Category Archives: Economics

Cheap renewables will price out oil on roads

Petrol- and diesel-driven cars will soon vanish, as oil-based fuel already costs three times more than cheap renewables.

LONDON, 16 August, 2019 − The days of oil as a fuel for cars, whether petrol or diesel, are numbered − because the economies offered by wind and solar energy and other cheap renewables, combined with electric vehicles, are irresistible, a French bank says.

BNP Paribas Asset Management calculates that oil majors like Exxon, BP and Shell will have to produce petrol from oil at $10 a barrel (the current price is $58) to compete with electricity on price, while for diesel, it says, oil can cost no more than $19 a barrel.

“The oil industry has never before in its history faced the kind of threat that renewable electricity in tandem with electric vehicles poses to its business model,” the bank says. Electric vehicles (EVs) could easily replace 40% of the current market for crude oil.

The far lower cost of driving electric vehicles, plus the environmental benefits of cleaner air and the reduction in carbon emissions, will make it overwhelmingly attractive to governments to switch from fossil fuels to renewables for powering the world’s light vehicles.

“The economics of oil for gasoline and diesel vehicles versus wind- and solar-powered EVs are now in relentless and irreversible decline”

Warnings that Big Oil’s position is precarious have been sounding for several years. Some see the global industry reaching its peak within the next decade. In several countries car plants are being converted to all-electric production, a move perhaps prompted by a wish to regain market share after a less than happy episode in consumer relations.

But the bank’s report for professional investors, Wells, Wires, and Wheels, will certainly make bleak reading for the oil industry. Its conclusions are based on the bank’s calculations of how much it costs to get energy to the car wheels.

Its analysis concludes that “after adjusting for all of the costs and all of the energy losses of delivering oil from the well to the wheels on the one hand, and renewable electricity to the wheels of EVs on the other, new wind and solar projects combined with EVs would deliver 6.2 to 7 times more useful energy than petrol”.

This is with oil at its current market price of $60 a barrel. Renewables would also provide 3.2 to 3.6 times more power than diesel for the same cost.

Rising efficiency

The report says: “Moreover, this is on the basis of the costs and efficiency rates of the renewable electricity technologies as they exist today. Yet, over time, the costs of renewables will only continue to fall, while their efficiency rates will continue to rise.”

The report concedes that at the moment the oil industry has huge advantages of scale, because it is already servicing the world’s vehicle fleet. To take its business away, renewables have to scale up and provide the quantity of electricity and the number of charging points required for a mass electric vehicle market.

It argues, however, that oil has a major disadvantage. For every dollar spent at the pump on petrol, nearly half that cost has already gone on refining the oil, transporting it to the pump, marketing and tax. Electricity on the other hand is delivered to cars along wires at only a tiny fraction of the cost of oil-based fuels.

The bank concludes that the oil industry also has another huge disadvantage. It has to decide on future investments in new oil fields without knowing in advance the occasional wild fluctuations in oil price.

Declining oil yield

Each year the oil majors have to make such decisions about fields which need to be added to production to replace the 10% annual decline in the yield from old fields, leaving them working 10 years in advance.

By the bank’s calculations, unless the new oil can be brought on stream at $10 a barrel or less, the oil companies will have to sell petrol and diesel at a loss to compete on price with electric cars running on renewables.

Investment decisions made now on the basis of an oil price of $60 a barrel risk creating assets that cannot be sold profitably and would have to be left in the ground.

The report says: “We conclude that the economics of oil for gasoline and diesel vehicles versus wind- and solar-powered EVs are now in relentless and irreversible decline, with far-reaching implications for both policymakers and the oil majors.” − Climate News Network

Petrol- and diesel-driven cars will soon vanish, as oil-based fuel already costs three times more than cheap renewables.

LONDON, 16 August, 2019 − The days of oil as a fuel for cars, whether petrol or diesel, are numbered − because the economies offered by wind and solar energy and other cheap renewables, combined with electric vehicles, are irresistible, a French bank says.

BNP Paribas Asset Management calculates that oil majors like Exxon, BP and Shell will have to produce petrol from oil at $10 a barrel (the current price is $58) to compete with electricity on price, while for diesel, it says, oil can cost no more than $19 a barrel.

“The oil industry has never before in its history faced the kind of threat that renewable electricity in tandem with electric vehicles poses to its business model,” the bank says. Electric vehicles (EVs) could easily replace 40% of the current market for crude oil.

The far lower cost of driving electric vehicles, plus the environmental benefits of cleaner air and the reduction in carbon emissions, will make it overwhelmingly attractive to governments to switch from fossil fuels to renewables for powering the world’s light vehicles.

“The economics of oil for gasoline and diesel vehicles versus wind- and solar-powered EVs are now in relentless and irreversible decline”

Warnings that Big Oil’s position is precarious have been sounding for several years. Some see the global industry reaching its peak within the next decade. In several countries car plants are being converted to all-electric production, a move perhaps prompted by a wish to regain market share after a less than happy episode in consumer relations.

But the bank’s report for professional investors, Wells, Wires, and Wheels, will certainly make bleak reading for the oil industry. Its conclusions are based on the bank’s calculations of how much it costs to get energy to the car wheels.

Its analysis concludes that “after adjusting for all of the costs and all of the energy losses of delivering oil from the well to the wheels on the one hand, and renewable electricity to the wheels of EVs on the other, new wind and solar projects combined with EVs would deliver 6.2 to 7 times more useful energy than petrol”.

This is with oil at its current market price of $60 a barrel. Renewables would also provide 3.2 to 3.6 times more power than diesel for the same cost.

Rising efficiency

The report says: “Moreover, this is on the basis of the costs and efficiency rates of the renewable electricity technologies as they exist today. Yet, over time, the costs of renewables will only continue to fall, while their efficiency rates will continue to rise.”

The report concedes that at the moment the oil industry has huge advantages of scale, because it is already servicing the world’s vehicle fleet. To take its business away, renewables have to scale up and provide the quantity of electricity and the number of charging points required for a mass electric vehicle market.

It argues, however, that oil has a major disadvantage. For every dollar spent at the pump on petrol, nearly half that cost has already gone on refining the oil, transporting it to the pump, marketing and tax. Electricity on the other hand is delivered to cars along wires at only a tiny fraction of the cost of oil-based fuels.

The bank concludes that the oil industry also has another huge disadvantage. It has to decide on future investments in new oil fields without knowing in advance the occasional wild fluctuations in oil price.

Declining oil yield

Each year the oil majors have to make such decisions about fields which need to be added to production to replace the 10% annual decline in the yield from old fields, leaving them working 10 years in advance.

By the bank’s calculations, unless the new oil can be brought on stream at $10 a barrel or less, the oil companies will have to sell petrol and diesel at a loss to compete on price with electric cars running on renewables.

Investment decisions made now on the basis of an oil price of $60 a barrel risk creating assets that cannot be sold profitably and would have to be left in the ground.

The report says: “We conclude that the economics of oil for gasoline and diesel vehicles versus wind- and solar-powered EVs are now in relentless and irreversible decline, with far-reaching implications for both policymakers and the oil majors.” − Climate News Network

Global warming tips scales against the poor

The richest nations got richer through rising investment in fossil fuels – and the global warming they caused has made the poorest nations measurably poorer.

LONDON, 24 April, 2019 − Global warming has increased global economic inequality. Some countries have profited from climate change while the same rise in average planetary temperatures has dragged down economic growth in the warmer countries.

The gap between those groups of nations with the highest and lowest economic output per person is now around 25% larger than it would have been had there been no climate change.

“Our results show that most of the poorest countries on Earth are considerably poorer than they would have been without global warming,” said Noah Diffenbaugh, a climate scientist at Stanford University in California. “At the same time the majority of rich countries are richer than they would have been.”

He and his co-author, Marshall Burke, an earth system scientist at Stanford, report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that they combed through 50 years of annual temperature readings and measurements of gross domestic product (GDP) for 165 nations, to tease out the effects of temperature fluctuation on economic growth.

“Many poor countries have been significantly harmed by the warming arising from wealthy countries’ energy consumption”

They found that during warmer than average years growth was accelerated in those nations with normally cool climates – such as Norway and Sweden – but was slowed significantly in those countries with tropical or subtropical climates such as India or Nigeria.

And between 1961 and 2010, they found that global warming depressed the wealth per person in the poorest nations by between 17% and 30%.

