BCIT Centre for Ecocities’ Post

Cool tool for the 🌍 🌡️ What is the Climate Change Tracker? The Climate Change Tracker is an essential tool developed by leading climate scientists to monitor the progress of carbon budgets and emission trajectories. Created to provide up-to-date information, it helps policymakers and stakeholders visualize the remaining carbon budget needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C (2.7°F). Current Remaining Carbon Budget: This is the amount of CO2 (expressed in gigatonnes) that can still be emitted to keep human-induced warming below 1.5°C (2.7°F). As of now, approximately 200 gigatonnes of CO2 remain in the budget. At the current emission rate of 40 Gt CO2 per year, this budget will be exhausted by around 2028. Immediate and significant emissions reductions NEEDED. . 📊 - Limiting warming to 1.5°C is critical to prevent severe climate impacts. - Understanding and managing the carbon budget is crucial for effective climate action and policy making. ZeroCarbon is Decarbonizing the Planet. 🔗 Explore the Climate Change Tracker to see how our current trajectory affects the remaining carbon budget: https://lnkd.in/d37k2JyK #ClimateChange #CarbonBudget #Sustainability #ClimateAction #ZeroCarbon #EnvironmentalImpact #GlobalWarming #CarbonFootprint #GHGEmissions #CircularEconomy #NetZero #CleanTech #ClimateEmergency #GoGreen

🌎 The ability of governments to implement climate policies effectively is the “most important” factor in the feasibility of limiting global warming to 1.5C, a new study says. 📚 The study finds that the most ambitious climate mitigation trajectories give the world a 50% chance of limiting peak global warming to below 1.6C above pre-industrial temperatures. However, adding ”feasibility constraints” – particularly those involving the effectiveness of governments – reduces this likelihood to 5-45%. 🔎 The study shows that, thanks to advances such as solar, wind or electric vehicles, “the technological feasibility of climate-neutrality is no longer the most crucial issue”, according to an author on the study. Instead, he says, “it is much more about how fast climate policy ambition can be ramped up by governments”. Read more from Ayesha Tandon here ⬇️ https://buff.ly/3X8zmc3 #ClimatePolicy #GlobalWarming #ClimateChange #ClimateScience

It is clear, now more than ever, that carbon removal technology is a critical component of alleviating climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change, has been stating for years that global warming must be constrained to roughly 1.5 degrees Celsius. This increase is projected to result in increasingly negative outcomes, but not nearly as extreme as if global warming continues unchecked. While spending just one year at +1.5°C is extremely concerning, the IPCC has not officially defined how many years of warming over 1.5 degrees Celsius are needed to "officially" breach the threshold. However, global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.1% in 2023, increasing by 410 million metric tons to reach a new record high of 37.4 billion metric tons. Despite remarkable achievements in electrification and renewable energy, total energy demands continue to grow. Emissions reduction alone cannot solve the climate crisis. The continued rise in energy demands underscores the urgent need for comprehensive strategies that include significant advancements in carbon removal technology to effectively address climate change.

Indicators of Global #ClimateChange 2023: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and #human #influence Abstract: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments are the trusted source of #scientific #evidence for climate negotiations taking place under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Evidence-based decision-making needs to be informed by up-to-date and timely #information on key #indicators of the state of the climate system and of the human influence on the global climate system. However, successive IPCC reports are published at intervals of 5–10 years, creating potential for an information gap between report cycles We follow methods as close as possible to those used in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group One (WGI) report. We compile monitoring datasets to produce estimates for key climate indicators related to forcing of the climate system: emissions of greenhouse gases and short-lived climate forcers, greenhouse gas concentrations, radiative forcing, the Earth's energy imbalance, surface temperature changes, warming attributed to human activities, the remaining #carbon budget, and estimates of global #temperature extremes. The purpose of this effort, grounded in an open-data, open-science approach, is to make annually updated reliable global climate indicators available in the public domain As they are traceable to IPCC report methods, they can be trusted by all parties involved in UNFCCC negotiations and help convey wider understanding of the latest knowledge of the climate system and its direction of travel The indicators show that, for the 2014–2023 decade average, observed warming was 1.19 [1.06 to 1.30] °C, of which 1.19 [1.0 to 1.4] °C was human-induced. For the single-year average, human-induced warming reached 1.31 [1.1 to 1.7] °C in 2023 relative to 1850–1900. The best estimate is below the 2023-observed warming record of 1.43 [1.32 to 1.53] °C, indicating a substantial contribution of internal variability in the 2023 record. Human-induced #warming has been increasing at a rate that is unprecedented in the instrumental record, reaching 0.26 [0.2–0.4] °C per decade over 2014–2023 This high rate of warming is caused by a combination of net greenhouse gas emissions being at a persistent high of 53±5.4 Gt CO2e yr−1 over the last decade, as well as reductions in the strength of aerosol cooling. Despite this, there is evidence that the rate of increase in CO2 emissions over the last decade has slowed compared to the 2000s, and depending on societal choices, a continued series of these annual updates over the critical 2020s decade could track a change of direction for some of the indicators presented here Please read the full article!

