Human activities, mostly the burning of fossil fuels, are changing the climate faster than ever. As the world gets hotter, scientists and policymakers have agreed to try everything they can to limit warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels. But even 2C of warming will greatly impact life on Earth. Earth.Org looks at what will happen when we hit this warming milestone, what changes we can expect in extreme weather events, climate patterns, sea levels and temperatures, and what it means for ecosystems and human activities.

—

The Earth’s climate is changing at a rate never seen in human history. The main driver of this change is the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Behind this are human activities like the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes. With warming expected to continue in the years to come, we are now at a critical moment in human history where our choices will determine the future of life on this planet.

In 2015, world leaders met in Paris to address this global issue. The talks culminated in the Paris Agreement, an international treaty that set a big goal: to limit global warming to 1.5C or “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels. The 2C benchmark was not chosen arbitrarily. It is the point beyond which various scientists believe the risks of catastrophic and irreversible changes to our planet’s systems will increase significantly.

But even if we meet this target, we need to understand that a world 2C above pre-industrial levels will still be a very different world. The changes will be far-reaching, affecting everything from weather patterns and sea levels to ecosystems and human societies. Some places will warm more than others; some will get wetter while others drier. Extreme weather events will become more frequent and intense, bringing about devastation and death.

Understanding 2C of Warming

Before we get into the details, let’s understand what 2C means in climate change terms. This is the average increase in global surface temperatures compared to pre-industrial levels (a period between 1850-1900). According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the planet has so far warmed 1.2C, with many projections suggesting we are “well on our way” to 2C. It is important to note that warming is not uniform across the globe. Some areas, like the poles, are warming much faster than others. Europe is the world’s fastest-warming continent, heating at double the rate than any other continent.

Similarly, the impacts of warming can vary greatly depending on local conditions and vulnerabilities.

Temperature Changes

A 2C warmer world will be a world of big temperature changes. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), land will warm more than the oceans and the Arctic will warm 2-3 times faster than the global average.

Some of the temperature changes in a 2C scenario include:

1. More frequent and intense heatwaves in the tropics.
2. Fewer cold snaps in the high latitudes.
3. More warm days and nights globally.
4. More temperature variability in some areas, which will lead to more unpredictable weather.

These temperature changes will have cascading effects on various aspects of the Earth’s systems, from weather patterns to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Extreme Weather Events

One of the most noticeable impacts of 2C of warming will be the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. These events can have devastating effects on communities, infrastructure, and natural systems.

• Heatwaves

Heatwaves will become more common, more intense, and longer-lasting in a 2C warmer world. Research suggests that the probability of experiencing a heatwave like the one that affected Europe in 2003, causing over 30,000 deaths, will increase from once every 100 years to once every 4 years under 2C of warming.

Regions already prone to high temperatures, such as the Middle East and North Africa, will experience “super heatwaves” with temperatures exceeding 50C (122F). This will make some areas potentially uninhabitable without significant adaptation measures.

An October 2023 study warned that heat and humidity levels will reach lethal levels for hours, days, and even weeks in some parts of the world by the end of the century – even below 2C of warming – making it impossible to stay outdoors. 

More on the topic: Silent Killer: Understanding the Risks of Extreme Heat

• Droughts

Droughts will become more frequent and more severe in many parts of the world. The IPCC projects that the area of global land affected by drought disasters will increase by 50% for 2C compared to 1.5C. The Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of Australia and South America will be particularly affected. 

Besides affecting water resources, intense and prolonged droughts will decimate food crops and cause high rates of livestock deaths, leading to food insecurity.

• Floods

While some areas will get drier, others will get more flooded. With 2C of warming, the IPCC estimates that the global population exposed to river flooding will be up to 170% higher compared to a 1.5C scenario.

Heavy precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions, particularly at high latitudes and in the tropics. This increase in extreme rainfall events will mean more flash floods and urban flooding.

• Tropical Cyclones

While the total number of tropical cyclones may not change much, they will be more intense. Studies suggest that in a 2C scenario, the proportion of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes will increase by 13% and the average intensity by 5%.

More powerful storms will bring stronger winds, more rainfall and higher storm surges, endangering coastal communities and infrastructure.

Climate Patterns

Beyond extreme weather events, 2C of warming will lead to significant shifts in global climate patterns, affecting precipitation and ocean currents.

• Shifting Rainfall Patterns

Generally speaking, wet places will get wetter and dry places drier, making water stress worse in many parts of the world. Changes will include:

1. More rain in high latitudes and parts of the tropics.
2. Less rain in subtropical dry regions, including the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of Australia.
3. Changes to monsoon systems, affecting billions of people who rely on seasonal rains for agriculture and water supply.

• Changes in Ocean Currents

Ocean currents help regulate the global climate and support marine ecosystems. With 2C of warming, big changes in ocean circulation patterns are expected.

One of the most worrying changes will be the weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) which includes the Gulf Stream. Research indicates  that in a 2C scenario, the AMOC could weaken by 15-20%, making northwestern Europe cooler and affecting weather patterns across the Northern Hemisphere.

More on the topic: What the Slowdown of Atlantic Ocean Circulation Means for the Future of the Climate

Sea Level Rise

Sea level rise is one of the biggest long-term impacts of global warming. With 2C of warming, global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.46-0.99 meters (1.51-3.25 feet) by 2100 compared to 1986-2005 levels. And even if we were to halt warming, sea levels would continue to rise for centuries.

This will not be uniform around the world because of local land subsidence and changes in ocean currents. Some implications of sea level rise in a 2C warmer world include:

1. More coastal flooding and erosion, threatening low-lying coastal areas and small island nations.
2. Saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers, affecting freshwater resources.
3. Loss of coastal wetlands and mangroves, which provide important ecosystem services and natural buffers against storms.
4. Climate refugee crisis driven by the displacement of millions of people living in coastal areas.

Impact on Ecosystems

Thousands of species, both terrestrial and marine, will face increased extinction risks as they struggle to adapt to rapidly changing conditions. These disruptions will have cascading effects on biodiversity, carbon storage, and the many ecosystem services that human societies depend on.

Some key impacts include:

1. Coral reefs: Studies suggest that 99% of coral reefs will be lost due to the increased frequency of marine heatwaves and ocean acidification.
2. Arctic ecosystems: The rapid warming of the Arctic will lead to significant loss of sea ice and alter food webs, affecting species like polar bears and seals.
3. Forests: Increased temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns will lead to shifts in forest composition and increased risks of wildfires and pest outbreaks.
4. Biodiversity loss: The rate of species extinctions is expected to accelerate, with one study projecting that 18% of insects, 16% of plants, and 8% of vertebrates will lose over half their climatically determined geographic range with 2C of warming.

Human Life

The impacts of 2C of warming will be felt across all aspects of human society, from food and water security to health and economic stability.

• Agriculture and Food Security

Agricultural systems worldwide will face significant challenges. While some high-latitude regions might see increased crop yields because of conditions favouring longer growing seasons, many other areas will face decreased productivity because of heat stress, changes in precipitation patterns, and increased pest and disease outbreaks. These changes will lead to increased food prices and heightened food insecurity, particularly in vulnerable regions.

Key agricultural impacts include:

1. Decreased yields of major crops like wheat, rice, and maize in various regions, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions.
2. Shifts in suitable growing areas for various crops, potentially disrupting established agricultural practices.
3. Increased variability in crop yields because of more frequent extreme weather events.
4. Reduced nutritional quality of some crops because of elevated CO2 levels.

• Water Resources

Water resources and availability will be significantly affected, driven by changes in precipitation patterns and increased evaporation. Key impacts on water resources include:

1. Increased water scarcity in already dry regions, such as the Mediterranean and Middle East.
2. Changes in the timing and volume of river flows, affecting water supply for agriculture, hydropower generation, and urban areas.
3. Reduced water quality because of higher temperatures and changes in runoff patterns.
4. Increased competition for water resources, potentially leading to conflicts.

• Health

Human health will be affected both directly and indirectly. Some key health consequences include:

1. Increased heat-related mortality and morbidity, particularly in urban areas and among vulnerable populations.
2. Changes in the distribution and incidence of vector-borne diseases like malaria and dengue fever.
3. Increased respiratory problems because of higher levels of ground-level ozone and longer pollen seasons.
4. Mental health impacts related to extreme weather events and environmental changes.
5. Potential increases in malnutrition due to impacts on food security.

• Economic Impacts

The economic consequences of 2C of warming will be substantial and wide-ranging. While some sectors and regions might see benefits, the overall global economic impact is expected to be negative. Key economic impacts include:

1. Increased costs from extreme weather events and sea level rise, including damage to infrastructure and property.
2. Productivity losses because of heat stress and health impacts.
3. Shifts in tourism patterns, with some destinations becoming less attractive because of heat or other climate impacts.
4. Potential disruptions to global supply chains because of extreme weather events and changing resource availability.
5. Transition costs as economies adapt to a low-carbon future.

Studies suggest that mitigation efforts could reduce global economic damages by trillions of dollars annually by 2100 compared to a business-as-usual scenario.

More on the topic: Invasive Species Cost Global Economy $423bn Each Year, Threaten Ecosystems and Food Security

Mitigation and Adaptation

While the impacts will be significant, it is important to note that this scenario represents a substantial improvement over higher warming scenarios. Achieving this target will require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban, and industrial systems.

Key mitigation strategies include:

1. Rapid decarbonisation of energy systems, transitioning to renewable energy sources.
2. Improvements in energy efficiency across all sectors.
3. Changes in land use practices, including reducing deforestation and improving agricultural methods.
4. Development and deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies.

Simultaneously, adaptation measures will be crucial to reduce the vulnerability of human and natural systems to the impacts of climate change. These include:

1. Improving water management systems and increasing water use efficiency.
2. Developing heat-resistant crop varieties and diversifying agricultural systems.
3. Enhancing early warning systems for extreme weather events.
4. Implementing nature-based solutions for coastal protection and flood management.
5. Strengthening health systems to cope with changing disease patterns and extreme weather events.

You might also like: Assessing Global Progress on Climate Adaptation

Every Degree Counts

A 2C warmer world will be tough across all natural and human systems. More frequent and intense extreme weather events, changes in climate patterns, sea level rise, impacts on ecosystems – no matter what, the consequences will be far reaching and in many cases irreversible.

Limiting global warming requires immediate, big and coordinated global action to reduce emissions and build resilience to climate impacts. It means transformative change in how we produce and consume energy, manage our land and run our economies and societies.

As we enter a critical decade for climate action, the choices we make today will shape the world we live in tomorrow. Knowing what 2C will look like can help us take informed action that will protect our planet and everyone living on it.

Featured image: Georgina Goodwill.

The post What 2C of Warming Will Look Like: A Comprehensive Assessment appeared first on Earth.Org.

As climate change accelerates and urbanisation intensifies, cities worldwide face a growing threat: urban heat. Rising temperatures, exacerbated by the urban heat island effect, are endangering public health, straining infrastructure, and hurting economies. Amid the crisis, cities are fighting back with innovative solutions to cool down their streets and protect their residents.

