The Paris Agreement is the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement adopted in 2015 by almost every nation on Earth that promotes a global consensus on addressing the climate crisis. But what does it actually propose, and five years on, how much progress has been made? 

—

What Is the Paris Agreement?

Back in 2015, at COP21 in Paris, countries of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed to accelerate and intensify the actions needed for a sustainable global future. The Agreement sets out a framework for limiting global warming to below 1.5C or “well below 2C” above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. Global temperatures have already risen 1 degree and predictions for 2.7C warming or more would have catastrophic environmental, social, and economic impacts. The Agreement also asks countries to become carbon neutral by no later than the second half of this century. 

Under the Agreement, each signatory country submits their own plan for emissions reductions, called a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), in line with the overall targets. These include committing to improve financial preparedness against the impacts of the climate crisis alongside directing finance flows to projects which align with lower GHG emissions. In line with evidence that less developed countries that contribute minimally to global warming are likely to be the most severely affected by the climate crisis, the Paris Agreement makes recommendations for developed countries to assist developing nations develop climate adaptation and mitigation strategies, committing a combined US$100 billion a year.

The Paris Agreement opened for signature on 22 April 2016 and entered into force on 4th November 2016 after the threshold of 55 signatory countries accounting for 55% of emissions was met. As of 2020, all UNFCCC members have signed the Agreement, with 189 (representing around 90% of global emissions) gaining formal approval on their climate proposals. The United States withdrew from the Agreement in 2020 during the Trump Administration, but recommitted in 2021 under President Joe Biden. The only significant emitters which are not parties are Iran and Turkey, ranking 8th and 15th in the world respectively for GHG emissions. 

You might also like: What is the Kyoto Protocol?

How Close Are We to Meeting Any of These Commitments? 

Map evaluating a broad spectrum of government targets and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris Agreement temperature limit. Image: Climate Action Tracker.

The Paris climate agreement requires all parties to report on emissions and efforts towards climate change mitigation, with their NDCs being updated every five years. In July 2023, the UN called on all Parties to update their NDCs in preparation for the upcoming COP28 summit, which will take place this November in Dubai.

The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) covers 80% of global emissions and assesses countries based on how likely their Paris commitments will achieve the 1.5C target. “If all governments meet their Paris Agreement target, we calculate the world would still see 3C of warming, but that warming is likely to be even higher given most are not taking enough action to meet their targets”, says Bill Hare, CEO of Climate Analytics, one of the CAT’s organisations.

Morocco is one of only two countries with climate mitigation plans consistent with limiting warming to 1.5C. The country’s National Energy Strategy calls for generating 42% of its electricity from renewables by the end of 2020 (which they are on track to achieve) and 52% by 2030. 

At the other end of the scale is the US, with the CAT describing its Paris targets as ‘critically insufficient’. In 2020, President Trump withdrew the USA from the Paris Agreement. Despite the US re-joining again within months led by President Joe Biden,  the Trump administration rolled back many critical environmental protection policies and climate action during his four-year tenure – keep in mind that the the US remains to be the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide globally, the leading cause of global warming. It’s too early to tell the extent of which the Trump administration has damaged the country’s progress in combating global warming. 

Slightly more positive action comes from China, who have committed to levelling off their carbon emissions by 2030 at the very latest, whilst India has committed to generating 40% of its electricity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. Part of India’s pledge also sees the creation of a carbon sink area of 2.5 to 3 billion tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030. This action is crucial, and cannot come with much delay- a worldwide failure to meet the current targets could reduce global GDP by more than 25% by 2100.  

The summit’s host, the United Arab Nations (UAE), recently issued a third update of its NDCs, setting a target of reducing emissions by 40% by the end of the decade, up 9% from the previous target. The efforts outlined in the new UAE climate plan, however, are hailed “insufficient” in an analysis by non-profit Climate Action Tracker (CAT) published in July, CAT said CO2 emissions are expected to increase through to 2030 as the country plans to further increase fossil fuel production and consumption, at odds with the urgent decrease needed to curb global warming.

