The world’s biggest economies spent four times more on fossil fuels than clean energy

The G20 (the richest countries on the planet) invested mostly in polluting energy between 2013 and 2015, according to a new analysis from a handful of environmental organizations.

Japan spent the most on oil, gas, and coal projects during that period, followed by China and then South Korea. The U.S., the only G20 country looking to exit the Paris Agreement, came in fourth. The analysis found over $70 billion (or 58 percent of what was spent on energy) went to fossil fuel projects. About 15 percent went to clean energy.

The numbers, presented by groups including the Sierra Club and Oil Change International, come ahead of a Friday and Saturday G20 meeting. The analysis drops off right after countries drafted the Paris Agreement, which most G20 countries have put at the top of the group’s agenda — except for the U.S. of A.

German chancellor Angela Merkel is slated to meet with President Trump Thursday. While neither has said the two would chat about climate change, Merkel’s recent comments on the tough conversations she expects at the G20 meeting mean she might squeeze some climate talk in early. But according to the report’s authors, “talk is cheap” if financing of fossil fuel projects continues.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The world’s biggest economies spent four times more on fossil fuels than clean energy. on Jul 5, 2017.

A drought in the Dakotas spells trouble for the U. S. wheat harvest

Farmers in the Upper Midwest got a big dose of bad news Thursday: The extent of the region’s ongoing “extreme” drought has more than tripled in the past week.

Temperatures are expected to reach as high as 107 degrees next week in parts of the Dakotas, more than 20 degrees above normal. In large swaths of the Dakotas and eastern Montana, spring rains have been less than half of normal. On Monday, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum declared a statewide fire and drought emergency.

In the longer term, the region’s wheat harvest is in serious jeopardy — and that may have global implications. This year’s American wheat crop is currently rated the worst in 29 years. Wheat is humanity’s most important grain food source, and the U.S. is the world’s largest wheat exporter, with the Dakotas and Montana now its most important wheat-growing region. Wheat prices recently went up more than 10 percent in response to the worsening drought.

For decades, Kansas was America’s wheat state. That title recently shifted to North Dakota, as better growing conditions moved north due to warming temperatures. At this rate, Canadian farmers should be put on notice.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A drought in the Dakotas spells trouble for the U.S. wheat harvest. on Jun 30, 2017.

If Trump can’t handle the Paris accord, he’ll hate this bold idea

In perhaps the most significant call to action written by scientists and policy experts since the Paris Agreement, a new plan released on Wednesday aims to map out an achievable pathway to halting the increase in global emissions by 2020 — decades ahead of the current pace.

There’s an obvious shock value here: 2020 is only three years away — before Donald Trump finishes a full presidential term.

That ultra-tight timeline is intended as an invitation to what the authors call a “turning point,” and its urgency follows from a study earlier this year showing that, at current emission rates, we’ll be guaranteed 1.5 degrees C of warming by 2019.

“We are in the age of exponential transformation and think that such a focus will unleash ingenuity,” the proposal’s architects write.

4 years before 1.5°C.
15 years before 2°C.
3 years to safeguard our climate.https://t.co/B2EhJ76Y5C pic.twitter.com/TrmVmh2Ho3

— Mathieu Munsch (@ClimateMathieu) June 28, 2017

Spearheaded by world-saver and former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Christiana Figueres — and endorsed by dozens of prominent climate scientists and experts — the plan spells out bold yet practical near-term actions in six key areas: energy, infrastructure, transport, land use, industry, and finance.

Earlier this year, Figueres called the three-year target “completely crazy” but “achievable.” On a call with reporters on Wednesday, she expanded on her optimism: She said sharply falling prices for renewable energy means that for the first time, “we have tailwind on climate change as opposed to headwind.”

Some of the plan’s proposals are already on track, like making electric vehicles more affordable and plentiful. Others are likely to be controversial: a call for all countries to put forth a strategy for achieving 100 percent renewable energy mirrors a recent, high-profile debate among energy wonks over whether that goal is the shortest path to reducing carbon. (It might make sense, for example, to keep existing nuclear power plants operating as long as possible.)

Defiantly optimistic action strategies, like this one, seem to be all the rage lately. In an era of climate obstruction in the White House, cities are responding by setting audacious goals. Just this week, dozens of mayors from across the country pledged to adopt 100 percent renewable energy by 2035. Thousands of cities from around the world have joined in the effort.

If you squint your eyes, it’s possible to convince yourself that the desire of confronting climate head on is starting to win out. But according to science, hitting targets set for 2035 isn’t acting fast enough.

Simply put, on our current trajectory, global emissions aren’t likely to peak before 2050, let alone 2020. The last three years have been the three hottest in recorded history — and, as the six-point plan’s authors say, “entire ecosystems are starting to collapse.” There’s new evidence that even though our collective climate actions might be starting to work — global emissions have remained relatively flat in recent years — atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to rise at record rates, sparking fears that we’ve already crossed tipping points.

Even before the Trump administration’s announcement to withdraw from Paris, multiple independent analyses showed that a serious gap remains between the collective climate pledges of the world’s nations and what science says is necessary to stabilize global warming at livable levels. And there’s a serious risk that, as has happened so often before, 2020 will come and go without the new plan’s goals being met.

And then what? Will we lose hope?

Wednesday’s announcement comes ahead of next week’s G20 meeting of the world’s largest economies in Germany. By all accounts, the summit will be a showdown with host Angela Merkel and 18 other leaders on one side and Donald Trump on the other. A large part of the debate will almost certainly be over the planet’s climate trajectory.

The new plan makes a compelling case for why peaking humanity’s carbon emissions by 2020 is realistic and necessary. It’s not a stretch to say that the fate of the planet — and specifically, the fate of human civilization as we know it — could shift depending on whether we achieve this unlikely, but not impossible, target.

The truth is, however, that radical change is already locked in, regardless of what happens in the next three or 30 years. But the new plan’s authors are leveraging that stark fact to offer a short detour onto a path to a more hopeful future. And that’s an example we should all follow.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline If Trump can’t handle the Paris accord, he’ll hate this bold idea on Jun 29, 2017.

Antarctica is starting to go ice free — with some interesting consequences

A new Nature study says that climate change will bring about a 25 percent increase in its ice-free areas by 2100.

Changes keep coming for the continent. Take the imminent break off of the Larsen C ice shelf, which is on track to become the second-largest iceberg ever seen. But the new study is one of few focusing on what these shifts mean for native flora and fauna.

While ice-free areas currently make up less than 1 percent of Antarctica, they’re home to pretty much all of the continent’s plant and animal life and serve as breeding grounds for seabirds and seals. Life on each patch is fairly distinct — the study likens them to islands in the ocean.

There lies the big question: What happens when those distinct groups are forced to mingle? In the Arctic, where icy habits have begun to melt together, we’ve already seen some effects (a key one being grolar bears).

Down near the South Pole, melting ice spells bad news for native species. The Nature study points out that destabilizing ecosystems could give a leg up to invasive species, which have already begun to infiltrate habitats.

How to prevent this? You’ve heard this one before: Reduce global emissions.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Antarctica is starting to go ice free — with some interesting consequences. on Jun 29, 2017.