UN: Paris climate targets already blown

Via the UN:

Current commitments expressed in the NDCs are inadequate to bridge the emissions gap in 2030. Technically, it is still possible to bridge the gap to ensure global warming stays well below 2°C and 1.5°C, but if NDC ambitions are not increased before 2030, exceeding the 1.5oC goal can no longer be avoided. Now more than ever, unprecedented and urgent action is required by all nations. The assessment of actions by the G20 countries indicates that this is yet to happen; in fact, global CO2 emissions increased in 2017 after three years of stagnation.

This year’s report presents the newest assessment of the emissions gap in 2030 between emission levels under full implementation of the unconditional and conditional NDCs and those consistent with least-cost pathways to stay below 2°C and 1.5°C respectively.

• With the results of the new global studies prepared for the IPCC report, the emissions gap — especially to stay below 1.5°C warming — has increased significantly in comparison with previous estimates, as new studies explore more variations and make more cautious assumptions about the possibility of global carbon dioxide-removal deployment.

• Pathways reflecting current NDCs imply global warming of about 3°C by 2100, with warming continuing afterwards. If the emissions gap is not closed by 2030, it is very plausible that the goal of a well-below 2°C temperature increase is also out of
reach.

• The assessment of country action for this Emissions Gap Report concludes that while most G20 countries are on track to meet their Cancun pledges for 2020, the majority are not yet on a path
that will lead them to fulfilling their NDCs for 2030.

• Concerns about the current level of both ambition and action are thus amplified compared to previous Emissions Gap Reports. According to the current policy and NDC scenarios, global emissions are not estimated to peak by 2030, let alone by 2020. The current NDCs are estimated to lower global emissions in 2030 by up to 6 GtCO2e compared to a continuation of current policies. As the emissions gap assessment shows, this original level of ambition needs to be roughly tripled for the 2°C scenario and increased around fivefold for the 1.5°C scenario.

• Action by non-state and subnational actors (NSAs), including regional and local governments and businesses, is key to implementing the NDCs. The strong engagement by NSAs demonstrated at the recent Global Climate Action Summit is promising and can help governments deliver on their NDCs, but the impact of current individual NSA pledges on reducing the gap is extremely limited. Chapter 5 of this Emissions Gap Report was pre-released at the Summit, and documents that if international cooperative initiatives succeed in increasing their membership and ambition, substantially greater potential can be realized. The chapter emphasizes that enhanced monitoring and reporting of actions and resulting emissions reductions will be  essential for the credibility of NSA action.

• Countries therefore need to move rapidly on the implementation of their current NDCs; at the same time, more ambitious NDCs are necessary by 2020 to meet the jointly agreed goals. This report summarizes the different approaches countries can take to build enhanced ambition and enhance the scale, scope and effectiveness of their domestic policy.

• The policies and measures chapters in this year’s report address two key aspects for the longer term transition to a zero-emission economy and society. Fiscal policies provide a key opportunity for reducing future emissions, and there are options to design them in such a way that they deliver the desired results without creating economic and social problems. Several countries have demonstrated that it is possible to overcome social resistance, but few have gone far enough to have the necessary emissions reduction impact.

Innovation policy and market creation also offer significant mitigation potential and governments should play a key role in ensuring the development
and market introduction of new and emerging lowcarbon technologies and practices.

The key messages from the 2018 Emissions GapReport send strong signals to national governments and to the political part of the Talanoa Dialogue at the 24th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 24). Along with the recent IPCC Special Report, these messages provide the scientific underpinning for the UN 2019 Climate Summit, which will convene on the theme of ‘A Race We Can Win. A Race We Must Win’.

By way of the summit, the United Nations Secretary General will seek to challenge States, regions, cities, companies, investors and citizens to step up action in six key areas: energy transition, climate finance and carbon pricing, industry transition, nature-based solutions, cities and local action, and resilience.

Comments

  1. GunnamattaMEMBER

    They are as much chance of getting man made global warming under control as they are of shipping us all to Mars.

    Geo engineering will be deployed as military expenditure has been in the past for the ultimate inftastrucure spending pork

    • Jumping jack flash

      You are 100% correct.

      This is the answer to all the Earth’s woes, simultaneously!

      A globally synchronised effort to create as much money that is required to fix a planet, plonked into the global economy, inflating away all the exiting debt! (And creating new debt capacity?).

      Marvellous. Simply marvellous.
      Who needs a debt jubilee? Plus we’ll have a cooler planet.
      There’s no downside to this.

      Start the presses, immediately.

    • Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      The impacts of climate change will not be consistent. Some countries will actually benefit:

      http://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php

      The biggest losers will be in Afr!ca, South Amer!ca and South As!a, which no one really cares for anyway.