Outlook

Despite pledges and commitments from governments around the world to cap global warming below 1.5C, a 2022 UN report found that the world is on track to exceed the feared 2C mark by 2030.

In fact, the world remains far from delivering a safe climate future, as an overwhelming majority of countries are underdelivering on net-zero targets and their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), as a paper published in June 2023 showed. Researchers assessed net-zero targets for 35 major emitters, including the European Union, which together accounted for about 82% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2019. They found that about 90% of the assessed net-zero plans are unlikely to be achieved, with confidence levels of “lower” or “much lower.” India, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates – this year’s COP28 host, are among the countries most behind in terms of achieving their targets. The latter nation has repeatedly described fossil fuels as “key” components to a smooth energy transition. On multiple occasions, President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan assured that the UAE would keep providing fossil fuels to countries around the world “for as long as the world needs it.”

It is clear that the Paris Agreement is more important than ever, and can be a powerful and influential force in the fight against the climate crisis. But signatory countries and other will need to take it up a notch and urgent action must be taken if we are to slow down the rapid rate of global warming and to meet the 1.5C target.

You might also like: Achieving Net Zero: Where Are We Today?

The post Explainer: What Is the Paris Agreement? appeared first on Earth.Org.

The global COVID-19 pandemic is likely to set back the progress made in addressing the climate crisis. Hence, solutions for COVID-19 recovery must incorporate this prior momentum and work in parallel with the principles of a green economy if we are to avoid further climate breakdown. 

—

Academics are comparing the COVID-19 pandemic to the climate crisis. Whilst COVID-19 is a more severe and short-term crisis, the two are similar in practice, according to a paper led by the Smith School of Enterprise and Environment at the University of Oxford. Similarities include ‘market failures, externalities, international cooperation, complex science, questions of system resilience, political leadership and action that hinges on public support’. Lessons from the current pandemic, therefore, have implications for the future handling of the climate crisis: primarily, that potentially high-risk global phenomena must be handled with urgency to avoid large scale social and economic damages. Acting with delay comes at a huge cost. Just like many scientists warned about the risks of a pandemic much before governments decided to act, scientists have been urging governments to act on climate action before it is too late. The phrase ‘prevention is better than cure’ becomes particularly pertinent with current events, indicating the salience of immediate top-down action. Mark Carney, previous Governor of the Bank of England succinctly phrased this view in 2015: “Once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late.”

You might also like: EU Pledges To Raise €20bn Annually to Boost Biodiversity

Countries around the world are providing financial assistance to businesses to avoid dire economic repercussions from the pandemic. The lockdowns that have put an estimated 81% of the global workforce on hold have begun to be eased. But many environmentalists are pressuring governments to withhold financial support from polluting companies with no plans to change and to instead provide vital economic incentives for the corporate world to incorporate sustainable initiatives into their practices. Notably, Canada has just announced that for large corporates to access COVID-19 relief, they must disclose carbon emissions and commit to environmentally-sustainable strategies, a potential springboard for other governments to follow suit.  Indeed, the financial decisions made now will be critical in dictating the next decade, giving governments a chance to chart a new course toward climate action. The Financial Times argues that the costs of inaction are staggering- $600 trillion by 2100. This is inevitable if we do not cut greenhouse gas emissions globally by half in the next 10 years, with 2030 expected to see climate tipping points with irreversible damages to our planet. 

