Will the environmental cost of semiconductor production be offset by their contribution to the long-term green transition? Semiconductors facilitate the transition toward a decarbonised economy. Yet, the chip industry must build sustainability into its manufacturing processes to align with a net zero future.

—

Semiconductors are the basic building blocks of modern computing. They are vital components of all electronic systems, from smartphones to cars. But the environmental cost of manufacturing them is becoming increasingly problematic. Energy demand is rising as chip design grows more intricate, with the manufacturing of advanced 3nm chips (N3) predicted to consume up to 7.7 billion kilowatt-hours annually. 

Paradoxically, semiconductors also facilitate the transition toward a green economy. Decarbonisation efforts will increase the usage of renewable energy and electric vehicles around the world, driving demand for chips. The number of power semiconductors used in the global renewable energy market is expected to grow with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8% to 10% from now to 2027. 

Vital Components of the Green Transition

While their manufacturing process can adversely impact the environment, semiconductors play a fundamental role in the development of green technologies. They harness, convert, transfer and store renewable energy as electricity and subsequently move it onto the electric grid with minimal loss of power. Semiconductors also enable responsive and efficient use of electricity through IoT technology, ensuring supply is matched to demand and current is well-distributed. Both solar panel systems and wind turbines are highly dependent on semiconductor technology. 

Semiconductors are also necessary for producing electric vehicles (EVs) and charging stations. On average, electric cars have about 2,000 chips, roughly double the number of chips in a non-electric car. As the nervous system of electronic materials, chips drive innovation in the automobile industry. They allow vehicles to become smarter and safer by controlling every feature from breaks to parking cameras. EVs have become a significant growth sector for the semiconductor industry. In 2020, the global stock of electric cars reached 10 million vehicles, a 43% increase over 2019. The boost in consumer demand for EVs has been driven by several factors, including government incentives, regulatory policies, and improvements in semiconductor design which have increased battery life and lowered the cost of vehicles. 

You might also like: Why Electric Cars Are Better for the Environment

Renewable power generation costs have also decreased significantly over the past decade. A report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) shows that 62% of total renewable power generation added in 2020 had lower costs than the cheapest new fossil fuel option. Such achievement was due in part to the steady improvement of energy-saving technologies empowered by semiconductors devices.

Resource-hungry Production

Despite its fundamental role in the development of the clean energy economy, semiconductor production comes with a significant environmental cost. The semiconductors industry is resource-intensive, using copious energy and water to manufacture its chips. A significant proportion of the energy utilised comes from fossil fuels such as coal and gas. A 2020 research paper based on publicly available corporate sustainability reports attempted to quantify the carbon footprint of computer systems. These researchers concluded that chip manufacturing currently accounts for most of the carbon produced when making electronic devices. Data from Bloomberg show that pollution by chip producers is overtaking that by automakers as a result of their dramatic power consumption. 

Reducing emissions through clean energy usage and energy conservation projects is imperative to make the industry more sustainable. 90% of the manufacturing capacity for the world’s most advanced semiconductors is located in Taiwan. The world’s largest chipmaker – Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) – uses 6% of the island’s total power. This figure is expected to exceed 7% in 2022, making TSMC Taiwan’s largest energy consumer. The company produced approximately 15 million tons of carbon in 2020, followed by industry competitors Samsung and Intel with 13 million and 3 million tons, respectively. 

During chip production, water is utilised to rinse and clean silicon wafers, removing debris from the manufacturing process. This operation requires ultrapure water (UPW) which is thousands of times purer than drinking water. It takes roughly 1,400 to 1,600 litres of municipal water to make 1,000 litres of UPW. In 2020, TSMC used more than 193,000 tons of water per day. This amounts to about 70 billion liters of water in one year alone. Overall, the semiconductor industry consumes approximately 10% of Taiwan’s water. As climate litres intensifies, abnormal climate patterns are exposing Taiwan to severe water constraints, exacerbating the environmental pressure semiconductor firms place on the island. Between 2020 and 2021, Taiwan experienced its worst drought in over 50 years.

You might also like: The Taiwan Water Shortage Dilemma

Water access is a key element of semiconductor manufacturing globally. Droughts are expected to increase, and water scarcity will pose a greater threat to the industry.  At the current consumption rate, WWF estimates that two-thirds of the world’s population may face water shortages by 2025. Water conservation and recycling have become necessary to avoid any interruptions to production. In response, Intel treats and returns some 80% of the water it uses through internal water management practices. In 2021, 13 billion gallons of water flowed out of Intel and back to surrounding communities. To further minimise its impact on the environment, Intel pledged to restore and return more freshwater than it takes on. The company’s goal is to achieve a net positive global water contribution by 2030. This target has already been reached in the United States, Costa Rica, and India, where Intel’s operations are already net positive for water use. 

As calls for ethical investing become louder, companies are under increasing scrutiny over their contribution to climate change. Therefore, the semiconductor industry is taking tangible steps toward more sustainable operations. For instance, in 2020 TSMC committed to relying fully on renewable energy by the end of 2050. The company signed the world’s largest renewable corporate power deal that same year, buying up the full output of a 920–megawatt offshore wind farm to be built in the Taiwan Strait. The project is scheduled to be finalised between 2025 and 2026. 

More recently, TSMC announced that up to 2% of its annual revenue will go to green initiatives as part of its journey toward net zero. Rival firm Intel pledged to achieve net zero GHG emissions in its global operations by 2040. However, according to Intel’s chief sustainability officer, the company must address its use of polluting chemicals in order to make significant progress in cutting emissions. Perfluorocarbons, potent greenhouse gases, were Intel’s primary source of direct emissions in 2020. Transitioning to alternative, less toxic chemicals will be a lengthy process, yet one that is necessary to produce chips in a more environmentally responsible way. 

Global Semiconductor Competition 

The semiconductor industry is heavily subsidised by governments around the world, the same ones that have recently strengthened their commitments to climate action. The United States recently passed the CHIPS Act of 2022, which drew bipartisan support. This historic piece of legislation allocates US$53 billion to support chip manufacturing and bolster US competitiveness. Meanwhile, the EU will mobilise more than Є43 billion of public and private investments to address semiconductor shortages and strengthen Europe’s technological leadership. Nevertheless, Asia remains the dominant player in semiconductor manufacturing. 

Taiwan’s semiconductor industry is worth an incredible US$147 billion, equivalent to 15% of the country’s GDP. Taiwan offers incentives to attract overseas talent and suppliers of materials and equipment needed to manufacture chips. Its government also encourages domestic companies to develop technologies vital to supporting the growth of the island’s semiconductor industry. Similarly, Mainland China is aiming to achieve technology independence as its own technology sector relies predominately on foreign chips. The Chinese government has rooted its indigenisation strategy in large manufacturing and R&D subsidies. Digital sovereignty comes with substantial environmental and energy costs. Industrial policies aimed at increasing the share of domestic semiconductor production, may not be compatible with the green agenda, at least not in the short term.

You might also like: What Would A Potential Conflict Between China And Taiwan Mean for Global Decarbonisation?

For over a decade, semiconductor companies have been trying to mitigate the environmental impact of their business operations. Sustainability has now become an increasingly important factor within the industry. As global demand for semiconductors continues to surge, a smaller carbon footprint must become a key priority among manufacturers that are working to increase capacity. The manufacturing chain for semiconductors is remarkably complex and relies on hundreds of different inputs. Therefore, reducing GHG emissions across the value chain requires significant collaboration. A cohesive and collaborative approach must also include efforts from end-users and regulators who should advocate for a fundamental change in the industry. To achieve this, we may consider making government funding contingent upon the ability to meet surging demand sustainably.  

You might also like: Cobalt Mining: The Dark Side of the Renewable Energy Transition

The post The Role of Semiconductors in the Renewable Energy Transition appeared first on Earth.Org.

Amidst mounting global concerns over climate change, the upcoming COP28 summit in Dubai emerges as a pivotal battleground for the world’s environmental future. With controversies swirling and urgent calls for action echoing across the globe, the conference’s agenda promises high-stakes negotiations and critical decisions that could shape the trajectory of international climate policy. From contentious leadership appointments to delayed climate funding, the stage is set for a showdown between divergent interests, underscoring the pressing need for equitable climate action and sustainable finance solutions.