“The historical data clearly show that crops are more productive, people are healthier and we are more productive at work when temperatures are neither too hot nor too cold,” said Dr Burke. “This means that in cold countries, a little bit of warming can help. The opposite is true in places that are already hot.”

The two scientists put the message of climate injustice bluntly in their paper: “Our results show that, in addition to not sharing equally in the direct benefits of fossil fuel use, many poor countries have been significantly harmed by the warming arising from wealthy countries’ energy consumption.”

What if … ?

All such research is tortured by uncertainties, and none greater than what historians call counter-factual comparison: that is, what would have happened if global average temperatures had not risen by around 1°C in the last century.

To make their case, the researchers calculated 20,000 versions of what each separate country’s economic growth rate would have been without global warming, and based their estimates on the range of outcomes. So, they concede, there are uncertainties.

But their findings are in line with other separate studies. Geographers, economists and climate scientists have repeatedly pointed out that global warming consistently threatens the poorest people in any society and that economic inequalities tend to stoke conflict and drive migration while at the same time economic inequalities continue to ensure that the poorest will suffer even more.

And national studies of specific climate events have confirmed the link between temperature and output. Dr Burke has in an earlier study separately made the connection between rising temperatures and social conflict, and the Stanford two have already argued that even a small reduction in global warming would return huge economic benefits.

Renewable remedy

In effect, the latest research provides a kind of national climate audit. If greenhouse emissions are a measure of economic output, then the richest 10% produce atmospheric carbon dioxide almost as much as the bottom 90% together.

The Stanford study offers an estimate of the costs and benefits the richest and poorest have borne as a consequence of emissions. It also makes it clear that the poorer nations would benefit more from investment in renewable energy: that is, they could create more wealth in ways that did not intensify costly climate change.

“Our study makes the first accounting of exactly how much each country has been impacted economically by global warming, relative to historical greenhouse gas emissions,” said Professor Diffenbaugh.

“Historically, rapid economic development has been powered by fossil fuels. Our finding that global warming has exacerbated economic inequality suggests that there is an added economic benefit of energy sources that don’t contribute to further warming.” − Climate News Network

The richest nations got richer through rising investment in fossil fuels – and the global warming they caused has made the poorest nations measurably poorer.

LONDON, 24 April, 2019 − Global warming has increased global economic inequality. Some countries have profited from climate change while the same rise in average planetary temperatures has dragged down economic growth in the warmer countries.

The gap between those groups of nations with the highest and lowest economic output per person is now around 25% larger than it would have been had there been no climate change.

“Our results show that most of the poorest countries on Earth are considerably poorer than they would have been without global warming,” said Noah Diffenbaugh, a climate scientist at Stanford University in California. “At the same time the majority of rich countries are richer than they would have been.”

He and his co-author, Marshall Burke, an earth system scientist at Stanford, report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that they combed through 50 years of annual temperature readings and measurements of gross domestic product (GDP) for 165 nations, to tease out the effects of temperature fluctuation on economic growth.

“Many poor countries have been significantly harmed by the warming arising from wealthy countries’ energy consumption”

They found that during warmer than average years growth was accelerated in those nations with normally cool climates – such as Norway and Sweden – but was slowed significantly in those countries with tropical or subtropical climates such as India or Nigeria.

And between 1961 and 2010, they found that global warming depressed the wealth per person in the poorest nations by between 17% and 30%.

“The historical data clearly show that crops are more productive, people are healthier and we are more productive at work when temperatures are neither too hot nor too cold,” said Dr Burke. “This means that in cold countries, a little bit of warming can help. The opposite is true in places that are already hot.”

The two scientists put the message of climate injustice bluntly in their paper: “Our results show that, in addition to not sharing equally in the direct benefits of fossil fuel use, many poor countries have been significantly harmed by the warming arising from wealthy countries’ energy consumption.”

What if … ?

All such research is tortured by uncertainties, and none greater than what historians call counter-factual comparison: that is, what would have happened if global average temperatures had not risen by around 1°C in the last century.

To make their case, the researchers calculated 20,000 versions of what each separate country’s economic growth rate would have been without global warming, and based their estimates on the range of outcomes. So, they concede, there are uncertainties.

But their findings are in line with other separate studies. Geographers, economists and climate scientists have repeatedly pointed out that global warming consistently threatens the poorest people in any society and that economic inequalities tend to stoke conflict and drive migration while at the same time economic inequalities continue to ensure that the poorest will suffer even more.

And national studies of specific climate events have confirmed the link between temperature and output. Dr Burke has in an earlier study separately made the connection between rising temperatures and social conflict, and the Stanford two have already argued that even a small reduction in global warming would return huge economic benefits.

Renewable remedy

In effect, the latest research provides a kind of national climate audit. If greenhouse emissions are a measure of economic output, then the richest 10% produce atmospheric carbon dioxide almost as much as the bottom 90% together.

The Stanford study offers an estimate of the costs and benefits the richest and poorest have borne as a consequence of emissions. It also makes it clear that the poorer nations would benefit more from investment in renewable energy: that is, they could create more wealth in ways that did not intensify costly climate change.

“Our study makes the first accounting of exactly how much each country has been impacted economically by global warming, relative to historical greenhouse gas emissions,” said Professor Diffenbaugh.

“Historically, rapid economic development has been powered by fossil fuels. Our finding that global warming has exacerbated economic inequality suggests that there is an added economic benefit of energy sources that don’t contribute to further warming.” − Climate News Network

Rapidly rising heat will cut maize harvests

Soon the corn could roast on the cob long before the maize harvests are due. That could be far sooner than anyone expects.

LONDON, 3 April, 2019 − European scientists have bad news for the world’s farmers: within a decade, maize harvests will suffer as global temperatures will have reached a level that will turn the once-in-a-decade extremes of heat and drought into the new normal.

That will mean that the worst production losses ever felt by the maize farmers will happen with increasing frequency, if global planetary temperatures reach 1.5°C above the long-term average for almost all human history.

The world is already 1°C hotter on average than it was before the Industrial Revolution and its increasing dependence on fossil fuels to power the global economies.

And if the temperature reaches 2°C, researchers warn, farmlands where maize once flourished will be hit by heat and drought events never before experienced. The big agribusiness giants will be hurt – and so will the small subsistence farmers who depend on their crop to keep their families alive.

“At the 2°C warning level . . . our projections suggest that global maize production will suffer from unprecedented losses”

Already the warming in the last few decades has begun to hit yields: the scientists reckon that maize yield within the 28 European member states is 290,000 tonnes a year lower than it would have been without global warming.

Significantly, 195 nations met in Paris in 2015 to agree to co-operate to keep average global warming down to if possible “well below” 2°C by 2100. Their target was a rise of no more than 1.5°C.

At the present rate of action – to switch to solar and wind power, to restore the world’s forests – the planet is on course to warm by 3°C by the close of the century.

But a new study by the European Union’s Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy, published in the journal Earth’s Future, is not worried about the average, but about the extremes that, over the course of a year, make up that average, and drive up the loss of one particular crop: maize.

Vulnerabilities

Maize is now the world’s biggest single crop: the US is the most important producer but the EU ranks fourth in the world, producing an average of 65 million tonnes a year for food and cattle fodder. This warm climate crop is at certain points in its growing season vulnerable to heat stress and to drought. And heat stress seems increasingly  certain.

Researchers have warned, repeatedly, that higher average planetary or regional temperatures will mean increasingly intense, frequent, prolonged and potentially dangerous extremes of heat. And those areas already vulnerable to drought are likely to see much more of it, while other regions will become more at risk of catastrophic flood.

Agricultural scientists have already confirmed that untimely spells of heat and drought have started to slash cereal yields as measured across whole regions, or per field.

Hunger warning

And although the US has increased production, this too will be vulnerable to further warming. The World Meteorological Organisation has just warned of an already warmer, hungrier world.

The European researchers report that their analysis of past and future maize production surveys a range of outcomes: in one of these, the worst could start to happen as early as 2020. They suggest greater efforts to meet the goals set in Paris but even with those, farmers and agriculture ministries will need to find ways to adapt.

Their report ends bluntly. “We found that global warming will substantially increase the risk of maize production losses in most world regions, including the United States. The climatic events affecting historical global maize production once every 10 years will become normal at the 1.5°C global warming level, which is reached in the 2020s in most of the analysed climate model simulations,” they write.