There is overwhelming scientific consensus that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is necessary to achieving our collective goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-Industrial levels. The 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in this past decade, with 2023 being the warmest on record. In order to combat this trend and meet global climate targets, we need to reduce the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is where CDR comes into play. But what exactly is CDR and how can it meaningfully help us to address climate change? Read our latest blog to to learn more: https://hubs.la/Q02wK6tf0 #climatechange #CDR #carbondioxideremoval #emissions

A couple months back, the NZ Government announced its intention to kick off an independent review focused on 'what New Zealand's 2050 methane target should be, consistent with the principle of no additional warming'. Meanwhile the Climate Change Commission's recent discussion document on New Zealand's 2050 targets suggested that "such a technical analysis would obscure the more fundamental question: should Aotearoa New Zealand cause more global warming than implied by the current 2050 target?” With these key players in NZ climate policy seemingly at odds, I decided to take a look at the principle of 'no additional warming', and made use of the same simple emissions-based climate model (FaIR - Finite Amplitude Impulse Response) used by the Commission in their recent work. The article opens up the scope of examination for the 'no additional warming' principle to look at what would be needed to limit warming to levels seen in a range of reference years (e.g, 1990, 2005, 2017, 2018-2022). It also links together the legal context in which the target is set, and analysis of outputs from FaIR to try and understand what these mean for setting targets on the basis of 'no additional warming'. Have a read.

Insightful and sharp analysis, with some useful scientific background

Substantial reductions in non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions reductions implied by IPCC estimates of the remaining carbon budget. Abstract Carbon budgets are quantifications of the total amount of carbon dioxide that can ever be emitted while keeping global warming below specific temperature limits. However, estimates of these budgets for limiting warming to 1.5 °C and well-below 2 °C include assumptions about how much warming can be expected from non-CO2 emissions. Here, we uncover the non-CO2 emissions assumptions that underlie the latest remaining carbon budget estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and quantify the implication of the world pursuing alternative higher or lower emissions. We consider contributions of methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases, and aerosols and show how pursuing inadequate methane emission reductions causes remaining carbon budgets compatible with the Paris Agreement temperature limits to be exhausted today, effectively putting achievement of the Paris Agreement out of reach.

Averse to or obsessed by the worst outcome? The difference between cautiousness and over pessimism - and (the need for stepping up) climate action (rather than sinking in hopelessness). It has long been established that humans are averse to loss (i.e. more concerned by the downside that we are by the upside[1]). But what if we were over pessimistic rather than concerned with actual bad outcomes - or, at least, this is what this piece[2] by Damian Carrington would suggest. When The Guardian emphasises the nearly 80% of the 380 IPCC contributors (out of 843 identified contributors that could be reached) who assess that global warming will go beyond 2.5C, the same survey could be read as “about 60% of the respondents think that global warming will likely not exceed 3C.” Why does this matter? Because our best estimate as of today is that under policies currently implemented (e.g. International Energy Agency (IEA) STEP (stated policies) scenario or Climate Action Tracker current policies assessment) global warming will be around 2.4C-2.7C (this is before taking into account any further climate action). And the questions for the 40% of respondents that foresee an increase beyond 3C are: 1️⃣ What is your current assessment of transition developments? 2️⃣ In these developments, how do you assess the respective role of technological developments, change in preferences and norms and climate policies? 3️⃣ Do you expect a large policy backsliding? If so, why (esp. as the impact of climate change is becoming real enough to translate into increased policy support)? And could it be significant enough to undermine the clear momentum of other factors? 4️⃣ Is your assessment based on the crossing of climate tipping points or is it solely based on established RCPs and corresponding estimates of radiative forcing? 5️⃣ Could it be the case that you are just depressed by the slow responses of societies and policymakers in front of all available evidences (which you have all reasons to be) and therefore possibly excessively pessimistic? I’m not pretending to be reassured but, unless we cross climate tipping point (the most worrying of which might be permafrost thaw and the associated nightmarish release of CO2 and CH4 that would get us past any reasonable carbon budget - but which is assessed to occur above 3.5C), I fail to reconcile current transition developments and the belief that beyond 3C is a likely climate outcome. Don’t get me wrong: we have a long way to go (and to go fast) to stay “well below 2C” and while (not too far off) 1.5C is still within reach, it will not happen without a significant acceleration of climate action. However things have changed a lot since 2015-2020 and maybe it’s time for a cool headed assessment of the current state of play. Fear and hopelessness are the worst advisors when you need to step up your effort. Hat tip to Roberta Boscolo and Jakob Thomä for bringing The Guardian articles in my feed. Sources in first comment.

The carbon emissions reduction targets of a group of the biggest listed companies are too weak collectively, meaning they are failing to play their part in preventing the most devastating impacts of global warming. A study of 51 companies by the non-profit NewClimate Institute and Carbon Market Watch found they had committed to reducing their emissions by 30% by 2030, on average, against the 43% needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) by 2050.