Indeed, many governments are aiming to use their economic recovery strategies to incentivise and boost low-carbon industries with the slogan “Build Back Better.” The Vice President of the European Commission, Frans Timmerman, is driving this push, insisting that ‘all COVID-19 recovery should go towards green industries and businesses’, and ‘not a single Euro should be spent propping up old, dirty industries’. As such, the EU aims to lead the way with a Green Deal, with further action led by Pascal Canfin, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment and Public Health, spearheading the new “Green Recovery Alliance”. Launched on April 14, the Alliance brings together politicians, CEOs, NGOs, think-tanks and business federations from across Europe who are committed to offering investment solutions to drive a green recovery. “COVID-19 has not made the climate crisis go away. The public money that states and Europe will spend to reinvest in the economy must be consistent with the Green Deal,” states Canfin. In line with this, Imperial College’s Executive Director of the Centre for Climate Finance and Investment, Charles Donovan, stressed how diversified renewable energy strategies and investments could offer economies greater stability than that provided by fossil fuels due to greater recent oil market instability. In fact, a report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) released in April shows that renewable energy could power economic growth and a green economy post-COVID-19 by spurring global GDP gains of almost US$100 trillion between now and 2050.

A shift to a green economy post- COVID-19 would also provide many much-needed jobs, including in green energy and infrastructure. As Mark Carney recently pointed out, many industries will require restructuring- a chance ‘not to go back to the status quo’- recommending regulatory policies to push for a sustainable post-COVID-19 recovery. 

A recently-published analysis by top economists from universities including Oxford and Colombia showcases potential COVID-19 economic recovery strategies. The paper finds that ‘green recoveries’ are in fact the most economically-viable recovery strategy for countries affected by COVID-19. Some measures include backing clean energy infrastructures as well as retrofitting office buildings to improve efficiency once occupied again, just two of a range of economic and environmentally synergistic measures. Moreover, the COP26 Universities Network builds on this to produce a briefing for policymakers outlining a path to a net-zero emissions economic recovery post-COVID-19. Policies recommended include renewable energy, reducing industrial emissions through carbon capture and storage, electric vehicles and nature-based solutions. The current crisis just shows the ability of ‘natural’ forces to shock the global economy, and will likely provoke a greater motivation for the above policies and strategies to be implemented. 

At the bottom-up level, change is also occurring. Opinion polls have found that many citizens are asking ‘if normal was good enough’, enjoying the increased air quality, tranquillity and reduced congestion brought by lockdown measures. Moreover, 65% of people across the world agree that governments should incorporate climate change mitigation strategies into coronavirus recovery. Cities are implementing a greater focus on walking and cycling to work, with Milan recently unveiling plans for miles of new cycling lanes in the area and the Mayor of Paris announcing a €300 million scheme for a network of cycle lanes. The UK government has also recently announced plans to fast-track £250million of funding and policy reforms to deliver a ‘new era for cycling and walking’ in line with the eased lockdown. The opportunity to turn the tragic negatives of the current crisis into positives through shifting mindsets is also evident in many office workers finding working from home enjoyable, wishing to continue. 

Globally, 2020 is likely to see the largest- albeit likely temporary- drop of greenhouse gas emissions due to halted planes, traffic and industrial production. GHG emissions might fall by 8% from previous years and higher than for previous crises. Whilst this is significant, it is simply a taste of what is needed to halt the worst of global warming. The UNEP estimates that global GHG emissions must fall by 7.6% every year from 2020 to 2030 to keep global temperature increases to less than 1.5°C by the end of the century.

As Mark Carney pointed out during a recent online discussion,  “We have a situation with climate change which will involve every country in the world and from which we can’t self-isolate,” highlighting the ‘terrible situation’ but also a ‘big opportunity’ for a COVID-19 recovery in line with that of a green economy. It seems clear that the time is now for the government to encourage the development of greener economies whilst simultaneously pushing environmentally-positive economic recovery.

The post A Green Economy Post- COVID-19: Environmentalist’s Dream or Economic Imperative? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Coral is essential for life on earth. At the same time, it is one of the planet’s most threatened ecosystems, directly impacted by global ocean warming from anthropogenic climate change. The Great Barrier Reef, one of UNESCO’s World Heritage Sites known for its ‘enormous scientific and intrinsic importance’, has just undergone its third mass bleaching event in five years, affecting 25% of the entire reef. How do we save this marvel before it’s too late?