      We have the technology to make changes. Shifting to EVs from ICE, shifting to chicken, insects and plants from cows and sheep, shifting to solar, wind and gas from coal. A wide-ranging carbon tax will accomplish all of this fairly straightforwardly.

      The more awkward point is what to about the low-IQ of the planet, who are rapidly multiplying:

      https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html

      The economic and scientific contribution of the countries with an IQ below 90 is really negligible. I have crunched the data and worked out that you could eliminate 53% of the human population (basically those from the lowest-IQ countries) for only a 4% reduction in scientific output. Doing so would reduce global GDP by 14% (perhaps less if the resources and land could still be utilised by a significantly more productive robot/high IQ workforce to replace them), and emissions by 23%.

    • I am much more pessimistic. Climate change unchecked means fighting for resources and water. So how to forestall the migration impulse and desperation when its too hot to live or there is no water? CapeTown was a warning. Agreement across nations wont happen so spending on adaptation for us and for nearby populations who cant afford the adaptation is the only path left. For example making desal plants cheaper, likewise solar likewise passive and active cooling. And if the sea level rises a meter the Gold Coast will need to buy gondolas. Developers will shamelessly call it the Venice of the Pacific.

    • Perhaps a cartoon is best suited to spelling out anthropomorphic climate change to you bottom feeding troglodytes?

      https://xkcd.com/1732/

      Or systematic sterilisation campaign should an education program fail? It’s for our good, not yours. Suck it up.

      • You need to provide evidence as to why you think global warming is BS. Just saying something is BS is like saying you believe the earth is flat, it just shows great ignorance and stupidity.

        The world burns around 100 million barrels of oil every day (160L/barrel) and to produce 1kWh of electricty from coal requires about 400g of coal. If the average household consumes 10kWh/day then that is around 4kg of coal per household. Our fossil fuel energy consumption is out of control and fossil fuels are a finite resource which should be preserved for future use, they take millions of years to form so once gone that’s it. The greedy and stupidity of the human race and this business economy is just beyond belief.

      • I think you are putting words in NASA’s mouth.
        Please post links to NASA saying things are made up.
        This is the latest info from NASA
        https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine
        Check out the interactive Temperature link.
        Catastrophic Climate Change is with us now.
        Look at the wild fires in Central QLD, the poor bl00dy firefighters say they have seen nothing like it, and they can’t stop it.
        It is scary stuff, but we MUST face reality , heads in sand is not good enough.

      • @Bolstrood There’s a bit of a kerfuffle at the moment because an apparently respectable scientist has produced work about reduced sunspot activity indicating that the Sun will soon be producing less heat along the lines of the Maunder Minimum and the mini ice age of the 1600-1700s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

        The Science is Not Settled (should copyright that), but other apparently respectable scientists say that the sunspot effect will be small, and outweighed by the effects of greenhouse gas production. https://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html

        The global warming argument carries a lot of weight, but the mini ice age thing seems quite credible too. The mini ice age was definitely a thing.

        FMD, I dunno whether I should be buying sunscreen or thermal undies.

      • @bcnich – – so true ! Common sense says it’s BS — Cooling /Warming is an ongoing cycle.
        We need to stop pollution though so I’m all for that.

      • Global warming is BS

        It’s because of the human “intelligence” displayed above that George Carlin said:

        ‘The planet is fine. The people are fu©ked… The planet isn’t going anywhere. We are! We’re goin’ away. Pack your shi┬, folks, we’re goin’ away. We won’t leave much of a trace either, thank god for that. Maybe a little styrofoam, maybe, little styrofoam. Planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake, an evolutionary cul de sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.’

        So, don’t buy now breed now, and let’s wind down our numbers to zero over the next 100 years.

      • Maunder Mimimum, [mumble mumble] …FMD, I dunno whether I should be buying sunscreen or thermal undies.

        Pro tip: steer clear of zerohedge and other trashy right wing websites. They purvey pure garbage. They are the original fake news. Almost everything you see there is sponsored (i.e. a form of advertising).

      • There’s a bit of a kerfuffle at the moment because an apparently respectable scientist […]

        The Science is Not Settled (should copyright that), but other apparently respectable scientists say […]

        https://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg?t=183

        With the possible exception of Evolution, you’d struggle to find a field as intensely scrutinised as climate change in human history. Yet compelling alternatives to the consensus are nonexistent.

    • “We’re so going extinct.”
      No, but like many great civilisations before it, ours will likely come to an end.

      • Debt isn’t civilisation ending. Mass population loss from water/food shortages or natural disasters is.

      • @JJF
        so is Catastrophic climate Change

        FFS it is happening in front of your eyes.

        “There are none so blind as those that will not see”

    • ResearchtimeMEMBER

      Man can live in the Artic, and in the desert… we are not going anywhere very quickly at all.