—

Urban heat is a serious problem that threatens cities’ health, well-being, and sustainability worldwide. Urban heat refers to the compound consequence of global warming and the urban heat island (UHI) effect, which makes cities hotter than their surrounding rural areas. Urban heat can devastate human lives, infrastructure, ecosystems, and economies, especially during heatwaves and extreme heat events. In this article, we look at what causes urban heat, its challenges for cities, and what solutions and success stories exist to tackle this issue.

What Causes Urban Heat?

Urban heat is mainly driven by two factors: climate change and urbanisation. Climate change is increasing the frequency, intensity, and duration of heatwaves and extreme heat events, which can raise the temperature of cities by several degrees. For example, the 2021 heat wave that hit the Pacific Northwest killed an estimated 1,200 people after temperatures rose to a record-breaking 116F (46.6C) in Portland, Oregon and 108F (42.2C) in Seattle, Washington.

Urbanisation is another factor that contributes to urban heat. As more people move into cities, they replace natural vegetation and soil with buildings, roads, and other impervious surfaces that absorb and re-emit more heat, creating a UHI effect. 

UHI can increase the temperature of urban areas by up to 7C during the day and 12C at night compared to rural areas. UHI can also worsen air quality, as higher temperatures increase the formation of ground-level ozone and other pollutants.

What Challenges Does Urban Heat Pose for Cities?

Urban heat poses multiple challenges for cities.

• Public health risks: Urban heat can cause heat stress, heat exhaustion, heat stroke, dehydration, and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, especially among vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children, low-income, and minority populations. Urban heat can also exacerbate existing health conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 166,000 people died due to heat-related causes between 1998 and 2017.
• Infrastructure damage: Urban heat can damage critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, railways, power lines, and water pipes by causing them to crack, buckle, melt, or burst. For example, in 2019, a heatwave in France caused a nuclear power plant to shut down due to overheating water used for cooling. Urban heat can also increase the risk of wildfires, destroying buildings and vegetation and releasing harmful emissions.
• Economic losses: Urban heat can reduce the productivity and performance of workers, especially those who work outdoors, such as construction, agriculture, and transportation workers. It can also increase the demand and cost of energy for cooling, which can strain the power grid and lead to blackouts, and can reduce the attractiveness and liveability of cities, which can affect tourism, recreation, and business activities on a global level.

You might also like: Human-Caused Climate Change Added 26 Days of Extreme Heat in Past 12 Months: Report

What Solutions and Success Stories Exist to Tackle Urban Heat?

1. Heat Mitigation Strategies

These strategies aim to cool cities by changing how we plan and design the built environment, incorporating vegetation, and reducing waste of heat. Examples include:

• Planting trees and increasing green cover: Trees and plants can provide shade, evapotranspiration, and aesthetic benefits, which can lower the temperature and improve the comfort and well-being of urban residents. For example, Singapore has successfully cooled down parts of its city by planting over 7 million trees and creating more than 300 parks and gardens.

• Installing green or cool roofs: Green roofs are roofs covered with vegetation, while cool roofs feature bright coatings to reflect more sunlight and absorb less heat. Both types of roof can reduce the heat gain and loss of buildings, lower energy consumption and costs for cooling, and enhance the biodiversity and amenities of urban spaces. For example, New York City has installed more than 10 million square feet (929,000 square metres) of green and cool roofs since 2009, reducing the city’s annual greenhouse gas emissions by 16,000 metric tons.
• Replacing regular pavement with cool pavement: Cool pavement has a higher albedo (reflectivity) or permeability (water retention) than regular pavement, reducing the surface and air temperature and stormwater runoff. Cool pavement can be made of concrete, asphalt, gravel, or pavers or coated with reflective or porous sealants. A good example is Los Angeles, California. The city has been testing cool pavement projects since 2017, which have been shown to reduce the surface temperature by up to 11C (51.8F).

You might also like: How Sustainable Cities Like Singapore Succeed in Green Urban Development

2. Heat Management Strategies

Heat management strategies focus on protecting people from heat that cannot be mitigated. Some examples are:

• Establishing dedicated cooling centres: Cooling centres are public facilities, such as libraries, schools, community centres, or shelters, that offer air-conditioned spaces, water, and information for people who need to escape the heat, especially those who do not have access to cooling at home. The US city of Chicago, for example, has established over 120 cooling centres across the city, which are open during heat emergencies and can accommodate up to 5,000 people.
• Ensuring everyone has access to reliable energy and indoor cooling: Energy and indoor cooling are essential for coping with urban heat, though many people, especially in low-income and developing countries, lack access to them. Therefore, households and businesses must provide affordable, efficient, and clean energy and cooling solutions, such as solar panels, fans, evaporative coolers, or heat pumps. In 2019, India, a country notorious for extreme summer heatwaves, launched the India Cooling Action Plan, which aims to provide access to sustainable cooling for all by 2038.
• Requiring certain protections for people working outdoors in hot weather: People working outdoors, such as construction, agriculture, and transportation workers, are at high risk of heat-related illnesses and injuries. Therefore, it is essential to provide them with adequate protection from extreme conditions, including regular breaks, shade, water, protective clothing, and training. In 2005, the state of California adopted a heat illness prevention standard, which requires employers to implement a written prevention plan and provide workers with the necessary resources and education.

You might also like: 5 Urban Solutions to Tackle Climate Change in Cities

The Way Forward

Urban heat is a serious problem that threatens cities’ health, well-being, and sustainability worldwide. Urban heat is mainly driven by climate change and urbanisation, which increase the frequency, intensity, and duration of heatwaves and extreme heat events and create urban heat islands that make cities hotter than their surrounding rural areas. Urban heat can devastate human lives, infrastructure, ecosystems, and economies, especially during heat waves and extreme heat events. 

Fortunately, many solutions and success stories exist to tackle urban heat, such as heat mitigation strategies that aim to cool cities by changing the way we plan and design the built environment, incorporate vegetation, and reduce waste heat, and heat management strategies that focus on protecting people from the heat that cannot be mitigated, such as establishing dedicated cooling centres, ensuring everyone has access to reliable energy and indoor cooling, and requiring certain protections for people working outdoors in hot weather. By implementing these solutions, cities can become more resilient, liveable, and sustainable in the face of urban heat.

This article was originally published on November 21, 2023

The post How Cities Around the World Are Tackling the Urban Heat Crisis appeared first on Earth.Org.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has fired a game-changing shot across the corporate world by adopting sweeping new climate disclosure requirements for public companies. Set to take effect in 2024 pending legal review, these rules will compel businesses to come clean on their greenhouse gas emissions, lay bare their exposure to climate risks, and quantify potential financial fallouts from global warming. 

—

Recognising the urgency of climate change and its extensive economic impact, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken a decisive step toward enhancing market transparency. On March 6, 2024, the SEC adopted landmark climate-related disclosure rules in a 3-to-2 vote. 

The new rules require US public companies and foreign private issuers to disclose a wide range of climate-related information in their periodic reports and registration statements. The aim is to provide investors with consistent, comparable, and actionable information regarding the financial effects of climate-related risks and the strategies companies employ to manage those risks. The final rules, which were scheduled to take effect in May 2024, have been stayed pending judicial review. 

This stay highlights the ongoing debate and legal scrutiny surrounding the implementation of such regulatory measures. Nonetheless, the SEC’s initiative marks a pivotal moment in corporate reporting and accountability, mandating disclosures that cover climate-related risks, greenhouse gas emissions, and risk management strategies. The move is expected to empower investors with the information they need to make informed decisions, potentially driving significant changes in corporate behaviour and aligning business strategies with the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Genesis of the New Disclosure Rules

The genesis of the SEC’s new disclosure rules is rooted in a longstanding push for financial transparency concerning climate-related risks. This movement has been propelled by investor activism and the demand for standardised reporting frameworks. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) established by the Financial Stability Board in 2015 has been at the forefront of advocating for transparent communication of climate risks and its framework for voluntary climate-related financial disclosures has been widely embraced by companies and investors worldwide.

However, the voluntary nature of the TCFD’s recommendations led to inconsistencies in the quality and comparability of climate-related disclosures. This posed challenges for investors who sought to accurately assess and compare climate-related risks and opportunities across their portfolios.

In response to these challenges and market demands, the SEC proposed comprehensive rules that require public companies to disclose their climate-related risks, impacts, and mitigation strategies. The SEC’s action underscores the growing acknowledgment that climate change presents material financial risks to businesses and that transparent disclosures are crucial for fair, orderly, and efficient markets.

The development of these rules has been a multi-year process, involving extensive public consultation, input from industry experts, and a thorough assessment of the potential impacts on companies and investors. The SEC has carefully navigated a complex landscape, aiming to balance the need for detailed disclosures with concerns over regulatory burden and the intricacies of quantifying and reporting climate-related information.

An Overview of the New Rules

The new climate disclosure rules place a significant emphasis on the transparency of climate-related information. They require public companies to disclose their direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, known as Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, for the most recently completed fiscal year and provide historical data to facilitate year-over-year comparisons.

While the initial proposal included mandatory disclosures of Scope 3 emissions, which represent indirect emissions from a company’s value chain, the final rules have made such disclosures voluntary. This change was made because of the complexities and challenges associated with reporting Scope 3 emissions, especially for companies with extensive and international supply chains. However, recognizing the importance of Scope 3 emissions, the SEC still encourages companies to report these voluntarily, as many investors and stakeholders view them as material information. 

The new rules also extend beyond emissions data, requiring companies to provide comprehensive details on climate-related risks and opportunities, risk management processes, governance structures, and the actual and potential financial impacts of climate change on their business operations and financial performance.

The implementation of these rules is expected to have a profound impact on corporate reporting practices, likely driving investments in data collection systems, measurement methodologies, and internal controls to ensure the accuracy and consistency of emissions reporting and other climate-related disclosures. 

The SEC’s commitment to enhancing market transparency through these disclosures reflects the growing recognition of the financial risks posed by climate change and the need for investors to have access to reliable and comparable information. 

The Balancing Act: Materiality and Reporting Thresholds

The concept of materiality is indeed a cornerstone of the SEC’s new climate disclosure rules, determining the threshold for what climate-related information companies must disclose. The SEC has faced the challenge of defining material climate-related information, acknowledging that materiality can vary across different industries, companies, and geographic regions.

The SEC’s definition of materiality is that information is material if “there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important in deciding how to vote or make an investment decision.” This is consistent with the long-standing principle of materiality in securities law, which seeks to ensure that investors have access to information that is relevant and could potentially affect market decisions.

In the realm of climate-related disclosures, the SEC has offered guidance on assessing materiality, considering factors such as the nature of the company’s business, exposure to climate-related risks (both physical and transition risks), the potential financial impacts of these risks, and the company’s risk management strategies.

The expected influence of the process of assessing materiality on corporate risk assessment and disclosure strategies is significant. Companies will need to carefully evaluate the relevance and potential impacts of climate-related risks and opportunities, making informed decisions about what information to disclose and how to present it to investors.

