COP26を迎えるに当たり 21年10月26-27日

中国 ラテンアメリカ 南部アフリカ 2020年記録的温室効果ガス濃度 気温上昇を1.5℃以内い抑えるためになすべき最低限のこと


China unveils new climate plan as UN chief warns on targets,FT.com,21.10.26

‎Guterres says world ‘on track for climate catastrophe’ as Queen ‘regretfully’ bows out of summit

China has outlined a plan to hit peak greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade, releasing a long-awaited blueprint just days ahead of the UN’s COP26 climate summit in Glasgow.

The world’s biggest energy consumer was the latest country to launch new climate policies ahead of COP26. Australia also set net zero emissions goals on Tuesday, following another laggard, Saudi Arabia, at the weekend. Those plans rely on the continued production of fossil fuels.

They joined the dozens of other countries that have formed new climate pledges in the summit run-up, in the effort to limit global warming to below 2C since pre-industrial times, or ideally 1.5c.

However, it was announced that Queen Elizabeth will not attend the summit. Buckingham Palace said that the 95-year-old monarch, who last week spent a night in hospital, “regretfully” would no longer visit Glasgow for a reception on Monday evening.

“Her Majesty is disappointed not to attend the reception but will deliver an address to the assembled delegates via a recorded video message,” the palace said.

The preparations for the summit came as the UN secretary-general warned that, even with the new pledges, countries were still “utterly failing” to keep the goals of the Paris climate accord within reach.

“We are still on track for climate catastrophe,” António Guterres said as he criticised the lack of detail in many climate plans, without singling out any specific country.

“These announcements are for 2050 [or 2060], so it is not clear how they will materialise,” he said, adding: “Obviously an announcement for 2060, without a programme for how to get there, well, it has the value that it has.”

Existing climate plans put the world on track for 2.7C of warming by 2100, far beyond the goals of the Paris climate pact, according to the latest report from the UN Environment Programme released this week.

If the world’s main emitters such as the US and China succeed in achieving their net zero greenhouse gas emissions targets by mid-century, the warming would be brought down to about 2.2C, the report concluded.

China’s new road map, which had been keenly anticipated after Beijing last year set a target of net zero emissions by 2060, includes steps to expand hydropower and energy storage.

The State Council, China’s cabinet, published the policy document as it outlined how the country planned to peak carbon emissions before 2030.

From 2025, all new buildings would be built according to green standards. By 2030, 40 per cent of new vehicles, including ships and cars, would be powered by clean energy, according to the document.

However, it stopped short of any firm commitments to reduce reliance on coal, except for a previously announced target of capping coal use during the years 2025-2030. China has not yet updated its formal climate targets submitted to the UN.

Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, said China’s plan “gives the government a lot of flexibility” but it failed to set out a detailed timeline on how much emissions would increase before 2030 and how fast they will decline after.

“The plan is not sufficient,” he said. “It’s urgent that global emissions peak and that is hard to accomplish if China’s emissions continue to increase.”

Video: The make-or-break issues facing the COP26 climate summit

With COP26 set to begin in five days, the faultlines among the world’s biggest economies around issues such as coal are becoming increasingly clear. UK prime minister Boris Johnson said this week that it was “touch and go” whether COP26 would be a success.

Most countries with net zero targets do not yet have the policies to back up their goals, according to Thomas Hale, associate professor at the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford university and one of the UNEP report authors.

“The next step is they need to put the policies in place,” said Hale, pointing out that while 18 of the G20 countries now had net zero targets, the details were still quite vague for some of them.

A shortfall in climate finance to developing countries was also revealed this week, as wealthier nations admitted they would not reach a promised target of $100bn in 2020



Latin America’s environmental villains dodge the COP26,FT,com,21.10.17

Mexico and Brazil have gone backwards on climate and energy policies at a crucial time

Biodiverse and rich in natural resources, Latin America seems an obvious climate champion. Its mighty rivers power some of the world’s biggest hydroelectric dams and the Amazon rainforest stores enormous amounts of carbon.

Yet the presidents of the region’s two biggest nations will be absent when world leaders gather for a crucial climate summit in Glasgow next week to try to limit global warming. Neither Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil nor Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador want to attend — and with good reason.