—

Navigating Global Climate Action: The High-Stakes Dynamics of COP28 in Dubai

The United Nations Conference of the Parties, more commonly referred to as COP, is a crucial annual meeting where all states that are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) convene to review national strategies and emission inventories and assesses the progress of Parties in meeting the Convention’s objective to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, with the COP Presidency and session venues rotating among UN regions. This year, the conference will take place in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), one of the world’s largest oil producers and a major OPEC exporter.

You might also like: Explainer: What Is the Kyoto Protocol?

Environmental activists are approaching COP28 with a sense of cautious anticipation. In the lead-up to the imminent conference, set to begin on November 30, controversies have already encircled the event, highlighting the challenges and tensions surrounding the effective implementation of climate policies and initiatives at the global level.

COP28 President’s Dual Roles Stir Controversy

The appointment of Sultan al-Jaber as the president of COP28 has sparked significant criticism and concerns over potential conflicts of interest. Al-Jaber is the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), the largest national drilling company in the Middle East by rig fleet size. The company plans to allocate a substantial $150 billion investment over the next five years, primarily focused on expanding its output. ADNOC currently produces 2.7 million barrels of oil daily but aims to increase this to five million barrels by 2027. 

In addition to leading ADNOC, Al-Jaber is also the founder of Masdar, a clean energy firm that has allocated billions of dollars to zero-emissions energy technologies in over 40 nations. Masdar has concentrated its investments in solar and wind power projects, resulting in a combined capacity of 15 gigawatts, enough to offset over 19 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually. The company has set ambitious targets to expand its capacity to 100 gigawatts by 2030, with further plans to double this capacity in the future.

Amid resurgent global fossil fuel investment, Al-Jaber advocates for increased participation of fossil fuel companies in climate discussions and attributes the lack of progress in past climate summits to the contentious relationship between climate advocates and the fossil fuel industry. While some support his approach, many climate advocates and lawmakers criticise it, citing the fossil fuel industry’s historical resistance to climate action. In May 2023, a group of 133 US Senators and European Union lawmakers issued a joint statement to demand his replacement. 

Emission Reduction Challenges

The COP28 presidency, along with two prominent renewable energy organisations, is urging governments to significantly amplify their efforts in the renewable energy sector. 

According to a joint report published in October 2023 by the UAE presidency, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and the Global Renewables Alliance, the goal is to triple global renewable energy capacity, aiming to surpass 11,000 GW by 2030. Although many major economies, including the Group of 20 (G20), have already committed to pursuing this goal, some, notably the EU and countries highly susceptible to the impacts of climate change, assert that an emphasis on clean energy expansion alone is insufficient without firm commitments to phase out fossil fuels.

A recent UN report underscores governments’ failure to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the critical need to phase out all unabated fossil fuels. With a rapidly closing window to limit temperature rises to 1.5C, the report highlights a significant gap between necessary emissions cuts and the current trajectory. 

“The problem is not simply fossil fuel emissions. It’s fossil fuels – period,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in June, adding that they are “incompatible with human survival.”

Guterres also attacked carbon capture technology, defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as “anthropogenic activities that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it durably in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products.” He said that any attempt to justify the fossil fuel expansion with carbon capture and storage technologies only makes companies “more efficient planet wreckers.”

The only feasible solution, he argues, is to phase out fossil fuels completely and instead reinvest the industry’s massive profits in renewables and the green economy.

Despite previous promises to curb carbon emissions and support vulnerable nations, recent high-profile commitments have not materialised. This sluggish progress puts the planet on track to surpass critical temperature thresholds, resulting in intensified climate disasters. According to the aforementioned UN report, even with the fulfilment of current pledges, the Earth is still headed toward a perilous 2.4C temperature rise by the end of the century, significantly surpassing the 1.5C limit set by the Paris Agreement.

You might also like: ‘Staggering’ Clean Energy Growth Is Keeping Path to Limit Global Warming to 1.5C Open, IEA Chief Says

Countries’ Positions at COP28

Last month, the EU solidified its stance ahead of the UN’s COP28 climate conference. The bloc seeks an unprecedented global agreement to phase out unabated fossil fuel consumption, positioning itself as a vanguard in the fight against climate change. Nevertheless, there exists a divergence of opinions among EU Member States, with some nations advocating for a phase-out of all fossil fuels while others – including Italy – propose using carbon capture technology to mitigate emissions.

In their most recent meeting in New Delhi, G20 leaders – including the European Union – failed to address some of the most critical aspects of slowing down climate change, including setting a timeline to phase out planet-warming fossil fuels.

The 27-bloc also emphasises the necessity of discontinuing ineffective fossil fuel subsidies – which last year reached a total of US$7 trillion globally – and ceasing the construction of new coal-powered plants. While this standpoint has garnered support, it has also faced opposition, illustrating the ongoing global tension between nations apprehensive about the economic repercussions of reducing fossil fuel usage and those fervently championing urgent climate action.

Despite their professed good intentions and pledges, wealthy nations continue to steer in the opposite direction by providing substantial support to the fossil fuel industry. According to a recent report, G20 countries’ investments in the fossil fuel industry reached a record US$1.4 trillion last year, more than double the pre-pandemic and pre-energy crisis levels of 2019, a new report has found. Approximately three-quarters of all subsidies to the energy sector went to coal, oil, and gas. About $1 trillion worth of subsidies were aimed at consumers in a bid to protect them against the 2022 energy price crisis brought about by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which the authors blame for “catapult[ing] public financial support for fossil fuels to new levels.”

Calls for Equitable Climate Finance Amidst Delayed Funding

Developing nations continue facing the stark reality of delayed climate funding from major economies like the United States and China. Climate-fueled disasters are on the rise, with a recent UN report emphasising the urgent need for increased financing to combat global warming. Despite pledges made at the Copenhagen climate talks, many funding initiatives have encountered delays and uncertainty. 

Several points remain to be settled in Dubai, including the still-unmet $100 billion pledge made by rich nations in 2009, which was supposed to be delivered by 2020, as well as the Loss and Damage Fund, a historic deal reached at last year’s UN climate summit, COP27. 

The Loss and Damage Fund is designed to provide financial assistance to countries most affected by the adverse impacts of climate change. Given the disproportionate contributions of G20 nations to global greenhouse gas emissions, the fund intends to address the injustices faced by developing nations, which are often the most vulnerable to climate change effects despite contributing the least to the crisis.  Innovative financial instruments, including windfall taxes, debt swaps, international taxes, and dedicated finance facilities, are being considered. 

Disagreements between nations over managing the loss and damage fund have stalled its establishment, potentially disrupting the COP28 summit in Dubai. A transitional committee was established to facilitate the operationalization of the fund. However, disagreements arose, particularly concerning the fund’s administration by the World Bank. Developing nations push for an autonomous fund or one under a U.N. agency, highlighting the persistent divisions between nations, citing the lack of climate culture” within the institution. Other challenges include determining which countries can access the fund and where the money will come from, with concerns about eligibility criteria and access for middle-income countries. 

The UN Climate Fund, a key avenue for climate-friendly projects in developing countries, has also faced setbacks in securing replenishments, with the US withholding new commitments. Criticisms are mounting as international development banks struggle to spur investment from the private sector. The looming COP28 conference in Dubai is expected to address these funding challenges amidst growing frustrations among developing nations.

The unequal distribution of resources and contributions to climate change has created an unjust scenario where vulnerable countries, often with limited means, bear the brunt of climate fallout, despite their minimal historical contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. 

International climate finance serves as a critical tool for fostering climate justice, reflecting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. By committing to the provision of climate finance, wealthier nations can demonstrate their accountability for the global crisis and their commitment to rectifying it. This finance aids in enabling climate-resilient infrastructure, facilitating adaptation measures, and supporting sustainable development initiatives in the most vulnerable regions. 