“At the 2°C warning level (approximately late 2030s) our projections suggest that global maize production will suffer from unprecedented losses.” − Climate News Network

Soon the corn could roast on the cob long before the maize harvests are due. That could be far sooner than anyone expects.

LONDON, 3 April, 2019 − European scientists have bad news for the world’s farmers: within a decade, maize harvests will suffer as global temperatures will have reached a level that will turn the once-in-a-decade extremes of heat and drought into the new normal.

That will mean that the worst production losses ever felt by the maize farmers will happen with increasing frequency, if global planetary temperatures reach 1.5°C above the long-term average for almost all human history.

The world is already 1°C hotter on average than it was before the Industrial Revolution and its increasing dependence on fossil fuels to power the global economies.

And if the temperature reaches 2°C, researchers warn, farmlands where maize once flourished will be hit by heat and drought events never before experienced. The big agribusiness giants will be hurt – and so will the small subsistence farmers who depend on their crop to keep their families alive.

“At the 2°C warning level . . . our projections suggest that global maize production will suffer from unprecedented losses”

Already the warming in the last few decades has begun to hit yields: the scientists reckon that maize yield within the 28 European member states is 290,000 tonnes a year lower than it would have been without global warming.

Significantly, 195 nations met in Paris in 2015 to agree to co-operate to keep average global warming down to if possible “well below” 2°C by 2100. Their target was a rise of no more than 1.5°C.

At the present rate of action – to switch to solar and wind power, to restore the world’s forests – the planet is on course to warm by 3°C by the close of the century.

But a new study by the European Union’s Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy, published in the journal Earth’s Future, is not worried about the average, but about the extremes that, over the course of a year, make up that average, and drive up the loss of one particular crop: maize.

Vulnerabilities

Maize is now the world’s biggest single crop: the US is the most important producer but the EU ranks fourth in the world, producing an average of 65 million tonnes a year for food and cattle fodder. This warm climate crop is at certain points in its growing season vulnerable to heat stress and to drought. And heat stress seems increasingly  certain.

Researchers have warned, repeatedly, that higher average planetary or regional temperatures will mean increasingly intense, frequent, prolonged and potentially dangerous extremes of heat. And those areas already vulnerable to drought are likely to see much more of it, while other regions will become more at risk of catastrophic flood.

Agricultural scientists have already confirmed that untimely spells of heat and drought have started to slash cereal yields as measured across whole regions, or per field.

Hunger warning

And although the US has increased production, this too will be vulnerable to further warming. The World Meteorological Organisation has just warned of an already warmer, hungrier world.

The European researchers report that their analysis of past and future maize production surveys a range of outcomes: in one of these, the worst could start to happen as early as 2020. They suggest greater efforts to meet the goals set in Paris but even with those, farmers and agriculture ministries will need to find ways to adapt.

Their report ends bluntly. “We found that global warming will substantially increase the risk of maize production losses in most world regions, including the United States. The climatic events affecting historical global maize production once every 10 years will become normal at the 1.5°C global warming level, which is reached in the 2020s in most of the analysed climate model simulations,” they write.

“At the 2°C warning level (approximately late 2030s) our projections suggest that global maize production will suffer from unprecedented losses.” − Climate News Network

Green New Deal aims for triple payback

Support is growing for a plan to tackle climate change, our economic crisis and deepening social divisions together − the Green New Deal.

LONDON, 18 March, 2019 − If you haven’t yet heard of the Green New Deal, chances are that you soon will. To its growing band of supporters, it looks like an idea whose time has come.

Just suppose we could see a  way to transform the global economy, society and even the environment so that they met real needs, and promised to go on doing so far into the future. Well, we can. And it’s growing simpler all the time, futurologists say.

The bad news? Inertia and resistance. Too few of us think we really need a transformation. Too many are actively trying to prevent one. No change there then − except that the balance may be starting to shift, thanks largely to science and money − and ordinary people who are refusing to go on as we are.

Supporters of the Green New Deal say we don’t have to look very far ahead for results − no further than about mid-century.

By then, some of them told The New Yorker magazine, much of the world should be able to achieve the goal of zero carbon emissions, a goal for which they say the world already has about 90-95% of the technology it needs.

Technological gallop

One problem often raised is the need to store the power produced by wind and solar power, which may be inconveniently unavailable just when it’s needed. But even here there are hopeful signs that the galloping pace of technological advance may soon have an answer in the form of greatly improved batteries.

The Deal’s supporters are not the first to claim we’re most of the way towards a carbon-free future in 30 years, and possibly well before that. But this Deal, itself a reminder of US President Franklin D Roosevelt’s 1933 New Deal, explores more ambitious territory still, with the prospect of also ensuring a living wage job for everyone who wants one and reducing racial, regional and gender-based inequalities in income and wealth.

To make any headway the new Deal will need strong political backing. Here it’s had a stroke of luck, being identified with the arrival in Washington DC of the politician Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the youngest woman ever elected to the US Congress.

There are signs across the Atlantic of mounting involvement in the ideas spelt out in the Green New Deal, incorporating lessons learned from France, for instance, and the experience of Germany.

“Any Green New Deal worthy of the name creates millions of ‘green collar’ jobs … The opportunities are immediate, needed and everywhere”

In Britain a rising star of the parliamentary opposition, Clive Lewis, the shadow sustainable economy minister, told a recent meeting: “The green economy will simply be ‘the economy’ under the next Labour government”.

The British economist Ann Pettifor, a fellow of the New Economics Foundation, describes the Green New Deal as “incredibly ambitious . . . a huge advance for green campaigners and, hopefully, for our threatened species.”  Pettifor was co-author of the original Green New Deal Report, published in the UK in 2008, which in many ways prefigured the present US initiative.

Her fellow co-author was Andrew Simms, now co-ordinator of the Rapid Transition Alliance (RTA), an enthusiastic backer of Ocasio-Cortez’ vision.

The RTA says: “Like the UK proposal, [the Deal] seeks to tackle the climate and economic crisis simultaneously and looks at job creation, decarbonising electricity, renovating buildings for energy efficiency and much more.

Affordable

“A Green New Deal today would cost no more than [Roosevelt’s] New Deal, less than the 2008 bailouts, and see off the worst effects of the climate crisis.”

Simms told the Climate News Network: “What does it actually look like to start transforming our economies to prevent climate breakdown and meet the internationally agreed climate targets?

“Practically it looks like a Green New Deal − a programme that meets our economic, social and environmental needs at the same time − a ‘win, win, win’ package of measures.

“Any Green New Deal worthy of the name creates millions of ‘green collar’ jobs by building the low-carbon infrastructures which respect environmental limits and are vital to modern economies − renewable energy, zero carbon homes, efficient and clean mass transport systems delivered by switching investments from old, dirty ways of doing things and with innovative financial mechanisms. The opportunities are immediate, needed and everywhere.”

Obstacles remain

Perhaps an idea which puts the environment, the economy and social justice together can hope to mobilise mass support in a way the three distinct groups have so far not managed to achieve − especially when it exploits the potential of new technology and falling costs. But there’s still political inertia to reckon with, and financial self-interest.

Even there, change may be afoot. A British group of scientists, activists and one former archbishop of Canterbury, ExtinctionRebellion, has been staging audacious public protests in the UK for four months now, and started a spring uprising on 16 March, giving no sign yet of succumbing to inertia.

And resistance to the very idea that the world needs an energy transformation? A brief online search for the way parts of the fossil fuel industry continue to challenge and decry climate science suggests change could be coming there too. One example from the US site Inside Climate News shows the deniers are facing challenges of their own.

Change on the scale envisaged by the Green New Deal is certainly demanding, but it will be far less so than refusing to change. − Climate News Network

* * *

The Rapid Transition Alliance is coordinated by the New Weather Institute, the STEPS Centre at the Institute of  Development Studies, and the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex, UK. The Climate News Network is partnering with and supported by the Rapid Transition Alliance, and will be reporting regularly on its work. If you would like to see more stories of evidence-based hope for rapid transition, please sign up here.

Do you know a story of rapid transition? If so, we’d like to hear from you. Please send us a brief outline on info@climatenewsnetwork.net. Thank you.

Support is growing for a plan to tackle climate change, our economic crisis and deepening social divisions together − the Green New Deal.

LONDON, 18 March, 2019 − If you haven’t yet heard of the Green New Deal, chances are that you soon will. To its growing band of supporters, it looks like an idea whose time has come.