  2. DefinitelyNotTheHorribleScottMorrisonPM

    Hilarious! You’re still buying this junk science. World population has increased from 1.5 billion to 7 billion in the last 150 years. We’re all driving around in motor cars and flying in planes and spewing out CO2. And the temperature has stayed the SAME, with average annual temperatures (as far as you can even measure them comparatively over that length of time) having increased by only 0.3%. This is proof that man has NOT caused climate change. But that will all change when Labour takes a sledgehammer to the environment by restricting negative gearing to new builds!!

    • Wow you should put your hand up for the Federal Environment Minister position, you sound like an expert who is all over it. Thanks for educating me on how it all works, I feel so enlightened now.

    • Climate change has been known as certain for at least 30 years. The science is not only in but producing grandkiddies. The political argument for action has failed. The least cost solution was to spread the impact over time. The silliest solution is to wait for catastrophes to arrive and then make the required investment after loss of property, life and in a crisis environment that will push up the cost of the required materials and labour. Think vic desal but bigger. After 25 years of deep thought we have gone for the Prisoners dilemna solution and picked b. Yay us.

  3. best you can do is start prepping for your family and its successors

    guns, food, water, power etc etc land

    we are totally stuffed

    Its the solar maximums wot did it

  4. This all means nothing to the average person.
    People don’t comprehend 1,2,4 degree C temperature rises and what it effects.
    Most world leader eyes glaze over when they are told that 2 degrees C increase globally is bad.

    Even when their house burns down or their town is flooded, they will blame the parks management (already happening) or the high tide and poor storm water system (already happening)

  5. The Mayan civilisation lasted for roughly 1000 years, and it was climate change that was the cause of the collapse of their civilisation. In the last 200 years of their reign they has such crippling drought where rainfall dropped by a factor of 50 to 70%.
    They believed that human sacrifice would solve the crisis. How could a people living through 200 years of drought, not look for something or someone to blame, and for some way to reverse the climate change.
    The earths climate has always been in flux, and humans have always tried to pin blame, or change the course of the change.
    I have a feeling we will be about as successful at reversing our effects on this world as the Mayans were at reversing the climate change they were witness to.
    Humans seem very resistant to change, but I think that adaptation is the only way we can continue, because I don’t think any amount of money or tax is going to change the direction of where we are heading.

    • It wasn’t climate change that stuffed Mayan civilisation. They sold their houses to the Chinese. Didn’t end well.

      • Jumping jack flash

        +1
        I heard it was the debt wot did it.
        After their economy failed from too much debt, they slipped into a new dark age and all became hunter-gatherers.

    • > They believed that human sacrifice would solve the crisis.

      I mean… they weren’t wrong strictly speaking…

      Dropping the population ensures the survivors can survive on lower yields.

  6. If heat retaining gases are added to the atmosphere, the atmosphere will retain more heat.
    If the atmosphere retains more heat, the earth will get hotter.

    • The basics of green house gases have been known forever:

      1859
      Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.

      1896
      Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.

      1930s
      Global warming trend since late 19th century reported.

      1938
      Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving interest in the question.

      1945
      Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance.

      1957
      Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans.

      1958
      Telescope studies show a greenhouse effect raises temperature of the atmosphere of Venus far above the boiling point of water.

      1960
      Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and detects an annual rise. The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.

      1963
      Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level.

      1965
      Boulder, Colo. meeting on causes of climate change: Lorenz and others point out the chaotic nature of climate system and the possibility of sudden shifts.

      1967
      Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees.

      1968
      Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically.

      1969
      Budyko and Sellers present models of catastrophic ice-albedo feedbacks.

      1971
      SMIC conference of leading scientists reports a danger of rapid and serious global change caused by humans, calls for an organized research effort.

      1975
      Manabe and collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models which show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO2.

      1976
      Studies show that CFCs (1975) and also methane and ozone (1976) can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect.

      1977
      Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century.

      1979
      US National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming.

      1981
      Election of Reagan brings backlash against environmental movement to power. Political conservatism is linked to skepticism about global warming.

      Some scientists predict greenhouse warming “signal” should be visible by about the year 2000.

      1982
      Strong global warming since mid-1970s is reported, with 1981 the warmest year on record.

      1983
      Reports from US National Academy of Sciences and Environmental Protection Agency spark conflict, as greenhouse warming becomes prominent in mainstream politics.

      1985
      Ramanathan and collaborators announce that global warming may come twice as fast as expected, from rise of methane and other trace greenhouse gases.

      Villach Conference declares consensus among experts that some global warming seems inevitable, calls on governments to consider international agreements to restrict emissions.=>International

      Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 and temperature went up and down together through past ice ages, pointing to powerful biological and geochemical feedbacks.

      Broecker speculates that a reorganization of North Atlantic Ocean circulation can bring swift and radical climate change.

      1988
      News media coverage of global warming leaps upward following record heat and droughts plus testimony by Hansen.