—

UNESCO has warned that coral reefs across all World Heritage Sites will cease to exist by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions are kept at business-as-usual levels. The IPCC says that limiting global warming to 1.5C rather than 2C or above will mean the difference between survival and loss of the majority of coral ecosystems. Such a scenario will have disastrous effects on the interconnected marine ecosystem: whilst coral only covers 0.1% of the ocean floor globally, 25% of marine life depends on coral for their life cycles. The earth’s oceans are also the world’s largest carbon sinks, storing carbon dioxide in algae, vegetation and coral. 

What Is Coral Bleaching?

Coral bleaching is a reaction to heat stress. When corals are immersed in warmer-than-average water for extended periods of time, the algae- zooxanthellae– which lives inside coral tissue, gets expelled. This provides food and colour and helps corals to reproduce, and thus this expulsion results in coral becoming ‘bleached’ and losing its colour. Severe bleaching can kill corals, but they also have the potential to recover if temperatures stabilise – yet the climate crisis is increasing both the frequency and severity of bleaching events. 

Coral Bleaching at the Great Barrier Reef

Current surveys of the most recent bleaching incident in the Great Barrier Reef estimate that the impacts are more severe and widespread than all previously recorded outbreaks. According to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the severity of the damage varied, but some areas that had been spared during mass bleaching events in 2016 and 2017 (where 20% of shallow water reefs were bleached) had now experienced moderate or severe bleaching. Experts have suggested that the trends of bleaching suggest that it will become a near-annual event. 

In 2019, Australia downgraded its outlook on the reef from ‘poor’ to ‘very poor’ due to climate change risks. Tropical coral reefs tend to be at a higher risk of bleaching during times when the Pacific Ocean experiences the ‘El Niño’ effect: a climate pattern that occurs when sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean rise to above-normal levels for an extended period of time. Such a process is likely to be intensified by rising global temperatures; one study suggests that strong El Niño events could double in frequency in the future due to the climate crisis: the potential for unprecedented interactions between El Niño and anthropogenic  global warming is significant, with coral bleaching just one of the ecosystems set to suffer. 

You might also like: Using Oysters as a Flood Defence Strategy

According to Dr Mark Eakin, coordinator of Coral Reef Watch at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there is a risk that this mass bleaching could mark the start of a global-scale bleaching event. The main driving force of this cannot be ascribed to El Niño as it is currently in a neutral year, indicating more towards anthropogenic climate change effects: February was recorded as the hottest month for the Great Barrier Reef on record. 

However, some areas of the 2 300km marine park are hardly affected: the authority noted that reefs in the northern and central parts, including near Cairns and Port Douglas, experienced moderate bleaching, and most corals there should recover. Many deeper ocean reefs are avoiding the bleaching entirely.

Aside from its ecological importance, the Great Barrier Reef also provides significant economic value. Its overall economic value has been estimated at $56 billion (AUD), with an annual national contribution of $6.4 billion and generating 64 000 jobs. Protection of the reef must be incorporated in economic models in order to shift thinking into a model whereby coral is treated as an asset that must be conserved. 

How to Protect the Great Barrier Reef from Climate Change

Changes to the reef must be monitored closely, with an overall objective of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. As the IUCN put it: “Limiting global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C, in line with the Paris Agreement on climate change, provides the only chance for the survival of coral reefs globally.” 

But scientists in Australia have two key questions regarding the Reef’s future: will governments around the world stick to, and improve on, cuts to greenhouse gases, and if so, how closely will this keep warming to 1.5C? The second question lies in the success of potential adaptation measures. The most recent bleaching episode is fairly patchy, indicating that areas of the reef that have avoided bleaching can still be managed: a combination of prevention and adaptation are crucial for the Great Barrier Reef’s future. 