Just suppose we could see a  way to transform the global economy, society and even the environment so that they met real needs, and promised to go on doing so far into the future. Well, we can. And it’s growing simpler all the time, futurologists say.

The bad news? Inertia and resistance. Too few of us think we really need a transformation. Too many are actively trying to prevent one. No change there then − except that the balance may be starting to shift, thanks largely to science and money − and ordinary people who are refusing to go on as we are.

Supporters of the Green New Deal say we don’t have to look very far ahead for results − no further than about mid-century.

By then, some of them told The New Yorker magazine, much of the world should be able to achieve the goal of zero carbon emissions, a goal for which they say the world already has about 90-95% of the technology it needs.

Technological gallop

One problem often raised is the need to store the power produced by wind and solar power, which may be inconveniently unavailable just when it’s needed. But even here there are hopeful signs that the galloping pace of technological advance may soon have an answer in the form of greatly improved batteries.

The Deal’s supporters are not the first to claim we’re most of the way towards a carbon-free future in 30 years, and possibly well before that. But this Deal, itself a reminder of US President Franklin D Roosevelt’s 1933 New Deal, explores more ambitious territory still, with the prospect of also ensuring a living wage job for everyone who wants one and reducing racial, regional and gender-based inequalities in income and wealth.

To make any headway the new Deal will need strong political backing. Here it’s had a stroke of luck, being identified with the arrival in Washington DC of the politician Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the youngest woman ever elected to the US Congress.

There are signs across the Atlantic of mounting involvement in the ideas spelt out in the Green New Deal, incorporating lessons learned from France, for instance, and the experience of Germany.

“Any Green New Deal worthy of the name creates millions of ‘green collar’ jobs … The opportunities are immediate, needed and everywhere”

In Britain a rising star of the parliamentary opposition, Clive Lewis, the shadow sustainable economy minister, told a recent meeting: “The green economy will simply be ‘the economy’ under the next Labour government”.

The British economist Ann Pettifor, a fellow of the New Economics Foundation, describes the Green New Deal as “incredibly ambitious . . . a huge advance for green campaigners and, hopefully, for our threatened species.”  Pettifor was co-author of the original Green New Deal Report, published in the UK in 2008, which in many ways prefigured the present US initiative.

Her fellow co-author was Andrew Simms, now co-ordinator of the Rapid Transition Alliance (RTA), an enthusiastic backer of Ocasio-Cortez’ vision.

The RTA says: “Like the UK proposal, [the Deal] seeks to tackle the climate and economic crisis simultaneously and looks at job creation, decarbonising electricity, renovating buildings for energy efficiency and much more.

Affordable

“A Green New Deal today would cost no more than [Roosevelt’s] New Deal, less than the 2008 bailouts, and see off the worst effects of the climate crisis.”

Simms told the Climate News Network: “What does it actually look like to start transforming our economies to prevent climate breakdown and meet the internationally agreed climate targets?

“Practically it looks like a Green New Deal − a programme that meets our economic, social and environmental needs at the same time − a ‘win, win, win’ package of measures.

“Any Green New Deal worthy of the name creates millions of ‘green collar’ jobs by building the low-carbon infrastructures which respect environmental limits and are vital to modern economies − renewable energy, zero carbon homes, efficient and clean mass transport systems delivered by switching investments from old, dirty ways of doing things and with innovative financial mechanisms. The opportunities are immediate, needed and everywhere.”

Obstacles remain

Perhaps an idea which puts the environment, the economy and social justice together can hope to mobilise mass support in a way the three distinct groups have so far not managed to achieve − especially when it exploits the potential of new technology and falling costs. But there’s still political inertia to reckon with, and financial self-interest.

Even there, change may be afoot. A British group of scientists, activists and one former archbishop of Canterbury, ExtinctionRebellion, has been staging audacious public protests in the UK for four months now, and started a spring uprising on 16 March, giving no sign yet of succumbing to inertia.

And resistance to the very idea that the world needs an energy transformation? A brief online search for the way parts of the fossil fuel industry continue to challenge and decry climate science suggests change could be coming there too. One example from the US site Inside Climate News shows the deniers are facing challenges of their own.

Change on the scale envisaged by the Green New Deal is certainly demanding, but it will be far less so than refusing to change. − Climate News Network

* * *

The Rapid Transition Alliance is coordinated by the New Weather Institute, the STEPS Centre at the Institute of  Development Studies, and the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex, UK. The Climate News Network is partnering with and supported by the Rapid Transition Alliance, and will be reporting regularly on its work. If you would like to see more stories of evidence-based hope for rapid transition, please sign up here.

Do you know a story of rapid transition? If so, we’d like to hear from you. Please send us a brief outline on info@climatenewsnetwork.net. Thank you.

Paris climate pledge would help world fishing

Honouring the Paris climate pledge would provide a fair catch for the world’s fishing fleets. Warm up the oceans, though, and everyone loses.

LONDON, 12 March, 2019 – Canadian scientists have worked out the way to make the most of the world’s fish stocks: by honouring the Paris climate pledge.

Seagoing nations could raise revenues for their fishing fleets, put more seafood on the table and protect the most valuable commercial fish stocks simply by doing what they had promised in 2015 to do anyway.

The key is the historic agreement reached then in Paris by 195 nations, to take steps to limit average global warming to “well below” a total of 2°C above the long-term average for most of human history, and to do this by 2100.

In the last century or so the global temperature has already risen by around 1°C, as a consequence of ever-increasing combustion of fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

“The largest gains will occur in developing country waters … which are at the greatest risk due to warming temperatures”

But although the world agreed its ideal target, the action so far leaves it on course for a potentially catastrophic rise of 3.5°C by the end of the century.

“Achieving the Agreement’s target could increase global fisheries revenues by $4.6 billion annually, seafood workers’ income by $3.7 bn and reduce household seafood expenditures by $5.4 bn,” said Rashid Sumaila, of the University of British Columbia’s Institute for Oceans and Fisheries.

“The largest gains will occur in developing country waters, such as Kiribati, the Maldives and Indonesia, which are at the greatest risk due to warming temperatures and rely the most on fish for food security, incomes and employment.”

What the researchers did – they explain their approach in the journal Science Advances – was to match what the computer forecasts said the Paris target would deliver, with what might happen if the world went on burning oil, coal and gas under the notorious business-as-usual scenario.

Impacts on ecosystems

They looked at the impact of less or more warming on 381 marine species, including the 10 that generate the most money, and they included ecosystem consequences as well as the economic payoff promised by the Paris target.

Their conclusion is that three-fourths of maritime countries would benefit, with the largest gains to be made by the developing nations.

Under the Paris scenario, the total mass of the fish species that generate the highest revenues would increase globally by 6.5%, with an 8.4% increase in the waters of developing countries. Overall, developed countries would see a marginal fall of 0.4%.

The Paris option would see an additional 3.3 million tonnes landed sustainably every year, compared with the business-as-usual scenario.

Conservation also needed

The British Columbia scientists are not the first to make the case for Paris in terms of fishery revenues: US and Japanese scientists looked at the same problem last year and concluded that the Paris option – matched by careful conservation approaches – could yield more fish for the hungry, and more revenues for the fishermen, if the ocean temperatures were kept from rising too dangerously.

But all the signals so far are ominous. A warmer world means a stormier one and greater danger for fishing fleets. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means ever more acidic seas, which seems to affect fish behaviour and threaten marine habitats such as coral reefs and kelp forests.

The same rise in carbon dioxide will warm the oceans and drive fish to migrate. Overall, humans have already left the seas diminished, and worse could be on the way. Fishing and seafood support an estimated 260 million full-time and part-time jobs worldwide.

Many to benefit

The Science Advances study is a reminder that while change is inexorable, the worst need not be inevitable. All continents except Europe would benefit from implementation of the Paris Agreement.

But as fish move towards the poles, countries in northern Europe might benefit from greater choice in their waters, and losses in the overall catch might be buffered by hjgher prices for those fish actually landed.

Russia could see catches reduced by as much as 25% under the 1.5°C target rather than the 3.5°C forecast. “However a projected 19% increase in fish prices, known as the price effect, should result in a negligible loss of less than 2% in fisheries revenues in Russia,” said William Cheung, one of the co-authors, of the University of British Columbia.

“Conversely, for the US fishing revenues are expected to decrease by 8% due to price effects but will be offset by a 21% increase in catch potential.” – Climate News Network

Honouring the Paris climate pledge would provide a fair catch for the world’s fishing fleets. Warm up the oceans, though, and everyone loses.