Deforestation in Brazil surged last year to its highest level in over a decade as Bolsonaro slashed environmental enforcement and encouraged development in the Amazon. In a country with one of the world’s cleanest energy sectors, thanks to abundant hydro power and the widespread use of bioethanol as fuel, deforestation is now its main source of carbon emissions.

In Mexico, López Obrador has spent billions of dollars building a giant oil refinery and boosting oil production. He now wants to change the constitution to favour state-run electricity generation powered by dirty fossil fuels and choke off a private sector-led renewable energy boom.

“For those two countries, I think definitely things are going in the wrong direction in terms of emissions,” said Lisa Viscidi, a climate expert at the Interamerican Dialogue in Washington. As for Latin America as a whole, “not nearly enough progress has been made” in cutting emissions targets ahead of the Glasgow conference.

The backsliding by Brazil and Mexico is particularly concerning as both nations had previously followed greener paths. Brazil’s Forest Code remains one of the developing world’s tougher conservation laws (despite a weakening in 2012); Mexico had also promoted big investments in solar and wind power.

Elsewhere in Latin America, many governments remain addicted to ever greater fossil fuel production to power economic development, despite the increasing reluctance of western oil majors to fund new oil and gas projects as their industry seeks a greener future.

Argentina is still touting its giant Vaca Muerta shale deposits, Brazil wants billions of dollars to exploit huge offshore oil reserves, Venezuela’s opposition plans a massive expansion of oil output to fund reconstruction if it ousts Nicolás Maduro, and Ecuador’s new president Guillermo Lasso wants to double oil output.

The news from Latin America is not all gloomy. Climate activism is growing, young people are far more environmentally aware than their parents, and mid-ranking economies such as Chile and Colombia are aggressively pursuing renewable investment and greener economies (although deforestation in Colombia remains worrying).

Chile stands out in particular. Its unusual geography gives it some of the world’s most intense solar heat and most reliably strong winds. It hopes to harness both to become a leading exporter of green hydrogen, if the technology to produce this profitably at scale can be mastered. The government is also moving to shut down coal power plants.

But elsewhere in the region, too many governments are trying to pretend that global warming is a problem to solve tomorrow, while pumping out ever more carbon today.

The evidence that this is a bad idea is multiplying. Fierce droughts are draining Brazil’s hydro dams and damaging its crops. Chile, Paraguay and Argentina are also suffering prolonged periods without rain. More frequent and more potent hurricanes are wreaking havoc in Central America and the Caribbean. Andean glaciers are disappearing.

The conference’s British hosts are putting a brave face on the climate backsliding in a continent that is home to the world’s biggest remaining rainforest. They point to helpful positions from countries like Costa Rica and Colombia, and enthusiasm for greener policies from some of the region’s megacities. Still, as one official said: “I’m not for a second saying that it’s all going in the right direction”.

Bolsonaro and López Obrador’s energy policies should be relics of a bygone era — but are instead proving alarming durable in the 21st century.



COP26 Could Get Hot, but Southern African Region Needs it to be Cool and Committed,IPS,21.10.26

‎COP26 is almost upon us, and dire warnings abound that it’s boom or bust for a greener future. Meanwhile, everybody boasts about what they will do to cool down our planet, but there is a disjuncture between talk and action. Even Queen Elizabeth II of the host country, the United Kingdom, has grumbled publicly that not enough action is taking place on climate change.

In the Southern Africa region, the SADC’s member countries are clear that the developed countries must stump up the money to help them deliver their promises to reduce carbon emissions and carry out a raft of measures to combat global warming. All the SADC countries are signatories to the Paris Agreement.

The region has joined the cry of other African countries that the continent suffers most from climate change but hardly contributes to the causes of the phenomenon – emitting less than 4% of the world’s greenhouse gasses.
According to research undertaken on behalf of the UN, climate change adaptation needs for Africa were estimated to be $715 billion ($0.715 trillion) between 2020 and 2030.

In southern Africa, each country has its own Nationally Developed Contribution plan for dealing with climate change, including costs. Of course, funding will be needed to achieve these goals. Developing countries have pledged a $100bn annual target to help the developing world tackle climate change. All the Southern African countries will need a slice of this funding. The Green Climate Fund was established under the Cancun Agreements in 2010 as a dedicated financing vehicle for developing countries.

In the lead up to COP26, the fund is under scrutiny. Tanguy Gahouma, chair of the African Group of Negotiators at COP26, has said: “African countries want a new system to track funding from wealthy nations that are failing to meet the $100bn annual target.”