According to Professor Peter Mumby, Professor of Coral Reef Ecology at the University of Queensland and Chief Scientist at the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, a potential avenue for study lies in the scale and diversity of the reef. The reef is made up of 4 000 diverse reefs, 100 of which have been identified as well spread, well connected and currently experiencing cooler ocean temperatures, suggesting there is hope for survival. Focusing attention on the health and sustainability of these reefs, therefore, is crucial. 

One particular area of study is ‘assisted gene flow’, proposed by The Australian Institute of Marine Sciences– a process much like IVF for corals. Corals with better heat tolerance, found to be an hereditary trait in corals, can be selected and captured to grow in a lab setting and subsequently dispersed into the ocean for greater resilience. An experiment with 90 parent specimens from three parts of the reef grew 7 500 offspring and subjected them to temperatures of up to 2C warming and related levels of CO2. Many of these corals survived, suggesting that all hope for coral is not lost. Dr Zoe Richards explains the process further: 

“The whole goal of a lot of these interventions is to work with species that can be successful on their own. We won’t be able to work with 600 species of corals, but we could probably work with 20 that fill the functional roles of a healthy reef community.

Further, the Australian government has recently backed over 40 concepts in a $150 million research and development programme. The concepts include creating fog and mist over smaller reef areas, using micro-bubbles, ultra-thin natural films and farmed algae to reduce light over smaller areas, stabilising and enhancing damaged reefs with mesh, frames, concrete shapes and 3D printed forms to recreate the complexity of natural reefs and breeding corals that are naturally more heat tolerant and then using their larvae in mass dispersal.

David Mead, who helped coordinate the feasibility study, says, “If we can get the science right and intervene on the reef at scale to build that resilience, then the benefits for Australia environmentally, socially and economically, especially for reef communities, is going to be in the tens of billions of dollars.”

The post How Can The Great Barrier Reef Be Saved? appeared first on Earth.Org.

The Wildlife Trusts has recently reported that prescribing time in nature for those with mental health issues can make significant improvements to their wellbeing. With an ever-growing population and an increasing disconnection with nature, can immersing ourselves in nature improve not only our mental and social wellbeing, but our inclination towards environmental conservation as well? 

—

The world is rapidly urbanising- already 55% of the global population lives in urban areas, a number projected to rise to nearly 70% by 2050 according to the UN. With that, time spent in nature is often reduced. Research has found that less time spent in nature threatens future conservation efforts – termed the ‘pigeon paradox’. Under the current urbanisation status quo, this means that interactions with urban natures, organisms and ecosystems – pigeons, mice or squirrels, for example- characterise many people’s perception of nature. At the same time, those who are active in conserving the environment most often cite childhood experiences with nature as critical prerequisites for subsequent environmental actions.

The paper bases its ‘paradox’ on the assertion that the future of conservation efforts depends on our current interactions with urban green space, as spending time within nature grows an intrinsic care for it and therefore provides an impetus for its protection. As such, the paper argues for the critical importance of restoring urban ecosystems and promoting urban green spaces for everyone to access: the future of conservation requires it. Bringing the natural world to more of the population in the urban sphere thus has critical importance, both for conservation but also health benefits – particularly as most of us spend 90% of our time indoors.

How does nature affect mental health?

In 2017, The Wildlife Trusts’ report entitled, “The Health and Wellbeing Impacts of Volunteering with The Wildlife Trusts” found that amongst those with reported mental health issues, 69% of those who spent time involved in environmental conservation projects felt an improvement during a six week period. Built on by research with Leeds Beckett University and The Wildlife Trusts, social return on investment (SROI) from promoting Wildlife Trusts’ conservation programmes for health benefits was found to generate a return of £6.88 for every £1 invested. Such a result illustrates the imperative need for investments in green spaces in cities as well as in conservation volunteering schemes. Specifically to the UK, this will reduce the burden on the National Health Service and improve daily wellbeing amongst the population. According to Anne-Marie Bagnall, Professor of Health and Wellbeing Evidence at Leeds Beckett University, “The significant return on investment of conservation activities in nature means that they should be encouraged as part of psychological wellbeing interventions.”