LONDON, 12 March, 2019 – Canadian scientists have worked out the way to make the most of the world’s fish stocks: by honouring the Paris climate pledge.

Seagoing nations could raise revenues for their fishing fleets, put more seafood on the table and protect the most valuable commercial fish stocks simply by doing what they had promised in 2015 to do anyway.

The key is the historic agreement reached then in Paris by 195 nations, to take steps to limit average global warming to “well below” a total of 2°C above the long-term average for most of human history, and to do this by 2100.

In the last century or so the global temperature has already risen by around 1°C, as a consequence of ever-increasing combustion of fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

“The largest gains will occur in developing country waters … which are at the greatest risk due to warming temperatures”

But although the world agreed its ideal target, the action so far leaves it on course for a potentially catastrophic rise of 3.5°C by the end of the century.

“Achieving the Agreement’s target could increase global fisheries revenues by $4.6 billion annually, seafood workers’ income by $3.7 bn and reduce household seafood expenditures by $5.4 bn,” said Rashid Sumaila, of the University of British Columbia’s Institute for Oceans and Fisheries.

“The largest gains will occur in developing country waters, such as Kiribati, the Maldives and Indonesia, which are at the greatest risk due to warming temperatures and rely the most on fish for food security, incomes and employment.”

What the researchers did – they explain their approach in the journal Science Advances – was to match what the computer forecasts said the Paris target would deliver, with what might happen if the world went on burning oil, coal and gas under the notorious business-as-usual scenario.

Impacts on ecosystems

They looked at the impact of less or more warming on 381 marine species, including the 10 that generate the most money, and they included ecosystem consequences as well as the economic payoff promised by the Paris target.

Their conclusion is that three-fourths of maritime countries would benefit, with the largest gains to be made by the developing nations.

Under the Paris scenario, the total mass of the fish species that generate the highest revenues would increase globally by 6.5%, with an 8.4% increase in the waters of developing countries. Overall, developed countries would see a marginal fall of 0.4%.

The Paris option would see an additional 3.3 million tonnes landed sustainably every year, compared with the business-as-usual scenario.

Conservation also needed

The British Columbia scientists are not the first to make the case for Paris in terms of fishery revenues: US and Japanese scientists looked at the same problem last year and concluded that the Paris option – matched by careful conservation approaches – could yield more fish for the hungry, and more revenues for the fishermen, if the ocean temperatures were kept from rising too dangerously.

But all the signals so far are ominous. A warmer world means a stormier one and greater danger for fishing fleets. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means ever more acidic seas, which seems to affect fish behaviour and threaten marine habitats such as coral reefs and kelp forests.

The same rise in carbon dioxide will warm the oceans and drive fish to migrate. Overall, humans have already left the seas diminished, and worse could be on the way. Fishing and seafood support an estimated 260 million full-time and part-time jobs worldwide.

Many to benefit

The Science Advances study is a reminder that while change is inexorable, the worst need not be inevitable. All continents except Europe would benefit from implementation of the Paris Agreement.

But as fish move towards the poles, countries in northern Europe might benefit from greater choice in their waters, and losses in the overall catch might be buffered by hjgher prices for those fish actually landed.

Russia could see catches reduced by as much as 25% under the 1.5°C target rather than the 3.5°C forecast. “However a projected 19% increase in fish prices, known as the price effect, should result in a negligible loss of less than 2% in fisheries revenues in Russia,” said William Cheung, one of the co-authors, of the University of British Columbia.

“Conversely, for the US fishing revenues are expected to decrease by 8% due to price effects but will be offset by a 21% increase in catch potential.” – Climate News Network

For offshore wind turbines size matters

As turbines grow in size and costs tumble, offshore wind turbines, both floating and fixed to the seabed, have vast potential.

LONDON, 7 March, 2019 − Offshore wind power is set to become one of the world’s largest electricity producers in the next decade as costs fall and turbines grow in size.

Up till now turbines standing on the seabed near to the coast in Europe have been seen as the most promising technology for offshore wind farms. But the success of floating machines that can be deployed in deeper water has meant many more coastal communities can benefit. Japan and the US are among the countries with the greatest potential.

The speed with which the industry has grown in the last decade has defied all expectations. Large turbines used to have a two to three megawatt output, but now the standard size is 7.5 megawatts and turbines capable of generating up to 10 megawatts are in the pipeline.

As a result the output of one offshore turbine is thirty times greater than with the first ones deployed in 1991 − and the cost has fallen to half that of new nuclear power.

This, coupled with experience showing that the wind blows more steadily out to sea and produces far more consistent power than turbines on land, has led many more countries to see offshore wind as a major potential source of renewable energy. The turbines have shown themselves to be robust even in extreme storm conditions.

“Previous estimates of the growth of renewables, at least wind and solar power, have always been underestimates”

Production has just begun from the world’s largest offshore wind farm in the North Sea, where construction started only in January 2018 and which began feeding power ashore in England 13 months later. The project is enormous, all four phases covering nearly 2,000 square miles, and will produce up to 6 GW of power, the same as five large nuclear power stations.

Apart from the sheer size, the plan is to have the whole development completed by 2025, before the partly-constructed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in the West of England will start up, and providing return on capital for the investors years before its nuclear rivals.

While the market for turbines fixed to the seabed is expected to continue to grow very fast, it is floating turbines that will be the next big player. These are again huge machines, taking advantage of the steadier
winds out to sea, and not needing expensive seabed foundations.

It took 15 years for the Norwegian state oil company Statoil, now rebranded as Equinor to emphasise its partial move to renewables, to develop the first offshore wind farm 15 miles of the coast of Aberdeen in Scotland.

Outrunning expectations

There are five turbines with blades 175 metres long and a counterweight extending 78 metres below the surface, which is chained to the seabed. The turbines started feeding into the grid in October 2017 and output was soon exceeding expectations.

The fact that it was Statoil that designed and developed the floating turbines is significant. The offshore wind industry uses many of the skills developed by offshore gas and oil ventures and provides an investment opportunity for oil majors under pressure to diversify and show they have green credentials.

A report, Wind Power to Spare, produced last year by a research and campaigning group, Environment America, showed that there was enough potential wind power just off the US east coast to provide more electricity than was currently used in the region’s maritime states – plus enough for powering electric cars and for providing heating for the entire population of the eastern coastal states in the future.

Since the report was published developers, looking at the success of Europe in exploiting this resource, have shown an escalation of interest. The same is true of Japan, where the nuclear industry remains in deep trouble as a result of the Fukushima accident in 2011, with many of its reactors not expected to restart.

Potential ignored

Back in Europe, where offshore wind was first developed, manufacturers are eyeing up potential new markets both in the North Sea and elsewhere. France for example has no offshore wind farms but could deploy hundreds of floating turbines.

Research suggests that water depths in the North Sea are ideal for floating turbines. If half the area available could be covered in turbines they would make enough electricity to power the whole EU four times over.

That prediction is made by Equinor. It also estimates in the same report that by 2030 Japan could have 3.5 gigawatts of floating wind power, France 2.9 GW and the US 2 GW, with a further 1.9 GW in the UK and Ireland.

This would make a significant contribution to reducing the world’s burning of fossil fuels, particularly since previous estimates of the growth of renewables, at least wind and solar power, have always been underestimates. − Climate News Network

As turbines grow in size and costs tumble, offshore wind turbines, both floating and fixed to the seabed, have vast potential.

LONDON, 7 March, 2019 − Offshore wind power is set to become one of the world’s largest electricity producers in the next decade as costs fall and turbines grow in size.

Up till now turbines standing on the seabed near to the coast in Europe have been seen as the most promising technology for offshore wind farms. But the success of floating machines that can be deployed in deeper water has meant many more coastal communities can benefit. Japan and the US are among the countries with the greatest potential.

The speed with which the industry has grown in the last decade has defied all expectations. Large turbines used to have a two to three megawatt output, but now the standard size is 7.5 megawatts and turbines capable of generating up to 10 megawatts are in the pipeline.

As a result the output of one offshore turbine is thirty times greater than with the first ones deployed in 1991 − and the cost has fallen to half that of new nuclear power.

This, coupled with experience showing that the wind blows more steadily out to sea and produces far more consistent power than turbines on land, has led many more countries to see offshore wind as a major potential source of renewable energy. The turbines have shown themselves to be robust even in extreme storm conditions.