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates this funding stood at $79.6bn in 2019. OECD data reveals that from 2016-19 Africa only got 26 percent of the funding.

Gahouma said a more detailed shared system was needed that would keep tabs on each country’s contribution and where it went on the ground.

“They say they achieved maybe 70 percent of the target, but we cannot see that,” Gahouma said.
“We need to have a clear road map how they will put on the table the $100bn per year, how we can track (it),” he said. “We don’t have time to lose, and Africa is one of the most vulnerable regions of the world.”

Amar Bhattacharya, from the Brookings Institution, says about the fund, “Some progress has been made – but a lot more needs to be done.”

Denmark’s development coordination minister Flemming Møller Mortensen has warned that only a quarter of international climate finance for developing countries goes to adaptation.

COP26 may turn into a squabble over money and perhaps an attack on developed countries as they are blamed for creating the problems of climate change in the first place by using fossil fuels for the last two centuries. G20 countries account for almost 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Again, it is all about the money. Many developed countries do not want to change; their economies (and their rich elites) are wedded to fossil fuels. There are also problems with paying for adaptation. Will the rich countries fund the developing countries to green themselves up?

Professor Bruce Hewitson, the SARCHI Research Chair in Climate Change Climate System Analysis Group, Dept Environmental & Geographical Sciences at the University of Cape Town, told IPS: “The well-cited meme that Africa is the continent most vulnerable to climate change impacts is true, as is the common response that Africa needs external aid to implement adaptation and development pathways compatible to climate mitigation. However, such messages hide a myriad of political realities about the difference between what is ideal and what is likely.”

Hewitson argues that what emerges from COP26 is an exercise in hope and belief.

“It’s a tightrope walk trying to balance competing demands and self-interests. At the end of the day, Africa will need to pragmatically deal with a compromised outcome and face the climate challenges as best possible under limited resources,” he says.

If Africa goes to COP26 with a begging bowl attitude, it could face the risk of dancing to the strings of the powerful and rich nations.

“Climate change impacts Africa in a multiplicity of ways, but at the root is when the local climate change exceeds the viability threshold of our infrastructural and ecological systems. Hence, arguably the largest challenge to responding to climate change is to expand and enable the regional capacity of the science and decision-makers to responsibly steer our actions in an informed and cohesive way; Africa needs to lead the design of Africa’s solutions,” says Hewitson.

While he argues that some of the best innovation is happening in Africa, it requires resources, and the COVID-19 pandemic has decreased international funding.

“Each community has unique needs and unique challenges, needing unique local solutions that are context-sensitive and context-relevant, and this will inevitably include the pain of some socio-economic and political compromise.”
The southern African region’s climate woes chime with the problems faced by a legion of developing countries. We have Mauritius’s threatened Indian Ocean islands, Seychelles, Madagascar, Comoros and those offshore of Tanzania and Mozambique, plus many thousands of miles of coastline. We have inland waterways. We have jungles, forests, vast plains and deserts. All prey to the viciousness of global warming.

The SADC’s climate change report quotes an academic paper by Rahab and Proudhomme that from 2002 “there has been a rise in temperatures at twice the global average.”

According to the SADC, a Climate Change Strategy is in place to guide the implementation of the Climate Change Programme over a Fifteen-year period (2015 – 2030). The plan is innovative in terms of food security, preserving and expanding carbon sinks (which play a major role in stabilising the global climate) and tackling problems in urban areas that cause global warming like high energy consumption, poor waste management systems and inefficient transport networks.

Out of the region’s fifteen member countries, South Africa is the biggest culprit when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa recently said, “We need to act with urgency and ambition to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and undertake a transition to a low-carbon economy.”

This is a big ask for the region’s economic powerhouse with entrenched mining interests, an abundance of coal and a huge fleet of coal-fired power stations.

Recently, Mining and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe said South Africa must systematically manage its transition away from coal-fired power generation and not rush a switch to renewable energy sources.

“I am not saying coal forever… I am saying let’s manage our transition step by step rather than being emotional. We are not a developed economy, we don’t have all alternative sources.”

Angola has some of the most ambitious targets for transition to low-carbon development in Africa. The country committed to reducing up to 14% of its greenhouse gas emissions – commentators have met this with scepticism.
Mozambique, not – as yet – a significant carbon emitter, has potential, through its vast natural gas resources, to provide the wherewithal to heat the planet in a big way.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo – a least-developed country, has committed to a 17% reduction by 2030 in emissions. The DRC has the world’s second-largest tropical rainforest – a major carbon sink.