This assessment may involve scenario analysis, stress testing, and quantitative modelling to estimate the potential financial impacts of climate change under various scenarios. Companies must consider not only the direct impacts on their operations and supply chains, but also the indirect impacts that may arise from changes in market demand, regulatory shifts, and macroeconomic factors driven by climate change.

Governance and Oversight

The newly adopted climate disclosure rules place significant emphasis on governance structures and oversight related to climate risk management. Public companies are now required to disclose key aspects of their governance processes and risk assessment strategies. Here are the essential points:

1. Board Oversight:
   • Companies must identify the board members or committees responsible for overseeing climate-related risks.
   • The expertise and processes used by these entities for climate risk oversight should be described.
2. Management’s Role:
   • Companies must disclose the roles and responsibilities of management positions or committees responsible for assessing and managing climate-related risks.
   • The relevant expertise of position holders or committee members should be highlighted.
3. Processes and Frequency:
   • Companies need to outline how the board and management stay informed about climate-related risks and the frequency of updates.

This heightened focus on governance aims to drive changes in corporate practices. Boards and management teams will need to demonstrate their competence and engagement in climate risk oversight. Enhancing governance frameworks, providing climate-related training, and establishing clear accountability for climate risk management are likely steps. Additionally, companies may need to integrate climate considerations more explicitly into their strategic planning and decision-making processes.

Financial Statement Disclosures and Impact

Companies are now also required to develop methodologies for estimating the financial effects of climate-related physical and transition risks, including extreme weather events, sea-level rise, policy changes, and shifts in market preferences. They must disclose a range of financial impacts, such as asset impairments, stranded assets, increased operating costs, revenue impacts, and expenditures on climate initiatives. They must also assess and quantify these impacts, providing narrative explanations when quantification is not feasible, and disclose how these factors affect their cost of capital and funding strategies.

The challenges in making these disclosures are significant, as companies must separate the effects of climate change from other market forces and deal with the uncertainties of long-term impacts. To address these challenges, the SEC has provided guidance on using estimates, assumptions, and scenario analysis. 

Companies are encouraged to use scenario analysis aligned with current climate science to assess potential financial impacts under various future states. These disclosures are crucial for investors to understand the financial implications of climate change for companies and will inform investment decisions.

You might also like: Extreme Weather Events Cause $200bn in Economic Losses Globally, Philippines and US Hit the Hardest, Report Finds 

Risk Management and Strategy

The SEC’s climate disclosure rules mandate that companies disclose their climate risk management processes, including how they identify, assess, and manage risks. This encompasses both physical and transition risks related to climate change. 

Companies must detail their risk management frameworks, material risks, mitigation strategies, and how these risks affect their business strategy and financial planning. They are also required to use scenario analysis to evaluate the resilience of their strategies under different climate scenarios. The SEC emphasizes the need for specific information that reflects each company’s unique risks and strategies, ensuring that risk management is integrated into their governance and decision-making.

Reactions

The SEC’s climate disclosure rules have elicited mixed reactions. Some experts and investors praise the rules for enhancing transparency, while others express concerns about legal overreach and the risk of litigation. The SEC maintains that the rules are within its mandate to protect investors and ensure market integrity, aiming to provide essential information without dictating environmental policies. 

The market has generally responded well, recognising the importance of climate-related information for investment decisions. However, there is a caution against greenwashing, with the new rules designed to prevent misleading environmental claims. The success of these rules will depend on companies’ compliance and the market’s reception of the disclosed information.

Global Context and Comparative Analysis

The SEC’s climate disclosure rules are part of a global shift towards more transparent and standardised climate-related financial reporting. In the European Union, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), set to take effect in 2024, requires a broad range of companies to report on sustainability issues, including climate change. The CSRD encompasses a “double materiality” principle, considering how sustainability issues impact businesses and vice versa.

Internationally, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) issued standards to create a global baseline for sustainability disclosures, including climate-related risks and opportunities. These efforts reflect a collective move to provide investors with consistent, decision-useful information across markets, despite the challenges of diverse regulatory environments and the need for data standardisation

Challenges and Opportunities for Companies

The SEC’s climate disclosure rules bring both challenges and opportunities for companies. They necessitate significant investments in data collection and measurement, especially for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, and may require new technology and expertise. While Scope 3 emissions reporting is not mandatory, many companies opt to report them, facing challenges in data collection and risk of legal scrutiny. 

Robust internal controls and external assurance are essential for accurate disclosures, adding to the complexity and cost. Smaller companies may find compliance costs burdensome, prompting a need for innovative, cost-effective solutions. Successful implementation requires a cultural shift towards transparency and climate integration in business strategies. Embracing these rules can offer competitive advantages, attracting eco-conscious investors and enabling companies to innovate for a low-carbon economy.

Future Outlook and Conclusion

As companies adapt to this regulatory shift, technology will be crucial in streamlining data collection and analysis, with artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning playing key roles in enhancing reporting accuracy and efficiency. The integration of these technologies, however, will require collaborative efforts to overcome challenges like legacy system compatibility and data quality management. 

The future trajectory of climate-related reporting is expected to see further regulatory evolution, both domestically and internationally, with potential expansions in disclosure scope, including more comprehensive coverage of value chain emissions (Scope 3).

Global harmonization efforts led by entities like the ISSB aim to establish uniform disclosure standards, aiding comparability and consistency across markets. As investor and societal demands evolve, the pressure on companies to deliver clear, actionable disclosures will likely increase, necessitating a proactive and strategic approach to climate risk management and reporting. Companies that effectively incorporate sustainability into their business models and governance structures may not only comply with regulatory demands but also unlock new value creation opportunities. The success of the SEC’s rule will ultimately hinge on its impact on corporate practices and the broader shift towards a sustainable, climate-resilient economy.

Transparent, decision-useful disclosures are becoming increasingly critical in shaping a future where capital flows towards sustainable, innovative businesses. While the SEC’s move represents a significant advancement, it is part of an ongoing journey requiring persistent collaboration and commitment to address the financial implications of climate change and foster a sustainable future.

The post Climate in the Spotlight: New Groundbreaking Rules Redefine US Corporate Accountability appeared first on Earth.Org.

Water is life. Yet, as the world population mushrooms and climate change intensifies droughts, over 2 billion people still lack access to clean, safe drinking water. By 2030, water scarcity could displace over 700 million people. From deadly diseases to famines, economic collapse to terrorism, the global water crisis threatens to sever the strands holding communities together. This ubiquitous yet unequally distributed resource underscores the precarious interdependence binding all nations and ecosystems and shows the urgent need for bold collective action to promote global water security and avert the humanitarian, health, economic, and political catastrophes that unchecked water stress promises.

—

The global water crisis refers to the scarcity of usable and accessible water resources across the world. Currently, nearly 703 million people lack access to water – approximately 1 in 10 people on the planet – and over 2 billion do not have safe drinking water services. The United Nations predicts that by 2025, 1.8 billion people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity. With the existing climate change scenario, almost half the world’s population will be living in areas of high water stress by 2030. In addition, water scarcity in some arid and semi-arid places will displace between 24 million and 700 million people. By 2030, water scarcity could displace over 700 million people.

In Africa alone, as many as 25 African countries are expected to suffer from a greater combination of increased water scarcity and water stress by 2025. Sub-Saharan regions are experiencing the worst of the crisis, with only 22-34% of populations in at least eight sub-Saharan countries having access to safe water.

Water security, or reliable access to adequate quantities of acceptable quality water for health, livelihoods, ecosystems, and production has become an urgent issue worldwide.

This crisis has far-reaching implications for global health, food security, education, economics, and politics. As water resources dwindle, conflicts and humanitarian issues over access to clean water will likely increase. Climate change also exacerbates water scarcity in many parts of the world. Addressing this complex and multifaceted crisis requires understanding its causes, impacts, and potential solutions across countries and communities.

You might also like: Why Global Food Security Matters in 2024

The Global Water Crisis

The global water crisis stems from a confluence of factors, including growing populations, increased water consumption, poor resource management, climate change, pollution, and lack of access due to poverty and inequality.

The world population has tripled over the last 70 years, leading to greater demand for finite freshwater resources. Agricultural, industrial, and domestic water usage have depleted groundwater in many regions faster than it can be replenished. Agriculture alone accounts for nearly 70% of global water withdrawals, often utilizing outdated irrigation systems and water-intensive crops.Climate change has significantly reduced renewable water resources in many parts of the world. Glaciers are melting, rainfall patterns have shifted, droughts and floods have intensified, and temperatures are on the rise, further exacerbating the crisis.

In many less developed nations, lack of infrastructure, corruption, and inequality leave large populations without reliable access to clean water. Women and children often bear the burden of travelling distances to fetch water for households. Contamination from human waste, industrial activities, and agricultural runoff also threaten water quality and safety.

Water scarcity poses risks to health, sanitation, food production, energy generation, economic growth, and political stability worldwide. Conflicts over shared water resources are likely to intensify without concerted global action.

Case Study: Water Crisis in Gaza

The water crisis in Gaza represents one of the most severe cases of water scarcity worldwide. The small Palestinian territory relies almost entirely on the underlying coastal aquifer as its source of freshwater. However, years of excessive pumping far exceed natural recharge rates. According to the UN, 97% groundwater does not meet World Health Organization (WHO) standards for human consumption due to high salinity and nitrate levels.

The pollution of Gaza’s sole freshwater source stems from multiple factors. Rapid population growth contaminated agricultural runoff, inadequate wastewater treatment, and saltwater intrusion due to over-extraction have rendered the aquifer unusable.

 In June 2007, following the military takeover of Gaza by Hamas, the Israeli authorities significantly intensified existing movement restrictions, virtually isolating the Gaza Strip from the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), and the world. The blockade imposed by Israeli Authority also severely restricts infrastructure development and humanitarian aid.

The water crisis has devastated Gazan agriculture, caused widespread health issues, and crippled economic growth. Many citizens of Gaza have to buy trucked water of dubious quality, as the public network is unsafe and scarce. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) reports that this water can cost up to 20 times more than the public tariff, with some households spending a third of their income or more on water. Long-term solutions require increased water supplies, wastewater reuse, desalination, and better resource management under conflict.

Case Study: Water Shortage in Africa

Africa faces some of the most pressing challenges with water security worldwide. While the continent has substantial resources, poor infrastructure, mismanagement, corruption, lack of cooperation over transboundary waters, droughts, and population pressures all contribute to African water stress.

According to a 2022 report by the WHO and UNICEF’s Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), 344 million people in sub-Saharan Africa lacked access to safely managed drinking water, and 762 million lacked access to basic sanitation in 2020. WaterAid, a non-governmental organization, explains that water resources are often far from communities due to the expansive nature of the continent, though other factors such as climate change, population growth, poor governance, and lack of infrastructure also play a role. Surface waters such as lakes and rivers evaporate rapidly in the arid and semi-arid regions of Africa, which cover about 45% of the continent’s land area. Many communities rely on limited groundwater and community water points to meet their water needs, but groundwater is not always a reliable or sustainable source, as it can be depleted, contaminated, or inaccessible due to technical or financial constraints. A 2021 study by UNICEF estimated that women and girls in sub-Saharan Africa collectively spend about 37 billion hours a year collecting water, which is equivalent to more than 1 billion hours a day.The 2023 UN World Water Development Report emphasizes the importance of partnerships and cooperation for water, food, energy, health and climate security in Africa, a region with diverse water challenges and opportunities, low water withdrawals per capita, high vulnerability to climate change, and large investment gap for water supply and sanitation.

