Connect with us

Published

on

Governments have delayed for the third time a key decision on the timing of an influential climate science assessment, after failing to resolve deep divisions at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over whether and how to align its work with UN climate policy.

While officials agreed on the outline of the IPCC’s three flagship reports in Hangzhou, China, on Saturday, they failed to break the deadlock on when they should be delivered, despite week-long talks running into overtime with a nearly uninterrupted 30-hour session on the closing day.

Most governments spoke in favour of a proposal put forward by the IPCC’s administrative arm to conclude the scientific review process by August 2028, so that the reports would be ready in time to be considered as part of the “Global Stocktake”, a scorecard of climate action carried out under the Paris Agreement. European nations, Japan, Turkiye, small island states and most Latin American and least developed countries supported the plan, three delegates told Climate Home.

But China, Saudi Arabia and India strongly pushed back against that timeline, while South Africa and Kenya asked for further discussions to bridge concerns over the inclusivity of the process, the sources added.

At the eleventh hour, the Chinese hosts of the summit brokered an interim deal that will kick-start the assessment process in 2025, while discussions over the deadline for completing the reports will resume again at the next IPCC session later this year, for which there’s still no fixed date.

“Despite the heavy agenda, thanks to the Panel’s ability to build and achieve multilateral consensus, and the tireless work of the IPCC’s Scientific Bureau, we now have clarity on the scope of the scientific content,” IPCC chair Jim Skea said at the end of the meeting.

Oil giant Pemex fails to control methane emissions, threatening Mexico’s net zero goal

Climate policy alignment

The IPCC is in its seventh assessment cycle – known as AR7 – which is tasked with compiling global climate science into three reports: one on the physical scientific basis of climate change, another on the vulnerability of human and natural systems, and a third on options for mitigating the emissions that are heating up the Earth’s climate.

The IPCC’s sixth assessment played a key role in informing the first Global Stocktake in 2023 which culminated in countries committing for the first time to “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems” at COP28 in Dubai.

China’s role as the host of last week’s summit was under the spotlight as observers looked for signs of leadership on global climate action as the US retreats from international climate diplomacy under Donald Trump.

Liu Zhenmin, Special Envoy for Climate Change, China. Photo: IISD/ENB | Anastasia Rodopoulou

Liu Zhenmin, Special Envoy for Climate Change, China. Photo: IISD/ENB | Anastasia Rodopoulou

At the start of the meeting, Liu Zhenmin, China’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, praised the contribution of the climate science community in informing policy responses.

“Upholding multilateralism and strengthening global climate action is the only way forward. I hope the IPCC and the UNFCCC will continue to work together in an orderly manner to advance human climate action,” he added.

But three delegates told Climate Home of a disconnect between public statements from Chinese officials and negotiating positions in closed meetings where, they said, China reinforced its national priorities.

They added that China – and some other high-income developing nations – seem keen to keep the IPCC reports out of the next stocktake as they fear the scientific findings would put them under mounting pressure to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

“Failing to reach a decision on the AR7 timeline only serves those who wish to hold back climate action, but climate vulnerable countries cannot wait,” said Zhe Yao, global policy adviser at Greenpeace East Asia, who attended the meeting. “It’s a bitter disappointment every time division leads to a decision being postponed or kicked down the road”.

Risk of financial fallout may deter Argentina from leaving Paris Agreement

Concerns over keywords removal

Technical discussions over what the IPCC reports should deal with took up the majority of the week-long session in Hangzhou.

Diana Urge-Vorsatz, a Hungarian scientist and vice-chair of the IPCC, criticised efforts to remove “key scientific concepts” from the outlines which, she said, creates concerns over the future of global climate science.

Delegates huddle after a marathon session on the final day of the IPCC meeting. Photo: IPCC Secretariat

Delegates huddle after a marathon session on the final day of the IPCC meeting. Photo: IPCC Secretariat

Writing on LinkedIn in a personal capacity, she said that keywords including “Paris Agreement”, “NDCs” and “fossil fuels” were questioned and either cut or replaced in many places.