Final Thoughts

The controversies surrounding the upcoming COP28 conference in Dubai have cast a spotlight on the complex dynamics of global climate action and the challenges faced in achieving meaningful progress. Amidst concerns over potential conflicts of interest with the COP28 presidency, the urgent need to ramp up renewable energy efforts and phase out fossil fuels has become increasingly apparent, underscoring the delicate balance between competing priorities in the fight against climate change. These challenges are further compounded by the delayed climate funding and financing struggles experienced by developing nations, amplifying the need for equitable distribution of resources and a shared commitment to climate justice on the global stage.

Featured image: Flickr/COP28 UAE

You might also like: Climate Finance: Are Rich Nations Doing Enough?

The post What Can We Expect From COP28, And What Must Happen? appeared first on Earth.Org.

There’s an undeniable demand for transformative solutions in the shipping sector. Shipping is a major emitter of greenhouse gases due to its reliance on cheap heavy fuel, making the industry’s cleanup efforts challenging. Under pressure from investors and the environmental community, the shipping industry is exploring new technologies to drive sustainability and reduce its impact on the planet such as wind-powered cargo ships. Advanced wind-propulsion systems that can be retrofitted onto existing ships hold the potential to provide substantial energy and fuel-saving benefits, but are they really the future of the shipping industry?

—

Responsible for 90% of global trade, the shipping industry faces environmental challenges, with container ships emitting around one billion metric tons of CO2 annually and constituting approximately 3% of the world’s anthropogenic emissions. Nevertheless, governments and international bodies have failed to effectively regulate the sector, which continues to contribute to climate and air pollution, oil spills, plastic pollution, wildlife collisions, and more. 

In July, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) published a new agreement – known as the ‘2023 IMO Strategy on the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships’ – in which the shipping industry committed to achieving net-zero emissions “by or around” 2050. The new agreement also includes interim targets: a minimum 20% emission reduction by 2030 and a 70% reduction by 2040, based on 2008 levels. While some industry representatives and certain Pacific Island nations welcomed the new climate strategy, environmental groups have criticised it for lacking ambition. They argue that the IMO missed an opportunity to set more aggressive targets to urgently address the need for substantial emissions reductions to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

You might also like: MEPC 80: International Shipping Regulator Fails to Align with 1.5C Paris Agreement Temperature Goal

The World’s First Wind-Powered Cargo Ships 

Under pressure from investors and the environmental community, the shipping industry is exploring new technologies to drive sustainability and reduce its impact on the planet. 

Cargill, the world’s largest agricultural shipping firm, is researching ways to cut emissions and energy usage within the industry with wind-propulsion technology. Last month, Cargill charted Pyxis Ocean, a dry bulk ship from the Mitsubishi Corporation fitted with WindWings sails developed by BAR Technologies and produced by Yara Marine. The WindWings sails are 37.5 metres (123 feet) tall and are made from steel and glass composite, durable wind turbine material. They harness the wind’s power to assist the ship’s propulsion, potentially reducing its lifetime emissions by 30%. They were installed on the five-year old bulk carrier at the COSCO shipyard in Shanghai. WindWings can be folded down on the deck before the ship reaches a port or passes beneath a bridge to prevent any collisions.

The Pyxis Ocean’s maiden voyage from China to Brazil presents the initial practical trial for the WindWings system. The journey will take around six weeks to complete, with Cargill closely monitoring the ship’s performance for potential improvements. 

On an average global route, Cargill expects to save approximately one-and-a-half tonnes of fuel per day, and with four wings installed on a vessel, this amounts to a remarkable six tonnes of fuel saved daily, resulting in a substantial reduction of 20 tonnes of CO2 emissions daily. In addition to reducing ship emissions and helping save on fuel costs, the new wings will assist vessel owners in meeting energy efficiency regulations. 

The project, co-funded by the European Union and is at the centre of the CHEK Horizon 2020 initiative and coordinated by the University of Vaasa in Finland, is at the forefront of advancing zero-emission shipping through an innovative vessel design platform. This platform will serve as a foundation for creating and showcasing two distinct ship designs: one optimised for wind energy in bulk cargo transportation and another powered by hydrogen for cruise purposes. 

Both designs employ a collaborative blend of technologies to achieve a remarkable 99% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions while also conserving a minimum of 50% energy. The primary focus is enhancing the synergy among these technologies as they operate together for the first time. Ultimately, CHEK aims to investigate how this approach could potentially impact the overall greenhouse gas emissions of the global shipping fleet.

Oceanbird is a concept for wind-powered cargo vessels under development by Wallenius Marine. The concept aims to lower emissions by up to 90%. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Are Wind-Powered Cargo Ships the Future of the Shipping Industry? 

The challenges associated with WindWings technology primarily revolve around the uncertainty and risks involved in its adoption. These issues include concerns about the economic viability of the technology, as there are no guarantees of cost-effectiveness. While wind power offers several advantages, it alone may not be sufficient to achieve a green transformation in the shipping industry. The technology is currently adopted by a limited number of commercial cargo ships, and for a more substantial impact, it needs to gain acceptance among major industry players. Furthermore, wind power, while promising, is just one piece of the puzzle, and complementary solutions are essential to drive meaningful change in reducing fossil fuel use and emissions in the industry.

Featured image: Wikimedia Commons.

You might also like: Decarbonising European Shipping: Unpacking the New EU Maritime Regulation

The post Navigating Towards Sustainability: Wind-Powered Cargo Ships and the Future of the Shipping Industry appeared first on Earth.Org.

Once systematically exterminated by US government-backed programmes, the grey wolf has received a second lease on life. Hunting laws still threaten the wolf’s survival in some states. In an exclusive interview with Earth.Org, Zee Soffron, Facility and Program Director of Wolf Hollow – a non-profit wolf sanctuary in Massachusetts, explains the ineffectiveness of lethal methods and how to achieve peaceful coexistence.  

—

Wolves are a species indigenous to North America. They have lived in the region since the Pleistocene and are believed to have crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia. Before the arrival of Europeans in New England, North American indigenous peoples lived in harmony with wolves; some had even built a relationship with them. To this day, American Indian tribes fight to protect and preserve wolves through advocacy and restoration efforts. 

As European settled in the continent in the 17th century, bringing livestock and horses for transportation, they made their first encounters with wolves, a docile animal that otherwise would have probably avoided contact with humans. Naturally, wolves began to hunt cattle and sheep brought from across the Atlantic. Farmers and landowners then resorted to baiting and trapping to protect their livelihoods, kickstarting a century-long extermination campaign. 

Massachusetts was the first place in the so-called New World to institute official wolf-hunting programmes. In 1630, the Puritan settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony offered a bounty for dead wolves: exactly one schilling per wolf killed. Ten years later, the reward increased to forty schillings, a sizeable amount for that period. The intention was to encourage settlers to kill as many wolves as possible, and by 1840, the grey wolf was officially extinct in the state. There were between 250,000 and two million wolves in the contiguous United States upon European settlement. By the early 1900s, the grey wolf had almost entirely disappeared from the lower 48 states. 

You might also like: Rewilding North America and the West

Legal Protection of the Grey Wolf: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

The signing of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 into law represented a turning point for the fate of the grey wolf in North America. The Act facilitated the recovery and conservation of endangered and threatened species populations, minimizing the damage that federal and private actors can do to these species and their habitats. By 1978, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had finally listed the grey wolf as endangered throughout the contiguous states, except in Minnesota, where it was listed as threatened. After receiving federal protections, the population of grey wolves saw a tremendous recovery in the Western Great Lakes region. 

There are currently no wolves in the Northeast of the United States. Some singular sightings have been registered; however, it is uncertain whether these wolves are establishing new territories or simply passing through. Alaska is home to approximately 8,000 to 11,000 grey wolves, while only 5,500 can be found in the 48 contiguous states. Grey wolves inhabit the Western Great Lakes states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, as well as the Northern Rockies states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. In the last couple of years, more wolves have also been spotted in Eastern Washington, Oregon, Northern California, and Colorado.

After 45 years, the Trump administration removed the grey wolf’s endangered species protections, except for a small population of Mexican grey wolves in Arizona and New Mexico. The Endangered Species Act serves two functions: preventing extinction and helping dwindling populations recover so that the law’s protections are no longer needed. 