Other SADC countries that suffer from climate change but do very little to cause it are Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Madagascar, which is currently suffering from a climate-induced famine; Malawi, Tanzania, Namibia and Zambia.

While talking up the need to cut emissions, Zambia’s neighbour Zimbabwe said it would increase electricity and coal supply to the iron and steel sectors, thus adding to emissions.

Mauritius, Seychelles and Comoros are all vulnerable Island economies and have a lot in common with the many other island states throughout the world and are very low carbon emitters but extremely vulnerable to climate change especially rising sea levels.

Despite all the problems emerging in the lead up to COP 26, we need to take to heart the fact that scientists and commentators worldwide are warning that COP26 must deliver a way forward that works for our planet and our people. Southern Africa and the African continent as a whole can contribute with innovation and enthusiasm by tapping into the vast potential of our youthful population.



Another Unenviable Annual Record for Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions,IPS,21.10.27

‎A few days before the international community gathers for COP26, widely considered the most important climate conference since the 2015 gathering which resulted in the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)  is reporting that despite global hits in trade and travel by the COVID-19 pandemic, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new high in 2020.
The United Nations Agency issued its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin on October 25. It is the seventeenth bulletin and it concludes that from 1990 to 2020, heating of the earth by greenhouse gases spiked by 47 percent, with carbon dioxide responsible for almost 80 percent of this hike.

“Concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most important greenhouse gas, reached 413.2 parts per million in 2020 and is 149% of the pre-industrial level,” the report stated, adding that “the economic slowdown from COVID-19 did not have any discernible impact on the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases and their growth rates, although there was a temporary decline in new emissions.”

“Roughly half of the CO2 emitted by human activities today remains in the atmosphere. The other half is taken up by oceans and land ecosystems,” it added, warning that “the ability of land ecosystems and oceans to act as “sinks” may become less effective in future, thus reducing their ability to absorb carbon dioxide and act as a buffer against larger temperature increase.”

The statistics are crucial ahead of next week’s climate talks. Countries are being urged to commit to increasingly ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“It is clear from the science that the concentration of greenhouse gases is driving climate change and if we are able to mitigate those emissions and phase out the negative trend in climate, that should be our aim,” said Petteri Taalas.

“Some features will continue for hundreds of years like the melting of glaciers and sea-level rise as we already have such a high concentration of carbon dioxide and this problem will not go away soon……..we have to start dealing with emissions in this decade. We cannot wait, otherwise, we will lose the Paris targets. The progress has been too slow,” Taalas added.

The WMO’s chief of atmospheric and environment research division Oksana Tarasova says climate commitments by nations must translate into action.

“There is no way around it. We need to reduce emissions as fast as possible. When countries are making commitments to be carbon neutral, the atmosphere gives us a very clear signal that our commitments should be converted into something that we can see in the atmosphere. If we do not see at least a decrease in the growth rate of the major greenhouse gases, we cannot declare success in the climate agenda,” she said.

The WMO greenhouse gas bulletin coincides with the release this week of the United Nations Climate Office’s updated findings on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are countries’ climate action plans, including goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

They concluded that the world is ‘nowhere near’ where it needs to be to tackle the climate crisis. Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Patricia Espinosa called for an ‘urgent redoubling of climate efforts’ to ensure that global temperatures do not soar past the goals of the Paris Agreement.

“Overshooting the temperature goals will lead to a destabilized world and endless suffering, especially among those who have contributed the least to the GHG emissions in the atmosphere,” she said.
“This updated report, unfortunately, confirms the trend already indicated in the full Synthesis Report, which is that we are nowhere near where science says we should be.”
For WMO officials, a timely, ‘stark scientific message’ is being sent to the world.

“At the current rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, we will see a temperature increase by the end of this century far in excess of the Paris Agreement targets of 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels,” WMO Secretary-General Taalas said.

“We are way off track.”



What is the least we need from COP26?,FT.com,21.10.27

By Marti Wolfr

‎If global carbon emissions are to fall quickly, negotiators must bear the following in mind

What pledges must be made by the parties meeting at COP26 in Glasgow if there is to be a good chance of keeping the increase in temperatures above pre-industrial levels to less than 1.5°C, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends? The answer, as I argued last week, is that they must be much more ambitious: above all, they need to cut emissions far faster.