“Previous estimates of the growth of renewables, at least wind and solar power, have always been underestimates”

Production has just begun from the world’s largest offshore wind farm in the North Sea, where construction started only in January 2018 and which began feeding power ashore in England 13 months later. The project is enormous, all four phases covering nearly 2,000 square miles, and will produce up to 6 GW of power, the same as five large nuclear power stations.

Apart from the sheer size, the plan is to have the whole development completed by 2025, before the partly-constructed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in the West of England will start up, and providing return on capital for the investors years before its nuclear rivals.

While the market for turbines fixed to the seabed is expected to continue to grow very fast, it is floating turbines that will be the next big player. These are again huge machines, taking advantage of the steadier
winds out to sea, and not needing expensive seabed foundations.

It took 15 years for the Norwegian state oil company Statoil, now rebranded as Equinor to emphasise its partial move to renewables, to develop the first offshore wind farm 15 miles of the coast of Aberdeen in Scotland.

Outrunning expectations

There are five turbines with blades 175 metres long and a counterweight extending 78 metres below the surface, which is chained to the seabed. The turbines started feeding into the grid in October 2017 and output was soon exceeding expectations.

The fact that it was Statoil that designed and developed the floating turbines is significant. The offshore wind industry uses many of the skills developed by offshore gas and oil ventures and provides an investment opportunity for oil majors under pressure to diversify and show they have green credentials.

A report, Wind Power to Spare, produced last year by a research and campaigning group, Environment America, showed that there was enough potential wind power just off the US east coast to provide more electricity than was currently used in the region’s maritime states – plus enough for powering electric cars and for providing heating for the entire population of the eastern coastal states in the future.

Since the report was published developers, looking at the success of Europe in exploiting this resource, have shown an escalation of interest. The same is true of Japan, where the nuclear industry remains in deep trouble as a result of the Fukushima accident in 2011, with many of its reactors not expected to restart.

Potential ignored

Back in Europe, where offshore wind was first developed, manufacturers are eyeing up potential new markets both in the North Sea and elsewhere. France for example has no offshore wind farms but could deploy hundreds of floating turbines.

Research suggests that water depths in the North Sea are ideal for floating turbines. If half the area available could be covered in turbines they would make enough electricity to power the whole EU four times over.

That prediction is made by Equinor. It also estimates in the same report that by 2030 Japan could have 3.5 gigawatts of floating wind power, France 2.9 GW and the US 2 GW, with a further 1.9 GW in the UK and Ireland.

This would make a significant contribution to reducing the world’s burning of fossil fuels, particularly since previous estimates of the growth of renewables, at least wind and solar power, have always been underestimates. − Climate News Network

Southward shift faces US climate by 2100

Climate change means a big shift for city dwellers worldwide. Americans can look ahead to very different cities as the US climate heads south.

LONDON, 21 February, 2019 − If the world continues to burn ever-increasing levels of fossil fuels, then life will change predictably for millions of American city dwellers as the US climate heats up. They will find conditions that will make it seem as if they have shifted south by as much as 850 kilometres.

New Yorkers will find themselves experiencing temperature and rainfall conditions appropriate to a small town in Arkansas. People from Los Angeles will discover what it is like to live, right now, on the southernmost tip of the Baja peninsula, Mexico. People in Abilene, Texas will find that it is as if they had crossed their own frontier, deep into Salinas, Mexico.

The lawmakers in Washington will have consigned themselves to conditions appropriate to Greenwood, Mississippi. Columbus, Ohio, will enjoy the climate of Jonesboro, Arkansas. Folk of Anchorage, Alaska, will find out what it feels like to live on Vancouver Sound. People of Vancouver, meanwhile, will feel as if they had crossed the border into Seattle, Washington.

This exercise in precision forecasting, published in the journal Nature Communications, has been tested in computer simulations for approximately 250 million US and Canadian citizens in 540 cities.

That is, around three quarters of all the population of the United States, and half of all Canadians, can now check the rainfall and temperature changes they can expect in one human lifetime, somewhere between 2070 and 2099.

“It is my hope that people have that ‘wow’ moment, and it sinks in for the first time the scale of the changes we’re expecting in a single generation”

There are a number of possible climate shifts, depending on whether or not 195 nations fulfil the vow made in Paris in 2015 to work to keep the average rise in global temperatures to “well below” 2°C by 2100.

In fact, President Trump has announced a US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and many of the nations that stand by the promise have yet to commit to convincing action.

So researchers continue to incorporate the notorious “business-as-usual” scenario in their simulations. So far, these have already predicted a sweltering future for many US cities, with devastating consequences for electrical power supplies and ever more destructive superstorms, megadroughts and floods, with huge economic costs for American government, business and taxpayers.

And, other researchers have found, climate change may already be at work: there is evidence that the division between the more arid American West and the more fertile eastern states has begun to shift significantly.

Long trip south

So the latest research could prove another way of bringing home to US citizens some of the challenges ahead.

“Under current high emissions, the average urban dweller is going to have to drive more than 500 miles (850 kms) to the south to find a climate like that expected in their home city by 2080. Not only is climate changing, but climates that don’t presently exist in North America will be prevalent in a lot of urban areas,” said Matt Fitzpatrick, of the University of Maryland, who led the study.

“Within the lifetime of children living today, the climate of many regions is projected to change from the familiar to conditions unlike those experienced in the same place by their parents, grandparents or perhaps any generation in millennia,” he said.

“It is my hope that people have that ‘wow’ moment, and it sinks in for the first time the scale of the changes we’re expecting in a single generation.” − Climate News Network

Climate change means a big shift for city dwellers worldwide. Americans can look ahead to very different cities as the US climate heads south.

LONDON, 21 February, 2019 − If the world continues to burn ever-increasing levels of fossil fuels, then life will change predictably for millions of American city dwellers as the US climate heats up. They will find conditions that will make it seem as if they have shifted south by as much as 850 kilometres.

New Yorkers will find themselves experiencing temperature and rainfall conditions appropriate to a small town in Arkansas. People from Los Angeles will discover what it is like to live, right now, on the southernmost tip of the Baja peninsula, Mexico. People in Abilene, Texas will find that it is as if they had crossed their own frontier, deep into Salinas, Mexico.

The lawmakers in Washington will have consigned themselves to conditions appropriate to Greenwood, Mississippi. Columbus, Ohio, will enjoy the climate of Jonesboro, Arkansas. Folk of Anchorage, Alaska, will find out what it feels like to live on Vancouver Sound. People of Vancouver, meanwhile, will feel as if they had crossed the border into Seattle, Washington.

This exercise in precision forecasting, published in the journal Nature Communications, has been tested in computer simulations for approximately 250 million US and Canadian citizens in 540 cities.

That is, around three quarters of all the population of the United States, and half of all Canadians, can now check the rainfall and temperature changes they can expect in one human lifetime, somewhere between 2070 and 2099.

“It is my hope that people have that ‘wow’ moment, and it sinks in for the first time the scale of the changes we’re expecting in a single generation”

There are a number of possible climate shifts, depending on whether or not 195 nations fulfil the vow made in Paris in 2015 to work to keep the average rise in global temperatures to “well below” 2°C by 2100.

In fact, President Trump has announced a US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and many of the nations that stand by the promise have yet to commit to convincing action.

So researchers continue to incorporate the notorious “business-as-usual” scenario in their simulations. So far, these have already predicted a sweltering future for many US cities, with devastating consequences for electrical power supplies and ever more destructive superstorms, megadroughts and floods, with huge economic costs for American government, business and taxpayers.

And, other researchers have found, climate change may already be at work: there is evidence that the division between the more arid American West and the more fertile eastern states has begun to shift significantly.

Long trip south

So the latest research could prove another way of bringing home to US citizens some of the challenges ahead.

“Under current high emissions, the average urban dweller is going to have to drive more than 500 miles (850 kms) to the south to find a climate like that expected in their home city by 2080. Not only is climate changing, but climates that don’t presently exist in North America will be prevalent in a lot of urban areas,” said Matt Fitzpatrick, of the University of Maryland, who led the study.

“Within the lifetime of children living today, the climate of many regions is projected to change from the familiar to conditions unlike those experienced in the same place by their parents, grandparents or perhaps any generation in millennia,” he said.

“It is my hope that people have that ‘wow’ moment, and it sinks in for the first time the scale of the changes we’re expecting in a single generation.” − Climate News Network

Coffee harvests face risk from rising heat

Global coffee harvests, which provide the drink of choice for millions and the livelihoods of many more, are in peril, not least from rising temperatures.

