Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Highlights
• The Great Barrier Reef is being damaged by expanding coral bleaching events
• The cumulative impact of recent bleachings may have reduced larval supply by 71%
• Bleaching events are unique but predictable warm spots and cooler refugia exist
• Refugia have the potential to deliver coral larvae to 58% of the GBR

Summary
Climate change and ENSO have triggered five mass coral bleaching events on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR), three of which occurred in the last 5 years.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Here, we explore the cumulative nature of recent impacts and how they fragment the reef’s connectivity. The coverage and intensity of thermal stress have increased steadily over time. Cumulative bleaching in 2016, 2017, and 2020 is predicted to have reduced systemic larval supply by 26%, 50%, and 71%, respectively. Larval disruption is patchy and can guide interventions. The majority of severely bleached reefs (75%) are predicted to have experienced an 80%–100% loss of larval supply. Yet restoration would not be cost-effective in the 2% of such reefs (∼30) that still experience high larval supply. Managing such climate change impacts will benefit from emerging theory on the facilitation of genetic adaptation,6,7 which requires the existence of regions with predictably high or low thermal stress. We find that a third of reefs constitute warm spots that have consistently experienced bleaching stress. Moreover, 13% of the GBR are potential refugia that avoid significant warming more than expected by chance, with a modest proportion (14%) within highly protected areas. Coral connectivity is likely to become increasingly disrupted given the predicted escalation of climate-driven disturbances,8 but the existence of thermal refugia, potentially capable of delivering larvae to 58% of the GBR, may provide pockets of systemic resilience in the near-term. Theories of conservation planning for climate change will need to consider a shifting portfolio of thermal environments over time.

A geopolitics and globalization expert said in a newly published book that the Great Lakes region -- and specifically Michigan -- may become the best place on the planet to live by 2050 because of climate change.

I have to make some time to ride out to the UP to hunt up some "pudding stones" and agates to make cabachons.

Pledges to cut methane, coal and protect forests made at COP26 will reduce global warming by just a few tenths of a degree - with temperatures on course to be at least 2.4C higher by 2100, according to the first major assessment of commitments at the summit.

The analysis raises serious concerns about the conference's primary objective to "keep 1.5 degrees alive".

"While the wave of net zero targets appears like remarkable news, we can't sit back and relax," said Professor Niklas Hohne, of the Cologne-based New Climate Institute.

"All countries must urgently look at what more they can do."

The Climate Action Tracker estimates that even with the pledges made in Glasgow, global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 will still be around twice as high as the globally agreed 1.5C target for warming.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, exceeding 1.5C of warming risks passing global tipping points and temperature extremes that will put significantly more of the world's population at risk of dangerous climate change.

More than 100 countries committed to cut methane emissions by 30%, for example.

But the Climate Action Tracker analysis found that some of these commitments were already included in national plans to cut carbon lodged with the UN.

Remove such double-counting as well as commitments made on methane, trees and phasing out coal means they would have less impact on global warming than claimed.

Most of the promises made at COP26 are for longer term "net zero" targets. Take the world's biggest emitters: China promising net zero by 2060, the US by 2050, and India's recently announced target of 2070.

But the rate of global warming means we'll be approaching 1.5C as soon as 2030, so near-term targets to cut emissions are what counts.

So far, few countries have published detailed plans of how they plan to get there.

"The vast majority of 2030 actions and targets are inconsistent with net zero goals: there's a nearly one degree gap between government current policies and their net zero goals," said Bill Hare, chief executive of Berlin-based Climate Analytics, which contributes to the Climate Action Tracker analysis.

"It's all very well for leaders to claim they have a net zero target, but if they have no plans as to how to get there, and their 2030 targets are as low as so many of them are, then frankly, these net zero targets are just lip service to real climate action.

"Glasgow has a serious credibility gap," he said.

The analysis considered a more optimistic scenario, in which countries carry out all the commitments in their national plans submitted to the UN process, as well as all the announcements made at the climate summit, on time, and in full. That reduced warming to 1.8C by 2100.

One thing that could make that far from perfect scenario look more credible would be agreement in Glasgow on the "rulebook" of the Paris Agreement.

A binding agreement would leave countries less wiggle-room to delay, or cheat their way out of living up to their existing carbon-cutting pledges, say analysts.

Race Towards Climate Neutrality Is Underway: CCPI’s top countries lead the way
• Scandinavian countries, together with the United Kingdom and Morocco, lead the ‘race to zero’
• Australia, South Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kazakhstan are among the worst performers
• Netherlands and Greece are the biggest climbers since last year, while Latvia, Croatia, Belarus and Algeria have fallen down the rankings

Scandinavian countries lead the way in climate protection, together with Morocco and the United Kingdom. Leaders Denmark, Sweden, and Norway occupy ranks four through six in the new Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) 2022. Places one to three again remain vacant because no country’s measures thus far have been sufficient to achieve an overall ‘very high’ rating – none are following a path necessary to keep global warming within the 1.5°C limit.

Scandinavian countries achieved the best results mainly thanks to their outstanding efforts in renewable energy. Notably, Norway stands out as the only country to be awarded a ‘very high’ rating in this category. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation are the worst-performing countries in renewable energy, with a ‘very low’ rating. The United Kingdom and Morocco, ranked 7th and 8th overall, were among the leaders in all categories. The UK also performs well in greenhouse gas emissions metrics.