Water security in Africa is low and uneven, with various countries facing water scarcity, poor sanitation, and water-related disasters. Transboundary conflicts over shared rivers, such as the Nile, pose additional challenges for water management. 

However, some efforts have been made to improve water security through various interventions, such as community-based initiatives, irrigation development, watershed rehabilitation, water reuse, desalination, and policy reforms. These interventions aim to enhance water availability, quality, efficiency, governance, and resilience in the face of climate change. Water security is essential for achieving sustainable development in Africa, as it affects numerous sectors, such as agriculture, health, energy, and the environment.

Other Countries with Water Shortages

Water scarcity issues plague many other parts of the world beyond Gaza and Africa. Several examples stand out:

• Egypt depends largely on the Nile River, but the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam threatens water supplies. Water quality is also declining, and demand is rising with rapid population growth.
• Iraq faces severe water stress impacting agriculture and public health. The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers have dwindled because of upstream damming and climate change. Water distribution is inefficient and wasteful.
• Parts of the United States, like California, have faced prolonged droughts. Groundwater pumping has caused land subsidence, and supplies habitually fall short of demand in cities like Phoenix.

India grapples with extensive groundwater depletion, shrinking reservoirs and glaciers, pollution from agriculture and industry, and tensions with Pakistan and China over shared rivers. Monsoons are increasingly erratic with climate change.

Other water-stressed nations include Australia, Spain, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa. 

While the specifics differ, recurrent themes include unsustainable usage, climate change, pollution, lack of infrastructure, mismanagement, poverty, transboundary conflicts, and population growth pressures. But resources often exist; the challenge lies in equitable distribution, cooperation, efficiency, and sustainable practices. Multiple approaches must accommodate local conditions and transboundary disputes.

You might also like: Water Crisis in South Africa: Causes, Effects, And Solutions

Global Water Security Is at Risk

Water scarcity poses a grave threat to global security on multiple fronts. 

First, it can incite conflicts within and between nations over access rights. History contains many examples of water wars, and transboundary disputes increase the risk today in arid regions like the Middle East and North Africa.

Second, water shortages undermine food security. With agriculture consuming the greatest share of water resources, lack of irrigation threatens crops and livestock essential for sustenance and livelihoods. Food price spikes often trigger instability and migrations.

Third, water scarcity fuels public health crises, leading to social disruptions. Contaminated water spreads diseases like cholera and typhoid. Poor sanitation and hygiene due to water limitations also increase illness. The Covid-19 pandemic underscored the essential nature of water access for viral containment.

Finally, water shortages hamper economic growth and worsen poverty. Hydroelectricity, manufacturing, mining, and other water-intensive industries suffer. The World Bank estimates that by 2050, water scarcity could cost some regions 6% of gross domestic product (GDP), entrenching inequality. Climate migration strains nations. Overall, water crises destabilize societies on many levels if left unaddressed.

Solutions and Recommendations

Tackling the global water crisis requires both local and international initiatives across infrastructure, technology, governance, cooperation, education, and funding.

First, upgrading distribution systems, sewage treatment, dams, desalination, watershed restoration, and irrigation methods could improve supply reliability and quality while reducing waste. Community-based projects often succeed by empowering local stakeholders.

Second, emerging technologies like low-cost water quality sensors, affordable desalination, precision agriculture, and recyclable treatment materials could help poorer nations bridge infrastructure gaps. However, funding research and making innovations affordable remains a key obstacle.

Third, better governance through reduced corruption, privatization, metering, pricing incentives, and integrated policy frameworks could improve efficiency. But human rights must be protected by maintaining affordable minimum access.

Fourth, transboundary water-sharing treaties like those for the Nile and Mekong Rivers demonstrate that diplomacy can resolve potential conflicts. But political will is needed, along with climate change adaptation strategies.

Fifth, education and awareness can empower conservation at the individual level. Behaviour change takes time but can significantly reduce household and agricultural usage.

Finally, increased financial aid, public-private partnerships, better lending terms, and innovation prizes may help nations fund projects. Cost-benefit analyses consistently find high returns on water security investments.

In summary, sustainable solutions require combining new technologies, governance reforms, education, cooperation, and creative financing locally and globally. 

Conclusion

The global water crisis threatens the well-being of billions of people and the stability of nations worldwide. Key drivers include unsustainable usage, climate change, pollution, lack of infrastructure, poverty, weak governance, and transboundary disputes. The multiple impacts span public health, food and energy security, economic growth, and geopolitical conflicts.

While daunting, this crisis also presents opportunities for innovation, cooperation, education, and holistic solutions. With wise policies and investments, water security can be achieved in most regions to support development and peace. But action must be accelerated on both global and community levels before the stresses become overwhelming. Ultimately, our shared human dependence on clean water demands that all stakeholders work in unison to create a water-secure future.

More on the topic: Exploring the Most Efficient Solutions to Water Scarcity

The post Global Water Crisis: Why the World Urgently Needs Water-Wise Solutions appeared first on Earth.Org.

Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time, affecting every aspect of our lives and the planet. It poses significant risks and threats to human health, food security, water availability, biodiversity, and economic development. To cope with the impacts and uncertainties of climate change, we need to adapt to the changing conditions and reduce our vulnerability. This is the essence of climate adaptation.

—

Climate adaptation is the process of adjusting to the actual or expected effects of climate change, to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. It can involve actions at different levels, from individuals and communities to governments and organisations, and across different sectors, such as agriculture, water, health, and energy. It can also take various forms, such as building resilience, enhancing adaptive capacity, managing risks, and transforming systems.

What Is the Global Goal on Adaptation?

The Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) is a set of objectives and targets that aims to guide and measure the progress and effectiveness of climate adaptation at the global level. It was established in Article 7.1 of the Paris Agreement, the landmark international treaty on climate change that was adopted in 2015 and entered into force in 2016, which recognises adaptation as a key component of the global response to climate change, along with mitigation and finance.

The global adaptation goals are stated in Article 7 of the Paris Agreement, which reads:

“Parties hereby establish the global goal on adaptation of enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response in the temperature goal referred to in Article 2”.

The GGA is meant to serve as a unifying framework that can drive political action and finance for adaptation on the same scale as mitigation. However, defining and operationalising it has been a complex and contentious process, involving multiple questions and challenges that need to be resolved, such as defining its scope, indicators, and mechanisms, and mobilising adequate and predictable support for adaptation in developing countries.

The goals are not quantified or prescriptive but rather qualitative and aspirational. They are intended to provide a common vision and direction for adaptation action while respecting the diversity and flexibility of national and regional circumstances, priorities, and needs. 

The Current State of Climate Adaptation and the Global Goal on Adaptation 

The current state of climate adaptation can be assessed by looking at the progress and gaps in implementing and operationalising global adaptation goals, the key actors and stakeholders involved in the process, and the main challenges and barriers to overcome.

1. Progress and Gaps

Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, there has been some progress in advancing climate adaptation and the GGA at different levels and sectors.

The current state of climate adaptation and the GGA is characterised by both progress and gaps, opportunities, and challenges. On the one hand, there is growing awareness and recognition of the need and urgency of adaptation, as evidenced by the increasing number of adaptation plans, policies, and actions at various levels and sectors. According to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Adaptation Gap Report 2023, 85% of countries have adopted at least one national-level adaptation planning instrument, and with 69% of countries putting a central administrative body in place to oversee adaptation action and 67% allocating domestic finance towards implementing adaptation priorities. Moreover, there is a growing body of knowledge and evidence on the effectiveness and benefits of adaptation, as well as the costs and risks of inaction. For example, a  study by the Global Commission on Adaptation in 2019 found that investing US$1.8 trillion between 2020 and 2030 in five areas of adaptation (early warning systems, climate-resilient infrastructure, improved dryland agriculture, mangrove protection, and water resources management) could generate US$7.1 trillion in net benefits by 2030.

On the other hand, there are significant gaps and barriers that hinder the implementation and operationalisation of the GGA, especially in developing countries, historically the most vulnerable to climate change. 

One of the main gaps is the lack of adequate and predictable finance for adaptation. Despite the pledge of developed countries to mobilise US$100 billion per year by 2020 for climate action in developing countries, the actual amount of public and private finance for adaptation remains far below this target, and only a small share of the total climate finance has been allocated to adaptation.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), only $16.8 billion of public climate finance was dedicated to adaptation in 2018, representing 21% of the total. Moreover, there is a lack of transparency and accountability in tracking and reporting adaptation finance, as well as a lack of alignment and coherence between adaptation and development finance. 

More on the topic: Wealthy Nations May Have Met $100 Billion Climate Finance Pledge in 2022, OECD Says 

Another major gap is the lack of clear and measurable indicators and targets for the GGA, which makes it difficult to assess the progress and impact of adaptation efforts. While there are various frameworks and methodologies for monitoring and evaluating adaptation, there is no agreed-upon set of indicators or criteria that can capture the complexity and diversity of adaptation across different contexts and scales.

Furthermore, several challenges and barriers constrain the effectiveness and sustainability of adaptation, such as institutional and governance constraints, social and cultural factors, knowledge and information gaps, and trade-offs and conflicts between adaptation and other goals.

To address these gaps and challenges, there is a need to enhance the implementation and operationalisation of the GGA, by strengthening the enabling conditions and drivers for adaptation, such as political leadership, stakeholder engagement, capacity building, innovation, and learning.

There is also a need to highlight and scale up the best practices and success stories of adaptation from different regions and sectors, such as the examples below:

• In Bangladesh, the Coastal Community Resilience Project has improved the livelihoods and resilience of more than 28,000 households in the coastal areas, by providing access to climate-resilient infrastructure, diversified income sources, and early warning systems.
• In Kenya, the Adaptation Consortium has supported the development and implementation of county-level climate adaptation funds, which enable local communities to prioritise and access finance for adaptation projects, such as water harvesting, drought-tolerant crops, and livestock insurance.
• In the Caribbean, the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) has provided affordable and rapid insurance payouts to 21 member countries, helping them recover from the impacts of hurricanes, earthquakes, and excess rainfall.

