Connect with us

Published

on

Under the Trump administration, the US – the world’s second-largest carbon polluter – will become the first country to withdraw from the UN climate convention, a key bedrock for international climate diplomacy, in a move that will cut it off from global decision-making on climate change.

On January 7, the White House issued a presidential memorandum announcing that the US will quit 31 UN bodies, among them the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It will also leave 35 other international organisations – many of them environmental – including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the most authoritative global voice on climate science.

While the Trump administration already gave notice nearly a year ago that the US would quit the Paris Agreement, under which countries agreed to limit global warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius, it did not at that time attempt to leave the UNFCCC. The climate convention, adopted in 1992, is the bedrock of the world’s efforts to curb climate change and tackle its impacts.

The US has already ceased all funding to the UNFCCC, and would be the only nation to formally exit the convention. After officially notifying the UN of its decision, the withdrawal will take effect after a period of one year.

    The country has also decided to exit key organisations for nature conservation, including the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which publishes a “red list” of endangered species, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the scientific advisory body to the UN biodiversity convention.

    In addition, the US will leave the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and the International Solar Alliance (ISA), both of which promote the use of renewable energy.

    In a statement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said “we will stop subsidizing globalist bureaucrats who act against our interests”, adding that US membership of other international organisations remains under review.

    “The Trump Administration has found these institutions to be redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity,” Rubio said.

    Rejoining possible

    The US Senate ratified the UNFCCC in 1992, which experts said raises questions about the legality of Trump’s move to exit through an executive order.

    But legal scholars have indicated that the Senate would not need to ratify the UN climate convention again if the country wishes to rejoin.

    In a blog, Jake Schmidt, senior strategic director for international climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) wrote that, based on the Senate’s original “advice and consent”, the US could once again become a party to the UNFCCC 90 days after such a decision were formalised.

    Indian law enforcement targets climate activists accused of opposing fossil fuels

    Sue Biniaz, the US State Department’s former principal deputy special envoy for climate until January 2025, said she hoped the federal retreat would be “a temporary one”.

    “There are multiple future pathways to rejoining the key climate agreements,” she added, saying she agreed with treaty scholars who consider the US “could rather seamlessly rejoin” the UNFCCC based on the Senate’s 1992 approval.

    Forfeiting influence

    Experts criticised the move, saying it would isolate the US from global policy-making on climate change and disadvantage Americans in adapting to its worsening effects. But many expressed optimism that the rest of the world would continue to push forward with efforts to curb planet-warming emissions.

    The NRDC’s Schmidt noted, however, that the US absence would “complicate the climate negotiations, as a major economy pulling in the wrong direction always makes forging global progress more difficult”.

    Former US climate envoy John Kerry said Trump’s decision is “a gift to China and a get-out-of-jail-free card to countries and polluters who want to avoid responsibility”. He added that “the price is always paid by kids, in lost health, squandered jobs, rising costs, uninsurable infrastructure, and worse consequences.”

    Gina McCarthy, a former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator and the first White House National Climate Advisor under Joe Biden, said the move to quit the UNFCCC is “a shortsighted, embarrassing, and foolish decision”, as the country will forfeit influence over “trillions of dollars in investments, policies, and decisions that would have advanced our economy and protected us from costly disasters wreaking havoc on our country”.

    McCarthy, who now chairs “America Is All In”, a coalition of US cities, states and businesses and institutions working on climate action, said her organisation is committed to collaborating with international partners “to lower energy costs, cut pollution, and deliver on the goals of the Paris Agreement”.

    Comment: COP presidencies should focus less on climate policy, more on global politics

    David Widawsky, director of the World Resources Institute US, described the US withdrawal from the UN climate convention as a “strategic blunder that gives away American advantage for nothing in return”. But, he added, global climate diplomacy “will not falter” since other countries “understand the UNFCCC’s irreplaceable role” in advancing climate solutions and driving cooperation.

    On the decision to quit the IPCC, Delta Merner, associate accountability campaign director for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said President Trump is “deliberately cutting our nation’s formal participation off from the world’s most trusted source of climate science”.

    While individual US scientists can still contribute, the country will “no longer be able to help guide the scientific assessments that governments around the world rely on”, she added in a statement.

    The post Trump to pull US out of UN climate convention and climate science body appeared first on Climate Home News.

    Trump to pull US out of UN climate convention and climate science body

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    China’s coal-chemicals boom risks repeating the mistakes of the past

    Published

    on

    Aiqun Yu, Christine Shearer and Joe Hittinger work at Global Energy Monitor, a US-based organisation that seeks to provide the worldwide energy transition with transparent data and analysis.

    With global oil and gas prices soaring at the start of the Iran war, China quietly broke ground on three major coal-to-gas and coal-to-chemical projects worth roughly $10 billion in two regions with abundant coal resources.

    But as a Chinese saying goes, “three feet of ice does not form in a single day”. China’s push to use coal as a substitute for imported oil and gas has been gathering momentum since the Russia-Ukraine war began in 2022, prompting a recalibration of energy security priorities in Beijing and beyond.

    The policy raises new concerns, threatening China’s climate goals and growing reputation as a global clean energy leader by creating renewed demand for coal.

    A new expansion wave

    Over the past three years, China has entered a new cycle of investment in so-called “modern coal chemicals”, differentiated from conventional coal chemicals. Four pathways – coal-to-gas, coal-to-liquids, coal-to-olefins, and coal-to-ethylene glycol – account for the bulk of new modern coal-chemical capacity under development.

      According to Global Energy Monitor data, proposed and under-construction coal-to-gas capacity is approaching three times current operating capacity. Together, 34 projects under active consideration represent more than 1 trillion yuan ($150 billion) in planned investment and could add roughly 300 million tonnes of annual coal demand if completed, equivalent to South Africa’s entire coal mining capacity.