Why Nature is Good for Your Mental Health

So, are such ‘nature prescriptions’ set to take off? Academic literature supporting the link between better health outcomes– lower stress, anxiety levels or heart rate– and more time in nature is growing. Nature prescriptions are being slowly introduced in the US and UK. As one of over 150 programmes in the USA, California’s Stay Healthy in Nature Everyday (SHINE) group, takes groups of patients, doctors, and naturalists to local parks each month for a dose of nature. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Scotland has recently launched its partnership with NHS Shetland for ‘Nature Prescriptions’, while ‘Myplace’ in Lancashire, a specialist in ‘ecotherapy’, has found a 100% increase in wellbeing from its attendees. 

The trend seems to be catching on: doctors elsewhere in the UK have been encouraged to suggest that their patients get outside, supported by the Centre for Sustainable Healthcare in Oxford. The centre’s NHS Forest project aims to increase patients’ use of local parks and woodlands near hospitals and health centres. A study from Scientific Reports finds that only two hours per week is needed to reap nature’s calming benefits. One health trend that is popular mainly in Japan and South Korea is Shinrin-yoku, or ‘forest bathing’. Dr Qing Li, a Japanese expert in forest bathing, argues that the traditional Japanese practice- spending intentional time within trees- can promote health, happiness and wellbeing through reducing blood pressure, strengthening cardiovascular systems and boosting creativity. 

Nature’s benefits are endless: As artist Andy Goldsworthy says, “We ARE nature. Nature is not something separate from us. So when we say we have lost our connection to nature, we’ve lost our connection to ourselves.” 

More time in nature can improve not only our intrinsic care for it, but also our own health and wellbeing. At the same time, promoting the benefits of nature, particularly in the urban realm, provides a larger incentive for tree-planting and urban garden initiatives– ultimately mitigating climate-related issues. This is one way that cities can work towards achieving Goal 11 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 that focuses on ‘Urban Sustainability’. 

The post Using Nature as a Prescription appeared first on Earth.Org.

If the world is to meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG13), which demands urgent action to tackle the climate crisis, companies in every sector must act. So-called ‘green business’ refers to a model in which companies have no negative impact on the environment, economy or community. However, is ‘green growth’ little more than a myth? 

—

Consumer perception is shifting with a green goal in mind. Products, foods and lifestyles with a high carbon footprint are seeing a decline in popularity as consumer awareness of environmental issues increases. A study from PwC found that over 60% of consumers believe that climate-related issues are the most important issues facing the world, with 75% saying that they have changed their consumption patterns towards a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle. 

With consumer demands changing, sustainability has become a buzz word for businesses. This is illustrated in a statement from the Governor of the Bank of England in early 2019, which says that companies that do not adjust to a net-zero world by 2050 ‘will fail to exist’. 

The Importance of Sustainability in Business

Sustainable business must go beyond the typical corporate social responsibility agenda and step up as leaders of a green revolution instead of waiting for the government to deliver solutions. As pointed out by Olivia Sibony, CEO at SeedTribe, “businesses are uniquely positioned to find innovative solutions to address SDG13 in a way that is financially attractive.” Businesses must therefore prioritise the planet in their bottom lines, following a ‘triple bottom line’ model where people, planet and profit are given equal weighting. 

Among the leaders of the rapidly-growing green growth push include The Global Investors for Sustainable Development (GISD), comprising of CEOs from 30 of the world’s biggest companies. The GISD includes global firms such as UBS, Santander and Aviva, who have promised to improve their investments in achieving the UN’s SDGs. They aim to do this through revisiting existing and new business models to align with the SDGs, creating portfolios for sustainable investments and addressing any obstacles to long-term investment in sustainable development. This is followed by the recent news that activist hedge fund TCI, which manages assets worth £22 billion, has pledged to target directors of large companies to disclose their carbon emissions. Sir Christopher Hohn, founder of TCI, says, “investing in a company that doesn’t disclose its pollution is like investing in a company that doesn’t disclose its balance sheet.” 