LONDON, 28 January, 2019 – Coffee drinkers, be warned. A combination of factors – including climate change – is threatening supplies of the beans on which the coffee harvests depend.

Latest analysis by a team of scientists at the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew in London found that more than 60% of over 120 coffee species known across Africa, Asia and Australasia are threatened with extinction.

For many people, coffee is their favourite tipple. In the UK alone, more than 80 million cups of coffee are drunk every day. The experts at Kew say a total of 100 million people around the world depend on coffee for their livelihoods.

Climate change, together with fungal diseases and the impact of land clearances and deforestation, are all having negative impacts on coffee plants.

Coffee plants are fragile and often acutely sensitive to temperature changes, particularly those belonging to the Arabica species (Coffea arabica), the source of the world’s most popular coffee variety.

“Climate change will have a damaging impact on commercial coffee production worldwide”

The Coffee Research Institute says Arabica plants need year-round temperatures of between 15°C and 24°C in order to maintain high production levels and good quality.

Wild coffee plants play an essential role in building up more robust plants for cultivation; cross-bred with plantation plants, they provide the genetic resources to help withstand pests and diseases. They also encourage resilience to changes in climate and improve the flavour and quality of the coffee beans.

The Kew scientists, together with colleagues in Ethiopia,
the biggest producer of Arabica coffee in Africa, used climate change models and temperature projections to gauge the future health and survival rates of wild Arabica plants.

The results of the analysis, the first ever comprehensive survey linking climate change with Arabica coffee production, will have coffee drinkers crying into their cups.

Wide extinction threat

Dr Justin Moat, who headed up the Kew study, says more than 60% of wild Arabica plants are threatened with extinction.

“The worst case scenario, as drawn from our analyses, is that wild Arabica could be extinct by 2080.

“This should alert decision makers to the fragility of the species.”

The highlands of Ethiopia and of South Sudan are the natural home of Arabica coffee. Researchers found that deforestation over the past 70 years plus more recent changes in climate could result in wild Arabica becoming extinct in South Sudan within the next two years.

“The climate sensitivity of Arabica is confirmed, supporting the widely reported assumption that climate change will have a damaging impact on commercial coffee production worldwide”, says Dr Moat.

Pay growers more

In coffee-growing areas around the world, including Ethiopia and Brazil, temperatures have been rising while amounts of rainfall have been decreasing.

The Kew study says that while bumper coffee harvests over the last two years have led to generally low prices, this pattern is unlikely to continue as crop yields decline and demand grows.

The study says coffee growers, mostly smallholders, should be paid more for their produce in order not only to improve living standards but to encourage more sustainable and innovative cultivation methods. The Yayu Project in Ethiopia is seen as a model for this form of development.

There should also be more research into wild coffee species and investment in building up collections and seed banks. – Climate News Network

Global coffee harvests, which provide the drink of choice for millions and the livelihoods of many more, are in peril, not least from rising temperatures.

LONDON, 28 January, 2019 – Coffee drinkers, be warned. A combination of factors – including climate change – is threatening supplies of the beans on which the coffee harvests depend.

Latest analysis by a team of scientists at the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew in London found that more than 60% of over 120 coffee species known across Africa, Asia and Australasia are threatened with extinction.

For many people, coffee is their favourite tipple. In the UK alone, more than 80 million cups of coffee are drunk every day. The experts at Kew say a total of 100 million people around the world depend on coffee for their livelihoods.

Climate change, together with fungal diseases and the impact of land clearances and deforestation, are all having negative impacts on coffee plants.

Coffee plants are fragile and often acutely sensitive to temperature changes, particularly those belonging to the Arabica species (Coffea arabica), the source of the world’s most popular coffee variety.

“Climate change will have a damaging impact on commercial coffee production worldwide”

The Coffee Research Institute says Arabica plants need year-round temperatures of between 15°C and 24°C in order to maintain high production levels and good quality.

Wild coffee plants play an essential role in building up more robust plants for cultivation; cross-bred with plantation plants, they provide the genetic resources to help withstand pests and diseases. They also encourage resilience to changes in climate and improve the flavour and quality of the coffee beans.

The Kew scientists, together with colleagues in Ethiopia,
the biggest producer of Arabica coffee in Africa, used climate change models and temperature projections to gauge the future health and survival rates of wild Arabica plants.

The results of the analysis, the first ever comprehensive survey linking climate change with Arabica coffee production, will have coffee drinkers crying into their cups.

Wide extinction threat

Dr Justin Moat, who headed up the Kew study, says more than 60% of wild Arabica plants are threatened with extinction.

“The worst case scenario, as drawn from our analyses, is that wild Arabica could be extinct by 2080.

“This should alert decision makers to the fragility of the species.”

The highlands of Ethiopia and of South Sudan are the natural home of Arabica coffee. Researchers found that deforestation over the past 70 years plus more recent changes in climate could result in wild Arabica becoming extinct in South Sudan within the next two years.

“The climate sensitivity of Arabica is confirmed, supporting the widely reported assumption that climate change will have a damaging impact on commercial coffee production worldwide”, says Dr Moat.

Pay growers more

In coffee-growing areas around the world, including Ethiopia and Brazil, temperatures have been rising while amounts of rainfall have been decreasing.

The Kew study says that while bumper coffee harvests over the last two years have led to generally low prices, this pattern is unlikely to continue as crop yields decline and demand grows.

The study says coffee growers, mostly smallholders, should be paid more for their produce in order not only to improve living standards but to encourage more sustainable and innovative cultivation methods. The Yayu Project in Ethiopia is seen as a model for this form of development.

There should also be more research into wild coffee species and investment in building up collections and seed banks. – Climate News Network

Battery boom aids climate change battle

The fastest-expanding industrial sector on the planet is now electricity storage − a battery boom which heralds an end to the need for fossil fuels.

LONDON, 18 January, 2019 − Billions of dollars are being invested worldwide in the developing battery boom, involving research into storage techniques to use the growing surpluses of cheap renewable energy now becoming available.

Recent developments in batteries are set to sweep aside the old arguments about renewables being intermittent, dismissing any need to continue building nuclear power plants and burning fossil fuels to act as a back-up when the wind does not blow, or the sun does not shine.

Batteries as large as the average family house and controlled by digital technology are being positioned across electricity networks. They are being charged when electricity is in surplus and therefore cheap, and the power they store is resold to the grid at a higher price during peak periods.

According to Bloomberg, around US$600 billion will be invested in large-scale batteries over the next 20 years to provide back-up to the grid and power for the expected boom in electric cars.

The cost of batteries is also expected to fall by 50% in the next decade, following the same pattern as the drop in cost of solar panels.

“The generally-held belief that there was no way to store electricity has been disproved. The battery boom means it is now just a question of finding the easiest and most economic way of doing it”

It is already financially viable for individual businesses to install batteries to buy electricity when it is cheap, so as to use it during peak periods. Two recent examples are the English premier league club Arsenal FC and a hotel in Edinburgh, the Scottish capital.

For Arsenal it makes sense to have a giant battery under its London stadium to store cheap power for use when its floodlights are needed during matches which are usually played when electricity prices are at their peak.

In Edinburgh, where there is often a surplus of wind power at night, the batteries provide cheap power for the 200-bedroom Premier Inn hotel in the morning and evening rush. In both cases the capital cost of the batteries is soon repaid in lower power costs.

Currently most large batteries are made of lithium, a relatively scarce and expensive mineral. Large investments are being made to find a way of making lithium batteries cheaper and more efficient, and the search is on for less expensive materials that can also be used to store electricity in battery form.

In Belgium, ironically on the site of a former coalmine, five large experimental batteries have been installed near Brussels to test the best technologies.

New possibilities

One of the latest advances is to use another rare metal, vanadium. Vanadium flow batteries are large static batteries that last for decades and can be charged and discharged completely thousands of times. They are not portable, but last for years without deterioration and are increasingly being deployed by national grids to boost supply during peak demand. A Canadian company, CellCube, has just sold a large battery plant to France.

This has been hailed as one of the most promising technologies in energy storage, but there are many other possibilities under development including high-energy magnesium batteries and lithium-air batteries, which are an advance on the current lithium-ion versions used in electric cars and for grid storage.

There are also new types of chemical batteries under trial as large-scale static installations which allow the grid to pump out more power at peak times.