      Most projects are in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi and Ningxia, regions with plentiful coal resources and relatively low mining costs. Xinjiang has emerged as the epicentre of the new boom, accounting for more than half of all proposed modern coal chemical projects.

      Why the world abandoned coal chemicals

      Coal chemicals are often presented as an emerging industry, but the technologies themselves are more than a century old.

      Earlier “conventional” coal chemistry was a byproduct of coking, a process run primarily for iron and steel making. “Modern” coal chemistry instead uses gasification to convert coal into synthesis gas, a versatile building block for fuels, plastics, fertilisers and other chemicals that would traditionally be made from oil or gas.

      These modern processes were developed in the early 20th century and expanded during periods of wartime fuel shortages. For example, Germany relied heavily on synthetic fuels during the Second World War while South Africa developed similar technologies in the apartheid era to reduce vulnerability to international sanctions.

      A livestreamer promotes coal during a livestreaming session for Huaze Coal Industry on the Douyin app, in this illustration picture taken June 15, 2023. REUTERS/Florence Lo/Illustration

      A livestreamer promotes coal during a livestreaming session for Huaze Coal Industry on the Douyin app, in this illustration picture taken June 15, 2023. REUTERS/Florence Lo/Illustration

      Once cheap oil and gas became widely available, however, most countries moved away from coal chemicals, which required large amounts of energy, water and capital investment, and generally produced more pollution and carbon emissions than the conventional alternatives.

      Today, only a handful of commercial coal gasification facilities operate outside China.

      China has already tested this theory once

      The current expansion is not China’s first attempt to build a major coal chemical industry.

      A previous boom emerged during the 2010s, driven by many of the same arguments: high oil prices, concerns over energy security and expectations that technological improvements would unlock a new era of coal-based industrial growth.

      Brazil jostles for rare earths share as US-China rivalry heats up

      The outcome was far from successful. Dozens of projects were proposed, but many were delayed, suspended or scrapped before completion, and there were difficulties among those that did get off the ground.

      Three of China’s four operating coal-to-gas projects reportedly spent much of the past decade operating at a loss, and several large coal chemical facilities generated only marginal returns despite government support.

      Policy support is driving the revival

      Backers say technological improvements have made the industry more competitive than it was a decade ago.

      Yet coal chemical projects remain highly dependent on oil and gas prices. When international prices rise, coal-derived products can appear competitive. When prices fall, the economics often deteriorate rapidly.

      More than changes in technology, government policy has played a pivotal role in the sector’s revival.

      Following power shortages in 2021 and the energy market disruptions that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, energy security became a national priority. Coal production expanded, particularly in western China, boosted by government support.

      China’s solar exports reach “gigantic” record in March as energy crisis bites

      A key policy change in 2022 exempted coal used as industrial feedstock from certain energy consumption controls, easing regulatory pressure on coal chemical projects.

      The impact of such measures highlights the degree to which coal chemicals depend on expansive and favourable policy treatment to remain viable.

      At the same time, the current expansion is creating new demand for an industry confronting structural decline as China races to renewables in electricity generation.

      The cost to China’s climate leadership

      Converting coal into fuels and petrochemical products also releases substantially more carbon dioxide than conventional oil- and gas-based alternatives, which themselves are a major source of emissions.

      Proponents argue that coupling production with green hydrogen and carbon capture could resolve the emissions problem, but the arithmetic doesn’t support this.

      Sinopec’s flagship Dalu coal-to-olefins plant, paired with a 10,000 tonne-per-year green hydrogen demonstration, displaces less than 2% of the plant’s annual coal use. Replicating this across the proposed buildout would consume enormous quantities of clean energy just to partially decarbonise an inherently dirty process.

      China could instead leverage that same industrial capacity and policy support to lead the development of cleaner chemical pathways, such as green ammonia for fertiliser, bio-based and CO2-derived feedstocks for plastics, and e-fuels or biofuels where liquid fuels are still needed.

      Rather than locking in another generation of coal-dependent infrastructure, China should learn from the lessons of the past and seek a cleaner and more viable industrial future.

      The post China’s coal-chemicals boom risks repeating the mistakes of the past appeared first on Climate Home News.

      China’s coal-chemicals boom risks repeating the mistakes of the past

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Project Cosmos

      Published

      on

      Welcome to the Project Cosmos homepage.

      The project was launched by Carbon Brief in June 2026 following an 18-month research and development effort.

      The aim: to build the world’s largest database of climate change research.

      Containing more than 1.8 million unique publications linked by 40 million citation relationships, the Cosmos database represents the most complete and expansive mapping of human knowledge on climate change ever assembled.

      The articles and visuals below will guide you through how the Cosmos database was built, as well as all the subsequent analysis, including the Cosmos 500 rankings of most cited authors, publications and institutions.

      The post Project Cosmos appeared first on Carbon Brief.

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/project-cosmos/

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Mapped: Inside Carbon Brief’s Cosmos database of 1.8 million climate studies

      Published

      on

      This is the vast “cosmos” of academic literature and evidence that underpins humanity’s knowledge of climate change.

      Every “star” – all 1.8m of them – represents one of the studies inside Carbon Brief’s Cosmos database.

      The coloured “nebulae” and “galaxies” within this cosmos illustrate where clusters of studies share similar citations and, hence, areas of common academic focus.

      The post Mapped: Inside Carbon Brief’s Cosmos database of 1.8 million climate studies appeared first on Carbon Brief.

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-inside-carbon-briefs-cosmos-database-of-1-8-million-climate-studies/

      Continue Reading

      Trending

      Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com