The IMF’s October 2019 report states that environmental, social and governance (ESG) funds are small in quantity but fast growing, representing $850 billion in assets (less than 2% of the total global investment fund assets under management). The IMF also points out that a lack of consistent definitions over what constitutes ESG investments means that global asset size estimates range from $3 trillion (J.P. Morgan, 2019) to $31 trillion (Global Sustainable Investment Alliance 2019). However, climate-concerned investors are on the rise: with over 1,715 signatories representing $81.7 trillion in assets under management, the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) is an obvious example. This initiative helps to accelerate the integration of ESG into decision-making through guidance and investment analysis. The PRI recently forecasted that tighter government climate regulations by 2025 could wipe up to $2.3 trillion in company valuations in industries ranging from fossil fuel producers to car producers. The pressure on companies to increase their transparency and accountability in the face of a climate emergency is a sure sign that the dominant model of business-as-usual is becoming irrelevant. 

Green Growth or Greenwash? 

This ‘green gold rush’ poses a fundamental question of whether companies are advocating for sustainability because they have a genuine intrinsic care for the environment or if they’re exploiting the discourse surrounding sustainability in order to grow their bottom line. 

Debates and questions of such ‘greenwashing’ are increasingly rife. Greenwashing is the process of painting a false picture about the sustainability of a company’s products with an aim of capitalising on consumer trends. Common examples include oil companies featuring the importance of biodiversity on their websites whilst continuing to be the force behind its destruction. Futerra’s 2015 Selling Sustainability Report offers 10 basic rules for avoiding greenwashing, including being wary of ‘green’ products from a ‘dirty’ company, irrelevant claims, and ‘fluffy language’. 

The Sustainable Business Model

Helping consumers to distinguish between ‘green’ and ‘greenwash’ is the growth of ‘B Corporations’. So-called B Corps must go through rigorous externally-led analysis that measures their environmental and social impact, from supply-chain to community engagement, to gain a B Corp certification. Accountability must be legally built into the sustainable business model, balancing people, planet and profits as part of the global movement calling for ’business to be a force for good’. The B Corp Directory helps consumers navigate over 3000 B Corps in 150 industries. 

The corporate world is faced with increasing pressure to adapt to a more sustainable business landscape from both investors and consumers. With climate-consciousness and calls for corporate transparency on the rise, it won’t be long before businesses who have no regard for the environment will be left behind. Global Head of Sustainability at Capgemini, James Robey says, “We firmly believe that those organisations failing to grasp the sustainability agenda will cease to operate in the hard realities of the environment beyond 2030.” 

The increasing divestment of large hedge funds and financiers away from companies that do not disclose their carbon emissions or adapt their business model makes this proposition even more of a reality. 

Climate change presents an opportunity for transformational change in the business world; green growth can be a reality if greenwashing is left behind and transparency and real change are prioritised. Businesses must look to overcome the fundamental challenges of this transition and focus on balancing planet, people and profit.

The post Sustainable Business: The Green and the ‘Greenwash’ appeared first on Earth.Org.

China’s clean energy investments are plummeting, having decreased 39% in the first half of this year from the same period last year. At the same time, construction of new coal plants is set to equal the capacity of all coal plants in the EU. As the world’s biggest carbon emitter, how can China still be expanding its coal production with the 2°C Paris Agreement target in mind? 

—

A recent statement published by a group of 11,000 scientists warned of ‘untold human suffering’ unless radical climate action and lifestyle changes occur, adding that the Earth is now facing a ‘climate emergency’. 

It’s not all bad news, however: this year, coal-generated electricity is expected to see its biggest global reduction on record. During the UN Climate Action Summit in New York, António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, brought world leaders together in a bid to encourage faster reduction of emissions under the Paris Agreement and he specifically called for member countries to end all new coal developments by 2020. As one of the most carbon-intensive natural resources, coal is at the heart of debates about the climate crisis and emissions. With this in mind, questions arise as to why China is increasing its coal production capacity and decreasing its green energy investments.