In the overall ranking, Australia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and South Korea are among the worst performers. Australia receives ‘very low’ ratings in every CCPI category and slips four places in the overall ranking. The Netherlands and Greece are the biggest climbers, while Croatia, Belarus and Algeria fall in most of the category rankings. From the G20 countries, only the EU, along with the UK and India, rank among the high performers, while six G20 countries are very low performers. Hungary and Slovenia are this year’s worst-performing EU countries.

In the CCPI’s Climate Policy category, many ambitious states clearly have resolutely embarked on their paths to climate neutrality, including the Scandinavian states, Morocco, the Netherlands, Portugal, and France. Germany and the EU follow at some distance in the upper mid-levels. However, five EU states are also ranked poorly. The worst ranking EU countries are: Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic. At the bottom of the table are the biggest laggards: Australia – with the worst possible score – is still ranked worse than Brazil and Algeria.

The world’s largest emitter, China, slips four places to 37th, with an overall ‘low’ rating. Its biggest problem areas are high emissions and very poor energy efficiency. In both areas, the 2030 targets are also far from a Paris Agreement-compatible pathway. In contrast, China’s trend in renewable energy is very good, even before Germany (23rd). The first year of the Biden Administration has a positive impact on the United States’ performance. In last year’s CCPI, the US was at the bottom, but this year it climbs six ranks to 55th, though remaining in the ‘very low’ ranks.

India retains its 10th place in the ranking and is a high performer except for its rank in the renewable energy category, where it is rated ‘medium’. The country still benefits from its relatively low per capita emissions. However, in the mid-term trend, these are quickly rising and only the ambitious implementation of strong climate targets can prevent India from falling in the CCPI ranking. PM Modi’s announcements on increased 2030 targets sound promising but are not yet included in the ranking.

The climate-protection glass is half-full, not half-empty

Was that a good or bad climate conference that we just saw in Glasgow? Opinions on it are as varied as the conference itself was chaotic and opaque. Never before, say scientists, has the gap between the measures necessary to stem climate change and the slow steps taken by states been as big as it is now. And the pressure on them to take action is also greater than it has ever been. The global climate-protection movement Fridays for Future, for one, made its presence powerfully felt in Glasgow.

Coal phaseout on the agenda for first time
The final statement from the conference, in a first for any UN climate meeting, expressly mentions the necessity of rapidly phasing out fossil-fuel energy sources, even if the way this was formulated was continually watered down at the behest of wealthy and newly industrializing nations.

Poor countries have been promised that financial aid from the richer Global North to help them adapt to the effects of climate change will be doubled within just a few years. After months of obstinately frosty relations, the US and China, the two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases worldwide, pulled themselves together to issue a joint statement, promising to double their efforts.

The goal of preventing the Earth from warming more than 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels before the end of the century is now the measure of all things; no one talks anymore about the 2-degree goal that was previously the focus of debates on climate policy. That is an almost breathtaking advance in view of the resolutions made at earlier climate meetings.

Two realities

But not in view of the realities facing us. Scientists say the decade leading up to 2030 will be all-decisive in the fight against global warming. The British hosts of the conference reacted to this prognosis by pushing through a whole array of initiatives by individual nations during the days in Glasgow: to limit the greenhouse gas methane, to protect forests in poor countries, to end subsidies for fossil fuels — all before 2030.

However, upon closer inspection, all these initiatives prove to be as voluntary and unbinding as ever — as are the resolutions announced by the climate conference.

Reliability and trust
All climate conferences are about reliability and trust. The resolutions can barely be enforced by legal means; their objective is always to generate positive momentum and something like joint support from all the some 90 UN member states. And they aim to produce pressure in the rich nations, whose citizens regard climate change with growing concern.

But trust is in short supply. During the pandemic, the poor countries of the Global South have seen exactly with what dizzying sums the industrialized nations have been propping up their economies. That makes it even harder for them to swallow that the rich North tends to the miserly when it comes to the long-promised financial aid to help them adapt to climate change.

The coal phaseout and reality

And even though phasing out fossil fuels has now been resolved upon at the climate conference, a look at the situation on the ground in countries like China, South Africa, Poland and even Germany shows just how much clout the coal lobby still has. China is now promising to become climate-neutral by 2060 — a timeframe that is laughable in view of the warnings by experts.

But a real alternative to the yearly arduous and nerve-racking climate meetings is simply not in sight. It is only at them that all UN member states talk with one another on the topic. And perhaps the common line that they all are looking for could be summed up thus: In as many countries as possible, the fight against greenhouse gases must take on a similar status to that of the concern for economic growth.

Growth and sustainability have long ceased to be contradictory; it is a question only of will. And of action, as with abandoning fossil energy — and abandoning it quickly at that. At least the Glasgow conference agreed on that.

Germany, too, is facing increasing pressure to speed up its phaseout of coal-fired energy, which the former government planned to complete by 2038. Doing anything else would now mean breaking the pledges made in Glasgow.

And poor countries will not put up with the yearly conferences for much longer if they do not receive noticeably more money. For all of these reasons, if I have to decide whether the glass of international climate protection is half-full or half-empty after Glasgow, I would say: half-full.