According to David Bernhardt, former US Secretary of the Interior, the wolf species had at that time “exceeded all conservation goals for recovery.” Biologists and conservationists condemned the Trump administration’s short-sighted decision, clarifying that wolves are still functionally extinct throughout the vast majority of their historic habitat. 

In 2022, a decision from US district judge Jeffrey White in Oakland, California, restored federal protections for grey wolves across much of the country. Yet, wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and portions of several adjacent states remained under state jurisdiction. Wolf hunting is currently legal in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska, the last being the only state where the animal is not endangered. Wisconsin lost 14% of its wolf population in 2021, following nearly three days of slaughter. Wolf hunting season was supposed to last two weeks, during which 125 wolves were allotted to be harvested. Yet a total of 218 wolves died in just 60 hours. As of today, like most of the United States, citizens of Wisconsin can no longer participate in a wolf harvest season. 

Misplaced Blame

“Wolves continue to be a very divisive animal,” explains Zee Soffron, Facility and Program Director of Wolf Hollow, a non-profit wolf sanctuary and educational facility in Ipswich, Massachusetts. Wolves are politicised and “attitudes towards them will break right down along party affiliation,” he continues. 

According to Soffron, there is an urban-rural cultural divide over wolves and their protection; while urban voters are keen on protecting wolves, rural voters are more concerned about their livelihood being threatened by these predators. 

“The ranching industry remains a big driver for wolf conflict,” explains Soffron. However, as government data shows, wolves have a negligible effect on the US cattle and sheep industries. Figures from 2015 show that 280,570 cattle were killed by predators in the United States, representing a mere 0.3% of the country’s cattle inventory. Wolves were only responsible for 0.009% of those deaths. 

Instead, as reports from the US Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA) demonstrate, the primary causes of cattle and sheep losses were health problems, weather, theft, and other maladies. 

Nevertheless, the lethal management of wolves continues to be a common practice in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. “There are different quotas based on tactics and methods,” explains Soffron. 

In Montana, a person can kill up to 20 wolves annually with no more than ten via hunting and no more than ten via trapping. This season, the state will allow for the killing of 456 wolves, representing 40% of the total population. 

According to Soffron, trapping is an especially cruel and inhumane activity. “It is a brutal way to go. Animals hurt themselves more trying to get out of the trap, even going to the length of chewing up their own leg,” 

In addition to being an inhumane practice, it is neither particularly effective nor well-targeted. “70% of those traps are catching unintended targets,” he explains. “Pet dogs that wandered off trail often get caught. But owls and bald eagles have also been spotted flying around with traps attached to them.” All wildlife are possible victims of indiscriminate traps.

Recounting events from 2017, Soffron argues that lethal methods are counterproductive in protecting livestock from wolves. In eastern Washington, there was a wolf pack called the Profanity Peak wolf pack. Researchers told the local ranching community to keep their animals away from their area as wolves had puppies to feed. “Those alarms were ignored,” says Soffron. Some cattle encroached upon that area, driving away deer and natural prey the wolves would have been hunting. Eventually, wolves from the Profanity Peak pack killed some cattle, which turned into a hunting campaign. “The state of Washington spent over $135,000 over a few months to eradicate the entire pack, including 5 months of puppies, over a few cows,” Soffron recalls. Within a year or two, more wolves moved into that area as the environmental conditions had not changed and could still provide a good habitat for them. 

When asked about the most efficient way to keep wolves from killing livestock, without hesitation, Soffron suggests good husbandry. Local governments should focus on helping ranchers and wolves coexist in the same territory, avoiding conflict and the lethal backlash that follows. Wolves are shy animals, easily scared. The use of non-lethal deterrents is an effective strategy to keep wolves off one’s property. Non-lethal methods include guard dogs, sound systems, electric fencing, spotlights, and fladry – a centuries-old, simple tool that consists of a perimeter of brightly colored flags.

The relationship between humans and wolves is influenced by deeply rooted, implicit beliefs that often clash with biologically based knowledge. Thankfully, public perceptions of wolves are starting to change. 

At Wolf Hollow, Soffron asks visitors whether they believe wolves are dangerous. “30 years ago, 90% of people would respond that wolves are dangerous. Today it is closer to 10%.”

This societal change is sparked by organisations like this one that put a lot of effort into safeguarding wolves and their survival but also educating the public about this fascinating creature. 

____

Wolf Hollow is a 501(c)3 non-profit. With only one full-time employee, the facility is staffed primarily by volunteers and supported solely by donations, adoptions, and proceeds from admission and gift shop sales. Wolf Hollow was founded by Paul C. Soffron in 1988. Feeling like the underdog of his family, he identified with wolves, an underappreciated and misunderstood animal. Following a near-death experience in his forties, he began contemplating his legacy, and the safeguarding of wolves became his life purpose. Inspired and supported by Wolf Park in Indiana, Wolf Hollow received its first wolf in 1990 and officially opened to the public. To this day, Paul’s original mission, “to preserve the wolf in the wild, through education and exposure,” remains the cornerstone of Wolf Hollow’s work. 

For information on Wolf Hollow. visit www.wolfhollowipswich.org or email them at info@wolfhollowipswich.org.

You might also like: The Fall and Rise of the American Grey Wolf

The post Coexistence and Conflict with North America’s Grey Wolf appeared first on Earth.Org.

China is at the forefront of the EV revolution and the world must catch up. Desires for improved air pollution, energy independence, and global leadership in strategic clean-tech industries are the main drivers of China’s electric vehicle market development. 

—

The Electric Vehicle Market in China

China is the largest electric vehicle market in the world, accounting for 53 percent of global sales in 2021. Last year, sales volume nearly tripled, reaching a total of 3.3 million. In comparison, sales in Europe grew 65% to 2.3 million while they more than doubled in the US, reaching 630,000. According to the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA), EV sales may reach 6 million units in 2022, and 500,000 of these will be commercial vehicles.  

The International Energy Agency (IEA) explains that China was able to better reduce the price gap with traditional cars by producing smaller vehicles and enjoying lower manufacturing costs. On average, the price of an EV in China is only 10% more than that of traditional cars, significantly lower when compared to the 45-50% average increase in other electric vehicle markets. 

China’s most popular electric car in 2021 was the Wuling Hongguang Mini. This tiny, four-passenger EV was developed by General Motors’s joint venture with Wuling Motors and state-owned SAIC Motor. Its price starts at around RMB28,800 (US$4,500), making EVs truly budget-friendly.

From a consumer perspective, EVs are more convenient than traditional vehicles for several reasons. For instance, they are more energy-efficient and have a lower maintenance cost than a traditional internal combustion car. Moreover, governments around the world have been offering incentives to boost adoption rates. In China, generous government subsidies were first introduced in 2009 and were originally due to be phased out next year. However, in 2020, Beijing extended the EV subsidy scheme for two more years to spur demand in the wake of the COVID pandemic. Today, China is considering an additional 2023 extension although details are yet to be confirmed. 

It also appears that the Chinese government may be considering extending tax exemptions on EV purchases, costing the government about RMB200 billion (US$30 billion). Concurrently, to compensate for the phase-out of national subsidies, the government established an EV credit system that requires a certain percentage of all vehicles sold by a manufacturer each year to be battery-powered. To avoid financial penalties, manufacturers must secure a stipulated number of credits every year. The requirements to earn credits get more rigorous over time, contributing to China’s goal of having EVs make up 40 percent of all car sales by 2030. 

Many Chinese provincial and local governments have implemented policies to stimulate the development of the domestic EV market. In 2017, China introduced green energy license plates for alternative vehicles nationwide, which are not subject to the license rationing system and can be obtained more quickly and at a significantly lower cost. For conventional vehicle owners, obtaining a license plate in China’s tier one cities is incredibly arduous. Beijing has implemented a license-plate lottery to tackle congestion and asphyxiating pollution; in 2018, the odds of winning the bi-monthly draw were as low as 1 in 2,031. Unlike the Chinese capital, Shanghai uses an auction-style system in which people bid for plates. However, the city provides free green license plates to new EV owners. Having an electric car can also save the Chinese up to US$12,000. This preferential policy began in 2014 and is expected to continue until 2023. 

