Global Climate Change Science News

[Brian Peacock]

Remote sensing technology shows 70% of tree coverage moved uphill between 2000 and 2010.

[pErvinalia]

The Ents are on the move again.

[JimC]

[Brian Peacock]

Rich countries ‘trap’ poor nations into relying on fossil fuels

Richer countries and private lenders are trapping heavily indebted countries into reliance on fossil fuels, according to a new report.

The pressure to repay debts is forcing poor nations to continue investing in fossil fuel projects to make their repayments on what are usually loans from richer nations and financial institutions, according to new analysis from the anti-debt campaigners Debt Justice and partners in affected countries.

The group is calling for creditors to cancel all debts for countries facing crisis – and especially those linked to fossil fuel projects.

“High debt levels are a major barrier to phasing out fossil fuels for many global south countries,” said Tess Woolfenden, a senior policy officer at Debt Justice. “Many countries are trapped exploiting fossil fuels to generate revenue to repay debt while, at the same time, fossil fuel projects often do not generate the revenues expected and can leave countries further indebted than when they started. This toxic trap must end.”

According to the report, the debt owed by global south countries has increased by 150% since 2011 and 54 countries are in a debt crisis, having to spend five times more on repayments than on addressing the climate crisis.

Daniel Ribeiro, a programme coordinator for the Mozambican environmental campaign Justiça Ambiental, said the country’s debt burden had been doubled by loans taken without parliament’s permission from London-based banks in 2013, based on projections of earnings from its gas field discoveries.

Mozambique was plunged into a debt crisis when oil and gas prices fell in 2014-16, Ribeiro said, but the solutions from international lenders to bail out the country have relied on loans being repaid through future gas revenues.

“The debt caused by fossil fuels are being structured to be paid back by fossil fuels, solidifying a vicious cycle of having to move forward and having very severe consequences of not wanting to continue with fossil fuels,” Ribeiro said...

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... ssil-fuels

[macdoc]

A cargo ship fitted with giant, rigid British-designed sails has set out on its maiden voyage.

Shipping firm Cargill, which has chartered the vessel, hopes the technology will help the industry chart a course towards a greener future.

The WindWings sails are designed to cut fuel consumption and therefore shipping's carbon footprint.

It is estimated the industry is responsible for about 2.1% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

The Pyxis Ocean's maiden journey, from China to Brazil, will provide the first real-world test of the WindWings - and an opportunity to assess whether a return to the traditional way of propelling ships could be the way forward for moving cargo at sea.

Folded down when the ship is in port, the wings are opened out when it is in open water. They stand 123ft (37.5m) tall and are built of the same material as wind turbines, to make them durable.

Enabling a vessel to be blown along by the wind, rather than rely solely on its engine, could hopefully eventually reduce a cargo ship's lifetime emissions by 30%.

more
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66543643

[aufbahrung]

We could be 16 years into a methane-fueled 'termination' event significant enough to end an ice age

https://www.space.com/climate-change-te ... nd-ice-age

(clammy, hummid, boiling away atmosphere into a global steam sauna sort of weather?)

[Brian Peacock]

A cargo ship fitted with giant, rigid British-designed sails has set out on its maiden voyage.

Shipping firm Cargill, which has chartered the vessel, hopes the technology will help the industry chart a course towards a greener future.

The WindWings sails are designed to cut fuel consumption and therefore shipping's carbon footprint.

It is estimated the industry is responsible for about 2.1% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

The Pyxis Ocean's maiden journey, from China to Brazil, will provide the first real-world test of the WindWings - and an opportunity to assess whether a return to the traditional way of propelling ships could be the way forward for moving cargo at sea.

Folded down when the ship is in port, the wings are opened out when it is in open water. They stand 123ft (37.5m) tall and are built of the same material as wind turbines, to make them durable.

Enabling a vessel to be blown along by the wind, rather than rely solely on its engine, could hopefully eventually reduce a cargo ship's lifetime emissions by 30%.

more
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66543643

Greenwashing.

[macdoc]

Bullshit ....what is your solution ???

[JimC]

Brian, it is at least one of the ways to reduce carbon emissions from global sea transport. It could be used by a corporation for PR (which can be called greenwashing), but it is also a real if small part of a technological solution. What is the alternative - no more global shipping of anything?

[aufbahrung]

Brian, it is at least one of the ways to reduce carbon emissions from global sea transport. It could be used by a corporation for PR (which can be called greenwashing), but it is also a real if small part of a technological solution. What is the alternative - no more global shipping of anything?

No solution, global trade will stutter and then fail shortly. It's a difficult thing to explain but systems that get too complex often become fragile and fail...

https://www.livescience.com/planet-eart ... tudy-warns

[Brian Peacock]

Bullshit ....what is your solution ???

Meh. Sails on a tanker isn't the solution. Where's your plan to rapidly decarbonise the shipping sector - beyond reproducing corporate PR that is?