You might also like: Current Adaptation Finance Gap At Least 50% Bigger Than Previously Thought, New UNEP Report Warns

2. Actors and Stakeholders

The implementation and operationalisation of climate adaptation and the GGA involve a wide range of actors and stakeholders who have different roles, responsibilities, and interests in adaptation. Some of the key actors and stakeholders are:

• Governments: They are the primary actors and decision-makers in adaptation, as they have the authority and mandate to formulate and implement adaptation policies and plans, mobilise and allocate adaptation finance, and coordinate and facilitate adaptation governance and stakeholder engagement at different levels.
• International organisations: They are the key supporters and enablers of adaptation, as they provide technical and financial assistance, guidance and standards, and platforms and mechanisms for adaptation action and cooperation at the global and regional levels.
• Non-governmental organisations (NGOs): They are the important advocates and intermediaries of adaptation, as they raise the awareness and ambition on adaptation, represent and empower the voices and interests of the most vulnerable and marginalised, and deliver and monitor adaptation projects and programs at the local and national levels.
• Private sector: The private sector is the potential driver and innovator of adaptation, as it has the resources and capabilities to invest in and develop adaptation solutions and technologies and integrate adaptation into its business models and practices.
• Academia and research institutions: They are the essential sources and generators of adaptation, as they produce and disseminate scientific and policy knowledge and evidence on adaptation and support the capacity building and learning of adaptation actors and stakeholders.
• Media and communication: They are the influential communicators of adaptation, as they shape the public and political discourse and perception on adaptation and inform and educate the audiences and stakeholders on issues and solutions.
• Communities and individuals: They are the ultimate beneficiaries and agents of adaptation, as they experience and cope with the impacts and uncertainties of climate change and participate and contribute to the adaptation planning and implementation at the local and personal levels.

3. Challenges and Barriers

The implementation and operationalisation of climate adaptation and the global adaptation goals face numerous challenges and barriers, which hinder the effectiveness and impact of adaptation actions and outcomes. Some of the main challenges and barriers are:

• The uncertainty and complexity of climate change, which makes it difficult to predict and project the future impacts and risks of climate change, and to plan and implement adaptation actions.
• The lack of political will and commitment on adaptation, which affects the prioritisation and allocation of resources and support for adaptation, and the implementation and enforcement of adaptation policies and plans.
• Inadequate coordination and collaboration on adaptation contribute to the duplication and fragmentation of adaptation actions and outcomes, as well as conflicts and trade-offs between different levels and sectors.
• The limited awareness and understanding of adaptation, which results in low public and stakeholder engagement and participation in adaptation, and low demand and uptake of adaptation solutions and technologies.
• The inadequate capacity and skills for adaptation, which limits the ability and quality of adaptation planning and implementation, and the generation and use of adaptation knowledge and evidence.
• The perception and acceptance of adaptation, as well as the behaviour and practice of adaptation, are influenced by social and cultural barriers.

These challenges and barriers are not insurmountable, but they require concerted and sustained efforts and actions from all actors and stakeholders to overcome them. They also present opportunities and incentives for innovation and transformation of adaptation.

The Future Scenarios and Implications of Climate Adaptation and the Global Adaptation Goals

The future scenarios of climate adaptation are diverse and depend on various factors such as global economic trends, technological progress, geopolitical developments, and most importantly, how aggressively we act to reduce carbon emissions. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report features five climate narratives that differ in terms of the level of projected warming and society’s ability to adapt to the changes ahead.

The new United Arab Emirates (UAE) Framework for Global Climate Resilience, agreed upon at COP28, uniquely positions climate change adaptation as a top priority for all nations. It expands on the GGA and will improve our ability to measure the GGA, allowing the international community to take stock of progress over time and maintain accountability for achieving the goal. The framework prioritises key sectors for increased climate resilience, including food and agriculture, water, cities and infrastructure, ecosystems and nature, health, livelihoods, and cultural heritage. It also details a series of targets linked to different stages of the adaptation policy cycle.

These scenarios show that the future of climate adaptation and the GGA is not predetermined but depends on the choices and actions we make today and in the coming years. The GGA framework provides a common vision and a set of tools to guide and monitor adaptation efforts but it also requires political will, financial support, and social mobilisation to achieve its objectives. The more we can reduce emissions and enhance adaptation, the more we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change and create a resilient and prosperous future for all. 

Synergy Between Adaptation and Mitigation

Synergies between adaptation and mitigation are possible when actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also increase resilience to climate impacts, or vice versa. For example, restoring mangroves means bringing back ecosystems that can both sequester carbon and protect coastal communities from storm surges. Synergies can also occur when policies or measures that support adaptation or mitigation have co-benefits for other sectors or goals, such as health, biodiversity, or human rights.

Achieving this synergy requires a balanced and integrated approach that considers both the short-term and long-term benefits and trade-offs of different actions, as well as cross-sectoral and cross-border cooperation, stakeholder participation, scientific evidence, and adequate financing. 

Recommendations and Actions for Climate Adaptation and the Global Adaptation Goals

• The recommendations and actions for climate adaptation and the Global Adaptation Goals (GGA) are diverse and multifaceted, involving various stakeholders and sectors. Here are some key points:
• Principles of Adaptation and Resilience: A World Bank report outlines six universal principles to guide policymakers in planning for climate change adaptation and resilience. These principles are accompanied by 26 actions, 12 toolboxes, and 111 indicators.
• Inclusivity and Participation: A bottom-up approach involving diverse stakeholders like local communities, youth, women, and indigenous groups is critical to ensuring that the GGA is sensitive to ground realities and the specific vulnerabilities of these groups.
• Science-informed Metrics: Relying on robust scientific data, like IPCC assessments, is essential to formulate effective adaptation strategies. National monitoring and evaluation systems should be strengthened to assess the efficacy of adaptation actions.
• Regional Cooperation and Coordination: Cross-border cooperation and knowledge exchange are essential to tackle shared climate risks and develop best practices for adaptation.
• Adaptation Finance: The GGA framework must address the distinct financing needs of each region and ensure that funds are channelled to the most vulnerable communities.
• Country-Driven and Locally led Approaches: The GGA framework should be flexible enough to accommodate the unique needs and priorities of each nation, aligning with their existing national adaptation strategies.
• Urgency of Collective Action and Responsibility: All regions acknowledged the pressing need for global cooperation to achieve the Paris Agreement’s objectives.
• Integration of adaptation and mitigation: Effective climate action requires a balanced approach, considering both adaptation and mitigation efforts.
• Equity, Rights, and Justice: The GGA framework should prioritise fairness, ensuring that marginalised communities and future generations benefit equitably from adaptation strategies.
• Transformational Adaptation: Embracing innovation and empowering local communities will drive adaptation efforts that move beyond incremental changes².
• Global Governance and Cooperation: COP28 is a pivotal juncture for finalising and operationalising the GGA framework, aligning global adaptation efforts.
• Capacity Building: Building institutional, technical, and financial capabilities is essential for successful GGA implementation.

These recommendations and actions aim to enhance the world’s adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience, and reduce vulnerability to climate change.

Conclusion

Climate adaptation and the GGA are essential and urgent for addressing the impacts and risks of climate change, as well as for creating a more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable future. Adaptation can generate multiple co-benefits for human and natural systems, as well as foster innovation and transformation. However, adaptation also faces significant gaps and challenges, such as the lack of finance, technology, and knowledge, as well as the trade-offs and conflicts with other goals and agendas. Therefore, there is a need to enhance the implementation and operationalisation of the GGA, by strengthening the capacity and agency of different actors and levels to plan, implement, and evaluate adaptation, as well as to share and learn from adaptation experiences and best practices. There is also a need to increase the availability and accessibility of finance, technology, and knowledge for adaptation, as well as to ensure the alignment and coherence of adaptation with other goals and agendas, such as mitigation, development, and human rights. These recommendations and actions require collective and collaborative action from all stakeholders, as well as political leadership and commitment from all countries. By working together, we can achieve the GGA and the SDGs, and create a more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable future for all.

You might also like: 4 Climate Adaptation Strategies From Around the World

The post Climate Adaptation: Assessing the Progress on the Implementation of the Global Goal on Adaptation appeared first on Earth.Org.

With climate threats intensifying, carbon taxes have rapidly gained global momentum. This comprehensive article examines if appropriately robust carbon prices can incentivise the pace and scale of emission reductions now essential across transport, energy, industry, and agriculture. It explores real-world implementations of a carbon tax, future projection modelling, economic debates, social impact concerns, and policy complementary measures around regulations, green investments and support programs needed to address critical limitations and spur equitable low-carbon transitions across advanced and emerging economies this decade.

—

The Pressing Need for Decarbonisation

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing humanity today. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities that have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Major contributors to these emissions are the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas across transportation, electricity generation, industrial processes, agriculture, and more. As the world continues to emit GHGs at ever-increasing rates, their accumulation in the atmosphere is pushing up temperatures, significantly disrupting global climate patterns, and posing catastrophic threats to ecosystems, economies, and communities globally.

One policy solution acquiring momentum to tackle climate change is implementing a carbon tax. 

At a basic level, a carbon tax directly and accurately puts a price on carbon emissions released from the burning of fossil fuels. This pricing aims to incorporate the costs of pollution and climate damage into market prices, incentivising reduced emissions, and driving the adoption of clean energy alternatives across economic sectors. Key aspects of carbon taxes, including their purpose, design, effectiveness, reception, and implementation across different countries, will be explored throughout this article. With growing climate change impacts and recognition that carbon pricing is essential to achieve broad decarbonisation globally, momentum is building for the widespread establishment of carbon tax schemes in various countries over the next decade. Their role in stabilising global temperatures and enabling an equitable, sustainable future will also be discussed.

What Is a Carbon Tax and How Does it Work?

A carbon tax is a government-imposed pricing mechanism that places a fee or tax on GHG emissions from burning planet-warming fuels including oil, gas, and coal. The tax is measured per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions released and needs to be paid by the burning entity. 

By attaching a monetary cost directly proportional to the amount of emissions, a carbon price provides a concrete incentive for households, businesses, and other entities to seek lower emissions alternatives and pursue energy efficiency gains to avoid paying higher taxes. It aims to reveal and incorporate the economic and social costs of carbon pollution created by various fuels and activities into their market prices.

The core principle behind an effective carbon tax is that it sets a stable, rising price trajectory high enough to drive meaningful emissions reductions and the scaling of clean technologies over time. To enable the necessary transition away from a high emissions economy, tax levels would need to reach US$100-200 per ton of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) in the next decades.

A carbon tax is an upstream approach focused on taxing major fossil fuel suppliers and distributors higher up in the supply chain. This allows costs to be passed downstream through oil companies to consumers at fuel pumps, on utility bills and implicitly in prices of goods and services across the economy. In terms of specific targets for taxation, major sources would include transportation and heating fuels like gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, as well as coal and natural gas used in electricity generation. 

Once implemented, policymakers have flexibility in whether to make the tax revenue neutral or let it raise new government funds. Revenue raised can be returned through equal per capita rebates to citizens, used to offset other taxes or fund green infrastructure projects, clean research, development and demonstration (RD&D) incentives, worker retraining programs, and vulnerable community resilience funds to address socioeconomic impacts. The key design aim is to establish stable, rising carbon prices at sufficient levels using models consistent with national policy priorities and regulatory environments.

You might also like: How India’s Carbon Tax Implementation Could Set a Precedent for G20 Countries

Benefits and Arguments for Carbon Taxes

1. Reduce Carbon Emissions

The core purpose of a carbon tax is to provide market signals strong enough to result in reduced GHG emissions across large sections of the economy. By attaching a significant price to pollution, it incentivises shifts towards less carbon intensive fuels, deployment of energy efficiency measures, and investment in clean alternatives across sectors like electricity, transportation, and manufacturing. Estimates of emissions reduction potential from a broad-based tax in the range of $50 per ton could be over 20%.