It is not enough to offer St Augustine’s vow of “chastity, but not yet”. Pledges of “net zero” thirty years from now are too easy. It is necessary to cut emissions by close to 40 per cent by 2030, instead. The curve of emissions must be bent downwards now. That is economically and technologically feasible, albeit hard. Ten years hence, it will be too late to avoid irreversible damage without resort to the risky geoengineering recently discussed by Gernot Wagner.

Between 2017 and 2021, the proportion of global emissions covered by some form of “net zero” target jumped more than 65 percentage points, to more than 70 per cent. Yet the “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) agreed at COP21 in Paris, in 2015, are far from tight enough to achieve the needed reductions in emissions, especially by 2030. In that year, pledged emissions will exceed the upper limit imposed by the recommended 1.5°C ceiling by 20-23 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent. (See charts.)

So, what must be done? The Energy Transitions Commission’s Keeping 1.5°C Alive: Closing the Gap in the 2020s, published last month, addressed this question. It recommended a six-point plan that should provide the benchmark for discussions in Glasgow.


This plan consists of: first, significant and rapid reductions in emissions of methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas, albeit one that stays relatively briefly in the atmosphere; second, halting deforestation and beginning reforestation; third, decarbonisation of the power sector and, above all, phasing out reliance on coal far more rapidly than now planned; fourth, accelerated electrification of road transport; fifth, accelerated decarbonisation of heating of buildings and of “hard to abate” sectors, such as steel, cement, chemicals, long-distance aviation and shipping; and, finally, accelerated improvements in energy efficiency across the economy, notably in new buildings, but also by retrofitting many old ones.

The report makes clear that most of this will be complex. But it is also possible, with suitable support from incentives, regulation, enhanced transparency, encouragement of the needed finance and generous assistance to emerging and developing countries.

Consider some concrete implications of this ambitious approach to the next decade. One is particularly obvious: the NDCs need to be made far tighter and more detailed right now. Another is that the most important emerging countries — China, above all, but also India and Indonesia — need to commit themselves to halting the construction of new coal-fuelled power stations from today.

Yet another implication is that ending deforestation and beginning to end our existing use of coal, especially in power generation, will require a substantial and continuing flow of grants and subsidies from high income to developing countries, probably of about $100bn a year. This is essential if agreement is to be reached. But it is also just, given the dominant role of high-income countries in past emissions and their continued relatively high emissions per head.


Again, it will be essential to finance investment in green electricity systems in the developing world. Equity capital and debt finance are too expensive and limited. A crucial element will be risk-sharing between the private sector and the global public sector. Multilateral development banks must play a central role. The needed flows might be $300bn a year, rising to $600bn by the end of the decade, according to Adair Turner, co-chair of the Energy Transitions Commission.

A further implication is reinforced international agreements, in order to accelerate the journey to net zero in the hard-to-abate sectors listed above. The EU’s proposed “carbon border adjustment measure” is a vital element in this. It is not protectionist. It is designed to ensure that internalising a global externality in some economies does not lead to expansion of more polluting firms elsewhere. The ultimate objective of such border taxes should be to achieve worldwide sectoral agreements.

The final implication is that electrification is central, with electricity supplied in carbon-neutral ways, including by nuclear power, should good alternatives to it be unavailable.

These, then, are the things that need to be done if the goal of cutting emissions sharply by 2030 is to be achieved. Yet, still more broadly, negotiators need to remember three further things.


First, the price mechanism is not only an effective incentive. It can also generate the revenue needed to compensate losers. Yet, at present, carbon prices are generally far too low and coverage is too incomplete, as the World Bank’s “carbon pricing dashboard” demonstrates.

Second, policymakers have to remember that however the adjustment occurs, the lights must stay on and homes remain heated.

Finally, we really are in this together. No country can fix this on its own, though China, the US, the EU, India and Japan will be central. Individual countries will pioneer feasible paths. But agreements must be reached, especially between China and the US. Similarly, rich countries must help poor ones, as the prime minister of Bangladesh has pointed out in the FT.

The technologists have done a wonderful job in showing that we can decarbonise our economies quickly enough. Now leaders must show they understand the implications. Act quickly. That is how to avoid disaster.









PVアクセスランキング にほんブログ村