Financial institutions in the euro area need to prepare themselves much more for the financial and economic impacts of climate change. This is the conclusion of a climate stress test by the European Central Bank (ECB), the results of which were published on Friday.
"Euro area banks urgently need to step up their efforts to measure and manage climate risk, fill current data gaps and adopt good practices already in place in the industry," said ECB chief banking supervisor Andrea Enria. A total of 104 banks participated in the climate stress test, the ECB's first to date. 41 institutions were tested in special negative scenarios.
According to the results, around 60 percent of the institutions do not yet have a climate stress test framework. Most institutions had also not yet included climate risks in their credit risk models - only 20 per cent of the financial institutions took climate risks into account as a factor when granting loans.
The stress test also found that in the institutions' business with corporate clients, almost two-thirds of the income comes from greenhouse gas-intensive industries. In a third part of the stress check, banks had to calculate losses due to extreme weather events such as heat waves and floods and under various transition scenarios. For the 41 banks that participated, credit and market losses added up to a total of 70 billion euros.
European Central Bank:
Banks must sharpen their focus on climate risk, ECB supervisory stress test shows
The Wellcome Trust has mapped out 120 years of climate data in order to explore the health effects of climate change.
In
>Tracking the health effects of climate change around the world< you can see where around the world drought, flooding, extreme heat and climate-sensitive disease have affected the health of the local populations.
Global warming is the root cause of extreme heatwaves, destructive storms and many other troubling phenomena. How is the tourist industry coping?
Climate change: Tourist destinations under threat
The climate crisis makes extreme weather conditions - heat and drought on the one hand, heavy rain and floods on the other - more likely. That's what climate researchers have been saying for years. And attribution research can now also clearly prove it. But the concrete effects of these findings are perhaps not yet clear to everyone.
The results of a research project initiated by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology may help Germany at least a little.
Today, Monday, the results were presented, for which the economic research company Prognos had worked together with the Institute for Ecological Economy Research (IÖW) and the Society for Economic Structure Research (GWS).
Bezifferung von Klimafolgekosten in Deutschland ("Quantification of climate impact costs in Germany" - study in German [until now] only.)
According to this, climate change has caused damage of 6.6 billion Euros on average in this country every year since the year 2000. Altogether, heat, drought and floods caused by climate change would have cost at least 145 billion Euros by 2021, explained the Federal Ministry of Economics, which is also responsible for climate protection, and the Federal Ministry of the Environment. Direct damage to buildings and infrastructures or yield losses in forestry and agriculture were calculated, but also costs of indirect damage, such as reduced labour productivity. Health impacts or the consequences for biodiversity, on the other hand, could not be quantified.
However, the two heatwaves in 2018 and 2019 alone, as well as the floods in 2021, probably cost more than 80 billion euros. The floods, especially in the states Rhineland-Palatinate and North Rhine-Westphalia, cost more than 40 billion euros.
The authors of the study pointed out that the sums mentioned are lower limits. It is also not easy to distinguish between normal extreme weather damage and events exacerbated by climate change. This applies, for example, to some storms and hailstorms that were included in the study. Due to the lack of long-term data, no clear statements can be made about changes in intensity or frequency in the course of climate change.
The forestry and agricultural sectors in large parts of Germany suffered most from the heat and drought. These sectors of the economy had to record around 25.6 billion euros in damage costs for the two extreme years 2018 and 2019 alone. A further nine billion euros were incurred in industry and commerce, as productivity among the working population fell due to the heat.
Governments Are Ignoring An Easy Climate Fix
BY RISHIKA PARDIKAR – 18 JUL 2022 –
At the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow last year, President Joe Biden called methane “one of the most potent greenhouse gasses” and said that the United States and Europe would work collectively to reduce methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030. Since then, more than 100 countries worldwide have signed on to the Global Methane Pledge.
To help meet that pledge, U.S. and European officials at a side event on the matter at a United Nations climate change conference in Germany last month targeted one culprit in particular: the agriculture and livestock sector, particularly in African and Asian countries. That’s because manure, certain cultivation techniques, and gastroenteric releases account for a significant portion of methane emissions.
But these officials failed to address one of the largest and easy-to-fix sources of methane: emissions from the oil and gas sector, both from production of oil and gas as well as leaks across the supply chain.