What Has Prompted the Chinese Government’s Vigorous Support for Electric Vehicles?

Firstly, EVs provide a cleaner means of personal transportation and support China’s comprehensive government agenda to tackle greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions. Vehicle emissions driven by fossil fuel use are a major contributor to air pollution in China, one of its main environmental concerns since the late 1990s. 

A 2013 study shows that in 2013, exposure to fine particulate matter pollution (PM 2.5) cut the life expectancy of the entire Chinese population by 4.6 years on average. That same year, Beijing implemented its first national air quality action plan, signalling a change to its longstanding prioritisation of economic growth over environmental concerns. By all accounts, they were successful: China’s air pollution reduction strategies resulted in a major improvement in air quality. Reports from the Ministry of Ecology and Environment indicate a 58% drop in average PM2.5 levels between 2013 and 2021, from 72 micrograms per cubic metre to 30 micrograms per cubic metre. By 2020, China was no longer counted among the five most polluted countries in the world. 

You might also like: Air Pollution in China: Are China’s Policies Working?

However, much work is yet to be done. The country’s pollutant concentration remains above the 5-microgramme limit recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), while in some northern industrial regions, smog levels come close to 200 micrograms during the winter. According to the University of Washington’s Global Burden of Disease Study, air pollution in China caused approximately 1.4 million premature deaths in 2019. A state-funded task force commissioned by China’s national pollution research program asked Beijing to revise its national air pollution standards and improve legal protections for human health. It further urged the Chinese government to promote clean energy, upgrade emitting industries, and control transportation pollution.

Secondly, China is aiming to curb oil reliance amid a turbulent geopolitical landscape and soaring prices. According to research published by the Carbon Tracker think tank, the China-led shift to EV usage in emerging markets could, by the year 2030, cut expected growth in global oil demand by 70%. the Asian nation is currently the world’s largest energy consumer and oil importer since 2017. Following Western sanctions over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Beijing was able to procure Russian energy at a discounted price; Moscow displaced Saudi Arabia to become China’s top supplier of crude oil. But as global oil prices continue to surge, experts believe China may spend an additional US$100 billion this year on imported crude oil compared to 2021.

Volatile energy markets have provoked great concern over affordability and supply security. In March 2022, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the National Energy Administration (NEA) issued the 14th Five-Year Plan for a Modern Energy System. The plan aims to improve Chinese energy security and accelerate the ongoing green and low-carbon transition. 

2025 is an important benchmark: The proportion of non-fossil energy consumption is expected to increase by approximately 20%, the proportion of non-fossil energy power generation will reach about 39%, and electricity is expected to account for about 30% of final energy consumption. China’s electrification project is essential to achieving its carbon neutrality goals and reducing dependence on oil and gas imports. That being said, caps on coal consumption and coal-fired power capacity will not emerge in the near term. As China’s primary energy consumption rises, Beijing will prioritise short-term energy security, even at the expense of its environmental goals. 

Finally, China wants to obtain global leadership in the strategic EV industry and enjoy significant economic opportunities. In 2014, Chinese President Xi Jinping explained the importance of new energy vehicle development for the Chinese auto industry, saying it was the only way for China “to move from a big automobile country to a powerful automobile hub.” 

Despite being the world’s largest car market, China has never managed to become an export hub for traditional vehicles. Since easing its joint-venture rules for EV makers in 2018, more foreign automotive companies have chosen China as their base to manufacture vehicles for other regions. Tesla was the first American company and foreign car maker to have a fully-owned manufacturing operation in China. In addition to being the world’s largest exporter of EVs – accounting for 60% of global production – China is also the largest producer of electric-car batteries. Chinese battery manufacturer CATL controls more than 30% of the world market for EV batteries. Government investment has also flown into consumer infrastructure for EVs. Today, the majority of China’s charging points are located in developed coastal areas. By 2025, China will significantly increase the breadth of its charging infrastructure to meet the needs of more than 20 million cars, including in rural areas. 

The Future of the Electric Vehicle Market

Electric vehicles will shape the future of transportation and China is at the forefront of this revolution. The industry has still a long way to go: significant advances in technology are necessary to mitigate structural challenges to the widespread adoption of EVs. The transport sector is responsible for approximately 20% of global GHGs; 95% of the world’s transport energy still comes from fossil fuels. Amid rising environmental concerns, the electrification of transport systems has become a priority to achieve the climate transition and fight climate change. 

You might also like: Why Electric Cars Are Better for the Environment

The post The Drivers of China’s Booming Electric Vehicle Market appeared first on Earth.Org.

1 in 10 residential properties in the United States was impacted by natural disasters in 2021 alone. The climate crisis has exacerbated economic and social disparities within the country, directly affecting the human right to adequate housing. The links between climate change and the affordable housing crisis are clear.  Local-level action is therefore necessary to remedy this housing shortage and to offset the effects of climate change. A homeowner recovering from a natural disaster, and a policy expert weigh in on the matter.

—

Charles Coleman lives in Princeton, Kentucky, a town of approximately 6,000 people. In December of 2021, a tornado razed his home to the ground, leaving him and his family with nothing more than six bags of clothes. Across the state, several counties were devastated and more than 70 people lost their lives. 

Harsh weather conditions and labour shortages have significantly delayed the lengthy reconstruction process; rebuilding projects did not get started until the end of March 2022. Fortunately, Coleman’s house was insured. Yet listing everything lost in the tornado is a daunting task, he explains, especially when the claims adjuster is overly meticulous. Insurance companies across the United States are re-evaluating their risk modelling practices as frequent natural catastrophes are increasing insured losses. Consequently, insurance is becoming prohibitively expensive for some Americans. Coleman is currently living in a recreational vehicle (VR) paid for by his insurance, as there were no apartments available for him and his family to rent. 

The average cost of building a new home has increased 30-40%, he explains. According to Coleman, building materials were getting more expensive even before the tornado, but this event aggravates the rise in prices. He appears to be facing this tragedy with remarkably good spirits. But unfortunately, this is an experience that many Americans must endure yet some cannot recover from. 

According to a recent report, over 14.5 million homes across the United States were affected by severe natural disasters in 2021, including hurricanes, wildfires, winter storms, and flooding. The report analysed 13 major hazard events that hit the US over the past year and estimated a total of USD$56.92 billion in property damage. These are striking figures and the communities impacted are often unable to cope with the resulting financial burdens. Amongst them, low-income renters are especially vulnerable to extreme weather events. 

A notable example is the city of Houston, Texas, where government-subsidised housing was built in flood zones at a time when society lacked widespread understanding of the nature and extent of physical risks associated with climate change. The city has a long history of extreme rainfall events, including Hurricane Harvey in 2017, which triggered catastrophic flooding that left one-third of Houston underwater. The storm affected 13 million people across the US and 39,000 were forced out of their homes. Following this tragic event, low-income residents in Houston filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Housing and Urban Development for placing them in a highly dangerous environment – one that they cannot afford to escape. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that middle-and higher-class neighbourhoods affected by severe natural disasters have been experiencing an out-migration rate increase as housing prices drop. Higher-income residents can move to safety, while lower-income individuals have no choice but to stay or move into the affected areas as prices rise elsewhere. This perpetuates the disproportionate exposure of low-income residents to environmental hazards.

Zack Burley is a Policy Associate at The Climate Mobilization (TCM), a non-profit organisation based in the US. In his estimation, there are inextricable links between climate events, wealth, and access to housing, necessitating a greater orientation toward social policies instead of letting a faulty pricing mechanism determine housing outcomes. 

Zach explains that while owning property has historically been one’s ticket out of poverty, “the climate crisis forces change, which happens relatively slowly and organically, to speed up. Take, for example, the accumulation in price.” 

Property prices in the US have increased almost 50% over the past 10 years. Burley believes the decline in the availability of affordable housing contributed to an exacerbation of housing shortages in an already prohibitively expensive market. The absence of public subsidies, coupled with a lack of construction of new, affordable rentals in the private market, led to a systemic national shortage of affordable homes for low-income renters. When damaged by natural disasters, affordable housing is also less likely to be rebuilt, contributing to the shortage and leaving many in unsheltered homelessness. 