Global shipping emissions accounted for c.1076 million tonnes of CO² per annum in 2018, around 3% of global emissions. If shipping as a sector was a country it would be the 6th largest emitter, between Germany and Japan. The use-lifetime of ships and tankers already in existence account for a level of so-called 'committed emissions' which, if left unaddressed, will negate the remaining 2050/1.5°C carbon budget. IPCC modelling projects emissions from shipping to increase by up to 130% of 2008 emissions by 2050. If the impact of shipping activities grows as projected, it will completely undermine the objectives of the 2018 Paris Agreement - from which shipping was omitted from global targets in favour of letting countries set their own targets

Shipping and the Paris climate agreement: a focus on committed emissions
Bullock, et al, 2020

Abstract

The concept of “committed emissions” allows us to understand what proportion of the Paris-constrained and rapidly diminishing global carbon dioxide (CO2) budget is potentially taken up by existing infrastructure. Here, this concept is applied to international shipping, where long-lived assets increase the likelihood for high levels of committed emissions. To date, committed emissions studies have focussed predominantly on the power sector, or on global analyses in which shipping is a small element, with assumptions of asset lifetimes extrapolated from other transport modes. This study analyses new CO2, ship age and scrappage datasets covering the 11,000 ships included in the European Union’s new emissions monitoring scheme (EU MRV), to deliver original insights on the speed at which new and existing shipping infrastructure must be decarbonised. These results, using ship-specific assumptions on asset lifetimes, show higher committed emissions for shipping than previous estimates based on asset lifetimes similar to the road transport sector. The estimated baseline committed emissions value is equivalent to 85–212% of the carbon budget for 1.5 °C that is available for these EU MRV ships, with the central case exceeding the available carbon budget. The sector does, however, have significant potential to reduce this committed emissions figure without premature scrappage through a combination of slow speeds, operational and technical efficiency measures, and the timely retrofitting of ships to use zero-carbon fuels. Here, it is shown that if mitigation measures are applied comprehensively through strong and rapid policy implementation in the 2020s, and if zero-carbon ships are deployed rapidly from 2030, it is still possible for the ships in the EU MRV system to stay within 1.5 °C carbon budgets. Alongside this, as there are wide variations between and within ship types, this new analysis sheds light on opportunities for decision-makers to tailor policy interventions to deliver more effective CO2 mitigation. Delays to appropriately stringent policy implementation would mean additional measures, such as premature scrappage or curbing the growth in shipping tonne-km, become necessary to meet the Paris climate goals...


Full access: https://bmcenergy.biomedcentral.com/art ... 20-00015-2

The core issue is about the scale, not the technology.

As I've mentioned before, stories about future technologies like carbon capture, consumer offsetting, hydrogen planes, battery powered trains, or even sails on tankers, do not in themselves address the problems or issues of scale - they're just feel-good stories for tech bros and investment brokers.

As I've also mentioned previously, a rapid decarbonisation of the global economy is the only way to secure the social, political and economic stability needed in order to successfully develop and implement the required sustainable technologies at the required scale. And as I've said many times before, systematic inaction from governments demands that the democratic pressure applied to policy-makers needs to be rapidly scaled up to meet the challenges we face now and into the short- to mid-term future - and this will happen only when the general public are more fully informed about the nature and scale of the issues, and the consequences thereof.

The fact that I've mentioned these kinds of things several times already, and yet you still feel compelled to challenge me with personally providing 'the solution', demonstrates you haven't really been paying attention. That you seem to favour personal slights rather than engaging with me on these issues in good faith also suggests that you just don't like having your assumptions challenged. So let me be unambiguous: it's not technology that will provide the solutions to the climate and ecological emergencies that we need today, and for the next generation and beyond, but pro-social political and economic reform.

[Svartalf]

is it even feasible to go back to sailing?

[Brian Peacock]

is it even feasible to go back to sailing?

Technically it's possible. Modern high-strength materials could be retro fitted to many kinds of watercraft, with engines running on solar- &/or wind-charged batteries, bio fuels, or hydrogen as backups and for inshore and port manoeuvring. It's not just the A-B point carbon costs to think about though, but the entire commissioning, manufacturing, running maintenance, and decommissioning footprint. Nonetheless, anything that seriously reduces emissions should be welcomed. So the question isn't really about the technical doability.

However, even if Cargil, who control c.80% of the world's grain, said they were going to replace aging craft with sail-hybrid transporters it would still take decades to replace the entire fleet - decades if continuing emissions in a sector project to grow by more than 100% in the next 30 years. Now imagine that approach scaled out across a sector of the economy which basically gets c.80% of all transported items from one place to another globally and you begin to understand the size of the problem.

Technological innovation can only go so far so fast within the current context of international free market economics, which is why governments need to agree sector-specific pathways for limiting global heating and then take the action needed (now!) that will encourage rapid decarbonisation of the economy while actively promoting sustainable alternatives.

[Svartalf]

Of course, my own take would be to make a lot more nuclear giant ships

[macdoc]

Too expensive tho we need nuclear as part of the carbon neutral and 30% fuel savings is economic incentive big time plus the oil used in the big ships is very dirty.

....
Brian
People, governments and corporations are DOING something, both now and for the future....you throwing around greenwashing accusations DOES NOTHING.

YOU have not provided anything positive - just negatives. How useful is that?