Leaks, in fact, are responsible for 60 percent of oil and gas methane emissions. Because plugging these leaks would result in more product for oil and gas companies, the International Energy Agency (IEA), an autonomous intergovernmental organization, has said that nearly half of all fossil fuel methane emissions “could be avoided with measures that would have no net cost,” and that reducing oil and gas-derived methane is “amongst the lowest of low-hanging fruit for mitigating climate change.”
What’s more, a new congressional investigation has found that oil and gas companies have likely been underreporting the amount of methane leaking from much of their U.S.-based operations. And while the Supreme Court’s recent West Virginia v. EPA ruling limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse emissions, legal experts say it likely doesn’t impede a proposed plan at the agency to address oil and gas methane emissions on a wide scale for the first time.
In response to questions from The Lever about addressing fossil fuel leaks, speakers at the Bonn conference floundered, vaguely stating that the oil and gas sector is a “sticky issue” and that there are “some barriers” to curbing the sector’s methane emissions.
But experts disagree — arguing that curbing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, especially actions like plugging leaks, is easily achievable. Even reports by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) clearly state that oil and gas is “the only sector for which the majority of emissions can be reduced in a cost-effective manner with technologies that exist today.”
While livestock and farming is also a significant driver of methane emissions, addressing these sources is likely less cost-effective, since low-carbon agricultural techniques are still in the development phase. In contrast, technologies designed to address oil and gas-derived methane emissions already exist — such as the International Methane Emissions Observatory that was launched by the UNEP with support from the European Union in October 2021.
Plus, as some observers point out, tackling oil and gas-related methane emissions in developed countries is a matter of global equity.
“The burden of [climate] action should not be unequally distributed.” said Arvind Ravikumar, professor in Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas. “It makes practical sense that developed countries with high oil and gas production tackle their methane emissions first, while methane mitigation solutions for other sectors become more affordable.”
A Bold Pledge Falls Short
Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have acknowledged that methane is responsible for at least a quarter of the warming we are seeing today. Other reports show that cutting methane by 45 percent this decade would avoid warming of 0.3 degrees Celsius by the 2040s.
Such reductions would also prevent 255,000 premature deaths, 775,000 asthma-related hospital visits, 73 billion hours of lost labor from extreme heat, and 26 million tons of crop losses every year.
“Because methane is a short-lived pollutant, if you reduce methane now, you will see benefits right now, as opposed to carbon dioxide where there are prolonged effects from accumulated carbon dioxide,” said Vaishali Naik, scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and lead author of a chapter on ‘Short-lived Climate Forcers’ in the seminal IPCC report on climate change published late last year. “This makes methane very attractive for addressing climate change and near-term warming, especially.”
Methane is also a particularly potent greenhouse gas, with a warming potential 35 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
No wonder, then, that 117 countries have so far signed on to the Global Methane Pledge, committing to “work together in order to collectively reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions across all sectors by at least 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030.” But despite such bold words, the pledge lacks specifics in terms of how each of the countries plan to meet the targets by 2030.
“The pledge is important but it can be effective only if it includes guidelines and specificity in terms of commitments,” said Collin Rees, Senior Campaigner at Oil Change International.
The vaguely-worded methane pledge stands in contrast to other undertakings like the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA), an international coalition of governments that touts specific actions like members committing to “end new concessions, licensing or leasing rounds and to set a Paris-aligned date for ending oil and gas production.” The U.S. is not a member of BOGA.
The fact that the Biden administration is currently opening up public lands to new oil and gas drilling shows how the methane pledge lacks binding obligations. “The pledge is clearly not as stringent as it needs to be if the U.S. is pouring more money into new oil and gas infrastructure,” said Rees. “So the danger is that the pledge can actually become a distraction.”
Joeri Rogelj, director of research at London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and a lead author of several IPCC reports, has another concern about the methane pledge: Does it go beyond what countries already committed to as part of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement?
As Rogelj noted, “It is unclear how additional the pledged emissions reductions are to overarching, national economy-wide pledges [made under the Paris Agreement].”
“Survival Emissions”
The specifics of reducing methane emissions is also a matter of climate justice. Emissions linked to agriculture and livestock in the developing world are routinely termed “survival emissions,” because they’re intrinsically linked to livelihood in poorer parts of the world, as opposed to the profits of large oil and gas corporations.
“Where and how greenhouse gas emissions are addressed is definitely an issue of equity,” said Naik at NOAA.
Around 80 percent of farmlands in sub-saharan Africa and Asia are managed by smallholder farmers. Methane emissions from such sources therefore stand in contrast to not just methane from the oil and gas sector, but also from industrialized forms of agriculture in developed countries in Europe and in the U.S.