2. Mitigate Climate Change

The decrease in national and global carbon emissions caused by carbon taxes will lead to lower overall CO2 concentrations, intensifying warming trends and climate disruptions. According to an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2023 report, global adoption of differentiated carbon prices by 2030 could reduce emissions significantly compared to the baseline scenario, although additional measures and cooperation are required to limit warming to well below 2C by 2100, as agreed in the Paris Agreement.

3. Encourage Clean Energy Adoption

Fossil fuel taxation is a key policy instrument to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote shifts to renewable energy and other low-carbon solutions. However, fossil fuel taxation alone may not be enough to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, and it may face political and social obstacles. Therefore, fossil fuel taxation should be part of a broader policy package that includes other measures to address market failures, behavioural barriers, and distributional impacts, and that ensures transparency, fairness, and participation in the policy process.

4. Fund Green Initiatives

Revenues from carbon taxes provide a sizeable funding pool that governments can utilise for investments in clean technology R&D, mass public transit upgrades, sustainable infrastructure projects, environmental restoration efforts, and resilience funds for vulnerable groups. Alternatively, revenues can enable cuts on taxes for income, capital acquisitions or employment.

5. Market-Based Approach

Rather than impose rigid regulations or emission limits, a carbon tax provides price signals and lets market dynamics determine the most efficient paths and technologies to reduce emissions across diverse economic sectors. Businesses can build solutions tailored to their operations, innovations, and investment roadmaps.

6. Revenue Neutral Options

To address concerns about increasing taxes and expanding government revenue, some carbon tax laws, such as Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, require that all direct proceeds from the carbon pricing system be returned to the source jurisdiction. The provincial and territorial governments can decide how to use the returned revenues, such as providing rebates, cutting other taxes, or investing in green initiatives. The carbon pricing system consists of a charge on fuel and a performance-based system for large industrial emitters.

7. Administrative Efficiency

A carbon tax builds on existing fuel taxation systems, minimising new administrative bureaucracy. Costs of revenue collection and implementation are very low relative to emissions trading programs or green subsidy management.

Criticisms and Arguments Against Carbon Taxes

1. Regressive Nature

A flat, uniform carbon tax can disproportionately impact lower income groups who spend a higher share of earnings on energy bills and basic goods carrying embedded carbon costs. Effects can be mitigated through partial exemptions or per capita dividends from revenue, but regressivity arguments persist.

2. Uncertainty Around Emissions Impact

Projecting precise emissions reductions from any given tax level involves estimating complex, interconnected behavioural changes across millions of energy consumers. Model forecast studies to guide rate setting have limitations. Critics argue funds could be better utilised directly in green infrastructure as opposed to tax hoping for certain emission cuts.

3. Lack of Support

In regions with influential fossil fuel lobbies or high use of coal, oil, and gas, major political and public opposition hinders carbon tax proposals. Lawsuits, repeal of laws, election defeats for supporters and widespread protests against fuel taxes show the difficulty of stakeholder alignment.

4. Risks Competitiveness & Leakage

Major energy using industries often oppose carbon taxes, arguing they raise costs and undermine competitiveness, especially if nearby regions lack similar policies. Manufacturing could shift abroad, raising “carbon leakage” concerns. Border carbon adjustments on trade flows are complex to implement.

5. Complex Policy Design

Choosing appropriate, adjustable tax levels, matching policy priorities and economic diversity is very complex across emissions-intensive sectors. Cost uncertainty creates opposition, and exemptions degrade efficacy. Calibration requires balancing numerous stakeholders and objectives.

6. Other Policies Could Be More Effective

Some economists argue direct spending on mass electric vehicle (EV) adoption, renewable energy investments, infrastructure upgrades and resilience funds can achieve greater short-term emission cuts rapidly rather than hoping price signals incentivise consumers and businesses fast enough.

You might also like: The EU Border Carbon Adjustment, Explained

Implementations Around the World

Early Adopters – Small northern European nations like Finland, Sweden and Norway adopted carbon taxes in the 1990s, which now range from $70 to $168 per ton of CO2 on a range of fossil fuels. Revenues support national sustainability programs.

Canada has implemented carbon pricing systems most aligned to carbon tax principles with their Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, charging an economy-wide tax beginning at CAD$40 (US$30) in 2019, rising to CAD$170 (US$128) by 2030. All revenues return to the provinces and residents through rebates.

The United Kingdom participates in the EU emissions trading scheme for large emitters and maintains a domestic Climate Change Levy on industry fuels plus higher rates for building fuels to drive efficiency. The impact is affected by rates and relatively limited targeting.

The European Union’ Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is the largest multi-country carbon pricing system covering electricity, manufacturing, and intra-EU air travel. Companies buy monthly carbon allowances at variable auction clearing prices, effectively creating a traded carbon price currently around 90 euro (US$99) per ton. The impact is limited by volatility and wide exemptions. China is launching a similar national market.

Singapore enacted Southeast Asia’s first carbon tax in 2019 on emissions intensive facilities at a rate rising to US$50/ton CO2e by 2030. Revenues play a crucial role in funding industry decarbonisation incentives. South Africa has legislated a carbon tax on scope 1 emitters from mid-2019 at roughly US$8.5/ton rising annually. Revenues help industry compliance and mitigation programs.

You might also like: Explainer: What Is an Emissions Trading Scheme and How Does It Work?

The Future of Carbon Taxes

Carbon pricing mechanisms are projected to play a crucial role in achieving broad decarbonisation of the global economy this century in line with targets set under the UN Paris Agreement and updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). 

According to the World Bank, over 65 carbon pricing initiatives have been implemented or are scheduled, covering nearly 22% of global emissions. These policy landscapes are becoming key drivers, enabling clean energy investments by adding tangible costs to legacy technologies and assets. With most major emitters having announced or considering carbon pricing schemes this decade, the total value of taxes and traded carbon markets could appreciate significantly, facilitating greener public and private expenditures worldwide.

To achieve Paris-aligned warming limits, the High Level Commission on Carbon Prices estimated explicit carbon prices in the range of $50-100/ton CO2e are needed by 2030 across all major economies, rising to $160 and above by 2050. With most schemes currently pricing carbon from $10-60 per ton, there are calls for prices to double or triple over the next decade, providing economic signals strong enough to match decarbonisation aspirations. Integrating carbon taxes and trading instruments with clean energy standards, efficiency incentives, infrastructure upgrades, and managed coal, oil and gas declines can maximise impact.

Carbon Tracker forecasts that rising carbon prices, along with the increasing affordability and efficiency of batteries, solar power, electric vehicles and other low-carbon technologies, could limit global warming to less than 2C by making fossil fuels less competitive, even without new climate legislation. However, to ensure a fair and smooth transition that follows the best available science, carbon taxes need to be a central element of comprehensive policy plans in this decade.

Conclusion

Well-designed national carbon taxes that directly price emissions could prove essential market-based policy levers enabling the urgent economy-wide transition to net zero now demanded by climate science. However, complementary measures tackling social impacts, green investments, regulatory standards and international cooperation remain vital to address criticisms, spur urgent adoption across lagging nations, incentivize innovations, and facilitate decarbonization timeframes at the pace and scale climate stabilization requires. 

With no silver bullet solutions, there is a call for ambitious, equitable policy packages where rising carbon prices play a central role driving low-carbon shifts across several industries on the pathway to global carbon neutrality.

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

The post Explainer: What Is a Carbon Tax, Pros and Cons, and Implementation Around the World appeared first on Earth.Org.

Climate change poses an urgent threat, but faith communities may hold the key to driving impactful action. As stewards of creation with moral authority, they have immense potential to educate and mobilise their members towards environmental activism. By collaborating across faiths and with scientists, they can amplify calls for climate justice, model sustainable lifestyles, and pressure governments through advocacy. Faith leaders who embrace an eco-theology rooted in care for the vulnerable could reframe climate change as a profound moral crisis. This article explores practical ways religious groups can put their principles into practice to create change, and the dilemmas posed by such activism.

—

Climate change is one of humanity’s most urgent and complex challenges. It threatens the lives and livelihoods of millions, especially the poor and vulnerable, and the integrity and diversity of the natural world. It also poses a moral and ethical dilemma for all people of faith: how can we love our neighbours and care for God’s creation in an ecological crisis?

Many religious traditions have teachings and values that support environmental stewardship and social justice. They also have a significant influence and potential to mobilise their followers and resources for positive change. According to a 2020 study, religious affiliation relates to greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and gross domestic product on a global scale. Moreover, faith-related institutions own almost 8% of the total habitable land surface and constitute the world’s third largest category of financial investors. 

Their determination to address climate change or protect wildlife enormously impacts the fate of natural spaces and species.

You might also like: Sustainable Hajj 2023: Paving the Way for an Eco-Friendly Pilgrimage

How Faith Communities Can Contribute to the Fight Against Climate Change

Faith communities can contribute to the fight against climate change in various ways, such as:

• Educating and raising awareness among their members about the causes and consequences of climate change and the moral duty to act.
• Advocating and lobbying for policies and practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote renewable energy sources, protect biodiversity, and support adaptation and resilience.
• Divesting from fossil-fuel companies and investing in green alternatives aligned with their values and principles.
• Implementing sustainability measures in their institutions, such as reducing energy consumption, waste generation and water use, planting trees, using eco-friendly products, and supporting local farmers.
• Engaging in interfaith dialogue and cooperation on environmental issues, sharing best practices, resources and experiences, and building solidarity and trust.
• Participating in environmental movements and campaigns, such as Earth Day, Sacred Earth, or Green Faith, mobilising people of different faiths for collective action.
• Supporting grassroots initiatives and projects that address the needs and challenges of communities affected by climate change, especially those in developing countries.

Some examples of faith communities that are actively involved in these activities are:

• The Creation Care Initiative, founded by two scientists from a conservative Christian community, links science, biblical teachings, and stewardship and offers workshops on sustainability for church members.
• The Extinction Rebellion Muslims, a transnational network of Muslim activists hosting “Green Ramadan” seminars and campaigns against environmental destruction, such as a luxury tourist resort that threatened parts of the Nairobi National Park in Kenya, collaborated with scientists and other faith groups.
• The Interfaith Rainforest Initiative is a global partnership of religious leaders, indigenous peoples, scientists, and conservationists that protects tropical forests from deforestation, degradation and conversion.
• The Green Pilgrimage Network, an alliance of cities and sacred sites worldwide aims to make the pilgrimage more environmentally friendly by promoting green transport, accommodation, food and waste management.

The Moral and Ethical Aspects of Faith Communities’ Involvement in Environmental Action

Faith communities’ involvement in environmental action is a practical and moral imperative. Many religious traditions have a concept of stewardship or trusteeship that implies a responsibility to care for the Earth as God’s creation or a sacred gift. They also have a notion of justice or compassion that demands respect for the rights and dignity of all living beings, especially the poor and marginalised who suffer most from the impacts of climate change.

By engaging in environmental action, faith communities can demonstrate their commitment to these values and principles and respect for diversity and pluralism. They can also challenge the dominant consumerism, individualism, and materialism paradigms that contribute to ecological degradation and social inequality. They can offer alternative visions of well-being, happiness, and harmony based on simplicity, generosity, and spirituality.