In its Renewable Energy Development Five Year Plan established in 2016, China outlined its objectives to include increasing installed renewable power capacity to 680 GW by 2020 and installed wind capacity to 210 GW. Because of these commitments, China has been touted as the next ‘renewable energy superpower’.

China’s Coal Ambitions

Despite this progress, clean energy investments across Asia are plummeting, coinciding with an increase in coal production. China, the world’s biggest carbon emitter, accounts for most of this decline. The nation put US$86 billion into clean energy projects in 2018, down from US$122 billion in 2017, as it cut renewables subsidy programmes to control ‘soaring’ costs. Despite this financial concern, a report by the Global Energy Monitor reveals that China expanded coal production by nearly 43 GW between January 2018 and June 2019, far above an 8 GW decline across the rest of the world as more plants closed than were opened.  

The territory doesn’t seem to be stopping anytime soon: coal plants roughly equal to the coal capacity of the entire EU are under construction, amounting to around 121 GW. The Global Energy Monitor report argues that an increase in coal capacity is incompatible with the Paris Agreement target of keeping global warming below 2°C by 2100; as it is, if current activities are continued, this target is optimistic. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has found that sticking to this target requires a 58%- 70% reduction from current levels in global coal power generation by 2030, and a 90% reduction by 2035. 

China’s total coal-fired power capacity stands at more than 1000 GW. The country needs to close more than 40% of that to stick to greenhouse gas reductions required to meet the 2°C target. China’s increase in coal production will entirely offset global declines in coal power use across the rest of the world. 

You might also like: Asia’s Battle Against Plastic Waste

Defying the Paris Agreement 

Under the Paris Agreement, countries have united to adopt nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, which incorporate efforts by each member country to reduce emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. However, a recent report found that the current NDC ambitions need to be tripled for emission reductions to be in line with the 2°C target. Despite these numerous and hard-hitting warnings, global CO​2 emissions from fossil fuels are continuing to grow by over 1% annually and 2% in 2018, reaching an all-time high. China’s emissions are expected to rise about 3% this year.

In 2015, in an attempt to curb the growth of coal production and usage, the Chinese national government tried to clamp down on new-build coal. However, it continued to allow provincial governments the freedom to permit new coal plants. This resulted in local authorities permitting up to five times more coal plants. 

China’s economy grew 6% in the third quarter of 2019 compared with a year earlier, its slowest pace in 30 years. The Financial Times argues that this revived push for coal is driven by two main economic factors, namely that Chinese energy companies are desperate to gain market share and local governments still view coal plants as a source of jobs and investment, especially in regions like Shanxi, which relies on the fuel for half of its jobs and 80% of its energy. 

The nation commands half of the world’s coal-power capacity, with some plants only operating half of the time, creating the opportunity for their use to grow quickly. It is vital that both the long-term economic and environmental impacts of this coal rush be considered further. 

According to the Global Energy Monitor’s report, the way to do this lies with the Chinese government. It argues that existing policies discouraging coal plant building should be strengthened, such as reducing guaranteed operating hours and rates of return for new coal plants, and incentivising low-carbon power over coal. 

China is still the leading investor in renewable energy globally, so sticking to this message is crucial for meeting the Paris Agreement targets and mitigating the impacts of anthropogenic climate change. 

However, China is adamant that coal is part of its long-term vision, explicitly defying the Paris Agreement. “We continue to work hard to advance the fight against climate change, but we are indeed facing multiple challenges such as developing the economy, improving people’s livelihoods, eliminating poverty and controlling pollution,” said Zhao Yingmin, China’s Vice Minister of Ecology and Environment at a recent briefing. 

The post The Coal Rush: How China is Undermining the Paris Agreement appeared first on Earth.Org.