Fossil fuels account for 35 percent of human-derived methane emissions — although researchers have found that oil and gas methane emissions could be understated by as much as 70 percent. Oil and gas operations are responsible for 65 percent of fossil fuel-derived methane, while coal companies produce the rest.
Interestingly, a day after the climate conference in Bonn, the U.S. State Department released a statement acknowledging that “tackling methane emissions in the oil and gas sector is critical to achieving the Global Methane Pledge target.”
Potential Fallout From The Recent Supreme Court Ruling?
The EPA already has some targeted programs designed to address methane emissions, including in the oil and gas sector. In November 2021, however, the EPA went further, proposing a rule to directly regulate methane emissions from existing sources in the oil and gas sector “nationwide for the first time,” and to strengthen existing reduction requirements for methane emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed oil and natural gas sources.
The proposed rule reflects “a clear need for robust federal regulations to ensure that the oil and gas industry moves swiftly towards large-scale reductions in methane emissions from its operations,” noted an internal report by the U.S. House of Representatives committee on Science, Space, and Technology released last month. The report added that the rule could be “an essential pillar of America’s drive to achieve the targets set forth in the Global Methane Pledge.”
And while the Supreme Court’s recent West Virginia v. EPA ruling limited some of the environmental agency’s regulatory powers, Daniel Farber, law professor at the Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment at the University of California, Berkeley, said there’s no reason to believe that the judgment would impact proposed methane rule because it is “a very routine exercise of EPA’s power to impose emission limitations on pollution sources.”
According to Farber, the Supreme Court ruling is intended to curb the EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide from power plants, which is different from regular EPA regulations. “In the court’s view, instead of regulating emissions at individual sources, EPA was asserting authority to control what energy sources would be used on the U.S. electricity grid,” said Farber. “The methane regulations, on the other hand, are much closer to business as usual for EPA.”
A spokesperson for the EPA declined to weigh in on whether the proposed rule would be impacted by the West Virginia ruling. They noted, however, that the agency is also working on a supplemental proposal on the matter. “The supplemental proposal is an important step in developing a final rule, which we expect to finalize within the next year,” they explained.
Addressing oil and gas-related methane emissions is also an environmental justice issue within the U.S. A recent study published in Nature found that more racially diverse neighborhoods had twice the number of oil and gas wells as those that were mostly white. “Addressing methane leaks does nothing for communities who are suffering from oil and gas extraction and pipelines bursting in their backyards,” said Rees at Oil Change International.
The EPA agrees. According to the agency spokesperson, the draft oil and gas methane emissions rule “is a crucial step in fighting climate change and protecting public health in areas of oil and gas development, especially in communities located near oil and gas facilities and that all too often suffer disproportionately from pollution and poor air quality.”
@Walter Hinteler,
Germany's climate action is got as an overall rating "insufficient" - the USA not doing better (see:
Climate Action Tracker).
Analysis in the WP:
The U.S. plan to avoid extreme climate change is running out of time
Climate change is melting Himalayan glaciers on which hundreds of million people rely, flooding villages and leaving residents without drinking water.
Melting glaciers: 'One day we will leave here'
@hightor,
So?
Predictions vs actual weather balloon observations.
Also, check the variance. The scale is extremely small, a difference at most of about 7 degrees.
@bulmabriefs144,
If you are interested in understanding about what is happening in the climate system, you have to compare models and observations appropriately.
However, if you are only interested in scoring points or political grandstanding then, of course, you can do what you like.
But since you famously don't read beyond headline, any response to your posts is in vain.
@bulmabriefs144,
The predictions were right and we are literally feelinn
Feeling the heat. I hope your AC breaks down so you realize what an idiot you have been to ddny the science.
Erosion and tidal surges are threatening fishing communities in West Africa. As a result, many people are fleeing inland — losing their livelihoods. The sea has already encroached two meters into the country's interior.
Climate change 'drowning' West African coastline
@Walter Hinteler,
When you only compare "approved" models, all you have is doctored data.
It's a wonder that you can make any appropriate decisions when all you have is doctored results and propaganda.
Here's the truth: Back in 1925, nearly 100 years ago, Tom in the
Great Gatsby observed that the summers were getting hotter. He thought that any day now, we'd fly into the sun. We haven't. He quickly remembers that the winters are also kinda cold.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-years-of-predictions-that-the-climate-apocalypse-is-nigh/
Aside from that book, at least 50 years of climate change have been predicted. All wrong.