However, faith communities’ involvement in environmental action also poses challenges and dilemmas. For instance:

• How can they balance their loyalty to their doctrines and traditions with their openness to other perspectives and sources of knowledge, such as science and indigenous wisdom?
• How can they reconcile their differences in beliefs and practices with their shared goals and values, such as peace and justice?
• How can they avoid imposing their views and agendas on others, especially those who do not share their faith or have no faith?
• How can they ensure their actions are effective and accountable and not cause unintended harm or backlash?

These questions require careful reflection and dialogue among faith communities and other stakeholders, such as scientists, policymakers, civil society, and the media. They also need humility and honesty, as well as courage and creativity.

What Can Be Achieved If Faith Community Leaders, Scientists and Stakeholders Rise to Combat the Issue of Climate Change

If faith community leaders, scientists and stakeholders rise to combat the issue of climate change, they can achieve remarkable results that can benefit both people and the planet. They can:

• Increase public awareness and understanding of climate change’s scientific facts and moral implications and inspire people to act personally and professionally.
• Influence political decisions and policies that support a low-carbon transition, a green recovery and a just transition for workers and communities affected by the shift away from fossil fuels.
• Mobilise financial resources and technical expertise to support innovation and adaptation in various sectors, such as energy, agriculture, transport, health, and education.
• Strengthen social cohesion and resilience by fostering a culture of cooperation, solidarity, and mutual respect among people of different faiths, cultures, and backgrounds.
• Enhance environmental protection and restoration by conserving natural resources, restoring ecosystems, and promoting biodiversity.

Climate change is a global challenge that requires a global response. Faith communities can play a vital role in this response by using their influence and potential to contribute to the fight against climate change. They can also bring a moral and ethical dimension to the environmental discourse that can appeal to people’s hearts and minds. However, they also face challenges and dilemmas requiring reflection and dialogue. By working with scientists and other stakeholders, they can overcome these challenges and achieve remarkable results that benefit both people and the planet.

Call to Action

The following are some of the actions that people of faith or members of faith communities can take to join the fight against climate change:

• They are learning more about the causes and consequences of climate change and how their faith traditions relate to environmental issues. They can use resources like Earth.Org to get started.
• Talk to their friends, family and fellow believers about climate change and share their concerns and hopes.
• They are joining or starting a green group in their faith communities that organises activities and events to raise awareness and act on environmental issues.
• They support environmental initiatives and organisations or participate in campaigns and movements that advocate for climate justice and action, such as Earthday. They can also sign petitions or write letters to their political representatives or media outlets.

They are changing their lifestyle and consumption habits to reduce their environmental impact and carbon footprint. They can use calculators such as carbon footprint calculators to measure their impact and find ways to improve it.

Featured image: Now Then Magazine

You might also like: The Importance of Environmental Education for a Sustainable Future

The post Faith in Action: How Religious Communities Can Lead the Fight Against Climate Change appeared first on Earth.Org.

The historic first Africa Climate Summit held in Nairobi was hailed as a milestone for showcasing the continent’s climate leadership and potential. However, critics argue it fell short in eliciting concrete commitments and unified action needed to translate ambitions into real progress.

—

The first Africa Climate Summit (ACS), held in Nairobi, Kenya, from 4 to 6 September 2023, was a historic event that brought together African leaders, investors, experts, and civil society to discuss and showcase the continent’s climate action and solutions. The summit aimed to address the challenges and opportunities of green growth and climate finance for Africa and the world and strengthen the continent’s voice and position in the upcoming global climate negotiations. But was the summit a success or a failure? Did it meet its promises and expectations or fall short of its potential? And what does it mean for the future of climate action in Africa?

Achievements of the Summit

The summit had several notable achievements, demonstrating Africa’s readiness and willingness to lead in tackling the climate crisis. Some of these achievements include:

• The adoption of the Nairobi Declaration, a comprehensive document that outlines Africa’s vision, priorities, and demands for climate action and finance. The declaration calls for a new global financial deal with “at scale” and fit-for-purpose financing instruments and products to serve Africa’s specific growth goals. It also urges developed countries to honour their commitment to provide $100 billion per year in climate finance by 2020 and increase their ambition and support for adaptation, mitigation, technology transfer, and capacity building in Africa.
• The launch of several initiatives and partnerships to accelerate and scale up climate action and investment in Africa. These include:
  • The UAE-Africa Renewable Energy Partnership pledges $4.5 billion to support renewable energy projects in Africa.
  • The US-Africa Food Security Partnership announces $30 million in new funding to enhance climate-resilient food security across the continent.
  • The country also launched a new Green Growth Plan, a new green hydrogen deal, Long-term Low Emissions Development Strategies and the Kenya Climate Change Act, 2023.
  • It also announced a new National Climate Change Action Plan (2023-2027) and that Kenya would be the new site of the new Africa headquarters for the Global Centre for Adaptation.
  • The African Adaptation Acceleration Programme seeks to mobilise US$25 billion by 2025 to scale up adaptation action and resilience building in Africa.
• The showcase of progress and best practices of climate action in Africa across various sectors and themes. The summit featured several sessions, panels, dialogues, and exhibitions highlighting the achievements and innovations of African countries, cities, businesses, communities, and individuals in addressing the climate crisis. Some examples are:
  • Eritrea successfully restored degraded lands and increased forest cover through community-based natural resource management.
  • Morocco’s renewable energy development and integration leadership aims to achieve 52% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030.
  • Rwanda’s commitment to low-carbon development and green growth, with a plan to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 38% by 2030 compared to business-as-usual.
  • Papua New Guinea’s efforts to conserve its rich biodiversity and natural resources through community-based forest management and REDD+ initiatives.

Shortcomings of the Summit

Despite these achievements, the summit faced several criticisms and challenges that may have undermined its effectiveness and impact. Some of these shortcomings include:

• The lack of concrete actions and commitments from developed countries to fulfil their climate obligations and responsibilities. While the summit welcomed the pledges and announcements made by some developed countries and institutions, such as the UAE, the US, the World Bank, and the IMF, it also expressed disappointment and frustration over the failure of many others to deliver on their promises and expectations. The summit noted that only $80 billion out of the $100 billion per year target has been mobilised and that only 21% of this amount is allocated for adaptation. It also lamented that Africa still faces significant barriers and constraints in accessing climate finance due to inadequate capacity, complex procedures, high transaction costs, and unfavourable terms.
• The divergent views and interests among African countries on essential climate action and finance issues. While the summit aimed to present a unified voice and position for Africa, it also revealed differences and disagreements among African countries on approaching and addressing the climate crisis. For example, some oil-producing African countries argued that they should be able to use their fossil fuel resources for economic growth and development. In contrast, others advocated for a rapid transition to renewable energy sources. Similarly, some African countries supported using carbon markets and offsets to generate climate finance and reduce emissions. In contrast, others opposed as they would undermine the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
• The limited participation and representation of some key stakeholders and groups in the summit. While the summit claimed to be inclusive and participatory, it faced criticism and backlash from some stakeholders and groups who felt they were not adequately consulted or involved. For instance, some civil society organisations and activists accused the summit organisers of excluding them from decision-making and limiting their access and influence. Likewise, some indigenous peoples and local communities expressed their concerns and grievances over the lack of recognition and respect for their rights, knowledge, and contributions to climate action and solutions.

You might also like: Indigenous People Are Essential for Preventing Biodiversity Loss. They Mustn’t Be Sidelined.

The Outlook for Climate Action in Africa

The summit concluded with optimism and hope for the future of climate action in Africa and a call for action and solidarity among African countries and their partners. The summit declared that it would become a regular event held every two years to review progress, exchange perspectives, and converge on shared priorities for global discussions. The summit also urged African countries to implement the Nairobi Declaration and the initiatives launched at the summit and to enhance their ambition and cooperation in advancing their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement.

However, the summit also acknowledged that there are still many challenges and uncertainties ahead that require sustained efforts and support from all stakeholders. The summit recognised that the success of climate action in Africa depends mainly on the outcome of the upcoming global climate negotiations, especially COP28, where Africa expects to see a fair, ambitious, and binding agreement that reflects its needs and aspirations. The summit also emphasised that implementing climate action in Africa requires adequate financing and effective governance, capacity building, technology transfer, innovation, and stakeholder engagement.

Therefore, the summit can be seen as a milestone or a mirage depending on how its outcomes and implications are followed up and translated into concrete actions and results. It has undoubtedly raised awareness and interest in Africa’s climate agenda and potential, but it has also exposed some gaps and weaknesses that need to be addressed and overcome. The summit has set high expectations and standards for Africa’s climate leadership and partnership, but it has also posted significant risks and responsibilities that must be managed and fulfilled. It has opened new opportunities and avenues for climate action and investment in Africa. Still, it has also created new challenges and demands that must be met and satisfied.

In conclusion, the Africa Climate Summit 2023 was a landmark event that marked a turning point for Africa’s role and position in the global climate arena. It showcased Africa’s achievements and innovations in climate action and solutions, as well as its challenges and opportunities for green growth and climate finance. It also presented Africa’s vision, priorities, and demands for climate action and finance and its commitments and initiatives to accelerate and scale up climate action and investment. However, the summit also faced several criticisms and challenges that may have affected its overall effectiveness and impact. Therefore, the summit’s success or failure will depend on how its outcomes are followed up and implemented in the future. One thing is sure: it has set the stage for Africa’s climate action, but it is up to Africa and its partners to make it happen.

Featured image: Paul Kagame/Flickr

You might also like: 5 Biggest Environmental Issues In Africa In 2023

The post Africa Climate Summit 2023: Milestone or Mirage? appeared first on Earth.Org.

China has emerged as a renewable energy kingmaker across Africa. Billions invested in mammoth hydro, solar, and wind projects are helping turn the continent’s immense clean energy potential into reality. But China’s glittering promises hide shadows. Unsustainable debts, environmental damage, and joblessness plague certain projects, fuelling a backlash. Still, amidst crumbling public finances and energy poverty, African nations have few alternatives to China’s investments. Walking a tightrope between energy security and debt traps, African leaders must leverage China’s equitable and sustainable development proposals. With astute planning and negotiations, these ventures could electrify millions, create jobs, and set new global standards for South-South cooperation.

—

Over the past decade, China has become a significant investor in renewable energy projects across Africa. With abundant solar, wind, and hydropower resources, Africa has enormous potential for renewable energy development. At the same time, most African countries face acute energy shortages and rely heavily on fossil fuels for electricity generation. This alignment of Africa’s needs and resources makes the continent an attractive destination for China’s renewable energy investments.

Trends in China’s Investments

According to a 2021 report by the African Climate Foundation and Natural Resources Defence Council and The Boston University Global Development Policy (GDP) Centre, China has financed over $13 billion and developed over 10 gigawatts of clean energy capacity across Africa since 2000. Chinese investments in renewable energy in Africa grew at an average annual rate of 26% from 2010 to 2020, with solar, hydropower, and wind being the top three technologies.