To address this inequity, Burley thinks that the US housing market needs structural change.

“Some social democratic countries have created public ownership shares in the housing market, which are rented and sometimes sold to long-term tenants. Even if we do not want a paradigm shift and we still want to keep a relatively business-centric capitalist way of doing things, the actual ability to extract value from land in a capitalist sort of framework has been changed dramatically by the climate crisis.”

The average observer cannot necessarily pick up on the destabilising impact that climate change has on their economic safety. Burley explains it in these terms: climate change creates a level of uncertainty that people cannot wrap their heads around because of how foundational it is to everything they know. So much of the world rests upon market stability as retainment properties and pension funds are closely bound to the stock market which is consequently wrapped up in property values. Today, this continuum of stability can no longer be assumed. 

The housing system’s shaky fundamentals beget the need to consider more than just incremental solutions. Burley warns us that these economic ramifications of climate change are not something we can mend with various political, legal, or economic constraints. He explains that mechanisms such as interest rates were built for a world of continuity which climate change takes away. Therefore, “we must reevaluate the criteria or land value generally”. On a personal level, he would never expect to own property in the same way his parents do. In the last two years, increases in the cost of buying into the housing market have far outpaced wages. Burley, who has a law degree, explains that the barrier to entering the upper class is not professionalisation, but rather the closure of class mobility to future generations.

A shortage of 7 million affordable rental homes and skyrocketing housing prices in the US. represent enormous challenges that must be addressed within the larger climate crisis. Burley, like his colleagues at TCM, has no confidence in the federal government to pass necessary climate bills. He maintains that “local governments in the U.S have a large degree of policy power available to them, even more than they think they have in light of the way the federal government is failing to govern itself”. Although there are limitations within the constitutional structure, Burley believes local governments can be the drivers for change through a series of policy actions. Concerning the affordable housing crunch, he suggests local governments change zoning codes, promote sustainable development, and create state and local housing authorities that buy, build, and rent properties. These housing authorities could create a rate control policy system: local governments become market players that can set prices for properties and subsidies as they see fit. Therefore, to circumvent federal inaction and gain more control of their property market, Burley believes US cities should either use bonds or local taxes to fund these endeavours, thus retaining ownership titles of affordable housing instead of giving them away to non-profits or affordable housing groups. This way you can not only build housing, he explains, but also give democratic control to the tenants, restoring people’s faith in the government even if the federal administration is failing them. 

You might also like: Why Marginalised Groups are Disproportionately Affected by Climate Change

The post Climate Change and the Affordable Housing Crisis appeared first on Earth.Org.

Should large shareholders divest from high-emitting industries? Experts in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investments believe this approach is not the most effective means of addressing the climate crisis. Instead of fossil fuel divestment, they posit that investors can make a significant impact through engagement, as their financial power can influence boardrooms to adopt more socially responsible business practices. 

—

Within the first months of 2022, the world has already been hit by a range of environmental disasters resulting in financial losses, injuries, and even casualties. These are not isolated events, however. The percentage of the global population susceptible to natural hazards has steadily increased over the years and will continue to grow unless adequate climate preventive action is taken. Covid-19 and climate change have created an unprecedented humanitarian crisis that has disproportionately affected the most vulnerable groups of society. This has exposed and exacerbated socio-economic disparities within and between countries, highlighting the need for greater integration of environmental and sustainability strategies globally. Since 2015, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent the universal blueprint for achieving sustainable economic and social development for the period running up until 2030. Their implementation is the responsibility of both governments and the private sector.

As the major players in production and industry, businesses are morally obliged to actively participate in the fight against climate change. Tackling the world’s social and environmental challenges requires undertaking initiatives of a scale that only the business community can achieve. In the past few years, the private sector has shown more willingness to take accountability for its impact on the environment, recognising that a more sustainable world could also benefit its business operations. A large majority of the world’s business executives are concerned about climate change, and a significant percentage are already facing such challenges in their organisations; nearly 30% of executives are experiencing the operational impact of climate-related disasters, and more than a quarter report encountering resource scarcity. Despite corporate setbacks from the pandemic and the subsequent economic downturn, the significance of this newfound commitment to sustainability is expected to grow exponentially in the following years. 

Moreover, younger generations are dramatically transforming the workplace. The fight against climate change is characterised by a clear generational divide: young Millennials and the Generation Z are at the forefront of the sustainability movement, and their voices are expected to become more prominent as they enter the workforce. Furthermore, the disruptive force of the pandemic is acting as a pivot point for societal transformation. Covid-19 resulted in an economy-wide shock not seen in many generations. The business community has begun to fear that the environmental crisis will have a similarly wide-ranging macroeconomic effect, but of greater proportions. 

Today, companies must demonstrate their commitment to climate action under mounting pressure from numerous stakeholders. Among these, investors hold a great deal of influence over organisations’ business conduct. Once a secondary concern, sustainability is now deeply integrated into investing criteria. The growing investor interest in ESG factors places intense focus and scrutiny on ESG metrics and methodologies which can provide insight into a company’s emissions, as well as its climate risk mitigation abilities and renewable energy strategies. Concurrently, ESG ratings present various shortcomings, such as high levels of inconsistency across rating providers. This is partially a consequence of a lack of clarity and transparency concerning the methodologies used, highlighting the need for data standardisation. Despite obvious barriers to objectivity, studies have shown that there is a positive relationship between receiving a good rating on material sustainability issues and achieving high financial performance. 

You might also like: What is the Future of Sustainability Reporting?

With that being said, should investors redirect their trillions away from hard-to-abate sectors? Among responsible investors, there is an ongoing ethical dilemma regarding how to address their financial interests in high-emitting corporations: remaining engaged and engendering change “behind closed doors”; or divesting their financial holdings to exert pressure on company reputation and balance sheets.

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, pledged in 2020 to eliminate companies that generate more than 25% of their revenues from thermal coal production from its active investment portfolio. The financial firm’s decision, initially praised by climate activists, was later vehemently criticised as it only pertained to a fraction of the coal industry. 

In the eyes of Kaitlyn Allen, fossil fuel divestment is not the right answer for achieving zero-emission. Allen serves as the Vice President of ESG at ClimeCo, a global sustainability company advancing the low-carbon future with market-based solutions, and has extensive expertise in ESG investing and corporate sustainability communications strategy. According to her ,divesting out of hard-to-abate companies is not the most effective means of addressing the climate crisis. Instead, she strongly believes that it is necessary to engage with high-emitting industries, as they represent the biggest obstacle to net-zero. These industries are in fact responsible for a significant proportion of global emissions; their successful decarbonisation would represent an enormous step toward bending the emissions curve downward. 

Allen says that high emitting and fossil fuel divestment leads to environmentally conscious investors losing their voice within corporate policy-crafting, whereas through active engagement, they have the critical opportunity to shift company behaviour. By selling off their share, she explains, they will not shift the needle towards net-zero emissions. The perspectives of academics researching business and management seem to accord with Allen’s view. A study conducted by two business professors from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and Stanford Graduate School of Business demonstrates that ESG divestitures from what they refer to as “dirty” companies do not have enough impact on the cost of capital to affect any meaningful business decisions. In order to drive real change, investors should retain their stake and exercise their control rights, demanding companies take necessary action on social and environmental issues. Likewise, research published by professors at the universities of Trento, Harvard, and Chicago argues that in terms of pressuring companies to act in a socially responsible manner, engagement is more effective than divesting. Kaitlyn asserts that in addition to being proven inefficient, fossil fuel divestment may result in shares being acquired by investors that do not care about the environment. 

The business community has finally realised their exposure to climate risks, recognising their responsibility in ensuring the most carbon-intensive industries make the transition needed to cap global warming. Investors have the power and the resources to drive this change and actively contribute to climate action. Finally, greater transparency in the ESG regulatory environment will positively influence the perceived legitimacy and adoption of climate finance initiatives. Investing in environmentally conscious companies aimed at supporting mitigation and adaptation actions, as well as ensuring the world’s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take the necessary step towards emission reduction, are essential in reaching a net-zero outcome.