This article mentions that in 41 predictions about climate not one of them have been right. Then they update to 53 predictions. Faulty models, faulty predictions, faulty logic.
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-climate-experts-are-0-41-with-their-doomsday-predictions/
Why do they keep making prediction if thet know they aren't true? Well they don't, and they base their predictions on something older than climate change.
Christian Apocalyptic ideas. Rather than cutting ties with Christianity properly, much of atheism kinda just steals its ideas concerning morality and such.
So let's review how right Christianity has been about the Second Coming.
Not at all.
2000 years and no apocalypse.
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/7-clues-tell-us-precisely-when-jesus-died-the-year-month-day-and-hour-revealed
If there is going to be an apocalypse, it would happen:
Friday April 3, 2033 at 3pm, exactly 2000 years from when Jesus died.
But that's crap. The Gospels tell us that Jesus already came again when he rose from the dead. The Revelation is a book that more or less contradicts the Gospel. Christians should reject it, as it has many false teachings.
Likewise, atheists, if they reject Christian ideas, should definitely reject end times crap as a matter of principle.
Yes, Christians can also look at any random sign and say, "We are right, the apocalypse is coming and we are feeling it." But much of the heat is from trees cut down to search for rare earth minerals to build your damned electric cars. When the trees grow back, they will absorb this extra heat, along with the carbon we supposedly have too much of, and turn CO2 into air.
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:It's a wonder that you can make any appropriate decisions when all you have is doctored results and propaganda.
So according to your experience and examination what happens in Africa as described above is doctored and propaganda?
Rightwing outlets are increasingly covering complaints about extreme heat as a culture war issue.
‘Super scorchio!’: heat brings out new face of climate denial in UK press
@Walter Hinteler,
Look at this map that you yourself posted.
It has alot of red to it, right? But except for a sliver in northern Africa, this "anomaly" is about 1 or 2 degrees more than normal. And parts of Africa are actually below normal.
Here's the truth about what happens in Africa. They are screwed over by the actions of NGOs and world governments and their own leadership. Alot of people in Africa struggle with food and other needs, while their leaders tend to siphon money from charities. Literally **** your bullshit about the climate. There are actual needy people in Africa. Who the **** cares about 2 degrees Celsius? Each degree is 9/5 (after 32 degrees), so this is about 3.8 degree F difference.
I care that in America, there are significantly more homeless than normal (thanks Biden!) who in turn are subjected to these higher than normal temperatures and subject to heat stroke. I do not care about your alarmism. I care about reality, and the reality is that there are people suffering throughout the world.
No, genius. There are plenty of greater challenges. War, poverty, disease, economic divide. Immigration, sex trafficking, slavery, unemployment, caste systems. These are real problems. Problems this dumbass ignored to instead focus on the white whale (dude, read more novels if you don't understand the reference).
@bulmabriefs144,
You don;t know what you're talking about. Global average temp doesn't mean a day might be 98 degrees rather than 97. The average global remp in rhe depths of the last ice age, 100,000 years ago was about 6 degrees C colder than today, that's all, but chicageoowas under a mile of ice. Today we're going in the other direction, which meanssnow is less and melts sooner so rivers are lower and he nowmeolat comes at the wrong time for our crops, and droughts are getting worse.. hundreds of thousand years old ice caps are melting, sea level is risingm and stroms are gtting worse because of the energy trapped by co2 increase in the atmosphere. the entire historyl of civilization is imm the climatic optimum since the last ice age, and we're destroying those optimum conditions. Learn a ittle about the science, and what it actually shows us. Obama's right. Notice he says "futue generations", not "today", we're ******* up those who'lll b her in 2050, or the end of the century, wehn it really hits, not the early harbingers we're getting now.
@Walter Hinteler,
It's a reference to the Fast Show.
That was a sketch show very popular in the 1990s, which now has a place in the British popular imagination.
One item was a tv show from some fictional South American country and the presenters spoke cod Spanish.
It was always hot, so the weather girl would say "Scorchio," every time she put a little sun on the weather map.
Scorchio was the only weather that country had.
@MontereyJack,
You might as well be talking to a petri dish teeming with bacteria. Now that the unheeded climate warnings of the '80s and before are starting to become apparent across the planet, the die hard deniers like the bulimic bulmabriefs will spew out increasingly irrational explanations and excuses for their ridiculous but unchangeable opinions. Even the
U.S. military recognizes the implications of what should be referred as "collective climate suicide".