The key battle for all these technologies is beating rivals on price. This means not just other battery types, but other options under development for storing energy. Surplus energy from renewables is also being used to produce hydrogen, while the surplus from solar power is often stored as heat.

In the first few years of this century the generally-held belief that there was no way to store electricity has been disproved. The battery boom means it is now just a question of finding the easiest and most economic way of doing it, and in doing so making a giant step towards a carbon-free future. − Climate News Network

The fastest-expanding industrial sector on the planet is now electricity storage − a battery boom which heralds an end to the need for fossil fuels.

LONDON, 18 January, 2019 − Billions of dollars are being invested worldwide in the developing battery boom, involving research into storage techniques to use the growing surpluses of cheap renewable energy now becoming available.

Recent developments in batteries are set to sweep aside the old arguments about renewables being intermittent, dismissing any need to continue building nuclear power plants and burning fossil fuels to act as a back-up when the wind does not blow, or the sun does not shine.

Batteries as large as the average family house and controlled by digital technology are being positioned across electricity networks. They are being charged when electricity is in surplus and therefore cheap, and the power they store is resold to the grid at a higher price during peak periods.

According to Bloomberg, around US$600 billion will be invested in large-scale batteries over the next 20 years to provide back-up to the grid and power for the expected boom in electric cars.

The cost of batteries is also expected to fall by 50% in the next decade, following the same pattern as the drop in cost of solar panels.

“The generally-held belief that there was no way to store electricity has been disproved. The battery boom means it is now just a question of finding the easiest and most economic way of doing it”

It is already financially viable for individual businesses to install batteries to buy electricity when it is cheap, so as to use it during peak periods. Two recent examples are the English premier league club Arsenal FC and a hotel in Edinburgh, the Scottish capital.

For Arsenal it makes sense to have a giant battery under its London stadium to store cheap power for use when its floodlights are needed during matches which are usually played when electricity prices are at their peak.

In Edinburgh, where there is often a surplus of wind power at night, the batteries provide cheap power for the 200-bedroom Premier Inn hotel in the morning and evening rush. In both cases the capital cost of the batteries is soon repaid in lower power costs.

Currently most large batteries are made of lithium, a relatively scarce and expensive mineral. Large investments are being made to find a way of making lithium batteries cheaper and more efficient, and the search is on for less expensive materials that can also be used to store electricity in battery form.

In Belgium, ironically on the site of a former coalmine, five large experimental batteries have been installed near Brussels to test the best technologies.

New possibilities

One of the latest advances is to use another rare metal, vanadium. Vanadium flow batteries are large static batteries that last for decades and can be charged and discharged completely thousands of times. They are not portable, but last for years without deterioration and are increasingly being deployed by national grids to boost supply during peak demand. A Canadian company, CellCube, has just sold a large battery plant to France.

This has been hailed as one of the most promising technologies in energy storage, but there are many other possibilities under development including high-energy magnesium batteries and lithium-air batteries, which are an advance on the current lithium-ion versions used in electric cars and for grid storage.

There are also new types of chemical batteries under trial as large-scale static installations which allow the grid to pump out more power at peak times.

The key battle for all these technologies is beating rivals on price. This means not just other battery types, but other options under development for storing energy. Surplus energy from renewables is also being used to produce hydrogen, while the surplus from solar power is often stored as heat.

In the first few years of this century the generally-held belief that there was no way to store electricity has been disproved. The battery boom means it is now just a question of finding the easiest and most economic way of doing it, and in doing so making a giant step towards a carbon-free future. − Climate News Network

VW says climate drives its electric spurt

Reputation and public confidence in your products are vital for global corporations, especially for one of the world’s biggest carmakers – hence VW’s electric spurt.

LONDON, 10 December, 2018 – As part of what it says is its commitment to tackling climate change, VW, the German auto giant, is embarking on an electric spurt, pressing ahead with plans aimed at producing more than a million electric cars a year by 2025.

In the vanguard of VW’s push into electric vehicles is the company’s plant at Zwickau, in the east of Germany, where an entire factory that once produced petrol and diesel car models is being converted to solely manufacturing electrically powered vehicles.

VW says that by the end of 2019 mass production of the ID, its new electric model, will begin at Zwickau; the aim is to eventually manufacture up to 330,000 electric models a year at the plant.

“With our electric cars we want to make a substantial contribution to climate protection”, says Thomas Ulbrich, head of the company’s electric car division.

“The global automotive industry is experiencing a process of fundamental structural change.

Affordable and popular

“Efficient, modern production facilities will be the key. In one year, this plant will become the starting point for our global electric offensive.”

Ulbrich says the aim is to take electric cars out of their niche and produce cars that will be affordable to millions – similar to the way the VW Beetle became popular around the globe.

VW says it’s investing about €1.2 billion in altering production facilities at Zwickau, where more than 7,500 people are employed. The company is also creating electric car plants elsewhere, including two in China – one near Shanghai and the other at Foshan in the south of the country.

Several other major car manufacturers have announced similar plans to ramp up electric vehicle production.

VW, by some measures the world’s biggest carmaker, has been struggling to repair its image after the company was forced in 2015 to admit it had sold nearly 600,000 cars in the US which had been fitted with special devices designed to circumvent emissions regulations and falsify exhaust gas tests.

“In one year, this plant will become the starting point for our global electric offensive”

The gases – nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide – not only contribute to global warming but create pollution as well and can lead to health problems.

VW admitted that its engineers had designed a software system for its cars sold in the US which switched emissions controls on when vehicles were being tested and off during normal driving.

A number of other car producers, including the Japanese/French conglomerate Mitsubishi, have admitted falsifying various data relating to vehicle performance.

In the latest twist in the VW scandal, US prosecutors have alleged that what they describe as an “appalling fraud” was authorised by those at the very top of the company, with a former CEO involved.

To date, it’s estimated VW has paid out approximately US$25 bn in damages in relation to the emissions case. Court actions are ongoing with investors in VW who claim to have lost money over the scandal also suing the company. – Climate News Network

Reputation and public confidence in your products are vital for global corporations, especially for one of the world’s biggest carmakers – hence VW’s electric spurt.

LONDON, 10 December, 2018 – As part of what it says is its commitment to tackling climate change, VW, the German auto giant, is embarking on an electric spurt, pressing ahead with plans aimed at producing more than a million electric cars a year by 2025.

In the vanguard of VW’s push into electric vehicles is the company’s plant at Zwickau, in the east of Germany, where an entire factory that once produced petrol and diesel car models is being converted to solely manufacturing electrically powered vehicles.

VW says that by the end of 2019 mass production of the ID, its new electric model, will begin at Zwickau; the aim is to eventually manufacture up to 330,000 electric models a year at the plant.

“With our electric cars we want to make a substantial contribution to climate protection”, says Thomas Ulbrich, head of the company’s electric car division.

“The global automotive industry is experiencing a process of fundamental structural change.

Affordable and popular

“Efficient, modern production facilities will be the key. In one year, this plant will become the starting point for our global electric offensive.”

Ulbrich says the aim is to take electric cars out of their niche and produce cars that will be affordable to millions – similar to the way the VW Beetle became popular around the globe.

VW says it’s investing about €1.2 billion in altering production facilities at Zwickau, where more than 7,500 people are employed. The company is also creating electric car plants elsewhere, including two in China – one near Shanghai and the other at Foshan in the south of the country.

Several other major car manufacturers have announced similar plans to ramp up electric vehicle production.

VW, by some measures the world’s biggest carmaker, has been struggling to repair its image after the company was forced in 2015 to admit it had sold nearly 600,000 cars in the US which had been fitted with special devices designed to circumvent emissions regulations and falsify exhaust gas tests.

“In one year, this plant will become the starting point for our global electric offensive”

The gases – nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide – not only contribute to global warming but create pollution as well and can lead to health problems.

VW admitted that its engineers had designed a software system for its cars sold in the US which switched emissions controls on when vehicles were being tested and off during normal driving.

A number of other car producers, including the Japanese/French conglomerate Mitsubishi, have admitted falsifying various data relating to vehicle performance.

In the latest twist in the VW scandal, US prosecutors have alleged that what they describe as an “appalling fraud” was authorised by those at the very top of the company, with a former CEO involved.

To date, it’s estimated VW has paid out approximately US$25 bn in damages in relation to the emissions case. Court actions are ongoing with investors in VW who claim to have lost money over the scandal also suing the company. – Climate News Network