“Without a robust assessment of the exponentially growing experience and knowledge on the topics relevant to our global efforts, we are jeopardizing the effectiveness of these crucial multilateral processes,” Urge-Vorsatz added.

Disagreement over carbon removal report

A the IPCC meeting, countries also failed to agree on the outline of a methodology report on technologies aimed at removing carbon dioxide.

A handful of countries led by Saudi Arabia wanted the panel’s focus to include controversial marine geoengineering interventions that involve adding alkaline substances to ocean water to increase its pH and supposedly boost its capacity to absorb CO2, sources told Climate Home.

But most governments rejected the proposal, arguing it would be premature to raise the profile of technologies whose side effects are not yet fully understood. Discussion will continue at the next meeting.

“The science simply isn’t there, and the risks are immense,” said Mary Church, geoengineering campaign manager at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).

Arctic geoengineering experiment shuts down over environmental risks

US absence ripples through

The absence of US government delegates and federal scientists loomed large over the gathering, after a stop-work order imposed by the Trump administration kept them from travelling to the meeting in China.

While it remains unclear whether the US will fully withdraw from the IPCC process, delegates said there were informal discussions in the corridors on the far-reaching implications of a US retreat.

Major concerns centre on the future of a technical support unit provided by the US State Department to the IPCC’s mitigation working group. Ending that assistance could jeopardise the work of scientists assessing methods to cut emissions.

Delta Merner of the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists said that “while this stoppage is technically temporary, if federal experts continue to be barred from participating, it would represent a major loss to the IPCC’s ability to produce rigorous and comprehensive reports”.

The post Countries fail again to decide on timing of key IPCC climate science reports appeared first on Climate Home News.

Countries fail again to decide on timing of key IPCC climate science reports

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Corpus Christi Cuts Timeline to Disaster as Abbott Issues Emergency Orders

Published

on

The governor’s office said the city’s two main reservoirs could dry up by May, much sooner than previous timelines. But authorities still offer no plan for curtailment of water use.

City officials in Corpus Christi on Tuesday released modeling that showed emergency cuts to water demand could be required as soon as May as reservoir levels continue to decline.

Corpus Christi Cuts Timeline to Disaster as Abbott Issues Emergency Orders

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Middle East war is another wake-up call for fossil fuel-reliant food systems

Published

on

Lena Luig is the head of the International Agricultural Policy Division at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, a member of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food. Anna Lappé is the Executive Director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food.

As toxic clouds loom over Tehran and Beirut from the US and Israel’s bombardment of oil depots and civilian infrastructure in the region’s ongoing war, the world is once again witnessing the not-so-subtle connections between conflict, hunger, food insecurity and the vulnerability of global food systems dependent on fossil fuels, dominated by a few powerful countries and corporations.

The conflict in Iran is having a huge impact on the world’s fertilizer supply. The Strait of Hormuz is a critical trade route in the region for nearly half of the global supply of urea, the main synthetic fertilizer derived from natural gas through the conversion of ammonia.

With the Strait impacted by Iran’s blockades, prices of urea have shot up by 35% since the war started, just as planting season starts in many parts of the world, putting millions of farmers and consumers at risk of increasing production costs and food price spikes, resulting in food insecurity, particularly for low-income households. The World Food Programme has projected that an extra 45 million people would be pushed ​into acute hunger because of rises in food, oil and shipping costs, if the war continues until June.

Pesticides and synthetic fertilizer leave system fragile

On the face of it, this looks like a supply chain issue, but at the core of this crisis lies a truth about many of our food systems around the world: the instability and injustice in the very design of systems so reliant on these fossil fuel inputs for our food.

At the Global Alliance, a strategic alliance of philanthropic foundations working to transform food systems, we have been documenting the fossil fuel-food nexus, raising alarm about the fragility of a system propped up by fossil fuels, with 15% of annual fossil fuel use going into food systems, in part because of high-cost, fossil fuel-based inputs like pesticides and synthetic fertilizer. The Heinrich Böll Foundation has also been flagging this threat consistently, most recently in the Pesticide Atlas and Soil Atlas compendia. 