The post Fossil Fuel Divestment Versus Engagement on the Road to Net-Zero appeared first on Earth.Org.

Russia’s attack on Ukraine has severely imperilled EU energy markets and security. To resolve its dependency on Russian energy imports, Germany is implementing an ambitious renewable energy reform to ensure its national energy security. 

—

Europe is experiencing its darkest hours since the Second World War. At dawn on February 24, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a “special military operation” in Ukraine. The decision came shortly after the official recognition of the separatist republics of Donbas and Donetsk located in Ukrainian territory. Russian missile strikes began to hit Ukraine’s capital Kyiv and multiple other cities. It soon became clear that Putin’s ambitions went beyond the control of the disputed eastern regions; he has been orchestrating a military occupation of the entire territory. 

In Ukraine, Putin’s troops met very determined resistance. Citizens in Russia, and around the world, have taken to the streets to protest Moscow’s invasion, despite severe personal risks. The conflict has caused thousands of casualties, and as of March 16, over 2.5 million Ukrainians –mostly women and children– to flee their homes and seek safety in neighbouring countries. In addition to the human costs of the crisis, Europe fears the consequences for energy supplies and prices, which since the beginning of the year have registered dizzying increases. Over the past decades, Europe has grown over-reliant on Russia for its energy resources. Germany, Europe’s largest economy, sources approximately 55% of its gas from Moscow, as well as 50% of its hard coal and 30% of its oil. To reduce its dependency on Russia, Germany is implementing drastic changes to its energy policy: the government aims to achieve a 100% renewable power supply by 2035.

Germany’s Russian Sanctions: A Break From Convention

The international community has mobilised to support Ukraine with military aid and sanctions that could devastate the Russian economy. For the first time in its history, the EU will finance military support to a country under attack, committing EUR€500 million. Likewise, Washington has allocated USD$350 million in weapons for Ukraine’s defence, totalling over USD$1 billion in the last year. 

We have also witnessed a historic shift in German foreign and defence policy. The European country reversed its ban on lethal weapons exports to conflict zones and agreed to a major delivery of armaments. The Ukraine crisis has deeply alarmed European security analysts, pushing Germany to abandon its reluctant approach to self-armament. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz allocated EUR€ 100 billion to the Bundeswehr – German armed forces – and committed to increasing the annual defensive expenditure by over 2% of national Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 

Germany further moved away from its previously cautious and measured foreign policy approach by supporting unprecedented punitive actions against Moscow. After some hesitation, Scholz agreed to block access to the Swift international banking payment system for several Russian banks. Russia will no longer be able to make and receive payments for trade and financial activities, potentially resulting in an economic collapse. More significant was Germany’s decision to halt the certification of the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The undersea pipeline was designed to transport natural gas from western Siberia to northern Germany and is owned by Russia’s state-backed energy giant Gazprom. The gas pipeline across the Baltic Sea faced fierce opposition from Central-Eastern European governments, including Ukraine. The United States also opposed the project, having been vocal regarding the dangers associated with Europe’s growing dependence on Russian natural gas exports. 

You might also like: The Russia-Ukraine Crisis May Speed Up Green Energy Transition

Diversifying Energy Reliance with Renewables

Being largely dependent on energy imports, Germany is implementing a series of measures to diversify its sourcing. In light of current events, the German government will increase the volume of its natural gas reserves by 2 billion cubic metres (bcm) via long-term options and coordinated EU purchases on the global market. Additionally, it is planning to build two liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals on the coast of the North Sea. The project is unlikely to satisfy short-term demands, however,  as it may take between two and five years to be approved. Moreover, concerns remain regarding the environmental impact associated with LNG. Its usage could also slow down the country’s transition towards 100% renewable energy. 

Despite insinuations to the contrary, Germany will persist in phasing out coal and nuclear power. The country’s three remaining nuclear power plants will cease operation in December 2022 while coal-fired power generation will terminate in about a decade. In 2020, Germany adopted the “Coal Phase-Out Act” aimed to gradually reduce and eventually end the use of coal-powered energy by no later than 2038, potentially as early as 2035. 

The invasion of Ukraine exposed the dangers associated with energy dependence on countries with a high geopolitical risk profile and highlighted the critical role that energy self-sufficiency plays within national security. In response, Germany is planning to speed up the timetable for its “Renewables Energy Act”, which came into force in January 2021. According to the law, both electricity supply and consumption must become carbon-neutral before 2050, and 65% of electricity must come from clean sources by 2030. The new law would require the country to produce 80% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030, and 100% by 2035. Acknowledging the need for greater energy independence, the German government allocated about EUR€200 billion for investments in decarbonisation. The widespread usage of renewable energy sources could allow Germany to meet its energy needs and abstain from relying on energy sources outside its borders. 

Europe’s precarious position on energy security has left Germany limited room to manoeuvre during this crisis. In the interim, Berlin is choosing a precautionary approach with Moscow. Despite calls to stop the importation of Russian gas and oil – which contribute to financing Putin’s war on Ukraine – Germany and other European countries have rejected a complete ban. Energy imports represent the Kremlin’s main revenue source. However, Scholz’s government fears the repercussions that an energy embargo may have on its national economy and society at large. Russia itself threatens to cut Europe’s natural gas supplies in retaliation for sanctions. 

What’s Next

There is much to be seen on how this situation will play out, but it can be said with certainty that the transition to renewable energy is imperative within the near term. In addition to their obvious environmental advantages, renewables also ensure a nation’s energy security at a time when not all global suppliers are reliable geopolitical actors. Finally, greater self-reliance through the development of renewable resources would prevent energy needs from getting in the way of countries’ moral obligations.

You might also like: EU Plans to Cut Russia Gas Imports by 80% This Year

The post Germany’s Quest for Energy Security and its Transition to Renewables appeared first on Earth.Org.

Research demonstrates that the price of climate inaction far outweighs the economic impact of the Paris Agreement and its subsequent mitigating policies. Yet today’s path from policymaking to implementation remains paved with obstacles as declarations of intent do not always translate into real-world action. 

—

The Paris Agreement is the first universal and legally binding agreement on climate change. It includes stipulations driving a progressive reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions and, for the first time, established common principles valid for all countries. 

The Paris Agreement’s mission is to limit global warming well below 2C compared to pre-industrial levels and, ideally, the temperature increase to 1.5C within this century. Parties aim to reach the global peak of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible in order to achieve a balance between emissions and removals in the second half of the century while recognising that developing countries may take longer. Every five years, signatories are called to make their pledges regarding emissions reduction (Nationally Determined Contribution, NDC). NDCs must be quantifiable, with each subsequent goal representing a progression beyond the previous one. While the implementation of national reporting systems and adaptation policies is legally binding, the achievement of NDCs is not. 

In addition, the Paris Agreement does not establish new obligations regarding climate finance. However, wealthier nations are invited to support lower-income countries in reducing emissions and improving resilience towards the impact of climate change. Existing efforts toward this end have yielded mixed results. During the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the world’s richest countries pledged USD$100 billion per year in climate finance to emerging economies or poorer nations starting in 2020. According to a cursory analysis, developed countries likely failed to meet their climate finance commitment for the year 2020. The 100 billion mark is likely to be met only by 2023. 

A large volume of public and private climate finance flows is required to support a long-term green transition. According to the UN, annual adaptation costs in developing countries alone are estimated at USD$70 billion, with the expectation of reaching 140-300 billion in 2030 and 280-500 billion in 2050. This is the price that civil society must pay to reverse the catastrophic path that humanity has taken since the mid-20th century; climate inaction would ultimately carry greater financial costs, alongside severe repercussions on the environment and human health, than corresponding climate mitigation policies and the overall economic impact of the Paris Agreement.

Ten of the most destructive weather events of 2021 had a combined cost of USD$170 billion and, more importantly, took the lives of thousands of people. There is almost total consensus among experts that human activities are unequivocally the main driver of climate change. Significant efforts are needed to reach the long-term temperature goals set by the Paris Agreement. However, questions remain on whether this science-based, yet politically motivated approach constitutes the economically optimal policy pathway to mitigate global warming. 

The Paris Climate Agreement passes the cost-benefit test from a 2020 study by N. Glanemann, S.N. Willner & A. Levermann.

