its way into oceans.

 Sea level rise is accelerating, and storm surge from hurricanes rides on top of higher seas to infiltrate further into our coastal cities.
Heavier rain and higher sea levels can combine to compound flooding in major hurricanes, as the deluges cause flooding that must drain to the sea but can’t do so as quickly because of storm surges. 

Sadly, we saw this effect in play in the catastrophic flooding from Harvey.


We don’t have all of the answers yet. 

There are scientific linkages we’re still trying to work out. 

Harvey, like Hurricane Irene before it in 2011, resulted in record flooding, because of a combination of factors. 

Very warm ocean temperatures meant more moisture in the atmosphere to produce heavy rainfall, yes. 

But both storms were also very slow-moving, nearly stationary at times, which means that rain fell over the same areas for an extended period.
Cutting-edge climate science suggests that such stalled weather patterns could result from a slowed jet stream, itself a consequence — through principles of atmospheric science — of the accelerated warming of the Arctic. 

This is a reminder of how climate changes in far-off regions such as the North Pole can have very real effects on extreme weather faced here in the Lower 48.
These linkages are preliminary, and scientists are still actively studying them. But they are a reminder that surprises may be in store — and not welcome ones — when it comes to the unfolding effects of climate change.

Which leads us, inevitably, to a discussion of policy — and, indeed, politics. Previous administrations focused on adapting to climate change, with an eye to what the planet would look like in the future. 

But events such as Harvey, and probably Irma, show that we have not even adapted to our current climate (which has already changed because of our influence).
The effects of climate change are no longer subtle. 

We are seeing them play out before us here and now. 

And they will only worsen if we fail to act.
The Trump administration, however, seems determined to lead us backward. 

In recent months, we have witnessed a dismantling of the policies put in place by the Obama administration to

 (a) incentivize the necessary move from climate-change-producing fossil fuels toward clean energy, 

(b) increase resilience to climate change effects through sensible regulations on coastal development, and

 (c) continue to fund basic climate research that can inform our assessments of risk and adaptive strategies.

 Ironically, just 10 days before Harvey struck, President Trump rescinded flood protection standards put in place by the Obama administration that would take sea level rise and other climate change effects into account in coastal development plans.

And as Trump kills policies that would reduce the risks of climate disasters, our nation continues to support policies that actually increase our risks.

 For example, without the taxpayer-subsidized National Flood Insurance Program, banks would be less likely to provide mortgages for rebuilding houses in locations that have been flooded before, sometimes repeatedly. 

And the flood insurance program is itself underwater: badly in debt and set to expire at the end of this month unless Congress finds a way to keep it afloat, just as billions of dollars in claims from Harvey come pouring in.
Harvey and Irma are sad reminders that policy matters. At a time when damage from climate change is escalating, we need sensible policy in Washington to protect the citizens of this country, both by reducing future climate change and preparing for its consequences. We should demand better of our leaders.

Press link for more: Washington Post

Coastal Cities Are Increasingly Vulnerable #ClimateChange #StopAdani 

Coastal Cities Are Increasingly Vulnerable, and So Is the Economy that Relies on Them
Gregory Unruh September 07, 2017

sept17-07-490535380

There was a time a decade or two ago when society could have made a choice to write off our massive investment in a fossil fuel-based economy and begin a policy driven shift towards a cleaner renewable infrastructure that could have forestalled the worst effects of climate change.

 But the challenges of collective action, a lack of political courage, and the power of incumbent pecuniary interests to capture the levers of power meant we did not. 

The bill is now coming due.

That means that many of our great, low-lying coastal cities are what we call “stranded assets.” 

GreenBiz founder Joel Makower defines a stranded asset as “a financial term that describes something that has become obsolete or nonperforming well ahead of its useful life, and must be recorded on a company’s balance sheet as a loss of profit.”

 Makower was talking about Exxon and other companies that built their businesses on the combustion of climate changing fossil fuels, not cities. 

But the concept easily transfers from businesses built on carbon to cities threatened by carbon’s impact.

Consider Miami.

 An invaluable, irreplaceable cultural jewel that will be stranded, both figuratively and literally, by climate change.
How can an entire metropolis that encompasses the lives, culture, and wellbeing of millions be considered “nonperforming?”

 The physical installations, infrastructures, and architecture upon which Miami are founded were built on what we now can see as a flawed assumption.

 An assumption of permanence.

 That the sea’s surface would stay as it had for the entirety of human experience.

 That Atlantic hurricane season would send infrequent storms of knowable magnitude that we could prepare for and ride out. 

It was that perception of permanence and predictability that underlay urban planning and shaped of tens of thousands of investment decisions that fostered billions of dollars of wealth in Miami.

 As long as nothing disturbs that perception, value will continue to accrue on paper.

 But if the perception of permanence that underlies those expectations is undercut, market value will disappear. 

Value is in the eyes of the buyer… until its not.

Climate change in general, and sea level rise in particular, are hard for us to see.

 The tides that surround Miami are elevating at a rate of centimeters per year. 

It is a slow motion train wreck that will be measured in decades, not seconds.

 For now, Miami property buyers don’t see it. 

A 2017 survey found that the majority of property buyers (over two-thirds) don’t ask even their brokers about the implications of climate change and sea level rise on the properties they are buying.

But for those willing to look, the impacts of sea level rise are already evident. 

So-called “sunny day flooding”, (i.e tidal flooding or flooding that occurs without the rain) is already occurring predictably in many parts of Miami, inundating streets, blocking traffic, killing lawns, corroding infrastructure and cars, contaminating groundwater, and reversing sewage systems. 

As sea level rise worsens, the inescapable conclusion is that some point Miami will be inundated and unlivable. 

Absent a civil engineering miracle, the entire city will become a stranded asset that society will have to write off. 

And it’s not alone: Reuters estimates at least $1.4 trillion in property is sitting within 700 feet of the U.S. shoreline, but the number is much probably larger.
When the irrational exuberance about the value of coastal real estate pops and thousands of buyers collectively mark down those assets, it will make the housing bubble of ten years ago look like a small blip.
The consequences will reverberate through the economy, through society and through the political landscape. 

Depending on what Hurricane Irma does, we could get a sobering preview of what that will look like. 

We have already seen the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey in Houston, a city that was also built on the flawed founding assumption of permanence. 

Houston’s city planners and businesses also ignored warnings as far back as 1996 that climate change would bring exactly the kind of disaster they city is currently suffering today. 

It’s hard to blame them. 

We’ve all ignored the warnings.

We can’t anymore.

 Business leaders and politicians need to begin wrapping their heads around the big idea that climate change may mean huge financial losses in the world’s great coastal metropolises.

Press link for more: Harvard Business Review