      … and on and on it goes.

      There are no excuses. 😯

      • Dude, your science is poor.

        And yours nonexistent. You are a bible-slapper, so I guess science means nothing to you anyway 🙄

      • ResearchtimeMEMBER

        Mate, you are talking about something you simply do not understand. Now my comments are regularly deleted, but I don’t care. The science is far a head of these simplistic prognostications – and I have summarised some of it, but got deleted numerous times. Personal abuse from H&H, Dr. and Beck month others, so another avatar does not worry me. Its not personal.

  7. fufufuguhhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuuhhuhuhu but solar panels and turbines are so efficient now we can have unlimited energy for all time and theres nothing to worry about bc the costs wqill be literally NEGATIVE KILOWATS PER HOUR costs in the future decarbonisation green energy battery storage fufufuguhhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuuhhuhuhu

  8. ChristopherJMEMBER

    We are experiencing unpredicted and unprecedented weather events – been three days of 40 plus on the NQ coast up here. We’re intelligent people, we can see ourselves getting thru this, we’ll adapt as our betters have planned for us. Yet, it’s the insects, plants and other organisms we depend on that won’t cope with large swings in temps and other weather anomalies. And, it will be our inability to grow food at scale which will kill us.

    What you and I think has caused this situation, is irrelevant. And so are us.

  9. Jumping jack flash

    Look, I don’t subscribe to any particular theology on climate, firmly on the fence, Climate Agnostic, if you will. But what I do know is that the recent advancements in clean energy production, and storage technology, have made it viable for everyone to cleanly produce all their own energy needs.

    In all seriousness, if we all did this, coupled with using electric cars, lawnmowers, etc, not only would it significantly reduce the emissions that are possibly causing some component of the warming we’re currently experiencing, and have been experiencing for hundreds of years, but it would also completely stop the blatant gouging of the energy market which has been broken by the enormous debt everyone has been tricked into taking on recently. Their debt-induced gouging helping to make these traditionally expensive renewable energies financially viable. (Like harvesting shale oil and oil sands)

    Also, the shade from all the solar panels would lower surface temperatures too. Amirite?

      • ResearchtimeMEMBER

        Actually, given I know a little about this subject, because of the massive drop in US coal consumption, global coal consumption has plateaued, a little. Yes it will continue to grow, but no where as fast as many were predicting. China is going big in nuclear, as seen in recent, and some other big uranium purchases!

        Sobering conclusion however, haven’t sorted the numbers yet, but it seems that a lot of this uranium production is going into nuclear weapons. That the recent pulling out of 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF), which banned ground-launch nuclear missiles with ranges from 500km to 5,500km with Russia had nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with China. In particular, the China’s DF-26 ‘Carrier-Killer’ Missile which can be nuclearised.

        I fear nuclear war (which I think inevitable) and its effects far more than global warming. Technology will save us on the later.

        What is surprising, is the French President, Macron, is closing a heap of nuclear power stations, so France can reach some stupid renewables target!!! never work.

  10. Capitalism also has a severe problem with the very long term because of the tyranny of the discount rate, anything that happens to a corporation over 25 years out doesn’t exist for them. Therefore, grandchildren, I like to say, have no value. They the corporations also handle externalities very badly. Even the expression “handle badly” is flattering for often they don’t handle them at all, they’re just completely ignored as are the tragedies of the commons. We deforest the land, we degrade our soils, we pollute and overuse our water, and treat air like an open sewer. We do it all off the balance sheet and off the income statement. Indeed, sensible capitalist response is deliberately slowed down by well-funded and talented programs of obfuscation by what is called the merchants of doubt, familiar in the past with tobacco particularly in the U.S., but here also the U.K.

    One of these merchants, Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT actually went seamlessly from defending tobacco–where he famously puffed cigarettes through his TV interviews–to denying most of the problems of climate change. Let me just add this doesn’t happen in China or India, Germany, Argentina. This is unique to the three English-speaking, oily countries–the US, the UK, and Australia. (J Grantham)

    • “… the tyranny of the discount rate …” OMFG you truly are clueless. Capitalism has nothing to do with anything the Govt has control of. In fact, capitalism has its full expression when Govt has influence over nothing at all/

      Not to worry though ..

      • FU you dumb little twerp. I was quoting world famous investor Grantham, so go talk to him about your bullshyte objections.

    • “FU you dumb little twerp.”

      Crikey. How old are you? Five?

      Oh, and by the way get a subscription — ask your parents very nicely and they’ll stick one in your Crissy stocking

  11. And for a reality slap double down, check out the total collapse in biodiversity across the planet. This data is incontrovertible, and horrific.

    • A collapse in biodiversity is inevitable when varied ecosystems are replaced with either concrete or farmland. Not incontrovertible proof of climate change on it’s own though.