Ethiopia exemplifies the trend of growing Chinese investments in African renewables. Chinese companies have funded and developed major hydropower dams and wind farms in the country over the past decade. China invested over $4 billion in Ethiopia’s energy sector between 2011 and 2018, accounting for over 50% of new power generation capacity. Recently, the African nation and China agreed to establish a centre to develop Ethiopia’s renewable energy potential, further cementing this cooperation.

Kenya is another primary recipient of Chinese investments in renewables. China has financed and built large solar and wind farms across Kenya, helping expand renewable energy access, particularly in rural areas. Most notably, the 310 MW Lake Turkana Wind Power project was constructed by a Chinese firm and represents the largest wind farm in Africa today. This project came online in 2017, providing 15% of Kenya’s electricity capacity.

You might also like: China On Track to Meet Clean Energy Target Five Years Ahead of Schedule: Study

What Pushes China to Invest in Renewable Energy in Africa?

China’s generous investments in African renewables reflect several motivations.

1. China’s domestic solar, wind, and hydropower industries needed international opportunities as the domestic market was saturated. Exporting equipment and services to Africa created new growth avenues.
2. Financing renewables in Africa nicely aligns with China’s broader aid and development efforts, burnishing its image as a partner in African development.
3. China is investing in Africa with an eye on its energy security. With its economy growing at breakneck speed, China has become increasingly dependent on imported oil and gas. Investing in African renewables helps China diversify its energy sources and reduce reliance on fossil fuel imports. According to Sustainable Energy for All, nearly one-third of China’s oil imports came from Africa in 2019. So, investing in African renewables is “an integral part of China’s energy security strategy,” as one expert noted.
4. China sees significant commercial opportunities in Africa’s underdeveloped power sector. Sub-Saharan Africa’s electricity access rate is just 43%, and most grids are unreliable. China creates new markets for its construction, equipment, and engineering companies by funding power generation, transmission, and distribution projects. Renewables’ decentralised nature also allows China to build mini-grid and off-grid solutions, reaching rural areas that may not benefit from centralised national grids.

Impact on Africa’s Energy Mix

China’s investments significantly shape Africa’s energy mix and help many countries transition towards renewable electricity. Since 2000, China has helped finance and develop around one-third of new grid-connected renewable capacity in sub-Saharan Africa since 2000.

In Ethiopia, mainly, Chinese investments have been transformative. Renewables constitute nearly 90% of the country’s installed power capacity, up from just 33% in 2010. With further renewable projects in the pipeline backed by China, Ethiopia is on track to meet its ambitious goal of increasing generating capacity by 25,000 MW by 2030: 22,000 MW of hydro, 1,000 MW of geothermal, and 2,000 MW of wind by 2030.

While data limitations make continent-wide assessments difficult, China’s investments have meaningfully expanded renewables’ share in Africa’s power mix, suggesting that investments have facilitated a structural transition.

However, this energy transition has been uneven across countries. Those most reliant on hydropower – like Ethiopia, Zambia, and Uganda – have seen a dramatic shift towards renewables, while countries dependent on fossil fuels, like South Africa and Nigeria, have been slower to move despite Chinese renewable investments. Going forward, ensuring fair and inclusive energy transitions across Africa remains a key priority.

Concerns and Challenges

Concerns persist about the nature of China’s energy investments in Africa. There are worries that China mainly exports equipment and construction services rather than building local manufacturing capacities. Additionally, Chinese companies have faced criticisms around labour rights violations and local content requirements. Zambia’s large hydropower projects funded by China, for instance, have faced protests by Zambian workers over poor working conditions. According to the United Nations University, Chinese projects in Africa often seem to go hand in hand with civil protests.

Map of Chinese projects and protests in Africa between 2000 and 2014. (Chinese projects in green; meetups in red) Iacoella, Martorano, Metzger, Sanfilippo (2021). Image: United Nations University.

The environmental and social impacts of projects like mega-dams also require careful evaluation. And expensive deals structured around energy exports back to China.

Furthermore, the costs of some Chinese-backed renewable energy projects have provoked worries around African countries taking on unsustainable debts. In 2020, Kenya rejected China’s involvement in the Lamu coal project partly due to overpricing concerns and environmental and health effects amongst the locals. Recently, Zambia saw protracted negotiations with China over debt restructuring for its power sector.

However, China has taken some steps to address these criticisms. At the 2018 Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, President Xi Jinping pledged to support skills training for Africans and increase local content requirements for projects. During the G20’s Debt Service Suspension Initiative in 2020, China cooperated closely with African nations, freezing debt repayments for countries facing liquidity shortfalls.

China must focus more on local job creation, environmental sustainability, and affordable financing to avoid backlash against its African investments. African governments also need better capabilities to evaluate proposals from China and negotiate equitable deals serving their development needs.

What’s Next?

Despite these challenges, China’s renewable energy investments represent a vital lifeline for African countries seeking to grow their economies sustainably and leapfrog fossil fuel-dependent development. Africa still has an estimated renewable energy potential of over 470 gigawatts, of which only a tiny fraction has been realised. With supportive policies and grids upgraded to handle intermittent solar and wind, renewables can eventually far outstrip fossil fuels across the continent.

Joint research between African and Chinese institutions can unlock new technologies and business models tailored to the region. In 2021, China and Africa cooperated to launch a new sustainable energy centre focusing on mini-grids and clean cooking. With proper safeguards around transparency, debt sustainability, and local content, China and Africa can build partnerships that accelerate an inclusive, green energy transition across the continent.

You might also like: China’s Energy Transition: Is the World’s Largest Polluter Doing Enough?

The post China’s Renewable Energy Empire in Africa: Lifeline or Debt Trap? appeared first on Earth.Org.

The fate of Earth’s largest ecosystem hangs in the balance as nations debate high-stakes rules governing deep-sea mining. With trillions of valuable metals scattered across the seabed, companies and countries aim to mine the ocean depths. But regulations remain unsettled after recent negotiations in Jamaica, even as biodiversity and climate face irreversible risks. As delegates continue wrangling over terms in this underwater Wild West, calls for caution are swelling from scientists, advocates and world leaders. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) talks may yet determine if humanity can avoid reckless destruction in pursuing metals.

—

Deep-Sea Mining Negotiations in Jamaica

In July 2023, delegates from over 160 nations gathered in Kingston, Jamaica, for two weeks of intense negotiations over the rules governing deep-sea mining in international waters. For years, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) has been working to develop regulations to manage this emerging industry that holds both promise and peril for the oceans. 

With the talks in Jamaica, the ISA entered the endgame of rule-setting but debates remain on key issues like environmental protections and profit sharing. The negotiations concluded with some progress but no final settlement, leaving the fate of deep seabed mining uncertain. However, one thing is clear: the ISA’s decisions in the coming years will have profound impacts stretching far into the future.

Deep-sea mining refers to extracting metals and minerals from the deep ocean floor at depths ranging from 200 to over 6,000 metres. The seafloor is rich with high-value mineral deposits, including precious metals (gold, silver), metal ores (manganese, nickel, cobalt, copper), and rare earth elements used in electronics. Developing these resources could provide essential materials for the green energy transition. However, it comes with significant environmental and social risks that demand careful governance.

The ISA was established under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to organise and control mining activities in the seabed beyond national jurisdiction, covering nearly 50% of the planet. Since 2001, the ISA has granted over 30 exploration licences, but full commercial mining has not yet begun. The ISA’s regulations will determine how and whether mining proceeds.

Key elements of the Mining Code being negotiated include:

• Environmental rules: The ISA has proposed regulations on environmental impact assessments, baseline studies, precautionary policies and more. But many contend these do not go far enough. There are calls to implement a moratorium until more research can be done.
• Financial model: A payment mechanism will require mining contractors to pay royalties, a share of which would fund the ISA and be redistributed to member states. But the rates and percentages are still disputed.
• Liability clauses: Rules to hold contractors financially liable for environmental damage are essential but remain unfinished.
• Transparency policies: Who decides and how remains opaque to many stakeholders who demand more openness.

In July 2023, after two weeks of vigorous discussions, the ISA made some headway but stalled on key issues like the moratorium question. The talks will pick up again in 2024. In the meantime, exploration continues, and commercial mining could begin within a few years.

Long-Term Environmental Stakes of Deep-Sea Mining

The protracted negotiations underscore the high stakes surrounding deep-sea mining’s short- and long-term impacts. What happens in the coming years could ripple through ocean ecosystems for decades and centuries to come.

Deep sea ecosystems are extremely fragile. Seafloor habitats and unique species, from tube worms to microbial communities, could be wiped out if mining proceeds recklessly. Light and noise pollution, sediment plumes, habitat disturbance and pollution from mining activities threaten biodiversity well beyond the immediate mining zones. Bottom trawling has already devastated many seamount complexes; mining could decimate those that remain. Evidence shows deep sea communities take decades or more to recover – if they can recover at all. The cumulative impacts could also disrupt vital food chains and ocean processes we depend on.

The deep sea’s biodiversity remains mostly unknown – only an estimated 1% of species have been discovered so far. Each new voyage reveals new species and habitats, increasing concerns over extinction risks. World-renowned deep-sea expert Dr. Cindy Lee Van Dover stated: “The overriding environmental issue is the loss of biological diversity: known, unknown, and unknowable.”

Deep sea mining risks biodiversity and could significantly impact global carbon dynamics. Sediment plumes could impede carbon capture by marine organisms, while seafloor sediment disturbance could release stored carbon into the oceans and atmosphere, aggravating climate change. One study estimated nodule mining could reduce ocean carbon storage by 16 million metric tons per year on average – equivalent to the annual carbon footprint of over 3 million US cars. The actual impacts are still speculative but undoubtedly carry long-term consequences extending centuries into the future.

Potential impacts of dee-sea mining. Image: Amanda Dillon/PNAS.

You might also like: UN Gives World Oceans ‘A Fighting Chance’ With Adoption of Landmark High Seas Treaty

The Need for Caution

The ISA negotiations in Jamaica showed there is still a long road ahead to develop a comprehensive governance regime for deep-sea mining. In the meantime, many stakeholders continue urging a precautionary approach. The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition and over 100 other groups have called for a moratorium until more research and effective regulations are implemented. Greenpeace, WWF, IUCN and numerous researchers support a moratorium as well.

Some countries are listening. In February 2023, the government of Belize announced that all offshore exploration contracts would be cancelled to make way for a moratorium. Chile and Fiji have also called for a pause.

With biodiversity in crisis globally, what happens in the deep sea could ripple through the living fabric of the oceans for generations. The UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development recently began and provides an opportunity to fill knowledge gaps before disrupting these fragile ecosystems irreversibly. As delegates return to negotiations in 2024, they should heed calls for a precautionary approach and lay the foundations for truly sustainable, just and forward-looking stewardship of the deep ocean environment. We cannot afford to rush recklessly into the deep with so much at stake.

Featured image: IISD/ENB | Diego Noguera

You might also like: 11 of the Most Endangered Species in the Ocean in 2023

The post Unsettled Depths: The Murky Outcome of Deep-Sea Mining Negotiations appeared first on Earth.Org.