Work by a research group affiliated with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research affirms the economic validity of the Paris Agreement’s framework. Researchers utilised computer simulations of the Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and the Economy (DICE), pioneered by US Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus, to provide a macroeconomic assessment of the emission reduction efforts associated with the Paris Agreement. The researchers expand on previous studies conducted by Marshall Burke and co-authors, which aim to provide estimates of warming-induced economic growth impact. They incorporate such estimates into the integrated assessment model (IAM) called DICE, providing an inter-temporal analysis that takes into consideration uncertainties regarding the damage curve, climate sensitivity, socioeconomic prospects, and mitigation costs. Following thorough testing, the study concludes that the 2C target as set by the Paris Climate Agreement yields the optimal pathway till the end of this century from a cost-benefit perspective. 

It is important to note that these types of models will always have methodological shortcomings, even acknowledged by the authors themselves. For instance, unprecedented variation in climatic extremes may require more extreme mitigation efforts. Furthermore, the benefits of climate change mitigation have been measured solely in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), ignoring non-monetary losses such as loss of life and biodiversity. The distributional elements of global warming’s damages and mitigation costs have also been neglected and – as the authors suggest –further studies should incorporate region-specific empirical estimates. 

You might also like: Climate Finance: Are the Rich Nations Doing Enough?

The Paris Agreement brought the environmental crisis to the centre of the global agenda. The UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26) held in November 2021 was perhaps the second most significant global climate event since 2015. The conference ended after two weeks of negotiations between attending parties, who agreed upon aiming towards limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels. According to climate scientists, there is a significant difference in terms of impact brought by 1.5°C and 2°C global temperature increases. Losses in biodiversity, extreme heat, melting Arctic Sea ice, and rising sea levels are among the devastating consequences of climate change that will substantially accelerate with a rise of 2°C. Despite scientific evidence showing that crossing the 1.5°C thresholds will have devastating repercussions on human livelihoods and ecosystems, COP26 climate pledges would only hold warming to just below 1.8C by the end of the century. 

While a 0.3C difference may seem small, additional warming could have calamitous consequences and even lead to the irreversible disintegration of certain ecosystems. With national pledges made during COP26 proving insufficient, further commitments are crucial to ensure the preservation of vulnerable areas and mitigation of costs from climate-related disasters. Additionally, these new commitments have not yet turned into credible policy actions. Nations can no longer delay in curbing their greenhouse gas emissions and must lay out concrete plans to meet their promised climate goals. 

Holding warming to 1.5C is aspirational and requires drastic transformations to our energy system, vehicle usage, and technological deployment means. Although there seems to be an almost global consensus on the urgency of climate change, domestic politics pose a significant obstacle to ambitious measures. Concerns regarding energy shortages, economic decline, and related social disruptions are preventing governments from taking immediate action. While legitimate, these concerns result in a short-sighted approach to the climate crisis. Governmental procrastination and hesitant implementation of transition measures at the local level are hindering our global capacity to mitigate and adapt.

Despite any economic impact the Paris Agreement might bring, if adhered to properly, the Paris Agreement represents the most viable economic option to mitigate climate change. However, the consequences associated with warming exceeding 1.5°C go far beyond GDP growth rates. While we must identify and implement more ambitious climate policies, cooperation among policymaking institutions is needed to ensure a just and equitable transition aimed at generating new sources of renewable jobs and income. Additionally, governments must establish social protection systems to support those inevitably affected by both climate- and mitigation-induced losses. Such policies would also serve to address the most human aspects of climate scepticism: anxiety over one’s own interests. 

Featured image by: David Fine/FEMA

The post Examining the Economic Impact of the Paris Agreement appeared first on Earth.Org.

The global net zero strategy and the shift to clean energy will create job opportunities overall, but some groups will be harmed disproportionately. Policies must be implemented worldwide to support an equitable transition and minimise resulting job losses.

—

Climate change is the most pressing challenge facing the 21st century. A concrete and shared political commitment at a global level is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming.

This past year, COP26, the UN climate summit in Glasgow, yielded results that fell short of expectations. Nevertheless, policymakers around the world are well-aware of the need for greater action taken against the ongoing climate emergency and implement a concrete net zero strategy. At the same time, there are still many unknowns surrounding the increasingly urgent necessity to abandon fossil fuels, including the impact that the transition may have on the economy. Over the past decades, one of the biggest questions regarding this energy transition has been this: will renewable energy create jobs and how would they offset the losses within conventional energy sectors? 

Will Renewable Energy Create Jobs?

2021 was a crucial year for climate action and the wider sustainability agenda. In June, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) released the World Energy Transitions Outlook, a pathway for the world to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius and bring CO2 emissions to net-zero by 2050. The latest edition of the IRENA’s Renewable Energy and Jobs Annual Review, released in collaboration with the International Labour Organization (ILO), predicts that by following the 1.5C-compatible pathway, jobs gains driven by the energy transition are likely to outweigh losses of fossil fuel jobs over the coming decades. According to the report, by 2050 the energy transition could lead to the creation of around 122 million new jobs, of which the ever-growing share of renewable energy industries are expected to account for 43 million. Solar photovoltaics will provide the most jobs (20 million), followed by bioenergy, wind, and hydropower. 

The renewable energy industry requires a workforce spread across various educational and training levels, creating opportunities for a diverse set of individuals. On a 1.5C-compatible pathway, of the jobs created by 2050, half of them will require only a primary or lower secondary education. 37% and 13% of the remaining positions, respectively, call for secondary education and tertiary education at the bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral level. By requiring only general academic credentials, if any, most jobs created in the renewable energy sector will be accessible through on-the-job training. This underscores the critical role that re-skilling and up-skilling efforts will play in safeguarding fossil fuel workers during the energy transition.

While no overall job losses are expected to occur during the energy transition, the report emphasises that several misalignments may emerge across the energy labour market. For instance, large-scale job losses may precede job gains. In addition, new positions may materialise in locations different from where job losses occurred, while skills required in conventional energy sectors may not satisfy the occupational needs of emerging industries. Finally, job gains and losses will likely impact different sectors of the economy. To achieve an equitable transition with desirable social outcomes, it is necessary to establish a comprehensive policy framework able to address all the above challenges. Precisely this, countries must achieve policy coherence between training, energy, and environmental policies, as well as prioritise institutional coordination to successfully implement a new energy system centred on renewables. 

You might also like: Living in Net-Zero: What Will the Jobs of the Future Be?

Women in Renewable Energy

Further efforts in support of greater workforce diversity are imperative to ensure a fair distribution of job opportunities created by any ambitious climate strategy. The energy sector has suffered from pervasive gender imbalances. Women only account for 22% of the global workforce across the traditional energy sector, despite making up 48% of the global labour force. The renewable energy sector is slightly better in this regard, with 32% of jobs held by women. However, they are primarily in administrative positions, while men still account for most science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) jobs. Gender-disaggregated data is difficult to come by since gender dimensions of the renewable energy field appear to be of no particular interest to economic experts. To gather quantitative and qualitative information, IRENA carried out a survey in 2018 targeting gender distribution in the renewable energy sector, the particular challenges faced by women, and strategies for lessening the gender gap. According to their findings, awareness of gender barriers in the renewable energy sector varies significantly between men and women. Only 40% of male respondents, versus 75% of female respondents, perceive the existence of challenges to female entry and advancement in the sector. This result is of particular concern as gender equality should not be solely a women’s issue. Men, especially those in leadership positions, have the moral obligation to leverage their power and influence, in order to advocate for the eradication of systemic challenges that forestall greater gender equality. 

Looking Ahead

The global net zero strategy and the transition to a sustainable energy model will create numerous social and economic opportunities, with growing employment being just one example. However, a global effort, both at the economic and political level, will be necessary to lead the world towards a greener future without compromising the global labour market. In sum, much remains to be done to ensure benefits are equitably distributed and to achieve greater inclusion of marginalised groups into the revamped energy sector of the future. 

You might also like: What the Future of Renewable Energy Looks Like

The post Can the Net Zero Strategy be the Driving Force for Global Employment? appeared first on Earth.Org.