We’ve seen this before: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 sparked global disruptions in fertilizer supply and food price volatility. As the conflict worsened, fertilizer prices spiked – as much from input companies capitalizing on the crisis for speculation as from real cost increases from production and transport – triggering a food price crisis around the world.

    Since then, fertilizer industry profit margins have continued to soar. In 2022, the largest nine fertilizer producers increased their profit margins by more than 35% compared to the year before—when fertilizer prices were already high. As Lena Bassermann and Dr. Gideon Tups underscore in the Heinrich Böll Foundation’s Soil Atlas, the global dependencies of nitrogen fertilizer impacted economies around the world, especially state budgets in already indebted and import-dependent economies, as well as farmers across Africa.

    Learning lessons from the war in Ukraine, many countries invested heavily in renewable energy and/or increased domestic oil production as a way to decrease dependency on foreign fossil fuels. But few took the same approach to reimagining domestic food systems and their food sovereignty.

    Agroecology as an alternative

    There is another way. Governments can adopt policy frameworks to encourage reductions in synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use, especially in regions that currently massively overuse nitrogen fertilizer. At the African Union fertilizer and Soil Health Summit in 2024, African leaders at least agreed that organic fertilizers should be subsidized as well, not only mineral fertilizers, but we can go farther in actively promoting agricultural pathways that reduce fossil fuel dependency. 

    In 2024, the Global Alliance organized dozens of philanthropies to call for a tenfold increase in investments to help farmers transition from fossil fuel dependency towards agroecological approaches that prioritize livelihoods, health, climate, and biodiversity.

    In our research, we detail the huge opportunity to repurpose harmful subsidies currently supporting inputs like synthetic fertilizer and pesticides towards locally-sourced bio-inputs and biofertilizer production. We know this works: There are powerful stories of hope and change from those who have made this transition, despite only receiving a fraction of the financing that industrial agriculture receives, with evidence of benefits from stable incomes and livelihoods to better health and climate outcomes.

    New summit in Colombia seeks to revive stalled UN talks on fossil fuel transition

    Inspiring examples abound: G-BIACK in Kenya is training farmers how to produce their own high-quality compost; start-ups like the Evola Company in Cambodia are producing both nutrient-rich organic fertilizer and protein-rich animal feed with black soldier fly farming; Sabon Sake in Ghana is enriching sugarcane bagasse – usually organic waste – with microbial agents and earthworms to turn it into a rich vermicompost.

    These efforts, grounded in ecosystems and tapping nature for soil fertility and to manage pest pressures, are just some of the countless examples around the world, tapping the skill and knowledge of millions of farmers. On a national and global policy level, the Agroecology Coalition, with 480+ members, including governments, civil society organizations, academic institutions, and philanthropic foundations, is supporting a transition toward agroecology, working with natural systems to produce abundant food, boost biodiversity, and foster community well-being.

    Fertilizer industry spins “clean” products

    We must also inoculate ourselves from the fertilizer industry’s public relations spin, which includes promoting the promise that their products can be produced without heavy reliance on fossil fuels. Despite experts debunking the viability of what the industry has dubbed “green hydrogen” or “green or clean ammonia”, the sector still promotes this narrative, arguing that these are produced with resource-intensive renewable energy or Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), a costly and unreliable technology for reducing emissions.

    As we mourn this conflict’s senseless destruction and death, including hundreds of children, we also recognize that peace cannot mean a return to business-as-usual. We need to upend the systems that allow the richest and most powerful to have dominion over so much.

    This includes fighting for a food system that is based on genuine sovereignty and justice, free from dependency on fossil fuels, one that honors natural systems and puts power into the hands of communities and food producers themselves.

    The post Middle East war is another wake-up call for fossil fuel-reliant food systems appeared first on Climate Home News.

    Middle East war is another wake-up call for fossil fuel-reliant food systems

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    Are There Climate Fingerprints in Tornado Activity?

    Published

    on

    Parts of the Southern and Northeastern U.S. faced tornado threats this week. Scientists are trying to parse out the climate links in changing tornado activity.

    It’s been a weird few weeks for weather across the United States.

    Are There Climate Fingerprints in Tornado Activity?

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com